m^m

^fm

^^^

^^v * ^^^^^^^ElLi

<^^.*^

''"^ZM

i^.^H

w^i

[§2

*>

7

-»^-

WJtt;^P

A'

.^0

^-t

V.

--^

^»

■■0S'^\

P

^

HOLY BEDEEMER LIBR^^, WINDSOR

M. >i>>^

SPINOZA INSTRUCTING D'ACOSTA '
From an original painting in the Louvre Gallery.

„ou amm ^mf. mo»

INTRODUCTION

IN THE wave of philosophical inquiry which swept over
Europe in the middle of the seventeenth century and
is regarded as the beginning of a new, scientific age
of the world, there were two controlling, but divergent
forces, those namely represented by Bacon and Descartes,
the first the founder of the experimental and the latter
the idealistic or dogmatic method of philosophizing. From
the former we may trace a continuous influence through
Locke, Berkeley, Hume down to Mill, Spencer, Darwin,
and Huxley: from the latter the development of the
modern " idealism represented by Kant, Fichte, Hegel,
Schopenhauer, and Lotze.

A potent factor in the latter development was the
philosophy of Spinoza (163 2-1 6 7 7) which had its roots in
both Bacon (1561-1626) his immediate predecessor and
Descartes his contemporary (1596-1650) and, leaving its
immediate impress on Leibnitz his successor (1646-17 16)
even to-day is traceable in schools of thought of widening
influence. From Bacon he conceived the idea of a novum
organum or new method of learning which should be
applicable to the laws of human conduct as well as to
the processes of nature. Inspired by the love of Des-
cartes' mathematics he resolved to construct, after the
plan of a geometrical science, a complete system of the
knowledge of God, of the universe and of man. Human
nature, he says, obeys fixed laws no less than do the
figures of Geometry. ^* I will therefore write about
human beings as though I were concerned with lines and
planes and solids.* And hence it is that we have in
Spinoza's ^^ Ethics * a treatise consisting of Axioms, Propo-
sitions, and Demonstrations like the Geometry of Euclid.

(V)

vi SPINOZA

It is this combination in Spinoza of the severe posi-
tivism of the empiricists with a deep subjectivity and
an enthusiasm of piety belonging to only a most reli-
gious nature, that gives him a unique and leading
place in the history of philosophy. Willing to regard the
universe, including man, as a system of pure mechanics,
his contention is that the mechanics itself is spiritual
and all is divine. Together with this profoundly spirit-
ual motive in his thinking must be reckoned also his
bold and heroic contest for the freedom of philosophizing,
if we would account for the growing admiration and love
which, two centuries after his death, make his influence
more potent than during his lifetime. His voluntary
martyrdom in the cause of free thought was exhibited
not only in the persecution and obloquy which he suf-
fered from his own kin in his excommunication from the
Synagogue in his twenty-fourth year, and in his later
condemnation by Christian authorities of Chvirch and
State, but equally in his refusing, in the day of his later
prosperity and growing renown, the tempting offers of
royal and university honors and emoluments, lest his
freedom of teaching should thereby be hampered. More
singular than all is the distinction which Spinoza enjoys
of being a Pantheist whose religion is so devout, hum-
ble, and full of love as to be an inspiring example to
many sects of orthodox believers, and of being a Monist
whose One is not nature but God.

Born in Amsterdam in the year 1632 of Jewish parents
who were refugees from the Spanish persecution, Baruch
Despinoza grew up to become aware of the conflict of
the narrow and rigid rules of the synagogue with the free
Latin culture around him. At the same time he was
stirred by the monotheistic instincts of his Semitic nature
to revolt against all forms of dualism and idolatry. His
reverence for the Scriptures led him to rebuke the
Phariseeism that would kill the spirit in dogmatic ad-
herence to the literal meaning of the law. More and
more restless under the irksome formalism of the syna-
gogue he at last declared his open revolt, which not even
bribes nor the threats of disinheritance by his parents.

INTRODUCTION vii

afterwards fulfilled, availed to prevent; and with awful
maledictions he was excommunicated for his " frightful
heresies.'* These consisted mainly in a critique of the
Holy Scriptures very much in the line of the Higher
Criticism of Christian Scholars of to-day, but conducted
in a more devout and even in a more rational spirit
than that which characterizes much of what now passes
as quite orthodox. With his Judaism he renounced his
name, Baruch, and assumed the Latin equivalent in call-
ing himself Benedictus de Spinoza. Although entering
practically into the ranks of Christian philosophers, he
never received Christian baptism, and the elements of
mysticism and suggestions here and there in his system
of the ^'- Talmud '* and the " Cabbala, '* with glimpses of the
neo-Platonism of Philo and Plotinus make us aware of an
attitude of thought and reflection distinctly different
from that of his Christian contemporaries.

Practically banished from Amsterdam, where he was
even threatened with assassination, Spinoza lived in
several obscure villages and towns of Holland in scholarly
retirement, enjoying the fellowship of a few devoted
friends and disciples until his final settlement in The
Hague in 167 1, in which city he died in 1677. The
publication of his ^^ Theological Political Treatise '* in which
he pleads for freedom of thought both in civil and
religious matters as essential to the well being of both
the Church and State, brought him into such disfavor
with the authorities, — it being placed in the Index by
Rome and its publication forbidden by the States Gen-
eral,— that the book could only be circulated under a
false title and many of his friends assumed an attitude
of cold reserve or open criticism. Among these was the
English Scholar, Oldenburg, the first Secretary of the
Royal Society of England, who nevertheless continued
in correspondence with him and, being a friend of Robert
Boyle, the chemist, kept Spinoza informed of the progress
of science in England. Meanwhile in The Hague, sup-
porting himself in the humble vocation of a grinder
of lenses and living in the greatest simplicity in the
family of a poor painter, Van der Spijk, Spinoza .was

viii SPINOZA

constructing- and revising- the work "with which his
fame is chiefly associated but which was not published
until immediately after his death, the "Ethics. '^

Spinoza's earliest work was his " Principles of the Car-
tesian Philosophy together with Cogitata Metaphisica,^^ pub-
lished at Amsterdam in 1663. It at once established his
reputation as a master of Cartesianism, without winning
his own indorsement, and its preparation and dictation
to his youthful pupil Albert Burgh did not interfere with
his maturing at the same time his own independent sys-
tem of philosophy which was, for a time, to bring him
into a very different repute. This embraced first his
celebrated ^^Tractatiis Theologico-Politiais,^^ which, besides
setting forth the claim for free criticism of affairs both
civil and religious, is largely a study of the Old Testa-
ment with the effort to show that the end of religion is
not to inculcate truths but obedience : that the Scriptures
are not scientific but ethical in their nature and author-
ity; that Christ is superior to Moses in that the latter
was taught by exterior vision, the former by intuitive
consciousness, showing that in Christ the Divine Wisdom
had taken on human nature. This much abused treatise
was published in Hamburg in 1670. It bore the motto:
I John: IV: 13. "Hereby know we that we dwell in
him and he in us because he hath given us of his
spirit.'* The book being interdicted was printed with
false titles once in Leyden and twice in Amsterdam in
1673.

The " Ethics, '* although begun probably before 1661, was
not printed until after the author's death in 1677, and
then in a volume entitled " Opera PostJiiuna. '* These em-
braced besides the " Ethics *' other treatises written about
the same time. They were the " Treatise on the Improve-
ment of the Understanding '* embracing the method intro-
duced in the " Ethics '* ; and the " Tractatiis Politiciis '* in
which the absolutism of Hobbe's " Theory of Government '*
is criticised; also some "Letters from Learned Men'* and
the author's replies and a " Compendium of Hebrew
Grammar.** "A Treatise on God, on Man and His Hap-
piness ** with notes on the " Tractatus Theologico-Politicus **

INTRODUCTION ix

was quite recently discovered and published in 1852 at
Halle: also a ^^ Tract on the Rainbow," Spinoza's sole
scientific treatise, with a ^^ Collection of Letters " and a
* Biography" was published in Amsterdam in 1862.

The ^* Ethics " proper is entitled: " Ethica: ordine geome-
trice demonstrata, et in quinque partes distincta, in quibus
agitur ; I. de Deo ; II. de fiatura et origine mentis ; III.
de natura et origine affectuum ; IV. de servitute hiunana
seu de affectuum viribus ; V. de potentia ititellectus seu de
libettate humana.^'*

The treatment is mathematical proceeding as in Euclid
from Definitions and Axioms to Propositions deduced
therefrom. Thus Part First embraces the Definitions:
I. Cause sui; II. the Finite; III. Substance; IV. At-
tribute; V. Modes; VI. God; VII. Freedom; and VIII.
Eternity. Then follow the Axioms, and Propositions, and
Corollaries.

It will be seen that although entitled ^' Ethics" the trea-
tise covers the whole range of metaphysics, theology, and
epistemology, and yet that the ethics forms the culmina-
tion of the whole system, inasmuch as it looks to estab-
lishing a clear demonstrable nexus between God and the
human conduct. From the ontological proof, if proof at
all it can be called, of the existence of God from his
nature, or from his being of " such an essence as can only
be conceived of as existing," and thus from God's being and
existence as necessary, he derives all the laws of existence,
of creation, of nature, and of man's conduct as fixed in
an eternal necessity. But God's necessity must at the
same time be perfect freedom, since it cannot be con-
strained by any things except itself, inasmuch as there can
be no " other " to the One absolute substance. The only
« other " to the One self-existent and self-caused substance
must be that of the finite "affections" and « modes " of
the infinite attributes possessed by the One substance.
These attributes are summed up in the two universal
ones. Extension and Thought, which are not, as in Des-
cartes, two subordinated or created substances, but are
merely two aspects of one and the same only substance.
So that God as the one substance is at once all extended

X SPINOZA

body and all thought. Particular things having a limited
or finite existence, whether in thought or extension, are
but modes or affections of one or the other of these chief
attributes. Their life or being is distinguished from the
life of God as " being in alio *^ as distinguished from
"being in se?^ But the " being in alio ^^ is subject to limi-
tations and restrictions from other " being in alio *^ / it is
thereby subject to passion, to feeling, to desire, to will,
to emotions of pleasure, appetite, want, and pain. Its
desire is to complete its being. The sense of this com-
pletion is joy; the sense of its absence is sadness. These
emotions, joy and sadness, will and appetite, are all
called "affections of thought," but of the thought as
natiira natiirata^ or the created "mode," and not of the
thought in God, or natiira naturaris. With this limitation
of the affections as of "being in alio,^^ or subject to im-
perfection and constraint, comes also, and, indeed, as its
cause, ignorance or the lack of the adequate or perfect
knowledge. It is this lack of the perfect knowledge of
the whole which causes these affections and passions to
wear in man's temporal experience the appearance of
what is evil. This delusion of evil is the bondage of
passion or of the affections, the servitus humana, treated
of in Part IV., in which division of the work, the ethics
truly begins. From this bondage there is liberation and
redemption only through the more and more perfect
knowledge of God v/ith the consequent vision of all things
sub specie ceternitatis^ or in their relation to the divine
perfection. This satisfaction in the relations of the lim-
ited " being in alio " amounts to an extension or completion
of life, and is termed joy; and the experience of this joy
with the knowledge of its source, or of the completeness
of life in the divine, is love.

The highest attainment of the human mind is the "in-
tellectual love of God,* which is the contemplation of the
divine perfection in which all the seeming limitations
and imperfections of the finite are lost in the harmonious
unity of the infinitely many in the One. This knowledge
is itself virtue since to know a thing to be good is to
love it, and only that can be seen to be good which is a

INTRODUCTION xi

part of the common or universal good. In this * intel-
lectual love,'* or the love of knowing the good, even God
may be said to love himself in loving mankind ; and man
in the same love rejoices in virtue ^' not because it en-
ables him to govern his lusts; but because he does rejoice
in it, therefore to govern his lusts is possible.'* The
mortal part of man is the affections and modes of
his "being in alio,^^ including the imagination and the
memory of his earthly mind. The immortal part is that
idea which expresses the essence of the body under the
idea of eternity, or as God sees it, and which therefore
can never perish but survives death, although it passes
from all the limitations and consequent emotions and
memory of a temporal world.

The later critics found Spinoza's logic to be far from
irrefutable, and the ordinary reader will not fail to detect
instances of his reasoning in a circle where he seems to
be convinced that he is offering an infallible demonstra-
tion. Skepticism will find it easy to challenge even his
first certainty and to agree with Voltaire's verdict:

^^Vous Hes tres con/us Bariich Spinoza: inais etes vous
aussi dangereux qu 'on le dit f Je souhais que non: et ma
raison c'est que vous etes confus, que vous avez e'crit en
mauvais latin, et qu'il n'y a pas dix perso7ines in Europe
qui vous lisent d'un bout a I' autre quoique on vous ait
traduit en francais.^'*

The, in one aspect, sublime idea of the "intellectual
love of God '* may in another aspect be interpreted as
only an expression of an infinite self-love on the part of
deity contemplating with delight his own perfection and
granting this contemplative joy only to those finite crea-
tures who cast themselves into the abyss of his infinity
at the sacrifice of their own individuality. On the other
hand when viewed in his relation to his time and to the
traditions, religious and philosophical, with which the
aspirations of his youthful and generous nature had to
contend, coupled with the gentle and self-sacrificing traits
exhibited in his conduct with friends and foes and his
heroic contention for the freedom of thought and belief,
the contribution of Spinoza to the humanizing influence

xii SPINOZA

of philosophy cannot be denied, nor the existence in his
theory of truth germs of vast significance.

It is not strange that the epithet attached to Spinoza
by Novalis — "the God-intoxicated," should have come to
be held the most truly descriptive of this philosopher
who found in his Euclidian demonstrations a vision of
God as real as that accorded to the ecstasy of the medi-
daeval saints; or that Hegel should say that, better than
to call him an atheist were it to call him an acosmist, as
one who in his vision of that which is the union of the
world and God loses all sight of the world in the fuller
vision of God.

^/t-^c«-^.w^^i^ Sl^yL.^/nu^''^^

CONTENTS

PAGE

ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING . i

Of the ordinary objects of men's desires i

Of the true and final good 4

Certain rules of life 5

Of the four modes of perception 6

Of the best mode of perception 8

Of the instruments of the intellect, or true ideas . . . . lo

Answers to objections 13

First part of method. Distinction of true ideas from fictitious

ideas I5

And from false ideas 22

Of doubt ... 26

Of memory and forgetfulness 28

Mental hindrances from words — and from the popular confu-
sion of ready imagination with distinct understanding . 29, 30
Second part of method. Its object, the acquisition of clear and

distinct ideas 3i

Its means, good definitions. Conditions of definition ... 32

How to define the understanding 36

THE ETHICS 39

Part I. Concerning God 39

Definitions 39

Axioms '. 40

Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications . 40

Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different,

have nothing in common 4°

Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot

be one the cause of the other 4^

Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished
one from the other either by the difference of the attri-
butes of the substance, or by the differences of their modi-
fications 41

Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more

substances having the same nature or attribute ... 41

Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another

substance 4i

xiv SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS — C^«//«7/^?^.

Part I. Concerning God — Continued.

Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance . 42

Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite . . 42

Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater
the number of its attributes 45

Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance
must be conceived through itself 45

Prop. XI. God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes,
of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
necessarily exists 45

Prop. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived, from

which it would follow that substance can be divided . . 48

Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible . 48

Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or
conceived 49

Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God noth-
ing can be, or be conceived 49

Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must
follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways — that is,
all things which fall within the sphere of infinite intellect 53

Prop. XVII. God acts solely by the laws of his own nature,

and is not constrained by anyone 54

Prop. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient

cause of all things 57

Prop. XIX. God and all the attributes of God are eternal 57

Prop. XX. The existence of God and his essence are one
and the same 58

Prop. XXI. All things, which follow from the absolute na-
ture of any attribute of God, must always exist and be in-
finite, or, in other words, are eternal and infinite through
the said attribute 58

Prop. XXII. Whatever follows from any attribute of God,
in so far as it is modified by a modification, which exists
necessarily and as infinite through the said attribute,
must also exist necessarily and as infinite .... 60

Prop. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both necessarily
and as infinite, must necessarily follow either from the
absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from an at-
tribute modified by a modification, which exists neces-
sarily and as infinite 60

Prop. XXIV. The essence of things produced by God does

not involve existence 60

Prop. XXV. God is the efficient cause not only of the exist-
ence of things, but also of their essence 61

Prop. XXVI. A thing, which is conditioned to act in a par-
ticular manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned

CONTENTS XV

PAGE

THE ETHICS, — Continued.

Part I. Concerning God — Continued.

by God ; and that which has not been conditioned by God
cannot condition itself to act 6i

Prop. XXVII. A thing, which has been conditioned by God
to act in a particular way, cannot render itself uncondi-
tioned 62

Prop. XXVIII. Every individual thing, or everything which
is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or
be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for exist-
ence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is
finite and has a conditioned existence ; and likewise this
cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, un-
less it be conditioned for existence and action by another
cause, which also is finite and has a conditioned existence,
and so on to infinity 62

Prop. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all
things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular
manner by the necessity of the divine nature ... 63

Prop. XXX. Intellect, in function finite, or in function in-
finite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the
modifications of God, and nothing else 64

Prop. XXXI. The intellect in function, whether finite or in-
finite, as will, desire, love, etc., should be referred to pas-
sive nature, and not to active nature 64

Prop. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a
necessary cause 65

Prop. XXXIII. Things could not have been brought into
being by God in any manner or in any order different
from that which has in fact obtained 66

Prop. XXXIV. God's power is identical with his essence . 70

Prop. XXXV. Whatsoever we conceive to be in the power

of God, necessarily exists 70

Prop. XXXVI. There is no cause from whose nature some

effect does not follow 70

Appendix 70

Part II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind ... 78

Preface 7^

Definitions 7^

Axioms 79

Prop. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a think-
ing thing 79

Prop. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an ex-
tended thing 80

xvi SPINOZA

FAGE

THE ETHICS — Continued.

Part II, Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind — Continued.

Prop. Ill In God there is necessarily the idea, not only of
his essence, but also of all things which necessarily follow
from his essence 80

Prop. IV. The idea of God, from which an infinite number

of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one . . 81

Prop. V. The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause,
only in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not
in so far as he is unfolded in any other attribute ; that is,
the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular
things do not own as their efficient cause their objects, or
the things perceived, but God himself, in so far as he is a
thinking thing 81

Prop. VI. The modes of any given attribute are caused by
God, in so far as he is considered through the attribute of
•which they are modes, and not in so far as he is considered
through any other attribute 82

Prop. VII. The order and connection of ideas is the same
as the order and connection of things 82

Prop. VIII. The ideas of particular things, or of modes,
that do not exist, must be comprehended in the infinite
idea of God, in the same way as the formal essences of
particular things or modes are contained in the attributes
of God 83

Prop. IX. The idea of an individual thing actually exist-
ing is caused by God, not in so far as he is infinite, but ia
so far as he is considered as affected by another idea of a
thing actually existing, of which he is the cause, in so far
as he is affected by a third idea, and so on to infinity . 84

Prop. X. The being of substance does not appertain to the
essence of man — in other words, substance does not con-
stitute the actual being of man 85

Prop. XI. The first element, which constitutes the actual
being of the human mind, is the idea of some particular
thing actually existing 87

Prop. XII. Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of the
idea, which constitutes the human mind, must be per-
ceived by the human mind, or there will necessarily be
an idea in the human mind of the said occurrence. That
is, if the object of the idea constituting the human mind
be a body, nothing can take place in that body without
being perceived by the mind 88

Prop. XIII. The object of the idea constituting the human
mind is the body, in other words a certain mode of exten-
sion which actually exists, and nothing else .... 88

CONTENTS xvii

PAGR

THE ETHICS — Conimugcf.

Part II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind — Continued.

Digression on the nature of bodies — Axioms I., II. Lem-
mas I. — III 90

Axioms I., II 91

Definition — Axiom III. — Lemmas IV., V 92

Lemmas VI., VII 93

Postulates 94

Prop. XIV. The human mind is capable of perceiving a
great number of things, and is so, in proportion as its
body is capable of receiving a great number of impres-
sions 94

Prop. XV. The idea, which constitutes the actual being of
the human mind, is not simple, but compounded of a gjeat
number of ideas 94

Prop. XVI. The idea of every mode, in which the human
body is affected by external bodies, must involve the na-
ture of the human body, and also the nature of the exter-
nal body 95

Prop. XVII. If the human body is affected' in a manner
which involves the nature of any external body, the hu-
man mind will regard the said external body as actually
existing, or as present to itself, until the human body be
affected in such a way as to exclude the existence of the
said external body 95

Prop. XVIII. If the human body has once been affected by
two or more bodies at the same time, when the mind
afterward imagines any of them, it will straightway
remember the others also 97

Prop. XIX. The human mind has no knowledge of the body,
and does not know it to exist, save through the ideas of
the modifications, whereby the body is affected . • 99

Prop. XX. The idea or knowledge of the human mind is
also in God, following in God in the same manner, and
being referred to God in the same manner, as the idea
or knowledge of the human body 99

Prop. XXI. This idea of the mind is united to the mind,

in the same way as the mind is united to the body . . 100

Prop. XXII. The human mind perceives not only the modi-
fications of the body, but also the ideas of such modifi-
cations 100

Prop. XXIII. The mind does not know itself, except in so
far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the
body loi

Prop. XXIV. The human mind does not involve an ade-
quate knowledge of the parts composing the human body loi

xviii SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS — Cotttimied.

Part II. Of the Naturk and Origin of the Mind — Continued.

Prop. XXV. The idea of each modification of the human
body does not involve an adequate knowledge of the
external body 102

Prop. XXVI. The human mind does not perceive any ex-
ternal body as actually existing, except through the ideas
of the modifications of its own body 102

Prop. XXVII. The idea of each modification of the human
body does not involve an adequate knowledge of the
human body itself 103

Prop. XXVIII. The ideas of the modifications of the
human body, in so far as they have reference only to
the human mind, are not clear and distinct, but confused 103

Prop. XXIX. The idea of the idea of each modification of
the human body does not involve an adequate knowl-
edge of the human mind 104

Prop. XXX. We can only have a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration of our body 104

Prop. XXXI. We can only have a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration of particular things external to
ourselves 105

Prop. XXXII. All ideas, in so far as they are referred to
God, are true 105

Prop. XXXIII. There is nothing positive in ideas, which
causes them to be called false 106

Prop. XXXIV. Every idea, which in us is absolute or ade-
quate and perfect, is true 106

Prop. XXXV. Falsity consists in the privation of knowl-
edge, which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas
involve 106

Prop. XXXVI. Inadequate or confused ideas follow by the

same necessity as adequate or clear and distinct ideas . 107

Prop. XXXVII. That which is common to all, and is
equally in a part and in the whole, does not constitute
the essence of any particular thing 107

Prop. XXXVIII. Those things, which are common to all,
and are equally in a part and in the whole, cannot be
conceived except adequately 107

Prop. XXXIX. That, which is common to and a property
of the human body and such other bodies as are wont
to aflfect the human body, and which is present equally
in each part of either or in the whole, will be represented
by an adequate idea in th^ mind 108

Prop. XL. Whatsoever ideas in the mind follow from ideas,
which are therein adequate, are also themselves adequate 109

CONTENTS xix

PAGB

THE ETHICS — Continued.

Part II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind — Continued.

Prop. XLI. Opinion is the only source of falsity, reason
and intuition are necessarily true 112

Prop. XLII. Reason and intuition, not opinion, teach us to
distinguish the true from the false 112

Prop. XLIII. He who has a true idea, simultaneously
knows that he has a true idea, and cannot doubt of the
truth of the thing perceived 112

Prop. XLIV. It is not in the nature of reason to regard
things as contingent, but as necessary 114

Prop XLV. Every idea of every body, or of every particu-
lar thing actually existing, necessarily involves the eter-
nal and infinite essence of God 115

Prop. XLVI. The knowledge of the eternal and infinite
essence of God, which every idea involves, is adequate
and perfect , .... 116

Prop. XLVII. The human mind has an adequate knowl-
edge of the eternal and infinite essence of God . . . ii6

Prop. XLVIII. In the mind there is no absolute or free
will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by
a cause, which has also been determined by another
cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity 118

Prop. XLIX. There is in the mind no volition, or affirma-
tion and negation, save that which an idea, inasmuch as
it is an idea, involves 119

Part III. On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions . 127

Definitions 128

Postulates <. 129

Prop. I. Our mind is in certain cases active, and in cer-
tain cases passive. In so far as it has adequate ideas, it
is necessarily active ; and in so far as it has inadequate

ideas, it is necessarily passive 129

Prop. II. Body cannot determine mind to think, neither
can mind determine body to motion or rest, or any state

different from these, if such there be 130

Prop. III. The activities of the mind arise solely from ade-
quate ideas; the passive states of the mind depend

solely on inadequate ideas I34

Prop. IV. Nothing can be destroyed, except by a cause

external to itself I35

Prop. V. Things are naturally contrary, that is, cannot
exist in the same object, in so far as one is capable of

destroying the other i35

Prop. VI. Everything in so far as it is in itself, endeavors
to persist in its own being .135

XX

SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS, — Coniinued.

Part III. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Continued.

Prop. VII. The endeavor, wherewith everything endeavors
to persist in its own being is nothing else but the actual
essence of the thing in question 136

Prop. VIII. The endeavor, whereby a thing endeavors to
persist in its being, involves no finite time, but an in-
definite time 136

Prop. IX. The mind, both in so far as it has clear and
distinct ideas, and also in so far as it has confused
ideas, endeavors to persist in its being for an indefinite
period, and of this endeavor it is conscious . . . i;;,6

Prop. X. An idea, which excludes the existence of our
body cannot be postulated in our mind, but is contrary
thereto Ij7

Prop. XI. Whatsoever increases or diminishes, helps or
hinders the power of activity in our body, the idea
thereof increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the
power of thought in our mind 137

Prop. XII. The mind, as far as it can, endeavors to con-
ceive those things, which increase or help the power of
activity in the body 139

Prop. XIII. When the mind conceives things which di-
minish or hinder the body's power of activity, it en-
deavors, as far as possible, to remember things, which
exclude the existence of the first-named things . . . 139

Prop. XIV. If the mind has once been affected by two
emotions at the same time, it will, whenever it is
afterward affected by one of the two, be also affected
by the other 14b

Prop. XV. Anything can, accidentally, be the cause of
pleasure, pain, or desire 140

Prop. XVI. Simply from the fact that we conceive that
a given object has some point of resemblance with an-
other object, which is wont to affect the mind pleasur-
ably or painfully, although the point of resemblance
be not the efficient cause of the said emotions, we shall
still regard the first-named object with love or hate . 141

Prop. XVII. If we conceive that a thing, which is wont
to affect us painfully, has any point of resemblance with
another thing, which is wont to affect us with an equally
strong emotion of pleasure, we shall hate the first-named
thing, and at the same time we shall love it . . . 143

Prop. XVIII. A man is as much affected pleasurably or
painfully by the image of a thing past or future, as by
the image of a thing present 143

CONTENTS xxi

PAGB

THE ETHICS — Continued.

Part HI. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Continued.

Prop. XIX. He who conceives that the object of his love
is destroyed will feel pain; if he conceives that it
is preserved, he will feel pleasure .... . 144

Prop. XX. He who conceives that the object of his hate
is destroyed will feel pleasure 144

Prop. XXI. He who conceives that the object of his love
is affected pleasurably or painfully will himself be
affected pleasurably or painfully; and the one or the
other emotion will be greater or less in the lover, ac-
cording as it is greater or less in the thing loved . 145

Prop. XXII. If we conceive that anything pleasurably
affects some object of our love, we shall be affected
with love toward that thing. Contrariwise, if we con-
ceive that it affects an object of our love painfully, we
shall be affected with hatred toward it .... 145

Prop. XXIII. He who conceives that an object of his
hatred is painfully affected will feel pleasure. Con-
trariwise, if he think that the said object is pleasurably
affected, he will feel pain. Each of these emotions will
be greater or less, according as its contrary is greater
or less in the object of hatred 146

Prop. XXIV. If we conceive that anyone pleasurably
affects an ^object of our hate, we shall feel hatred
toward him also. If we conceive that he painfully affects
the said object, we shall feel love toward him . . 147

Prop. XXV. We endeavor to affirm, concerning ourselves
and concerning what we love, everything that we con-
ceive to affect pleasurably ourselves or the loved object.
Contrariwise, we endeavor to negative everything,
which we conceive to affect painfully ourselves or the
loved object I47

Prop. XXVI. We endeavor to affirm, concerning that
which we hate, everything which we conceive to affect
it painfully; and contrariwise, we endeavor to deny
concerning it everything which we conceive to affect
it pleasurably ^47

Prop. XXVII. By the very fact that we conceive a thing,
which is like ourselves, and which we have not regarded
with any emotion, to be affected with any emotion, we
are ourselves affected with a like emotion . . . . 148

Prop. XXVIII. We endeavor to bring about whatsoever
we conceive to conduce to pleasure; but we endeavor
to remove or destroy whatsoever we conceive to be
truly repugnant thereto, or to conduce to pain •. . •• . 149

xxii SPINOZA

PAGB

THE ETHICS— Con/mtud.

Part III. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Continued.

Prop. XXIX. We shall also endeavor to do whatsoever we
conceive men to regard with pleasure, and contrari-
wise we shall shrink from doing that which we conceive
men to shrink from 150

Prop. XXX. If anyone has done something which he con-
ceives as affecting other men pleasurably, he will be
affected by pleasure, accompanied by the idea of him-
self as a cause ; in other words, he will regard himself
with pleasure. On the other hand, if he has done any-
thing which he regards as affecting others painfully,
he will regard himself with pain 150

Prop. XXXI. If we conceive that anyone loves, desires,
or hates anything which we love, desire, or hate, we
shall thereupon regard the thing in question with more
steadfast love, etc. On the contrary, if we think that
anyone shrinks from something that we love, we shall
undergo vacillation of soul 151

Prop. XXXII. If we conceive that anyone takes delight
in something, which only one person can possess, we
shall endeavor to bring it about, that the man in ques-
tion shall not gain possession thereof 152

Prop. XXXIII. When we love a thing similar to ourselves,
we endeavor, as far as we can, to bring it about that
it should love us in return 153

Prop. XXXIV. The greater the emotion with which we
conceive a loved object to be affected toward us, the
greater will be our complacency 153

Prop. XXXV. If anyone conceives that an object of his
love joins itself to another with closer bonds of friend-
ship than he himself has attained to, he will be affected
with hatred toward the loved object and with envy
toward his rival 154

Prop. XXXVI. He who remembers a thing, in which he
has once taken delight, desires to possess it under the
same circumstances as when he first took delight therein 155

Prop. XXXVII. Desire arising through pain or pleasure,
hatred or love, is greater in proportion as the emotion
is greater . , . . 155

Prop. XXXVIII. If a man has begun to hate an object of
his love, so that love is thoroughly destroyed, he will,
causes being equal, regard it with more hatred than if
he had never loved it, and his hatred will be in propor-
tion to the strength of his former love 156

CONTENTS xxiii

PAGE

THE ETHICS — Continued.

Part III. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Cofitinucd.

Prop. XXXIX. He who hates anyone will endeavor to do
him an injury, unless he fears that a greater injury will
thereby accrue to himself; on the other hand, he
who loves anyone will, by the same law, seek to benefit
him 157

Prop. XL. He who conceives himself to be hated by an-
other, and believes that he has given him no cause for
hatred, will hate that other in return . . . . ' . .158

Prop. XLI. If anyone conceives that he is loved by an-
other, and believes that he has given no cause for such
love, he will love that other in return 159

Prop. XLII. He who has conferred a benefit on anyone
from motives of love or honor will feel pain, if he sees
that the benefit is received without gratitude . . . .159

Prop. XLIII. Hatred is increased by being reciprocated,

and can on the other hand be destroyed by love . . . 160

Prop. XLIV. Hatred which is completely vanquished by
love passes into love; and love is thereupon greater
than if hatred had not preceded it 160

Prop. XLV. If a man conceives that anyone similar to
himself hates anything also similar to himself, which he
loves, he will hate that person 161

Prop. XLVI. If a man has been affected pleasurably or
painfully by anyone of a class or nation different from
his own, and if the pleasure or pain has been accom-
panied by the idea of the said stranger as cause, under
the general category of the class or nation, the man will
feel love or hatred not only to the individual stranger,
but also to the whole class or nation, whereto he belongs 161

Prop. XLVII. Joy arising from the fact that anything we
hate is destroyed or suffers other injury, is never unac-
companied by a certain pain in us 161

Prop. XLVIII. Love or hatred toward, for instance, Peter
is destroyed, if the pleasure involved in the former, or the
pain involved in the latter emotion, be associated with
the idea of another cause; and will be diminished in pro-
portion as we conceive Peter not to have been the sole
cause of either emotion 162

Prop. XLIX. Love or hatred toward a thing, which we
conceive to be free, must, other conditions being similar,
be greater than if it were felt toward a thing acting by
necessity ^^^3

Prop. L. Anything whatever can be, accidentally, a cause
of hope or fear • • • • ^^3

xxiv SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS — Conitnued.

Part III. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Continued.

Prop. LI. Different men may be diflferently affected by the
same object, and the same man may be differently af-
fected at different times by the same object .... 164

Prop. LII. An object, which we have formerly seen in
conjunction with others, and do not conceive to have
any property that is not common to many, will not be
regarded by us for so long as an object which we con-
ceive to have some property peculiar to itself .... 165

Prop. LIII. When the mind regards itself and its own
power of activity, it feels pleasure ; and that pleasure is
gfreater in proportion to the distinctness wherewith it
conceives itself and its own power of activity . . . 167

Prop. LIV. The mind endeavors to conceive only such

things as assert its power of activity 167

Prop. LV. When the mind contemplates its own weakness,
it feels pain thereat 167

Prop. LVI. There are as many kinds of pleasure, of pain,
of desire, and of every emotion compounded of these,
such as vacillations of spirit, or derived from these, such
as love, hatred, hope, fear, etc., as there are kinds of
objects, whereby we are affected 169

Prop. LVII. Any emotion of a given individual differs
from the emotion of another individual only in so far as
the essence of the one individual differs from the essence
of the other 171

Prop. LVIII. Besides pleasure and desire, which are pas-
sivities or passions, there are other emotions derived
from pleasure and desire, which are attributable to us,
in so far as we are active 172

Prop. LIX. Among all the emotions attributable to the
mind as active, there are none which cannot be referred
to pleasure or pain 173

Definitions of the Emotions 175

General Definition of the Emotions 187

Part IV. Of Human Bondage or the Strength of the

Emotions 189

Preface 189

Definitions 192

Axiom 194

Prop. I. No positive quality possessed by a false idea is
removed by the presence of what is true in virtue of its
being true 194

CONTENTS XXV

PAOS

THE ETHICS — Continued.

Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Continued.

Prop. II. We are only passive in so far as we are a part of
Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself without
other parts igg

Prop. III. The force whereby a man persists in existing
is limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of
external causes 195

Prop. IV. It is impossible that man should not be a
part of Nature, or that he should be capable of un-
dergoing no changes, save such as can be under-
stood through his nature only as their adequate
cause 195

Prop. V. The power and increase of every passion, and
its persistence in existing, are not defined by the power,
whereby we ourselves endeavor to persist in existing,
but by the power of an external cause compared with
our own 196

Prop. VI. The force of any passion or emotion can over-
come the rest of a man's activities or power, so that
the emotion becomes obstinately fixed to him . . . 197

Prop. VII. An emotion can only be controlled or de-
stroyed by another emotion contrary thereto, and with
more power for controlling emotion 197

Prop. VIII. The knowledge of good and evil is nothing
else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as
we are conscious thereof 198

Prop. IX. An emotion, whereof we conceive the cause to
be with us at the present time, is stronger than if we
did not conceive the cause to be with us . . . . 198

Prop. X. Toward something future, which we conceive
as close at hand, we are affected more intensely than
if we conceive that its time for existence is separated
from the present by a longer interval ; so too by the re-
membrance of what we conceive to have not long
passed away we are affected more intensely than if
we conceive that it has long passed away . . . .199

Prop. XL An emotion toward that which we conceive
as necessary is, when other conditions are equal, more
intense than an emotion toward that which is possible,
or contingent, or non-necessary 200

Prop. XII. An emotion toward a thing, which we know
not to exist at the present time, and which we con-
ceive is possible, is more intense, other things
being equal, than an emotion toward a thing contin-
gent ... 200

xxvi SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS— Cofi/mued.

Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Contbuicd.

Prop. Xni. Emotion toward a thing contingent, which
we know not to exist in the present, is, other conditions
being equal, fainter than an emotion toward a thing past . 201

Prop. XIV. A true knowledge of good and evil cannot
check any emotion by virtue of being true, but only in
so far as it is considered as an emotion .... 201

Prop. XV. Desire arising from the knowledge of good
and evil can be quenched or checked by many other de-
sires arising from the emotions, whereby we are assailed 201

Prop. XVI. Desire arising from the knowledge of good
and evil, in so far as such knowledge regards what is
future, may be more easily controlled or quenched
than the desire for what is agreeable at the present
moment 202

Prop. XVII Desire arising from the true knowledge of good
and evil, in so far as such knowledge is concerned with
what is contingent, can be controlled far more easily still,
than desire for things that are at present .... 202

Prop. XVIII. Desire arising from pleasure is, other things
being equal, stronger than desire arising from pain . . 203

Prop. XIX. Every man, by the laws of his nature, necessa-
rily desires or shrinks from that which he deems to be
good or bad 205

Prop. XX. The more every man endeavors and is able to
seek what is useful to him, in other words to preserve his
own being, the more is he endowed with virtue ; on the
contrarj', in proportion as a man neglects to seek what is
useful to him, that is, to preserve his own being, he is
wanting in power 205

Prop. XXI. No one can rightly desire to be blessed, to act
rightly, and to live rightly, without at the same time wish-
ing to be, to act, and to live, in other words, to actually
exist 206

Prop. XXII. No virtue can be conceived as prior to this en-
deavor to preserve one's own being 206

Prop. XXIII. Man, in so far as he is determined to a partic-
ular action because he has inadequate ideas, cannot be ab-
solutely said to act in obedience to virtue ; he can only be
so described, in so far as he is determined for the action,
because he understands 207

Prop. XXIV. To act absolutely in obedience to virtue is in
us the same thing as to act, to live, or to preserve one's
being (these three terms are identical in meaning) in ac-
cordance with the dictate of reason on the basis of seeking
what is useful to oneself 207

CONTENTS xxvii

FAGS

THE ETniC?^— Continued.

Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Continued.

Prop. XXV. No one wishes to preserve his being for the sake
of anything else 207

Prop. XXVI. Whatsoever we endeavor in obedience to rea-
son is nothing further than to understand ; neither does the
mind, in so far as it makes use of reason, judge anything
to be useful to it, save such things as are conducive to un-
derstanding 208

Prop. XXVII. We know nothing to be certainly good or evil,
save such things as really conduce to understanding, or
such as are able to hinder us from understanding . . 208

Prop. XXVIII. The mind's highest good is the knowledge of
God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God . . 209

Prop. XXIX. No individual thing, which is entirely different
from our own nature, can help or check our power of ac-
tivity, and absolutely nothing can do us good or harm, un-
less it has something in common with our nature . . 209

Prop. XXX. A thing cannot be bad for us through the qual-
ity which it has in common with our nature, but it is bad
for us, in so far as it is contrary to our nature . . . 210

Prop. XXXI. In so far as a thing is in harmony with our
nature, it is necessarily good 210

Prop. XXXII. In so far as men are a prey to passion, they

cannot in that respect, be said to be naturally in harmony 211

Prop. XXXIII. Men can differ in nature, in so far as they
are assailed by those emotions, which are passions or
passive states ; and to this extent one and the same man
is variable and inconstant 211

Prop. XXXIV. In so far as men are assailed by emotions
which are passions, they can be contrary one to another 211

Prop. XXXV. In so far only as men Hve in obedience to

reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature . . 213

Prop. XXXVI. The highest good of those who follow virtue is

common to all, and therefore all can equally rejoice therein 214

Prop. XXXVII. The good, which every man who follows
after virtue desires for himself, he will also desire for
other men, and so much the more, in proportion as he has
a greater knowledge of God 215

Prop. XXXVIII. Whatsoever disposes the human body, so
as to render it capable of being affected in an increased
number of ways, or of affecting external bodies in an
increased number of ways, is useful to man ; and is so in
proportion as the body is thereby rendered more capable
of being affected or of affecting other bodies in an in-
creased number of ways; contrariwise, whatsoever renders
the body less capable in this respect is hurtful to man ,_ 219

xxviii SPINOZA

PAOB

THE ETHICS— Con/mued.

Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Continued.

Prop, XXXIX. Whatsoever brings about the preservation of
the proportion of motion and rest, which the parts of the
human body mutually possess, is good; contrariwise,
whatsoever causes a change in such proportion is bad . 219

Prop. XL. Whatsoever conduces to man's social life, or
causes men to live together in harmony, is useful, whereas
whatsoever brings discord into a State is bad . . . 221

Prop. XLI. Pleasure in itself is not bad but good ; contrari-
wise, pain in itself is bad 221

Prop. XLII. Mirth cannot be excessive, but is always good;
contrariwise. Melancholy is always bad 221

Prop. XLIII. Stimulation may be excessive and bad; on the
other hand grief may be good, in so far as stimulation or
pleasure is bad 221

Prop. XLIV. Love and desire may be excessive . . . 222

Prop. XLV. Hatred can never be good 223

Prop. XLVI. He, who lives under the guidance of reason,
endeavors, as far as possible, to render back love, or
kindness, for other men's hatred, anger, contempt, etc.,
toward him 224

Prop. XLVII. Emotions of hope and fear cannot be in them-
selves good 225

Prop. XLVIII. The emotions of over-esteem and disparage-
ment are always bad 225

Prop. XLIX. Over-esteem is apt to render its object proud 225

Prop. L. Pity, in a man who lives under the guidance of

reason is in itself bad and useless 225

Prop. LI. Approval is not repugnant to reason, but can

agree therewith and arise therefrom 226

Prop. LII. Self-approval may arise from reason, and that
which arises from reason is the highest possible . . 227

Prop. LIII. Humility is not a virtue, or does not arise
from reason 227

Prop. LIV. Repentance is not a virtue, or does not arise
from reason, but he who repents of an action is doubly
wretched or infirm 228

Prop. LV. Extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme
ignorance of self 228

Prop. LVI. Extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme
infirmity of spirit 228

Prop. LVI I. The proud man delights in the company of
flatterers and parasites, but hates the company of the
high-minded 229

Prop. LVIII. Honor (gloria) is not repugnant to reason,
but may arise therefrom 230

CONTENTS xxix

PAOB

THE 'ETHK^Q — Conimued.

Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Continued.

Prop. LIX. To all the actions, whereto we are determined
by emotions, wherein the mind is passive, we can be
determined without emotion by reason 231

Prop. LX. Desire arising from a pleasure or pain, that is,
not attributable to the whole body, but only to one or
certain parts thereof, is without utility in respect to
man as a whole 233

Prop. LXI. Desire which springs from reason cannot be
excessive 233

Prop. LXI I. In so far as the mind conceives a thing
under the dictate of reason, it is affected equally,
whether the idea be of a thing present, past, or future 234

Prop. LXIII. He who is lead by fear, and does good in
order to escape evil, is not led by reason .... 235

Prop. LXIV. The knowledge of evil is an inadequate
knowledge 236

Prop. LXV. Under the guidance of reason we should pur-
sue the greater of two goods and the lesser of two evils 236

Prop. LXVI. We may, under the guidance of reason,
seek a greater good in the future in preference to a
lesser good in the present, and we may seek a lesser
evil in the present in preference to a greater evil in
the future 236

Prop. LXVI I. A free man thinks of nothing less than of
death; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death,
but of life 237

Prop. LXVIII. If men were born free, they would, so
long as they remained free, form no conception of good
or evil 237

Prop. LXIX. The virtue of a free man is seen to be as
great, when it declines dangers, as when it overcomes
them , ... 239

Prop. LXX. The free man, who lives among the igno-
rant, strives, as far as he can, to avoid receiving
favors from them 239

Prop. LXXI. Only free men are thoroughly grateful,

one to another 240

Prop. LXXI I. The free man never acts fraudulently, but
always in good faith 240

Prop. LXXIII. The man who is guided by reason is more
free in a State, where he lives under a general system
of law, than in solitude, where he is independent . 240

Appendix on the Right Way of Life . . . . . .241

XXX ' SPINOZA

PAGE

THE ETHICS — C^«//««^//.

Part V. On the Power of the Understanding, or of

Human Freedom 250

Preface 250

Axioms 253

Prop. I. Even as thoughts and the ideas of things are ar-
ranged and associated in the mind, so are the modifi-
cations of the body, or the images of things precisely in
the same way arranged and associated in the body . 253

Prop. n. If we remove a disturbance of the spirit, or
emotion, from the thought of an external cause, and
unite it to other thoughts, then will the love or hatred
toward that external cause, and also the vacillations
of spirit, which arise from these emotions be destroyed . 254

Prop. HI. An emotion, which is a passion, ceases to be
a passion as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea
thereof 254

Prop. IV. There is no modification of the body whereof
we cannot form some clear and distinct conception . 254

Prop. V. An emotion toward a thing which we conceive
simply, and not as necessary, or as contingent, or as
possible, is, other conditions being equal, greater than
any other emotion 256

Prop. VI. The mind has greater power over the emo-
tions, and is less subject thereto, in so far as it under-
stands all things as necessary 256

Prop. VII. Emotions, which are aroused or spring from
reason, if we take account of time, are stronger than
those, which are attributable to particular objects, that
we regard as absent 257

Prop. VIII. An emotion is stronger in proportion to the
number of simultaneous concurrent causes whereby it
is aroused 258

Prop. IX. An emotion, which is attributable to many and
diverse causes, which the mind regards as simultaneous
with the emotion itself, is less hurtful, and we are less
subject thereto, and less affected toward each of its
causes, than if it were a different and equally powerful
emotion, attributable to fewer causes or to a single cause 258

Prop. X. So long as we are not assailed by emotions
contrary to our nature, we have the power of arranging
and associating the modifications of our body according
to the intellectual order 258

Prop. XI. In proportion as a mental image is referred to
more objects, so is it more frequent, or more often vivid,
and affects the mind more 261

CONTENTS xxxi

PAGE

THE El HICS — Coniznued.

Part V. On the Power of the Understanding — Continued.

Prop. XII. The mental images of things are more easily-
associated with the images referred to things which we
clearly and distinctly understand than with others . . 261-

Prop. XIII A mental image is more often vivid, in pro-
portion as i<" is associated with a greater number of other
images 261

Prop. XIV, The mind can bring it about, that all bodily
modifications or images of things may be referred to
the idea of God 262

Prop. XV. He who clearly and distinctly understands
himself and his emotions, loves God, and so much the
more in proportion as he more understands himself and
his emotions 262

Prop. XVI. This love toward God must hold the chief
place in the mind 262

Prop. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he affected
by any emotion of pleasure or pain . - . . . . 262

Prop. XVIII. No one can hate God 262

Prop. XIX. He who loves God cannot endeavor that

God should love him in return 263

Prop. XX. This love toward God cannot be stained by
the emotion of envy or jealousy; contrariwise, it is the
more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater
number of men to be joined to God by the same bond
of love 263

Prop. XXL The mind can only imagine anything, or re-
member what is past, while the body endures . . 265

Prop. XXII. Nevertheless in God there is necessarily an
idea, which expresses the essence of this or that human
body under the form of eternity 266

Prop. XXIII. The human mind cannot be absolutely
destroyed with the body, but there remains of it some-
thing which is eternal 266

Prop. XXIV. The more we understand particular things,

the more do we understand God 267

Prop. XXV. The highest endeavor of the mind, and the

highest virtue, is to understand things by intuition . . 267

Prop. XXVI. In proportion as the mind is more capable of
understanding things by intuition, it desires more so to
derstand things 267

Prop. XXVII. From intuition arises the highest possible
mental acquiescence 268

Prop. XXVIII. The endeavor or desire to know things by
intuition cannot arise from opinion, but from reason . 268

xxxii SPINOZA

PAGB

THE ETHICS— Cofifm7ied.

Part V. On the Power of the Understanding — Contimied.

Prop. XXIX. Whatsoever the mind understands under the
form of eternity, it does not understand by virtue of con-
ceiving the present actual existence of the body, but
by virtue of conceiving the essence of the body under
the form of eternity 263

Prop. XXX. Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the
body under the form of eternity, has to that extent neces-
sarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God,
and is conceived through God 269

Prop. XXXI. Intuition depends on the mind, as its formal
cause, in so far as the mind itself is eternal . . . 269

Prop. XXXII. Whatsoever we understand by intuition, we
take delight in, and our delight is accompanied by the
idea of God as cause 270

Prop. XXXIII. The intellectual love of God, which arises
from intuition, is eternal 271

Prop. XXXIV. The mind is, only while the body endures,

subject to those emotions which are attributable to passions 271

Prop. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intellec-
tual love 271

Prop. XXXVI. The intellectual love of the mind toward
God is that very love of God, whereby God loves himself,
not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be
explained through the essence of the human mind re-
garded under the form of eternity ; in other words, the
intellectual love of the mind toward God is part of the
infinite love, wherewith God loves himself . . . 272

Prop. XXXVII. There is nothing in nature, which is con-
trary to this intellectual love, or which can take it away . 273

Prop. XXXVIII. In proportion as the mind understands
more things by reason and intuition, it is less subject
to those emotions which are evil, and stands in less fear
of death .... ........ 273

Prop. XXXIX, He who possesses a body capable of the
greatest number of activities possesses a soul whereof
the greatest part is eternal 274

Prop. XL. In proportion as each thing possesses more of
perfection, so is it more active, and less passive ; and,
vice versa, in proportion as it is more active, so is it
more perfect 275

Prop. XLI. Even if we did not know that our mind is
eternal, we should still consider as of primary importance
piety and religion, and generally all things, which in
Part IV. we showed to be attributable to courage and
high-mindedness 276

CONTENTS xxxiii

PAGE

THE ETKICS — Confinu^d.

Part V. On the Power of the Understanding — Continued.

Prop. XLII. Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but

virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we

control our lusts, but. contrariwise, because we rejoice

therein, we are able to control our lusts ... 277

SPINOZA'S CORRESPONDENCE (ABRIDGED) . . .279

Letters I. — XXV. a. (1661-1676). Between Spinoza and
Henry Oldenburg 279

Letters XXVI.— XXVHI. Between Spinoza and Simon de
Vries 314

Letters XXIX., XXIX.a. (1663). From Spinoza to Lewis
Meyer 321

Letter XXX. (1664). From Spinoza to Peter Balling . , 329

Letters XXXI.—XXXVIII. (1664-65). Between Spinoza and
William Blyenbergh 335

Letters XXXIX.— XLI. (1666). From Spinoza to Christian
Huyghens, on the unity of God . . ... . . . 336

Letters XLI. a., XLII. (1665-66). From Spinoza to a cor-
respondent probably identified with John Bresser . . 364

Letter XLI 1 1. (1666). Spinoza to I. v. M. on a problem
connected with games of chance (omitted).

Letters XLIV. — XLVI. (on scientific subjects, and omitted),
and Letter XLVII. (1667-71). From Spinoza to a cor-
respondent probably identified with Jarig Jellis , . . 368

Letter XLVIII. (1671). From Lambert de Velthuysen to
Isaac Orobio against Tractatus Theologico - Politicus
(omitted).

Letter XLIX. (1671). Spinoza's answer to XLVIII., ad-
dressed to Isaac Orobio 369

Letter L. (1674). From Spinoza to Jarig Jellis, on Hobbes,

etc 374

Letters LI., LII. (1671). Between Spinoza and Leibnitz . 376

Letters LIII., LIV. (1673). Between Spinoza and Fabritius 379

Letters LV. — LX. (1674). Between Spinoza and Hugo
Boxel on Ghosts 381

Letters LXI.— LXXII. (1674-76). Between Spinoza, E. W.
von Tschirnhausen and G. H. Schaller 395

Letters LXXIII., LXXIV, (1675). Between Spinoza and

Albert Burgh 4^6

Letter LXXV. (1675 ?) From Spinoza to Lambert de Vel-
thuysen . 426

ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDER-
STANDING.

After experience had taught me that all the usual sur-
roundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that
none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves
anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind
is affected by them, I finally resolved to inquire whether
there might be some real good having power to com-
municate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to
the exclusion of all else; whether, in fact, there might
be anything of which the discovery and attainment would
enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending
happiness. I say ^^ I finally resolved,'^ for at first sight
it seemed unwise willingly to lose hold on what was sure
for the sake of something then uncertain. I could see
the benefits which are acquired through fame and riches,
and that I should be obliged to abandon the quest of
such objects, if I seriously devoted myself to the search
for something different and new. I perceived that if
true happiness chanced to be placed in the former I
should necessarily miss it; while if, on the other hand,
it were not so placed, and I gave them my whole atten-
tion, I should equally fail.

I therefore debated whether it would not be possible
to arrive at the new principle, or at any rate at a cer-
tainty concerning its existence, without changing the
conduct and usual plan of my life ; with this end in view
I made many efforts, but in vain. For the ordinary sur-
roundings of life which are esteemed by men (as their
actions testify) to be the highest good, may be classed,
tinder the three heads— Riches, Fame, and the Pleasures
of Sense: v/ith these three the mind is so absorbed that
it has little power to reflect on any different good. By
I (I) .

2 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

sensual pleasure the mind is enthralled to the extent of
quiescence, as if the supreme good were actually attained,
so that it is quite incapable of thinking of any other ob-
ject; when such pleasure has been gratified it is followed
by extreme melancholy, whereby the mind, though not
enthralled, is disturbed and dulled.

. The pursuit of honors and riches is likewise very
absorbing, especially if such objects be sought simply
for their own sake, inasmuch as they are then supposed
to constitute the highest good. In the case of fame the
mind is still more absorbed, for fame is conceived as
always good for its own sake, and as the ultimate end
to which all actions are directed. Further, the attain-
ment of riches and fame is not followed as in the case
of sensual pleasures by repentance, but, the more we
acquire, the greater is our delight, and, consequently,
the more we are incited to increase both the one and
the other; on the other hand, if our hopes happen to be
frustrated we are plunged into the deepest sadness.
Fame has the further drawback that it compels its
votaries to order their lives according to the opinions of
their fellow-men, shunning what they usually shun, and
seeking what they usually seek.

When I saw that all these ordinary objects of desire
would be obstacles in the way of a search for something
different and new — nay, that they were so opposed
thereto, that either they or it would have to be aban-
doned, I was forced to inquire which would prove the
most useful to me: for, as I say, I seemed to be will-
ingly losing hold on a sure good for the sake of
something uncertain. However, after I had reflected on
the matter, I came in the first place to the conclusion
that by abandoning the ordinary objects of pursuit, and
betaking myself to a new quest, I should be leaving a
good, uncertain by reason of its own nature, as may be
gathered from what has been said, for the sake of a good
not uncertain in its nature (for I sought for a fixed
good), but only in the possibility of its attainment.

Further reflection convinced me, that if I could really
get to the root of the matter, I should be leaving certain

\

SPINOZA 3

evils for a certain good. I thus perceived that I was in
a state of great peril, and I compelled myself to seek
with all my strength for a remedy, however uncertain it
might be ; as a sick man struggling with a deadly disease,
when he sees that death will surely be upon him unless
a remedy be found, is compelled to seek such a remedy
with all his strength, inasmuch as his whole hope lies
therein. All the objects pursued by the multitude, not
only bring no remedy that tends to preserve our being,
but even act as hindrances, causing the death not seldom
of those who possess them, and always of those who are
possessed by them. There are many examples of men
who have suffered persecution even to death for the sake
of their riches, and of men who in pursuit of wealth have
exposed themselves to so many dangers, that they have
paid away their life as a penalty for their folly. Exam-
ples are no less numerous of men, who have endured the
utmost wretchedness for the sake of gaining or preserving
their reputation. Lastly, there are innumerable cases
of men, who have hastened their death through over-
indulgence in sensual pleasure. All these evils seem to
have arisen from the fact, that happiness or unhappiness
is made wholly to depend on the quality of the object
which we love. When a thing is not loved, no quarrels
will arise concerning it — no sadness will be felt if it
perishes — no envy if it is possessed by another — no
fear no hatred, in short no disturbances of the mind.
All these arise from the love of what is perishable, such
as the objects already mentioned. But love toward a
thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy,
and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is
greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.
Yet it was not at random that I used the words, " If I
could go to the root of the matter,'* for, though what I
have urged was perfectly clear to my mind, I could not
forthv/ith lay aside all love of riches, sensual enjoyment,
and fam.e. One thing was evident, namely, that while
my mind was employed with these thoughts it turned
away from its former objects of desire, and seriously con-
sidered the search for a new principle; this state of

4 . IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

things was a great comfort to me, for I perceived that
the evils were not such as to resist all remedies.
Although these intervals were at first rare, and of very
short duration, yet afterward, as the true good became
more and more discernible to me, they became more fre-
quent and more lasting; especially after I had recognized
that the acquisition of wealth, sensual pleasure, or fame,
is only a hindrance, so long as they are sought as ends
not as means; if they be sought as means they will be
under restraint, and, far from being hindrances, will
further not a little the end for which they are sought, as
I will show in due time.

I will here only briefly state what I mean by true
good, and also what is the nature of the highest good.
In order that this may be rightly understood, we must
bear in mind that the terms good and evil are only ap-
plied relatively, so that the same thing may be called
both good and bad, according to the relations in view,
in the same way as it may be called perfect or imperfect.
Nothing regarded in its own nature can be called perfect
or imperfect; especially when we are aware that all
things which come to pass, come to pass according to the
eternal order and fixed laws of nature. However, human
weakness cannot attain to this order in its own thoughts,
but meanwhile man conceives a human character much
more stable than his own, and sees that there is no
reason why he should not himself acquire such a char-
acter. Thus he is led to seek for means which will bring
him to this pitch of perfection, and calls everything
which will serve as such means a true good. The chief
good is that he should arrive, together with other individ-
uals if possible, at the possession of the aforesaid char-
acter. What that character is we shall show in due time,
namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing
between the mind and the whole of nature. This, then,
is the end for which I strive, to attain to such a char-
acter myself, and to endeavor that many should attain to
it with me. In other words, it is part of my happiness
to lend a helping hand, that many others may understand
even as I do, so that their understanding and desire may

SPINOZA

5

entirely agree with my own. In order to bring this about,
it is necessary to understand as much of nature as will
enable us to attain to the aforesaid character, and also
to form a social order such as is most conducive to the
attainment of this character by the greatest number with
the least difficulty and danger. We must seek the assist-
ance of Moral Philosophy * and the Theory of Education ;
further, as health is no insignificant means for at-
taining our end, we must also include the whole science
of Medicine, and, as many difficult things are by con-
trivance rendered easy, and we can in this way gain
much time and convenience, the science of Mechanics
must in no way be despised. But, before all things, a
means must be devised for improving the understanding
and purifying it, as far as may be at the outset, so that
it may apprehend things without error, and in the best
possible way.

Thus it is apparent .to every one that I wish to direct
all sciences to one end and aim, so that we may attain
to the supreme human perfection which we have named ;
and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve
to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless.
To sum up the matter in a word, all our actions and
thoughts must be directed to this one end. Yet, as it is
necessary that while we are endeavoring to attain our
purpose, and bring the understanding into the right path,
we should carry on our life, we are compelled first of all
to lay down certain rules of life as provisionally good,
to wit, the following:

I. To speak in a manner intelligible to the multitude,
and to comply with every general custom that does not
hinder the attainment of our purpose. For we can gain
from the multitude no small advantages, provided that
we strive to accommodate ourselves to its understanding
as far as possible: moreover, we shall in this way gain
a friendly audience for the reception of the truth.

II. To indulge ourselves with pleasures only in so far
as they are necessary for preserving health:

* I do no more here than enumerate the sciences necessary for om-
purpose ; I lay no stress on their order.

6 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

III. Lastly, to endeavor to obtain only sufficient money
or other commodities to enable us to preserve our life and
health, and to follow such general customs as are con-
sistent with our purpose.

Having laid down these preliminary rules, I will betake
myself to the first and most important task, namely, the
amendment of the understanding, and the rendering it
capable of understanding things in the manner necessary
for attaining our end.

In order to bring this about, the natural order demands
that I should here recapitulate all the modes of perception,
which I have hitherto employed for affirming or denying
anything with certainty, so that I may choose the best,
and at the same time begin to know my own powers and
the nature which I wish to perfect.

Reflection shows that all modes of perception or knowl-
edge may be reduced to four:

I. Perception arising from hearsay or from some sign
which everyone may name as he pleases.

II. Perception arising from mere experience — that is,
from experience not yet classified by the intellect, and
only so called because the given event has happened to
take place, and we have no contradictory fact to set
against it, so that it therefore remains unassailed in our
mind.

III. Perception arising when the essence of one thing
is inferred from another thing, but not adequately; this
comes when from some effect we gather its cause, or when
it is inferred from some general proposition that some
property is always present.

IV. Lastly, there is the perception arising when a thing
is perceived solely through its essence, or through the
knowledge of its proximate cause.

All these kinds of perception I will illustrate by examples.
By hearsay I know the day of my birth, my parentage,
and other matters about which I have never felt any
doubt. By mere experience I know that I shall die,
for this I can affirm from having seen that others like
myself have died, though all did not live for the same
period, or die by the same disease. I know by mere

SPINOZA 7

experience that oil has the property of feeding fire, and
water of extinguishing it. In the same way I know that
a dog is a barking animal, man a rational animal, and in
fact nearly all the practical knowledge of life.

We deduce one thing from another as follows: when we
clearly perceive that we feel a certain body and no other,
we thence clearly infer that the mind is united to the
body, and that their union is the cause of the given sen-
sation; but we cannot thence absolutely understand the
nature of the sensation and the union. Or, after I have
become acquainted with the nature of vision, and know
that it has the property of making one and the same thing
appear smaller when far off than when near, I can infer
that the sun is larger than it appears, and can draw other
conclusions of the same kind.

Lastly, a thing may be perceived solely through its
essence ; when, from the fact of knowing soniething, I know
what it is to know that thing, or when, from knowing
the essence of the mind, I know that it is united to the
body. By the same kind of knowledge we know that two
and three make five, or that two lines each parallel to a
third, are parallel to one another, etc. The things which
I have been able to know by this kind of knowledge are
as yet very few.

In order that the whole matter may be put in a clearer
light, I will make use of a single illustration as follows:
Three numbers are given — it is required to find a fourth,
which shall be to the third as the second is to the first.
Tradesmen will at once tell us that they know what is
required to find the fourth number, for they have not yet
forgotten the rule which was given to them arbitrarily
without proof by their masters ; others construct a universal
axiom from their experience with simple numbers, where
the fourth number is self-evident, as in the case of 2, 4, 3, 6;
here it is evident that if the second number be multi-
plied by the third, and the product divided by the first,
the quotient is 6 ; when they see that by this process the
number is produced which they knew beforehand to be
the proportional, they infer that the process always holds
good for finding a fourth number proportional. Mathe-

8 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

maticians, however, know by the proof of the nineteenth
proposition of the seventh book of Euclid, what numbers
are proportionals, namely, from the nature and property
of proportion it follows that the product of the first and
fourth will be equal to the product of the second and
third: still they do not see the adequate proportionality
of the given numbers or, if they do see it, they see it not
by virtue of Euclid's proposition, but intuitively, without
going through any process.

In order that from these modes of perception the best
may be selected, it is well that we should briefly enu-
merate the means necessary for attaining our end.

I. To have an exact knowledge of our nature which
we desire to perfect, and to know as much as is needful
of nature in general.

II. To collect in this way the differences, the agree-
ments, and the oppositions of things. .

III. To learn thus exactly how far they can or cannot
be modified.

IV. To compare this result with the nature and power
of man. We shall thus discern the highest degree of
perfection to which man is capable of attaining. We
shall then be in a position to see which mode of percep-
tion we ought to choose.

As to the first mode, it is evident that from hearsay
our knowledge must always be uncertain, and, moreover,
can give us no insight into the essence of a thing, as is
manifest in our illustration; now one can only arrive at
knowledge of a thing through knowledge of its essence,
as will hereafter appear. We may, therefore, clearly con-
clude that the certainty arising from hearsay cannot be
scientific in its character. For simple hearsay cannot
affect anyone whose understanding does not, so to speak,
meet it half way.

The second mode of perception* cannot be said to give
us the idea of the proportion of which we are in search.
Moreover its results are very uncertain and indefinite, for

* I shall here treat a little more in detail of experience, and shall
examine the method adopted by the Empirics, and by recent philoso-
phers.

SPINOZA 9

we shall never discover anything in natural phenomena
by its means, except accidental properties, which are never
clearly understood, unless the essence of the things in
question be known first. Wherefore this mode also must
be rejected.

Of the third mode of perception we may say in a man-
ner that it gives us the idea of the thing sought, and that
it enables us to draw conclusions without risk of error;
yet it is not by itself sufficient to put us in possession of
the perfection we aim at.

The fourth mode alone apprehends the adequate es-
sence of a thing without danger of error. This mode,
therefore, must be the one which we chiefly employ. How,
then, should we avail ourselves of it so as to gain the
fourth kind of knowledge with the least delay concerning
things previously unknown ? I will proceed to explain.

Now that we know what kind of knowledge is necessary
for us, we must indicate the way and the m.ethod whereby
we may gain the said knowledge concerning the things
needful to be known. In order to accomplish this, we
must first take care not to commit ourselves to a search,
going' back to infinity — that is, in order to discover the
best method for finding out the truth, there is no need of
another method to discover such method; nor of a third
method for discovering the second, and so on to infinity.
By such proceedings, we should never arrive at the knowl-
edge of the truth, or, indeed, at any knowledge at all.
The matter stands on the same footing as the making of
material tools, which might be argued about in a similar
way. For, in order to work iron, a hammer is needed, and
the hammer cannot be forthcoming unless it has been
made ; but, in order to make it, there was need of another
hammer and other tools, and so on to infinity. We might
thus vainly endeavor to prove that men have no power of
working iron. But as men at first made use of the instru-
ments supplied by nature to accomplish very easy pieces of
workmanship, laboriously and imperfectly, and then, when
these were finished, wrought other things more difficult
with less labor and greater perfection; and so gradually
mounted from the simplest operations to the making of

lo IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

tools, and from tlic making- of tools to the making of
more complex tools, and fresh feats of workmanship, till
they arrived at making, with small expenditure of labor,
the vast number of complicated mechanisms which they
now possess. So, in like manner, the intellect, by its na-
tive strength,* makes for itself intellectual instruments,
whereby it acquires strength for performing other intel-
lectual operations, and from these operations gets again
fresh instruments, or the power of pushing its investiga-
tions further, and thus gradually proceeds till it reaches
the summit of wisdom.

That this is the path pursued by the imderstanding may
be readily seen, when we understand the nature of the
method for finding out the truth, and of the natural in-
struments so necessary for the construction of more com-
plex instruments, and for the progress of investigation. I
thus proceed with my demonstration.

A true idea ( for we possess a true idea ) is something
different from its correlate {ideation); thus a circle is
different from the idea of a circle. The idea of a circle
is not something having a circumference and a centre,
as a circle has ; nor is the idea of a body that body itself.
Now, as it is something different from its correlate, it is
capable of being- understood through itself; in other
words, the idea, in so far as its actual essence ( essentia
fornialis) is concerned, may be the subject of another
subjective essence [essentia objectiva). And, again, this
second subjective essence will, regarded in itself, be
something real, and capable of being understood; and so
on, indefinitely. For instance, the man Peter is some-
thing real; the true idea of Peter is the reality of Peter
represented subjectively, and is in itself something real,
and quite distinct from the actual Peter. Now, as this
true idea of Peter is in itself something real, and has
its own individual existence, it will also be capable of
being understood — that is, of being the subject of
another idea, which will contain by representation
( objective ) all that the idea of Peter contains actually

■* By native strength, I mean that bestowed on us by external causes,
as I shall afterwards explain in my philosophy.

SPINOZA II

{fonnaliter). And, again, this idea of the idea of Peter
has its own individuality, which may become the subject
of yet another idea; and so on, indefinitely. This every
one may make trial of for himself, by reflecting that
he knows what Peter is, and also knows that he
knows, and further knows that he knows that he knows,
etc. Hence it is plain that, in order to understand the
actual Peter, it is not necessary first to understand the
idea of Peter, and still less the idea of the idea of Peter.
This is the same as saying that, in order to know, there
is no need to know that we know, much less to know
that we know that we know. This is no more necessary
than to know the nature of a circle before knowing the
nature of a triangle. But, with these ideas, the contrary
is the case: for, in order to know that I know, I must
first know. Hence it is clear that certainty is nothing
else than the subjective essence of a thing: in other
words, the mode in which we perceive an actual reality
is certainty. Further, it is also evident that, for the cer-
titude of truth, no further sign is necessary beyond the
possession of a true idea: for, as I have shown, it is not
necessary to know that we know that we know. Hence,
asrain. it is clear that no one can know the nature of the
highest certainty, unless he possesses an adequate idea,
or the subjective essence of a thing: for certainty is
identical with such subjective essence. Thus, as the
truth needs no sign — it being sufficient to possess the
subjective essence of things, or, in other words, the ideas
of them, in order that all doubts may be removed — it
follows that the true method does not consist in seeking
for the signs of truth after the acquisition of the idea,
but that the true method teaches us the order in which
we should seek for truth itself, or the subjective essences
of things, or ideas, for all these expressions are synony-
mous. Again, method must necessarily be concerned
with reasoning or understanding — I mean, method is not
identical with reasoning in the search for causes, still
less is it the comprehension of the causes, of things: it is
the discernment of a true idea, by distinguishing it from
other perceptions and by investigating its nature in order

12 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

that we may thus know our power of understanding, and
may so train our mind that it may, by a given standard,
comprehend whatsoever is intelligible, by laying down
certain rules as aids, and by avoiding useless mental
exertion.

Whence we may gather that method is nothing else than
reflective knowledge, or the idea of an idea; and that as
there can be no idea of an idea — unless an idea exists
previously, — there can be no method without a pre-existent
idea. Therefore, that will be a good method which shows
us how the mind should be directed, according to the
standard of the given true idea.

Again, seeing that the ratio existing between two ideas
is the same as the ratio between the actual realities cor-
responding to those ideas, it follows that the reflective
knowledge which has for its object the most perfect being
is more excellent than reflective knowledge concerning
other objects — in other words, that method will be most
perfect which affords the standard of the given idea of
the most perfect being whereby we may direct our mind.
We thus easily understand how, in proportion as it acquires
new ideas, the mind simultaneously acquires fresh instru-
ments for pursuing its inquiries further. For we may
gather from what has been said, that a true idea must
necessarily first of all exist in us as a natural instrument;
and that when this idea is apprehended by the mind, it
enables us to understand the difference existing between
itself and all other perceptions. In this, one part of the
method consists.

Now it is clear that the mind apprehends itself better in
proportion as it understands a greater number of natural
objects; it follows, therefore, that this portion of the
method will be more perfect in proportion as the mind
attains to the comprehension of a greater number of ob-
jects, and that it will be absolutely perfect when the mind
gains a knowledge of the absolutely perfect being or
becomes conscious thereof. Again, the more things the
mind knows, the better does it understand its own strength
and the order of nature ; by increased self-knowledge it can
direct itself more easily, and lay down rules for its own

SPINOZA 13

guidance; and, by increased knowledge of nature, it can
more easily avoid what is useless.

And this is the sum total of method, as we have already
stated. We may add that the idea in the world of thought
is in the same case as its correlate in the world of real-
ity. If, therefore, there be anything in nature which is
without connection with any other thing, and if we assign
to it a subjective essence, which would in every way cor-
respond to the objective reality, the subjective essence
would have no connection with any other ideas — in other
words, we could not draw any conclusion with regard to
it. On the other hand, those things which are connected
with others — as all things that exist in nature — will be
tmderstood by the mind, and their subjective essences
will maintain the same mutual relations as their objective
realities — that is to say, we shall infer from these ideas
other ideas, which will in turn be connected with others,
and thus our instruments for proceeding with our investi-
gation will increase. This is what we are endeavoring to
prove. Further, from what has just been said — namely,
that an idea must, in all respects, correspond to its cor-
relate in the world of reality — it is evident that, in order
to reproduce in every respect the faithful image of nature,
our mind must deduce all its ideas from the idea which
represents the origin and source of the whole of nature,
so that it may itself become the source of other ideas.

It may, perhaps, provoke astonishment that, after
having said that the good method is that which teaches
us to direct our mind according to the standard of the
given true idea, we should prove our point by reasoning,
which would seem to indicate that it is not self-evident.
We may, therefore, be questioned as to the validity of
our reasoning. If our reasoning be sound, we must take
as a starting point a true idea. Now, to be certain that
our starting point is really a true idea, we need a proof.
This first course of reasoning must be supported by a
second, the second by a third, and so on to infinity. To
this I make answer that, if by some happy chance any-
one had adopted this method in his investigations of
nature — that is, if he had acquired new ideas in the

14 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

proper order, according to the standard of the original
true idea, he would never have doubted of the truth of
his knowledge, inasmuch as truth, as we have shown,
makes itself manifest, and all things would flow, as it
were, spontaneously toward him. But as this never, or
rarely, happens, I have been forced so to arrange my
proceedings, that we may acquire by reflection and fore-
thought what we cannot acquire by chance, and that it
may at the same time appear that, for proving the truth,
and for valid reasoning, we need no other means than
the truth and valid reasoning themselves: for by valid
reasoning I have established valid reasoning, and, in like
measure, I seek still to establish it. Moreover, this is
the order of thinking adopted by men in their inward
meditations. The reasons for its rare employment in
investigations of nature are to be found in current mis-
conceptions, whereof we shall examine the causes here-
after in our philosoph3^ Moreover, it demands, as we
shall show, a keen and accurate discernment. Lastly, it
is hindered by the conditions of human life, which are,
as we have already pointed out, extremely changeable.
There are also other obstacles, which we will not here
inquire into.

If any one asks why I have not at the starting point
set forth all the truths of nature in their due order,
inasmuch as truth is self-evident, I reply by warning
him not to reject as false any paradoxes he may find
here, but to take the trouble to reflect on the chain
of reasoning by which they are supported; he will then
be no longer in doubt that we have attained to the truth.
This is why I have begun as above.

If there yet remains some sceptic, who doubts of our
primary truth, and of all deductions we make, taking
such truth as our standard, he must either be arguing
in bad faith, or we must confess that there are men
in complete mental blindness either innate or due to
misconceptions — that is, to some external influence.

Such persons are not conscious of themselves. If they
affirm or doubt anything, they know not that they affirm
or doubt ; they say that they know nothing, and they say

SPINOZA ,5

that they are ignorant of the very fact of their knowing-
nothing. Even this they do not affirm absolutely, they are
afraid of confessing that they exist, so long as they
know nothing; in fact, they ought to remain dumb, for
fear of haply supposing something which should smack
of truth. Lastly, with such persons, one should not
speak of sciences; for, in what relates to life and con-
duct, they are compelled by necessity to suppose that
they exist, and seek their own advantage, and often
affirm and deny, even with an oath. If they deny, grant,
or gainsay, they know not that they deny, grant, or gain-
say, so that they ought to be regarded as automata,
utterly devoid of intelligence.

Let us now return to our proposition. Up to the pres-
ent we have, first, defined the end to which we desire
to direct all our thoughts ; secondly, we have determined
the mode of perception best adapted to aid us in attain-
ing our perfection; thirdly, we have discovered the way
which our mind should take, in order to make a good
beginning — namely, that it should use every true idea
as a standard in pursuing its inquiries according to fixed
rules. Now, in order that it may thus proceed, our
method must furnish us, first, with a means of distin-
guishing a true idea from all other perceptions, and
enabling the mind to avoid the latter; secondly, with
rules for perceiving unknown things according to the
standard of the true idea; thirdly, with an order which
enables us to avoid useless labor. When we became ac-
quainted with this method, we saw that, fourthly, it
would be perfect when we had attained to the idea of
the absolutely perfect Being. This is an observation
which should be made at the outset, in order that we may
arrive at the knowledge of such a being more quickly.

Let us then make a beginning with the first part of
the method, which is, as we have said, to distinguish
and separate the true idea from other perceptions, and
to keep the mind from confusing with true ideas those
which are false, fictitious, and doubtful. I intend to
dwell on this point at length, partly to keep a distinction
so necessary before the reader's mind, and also because

i6 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

there are some who doubt of true ideas, through not having
attended to the distinction between a true perception and
all others. Such persons are like men who, while they
are awake, doubt not that they are awake, but after-
ward in a dream, as often happens, thinking that they
are surely awake, and then finding that they were in
error, become doubtful even of being awake. This state
of mind arises through neglect of the distinction between
sleeping and waking.

Meanwhile, I give warning that I shall not here give the
essence of every perception, and explain it through its
proximate cause. Such work lies in the province of
philosophy. I shall confine myself to what concerns
method — that is, to the character of fictitious, false, and
doubtful perception, and the means of freeing ourselves
therefrom. Let us then first inquire into the nature of a
fictitious idea.

Every perception has for its object either a thing con-
sidered as existing, or solely the essence of a thing.
Now *^ fiction ^^ is chiefly occupied with things considered
as existing. I will, therefore, consider these first — I
mean cases where only the existence of an object is
feigned, and the thing thus feigned is understood, or
assumed to be understood. For instance, I feign that
Peter, whom I know to have gone home, is gone to see
me, or something of that kind. With what is such an
idea concerned ? It is concerned with things possible,
and not with things necessary or impossible. I call a
thing IMPOSSIBLE, when its existence would imply a con-
tradiction ; NECESSARY, whcn its non-existence would imply
a contradiction; possible, when neither its existence nor
its non-existence imply a contradiction, but when the
necessity or impossibility of its nature depends on causes
unknown to us, while we feign that it exists. If the
necessity or impossibility of its existence depending on
external causes were known to us, we could not form
any fictitious hypothesis about it; whence it follows that
i^ there be a God or omniscient Being, such an one
cannot form fictitious hypotheses. For, as regards our-
selves, when I know that I exist, I cannot hypothesize

SPINOZA 17

that I exist or do not exist, any more than I can hy-
pothesize an elephant that can go through the eye of a
needle; nor when I know the nature of God, can I hy-
pothesize that he exists or does not exist. The same
thing must be said of the Chimaera, whereof the nature
implies a contradiction. From these cpnsiderations, it is
plain, as I have already stated, that fiction cannot be con-
cerned with eternal truths.

But before proceeding further, I must remark, in pass-
ing, that the difference between the essence of one thing
and the essence of another thing is the same as that
which exists between the reality or existence of one thing
and the reality or existence of another; therefore, if we
wished to conceive the existence, for example, of Adam,
simply by means of existence in general, it would be the
same as if, in order to conceive his existence, we went
back to the nature of being, so as to define Adam as a
being. Thus, the more existence is conceived generally,
the more is it conceived confusedly, and the more easily
can it be ascribed to a given object. Contrariwise, the
more it is conceived particularly, the more is it under-
stood clearly, and the less liable is it to be ascribed,
through negligence of Nature's order, to anything save
its proper object. This is worthy of remark.

We now proceed to consider those cases which are
commonly called fictions, though we clearly understand
that the thing is not as we imagine it. For instance,
I know that the earth is round, but nothing prevents my
telling people that it is a hemisphere, and that it is like
a half apple carved in relief on a dish; or, that the sun
moves round the earth, and so on. However, examina-
tion will show us that there is nothing here inconsistent
with what has been said, provided we first admit that
we may have made mistakes, and be now conscious of
them; and, further, that we can hypothesize, or at least
suppose, that others are under the same mistake as our-
selves, or can, like us, fall under it. We can, I repeat,
thus hypothesize so long as we see no impossibility.
Thus, when I tell anyone that the earth is not round, etc. ,
I merely recall the error which I perhaps made myself,

i8 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

or which I might have fallen into, and afterward I
hypothesize that the person to whom I tell it is still, or
may still fall under the same mistake. This I say, I can
feign so long as I do not perceive any impossibility or
necessity; if I truly understood either one or the other
I should not be able to feign, and I should be reduced
to saying that I had made the attempt.

It remains for us to consider hypotheses made in prob-
lems, which sometimes involve impossibilities. For in-
stance, when we say — let us assume that this burning candle
is not burning, or, let us assume that it burns in some im-
aginary space, or where there are no physical objects.
Such assumptions are freely made, though the last is
clearly seen to be impossible. But, though this be so,
there is no fiction in the case. For, in the first case, I
have merely recalled to memory another candle not burn-
ing, or conceived the candle before me as without a flame,
and then I understand as applying to the latter, leaving
its flame out of the question, all that I think of the former.
In the second case, I have merely to abstract my thoughts
from the objects surrounding the candle, for the mind to
devote itself to the contemplation of the candle singly
looked at in itself only; I can then draw the conclusion
that the candle contains in itself no cause for its own
destruction, so that if there were no physical objects the
candle, and even the flame, would remain unchangeable,
and so on. Thus there is here no fiction, but true and
bare assertions.

Let us now pass on to the fictions concerned with es-
sences only, or with some reality or existence simultane-
ously. Of these we must specially observe that in
proportion as the mind's understanding is smaller, and its
experience multiplex, so will its power of coining fictions
be larger, whereas, as its understanding increases, its
capacity for entertaining fictitious ideas becomes less.
For instance, in the same way as we are unable, while
we are thinking, to feign that we are thinking or not
thinking, so, also, when we know the nature of body we
cannot imagine an infinite fly; or, when we know the na-
ture of the soul, we cannot imagine it as square, though

SPINOZA 19

anything may be expressed verbally. But, as we said
above, the less men know of nature the more easily can
they coin fictitious ideas, such as trees speaking, men in-
stantly changed into stones, or into fountains, ghosts ap-
pearing in mirrors, something issuing from nothing, even
gods changed into beasts and men, and infinite other ab-
surdities of the same kind.

Some persons think, perhaps, that fiction is limited by
fiction, and not by understanding; in other words, after
I have formed some fictitious idea, and have affirmed of
my own free will that it exists under a certain form in
nature, I am thereby precluded from thinking of it under
any other form. For instance, when I have feigned (to
repeat their argument) that the nature of body is of a
certain kind, and have of my own free will desired to
convince myself that it actually exists under this form, I
am no longer able to hypothesize that a fly, .for example,
is infinite; so, when I have hypothesized the essence of
the soul, I am not able to think of it as square, etc. But
these arguments demand further inquiry. First, their
upholders must either grant or deny that we can under-
stand anything. If they grant it, then necessarily the
same must be said of understanding as is said of fiction.
If they deny it, let us, who know that we do know some-
thing, see what they mean. They assert that the soul can
be conscious of, and perceive in a variety of ways, not
itself nor things which exist, but only things which are
neither in itself nor anywhere else, in other words, that
the soul can, by its unaided power, create sensations or
ideas unconnected with things. In fact, they regard the
soul as a sort of god. Further, they assert that we or our
soul have such freedom that we can constrain ourselves, or
our soul, or even our soul's freedom. For, after it has
formed a fictitious idea, and has given its assent thereto, it
cannot think or feign it in any other manner, but is con-
strained by the first fictitious idea to keep all its other
thoughts in harmony therewith. Our opponents are thus
driven to admit, in support of their fiction, the absurdities
which I have just enumerated ; and which are not worthy
of rational refutation.

20 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

While leaving such persons in their error, we will take
care to derive from our argument with them a truth
serviceable for our purpose, namely, that the mind, in
paying attention to a thing hypothetical or false, so as
to meditate upon it and understand it, and derive the
proper conclusions in due order therefrom, will readily
discover its falsity; and if the thing hypothetical be in
its nature true, and the mind pays attention to it, so as
to understand it, and deduce the truths which are deriv-
able from it, the mind will proceed with an uninter-
rupted series of apt conclusions ; in the same way as it would
at once discover (as we showed just now) the absurdity
of a false hypothesis, and of the conclusions drawn
from it.

We need, therefore, be in no fear of forming hypoth-
eses, so long as we have a clear and distinct perception
of what is involved. For, if we were to assert, haply,
that men are suddenly turned into beasts, the statement
would be extremely general, so general that there would
be no conception, that is, no idea or connection of sub-
ject and predicate, in our mind. If there were such a
conception we should at the same time be aware of the
means and the causes whereby the event took place.
Moreover, we pay no attention to the nature of the sub-
ject and the predicate. Now, if the first idea be not fic-
titious, and if all the other ideas be deduced therefrom,
our hurry to form fictitious ideas will gradually subside.
Further, as a fictitious idea cannot be clear and distinct,
but is necessarily confused, and as all confusion arises
from the fact that the mind has only partial knowledge
of a thing either simple or complex, and does not dis-
tinguish between the known and the unknown, and, again,
that it directs its attention promiscuously to all parts of
an object at once without making distinctions, it follows,
FIRST, that if the idea be of something very simple, it
must necessarily be clear and distinct. For a very simple
object cannot be known in part, it must either be known
altogether or not at all. Secondly, it follows that if a
complex object be divided by thought into a number of
simple component parts, and if each part be regarded

SPINOZA 21

separately, all confusion will disappear. Thirdly, it fol-
lows that fiction cannot be simple, but is made up of the
blending of several confused ideas of diverse objects or
actions existent in nature, or rather is composed of at-
tention* directed to all such ideas at once, and unac-
companied by any mental assent.

Now a fiction that was simple would be clear and dis-
tinct, and therefore true, also a fiction composed only of
distinct ideas would be clear and distinct, and therefore
true. For instance, when we know the nature of the
circle and the square, it is impossible for us to blend
together these two figures, and to hypothesize a square
circle, any more than a square soul, or things of that
kind. Let us shortly come to our conclusion, and again
repeat that we need have no fear of confusing with true
ideas that which is only a fiction. As for the first sort
of fiction of which we have already spoken, when a
thing is clearly conceived, we saw that if the existence
of that thing is in itself an eternal truth, fiction can
have no part in it; but if the existence of the thing
conceived be not an eternal truth, we have only to be
careful that such existence be compared to the thing's
essence, and to consider the order of nature. As for the
second sort of fiction, which we stated to be the result
of simultaneously directing the attention, without the
assent of the intellect, to different confused ideas repre-
senting different things and actions existing in nature,
we have seen that an absolutely simple thing connot be
feigned, but must be understood, and that a complex
thing is in the same case if we regard separately the
simple parts whereof it is composed; we shall not even
be able to hypothesize any untrue action concerning
such objects, for we shall be obliged to consider at
the same time the causes and the manner of such action.

* Observe that fiction regarded in itself, differs only from dreams in
that in the latter we do not perceive the external causes which we per-
ceive through the senses while awake. It has hence been inferred that
representations occurring in sleep have no connection with objects
external to us. We shall presently see that error is the dreaming of a
waking man ; if it reaches a certain pitch it becomes delirium.

22 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

These matters being thus understood, let us pass on
to consider the false idea, observing the objects with
which it is concerned, and the means of guarding our-
selves from falling into false perceptions. Neither of
these tasks will present much difficulty, after our inquiry
concerning fictitious ideas. The false idea only differs
from the fictitious idea in the fact of implying a mental
assent — that is as we have already remarked, while the
representations are occurring, there are no causes present
to us, wherefrom, as in fiction, we can conclude that such
representations do not arise from external objects, in fact
it is much the same as dreaming with our eyes open, or
while awake. Thus a false idea is concerned with (or to
speak more correctly), attributable to the existence of a
thing whereof the essence is known, or the essence itself,
in the same way as a fictitious idea. If attributable to
the existence of the thing, it is corrected in the same
way as a fictitious idea under similar circumstances. If
attributable to the essence, it is likewise corrected in the
same way as a fictitious idea. For if the nature of the
thing known implies necessary existence, we cannot possi-
bly be in error with regard to its existence; but if the
nature of the thing be not an eternal truth, like its essence,
but contrariwise, the necessity or impossibility of its
existence depends on external causes, then we must follow
the same course as we adopted in the case of fiction, for
it is corrected in the same manner. As for false ideas
concerned with essences, or even with actions, such per-
ceptions are necessarily always confused, being com-
pounded of different confused perceptions of things
existing in nature, as, for instance, when men are per-
suaded that deities are present in woods, in statues, in
brute beasts, and the like ; that there are bodies which, by
their composition alone, give rise to intellect; that corpses
reason, walk about and speak ; that God is deceived, and
so on. But ideas which are clear and distinct can never
be false: for ideas of things clearly and distinctly con-
ceived are either very simple themselves, or are com-
pounded from very simple ideas — that is, are deduced
therefrom. The impossibility of a very simple idea being

SPINOZA

23

false is evident to every one who understands the nature
of truth or understanding and of falsehood.

As regards that which constitutes the reality of truth,
it is certain that a true idea is distinguished from a false
one, not so much by its extrinsic object as by its intrinsic
nature. If an architect conceives a building properly
constructed, though such a building may never have ex-
isted, and may never exist, nevertheless the idea is true;
and the idea remains the same, whether it be put into
execution or not. On the other hand, if any one asserts,
for instance, that Peter exists, without knowing whether
Peter really exists or not, the assertion, as far as its as-
serter is concerned, is false, or not true, even though Peter
actually does exist. The assertion that Peter exists is
true only with regard to him who knows for certain that
Peter does exist. Whence it follows that there is in ideas
something real, whereby the true are distinguished from
the false. This reality must be inquired into, if we are
to find the best standard of truth (we have said that we
ought to determine our thoughts by the given standard
of a true idea, and that method is reflective knowledge),
and to know the properties of our understanding. Neither
must we say that the difference between true and false
arises from the fact that true knowledge consists in know-
ing things through their primary causes, wherein it is
totally different from false knowledge, as I have just ex-
plained it: for thought is said to be true, if it involves
subjectively the essence of any principle which has no
cause, and is known through itself and in itself. Where-
fore the reality {forma) of true thought must exist in
the thought itself, without reference to other thoughts;
it does not acknowledge the object as its cause, but must
depend on the actual power and nature of the under-
standing. For, if we suppose that the understanding has
perceived some new entity which has never existed, as
some conceive the understanding of God before He cre-
ated things (a perception which certainly could not arise
from any object), and has legitim.ately deduced other
thoughts from the said perception, all such thoughts
would be true, without being determined by any

24 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

external object; they would depend solely on the power
and nature of the understanding. Thus, that which con-
stitutes the reality of a true thought must be sought
in the thought itself and deduced from the nature of
the understanding. In order to pursue our investiga-
tion, let us confront ourselves with some true idea, whose
object we know for certain to be dependent on our
power of thinking, and to have nothing corresponding to
it in nature. With an idea of this kind before us, we
shall, as appears from what has just been said, be more
easily able to carry on the research we have in view.
For instance, in order to form the conception of a sphere,
I invent a cause at my pleasure — namely, a semicircle
revolving round its centre, and thus producing a sphere.
This is indisputably a true idea; and, although we know
that no sphere in nature has ever actually been so formed,
the perception remains true, and is the easiest manner
of conceiving a sphere. We must observe that this per-
ception asserts the rotation of a semicircle — which asser-
tion would be false, if it were not associated with the
conception of a sphere, or of a cause determining a mo-
tion of the kind, or absolutely, if the assertion were iso-
lated. The mind would then only tend to the affirma-
tion of the sole motion of a semicircle which is not con-
tained in the conception of a semicircle, and does not arise
from the conception of any cause capable of producing
such motion.

Thus FALSITY consists only in this, that something is
affirmed of a thing, which is not contained in the con-
ception we have formed of that thing, as motion or rest
of a semicircle. Whence it follows that simple ideas can-
not be other than TRUE, — e.g.^ the simple idea of a semi-
circle, of motion, of rest, of quantity, etc.

Whatsoever affirmation such ideas contain is equal to
the concept formed, and does not extend further. Where-
fore we may form as many simple ideas as we please,
without any fear of error. It only remains for us to
inquire by what power our mind can form true ideas,
and how far such power extends. It is certain that such
power cannot extend itself infinitely. For when we affirm

SPINOZA 25

somewhat of a thing, which is not contained in the con-
cept we have formed of that thing, such an affirmation
shows a defect of our perception, or that we have formed
fragmentary or mutilated ideas. Thus we have seen that
the motion of a semicircle is false when it is isolated in
the mind, but true when it is associated with the concept
of a sphere, or of some cause determining such a motion.
But if it be the nature of a thinking being, as seems,
prima facie^ to be the case, to form true or adequate
thoughts, it is plain that inadequate ideas arise in us
only because we are parts of a thinking being, whose
thoughts — some in their entirety, others in fragments
only — constitute our mind.

But there is another point to be considered, which was
not worth raising in the case of fiction, but which gives
rise to complete deception — namely, that certain things
presented to the imagination also exist in the under-
standing— in other words, are conceived clearly and dis-
tinctly. Hence, so long as we do not separate that
which is distinct from that which is confused, certainty,
or the true idea, becomes mixed with indistinct ideas.
For instance, certain Stoics heard, perhaps, the term
**soul,** and also that the soul is immortal, yet imagined
it only confusedly; they imagined, also, and understood
that very subtle bodies penetrate all others, and are
penetrated by none. By combining these ideas, and
beinof at the same time certain of the truth of the axiom,
they forthwith became convinced that the mind consists
of very subtle bodies; that these very subtle bodies can-
not be divided, etc. But we are freed from mistakes of
this kind, so long as we endeavor to examine all our
perceptions by the standard of the given true idea. We
must take care, as has been said, to separate such per-
ceptions from all those which arise from hearsay or
unclassified experience.

Moreover, such mistakes arise from things being con-
ceived too much in the abstract; for it is sufficiently
self-evident that what I conceive as in its true object I
cannot apply to anything else. Lastly, they arise from a
want of understanding of the primary elements of nature

26 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

as a whole; whence we proeecd without due order, and
confound nature with abstract rules, which, although
they be true enough in their sphere, yet, when misapplied,
confound themselves, and pervert the order of nature.
However, if we proceed with as little abstraction as pos-
sible, and begin from primary elements — that is, from
the source and origin of nature, as far back as we can
reach, — we need not fear any deceptions of this kind. As
far as the knowledge of the origin of nature is concerned,
there is no danger of our confounding it with abstrac-
tions. For when a thing is conceived in the abstract, as
are all universal notions, the said universal notions are
always more extensive in the mind than the number of
individuals forming their contents really existing in
nature.

Again, there are many things in nature, the difference
between which is so slight as to be hardly perceptible to
the understanding; so that it may readily happen that such
things are confounded together, if they be conceived ab-
stractedly. But since the first principle of nature cannot
(as we shall see hereafter) be conceived abstractedly or
universally, and cannot extend further in the understand-
ing than it does in reality, and has no likeness to mutable
things, no confusion need be feared in respect to the idea
of it, provided (as before shown) that we possess a standard
of truth. This is, in fact, a being single and infinite ; in
other words, it is the sum total of being, beyond which
there is no being found.

Thus far we have treated of the false idea. We have
now to investigate the doubtful idea — that is, to inquire
what can cause us to doubt, and how doubt may be re-
moved. I speak of real doubt existing in the mind, not
of such doubt as we see exemplified when a man says that
he doubts, though his mind does not really hesitate. The
cure of the latter does not fall within the province of
method, it belongs rather to inquiries concerning obstinacy
and its cure. Real doubt is never produced in the mind
by the thing doubted of. In other words, if there were
only one idea in the mind, whether that idea were true or
false, there would be no doubt of certainty present, only a

SPINOZA 27

certain sensation. For an idea is in itself nothing else
than a certain sensation; but doubt will arise through
another idea, not clear and distinct enough for us to be
able to draw any certain conclusion with regard to the
matter under consideration ; that is, the idea which causes
us to doubt is not clear and distinct. To take an example.
Supposing that a man has never reflected, taught by ex-
perience, or by any other means, that our senses sometimes
deceive us, he will never doubt whether the sun be greater
or less than it appears. Thus rustics are generally aston-
ished when they hear that the sun is much larger than
the earth. But from reflection on the deceitfulness of the
senses * doubt arises, and if, after doubting, we acquire
a true knowledge of the senses, and how things at a dis-
tance are represented through their instrumentality, doubt
is again removed. Hence we cannot cast doubt on true
ideas by the supposition that there is a deceitful Deity,
who leads us astray even in what is most certain. We can
only hold such an hypothesis so long as we have no clear
and distinct idea — in other w^ords, until we reflect on the
knowledge which we have of the first principle of all
things, and find that which teaches us that God is not a
deceiver, and until we know this with the same certainty
as we know from reflecting on the nature of a triangle
that its three angles are equal to two right angles. But
if we have a knowledge of God equal to that which we
have of a triangle, all doubt is removed. In the same
way as we can arrive at the said knowledge of a triangle,
though not absolutely sure that there is not some arch-
deceiver leading us astray, so can we come to a like knowl-
edge of God under the like condition, and when we have
attained to it, it is sufficient, as I said before, to remove
every doubt which we can possess concerning clear and
distinct ideas. Thus, if a man proceeded with our inves-
tigations in due order, inquiring first into those things
which should first be inquired into, never passing over a
link in the chain of association, and with knowledge how
to define his questions before seeking to answer them, he

* That is, it is known that the senses sometimes deceive us. But it
is only known confusedly, for it is not known how they deceive us.

78 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

will never have any ideas save such as are very certain,
or, in other words, clear and distinct; for doubt is only
a suspension of the spirit concerning some affirmation or
negation which it would pronounce upon unhesitatingly if it
were not in ignorance of something, without which the
knowledge of the matter in hand must needs be imperfect.
We may, therefore, conclude that doubt always proceeds
from want of due order in investigation.

These are the points I promised to discuss in this first
part of my treatise on method. However, in order not
to omit anything which can conduce to the knowledge
of the understanding and its faculties, I will add a few
words on the subject of memory and forgetfulness.

The point most worthy of attention is, that memory
is strengthened both with and without the aid of the
imderstanding. For the more intelligible a thing is, the
more easily it is remembered, and the less intelligible
it is, the more easily do we forget it. For instance, a
number of unconnected words is much more difficult to
remember than the same number in the form of a nar-
ration. The memory is also strengthened without the
aid of the understanding by means of the power where-
with the imagination or the sense called common is af-
fected by some particular physical object. I say
PARTICULAR, for the imagination is only affected by par-
ticular objects. If we read, for instance, a single
romantic comedy, we shall remember it very well, so
long as we do not read many others of the same kind,
for it will reign alone in the memory. If, however, we
read several others of the same kind, we shall think of
them altogether, and easily confuse one with another.
I say, also physical. For the imagination is only
affected by physical objects. As, then, the memory is
strengthened both with and without the aid of the un-
derstanding, we may conclude that it is different from
the understanding, and that in the matter considered in
itself there is neither memory nor forgetfulness. What,
then, is memory ? It is nothing else than the actual
sensation of impressions on the brain, accompanied with
the thought of a definite duration of the sensation. This

SPINOZA 29

is also shown by reminiscence. For then we think of
the sensation, but without the notion of continuous dura-
tion; thus the idea of that sensation is not the actual
duration of the sensation or actual memory. Whether
ideas are or are not subject to corruption will be seen
in my philosophy. If this seems too absurd to any one,
it will be sufficient for our purpose, if he reflect on the
fact that a thing is more easily remembered in propor-
tion to its singularity, as appears from the example of
the comedy just cited. Further, a thing is remembered
more easily in proportion to its intelligibility; therefore
we cannot help remembering that which is extremely
singular and sufficiently intelligible.

Thus, then, we have distinguished between a true idea
and other perceptions, and shown that ideas fictitious,
false, and the rest, originate in the imagination — that is,
in certain sensations fortuitous (so to speak) and dis-
connected, arising not from the power of the mind, but
from external causes, according as the body, sleeping or
waking, receives various motions.

But one may take any view one likes of the imagin-
ation so long as one acknowledges that it is different from
the understanding, and that the soul is passive with regard
to it. The view taken is immaterial, if we know that the
imagination is something indefinite, with regard to which
the soul is passive, and that we can by some means or
other free ourselves therefrom with the help of the under-
standing. Let no one then be astonished that before prov-
ing the existence of body, and other necessary things, I
speak of imagination of body, and of its composition.
The view taken is, I repeat, immaterial, so long as we
know that imagination is something indefinite, etc. As
regards a true idea, we have shown that it is simple or
compounded of simple ideas ; that it shows how and why
something is or has been made; and that its subjective
effects in the soul correspond to the actual reality of its
object. This conclusion is identical with the saying of
the ancients, that true science proceeds from cause to
effect ; though the ancients, so far as I know, never formed
the conception put forward here that the soul acts accord-

30 IiMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

ing to fixed laws; and is, as it were, an immaterial auto-
maton. Hence, as far as is possible at the outset, we have
acquired a knowledge of our understanding, and such a
standard of a true idea that we need no longer fear con-
founding truth with falsehood and fiction. Neither shall
we wonder why we understand some things which in
nowise fall within the scope of the imagination, while
other things are in the imagination but wholly opposed
to the understanding, or others, again, which agree there-
with. We now know that the operations, whereby the
effects of imagination are produced, take place under other
laws quite different from the laws of the understanding.
and that the mind is entirely passive with regard to them.
Whence we may also see how easily men may fall into
grave errors through not distinguishing accurately between
the imagination and the understanding; such as believ-
ing that extension must be localized, that it must be
finite, that its parts are really distinct one from the other,
that it is the primary and single foundation of all things,
that it occupies more space at one time than at another,
and other similar doctrines, all entirely opposed to truth,
as we shall duly show.

Again, since words are a part of the imagination —
that is, since we form many conceptions in accordance
with confused arrangements of words in the memory, de-
pendent on particular bodily conditions — there is no
doubt that words may, equally with the imagination, be
the cause of many and great errors, unless we keep
strictly on our guard. Moreover, words are formed ac-
cording to popular fancy and intelligence, and are, there-
fore, signs of things as existing in the imagination, not
as existing in the understanding. This is evident from
the fact that to all such things as exist only in the un-
derstanding, not in the imagination, negative names are
often given, such as incorporeal, infinite, etc. So, also,
many conceptions really affirmative are expressed nega-
tively, and vice versd^ such as uncreate, independent, infi-
nite, immortal, etc., inasmuch as their contraries are much
more easily imagined, and, therefore, occurred first to
men, and usurped positive names. Many things we

SPINOZA 31

affirm and deny, because the nature of words allows us
to do so, though the nature of things does not. While
we remain unaware of this fact, we may easily mistake
falsehood for truth.

Let us also beware of another great cause of confusion,
which prevents the understanding from reflecting on
itself. Sometimes, while making no distinction between
the imagination and the intellect, we think that what we
more readily imagine is clearer to us ; and also we think
that what we imagine we understand. Thus, we put first
that which should be last; the true order of progression
is reversed, and no legitimate conclusion is drawn.

Now, in order at length to pass on to the second part
of this method, I shall first set forth the object aimed at,
and next the means for its attainment. The object aimed
at is the acquisition of clear and distinct ideas, such as
are produced by the pure intellect, and not by chance
physical motions. In order that all ideas may be reduced
to unity, we shall endeavor so to associate and arrange
them that our mind may, as far as possible, reflect sub-
jectively the reality of nature, both as a whole and as
parts.

As for the first point, it is necessary ( as we have said )
for our purpose that everything should be conceived,
either solely through its essence, or through its proxi-
mate CAUSE. If the thing be self-existent, or as is com-
monly said, the cause of itself, it must be understood
through its essence only; if it be not self-existent, but
requires a cause for its existence, it must be understood
through its proximate cause. For, in reality, the knowl-
edge of an effect is nothing else than the acquisition of
more perfect knowledge of its cause. Therefore, we may
never, while we are concerned with inquiries into actual
things, draw any conclusions from abstractions ; we shall
be extremely careful not to confound that which is only
in the understanding with that which is in the thing
itself. The best basis for drawing a conclusion will be
either some particular affirmative essence, or a true and
legitimate definition. For the understanding can not
descend from universal axioms by themselves to particu-

32 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

lar thing's, since axioms are of infinite extent, and do not
determine the understanding to contemplate one particu-
lar thing more than another. Thus the true method of
discovery is to form thoughts from some given definition.
This process will be the more fruitful and easy in pro-
portion as the thing given be better defined. Wherefore,
the cardinal point of all this second part of method con-
sists in the knowledge of the conditions of good defini-
tion, and the means of finding them. I will first treat of
the conditions of definition.

A definition, if it is to be called perfect, must explain
the inmost essence of a thing, and must take care not to
substitute for this any of its properties. In order to
illustrate my meaning, without taking an example which
would seem to show a desire to expose other people's
errors, I will choose the case of something abstract, the
definition of which is of little moment. Such is a circle.
If a circle be defined as a figure, such that all straight
lines drawn from the center to the circumference are
equal, every one can see that such a definition does not
in the least explain the essence of a circle, but solely one
of its properties. Though, as I have said, this is of no
importance in the case of figures and other abstractions,
it is of great importance in the case of physical beings
and realities : for the properties of things are not under-
stood so long as their essences are unknown. If the
latter be passed over, there is necessarily a perversion
of the succession of ideas which should reflect the succes-
sion of nature, and we go far astray from our object.

In order to be free from this fault, the following rules
should "be observed in definition:

I. If the thing in question be created, the definition
must (as we have said) comprehend the proximate cause.
For instance, a circle should, according to this rule, be de-
fined as follows: the figure described by any line whereof
one end is fixed and the other free. This definition clearly
comprehends the proximate cause.

II. A conception or definition of a thing should be such
that all the properties of that thing, in so far as it is con-
sidered by itself, and not in conjunction with other things,

SPINOZA 33

can be deduced from it, as may be seen in the definition
given of a circle : for from that it clearly follows that all
straight lines drawn from the center to the circumference
are equal. That this is a necessary characteristic of a
definition is so clear to any one, who reflects on the matter,
that there is no need to spend time in proving it, or in
showing that, owing to this second condition, every defini-
tion should be affirmative. I speak of intellectual affirma-
tion, giving little thought to verbal affirmations which,
owing to the poverty of the language, must sometimes,
perhaps, be expressed negatively, though the idea con-
tained is affirmative.

The rules for the definition of an uncreated thing are as
follows :

I. The exclusion of all idea of cause — that is, the thing
must not need explanation by anything outside itself.

II. When the definition of the thing has been given,
there must be no room for doubt as to whether the thing
exists or not.

III. It must contain, as far as the mind is concerned,
no substantives which could be put into an adjectival
form ; in other words, the object defined must not be ex-
plained through abstractions.

IV. Lastly, though this is not absolutely necessary, it
should be possible to deduce from the definition all the
properties of the thing defined.

All these rules become obvious to any one giving strict
attention to the matter.

I have also stated that the best basis for drawing a con-
clusion is a particular affirmative essence. The more
specialized the idea is, the more is it distinct, and there-
fore clear. Wherefore a knowledge of particular things
should be sought for as diligently as possible.

As regards the order of our perceptions, and the man-
ner in which they should be arranged and united, it is
necessary that as soon as is possible and rational, we
should inquire whether there be any being (and, if so,
what being) that is the cause of all things, so that its
essence, represented in thought, may be the cause of all
our ideas, and then our mind will to the utmost possible

34 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

extent reflect nature. For it will possess, subjectively,
nature's essence, order, and union. Thus we can see
that it is before all things necessary for us to deduce all
our ideas from physical things — that is, from real enti-
ties, proceeding, as far as may be, according to the series
of causes, from one real entity to another real entity,
never passing to universals and abstractions, either for
the purpose of deducing some real entity from them, or
deducing them from some real entity. Either of these
processes inteiTupts the true progress of the understand-
ing. But it must be observed that, by the series of
causes and real entities, I do not here mean the series
of particular and mutable things, but only the series of
fixed and eternal things. It would be impossible for
human infirmity to follow up the series of particular
mutable things, both on account of their multitude, sur-
passing all calculation, and on account of the infinitely
diverse circumstances surrounding one and the same thing,
any one of which may be the cause for its existence or
non-existence. Indeed, their existence has no connection
with their essence, or (as we have said already) is not
an eternal truth. Neither is there any need that we
should understand their series, for the essences of particu-
lar mutable things are not to be gathered from their
series or order of existence, which would furnish us with
nothing beyond their extrinsic denominations, their rela-
tions, or, at most, their circumstances, all of which are
very different from their inmost essence. This inmost
essence must be sought solely from fixed and eternal
things, and from the laws, inscribed (so to speak) in
those things as in their true codes, according to which
all particular things take place and are arranged; nay,
these mutable particular things depend so intimately and
essentially (so to phrase it) upon the fixed things, that
they cannot either be or be conceived without them.
Whence these fixed and eternal things, though they are
themselves particular, will nevertheless, owing to their
presence and power everywhere, be to us as universals,
or genera of definitions of particular mutable things, and
as the proximate causes of all things.

SPINOZA

35

But, though this be so, there seems to be no small diffi-
culty in arriving at the knowledge of these particular
things, for to conceive them all at once would far surpass
the powers of the human understanding. The arrange-
ment whereby one thing is understood before another, as
we have stated, should not be sought from their series of
existence, nor from eternal things. For the latter are all
by nature simultaneous. Other aids are therefore needed
besides those employed for understanding eternal things
and their laws; however, this is not the place to recount
such aids, nor is there any need to do so, until we have
acquired a sufficient knowledge of eternal things and their
infallible laws, and until the nature of our senses has
become plain to us.

Before betaking ourselves to seek knowledge of partic-
ular things, it will be seasonable to speak of such aids,
as all tend to teach us the mode of employing our senses,
and to make certain experiments under fixed rules and
arrangement which may suffice to determine the object
of our inquiry, so that we may therefrom infer what laws
of eternal things it has been produced under, and may
gain an insight into its inmost nature, as I will duly
show. Here, to return to my purpose, I will only en-
deavor to set forth what seems necessary for enabling us
to attain to knowledge of eternal things, and to define
them under the conditions laid down above.

With this end, we must bear in mind what has already
been stated, namely, that when the mind devotes itself to
any thought, so as to examine it and to deduce there-
from in due order all the legitimate conclusions possible,
any falsehood which may lurk in the thought will be
detected ; but if the thought be true, the mind will readily
proceed without interruption to deduce truths from it.
This, I say, is necessary for our purpose, for our
thoughts may be brought to a close by the absence of a
foundation. If, therefore, we wish to investigate the first
thing of all, it will be necessary to supply some foun-
dation which may direct our thoughts thither. Further,
since method is reflective knowledge, the foundation
which must direct our thoughts can be nothing else than

36 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING

the knowledge of that which constitutes the reality of
truth, and the knowledge of the understanding, its prop-
erties, and powers. When this has been acquired we
shall possess a foundation wherefrom we can deduce our
thoughts, and a path whereby the intellect, according to
its capacity, may attain the knowledge of eternal things,
allowance being made for the extent of the intellectual
powers.

If, as I stated in the first part, it belongs to the nature
of thought to form true ideas, we must here inquire what
is meant by the faculties and power of the understand-
ing. The chief part of our method is to understand as well
as possible the powers of the intellect, and its nature;
we are, therefore, compelled (by the considerations ad-
vanced in the second part of the method) necessarily to
draw these conclusions from the definition itself of
thought and understanding. But, so far, we have not
got any rules for finding definitions, and, as we cannot
set forth such rules without a previous knowledge of
nature, that is without a definition of the understanding
and its power, it follows either that the definition of the
understanding must be clear in itself, or that we can
understand nothing. Nevertheless this definition is not
absolutely clear in itself; however, since its properties,
like all things that we possess through the understanding,
cannot be known clearly and distinctly, unless its nature
be known previously, the definition of the understanding
makes itself manifest, if we pay attention to its proper-
ties, which we know clearly and distinctly. Let us, then
enumerate here the properties of the understanding, let
us examine them, and begin by discussing the instru-
ments for research which we find innate in us.

The properties of the understanding which I have chiefly
remarked, and which I clearly understand, are the fol-
lowing : —

I. It involves certainty — in other words, it knows that
a thing exists in reality as it is reflected subjectively.

II. That it perceives certain things, or forms some ideas
absolutely, some ideas from others. Thus it forms the
idea of quantity absolutely, without reference to any other

SPINOZA 37

thoughts; but ideas of motion it only forms after taking
into consideration the idea of quantity.

III. Those ideas which the understanding forms abso-
lutely express infinity ; determinate ideas are derived from
other ideas. Thus in the idea of quantity, perceived by
means of a cause, the quantity is determined, as when a
body is perceived to be formed by the motion of a plane,
a plane by the motion of a line, or, again, a line by the
motion of a point. All these are perceptions which do
not serve toward understanding quantity, but only to-
ward determining it. This is proved by the fact that
we conceive them as formed as it were by motion, yet
this motion is not perceived unless the quantity be per-
ceived also ; we can even prolong the motion so as to form
an infinite line, which we certainly could not do unless
we had an idea of infinite quantity.

IV. The understanding forms positive .ideas before
forming negative ideas.

V. It perceives things not so much under the condition
of duration as under a certain form of eternity, and in
an infinite number; or rather in perceiving things it does
not consider either their number or duration, whereas,
in imagining them, it perceives them in a determi-
nate number, duration, and quantity.

VI. The ideas which we form as clear and distinct, seem
so to follow from the sole necessity of our nature,
that they appear to depend absolutely on our sole power;
with confused ideas the contrary is the case. They are
often formed against our will.

VII. The mind can determine in many ways the ideas
of things, which the understanding forms from other
ideas : thus, for instance, in order to define the plane of an
ellipse, it supposes a point adhering to a cord to be moved
round two centres, or, again, it conceives an infinity of
points, always in the same fixed relation to a given straight
line, or a cone cut in an oblique plane, so that the angle of
inclination is greater than the angle of the vertex of the
cone, or in an infinity of other ways.

VIII. The more ideas express perfection of any object,
the more perfect are they themselves; for we do not

38 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDINCx

admire the architect who has planned a chapel so much as
the architect who has planned a splendid temple.

I do not stop to consider the rest of what is referred to
thought, such as love, joy, etc. They are nothing to our
present purpose, and cannot even be conceived unless the
understanding be perceived previously. When perception
is removed, all these go with it.

False and fictitious ideas have nothing positive about
them (as we have abundantly shown) which causes them
to be called false or fictitious ; they are only considered as
such through the defectiveness of knowledge. Therefore,
false and fictitious ideas as such can teach us nothing con-
cerning the essence of thought ; this must be sought from
the positive properties just enumerated; in other words,
we must lay down some common basis from which these
properties necessarily follow, so that when this is given,
the properties are necessarily given also, and when it is
removed, they too vanish with it.

• ••••••

\_The rest of the treatise is watiting.']

THE ETHICS.

PART I. CONCERNING GOD.
Definitions.

I. By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which
the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature
is only conceivable as existent.

II. A thing- is called finite after its kind, when it
can be limited by another thing of the same nature;
for instance, a body is called finite because we always
conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is lim-
ited by another thought, but a body is not limited by
thought, nor a thought by body.

III. By SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is
conceived through itself; in other words, that of which
a conception can be formed independently of any other
conception.

IV. By ATTRIBUTE, I mcau that which the intellect per-
ceives as constituting the essence of substance.

V. By MODE, I mean the modifications * of substance, or
that which exists in, and is conceived through, something
other than itself.

VI. By God, I mean a being- absolutely infinite — that
is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which
each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

Explanation. — I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after
its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, in-
finite attributes may be denied; but that which is abso-
lutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses
reality, and involves no negation.

VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by
the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action

* *f-Affectionesy>

■ . (39)

40 THE ETHICS

is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that
thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is deter-
mined by something external to itself to a fixed and
definite method of existence or action.

VIII. By ETERNITY, I mean existence itself, in so far
as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the
definition of that which is eternal.

Explajiation. — Existence of this kind is conceived as
an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, there-
fore, cannot be explained by means of continuance or
time, though continuance may be conceived without a
beginning or end.

Axioms.

I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in
something else.

II. That which cannot be conceived through anything
else must be conceived through itself.

III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily
follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be
granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.

IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves
the knowledge of a cause.

V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be
understood, the one by means of the other; the concep-
tion of one does not involve the conception of the other.

VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or
object.

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its
essence does not involve existence.

Propositions.

Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications.

Proof. — This is clear from Def. iii. and v.

Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are dif-
ferent, have nothing in common.

Proof. — Also evident from Def. iii. For each must exist
in itself, and be conceived through itself; in other words,
the conception of one does not imply the conception of
the other.

CONCERNING GOD 41

Prop. III. Things which have nothing in common can-
not be one the cause of the other.

Proof. — If they have nothing in common, it follows that
one cannot be apprehended by means of the other (Ax. v.),
and, therefore, one cannot be the cause of the other
(Ax. iv.). Q.E.D.

Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished
one from the other either by the difference of the attri-
butes of the substances, or by the difference of their
modifications.

Proof. — Everything which exists, exists either in itself
or in something else (Ax. i.), — that is (by Def. iii. and v.),
nothing is granted in addition to the understanding, except
substance and its modifications. Nothing is, therefore,
given besides the understanding, by which several things
may be distinguished one from the other, except the sub-
stances, or, in other words (see Ax. iv.), their attributes
and modifications. Q.E.D.

Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more
substances having the same nature or attribute.

Proof .-^\i several distinct substances be granted, they
must be distinguished one from the other, either by the
difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their
modifications (Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of
their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be
more than one with an identical attribute. If by the
difference of their modifications — as substance is naturally
prior to its modifications (Prop, i.), — it follows that set-
ting the modifications aside, and considering substance in
itself, that is truly (Def. iii. and vi.), there cannot be
conceived one substance different from another, — that is
(by Prop, iv.), there cannot be granted several substances,
but one substance only. Q.E.D.

Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another
substance.

Proof. — It is impossible that there should be in the
universe two substances with an identical attribute, i. e. ,
which have anything common to them both (Prop, ii.),
and, therefore (Prop, iii.), one cannot be the cause of
another, neither can one be produced by the other. Q. E. D.

/

42 THE ETHICS

Corollary. — Hence it follows that a substance cannot be
produced by anything- external to itself. For in the uni-
verse nothing is granted, save substances and their modi-
fications (as appears from Ax. i. and Def. iii. and v.).
Now (by the last Prop.) substance cannot be produced
by another substance, therefore it cannot be produced by
anything external itself. Q.E.D. This is shown still
more readily by the absurdity of the contradictory. For,
if substance be produced by an external cause, the
knowledge of it would depend on the knowledge of its
cause (Ax. iv.), and (by Def. iii.) it would itself not be
substance.

Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of sub-
stance.

Proof. — Substance cannot be produced by anything ex-
ternal (Corollary, Prop, vi.), it must, therefore, be its own
cause — that is, its essence necessarily involves existence,
or existence belongs to its nature.

Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proof. — There can be only one substance with an identi-
cal attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop,
vii.); its nature, therefore, involves existence, either as
finite or infinite. It does not exist as finite, for (by
Def. ii.) it would then be limited by something else of
the same kind, which would also necessarily exist (Prop,
vii.); and there would be two substances with an identi-
cal attribute, which is absurd (Prop. v.). It therefore
exists as infinite, Q.E.D.

Note I. — As finite existence involves a partial negation,
and infinite existence is the absolute affirmation of the
given nature, it follows (solely from Prop, vii.) that every
substance is necessarily infinite.

Note II. — No doubt it will be difficult for those who
think about things loosely, and have not been accus-
tomed to know them by their primary causes, to com-
prehend the demonstrations of Prop, vii.: for such
persons make no distinction between the modifications of
substances and the substances themselves, and are ignor-
ant of the manner in which things are produced; hence
they attribute to substances the beginning which they

CONCERNING GOD 43

observe in natural objects. Those who are ignorant of
true causes, make complete confusion — think that trees
might talk just as well as men — that men might be
formed from stones as well as from seed; and imagine
that any form might be changed into any other. So,
also, those who confuse the two natures, divine and
human, readily attribute human passions to the deity,
especially so long as they do not know how passions
originate in the mind. But, if people would consider
the nature of substance, they would have no doubt
about the truth of Prop. vii. In fact, this proposition
would be a universal axiom, and accounted a truism.
For, by substance, would be understood that which is in
itself, and is conceived through itself — that is, some-
thing of which the conception requires not the concep-
tion of anything else; whereas modifications exist in
something external to themselves, and a conception of
them is formed by means of a conception of the thing
in which they exist. Therefore, we may have true ideas
of non-existent modifications; for, although they may
have no actual existence apart from the conceiving
intellect, yet their essence is so involved in something
external to themselves that they may through it be
conceived. Whereas the only truth substances can have,
external to the intellect, must consist in their existence,
because they are conceived through themselves. There-
fore, for a person to say that he has a clear and dis-
tinct— that is, a true — idea of a substance, but that he
is not sure whether such substance exists, would be the
same as if he said that he had a true idea, but was not
sure whether or no it was false (a little consideration
will make this plain) ; or if any one affirmed that substance
is created, it would be the same as saying that a false
idea was true — in short, the height of absurdity. It
must, then, necessarily be admitted that the existence
of substance as its essence is an eternal truth. And we
can hence conclude by another process of reasoning —
that there is but one such substance. I think that this
may profitably be done at once ; and, in order to proceed
regularly with the demonstration, we must premise;

/

/

44 THE ETHICS

1. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor
expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined.
From this it follows that —

2. No definition implies or expresses a certain number
of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond
the nature of the thing defined. For instance, the defi-
nition of a triangle expresses nothing beyond the actual
nature of a triangle : it does not imply any fixed number
of triangles.

3. There is necessarily for each individual existent
thing a cause why it should exist.

4. This cause of existence must either be contained in
the nature and definition of the thing defined, or must
be postulated apart from such definition.

It therefore follows that, if a given number of indi-
vidual things exist in nature, there must be some cause
for the existence of exactly that number, neither more
nor less. For example, if twenty men exist in the uni-
verse (for simplicity's sake, I will suppose them existing
simultaneously, and to have had no predecessors), and
we want to account for the existence of these twenty
men, it will not be enough to show the cause of human
existence in general; we must also show why there are
exactly twenty men, neither more nor less: for a cause
must be assigned for the existence of each individual.
Now this cause cannot be contained in the actual nature
of man, for the true definition of man does not involve
any consideration of the number twenty. Consequently,
the cause for the existence of these twenty men, and,
consequently, of each of them, must necessarily be sought
externally to each individual. Hence we may lay down
the absolute rule, that everything which may consist of
several individuals must have an external cause. And,
as it has been shown already that existence appertains
to the nature of substance, existence must necessarily be
included in its definition; and from its definition alone
existence must be deducible. But from its definition (as
we have shown, Notes ii., iii.), we cannot infer the ex-
istence of several substances; therefore it follows that
there is only one substance of the same nature. Q. E.D.

CONCERNING GOD 45

Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has the
greater the number of its attributes ( Def. iv.).

Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance
must be conceived through itself.

Proof. — An attribute is that which the intellect perceives
of substance, as constituting its essence (Def. iv.), and,
therefore, must be conceived through itself (Def. iii.).
Q.E.D.

Note. — It is thus evident that, though two attributes are,
in fact, conceived as distinct — that is, one without the help
of the other — yet we cannot, therefore, conclude that they
constitute two entities, or two different substances. For
it is the nature of substance that each of its attributes is
conceived through itself, inasmuch as all the attributes it
has have always existed simultaneously in it, and none
could be produced by any other; but each expresses the
reality or being of substance. It is, then, far from an
absurdity to ascribe several attributes to one substance:
for nothing in nature is more clear than that each and
every entity must be conceived under some attribute, and
that its reality or being is in proportion to the number
of its attributes expressing necessity or eternity and infin-
ity. Consequently it is abundantly clear, that an absolutely
infinite being must necessarily be defined as consisting in
infinite attributes each of which expresses a certain eternal
and infinite essence.

If any one now ask, by what sign shall he be able to
distinguish different substances, let him read the follow-
ing propositions, which show that there is but one sub-
stance in the universe, and that it is absolutely infinite,
wherefore such a sign would be sought for in vain.

Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attri-
butes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essen-
tiality, necessarily exists.

Proof. — If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God
does not exist: then his essence does not involve exist-
ence. But this (by Prop, vii.) is absurd. Therefore God
necessarily exists.

Another proof. — Of everything whatsoever a cause or
reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its

THE ETHICS

non-existence — c. g.^ if a triangle exist, a reason or cause
must be granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it
does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which pre-
vents it from existing, or annuls its existence. This
reason or cause must either be contained in the nature
of the thing in question, or be external to it. For in-
stance, the reason for the non-existence of a square
circle is indicated in its nature, namely, because it would
involve a contradiction. On the other hand, the existence
of substance follows also solely from its nature, inasmuch
as its nature involves existence. (See Prop. vii. )

But the reason for the existence of a triangle or a circle
does not follow from the nature of those figures, but from
the order of universal nature in extension. From the
latter it must follow, either that a triangle necessarily
exists, or that it is impossible that it should exist. So
much is self-evident. It follows therefrom that a thing
necessarily exists, if no cause or reason be granted which
prevents its existence.

If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which pre-
vents the existence of God, or which destroys his exist-
ence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does
exist. If such a reason or cause should be given, it must
either be drawn from the very nature of God, or be
external to him — that is, drawn from another substance
of another nature. For if it were of the same nature,
God, by that very fact, would be admitted to exist. But
substance of another nature could have nothing in com-
mon with God (by Prop, ii.), and therefore would be
unable either to cause or to destroy his existence.

As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the
divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external
to the divine nature, such cause must, perforce, if God
does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which
would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirma-
tion about a being absolutely infinite and supremely per-
fect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God,
nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be
assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore,
God necessarily exists. Q.E. D.

CONCERNING GOD 47

Another proof. — The potentiality of non-existence is
a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of
existence is a power, as is obvious. If, then, that which
necessarily exists is nothing- but finite beings, such finite
beings are more powerful than a being absolutely infinite,
which is obviously absurd ; therefore, either nothing exists,
or else a being absolutely infinite necessarily exists also.
Now we exist either in ourselves, or in something else
which necessarily exists (see Ax. i. and Prop, vii.)
Therefore a being absolutely infinite — in other words,
God (Def. vi.) — necessarily exists. Q.E.D.

Note. — In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's
existence b, posteriori., so that the proof might be more
easily followed, not because, from the same premises,
God's existence does not follow ci priori. For, as the
potentiality of existence is a power, it follows that, in
proportion as reality increases in the nature of a thing,
so also will it increase its strength for existence. There-
fore a being absolutely infinite, such as God, has from
himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and hence
he does absolutely exist. Perhaps there will be many
who will be unable to see the force of this proof, inas-
much as they are accustomed only to consider those
things which flow from external causes. Of such things,
they see that those which quickly come to pass — that is,
quickly come into existence — quickly also disappear;
whereas they regard as more difficult of accomplishment
— that is, not so easily brought into existence — those
things which they conceive as more complicated.

However, to do away with this misconception, I need
not here show the measure of truth in the proverb,
**What comes quickly, goes quickly, '* nor discuss whether,
from the point of view of universal nature, all things
are equally easy, or otherwise: I need only remark, that
I am not here speaking of things, which come to pass
through causes external to themselves, but only of
substances which (by Prop, vi.) cannot be produced by
any external cause. Things which are produced by
external causes, whether they consist of many parts or
few, owe whatsoever perfection or reality they possess

48 THE ETHICS

solely to the efficacy of their external cause, and there-
fore their existence arises solely from the perfection of
their external cause, not from their own. Contrariwise,
whatsoever perfection is possessed by substance is due
to no external cause ; wherefore the existence of substance
must arise solely from its own nature, which is nothing-
else but its essence. Thus, the perfection of a thing
does not annul its existence, but, on the contrary,
asserts it. Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul
it; therefore we cannot be more certain of the existence
of anything-, than of the existence of a being absolutely
infinite or perfect — that is, of God. For inasmuch as
his essence excludes all imperfection, and involves
absolute perfection, all cause for doubt concerning his
existence is done away, and the utmost certainty on the
question is given. This, I think, will be evident to
every moderately attentive reader.

Prop, XII, No attribute of substance can be conceived
from which it would follow that substance can be di-
vided.

Proof. — The parts into which substance as thus con-
ceived would be divided, either will retain the nature of
substance, or they will not. If the former, then (by
Prop, viii.) each part will necessarily be infinite, and (by
Prop, vi.) self -caused, and (by Prop, v,) will perforce
consist of a different attribute, so that, in that case, sev-
eral substances could be formed out of one substance,
which (by Prop, vi,) is absurd. Moreover, the parts (by
Prop, ii.) would have nothing in common with their
whole, and the whole (by Def. iv. and Prop, x.) could
both exist and be conceived without its parts, which
everyone will admit to be absurd. If we adopt the sec-
ond alternative — namely, that the parts will not retain
the nature of substance — then, if the whole substance
were divided into equal parts, it would lose the nature of
substance, and would cease to exist, which (by Prop, vii.)
is absurd.

Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proof. — If it could be divided, the parts into which it
was divided would either retain the nature of absolutely

CONCERNING GOD 49

infinite substance, or they would not. If the former, we
should have several substances of the same nature, which
(by Prop. V.) is absurd. If the latter, then (by Prop,
vii.) substance absolutely infinite could cease to exist,
which (by Prop, xi.) is also absurd.

Corollary. — It follows that no substance, and conse-
quently no extended substance, in so far as it is sub-
stance, is divisible.

Note. — The indivisibility of substance may be more
easily understood as follows. The nature of substance
can only be conceived as infinite, and by a part of sub-
stance, nothing- else can be understood than finite
substance, which (by Prop, viii.) involves a manifest contra-
diction.

Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted
or conceived.

Proof. — As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom
no attribute that expresses the essence of substance can
be denied (by Def. vi.), and he necessarily exists (by
Prop, xi.); if any substance besides God were granted
it would have to be explained by some attribute of God,
and thus two substances with the same attribute would
exist, which (by Prop, v.) is absurd; therefore, besides
God no substance can be granted, or consequently, be
conceived. If it could be conceived, it would necessarily
have to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first
part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God no
substance can be granted or conceived. Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — Clearly, therefore: i. God is one, that is
(by Def. vi.) only one substance can be granted in the
universe, and that substance is absolutely infinite, as we
have already indicated (in the note to Prop. x.).

Corollary II. — It follows: 2. That extension and thought
are either attributes of God or (by Ax. i.) accidents {affec-
tiones) of the attributes of God.

Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God
nothing can be, or be conceived.

Proof. — Besides God, no substance is granted or can
be conceived (by Prop, xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing
which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But
4

50 THE ETHICS

modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived
without substance; wherefore they can only be in the
divine nature, and can only through it be conceived.
But substances and modes form the sum total of exist-
ence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be,
or be conceived. Q.E.D.

Note. — Some assert that God, like a man, consists of
body and mind, and is susceptible of passions. How far
such persons have strayed from the truth is sufficiently
evident from what has been said. But these I pass over.
For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine
nature deny that God has a body. Of this they find
excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body
a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded
by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to
predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite.
But meanwhile by the other reasons with which they try
to prove their point, they show that they think corporeal
or extended substance wholly apart from the divine
nature, and say it was created by God. Wherefrom the
divine nature can have been created, they are wholly
ignorant; thus they clearly show, that they do not know
the meaning of their own words. I myself have proved
sufficiently clearly, at any rate in my own judgment
(Coroll. Prop, vi., and Note 2, Prop, viii.), that no sub-
stance can be produced or created by anything other
than itself. Further, I showed (in Prop, xiv.), that be-
sides God no substance can be granted or conceived.
Hence we drew the conclusion that extended substance
is one of the infinite attributes of God. However, in
order to explain more fully, I will refute the arguments
of my adversaries, which all start from the following
points: —

Extended substance, in so far as it is substance, con-
sists, as they think, in parts, wherefore they deny that it
can be infinite, or, consequently, that it can appertain to
God. This they illustrate with many examples, of which
I will take one or two. If extended substance, they say,
is infinite, let it be conceived to be divided into two
parts: each part will then be either finite or infinite. If

CONCERNING GOD 51

the former, then infinite substance is composed of two
finite parts, which is absurd. If the latter, then one
infinite will be twice as large as another infinite, which
is also absurd.

Further, if an infinite line be measured out in foot
lengths, it will consist of an infinite number of such
parts; it would equally consist of an infinite number of
parts, if each part measured only an inch: therefore, one
infinity would be twelve times as great as the other.

Lastly, if from a single point there be conceived to be
drawn two diverging lines which at first are at a definite
distance apart, but are produced to infinity, it is certain
that the distance between the two lines will be continu-
ally increased, until at longth it changes from definite to
indefinable. As these absurdities follow, it is said, from
considering quantity as infinite, the conclusion is drawn,
that extended substance must necessarily be finite, and,
consequently, cannot appertain to the nature of God.

The second argument is also drawn from God's supreme
perfection. God, it is said, inasmuch as he is a supremely
perfect being, cannot be passive; but extended substance,
in so far as it is divisible, is passive. It follows, there-
fore, that extended substance does not appertain to the
essence of God.

Such are the arguments I find on the subject in writers,
who by them try to prove that extended substance is
unworthy of the divine nature, and cannot possibly ap-
pertain thereto. However, I think an attentive reader
will see that I have already answered their propositions;
for all their arguments are founded on . the hypothesis
that extended substance is composed of parts, and such
a hypothesis I have shown (Prop, xii., and Coroll. Prop,
xiii.) to be absurd. Moreover, any one who reflects will
see that all these absurdities (if absurdities they be,
which I am not now discussing), from which it is sought
to extract the conclusion that extended substance is finite,
do not at all follow from the notion of an infinite quantity,
but merely from the notion that an infinite quantity
is measureable, and composed of finite parts; therefore,
the only fair conclusion to be drawn is that infinite

52 THE ETHICS

quantity is not measureable, and cannot be composed of
finite parts. This is exactly what we have already
proved (in Prop. xii.). Wherefore the weapon which
they aimed at us has in reality recoiled upon themselves.
If, from this absurdity of theirs, they persist in drawing-
the conclusion that extended substance must be finite, they
will in good sooth be acting like a man who asserts that
circles have the properties of squares, and, finding him-
self thereby landed in absurdities, proceeds to deny that
circles have any centre, from which all lines drawn to
the circumference are equal. For, taking extended sub-
stance, which can only be conceived as infinite, one, and
indivisible (Props, viii., v., xii.) they assert, in order to
prove that it is finite, that it is composed of finite parts,
and that it can be multiplied and divided.

So, also, others, after asserting that a line is composed
of points, can produce many arguments to prove that a
line cannot be infinitely divided. Assuredly it is not less
absurd to assert that extended substance is made up of
bodies or parts, than it would be to assert that a solid
is made up of surfaces, a surface of lines, and a line of
points. This must be admitted by all who know clear
reason to be infallible, and most of all by those who deny
the possibility of a vacuum. For if extended substance
could be so divided that its parts were really separate,
why should not one part admit of being destroyed, the
others remaining joined together as before ? And why
should all be so fitted into one another as to leave no
vacuum ? Surely in the case of things, which are really
distinct one from the other, one can exist without the
other, and can remain in its original condition. As
then, there does not exist a vacuum in nature (of which
anon), but all parts are bound to come together to pre-
vent it, it follows from this also that the parts cannot
be really distinguished, and that extended substance in
so far as it is substance cannot be divided.

If any one asks me the further question. Why are we
naturally so prone to divide quantity ? I answer, that
quantity is conceived by us in two ways; in the abstract
and superficially, as we imagine it; or as substance, as

CONCERNING GOD 53

we conceive it solely by the intellect. If, then, we
regard quantity as it is represented in our imagination,
which we often and more easily do, we shall find that it
is finite, divisible, and compounded of parts; but if we
regard it as it is represented in our intellect, and con-
ceive it as substance, which it is very difficult to do, we
shall then, as I have sufficiently proved, find that it is
infinite, one, and indivisible. This will be plain enough
to all, who make a distinction between the intellect and
the imagination, especially if it be remembered, that
matter is everywhere the same, that its parts are not
distinguishable, except in so far as we conceive matter
as diversely modified, whence its parts are distinguished,
not really, but modally. For instance, water, in so far
as it is water, we conceive to be divided, and its parts
to be separated one from the other; but not in so far as
it is extended substance; from this point of view it is
neither separated nor divisible. Further, water, in so
far as it is water, is produced and corrupted; but, in
so far as it is substance, it is neither produced nor
corrupted.

I think I have now answered the second argument; it
is, in fact, founded on the same assumption as the first —
namely, that matter, in so far as it is substance, is
divisible, and composed of parts. Even if it were so, I
do not know why it should be considered unworthy of
the divine nature, inasmuch as besides God (by Prop, xiv.)
no substance can be granted, wherefrom it could receive
its modifications. All things, I repeat, are in God, and
all things which come to pass, come to pass solely
through the laws of the infinite nature of God, and fol-
low (as I will shortly show) from the necessity of his
essence. Wherefore it can in nowise be said, that God
is passive in respect to anything other than himself, or
that extended substance is unworthy of the Divine nature,
even if it be supposed divisible, so long as it is granted
to be infinite and eternal. But enough of this for the
present.

Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature
must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways — '

54 THE ETHICS

that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of in-
finite intellect.

Proof. — This proposition will be clear to everyone, who
remembers that from the given definition of any thing
the intellect infers several properties, which really neces-
sarily follow therefrom (that is, from the actual essence
of the thing defined) ; and it infers more properties in
proportion as the definition of the thing expresses more
reality, that is, in proportion as the essence of the thing
defined involves more reality. Now, as the divine nature
has absolutely infinite attributes (by Def. vi.), of which
each expresses infinite essence after its kind, it follows
that from the necessity of its nature an infinite number
of things (that is, everything which can fall within the
sphere of an infinite intellect) must necessarily follow.
Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — Hence it follows, that God is the efficient
cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite
intellect.

Corollary II. — It also follows that God is a cause in him-
self, and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III. — It follows, thirdly, that God is the abso-
lutely first cause.

Prop. XVII. God acts solely by the laws of his own na-
ture, and is not constrained by any one.

Proof. — We have just shown (in Prop, xvi.), that solely
from the necessity of the divine nature, or, what is the
same thing, solely from the laws of his nature, an
infinite number of things absolutely follow in an infinite
number of ways; and we proved (in Prop, xv.), that
without God nothing can be, nor be conceived; but
that all things are in God. Wherefore nothing can
exist outside himself, whereby he can be conditioned or
constrained to act. Wherefore God acts solely by the
laws of his own nature, and is not constrained by any
one. Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — It follows: i. That there can be no
cause which, either extrinsically* or intrinsically, besides
the perfection of his own nature, moves God to act.

Corollary II. — It follows: 2. That God is the sole

CONCERNING GOD 55

free cause. For God alone exists by the sole necessity of
his nature (by Prop. xi. and Prop, xiv., Coroll. i. ),
and acts by the sole necessity of his nature, where-
fore God is (by Def. vii. ) the sole free cause. Q.E.D.

Note. — Others think that God is a free cause, be-
cause he can, as they think, bring it about, that those
things which we have said follow from his nature —
that is, which are in his power, should not come to
pass, or should not be produced by him. But this is
the same as if they said, that God could bring it about,
that it should not follow from the nature of a trian-
gle, that its three interior angles should not be equal
to two right angles; or that from a given cause no
effect should follow, which is absurd.

Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this
proposition, that neither intellect nor will appertain to
God's nature. I know that there are many who think
that they can show, that supreme intellect and free
will do appertain to God's nature; for they say they
know of nothing more perfect, which they can attrib-
ute to God, than that which is the highest perfection
in ourselves. Further, although they conceive God as
actually supremely intelligent, they yet do not believe,
that he can bring into existence everything which he
actually understands, for they think that they would
thus destroy God's power. If, they contend, God had
created everything which is in his intellect, he would not
be able to create anything more, and this, they think,
would clash with God's omnipotence; therefore, they pre-
fer to assert that God is indifferent to all things, and
that he creates nothing except that which he has de-
cided, by some absolute exercise of will, to create. How-
ever, I think I have shown sufficiently clearly (by Prop,
xvi. ), that from God's supreme power, or infinite na-
ture, an infinite number of things — that is, all things
have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of
ways, or always follow from the same necessity; in
the same way as from the nature of a triangle it fol-
lows from eternity and for eternity, that its three in-
terior angles are equal to two right angles. Wherefore the

56 THE ETHICS

omnipotence of God has been displayed from all eter-
nity, and will for all eternity remain in the same state of
activity. This manner of treating the question attrib-
utes to God an omnipotence, in my opinion, far more
perfect. For, otherwise, we are compelled to confess
that God understands an infinite number of creatable
things, which he will never be able to create, for, if
he created all that he understands, he would, accord-
ing to this showing, exhaust his omnipotence, and ren-
der himself imperfect. Wherefore, in order to establish
that God is perfect, we should be reduced to estab-
lishing at the same time, that he cannot bring to pass
everything over which his power extends; this seems
to be an hypothesis most absurd, and most repugnant
to God's omnipotence.

Further (to say a word here concerning the intellect
and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and
will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must
take these words in some significations quite different
from those they usually bear. For intellect and will,
which should constitute the essence of God, would per-
force be as far apart as the poles from the human intel-
lect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common
with them but the name ; there would be about as much
correspondence between the two as there is between the
Dog, the heavenly constellation, and a dog, an animal
that barks. This I will prove as follows: If intellect
belongs to the divine nature, it cannot be in nature, as
ours is generally thought to be, posterior to, or simulta-
neous with the things understood, inasmuch as God is
prior to all things by reason of his casualty (Prop. xvi.
Coroll. i.). On the contrary, the truth and formal es-
sence of things is as it is, because it exists by represen-
tation as such in the intellect of God. Wherefore the
intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute
God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of things, both of
their essence and of their existence. This seems to have
been recognized by those who have asserted, that God's
intellect, God's will, and God's power, are one and the
same. As, therefore, God's intellect is the sole cause of

CONCERNING GOD 57

things, namely, both of their essence and existence, it
must necessarily differ from them in respect to its es-
sence, and in respect to its existence. For a cause dif-
fers from a thing it causes, precisely in the quality
which the latter gains from the former.

For example, a man is the cause of another man's
existence, but not of his essence (for the latter is an
eternal truth), and, therefore, the two men may be en-
tirely similar in essence, but must be different in exist-
ence; and hence if the existence of one of them cease,
the existence of the other will not necessarily cease also;
but if the essence of one could be destroyed, and be made
false, the essence of the other would be destroyed also.
Wherefore, a thing which is the cause both of the essence
and of the existence of a given effect, must differ from
such effect both in respect to its essence, >and also in
respect to its existence. Now the intellect of God is
the cause of both the essence and the existence
of our intellect; therefore the intellect of God in so fai
as it is conceived to constitute the divine essence, dif-
fers from our intellect both in respect to essence and in
respect to existence, nor can it in anywise agree there-
with save in name, as we said before. The reasoning
would be identical, in the case of the will, as any one
can easily see.

Prop. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the tran-
sient cause of all things.

Proof. — All things which are, are in God, and must be
conceived through God (by Prop, xv.), therefore (by
Prop, xvi., CorolL i.) God is the cause of those things
which are in him. This is our first point. Further,
besides God there can be no substance (by Prop, xiv.),
that is nothing in itself external to God. This is our
second point. God, therefore, is the indwelling and not
the transient cause of all things. Q.E.D.

Prop. XIX. God, and all the attributes of God, are
eternal.

Proof. — God (by Def. vi.) is substance, which (by
Prop, xi.) necessarily exists, that is (by Prop, vii.) exist-

58 THE ETHICS

ence appertains to its nature, or (what is the same thing)
follows from its definition; therefore, God is eternal (by
Def. viii.). Further, by the attributes of God we must
understand that which (by Def. iv.) expresses the essence
of the divine substance — in other words, that which apper-
tains to substance: that, I say, should be involved in the
attributes of substance. Now eternity appertains to the
nature of substance (as I have already shown in
Prop, vii.); therefore, eternity must appertain to each
of the attributes, and thus all are eternal. Q. E.D.

Note. — This proposition is also evident from the man-
ner in which (in Prop, xi.) I demonstrated the existence
of God; it is evident, I repeat, from that proof, that the
existence of God, like his essence, is an eternal truth.
Further (in Prop. xix. of my " Principles of the Cartesian
Philosophy^'), I have proved the eternity of God, in an-
other manner, which I need not here repeat.

Prop. XX. The existence of God and his essence are
one and the same.

Proof. — God (by the last Prop.) and all his attributes
are eternal, that is (by Def. viii.) each of his attributes
expresses existence. Therefore the same attributes of
God which explain his eternal essence, explain at the
same time his eternal existence — in other words, that
which constitutes God's essence constitutes at the same
time his existence. Wherefore God's existence and God's
essence are one and the same. Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — Hence it follows that God's existence, like
his essence, is an eternal truth.

Corollary II. — Secondly, it follows that God, and all the
attributes of God, are unchangeable. For if they could be
changed in respect to existence, they must also be able
to be changed in respect to essence — that is, obviously,
be changed from true to false, which is absurd.

Prop. XXI. All things which follow from the absolute
nature of any attribute of God must always exist and be
infinite, or, in other words, are eternal and infinite
through the said attribute.

Proof. — Conceive, if it be possible (supposing the prop-
osition to be denied), that something in some attribute

CONCERNING GOD 59

of God can follow from the absolute nature of the said
attribute, and that at the same time it is finite, and
has a conditioned existence or duration ; for instance, the
idea of God expressed in the attribute thought. Now
thought, in so far as it is supposed to be an attribute of
God, is necessarily (by Prop, xi.) in its nature infinite.
But, in so far as it possesses the idea of God, it is sup-
posed finite. It cannot, however, be conceived as finite,
unless it be limited by thought (by Def. ii.); but it is
not limited by thought itself, in so far as it has consti-
tuted the idea of God (for so far it is supposed to be
finite); therefore, it is limited by thought, in so far as
it has not constituted the idea of God, which neverthe-
less (by Prop, xi.) must necessarily exist.

We have now granted, therefore, thought not constitut-
ing the idea of God, and, accordingly, the idea of God
does not naturally follow from its nature in so far as it
is absolute thought (for it is conceived as constituting,
and also as not constituting, the idea of God), which is
against our hypothesis. Wherefore, if the idea of God
expressed in the attribute thought, or, indeed, anything
else in any attribute of God ( for we may take any exam-
ple, as the proof is of universal application ) follows from
the necessity of the absolute nature of the said attribute,
the said thing must necessarily be infinite, which was
our first point.

Furthermore, a thing which thus follows from the neces-
sity of the nature of any attribute cannot have a limited
duration. For if it can suppose a thing, which follows
from the necessity of the nature of some attribute, to
exist in some attribute of God, for instance, the idea of
God expressed in the attribute thought, and let it be sup-
posed at some time not to have existed, or to be about
not to exist.

Now thought being an attribute of God, must neces-
sarily exist unchanged (by Prop, xi., and Prop, xx.,
Coroll. ii.); and beyond the limits of the duration of the
idea of God (supposing the latter at some time not to
have existed, or not to be going to exist), thought would
perforce have existed without the idea of God, which is

6o THE ETHICS

contrary to our hypothesis, for we supposed that, thought
being given, the idea of God necessarily flowed there-
from. Therefore the idea of God expressed in thought,
or anything which necessarily follows from the absolute
nature of some attribute of God, cannot have a limited
duration, but through the said attribute is eternal, which
is our second point. Bear in mind that the same propo-
sition may be affirmed of anything, which in any attribute
necessarily follows from God's absolute nature.

Prop. XXII. Whatsoever follows from any attribute
of God, in so far as it is modified by a modification,
which exists necessarily and as infinite, through the
said attribute, must also exist necessarily and as in-
finite.

Proof. — The proof of this proposition is similar to that
of the preceding one.

Prop. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both neces-
sarily and as infinite, must necessarily follow either from
the absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from an
attribute modified by a modification which exists neces-
sarily, and as infinite.

Proof. — A mode exists in something else, through which
it must be conceived (Def. v.), that is (Prop, xv.), it
exists solely in God, and solely through God can be con-
ceived. If, therefore, a mode is conceived as necessarily
existing and infinite, it must necessarily be inferred or
perceived through some attribute of God, in so far as
such attribute is conceived as expressing the infinity and
necessity of existence, in other words (Def. viii.) eternity;
that" is, in so far as it is considered absolutely. A mode,
therefore, which necessarily exists as infinite, must follow
from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, either
immediately (Prop, xxi.) or through the means of some
modification, which follows from the absolute nature of
the said attribute; that is (by Prop, xxii.), which exists
necessarily and as infinite.

Prop. XXIV. The essence of things produced by God
does not involve existence.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from Def. i. For
that of which the nature (considered in itself) involves

CONCERNING GOD 6i

existence is self-caused, and exists by the sole necessity
of its own nature.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that God is not only the
cause of things coming into existence, but also of their
continuing in existence, that is, in scholastic phraseology,
God is cause of the being of things {essendi reriim).
For whether things exist, or do not exist, whenever we
contemplate their essence, we see that it involves neither
existence nor duration; consequently, it cannot be the
cause of either the one or the other. God must be the
sole cause, inasmuch as to him alone does existence ap-
pertain, (Prop. xiv. Coroll. i.) Q.E.D.

Prop. XXV. God is the efficient cause not only of the
existence of things, but also of their essence.

Proof. — If this be denied, then God is not the cause
of the essence of things; and therefore the essence of
things can (by Ax. iv.) be conceived without God. This
(by Prop. XV.) is absurd. Therefore, God is the cause of
the essence of things. Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition follows more clearly from
Prop. xvi. For it is evident thereby that, given the
divine nature, the essence of things must be inferred
from it, no less than their existence — in a word, God
must be called the cause of all things, in the same
sense as he is called the cause of himself. This will be
made still clearer by the following corollary.

Corollary. — Individual things are nothing but modi-
fications of the attributes of God, or modes by which
the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and
definite manner. The proof appears from Prop. xv.
and Def. v.

Prop. XXVI. A thing which is conditioned to act
in a particular manner, has necessarily been thus con-
ditioned by God ; and that which has not been conditioned
by God cannot condition itself to act.

Proof. — That by which things are said to be conditioned
to act in a particular manner is necessarily something
positive ( this is obvious ) ; therefore both of its essence and
of its existence God by the necessity of his nature is the
efficient cause ( Props, xxv. and xvi.) ; this is our first point.

62 THE ETHICS

Our second point is plainly to be inferred therefrom. For
if a thing", which has not been conditioned by God, could
condition itself, the first part of our proof would be false,
and this, as we have shown, is absurd.

Prop. XXVII. A thing-, which has been conditioned by
God to act in a particular way, cannot render itself uncon-
ditioned.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from the third
axiom.

Prop. XXVIII. Every individual thing-, or everything-
which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot
exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned
for existence and action by a cause other than itself,
which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence;
and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be
conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence
and action by another cause, which also is finite, and
has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity.

Proof. — Whatsoever is conditioned to exist and act, has
been thus conditioned by God (by Prop, xxvi, and Prop.
xxiv., CoroU.)

But that which is finite and has a conditioned exist-
ence, cannot be produced by the absolute nature of any
attribute of God; for whatsoever follows from the abso-
lute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and eternal
(by Prop. xxi). It must, therefore, follow from some
attribute of God, in so far as the said attribute is con-
sidered as in some way modified; for substance and
modes make up the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.
and Def. iii., v.), while modes are merely modifications
of the attributes of God. But from God, or from any of
his attributes, in so far as the latter is modified by a
modification infinite and eternal, a conditioned thing- can-
not follow. Wherefore it must follow from, or be con-
ditioned for, existence and action by God or one of his
attributes, in so far as the latter are modified by some
modification which is finite and has a conditioned exist-
ence. This is our first point. Again, this cause or this
modification (for the reason by which we established the
first part of this proof) must in its turn be conditioned by

CONCERNING GOD 63

another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned
existence, and again, this last by another (for the same
reason ) ; and so on ( for the same reason ) to infinity,
Q.E.D.

Note. — As certain things must be produced immediately
by God, namely those things which necessarily follow
from his absolute nature, through the means of these
primary attributes, which, nevertheless, can neither exist
nor be conceived without God, it follows: — i. That God
is absolutely the proximate cause of those things imme-
diately produced by him, I say absolutely, not after his
kind, as is usually stated. For the effects of God cannot
either exist or be conceived without a cause (Prop, xv.
and Prop, xxiv,, Coroll.), 2, That God cannot properly
be styled the remote cause of individual things, except
for the sake of distinguishing these from what he imme-
diately produces, or rather from what follows from his
absolute nature. For, by a remote cause, we understand
a cause which is in no way conjoined to the effect. But
all things which are, are in God, and so depend on
God, that without him they can neither be nor be con-
ceived.

Prop, XXIX, Nothing in the universe is contingent,
but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a
particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature.

Proof. — Whatsoever is, is in God (Prop, xv.). But God
cannot be called a thing contingent. For (by Prop, xi.)
he exists necessarily, and not contingently. Further, the
modes of the divine nature follow therefrom necessarily,
and not contingently (Prop, xvi,); and they thus follow,
whether we consider the divine nature absolutely or
whether we consider it as in any way conditioned to act
(Prop, xxvii,). Further, God is not only the cause of
these modes, in so far as they simply exist (by Prop,
xxiv., Coroll.), but also in so far as they are considered
as conditioned for operating in a particular manner
(Prop, xxvi.). If they be not conditioned by God (Prop,
xxvi.), it is impossible, and not contingent, that they
should condition themselves; contrariwise, if they be
conditioned by God, it is impossible, and not contingent

64 THE ETHICS

that they should render themselves unconditioned.
Wherefore all things are conditioned by the necessity of
the divine nature, not only to exist, but also to exist
and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing
that is contingent. Q. E. D.

Note. — Before going any further, I wish here to ex-
plain, what we should understand by nature viewed as
active [tiatJira iiaturans), and nature viewed as passive
{fiatura naturata). I say to explain, or rather call atten-
tion to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is
sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we
should understand that which is in itself, and is con-
ceived through itself, or those attributes of substance,
which express eternal and infinite essence, in other
words (Prop, xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop, xvii., Coroll. ii.)
God, in so far as he is considered as a free cause.

By nature viewed as passive I understand all that
which follows from the necessity of the nature of God,
or of any of the attributes of God, that is, all the
modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are
considered as things which are in God, and which with-
out God cannot exist or be conceived.

Prop. XXX. Intellect, in function (actu) finite, or in
function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God
and the modifications of God, and nothing else.

Proof. — A true idea must agree with its object (Ax. vi.) ;
in other words (obviously), that which is contained in
the intellect in representation must necessarily be granted
in nature. But in nature (by Prop, xiv., Coroll. i.)
there is no substance save God, nor any modifications
save those (Prop, xv.) which are in God, and cannot
without God either be or be conceived. Therefore the
intellect, in function finite, or in function infinite, must
comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications
of God, and nothing else. Q.E:D.

Prop. XXXI. The intellect in function, whether finite
or infinite, as will, desire, love, etc., should be referred
to passive nature and not to active nature.

Proof. — By the intellect we do not (obviously) mean
absolute thought, but only a certain mode of thinking;,

CONCERNING GOD 65

differing from other modes, such as love, desire, etc.,
and therefore ( Def . v. ) requiring to be conceived through
absolute thought. It must (by Prop. xv. and Def. vi.),
through some attribute of God which expresses the
eternal and infinite essence of thought, be so conceived,
that without such attribute it could neither be nor be
conceived. It must therefore be referred to nature pas-
sive rather than to nature active, as must also the other
modes of thinking. Q.E.D.

Note. — I do not here, by speaking of intellect in func-
tion, admit that there is such a thing as intellect in
potentiality: but, wishing to avoid all confusion, I de-
sire to speak only of what is most clearly perceived by
us, namely, of the very act of understanding, than which
nothing is more clearly perceived. For we cannot per-
ceive anything without adding to our knowledge of the
act of understanding.

Prop. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but
only a necessary cause.

Proof. — Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like
intellect ; therefore ( by Prop, xxviii. ) no volition can exist,
nor be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned by
some cause other than itself, which cause is conditioned by
a third cause, and so on to infinity. But if will be sup-
posed infinite, it must also be conditioned to exist and
act by God, not by virtue of his being substance abso-
lutely infinite, but by virtue of his possessing an attribute
which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought
(by Prop, xxiii.). Thus, however it be conceived, whether
as finite or infinite, it requires a cause by which it should
be conditioned to exist and act. Thus (Def. vii.) it can-
not be called a free cause, but only a necessary or con-
strained cause. Q.E.D.

Corollary. I. — Hence it follows, first, that God does not
act according to freedom of the will.

Corollary. II. — It follows secondly, that will and intel-
lect stand in the same relation to the nature of God as do
motion, and rest, and absolutely all natural phenomena,
which must be conditioned by God (Prop, xxix.) to exist
and act in a particular manner. For will, like the rest,

66 THE ETHICS

stands in need of a cause, by which it is conditioned to
exist and act in a particular manner. And although, when
will or intellect be granted, an infinite number of results
may follow, yet God cannot on that account be said to
act from freedom of the will, any more than the infinite
number of results from motion and rest would justify
us in saying that motion and rest act by free will. Where-
fore will no more appertains to God than does anything
else in nature, but stands in the same relation to him as
motion, rest, and the like, which we have shown to follow
from the necessity of the divine nature, and to be con-
ditioned by it to exist and act in a particular manner.

Prop. XXXIII. Things could not have been brought
into being by God in any manner or in any order differ-
ent from that which has in fact obtained.

Proof. — All things necessarily follow from the nature of
God (Prop, xvi.), and by the nature of God are con-
ditioned to exist and act in a particular way (Prop. xxix).
If things, therefore, could have been of a different nature,
or have been conditioned to act in a different way, so
that the order of nature would have been different, God's
nature would also have been able to be different from
what it now is; and therefore (by Prop, xi.) that different
nature also would have perforce existed, and consequently
there would have been able to be two or more Gods.
This (by Prop, xiv., Coroll. i.) is absurd. Therefore
things could not have been brought into being by God
in any other manner, etc. Q. E.D.

Note I. — As I have thus shown, more clearly than the
sun at noonday, that there is nothing to justify us in
calling things contingent, I wish to explain briefly
what meaning we shall attach to the word contin-
gent; but I will first explain the words necessary and
impossible.

A thing is called necessary either in respect to its
essence or in respect to its cause; for the existence of a
thing necessarily follows, either from its essence and
definition, or from a given efficient cause. For similar
reasons a thing is said to be impossible ; namely, inasmuch
as its essence or definition involves a contradiction, or

CONCERNING GOD 67

because no external cause is granted, which is conditioned
to produce such an effect; but a thing can in no respect
be called contingent, save in relation to the imperfection
of our knowledge.

A thing of which we do not know whether the essence
does or does not involve a contradiction, or of which
knowing that it does not involve a contradiction, we are
still in doubt concerning the existence, because the order
of causes escapes us, — such a thing, I say, cannot appear
to us either necessary or impossible. Wherefore we call
it contingent or possible.

Note II. — It clearly follows from what we have said,
that things have been brought into being by God in the
highest perfection, inasmuch as they have necessarily
followed from a most perfect nature. Nor does this
prove any imperfection in God, for it has compelled us
to affirm his perfection. From its contrary, proposition,
we should clearly gather (as I have just shown), that
God is not supremely perfect, for if things had been
brought into being in any other way, we should have to
assign to God a nature different from that, which we are
bound to attribute to him from the consideration of an
absolutely perfect being.

I do not doubt, that many will scout this idea as absurd,
and will refuse to give their minds up to contemplating it,
simply because they are accustomed to assign to God a
freedom very different from that which we (Def. vii.) have
deduced. They assign to him, in short, absolute free will.
However, I am also convinced that if such persons reflect
on the matter, and duly weigh in their minds our series of
propositions, they will reject such freedom as they now
attribute to God, not only as nugatory, but also as a great
impediment to organized knowledge. There is no need for
me to repeat what I said in the note to Prop. xvii. But,
for the sake of my opponents, I will show further, that
although it be granted that will appertains to the essence
of God, it nevertheless follows from his perfection, that
things could not have been by him created other than
they are, or in a different order; this is easily proved, if
we reflect on what our opponents themselves concede,.

68 THE ETHICS

namely, that it depends solely on the decree and will of
God, that each thing is what it is. If it were otherwise,
God would not be the cause of all things. Further, that
all the decrees of God have been ratified from all eter-
nity by God himself. If it were otherwise, God would
be convicted of imperfection or change. But in eternity
there is no such thing as when, before, or after; hence
it follows solel)'- from the perfection of God, that God
never can decree, or never could have decreed anything
but what is; that God did not exist before his decrees,
and would not exist without them. But, it is said, sup-
posing that God had made a different universe, or had
ordained other decrees from all eternity concerning nature
and her order, we could not therefore conclude any imper-
fection in God. But persons who say this must admit that
God can change his decrees. For if God had ordained any
decrees concerning nature and her order, different from
those which he has ordained — in other words, if he had
willed and conceived something different concerning nature
— he would perforce have had a different intellect from
that which he has, and also a different will. But if it
were allowable to assign to God a different intellect and
a different will, without any change in his essence or
his perfection, what would there be to prevent him
changing the decrees which he has made concerning cre-
ated things, and nevertheless remaining perfect ? For
his intellect and will concerning things created and their
order are the same, in respect to his essence and per-
fection, however they be conceived.

Further, all the philosophers whom I have read admit
that God's intellect is entirely actual, and not at all
potential; as they also admit that God's intellect, and
God's will, and God's essence are identical, it follows that,
if God had had a different actual intellect and a different
will, his essence would also have been different; and
thus, as I concluded at first, if things had been brought
into being by God in a different way from that which
has obtained, God's intellect and will, that is (as is ad-
mitted) his essence would perforce have been different,
which is absurd.

CONCERNING GOD 69

As these things could not have been brought into being
by God in any but the actual way and order which has
obtained; and as the truth of this proposition follows from
the supreme perfection of God; we can have no sound
reason for persuading ourselves to believe that God did
not wish to create all the things which were in his intel-
lect, and to create them in the same perfection as he had
understood them.

But, it will be said, there is in things no perfection nor
imperfection; that which is in them, and which causes
them to be called perfect or imperfect, good or bad,
depends solely on the will of God. If God had so willed,
he might have brought it about that what is now perfec-
tion should be extreme imperfection, and vice versd. What
is such an assertion, but an open declaration that God,
who necessarily understands that which he wishes, might
bring it about by his will, that he should understand
things differently from the way in which he does under-
stand them? This (as we have just shown) is the height
of absurdity. Wherefore, I may turn the argument against
its employers, as follows: All things depend on- the
power of God. In order that things should be different
from what they are, God's will would necessarily have to
be different. But God's will cannot be different (as we
have just most clearly demonstrated ) from God's perfec-
tion. Therefore neither can things be different. I con-
fess that the theory which subjects all things to the will
of an indifferent deity, and asserts that they are all
dependent on his fiat, is less far from the truth than the
theory of those, who maintain that God acts in all things
with a view of promoting what is good. For these latter
persons seem to set up something beyond God, which
does not depend on God, but which God in acting looks
to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite
goal. This is only another name for subjecting God to
the dominion of destiny, an utter absurdity in respect to
God, whom we have shown to be the first and only free
cause of the essence of all things and also of their exist-
ence. I need, therefore, spend no time in refuting such
wild theories.

JO THE ETHICS

Prop. XXXIV. God's power is identical with his es-
sence.

Proof. — From the sole necessity of the essence of God
it follows that God is the cause of himself (Prop, xi.)
and of all things (Prop. xvi. and Coroll.). Wherefore
the power of God, by which he and all things are and
act, is identical with his essence. Q.E. D.

Prop. XXXV. Whatsoever we conceive to be in the
power of God, necessarily exists.

Proof. — Whatsoever is in God's power, must (by the
last Prop.) be comprehended in his essence in such a
manner, that.it necessarily follows therefrom, and there-
fore necessarily exists. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXVI. There is no cause from whose nature
some effect does not follow.

Proof — Whatsoever exists expresses God's nature or
essence in a given conditioned manner (by Prop, xxv.,
Coroll.); that is (by Prop, xxxiv.), whatsoever exists, ex-
presses in a given conditioned manner God's power, which
is the cause of all things, therefore an effect must (by
Prop, xvi.) necessarily follow. Q.E.D.

Appendix. — In the foregoing I have explained the na-
ture and properties of God. I have shown that he neces-
sarily exists, that he is one : that he is, and acts solely by
the necessity of his own nature ; that he is the free cause
of all things, and how he is so; that all things are in
God, and so depend on him, that without him they could
neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that all things are
pre-determined by God, not through his free will or ab-
solute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite
power. I have further, where occasion offered, taken care
to remove the prejudices, which might impede the com-
prehension of my demonstrations. Yet there still remain
misconceptions not a few, which might and may prove
very grave hindrances to the understanding of the con-
catenation of things, as I have explained it above. I
have therefore thought it worth while to bring these
misconceptions before the bar of reason.

All such opinions spring from the notion commonly

CONCERNING GOD 71

entertained, that all things in nature act as men them-
selves act, namely, with an end in view. It is accepted
as certain, that God himself directs all things to a defi-
nite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man,
and man that he might worship him). I will, therefore,
consider this opinion, asking first, why it obtains general
credence, and why all men are naturally so prone to adopt
it ? secondly, I will point out its falsity ; and, lastly, I will
show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and
bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and con-
fusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like. However, this
is not the place to deduce these misconceptions from the
nature of the human mind: it will be sufficient here, if
I assume as a starting point, what ought to be universally
admitted, namely, that all men are born ignorant of the
causes of things, that all have the desire to seek for what
is useful to them, and that they are conscious of such
desire. Herefrom it follows first, that men think them-
selves free, inasmuch as they are conscious of their
volitions and desires, and never even dream, in their igno-
rance, of the causes which have disposed them to wish
and desire. Secondly, that men do all things for an end,
namely, for that which is useful to them, and which they
seek. Thus it comes to pass that they only look for a
knowledge of the final causes of events, and when these
are learned, they are content, as having no cause for
further doubt. If they cannot learn such causes from
external sources, they are compelled to turn to considering
themselves, and reflecting what end would have induced
them personally to bring about the given event, and thus
they necessarily judge other natures by their own. Fur-
ther, as they find in themselves and outside themselves
many means which assist them not a little in their search
for what is useful, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth
for chewing, herbs and animals for yielding food, the sun
for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, etc., they come
to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining
such conveniences. Now as they are aware, that they
found these conveniences and did not make them they
think they have cause for believing, that some other being

72 THE ETHICS

has made them for their use. As they look upon things
as means, they cannot believe them to be self-created;
but, judging from the means which they are accustomed
to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in
some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with
human freedom, who have arranged and adapted every-
thing for human use. They are bound to estimate the
nature of such rulers (having no information on the
subject) in accordance with their own nature, and there-
fore they assert that the gods ordained everything for
the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and
obtain from him the highest honors. Hence also it fol-
lows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to
his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that
God might love him more than his fellows, and direct
the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his
blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the preju-
dice developed into superstition, and took deep root in
the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove
most zealously to understand and explain the final causes
of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature
does nothing in vain, /. e., nothing which is useless to
man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature,
the gods, and men are all mad together. Consider, I
pray you, the result: among the many helps of nature
they were bound to find some hindrances, such as storms,
earthquakes, diseases, etc. : so they declared that such
things happen, because the gods are angry at some
wrong done them by men, or at some fault committed
in their worship. Experience day by day protested and
showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes
fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they
would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was
more easy for them to class such contradictions among
other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant,
and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of
ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their rea-
soning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an
axiom, that God's judgments far transcend human under-
standing. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to

CONCERNING GOD 73

conceal the truth from the human race for all eternity,
if mathematics had not furnished another standard of
verity in considering solely the essence and properties of
figures without regard to their final causes. There are
other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides
mathematics, which might have caused men's minds to be
directed to these general prejudices, and have led them to
the knowledge of the triith.

I have now sufficiently explained my first point. There
is no need to show at length, that nature has no particu-
lar goal in view, and that final causes are mere human
figments. This, I think, is already evident enough, both
from the causes and foundations on which I have shown
such prejudice to be based, and also from Prop, xvi., and
the Corollary of Prop, xxxii., and, in fact, all those
propositions in which I have shown, that everything in
nature proceeds from a sort of necessity, and with the
utmost perfection. However, I will add a few remarks,
in order to overthrow this doctrine of a final cause utterly.
That which is really a cause it considers as an effect, and
vice versa: it makes that which is by nature first to be
last, and that which is highest and most perfect to be
most imperfect. Passing over the questions of cause and
priority as self-evident, it is plain from Props, xxi., xxii.,
xxiii. that that effect, is most perfect which is produced
immediately by God; the effect which requires for its
production several intermediate causes is, in that respect,
more imperfect. But if those things which were made
immediately by God were made to enable him to attain
his end, then the things which come after, for the sake
of which the first were made, are necessarily the most
excellent of all.

Further, this doctrine does away with the perfection of
God : for, if God acts for an object, he necessarily desires
something which he lacks. Certainly, theologians and
metaphysicians draw a distinction between the object of
want and the object of assimilation ; still they confess that
God made all things for the sake of himself, not for the
sake of creation. They are unable to point to anything
prior to creation, except God himself, as an object for

74 THE ETHICS

which God should act, and are therefore driven to admit
(as they clearly must), that God lacked those things for
whose attainment he created means, and further that he
desired them.

We must not omit to notice that the followers of this
doctrine, anxious to display their talent in assigning
final causes, have imported a new method of argument
in proof of their theory — namely, a reduction, not to
the impossible, but to ignorance ; thus showing that they
have no other method of exhibiting their doctrine. For
example, if a stone falls from a roof on to some one's
head and kills him, they will demonstrate by their new
method, that the stone fell in order to kill the man ; for,
if it had not by God's will fallen with that object, how
could so many circumstances ( and there are often many
concurrent circumstances) have all happened together by
chance ? Perhaps you will answer that the event is due
to the facts that the wind was blowing, and the man was
walking that way. " But why, '* they will insist, " was
the wind blowing, and why was the man at that very
time walking that way ? " If you again answer, that the
wind had then sprung up because the sea had begun to
be agitated the day before, the weather being previously
calm, and that the man had been invited by a friend,
they will again insist: ^^ But why was the sea agitated,
and why was the man invited at that time ? '^ So they
will pursue their questions from cause to cause, till at
last you take refuge in the will of God — in other words,
the sanctuary of ignorance. So, again, when they sur-
vey the frame of the human body, they are amazed; and
being ignorant of the causes of so great a work of art
conclude that it has been fashioned, not mechan-
ically, but by divine and supernatural skill, and has
been so put together that one part shall not hurt an-
other.

Hence any one who seeks for the true causes of mira-
cles, and strives to understand natural phenomena as an
intelligent being, and not to gaze at them like a fool, is
set down and denounced as an impious heretic by those,
whom the masses adore as the interpreters of nature and

CONCERNING GOD 75

the gods. Such persons know that, with the removal of
ignorance, the wonder which forms their only available
means for proving and preserving their authority would
vanish also. But I now quit this subject, and pass on to
my third point.

After men persuaded themselves, that everything which
is created is created for their sake, they were bound to
consider as the chief quality in everything that which is
most useful to themselves, and to account those things
the best of all which have the most beneficial effect on
mankind. Further, they were bound to form abstract
notions for the explanation of the nature of things, such

as GOODNESS, BADNESS, ORDER, CONFUSION, WARMTH, COLD,

BEAUTY, DEFORMITY, and SO on ; and from the belief that
they are free agents arose the further notions praise and

BLAME, sin and MERIT.

I will speak of these latter hereafter, when I treat of
human nature; the former I will briefly explain here.

Everything which conduces to health and the worship
of God they have called good, everything which hinders
these objects they have styled bad; and inasmuch as
those who do not understand the nature of things do not
verify phenomena in any way, but merely imagine them
after a fashion, and mistake their imagination for under-
standing, such persons firmly believe that there is an
ORDER in things, being really ignorant both of things
and their own nature. When phenomena are of such a
kind, that the impression they make on our senses
requires little effort of imagination, and can consequently
be easily remembered, we say that they are well-ordered;
if the contrary, that they are ill-ordered or confused.
Further, as things which are easily imagined are more
pleasing to us, men prefer order to confusion — as though
there were any order in nature, except in relation to our
imagination — and say that God has created all things in
order; thus, without knowing it, attributing imagination
to God, unless, indeed, they would have it that God fore-
saw human imagination, and arranged everything, so
that it should be most easily imagined. If this be their
theory they would not, perhaps, be daunted by the f^ct

76 THE ETHICS

that we find an infinite number of phenomena, far sur-
passing our imagination, and very many others which
confound its weakness. But enough has been said on
this subject. The other abstract notions are nothing but
modes of imagining, in which the imagination is differ-
ently affected, though they are considered by the ignorant
as the chief attributes of things, inasmuch as they believe
that everything was created for the sake of themselves;
and, according as they are affected by it, style it good
or bad, healthy or rotten and corrupt. For instance, if
the motion whose objects we see communicate to our
nerves be conducive to health, the objects causing it are
styled beautiful; if a contrary motion be excited, they
are styled ugly.

Things which are perceived through our sense of smell
are styled fragrant or fetid; if through our taste, sweet
or bitter, full-flavored or insipid, if through our touch,
hard or soft, rough or smooth, etc.

Whatsoever affects our ears is said to give rise to noise,
sound, or harmony. In this last case, there are men lu-
natic enough to believe that even God himself takes
pleasure in harmony; and philosophers are not lacking
who have persuaded themselves, that the motion of the
heavenly bodies gives rise to harmony — all of which in-
stances sufficiently show that everyone judges of things
according to the state of his brain, or rather mistakes for
things the forms of his imagination. We need no longer
wonder that there have arisen all the controversies we
have witnessed and finally scepticism : for, although hu-
man bodies in many respects agree, yet in very many
others they differ; so that what seems good to one
seems bad to another; what seems well ordered to one
seems confused to another; what is pleasing to one dis-
pleases another, and so on. I need not further enumer-
ate, because this is not the place to treat the subject at
length, and also because the fact is sufficiently well
known. It is commonly said: ^* So many men, so many
minds ; everyone is wise in his own way ; brains differ as
completely as palates." All of which proverbs show, that
men judge of things according to their mental disposi-

CONCERNING GOD 77

tion, and rather imagine than understand : for, if they un-
derstood phenomena, they would, as mathematics attest,
be convinced, if not attracted, by what I have urged.

We have now perceived, that all the explanations com-
monly given of nature are mere modes of imagining,
and do not indicate the true nature of anything, but
only the constitution of the imagination; and, although
they have names, as though they were entities, existing
externally to the imagination, I call them entities imag-
inary rather than real; and, therefore, all arguments
against us drawn from such abstractions are easily
rebutted.

Many argue in this way. If all things follow from a
necessity of the absolutely perfect nature of God, why are
there so many imperfections in nature ? such, for instance,
as things corrupt to the point of putridity, loathsome
deformity, confusion, evil, sin, etc. But these reasoners
are, as I have said, easily confuted, for the perfection of
things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and
power; things are not more or less perfect, according as
they delight or offend human senses, or according as
they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind. To those
who ask why God did not so create all men, that they
should be governed only by reason, I give no answer
but this: because matter was not lacking to him for the
creation of every degree of perfection from highest to
lowest; or, more strictly, because the laws of his nature
are so vast, as to suffice for the production of everything
conceivable by an infinite intelligence, as I have shown
in Prop. xvi.

Such are the misconceptions I have undertaken to
note; if there are any more of the same sort, everyone
may easily dissipate them for himself with the aid of a
little reflection.

PART II.

OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND.

Preface.

I NOW pass on to explaining the results, which must
necessarily follow from the essence of God, or of the
eternal and infinite being; not, indeed, all of them (for
we proved in Part, i., Prop, xvi., that an infinite number
must follow in an infinite number of ways), but only
those which are able to lead us, as it were by the hand,
to the knowledge of the human mind and its highest
blessedness.

Definitions.

I. By BODY I mean a mode which expresses in a cer-
tain determinate manner the essence of God. in so far as
he is considered as an extended thing. ( See Part i. , Prop.
XXV. Coroll.).

II. I consider as belonging to the essence of a thing
that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given also,
and, which being removed, the thing is necessarily re-
moved also; in other words, that without which the thing,
and which itself without the thing, can neither be nor
be conceived.

III. By IDEA, I mean the mental conception which is
formed by the mind as a thinking thing.

Explanation. — I say conception rather than perception,
because the word perception seems to imply that the
mind is passive in respect to the object; whereas concep-
tion seems to express an activity of the mind.

IV. By an adequate idea, I mean an idea which, in
so far as it is considered in itself, without relation to the
object, has all the properties or intrinsic marks of a true
idea.

(78)

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 79

Explanation. — I say intrinsic, in order to exclude that
mark which is extrinsic, namely, the agreement between
the idea and its object {ideatum).

V. Duration is the indefinite continuance of existing.
Explanation. — I say indefinite, because it cannot be

determined through the existence itself of the existing
thing, or by its efficient cause, which necessarily gives
the existence of the thing, but does not take it away.

VI. Reality and perfection I use as synonymous
terms,

VII. By particular things, I mean things which are
finite and have a conditioned existence; but if several
individual things concur in one action, so as to be all
simultaneously the effect of one cause, I consider them
all so far, as one particular thing.

Axioms.

I. The essence of man does not involve necessary exist-
ence, that is, it may, in the order of nature, come to pass
that this or that man does or does not exist.

II. Man thinks.

III. Modes of thinking, such as love, desire, or any
other of the passions, do not take place, unless there be
in the same individual an idea of the thing loved, desired,
etc. But the idea can exist without the presence of any
other mode of thinking.

IV. We perceive that a certain body is affected in many
ways.

V. We feel and perceive no particular things, save
bodies and modes of thought.

N. B. The postulates are given after the conclusion of
Prop. xiii.

Propositions.

Prop. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a
thinking thing.

Proof. — Particular thoughts, or this or that thought, are
modes which, in a certain conditioned manner, express
the nature of God (Parti., Prop, xxv., CoroU.). God there-
fore possesses the attribute (Part i., Def. v.) of which the

8o THE ETHICS

concept is involved in all particular thoughts, which latter
are conceived thereby. Thought, therefore, is one of
the infinite attributes of God, which express God's eternal
and infinite essence (Part i., Def. vi.). In other words,
God is a thinking thing. Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition is also evident from the fact,
that we are able to conceive an infinite thinking being.
For, in proportion as a thinking being is conceived as
thinking more thoughts, so it is conceived as containing
more reality or perfection. Therefore a being which can
think an infinite number of things in an infinite number
of ways, is, necessarily, in respect of thinking, infinite.
As, therefore, from the consideration of thought alone we
conceive an infinite being, thought is necessarily (Part i.,
Def. iv. and vi.) one of the infinite attributes of God, as
we were desirous of showing.

Prop. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is
an extended thing.

Proof. — The proof of this proposition is similar to that
of the last.

Prop. III. In God there is necessarily the idea not only
of his essence, but also of all things which necessarily
follow from his essence.

Proof. — God (by the first Prop, of this Part) can think
an infinite number of things in infinite ways, or (what
is the same thing, by Prop, xvi.. Part i.) can form the
idea of his essence, and of all things which necessarily
follow therefrom. Now all that is in the power of God
necessarily is. (Parti., Prop, xxxv.) Therefore, such an
idea as we are considering necessarily is, and in God
alone. Q.E.D. (Part i.. Prop, xv.)

Note. — The multitude understand by the power of God
the free will of God, and the right over all things that
exist, which latter are accordingly generally considered
as contingent. For it is said that God has the power to
destroy all things, and to reduce them to nothing. Further,
the power of God is very often likened to the power of
kings. But this doctrine we have refuted ( Part i. , Prop,
xxxii., Corolls. i. and ii.), and we have shown (Part i.,
Prop, xvi.) that God acts by the same necessity, as that

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 8i

by which he understands himself; in other words, as it
follows from the necessity of the divine nature (as all
admit), that God understands himself, so also does it
follow by the same necessity, that God performs infinite
acts in infinite ways. We further showed (Parti., Prop,
xxxiv.) that God's power is identical with God's essence
in action ; therefore it is as impossible for us to conceive
God as not acting as to conceive him as non-existent.
If we might pursue the subject further, I could point
out, that the power which is commonly attributed to God
is not only human (as showing that God is conceived by
the multitude as a man, or in the likeness of a man)
but involves a negation of power. However, I am un-
willing to go over the same ground so often. I would
only beg the reader again and again, to turn over fre-
quently in his mind what I have said in Part i. from
Prop. xvi. to the end. No one will be able to follow
my meaning, unless he is scrupulously careful not to con-
found the power of God with the human power and right
of kings.

Prop. IV. The idea of God, from which an infinite
number of things follow in infinite ways, can only
be one.

Proof. — Infinite intellect comprehends nothing save the
attributes of God and his modifications (Part i., Prop.
XXX.). Now God is one (Part i. , Prop xiv., CoroU.).
Therefore the idea of God, wherefrom an infinite num-
ber of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.
Q.E.D.

Prop. V, The actual being of ideas owns God as its
cause, only in so far as he is considered as a thinking
thing, not in so far as he is unfolded in any other attri-
bute ; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and
of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their
objects {ideatd) or the things perceived, but God himself
in so far as he is a thinking thing.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from Prop. iii. of
this Part. ' We there drew the conclusion, that God can
form the idea of his essence, and of all things which
follow necessarily therefrom, solely because he is a think-

I

82 THE ETHICS

ing thing, and not because he is the object of his own idea.
Wherefore the actual being of ideas owns for cause God,
in so far as he is a thinking thing. It may be differently-
proved as follows : the actual being of ideas is ( obviously ) a
mode of thought, that is ( Part i., Prop, xxv., Coroll.) a mode
which expresses in a certain manner the nature of God, in
so far as he is a thinking thing, and therefore (Part i., Prop.
X.) involves the conception of no other attribute of God,
and consequently (by Part i.. Ax. iv.) is not the effect of
any attribute save thought. Therefore the actual being of
ideas owns God as its cause, in so far as he is considered
as a thinking thing, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. VI. The modes of any given attribute are caused
by God, in so far as he is considered through the attri-
bute of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is
considered through any other attribute.

Proof. — Each attribute is conceived through itself, with-
out any other (Part i.. Prop, x.); wherefore the modes of
each attribute involve the conception of that attribute,
but not of any other. Thus (Part i., Ax. iv.) they are
caused by God, only in so far as he is considered through
the attribute whose modes they are, and not in so far as
he is considered through any other. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence the actual being of things, which
are not modes of thought, does not follow from the
divine nature, because that nature has prior knowledge
of the things. Things represented in ideas follow, and
are derived from their particular attribute, in the same
manner, and with the same necessity as ideas follow
(according to what we have shown) from the attribute
of thought.

Prop. VII. The order and connection of ideas is the
same as the order and connection of things.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from Part i.. Ax. iv.
For the idea of everything that is caused depends on a
knowledge of the cause, whereof it is an effect.

Corollary. — Hence God's power of thinking is equal to
his realized power of action — that is, whatsoever follows
from the infinite nature of God in the world of extension
{formaliter), follows without exception in the same order

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 83

and connection from the idea of God in the world of
thought {objective).

Note. — Before going any further, I wish to recall to mind
what has been pointed out above — namely, that whatsoever
can be perceived by the infinite intellect as constituting
the essence of substance, belongs altogether only to one
substance : consequently, substance thinking and substance
extended are one and the same substance, comprehended
now through one attribute, now through the other. So,
also, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are
one and the same thing, though expressed in two ways.
This truth seems to have been dimly recognized by those
Jews who maintained that God, God's intellect, and the
things understood by God are identical. For instance, a
circle existing in nature, and the idea of a circle exist-
ing, which is also in God, are one and the same thing
displayed through different attributes. Thus, whether we
conceive nature under the attribute of extension, or under
the attribute of thought, or under any other attribute, we
shall find the same order, or one and the same chain of
causes — that is, the same things following in either case.

I said that God is the cause of an idea — for instance,
of the idea of a circle — in so far as he is a thinking
thinof- and of a circle, in so far as he is an extended
thing, simply because the actual being of the idea of a
circle can only be perceived as a proximate cause through
another mode of thinking, and that again through an-
other, and so on to infinity; so that, so long as we con-
sider things as modes of thinking, we must explain
the order of the whole of nature, or the whole chain of
causes, through the attribute of thought only. And, in
so far as we consider things as modes of extension, we
must explain the order of the whole nature through
the attribute of extension only; and so on, in the case
of other attributes. Wherefore of things as they are in
themselves God is really the cause, inasmuch as he con-
sists of infinite attributes. I cannot for the present ex-
plain my meaning more clearly.

Prop. VIII. The ideas of particular things, or of modes,
that do not exist, must be comprehended in the infinite

84 THE ETHICS

idea of God, in the same way as the formal essences of
particular things or modes are contained in the attributes
of God.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from the last ; it
is understood more clearly from the preceding note.

Corollary. — Hence, so long as particular things do not
exist, except in so far as they are comprehended in the
attributes of God, their representations in thought or
ideas do not exist, except in so far as the infinite idea
of God exists; and when particular things are said to
exist, not only in so far as they are involved in the
attributes of God, but also in so far as they are said to
continue, their ideas will also involve existence, through
which they are said to continue.

Note. — If anyone desires an example to throw more
light on this question, I shall, I fear, not be able to give
him any, which adequately explains the thing of which I
here speak, inasmuch as it is unique, however, I will
endeavor to illustrate it as far as possible. The nature
of a circle is such that if any number of straight lines
intersect within it, the rectangles formed by their seg-
ments will be equal to one another; thus, infinite equal
rectangles are contained in a circle. Yet none of these
rectangles can be said to exist, except in so far as the
circle exists; nor can the idea of any of these rectangles
be said to exist, except in so far as they are compre-
hended in the idea of the circle. Let us grant that,
from this infinite number of rectangles, two only exist.
The ideas of these two not only exist, in so far as they
are contained in the idea of the circle, but also as they
involve the existence of those rectangles; wherefore they
are distinguished from the remaining ideas of the remain-
ing rectangles.

Prop. IX. The idea of an individual thing actually ex-
isting is caused by God, not in so far as he is infinite,
but in so far as he is considered as effected by another
idea of a thing actually existing, of which he is the
cause, in so far as he is affected by a third idea, and so
on to infinity.

Proof. — The idea of an individual thing actually exist-

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 85

ing is an individual mode of thinking, and is distinct
from other modes (by the Corollary and Note to Prop,
viii. of this part) ; thus (by Prop. vi. of this part) it is
caused by God, in so far only as he is a thinking thing.
But not (by Prop, xxviii. of Part i.) in so far as he, is a
thing thinking absolutely, only in so far as he is consid-
ered as affected by another mode of thinking; and he
is the cause of this latter, as being affected by a third,
and so on to infinity. Now, the order and connection of
ideas is (by Prop.vii. of this book) the same as the order
and connection of causes. Therefore of a given individ-
ual idea another individual idea, or God, in so far as
he is considered as modified by that idea, is the cause;
and of this second idea God is the cause in so far as he
is affected by another idea and so on to infinity. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Whatsoever takes place in the individual ob-
ject of any idea, the knowledge thereof is in God, in so
far only as he has the idea of the object.

Proof. — Whatsoever takes place in the object of any
idea, its idea is in God (by Prop. iii. of this part), not
in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is consid-
ered as affected by another idea of an individual thing
(by the last Prop.) ; but (by Prop. vii. of this part) the order
and connection of ideas is the same as the order and
connection of things. The knowledge, therefore, of that
which takes place in any individual object will be in God,
in so far only as he has the idea of that object. Q.E.D.

Prop. X. — The being or substance does not appertain
to the essence of man — in other words, substance does
not constitute the actual being* of man.

Proof. — The being of substance involves necessary ex-
istence (Parti., Prop. vii.). If, therefore, the being of sub-
stance appertains to the essence of man, substance being
granted, man would necessarily be granted also (II. Def.
ii), and, consequently, man would necessarily exist, which
is absurd (II. Ax. i.). Therefore, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition may also be proved from I. v.,
in which it is shown that there cannot be two substances
of the same nature; for as there may be many men, the

*« Forma. »

86 THE ETHICS

being of substance is not that which constitutes the
actual being- of man. Again, the proposition is evident
from the other properties of substance — namely, that sub-
stance is in its nature infinite, immutable, indivisible, etc.,
as anyone may see for himself.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that the essence of man
is constituted by certain modifications of the attributes
of God. For (by the last Prop.) the being of substance
does not belong to the essence of man. That essence
therefore (by i. 1 5 ) is something which is in God,
and which without God can neither be nor be con-
ceived, whether it be a modification (i. 25 Coroll.), or a
mode which expresses God's nature in a certain conditioned
manner.

Note. — Everyone must surely admit, that nothing can
be or be conceived without God, All men agree that
God is the one and only cause of all things, both of
their essence and of their existence; that is, God is not
only the cause of things in respect to their being made
{secundum fieri), but also in respect to their being {secun-
dum esse).

At the same time many assert, that that, without which
a thing cannot be nor be conceived, belongs to the essence
of that thing; wherefore they believe that either the
nature of God appertains to the essence of created things,
or else that created things can be or be conceived with-
out God ; or else, as is more probably the case, they hold
inconsistent doctrines. I think the cause for such con-
fusion is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper or-
der of philosophic thinking. The nature of God, which
should be reflected on first, inasmuch as it is prior both
in the order of knowledge and the order of nature, they
have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and
have put into the first place what they call the objects
of sensation; hence, while they are considering natural
phenomena, they give no attention at all to the divine
nature, and, when afterward they apply their mind to
the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to
bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have
overlaid the knowledge of natural phenomena, inasmuch

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 87

as such hypotheses are no help toward under-
standing- the Divine nature. So that it is hardly to
be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves
freely.

However, I pass over this point. My intention here
was only to give a reason for not saying-, that that,
without which a thing- cannot be or be conceived, be-
longs to the essence of that thing: individual things
cannot be or be conceived without God, yet God does
not appertain to their essence. I said that ^^ I considered
as belonging to the essence of a thing that, which being
given, the thing is necessarily given also, and which
being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also;
or that without which the thing, and which itself with-
out the thing can neither be nor be conceived.'^ (II.
Def. ii.)

Ppop. XI. The first element which constitutes the ac-
tual being of the human mind, is the idea of some par-
ticular thing actually existing.

Proof. — The essence of man (by the Coroll. of the
last Prop.) is constituted by certain modes of the attri-
butes of God, namely (by II. Ax. ii.), by the modes of
thinking, of all which (by II. Ax. iii.) the idea is prior
in nature, and, when the idea is given, the other modes
(namely, those of which the idea is prior in nature)
must be in the same individual (by the same Axiom).
Therefore an idea is the first element constituting the
human mind. But not the idea of a non-existent thing,
for then (II viii. Coroll.) the idea itself cannot be said
to exist; it must therefore be the idea of something
actually existing. But not of an infinite thing. For an
infinite thing (I. xxi., xxii.) must always necessarily
exist; this would (by II. Ax. i.) involve an absurdity.
Therefore the first element, which constitutes the actual
being of the human mind, is the idea of something ac-
tually existing. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that the human mind is
part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say,
that the human mind perceives this or that, we make
the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so

88 THE ETHICS

far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed
through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as
he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when
we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far
as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but
also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human
mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert
that the human mind perceives a thing in part or in-
adequately.

Note. — Here, I doubt not, readers will come to a stand,
and will call to mind many things which will cause them
to hesitate; I therefore beg them to accompany me
slowly, step by step, and not to pronounce on my state-
ments, till they have read to the end.

Prop. XII. Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of
the idea, which constitutes the human mind, must be per-
ceived by the human mind, or there will necessarily be
an idea in the human mind of the said occurrence. That
is, if the object of the idea constituting the human mind
be a body, nothing can take place in that body without
being perceived by the mind.

Proof. — Whatsoever comes to pass in the object of any
idea, the knowledge thereof is necessarily in God (II. ix.
Coroll.), in so far as he is considered as affected by the
idea of the said object, that is (II. xi.), in so far as he
constitutes the mind of anything. Therefore, whatsoever
takes place in the object constituting the idea of the
human mnnd, the knowledge thereof is necessarily in God,
in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind ;
that is (by II. xi. Coroll.) the knowledge of the said thing
will necessarily be in the mind, in other words the mind
perceives it.

Note. — This proposition is also evident, and is more
clearly to be imderstood from II. vii., which see.

Prop. XIII. The object of the idea constituting the
human mind is the body, in other words a certain mode
of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.

Proof. — If indeed the body were not the object of the
human mind, the ideas of the modifications of the body
would not be in God (II. ix. Coroll.) in virtue of his con-

ii

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 89

stituting our mind, but in virtue of his constituting the
mind of something else; that is (II. xi. Coroll.), the ideas
of the modifications of the body would not be in our mind ;
now (by II. Ax. iv.) we do possess the ideas of the modi-
fications of the body. Therefore the object of the idea
constituting the human mind is the body, and the body
as it actually exists (II. xi.). Further, if there were any
other object of the idea constituting the mind besides
body, then, as nothing can exist from which some effect
does not follow (I, xxxvi.) there would necessarily have
to be in our mind an idea, which would be the effect of
that other object (II. xi.); but (II. Ax. v.) there is no such
idea. Wherefore the object of our mind is the body as
it exists, and nothing else. Q.E.D.

Note. — We thus comprehend, not only that the human
mind is united to the body, but also the nature of the
union between mind and body. However no one will be
able to grasp this adequately or distinctly, unless he first
has adequate knowledge of the nature of our body. The
propositions we have advanced hitherto have been entirely
general, applying not more to men than to other individ-
ual things, all of which, though in different degrees, are
animated.* For of everything there is necessarily an idea
in God, of which God is the cause, in the same way as
there is an idea of the human body; thus whatever we
have asserted of the idea of the human body must neces-
sarily also be asserted of the idea of everything else. Still,
on the other hand, we cannot deny that ideas, like objects,
differ one from the other, one being more excellent than
another and containing more reality, just as the object of
one idea is more excellent than the object of another idea,
and contains more reality.

Wherefore, in order to determine, wherein the human
mind differs from other things, and wherein it surpasses
them, it is necessary for us to know the nature of its object,
that is, of the human body. What this nature is, I am not
able here to explain, nor is it necessary for the proof of
what I advance, that I should do so. I will only say gen-
erally, that in proportion as any given body is more fitted

*«Animata.»

90 THE ETHICS

than others for doing many actions or receiving many im-
pressions at once, so also is the mind, of which it is the
object, more fitted than others for forming many simul-
taneous perceptions ; and the more the actions of one body
depend on itself alone, and the fewer other bodies concur
with it in action, the more fitted is the mind of which it
is the object for distinct comprehension. We may thus
recognize the superiority of one mind over others, and may
further see the cause, why we have only a very confused
knowledge of our body, and also many kindred questions,
which I will, in the following propositions, deduce from
what has been advanced. Wherefore I have thought it
worth while to explain and prove more strictly my present
statements. In order to do so, I must premise a few
propositions concerning the nature of bodies.

Axiom I. All bodies are either in motion or at rest.

Axiom II. Every body is moved sometimes more slowly,
sometimes more quickly.

Lemma I. Bodies are distinguished from one another in
respect of motion and rest, quickness and slowness, and
not in respect of substance.

Proof. — The first part of this proposition is, I take
it, self-evident. That bodies are not distinguished in
respect of substance, is plain both from I. v. and I.
viii. It is brought out still more clearly from I. xv.,note.

Lemma II. All bodies agree in certain respects.

Proof. — All bodies agree in the fact, that they involve
the conception of one and the same attribute (II., Def.
i.). Further, in the fact that they may be moved less
or more quickly, and may be absolutely in motion or at
rest.

Lemma III. A body in motion or at rest must be
determined to motion or rest by another bod)% which
other body has been determined to motion or rest by a
third body, and that third again by a fourth, and so on
to infinity.

Proof. — Bodies are individual things (II., Def. i.) which
(Lemma I.) are distinguished one from the other in
respect to motion and rest; thus (I. xxviii.) each must
necessarily be determined to motion or rest by another

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 91

individual thing, namely (II. vi.), by another body, which
other body is also (Ax. i.), in motion or at rest. And
this body again can only have been set in motion or
caused to rest by being determined by a third body to
motion or rest. This third body again by a fourth, and
so onto infinity. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that a body in motion
keeps in motion, until it is determined to a state of rest
by some other body ; and a body at rest remains so, until
it is determined to a state of motion by some other body.
This is indeed self-evident. For when I suppose, for
instance, that a given body, a, is at rest, and do not take
into consideration other bodies in motion, I cannot affirm
anything concerning the body a, except that it is at rest.
If it afterward comes to pass that a is in motion, this
cannot have resulted from its having been at rest, for no
other consequence could have been involved than its
remaining at rest. If, on the other hand, a be given in
motion, we shall, so long as we only consider a, be
unable to affirm anything concerning it, except that it is
in motion. If a is subsequently found to be at rest, this
rest cannot be the result of a's previous motion, for such
motion can only have led to continued motion; the state
of rest therefore must have resulted from something,
which was not in a, namely, from an external cause
determining a to a state of rest.

Axiom I. All modes, wherein one body is affected by
another body, follow simultaneously from the nature of
the body affected and the body affecting; so that one and
the same body may be moved in different modes, accord-
ing to the difference in the nature of the bodies moving
it; on the other hand, different bodies may be moved in
different modes by one and the same body.

Axiom II. When a body in motion impinges on another
body at rest, which it is unable to move, it recoils in
order to continue its motion, and the angle made by the
line of motion in the recoil and the plane of the body at
rest, whereon the moving body has impinged, will be equal
to the angle formed by the line of motion of incidence
and the same plane.

92 THE ETHICS

So far we have been speaking only of the most simple
bodies, which are only distinguished one from the other
by motion and rest, quickness and slowness. We now
pass on to compound bodies.

Definition. — When any given bodies of the same or dif-
ferent magnitude are compelled by other bodies to remain
in contact, or if they be moved at the same or different
rates of speed, so that their mutual movements should
preserve among themselves a certain fixed relation, we
say that such bodies are in union, and that together they
compose one body or individual, which is distinguished
from other bodies by this fact of union.

Axiom III. In proportion as the parts of an individual,
or a compound body, are in contact over a greater or less
superficies, they will with greater or less difficulty admit
of being moved from their position; consequently the
individual will, with greater or less difficulty, be brought
to assume another form. Those bodies whose parts are
in contact over large superficies, are called hard; those,
whose parts are in contact over small superficies, are
called SOFT ; those, whose parts are in motion among one
another, are called fluid.

Lemma IV. If from a body or individual, compounded of
several bodies, certain bodies be separated, and if at the
same time, an equal number of other bodies of the same
nature take their place, the individual will preserve its nature
as before, without any change in its actuality {^ forma).

Proof. — Bodies (Lemma i.) are not distinguished in re-
spect of substance: that which constitutes the actuality
{forniaju) of an individual consists (by the last Def.) in
a union of bodies; but this union, although there is a
continual change of bodies, will (by our hypothesis) be
maintained; the individual, therefore, will retain its na-
ture as before, both in respect of substance and in re-
spect of mode. Q.E.D.

Lemma V. If the parts composing an individual become
greater or less, but in such proportion, that they all pre-
serve the same mutual relations of motion and rest, the
individual will still preserve its original nature, and its
actuality will not be changed.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 93

Proof. — The same as for the last Lemma.

Lemma VI. If certain bodies composing an individual
be compelled to change the motion, which they have in.
one direction, for motion in another direction, but in such
a manner, that they be able to continue their motions
and their mutual communication in the same relations as
before, the individual will retain its own nature without
any change of its actuality.

Proof. — This proposition is self-evident, for the indi-
vidual is supposed to retain all that, which, in its defi-
nition, we spoke of as its actual being.

Lemma VII. Furthermore, the individual thus composed
preserves its nature whether it be, as a whole, in motion
or at rest, whether it be moved in this or that direc-
tion; so long as each part retains its motion, and pre-
serves its communication with other parts as before.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from the defini-
tion of an individual prefixed to Lemma iv.

JSfotc. — We thus see, how a composite individual may
be affected in many different ways, and preserve its
nature notwithstanding. Thus far we have conceived an
individual as composed of bodies only distinguished one
from the other in respect of motion and rest, speed and
slowness ; that is, of bodies of the most simple character.
If, however, we now conceive another individual com-
posed of several individuals of diverse natures, we shall
find that the number of ways in which it can be affected,
without losing its nature, will be greatly multiplied.
Each of its parts would consist of several bodies, and
therefore (by Lemma vi.) each part would admit, with-
out change to its nature, of quicker or slower motion,
and would consequently be able to transmit its motions
more quickly or more slowly to the remaining parts. If
we further conceive a third kind of individuals composed
of individuals of this second kind, we shall find that they
may be affected in a still greater number of ways with-
out changing their actuality. We may easily proceed
thus to infinity, and conceive the whole of nature as one
individual, whose parts, that is, all bodies, vary in infi-
nite ways, without any change in the individual as a

94 THE ETHICS

whole. I should feel bound to explain and demonstrate
this point at more length, if I were writing- a special
treatise on body. But I have already said that such is
not my object, I have only touched on the question, be-
cause it enables me to prove easily that which I have in
view.

Postulates.

I. The human body is composed of a number of indi-
vidual parts, of diverse nature, each one of which is in
itself extremely complex.

II. Of the individual parts composing the human body
some are fluid, some soft, some hard.

III. The individual parts composing the human body,
and consequently the human body itself, are affected in
a variety of ways by external bodies.

IV. The human body stands in need for its preserva-
tion of a number of other bodies, by which it is continu-
ally, so to speak, regenerated.

V. When the fluid part of the human body is deter-
mined by an external body to impinge often on another
soft part, it changes the surface of the latter, and, as it
were, leaves the impression thereupon of the external
body which impels it.

VI. The human body can move external bodies, and
arrange them in a variety of ways.

Prop. XIV. The human mind is capable of perceiving
a great number of things, and is so in proportion as its
body is capable of receiving a great number of im-
pressions.

Proof. — The human body (by Post. iii. and vi.) is
aff'ected in ver}' many ways by external bodies, and is
capable in very many ways of affecting external bodies.
But (II. xii. ) the human mind must perceive all that
takes place in the human body; the human mind is,
therefore, capable of perceiving a great number of
things, and is so in proportion, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XV. The idea, which constitutes the actual being
of the human mind, is not simple, but compounded of a
great number of ideas.

NATURE AXD ORIGIN OF THE MINT) 93

Proof. — The idea constituting the actual being of the
human mind is the idea of the body (II. xiii.), -srhich
(Post, i.) is composed of a great nnmber of complex
indi\4dual parts. But there is necessarily in God the
idea of each indi^■idual part whereof the body is com-
posed (II. ^'iii., Coroll.); therefore (II. vii.), the idea of
the human body is composed of these numerous ideas of
its component parts. O.E.D.

Prop. XVI. The idea of every mode, in which the
human body is affected by external bodies, must involve
the nature of the himian body, and also the nature of the
external body.

Proof. — All the modes, in which any given body is
affected, follow from the nature of the body affected, and
also from the nature of the affecting body (by Ax. i.,
after the Coroll. of Lemma iii.), wherefore their idea
also necessarily (by I, Ax. iv.) involves the nature of
both bodies; therefore, the idea of every mode, in which
the human body is affected by external bodies, involves
the nature of the human body and of the external body.
Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — Hence it follows, first, that the human
mind perceives the nature of a variety of bodies, together
with the nature of its own.

Corollary II. — It follows, secondly, that the ideas, which
we have of external bodies, indicate rather the constitu-
tion of our own body than the nature of external bodies.
I have ampl}- illustrated this in the Appendix to Part I.

Prop. XVII. If the human body is affected in a man-
ner which involves the nature of an}- external body, the
human mind will regard the said external bod}- as actually
existing, or as present to itself, until the human body be
affected in such a way, as to exclude the existence or tlie
presence of the said external body.

Proof — This proposition is self-e\'ident, for so long as
the human body continues to be thus affected, so long
will the human mind (II. xii.) regard this modification
of the body — that is (by the last Prop.), it will have
the idea of the mode as actually existing, and this idea
involves the nature of the external body. In other words,

96 THE ETHICS

it will have the idea which does not exclude, but postulates
the existence or presence of the nature of the external
body; therefore the mind (by II. xvi., CoroU. i.) will
regard the external body as actually existing, until it is
affected, etc. O.E.D.

Corollary. — The mind is able to regard as present
external bodies, by which the human body has once been
affected, even though they be no longer in existence or
present.

Proof. — When external bodies determine the fluid parts
of the human body, so that they often impinge on the
softer parts, they change the surface of the last named
(Post, v.); hence (Ax. ii., after Coroll. of Lemma iii.)
they are refracted therefrom in a different manner from
that which they followed before such change; and,
further, when afterward they impinge on the new sur-
faces by their own spontaneous movement, they will be
refracted in the same manner, as though they had been
impelled toward those surfaces by external bodies; con-
sequently, they will, while they continue to be thus
refracted, affect the human body in the same manner,
whereof the mind (II. xii.) will again take cognizance —
that is (II. xvii.), the mind will again regard the ex-
ternal body as present, and will do so, as often as the
fluid parts of the human body impinge on the aforesaid
surfaces by their own spontaneous motion. Wherefore,
although the external bodies, by which the human
body has once been affected, be no longer in existence, the
mind will nevertheless regard them as present, as often as
this action of the body is repeated. Q.E.D.

Note. — We thus see how it comes about, as is often the
case, that we regard as present things which are not. It
is possible that the same result may be brought about by
other causes; but I think it suffices for me here to have
indicated one possible explanation, just as well as if I
had pointed out the true cause. Indeed, I do not think
I am very far from the truth, for all my assumptions are
based on postulates, which rest, almost without exception,
on experience, that cannot be controverted by those who
have shown, as we have, that the human body, as we feel

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 97

it, exists (Coroll. after II. xiii). Furthermore (II. vii.,
Coroll., II. xvi., Coroll. ii.), we clearly understand what is
the difference between the idea, say, of Peter, which con-
stitutes the essence of Peter's mind, and the idea of the
said Peter, which is in another man, say, Paul. The
former directly answers to the essence of Peter's own
body, and only implies existence so long as Peter exists ;
the latter indicates rather the disposition of Paul's body
than the nature of Peter, and, therefore, while this dis-
position of Paul's body lasts, Paul's mind will regard
Peter as present to itself, even though he no longer
exists. Further, to retain the usual phraseology, the
modifications of the human body, of which the ideas rep-
resent external bodies as present to us, we will call the
images of things, though they do not recall the figure of
things. When the mind regards bodies in this fashion,
we say that it imagines. I will here draw .attention to
the fact, in order to indicate where error lies, that the
imaginations of the mind, looked at in themselves, do not
contain error. The mind does not err in the mere act
of imagining, but only in so far as it is regarded as
being without the idea, which excludes the existence of
such things as it imagines to be present to it. If the
mind, while imagining non-existent things as present to
it, is at the same time conscious that they do not really
exist, this power of imagination must be set down to the
efficacy of its nature, and not to a fault, especially if
this faculty of imagination depend solely on its own
nature — that is (I. Def. vii.), if this faculty of imagination
be free.

Prop. XVIII. If the human body has once been affected
by two or more bodies at the same time, when the mind
afterward imagines any of them, it will straightway
remember the others also.

Proof. — The mind (II. xvii. Coroll.) imagines any given
body, because the human body is affected and disposed by
the impressions from an external body, in the same manner
as it is affected when certain of its parts are acted on by
the said external body; but (by oUr hypothesis) the body
was then so disposed, that the mind imagined two bodies

98 THE ETHICS

at once ; therefore, it will also in the second case imagine
two bodies at once, and the mind, when it imagines one,
will straightway remember the other. Q.E. D.

Note. — We now clearly see what Memory is. It is simply
a certain association of ideas involving the nature of things
outside the human body, which association arises in the
mind according to the order and association of the modi-
fications {affcctiones) of the human body. I say, first, it
is an association of those ideas only, which involve the
nature of things outside the human body: not of ideas
which answer to the nature of the said things: ideas of the
modifications of the human body are, strictly speaking
(II. xvi.), those which involve the nature both of the
human body and of external bodies. I say, secondly, that
this association arises according to the order and associ-
ation of the modifications of the human body, in order to
distinguish it from that association of ideas, which arises
from the order of the intellect, whereby the mind per-
ceives things through their primary causes, and which is
in all men the same. And hence we can further clearly
understand, why the mind from the thought of one thing,
should straightway arrive at the thought of another thing,
which has no similarity with the first ; for instance, from the
thought of the word povmni (an apple), a Roman would
straightway arrive at the thought of the fruit apple, which
has no similitude with the articulate sound in question, nor
anything in common with it, except that the body of the man
has often been affected by these two things ; that is, that
the man has often heard the word ponium^ while he was
looking at the fruit ; similarly every man will go on from
one thought to another, according as his habit has ordered
the images of things in his body. For a soldier, for in-
stance, when he sees the tracks of a horse in sand, will
at once pass from the thought of a horse to the thought
of a horseman, and thence to the thought of war, etc. ;
while a countryman will proceed from the thought of a
horse to the thought of a plow, a field, etc. Thus every
man will follow this or that train of thought, according as
he has been in the habit of conjoining and associating the
mental images of things in this or that manner.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 99

Prop. XIX. The human mind has no knowledge of the
body, and does not know it to exist, save through the
ideas of the modifications whereby the body is affected.

Proof. — The human mind is the very idea or knowl-
edge of the human body (II. xiii.), which (II. ix.) is in
God, in so far as he is regarded as affected by another
idea of a particular thing actually existing: or, inasmuch
as (Post, iv.) the human body stands in need of very
many bodies whereby it is, as it were, continually regen-
erated ; and the order and connection of ideas is the same
as the order and connection of causes (II. vii.); this idea
will therefore be in God, in so far as he is regarded as
affected by the ideas of very many particular things.
Thus God has the idea of the human body, or knows the
human body, in so far as he is affected by very many
other ideas, and not in so far as he constitutes the nature
of the human mind; that is (by II. xi. Coroll.-), the human
mind does not know the human body. But the ideas of
the modifications of body are in God, in so far as he
constitutes the nature of the human mind, or the human
mind perceives those modifications (II. xii.), and conse-
quently (II. xvi.) the human body itself, and as actually
existing; therefore the mind perceives thus far only the
human body. Q.E.D.

Prop. XX. The idea or knowledge of the human mind
is also in God, following in God in the same manner,
and being referred to God in the same manner, as the
idea or knowledge of the human body.

Proof. — Thought is an attribute of God (II. i.); there-
fore (II. iii.) there must necessarily be in God the idea
both of thought itself and of all its modifications, conse-
quently also of the human mind (II. xi.). Further, this
idea or knowledge of the mind does not follow from God,
in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is affected
by another idea of an individual thing (II. ix.). But
(II. vii.) the order and connection of ideas is the same
as the order and connection of causes ; therefore this idea
or knowledge of the mind is in God and is referred to
God, in the same manner as the idea or knowledge of
the body. Q.E.D. . ^ •

loo THE ETHICS

Prop. XXI. This idea of the mind is united to the
mind in the same way as the mind is united to the
body.

Proof. — That the mind is united to the body we have
shown from the fact, that the body is the object of the
mind (II. xii. and xiii.); and so for the same reason the
idea of the mind must be united with its object, that is,
with the mind in the same manner as the mind is united
to the body. Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition is comprehended much more
clearly from what we said in the note to II. vii. We there
showed that the idea of body and body, that is, mind and
body (II. xiii.), are one and the same individual conceived
now under the attribute of thought, now under the attri-
bute of extension ; wherefore the idea of the mind and the
mind itself are one and the same thing, which is conceived
under one and the same attribute, namely, thought. The
idea of the mind, I repeat, and the mind itself are in God
by the same necessity and follow from him from the same
power of thinking. Strictly speaking, the idea of the mind,
that is, the idea of an idea, is nothing but the distinctive
quality [forma) of the idea in so far as it is conceived as
a mode of thought without reference to the object; if a
man knows anything, he, by that very fact, know^s that he
knows it, and at the same time knows that he knows that
he knows it, and so on to infinity. But I will treat of this
hereafter.

Prop. XXII. The human mind perceives not only the
modifications of the body, but also the ideas of such
modifications.

Proof. — The ideas of the ideas of modifications follow in
God in the same manner, and are referred to God in the
same manner, as the ideas of the said modifications. This
is proved in the same way as II. xx. But the ideas of the
modifications of the body are in the human mind (II. xii.),
that is, in God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of
the human mind; therefore the ideas of these ideas will
be in God, in so far as he has the knowledge or idea of
the human mind, that is (II. xxi.), they will be in the
human mind itself, which therefore perceives not only

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND loi

the modifications of the body, but also the ideas of such
modifications. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIII. The mind does not know itself, except
in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of
the body.

Proof. — The idea or knowledge of the mind (II. xx.)
follows in God in the same manner, and is referred to
God in the same manner, as the idea or knowledge of the
body. But since (II. xix.) the human mind does not
know the human body itself, that is (II. xi. Coroll.) since
the knowledge of the human body is not referred to God,
in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind;
therefore, neither is the knowledge of the mind referred
to God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the
human mind; therefore (by the same Coroll. II. xi.), the
human mind thus far has no knowledge of itself. Fur-
ther the ideas of the modifications, whereby, the body is
affected, involve the nature of the human body itself
(II. xvi.), that is (II. xiii.), they agree with the nature of
the mind; wherefore the knowledge of these ideas neces-
sarily involves knowledge of the mind; but (by the last
Prop.) the knowledge of these ideas is in the human mind
itself; wherefore the human mind thus far only has
knowledge of itself. Q.E.D,

Prop. XXIV. The human mind does not involve an
adequate knowledge of the parts composing the human body.

Proof. — The parts composing the human body do not
belong to the essence of that body, except in so far as
they communicate their motions to one another in a cer-
tain fixed relation (Def. after Lemma iii), not in so far
as they can be regarded as individuals without relation to
the human body. The parts of the human body are highly
complex individuals (Post, i.), whose parts (Lemma iv.)
can be separated from the human body without in any
way destroying the nature and distinctive quality of the
latter, and they can communicate their motions (Ax. i.,
after Lemma iii.) to other bodies in another relation;
therefore (II. iii.) the idea or knowledge of each part will
be in God, inasmuch (II. ix. ) as he is regarded as
affected by another idea of a particular thing, which par-

I02 THE ETHICS

ticiilar thing is prior in the order of nature to the afore-
said part (II. vii.). We may affirm the same thing of
each part of each individual composing the human body;
therefore, the knowledge of each part composing the hu-
man body is in God, in so far as he is affected by very
many ideas of things, and not in so far as he has the
idea of the hiiman body only, in other words, the idea
which constitutes the nature of the human mind (II. xiii.);
therefore (II. xi. Coroll.) the human mind does not in-
volve an adequate knowledge of the human body. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXV. The idea of each modification of the hu-
man body does not involve an adequate knowledge of
the external body.

Proof. — We have shown that the idea of a modification
of the human body involves the nature of an external
body, in so far as that external body conditions the
human body in a given manner. But, in so far as the
external body is an individual, which has no reference to
the human body, the knowledge or idea thereof is in God
(II. ix.), in so far as God is regarded as affected by the
idea' of a further thing, which (II. vii.) is naturally prior
to the said external body. Wherefore an adequate knowl-
edge of the external body is not in God, in so far as he
has the idea of the modification of the human body; in
other words, the idea of the modification of the human
body does not involve an adequate knowledge of the
external body. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVI. The human mind does not perceive any
external body as actually existing, except through the
ideas of the modifications of its own body.

Proof. — If the human body is in no way affected by a
given external body, then (II. vii.) neither is the idea of
the human body, in other words, the human mind, affected
in any way by the idea of the existence of the said ex-
ternal body, nor does it in any manner perceive its exist-
ence. But, in so far as the human body is affected in any
way by a given external body, thus far (II. xvi. and
Coroll.) it perceives that external body. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — In so far as the human mind imagines an
external body, it has not an adequate knowledge thereof.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 103

Proof. — When the human mind regards external bodies
through the ideas of the modifications of its own body,
we say that it imagines (see II. xvii. note); now the
mind can only imagine external bodies as actually exist-
ing. Therefore (by II. xxv.), in so far as the mind
imagines external bodies, it has not an adequate knowl-
edge of them. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVII. The idea of each modification of the
human body does not involve an adequate knowledge of
the human body itself.

Proof. — Every idea of the modification of the human
body involves the nature of the human body, in so far as
the human body is regarded as affected in a given man-
ner (II. xvi.). But, inasmuch as the human body is an
individual which may be affected in many other ways,
the idea of the said modification, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVIII. The ideas of the modifications of the
human body, in so far as they have reference only to the
human mind, are not clear and distinct, but confused.

Proof. — The ideas of the modifications of the human
body involve the nature both of the human body and of
external bodies (II. xvi.); they must involve the nature
not only of the human body but also of its parts ; for the
modifications are modes (Post, iii.), whereby the parts of
the human body, and, consequently, the human body as a
whole are affected. But (by II. xxiv., xxv.) the adequate
knowledge of external bodies, as also of the parts com-
posing the human body, is not in God, in so far as he is
regarded as affected by the human mind, but in so far as
he is regarded as affected by other ideas. These ideas of
modifications, in so far as they are referred to the human
mind alone, are as consequences without premises, in
other words, confused ideas. Q.E.D.

Note. — The idea which constitutes the nature of the
human mind is, in the same manner, proved not to be,
when considered in itself alone, clear and distinct ; as also
is the case with the idea of the htiman mind, and the
ideas of the ideas of the modifications of the human body,
in so far as they are referred to the mind only, as every-
one may easily see.

I04 THE ETHICS

Prop. XXIX. The idea of the idea of each modification
of the human body does not involve an adequate knowl-
edge of the human mind.

Proof. — The idea of a modification of the human body
(II. xxvii.) does not involve an adequate knowledge of the
said body, in other words, does not adequately express its
nature; that is (II. xiii.) it does not agree with the nature
of the mind adequately; therefore (I. Ax. vi.), the idea of
this idea does not adequately express the nature of the
human mind, or does not involve an adequate knowledge
thereof.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that the human mind,
when it perceives things after the common order of
nature, has not an adequate but only a confused and
fragmentary knowledge of itself, of its own body, and of
external bodies. For the mind does not know itself,
except in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifi-
cations of body (II. xxiii.). It only perceives its own
body (II. xix.) through the ideas of the modifications,
and only perceives external bodies through the same
means; thus, in so far as it has such ideas of modifica-
tion, it has not an adequate knowledge of itself (II. xxix.),
nor of its own body (II. xxvii.), nor of external bodies
(II. XXV.), but only a fragmentary and confused knowl-
edge thereof (II. xxviii. and note). Q.E.D.

Note. — I say expressly, that the mind has not an ade-
quate but only a confused knowledge of itself, its own
body, and of external bodies, whenever it perceives things
after the common order of nature ; that is, whenever it is
determined from without, namely, by the fortuitous play
of circumstance, to regard this or that; not at such times
as it is determined from within, that is, by the fact of
regarding several things at once, to understand their points
of agreement, difference, and contrast. Whenever it is
determined in anywise from within, it regards things
clearly and distinctly, as I will show below.

Prop. XXX. We can only have a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration of our body.

Proof. — The duration of our body does not depend on
its essence (II. Ax. i.), nor on the absolute nature of

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 105

God (I. xxi.). But (I. xxviii.) it is conditioned to exist
and operate by causes, whicli in their turn are conditioned
to exist and operate in a fixed and definite relation by
other causes, these last again being conditioned by others,
and so on to infinity. The duration of our body there-
fore depends on the common order of nature, or the con-
stitution of things. Now, however a thing may be
constituted, the adequate knowledge of that thing is in
God, in so far as he has the ideas of all things, and not
in so far as he has the idea of the human body only.
(II. ix. Coroll.) Wherefore the knowledge of the duration
of our body is in God very inadequate, in so far as he is
only regarded as constituting the nature of the human
mind; that is (II. xi. Coroll.), this knowledge is very
inadequate in our mind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXI. We can only have a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration of particular things external to our-
selves.

Proof. — Every particular thing, like the human body,
must be conditioned by another particular thing to exist
and operate in a fixed and definite relation; this other
particular thing must likewise be conditioned by a third,
and so on to infinity. (I. xxviii.) As we have shown in
the foregoing proposition, from this common property of
particular things, we have only a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration of our body ; we must draw a similar
conclusion with regard to the duration of particular things,
namely, that we can only have a very inadequate knowl-
edge of the duration thereof. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that all particular things
are contingent and perishable. For we can have no
adequate idea of their duration (by the last Prop.), and
this is what we must understand by the contingency
and perishableness of things. (I. xxxiii.. Note i.) For
(I. xxix.), except in this sense, nothing is contingent.

Prop. XXXII. All ideas, in so far as they are re-
ferred to God, are true.

Proof. — All ideas which are in God agree in every re-
spect with their objects (II. vii. Coroll.), therefore (I.
Ax. vi.) they are all true. Q.E.D.

io6 THE ETHICS

Prop. XXXIII. There is nothing positive in ideas,
which causes them to be called false.

Proof. — If this be denied, conceive, if possible, a posi-
tive mode of thinking, which should constitute the dis-
tinctive quality of falsehood. Such a mode of thinking
cannot be in God (II. xxxii.); external to God it cannot
be or be conceived (I. xv.). Therefore there is noth-
ing positive in ideas which causes them to be called
false. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXIV. Every idea, which in us is absolute or
adequate and perfect, is true.

Proof. — When we say that an idea in us is adequate and
perfect, we say, in other words (II. xi. Coroll.), that the
idea is adequate and perfect in God, in so far as he
constitutes the essence of our minds; consequently (II.
xxxii.), we say that such an idea is true. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXV. Falsity consists in the privation of knowl-
edge, which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas
involve.

Proof. — There is nothing positive in ideas, which causes
them to bfe called false ( II. xxxiii) ; but falsity cannot
consist in simple privation (for minds, not bodies, are
said to err and to be mistaken), neither can it consist in
absolute ignorance, for ignorance and error are not iden-
tical ; wherefore it consists in the privation of knowledge,
which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas in-
volve. Q.E.D.

Note. — In the note to II. xvii. I explained how error
consists in the privation of knowledge, but in order to
throw more light on the subject I will give an example.
For instance, men are mistaken in thinking themselves
free ; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their
own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they
are conditioned. Their idea of freedom, therefore, is
simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions.
As for their saying that human actions depend on the
will, this is a mere phrase without any idea to correspond
thereto. What the will is, and how it moves the body,
they none of them know; those who boast of such knowl-
edge, and feign dwellings and habitations for the soul.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 107

are wont to provoke either laughter or disgust. So,
again, when we look at the sun, we imagine that it is
distant from us about two hundred feet; this error does
not lie solely in this fancy, but in the fact that, while we
thus imagine, we do not know the sun's true distance
or the cause of the fancy. For although we afterward
learn, that the sun is distant from us more than six hun-
dred of the earth's diameters, we none the less shall
fancy it to be near; for we do not imagine the sun as
near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but
because the modification of our body involves the essence
of the sun, in so far as our said body is affected thereby.

Prop. XXXVI. Inadequate and confused ideas follow by
the same necessity, as adequate or clear and distinct ideas.

Proof. — All ideas are in God (I. xv.), and in so far as
they are referred to God are true (II. xxxii.) and (II. vii.
CoroU.) adequate; therefore there are no ideas confused
or inadequate, except in respect to a particular mind
(cf. II. xxiv. and xxviii.); therefore all ideas, whether
adequate or inadequate, follow by the same necessity
(II. vi.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXVII. That which is common to all (cf.
Lemma II. above), and which is equally in a part and
in the whole, does not constitute the essence of any par-
ticular thing.

Proof. — If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that
it constitutes the essence of some particular thing; for in-
stance, the essence of b. Then (II. Def. ii.) it cannot
without B either exist or be conceived; but this is against
our hypothesis. Therefore it does not appertain to b's es-
sence nor does it constitute the essence of any particular
thing. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXVIII. Those things, which are common to
all, and which are equally in a part and in the whole,
cannot be conceived except adequately.

Proof. — Let a be something which is common to all
bodies, and which is equally present in the part of any
given body and in the whole. I say a cannot be con-
ceived except adequately. For the idea thereof in God
will necessarily therefore be adequate (II. vii. Coroll.).

■^jtffi^^

io8 THE ETHICS

both in so far as God has the idea of the human body,
and also in so far as he has the idea of the modifications
of the human body (II. xvi., xxv., xxvii.), involve in part
the nature of the human body and the nature of external
bodies; that is (II. xii., xiii.), the idea in God will nec-
essarily be adequate, both in so far as he constitutes the
human mind, and in so far as he has the ideas, which
are in the human mind. Therefore the mind (II. xi.
Coroll.) necessarily perceives a adequately, and has this
adequate perception, both in so far as it perceives
itself and in so far as it perceives its own or
any external body, nor can a be conceived in any other
manner. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that there are certain
ideas or notions common to all men; for (by Lemma ii.)
all bodies agree in certain respects, which (by the fore-
going Prop.) must be adequately or clearly and distinctly
perceived by all.

Prop. XXXIX. That, which is common to and a prop-
erty of the human body and such other bodies as are
wont to affect the human body, and which is present
equally in each part of either, or in the whole, will be
represented by an adequate idea in the mind.

Proof. — If A be that, which is common to and a prop-
erty of the human body and external bodies, and equally
present in the human body and in the said external
bodies, in each part of each external body and in the
whole there will be an adequate idea of a in God (II.
vii. Coroll.) both in so far as he has the idea of the hu-
man body, and in so far as he has the ideas of the given
external bodies. Let it now be granted, that the human
body is affected by an external body through that, which
it has in common therewith, namely, a ; the idea of this
modification will involve the property a (II. xvi.), and
therefore (II. vii. Coroll.) the idea of this modification,
in so far as it involves the property a, will be adequate
in God, in so far as God is affected by the idea of the
human body; that is (II. xiii.), in so far as he constitutes
the nature of the human mind; therefore (II. xi. Coroll.)
this idea is also adequate in the human mind. Q.E.D.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 109

Corollary. — Hence it follows that the mind is fitted to
perceive adequately more things, in proportion as its body-
has more in common with other bodies.

Prop. XL. Whatsoever ideas in the mind follow from
ideas which are therein adequate, are also themselves
adequate.

Proof. — This proposition is self-evident. For when we
say that an idea in the human mind follows from ideas
which are therein adequate, we say, in other words (II. xi.
Coroll.) that an idea is in the divine intellect, whereof
God is the cause, not in so far as he is infinite, nor in
so far as he is affected by the ideas of very many partic-
ular things, but only in so far as he constitutes the essence
of the human mind.

Note I. — I have thus set forth the cause of those
notions, which are common to all men, and which form
the basis of our ratiocination. But there are other causes
of certain axioms or notions, which it would be to the
purpose to set forth by this method of ours ; for it would
thus appear what notions are more useful than others,
and what notions have scarcely any use at all. Further-
more, we should see what notions are common to all men,
and what notions are only clear and distinct to those who
are unshackeled by prejudice, and we should detect those
which are ill-founded. Again we should discern whence
the notions called secondary derived their origin, and
consequently the axioms on which they are founded, and
other points of interest connected with these questions.
But I have decided to pass over the subject here, partly
because I have set it aside for another treatise, partly
because I am afraid of wearying the reader by too great
prolixity. Nevertheless, in order not to omit anything
necessary to be known, I will briefly set -down the causes,
whence are derived the terms styled transcendental,
such as Being, Thing, Something. These terms arose
from the fact, that the human body, being limited, is
only capable of distinctly forming a certain number of
images (what an image is I explained in II. xvii. note)
within itself at the same time ; if this number be exceeded
the images will begin to be confused; if this number.

no THE ETHICS

of images which the body is capable of forming'
distinctly within itself, be largely exceeded, all will be-
come entirely confused one with another. This being
so, it is evident (from II. Prop. xvii. Coroll. and xviii. )
that the human mind can distinctly imagine as many
things simultaneously, as its body can form images simul-
taneously. When the images become quite confused in
the body, the mind also imagines all bodies confusedly
without any distinction, and will comprehend them, as it
were, under one attribute, namely, under the attribute
of Being, Thing, etc. The same conclusion can be drawn
from the fact that images are not always equally vivid,
and from other analogous causes, which there is no need
to explain here; for the purpose which we have in view
it is sufficient for us to consider one only. All may be
reduced to this, that these terms represent ideas in the
highest degree confused. From similar causes arise those
notions, which we call general, such as man, horse, dog,
etc. They arise, to wit, from the fact that so many im-
ages, for instance, of men, are formed simultaneously in
the human mind, that the powers of imagination break
down, not indeed utterly, but to the extent of the mind
losing count of small differences between individuals
{e. g:, color, size, etc.) and their definite number, and
only distinctly imagining that, in which all the individuals,
in so far as the body is affected by them, agree; for that
is the point, in which each of the said individuals chiefly
affected the body; this the mind expresses by the name
man, and this it predicates of an infinite number of par-
ticular individuals. For, as we have said, it is unable to
imagine the definite number of individuals. We must,
however, bear in mind, that these general notions are
not formed by all men in the same way, but vary in each
individual according as the point varies, whereby the body
has been most often affected and which the mind most
easily imagines or remembers. For instance, those who
have most often regarded with admiration the stature of
man, will by the name of man understand an animal of
erect stature ; those who have been accustomed to regard
some other attribute, will form a different general image

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND iii

of man, for instance, that man is a laughing animal, a
two-footed animal without feathers, a rational animal, and
thus, in other cases, everyone will form general images
of things according to the habit of his body.

It is thus not to be wondered at, that among philoso-
phers, who seek to explain things in nature merely by
the images formed of them, so many controversies should
have arisen.

• Note II. — From all that has been said above it is
clear, that we, in many cases, perceive and form our
general notions: (i.) From particular things represented
to our intellect fragmentarily, confusedly, and without
order through our senses (II. xxix. Coroll.). I have set-
tled to call such perceptions by the name of knowledge
from the mere suggestions of experience. (2.) From
symbols, e.g.^ from the fact of having read or heard cer-
tain words we remember things and form certain ideas
concerning them, similar to those through which we
imagine things (II. xviii. note). I shall call both these
ways of regarding things knowledge of the first kind,
OPINION, or IMAGINATION. (3.) From the fact that we
have notions common to all men, and adequate ideas of
the properties of things (II. xxxviii. Coroll. xxxix. and
Coroll. and xl.); this I call reason and knowledge of
THE second kind. Bcsides these two kinds of knowledge,
there is, as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowl-
edge, which we will call intuition. This kind of knowl-
edge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute
essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate
knowledge of the essence of things. I will illustrate all
three kinds of knowledge by a single example. Three
numbers are given for finding a fourth, which shall be
to the third as the second is to the first. Tradesmen
without hesitation multiply the second by the third, and
divide the product by the first ; either because they have
not forgotten the rule which they received from a master
without any proof, or because they have often made trial
of it with simple numbers, or by virtue of the proof of
the nineteenth proposition of the seventh book of Euclid,
namely, in virtue of the general property of proportionals..

112 THE ETHICS

But with very simple numbers there is no need of this.
For instance, one, two, three, being given, everyone can
see that the fourth proportional is six; and this is much
clearer, because wc infer the fourth number from an in-
tuitive grasping of the ratio, which the first bears to the
second.

Prop. XLI. Knowledge of the first kind is the only
source of falsity, knowledge of the second and third
kinds is necessarily true.

Proof. — To knowledge of the first kind we have (in the
foregoing note) assigned all those ideas, which are inade-
quate and confused; therefore this kind of knowledge is
the only source of falsity (II. xxxv.). Furthermore, we
assigned to the second and third kinds of knowledge those
ideas which are adequate; therefore these kinds are nec-
essarily true (II. xxxiv.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XLII. Knowledge of the second and third kinds,
not knowledge of the first kind, teaches us to distinguish
the true from the false.

Proof. — This proposition is self-evident. He, who knows
how to distinguish between true and false, must have an
adequate idea of true and false. That is (II. xl., note ii.),
he must know the true and the false by the second or
third kind of knowledge.

Prop. XLIII. He, who has a true idea, simultaneously
knows that he has a true idea, and cannot doubt of the
truth of the thing perceived.

Proof. — A true idea in us is an idea which is adequate
in God, in so far as he is displayed through the nature of
the human mind (II. xi. Coroll.). Let us suppose that
there is in God, in so far as he is displayed through the
human mind, an adequate idea, a. The idea of this idea
must also necessarily be in God, and be referred to him in
the same way as the idea a (by II. xx., whereof the proof
is of universal application). But the idea a is supposed to
be referred to God, in so far as he is displayed through
the human mind; therefore the idea of the idea a must
be referred to God in the same manner; that is (by II.
xi. Coroll.), the adequate idea of the idea a will be in
the mind, which has the adequate idea a; therefore he,

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 113

who has an adequate idea or knows a thing truly (II.
xxxiv.), must at the same time have an adequate idea
or true knowledge of his knowledge; that is, obviously,
he must be assured. Q. E.D.

Note. — I explained in the note to II. xxi, what is meant
by the idea of an idea; but we may remark that the
foregoing proposition is in itself sufficiently plain. No
one, who has a true idea, is ignorant that a true idea
involves the highest certainty. For to have a true idea
is only another expression for knowing a thing perfectly,
or as well as possible. No one, indeed, can doubt of
this, unless he thinks that an idea is something lifeless,
like a picture on a panel, and not a mode of thinking —
namely, the very act of understanding. And who, I ask,
can know that he understands anything, unless he do
first understand it ? In other words, who can know that
he is sure of a thing, unless he be first sure of that
thing ? Further, what can there be more clear, and more
certain, than a true idea as a standard of truth ? Even
as light displays both itself and darkness, so is truth a
standard both of itself and of falsity.

I think I have thus sufficiently answered these ques-
tions— namely, if a true idea is distinguished from a
false idea, only in so far as it is said to agree with its
object, a true idea has no more reality or perfection
than a false idea (since the two are only distinguished
by an extrinsic mark ) ; consequently, neither will a man
who has true ideas have any advantage over him who
has only false ideas. Further, how comes it that men
have false ideas ? Lastly, how can any one be sure, that
he has ideas which agree with their objects ? These
questions, I repeat, I have, in my opinion, sufficiently
answered. The difference between a true idea and a
false idea is plain: from what was said in II. xxxv., the
former is related to the latter as being is to not-being.
The causes of falsity I have set forth very clearly in II.
xix. and II. xxxv. with the note. From what is there
stated, the difference between a man who has true ideas,
and a man who has only false ideas, is made apparent.
As for the last question — as to how a man can be sure.

114 THE ETHICS

that he has ideas that agree with their objects, I have
just pointed out, with abundant clearness, that his knowl-
edge arises from the simple fact, that he has an idea
which corresponds with its object — in other words, that
truth is its own standard. We may add that our mind,
in so far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite
intellect of God (II. xi. Coroll.); therefore, the clear and
distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the
ideas of God.

Prop. XLIV. It is not in the nature of reason to regard
things as contingent, but as necessary.

Proof. — It is in the nature of reason to perceive things
truly (II. xli.), namely (I. Ax. vi.), as they are in them-
selves— that is (I. xxix.), not as contingent, but as neces-
sary. Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — Hence it follows, that it is only through
our imagination that we consider things, whether in
respect to the future or the past, as contingent.

Note. — How this way of looking at things arises, I will
briefly explain. We have shown above ( II. xvii. and
Coroll.) that the mind always regards things as present
to itself, even though they be not in existence, until some
causes arise which exclude their existence and presence.
Further (II. xviii.), we showed that, if the human body
has once been affected by two external bodies simul-
taneously, the mind, when it afterward imagines one of
the said external bodies, will straightway remember the
other — that is, it will regard both as present to itself,
unless there arise causes which exclude their existence
and presence. Further, no one doubts that we imagine
time, from the fact that we imagine bodies to be moved
some more slowly than others, some more quickly, some
at equal speed. Thus, let us suppose that a child yes-
terday saw Peter for the first time in the morning, Paul
at noon, and Simon in the evening; then that to-day he
again sees Peter in the morning. It is evident, from
11. Prop, xviii., that, as soon as he sees the morning light,
he will imagine that the sun will traverse the same parts
of the sky, as it did when he saw it on the preceding
day; in other words, he will imagine a complete day,

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 115

and, together with his imagination of the morning, he
will imagine Peter; with noon, he will imagine Paul;
and with evening, he will imagine Simon — that is, he
will imagine the existence of Paul and Simon in relation
to a future time ; on the other hand, if he sees Simon in
the evening, he will refer Peter and Paul to a past time,
by imagining them simultaneously with the imagination
of a past time. If it should at any time happen, that on
some other evening the child should see James instead
of Simon, he will, on the following morning, associate
with his imagination of evening sometimes Simon, some-
times James, not both together: for the child is supposed
to have seen, at evening, one or other of them, not
both together. His imagination will therefore waver;
and, with the imagination of future evenings, he will
associate first one, then the other — that is, he will
imagine them in the future, neither of thern as certain,
but both as contingent. This wavering of the imagina-
tion will be the same, if the imagination be concerned
with things which we thus contemplate, standing in rela-
tion to time past or time present: consequently, we may
imagine things as contingent, whether they be referred
to time present, past, or future.

Corollary II. — It is in the nature of reason to perceive
things under a certain form of eternity (sub quddam
ceternitatis specie).

Proof. — It is in the nature of reason to regard things,
not as contingent, but as necessary (II. xliv.). Reason
perceives this necessity of things (II. xli.) truly — that is
(I. Ax. vi.), as it is in itself. But (I. xvi.) this necessity
of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of
God; therefore, it is in the nature of reason to regard
things under this form of eternity. We may add that the
bases of reason are the notions (II. xxxviii.) which
answer to things common to all, and which (II
xxxvii.) do not answer to the essence of any par-
ticular thing: which must therefore be conceived with-
out any relation to time, under a certain form of
eternity.

Prop. XLV. Every idea of everybody, or of every parr

ii6 THE ETHICS

ticular thing actually existing, necessarily involves the
eternal and infinite essence of God.

Proof. — The idea of a particular thing actually existing
necessarily involves both the existence and the essence of
the said thing (II. viii.). Now particular things cannot
be conceived without God (I. xv.); but, inasmuch as
(II. vi.) they have God for their cause, in so far as he is
regarded under the attribute of which the things in
question are modes, their ideas must necessarily involve
(I. Ax. iv.) the conception of the attribute of those
ideas — that is (I. vi.), the eternal and infinite essence
of God. Q.E.D.

Note. — By existence I do not here mean duration — that
is, existence in so far as it is conceived abstractedly, and
as a certain form of quantity. I am speaking of the very
nature of existence, which is assigned to particular things,
because they follow in infinite numbers and in infinite
ways from the eternal necessity of God's nature (I. xvi.).
I am speaking, I repeat, of the very existence of particu-
lar things, in so far as they are in God. For although
each particular thing be conditioned by another particular
thing to exist in a given way, yet the force whereby each
particular thing perseveres in existing follows from the
eternal necessity of God's nature {cf. I. xxiv. , Coroll.).

Prop. XLVI. The knowledge of the eternal and infinite
essence of God which every idea involves is adequate and
perfect.

Proof. — The proof of the last proposition is universal;
and whether a thing be considered as a part or a whole,
the idea thereof, whether of the whole or of a part (by
the last Prop.), will involve God's eternal and infinite
essence. Wherefore, that, which gives knowledge of
the eternal and infinite essence of God, is common
to all, and is equally in the part and in the whole;
therefore (II. xxxviii.) this knowledge will be ade-
quate. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLVII. The human mind has an adequate knowl-
edge of the eternal and infinite essence of God.

Proof. — The human mind has ideas (II. xxii.) from
which (II. xxiii.) it perceives itself and its own body

ii

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 117

(II. xix.) and external bodies (II. svi. CoroU. I. and II.
xvii.) as actually existing; therefore (II. xlv. xlvi.) it
has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite
essence of God. Q.E.D.

Note. — Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the
eternity of God are known to all. Now as all things are
in God, and are conceived through God, we can from this
knowledge infer many things, which we may adequately
know, and we may form that third kind of knowledge of
which we spoke in the note to II. xL, and of the excel-
lence and use of which we shall have occasion to speak in
Part V. Men have not so clear a knowledge of God as
they have of general notions, because they are unable to
imagine God as they do bodies, and also because they have
associated the name of God with images of things that they
are in the habit of seeing, as indeed they can hardly avoid
doing, being, as the}^ are, men, and continually affected by
external bodies. Many errors, in truth, can be traced to
this head, namely, that we do not apply names to things
rightly. For instance, when a man says that the lines
drawn from the centre of a circle to its circumference are
not equal, he then, at all events, assuredly attaches a
meaning to the word circle different from that assigned by
mathematicians. So again, when men make mistakes in
calculation, they have one set of figures in their mind, and
another on the paper. If we could see into their minds,
they do not make a mistake ; they seem to do so, because
we think that they have the same numbers in their mind
as they have on the paper. If this were not so, we should
not believe them to be in error, any more than I thought
that a man was in error, whom I lately heard exclaiming
that his entrance hall had flown into a neighbor's hen,
for his meaning seemed to me sufficiently clear. Very
many controversies have arisen from the fact, that men do
not rightly explain their meaning, or do not rightly inter-
pret the meaning of others. For, as a matter of fact, as
they flatly contradict themselves, they assume now one
side, now another, of the argument, so as to oppose the
opinions, which they consider mistaken and absurd in their
opponents.

ii8 THE ETHICS

Prop. XLVIII. In the mind there is no absolute or
free will ; but the mind is determined to wish this or that
by a cause, which has also been determined by another
cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to
infinity.

Proof. — The mind is a fixed and definite mode of thought
(II. xi.), therefore it cannot be the free cause of its actions
(I. xvii. Coroll. ii.); in other words it cannot have an ab-
solute faculty of positive or negative volition; but (by I.
xxviii.) it must be determined by a cause, which has also
been determined by another cause, and this last by another,
etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — In the same way it is proved, that there is in
the mind no absolute faculty of understanding, desiring,
loving, etc. Whence it follows that these and similar
faculties are either entirely fictitious, or are merely ab-
stract or general terms, such as we are accustomed to put
together from particular things. Thus the intellect and
the will stand in the same relation to this or that idea,
or this or that volition, as " lapidity ^^ to this or that stone,
or as ^* man ** to Peter and Paul. The cause which leads
men to consider themselves free has been set forth in the
Appendix to Part I. But, before I proceed further, I
would here remark that, by the will to affirm and decide,
I mean the faculty, not the desire. I mean, I repeat, the
faculty, whereby the mind affirms or denies what is true
or false, not the desire, wherewith the mind wishes for or
turns away from any given thing. After we have proved,
that these faculties of ours are general notions, which
cannot be distinguished from the particular instances on
which they are based, we must inquire whether volitions
themselves are anything besides the ideas of things. We
must inquire, I say, whether there is in the mind any
affirmation or negation beyond that, which the idea, in so
far as it is an idea, involves. On which subject see the
following proposition, and II. Def. iii., lest the idea of
pictures should suggest itself. For by ideas I do not
mean images such as are formed at the back of the
eye, or in the midst of the brain, but the conceptions
of thought.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 119

Prop. XLIX. There is in the mind no volition or
affirmation and negation, save that which an idea, inas-
much as it is an idea, involves.

Proof. — There is in the mind no absolute faculty of
positive or negative volition, but only particular volitions,
namely, this or that affirmation, and this or that negation.
Now let us conceive a particular volition, namely the mode
of thinking whereby the mind affirms, that the three in-
terior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.
This affirmation involves the conception or idea of a
triangle, that is, without the idea of a triangle it cannot
be conceived. It is the same thing to say, that the con-
cept A must involve the concept b, as it is to say, that
A cannot be conceived without b. Further, this affirma-
tion cannot be made (II. Ax. iii) without the idea of a
triangle. Therefore, this affirmation can neither be nor
be conceived, without the idea of a triangle. Again, this
idea of a triangle must involve this same affirmation,
namely, that its three interior angles are equal to two
right angles. Wherefore, and vice versa, this idea of a
triangle can neither be nor be conceived without this
affirmation, therefore, this affirmation belongs to the
essence of the idea of a triangle, and is nothing besides.
What we have said of this volition ( inasmuch as we
have selected it at random) may be said of any other
volition, namely, that it is nothing but an idea. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Will and understanding are one and the
same.

Proof. — Will and understanding are nothing beyond the
individual volitions and ideas (II. xlviii. and note). But
a particular volition and a particular idea are one and
the same (by the foregoing Prop.); therefore, will and
understanding are one and the same. Q.E.D.

Note. — We have thus removed the cause which is com-
monly assigned for error. For we have shown above,
that falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge
involved in ideas which are fragmentary and confused.
Wherefore a false idea, inasmuch as it is false, does not
involve certainty. When we say, then, that a man acqui-
esces in what is false, and that he has no doubts on the

I20 THE ETHICS

subject, we do not say that he is certain, but only that he
does not doubt, or that he acquiesces in what is false,
inasmuch as there are no reasons, which should cause his
imagination to waver (see II. xliv. note). Thus, although
the man be assumed to acquiesce in what is false, we
shall never say that he is certain. For by certainty we
mean something positive (II. xliii. and note), not merely
the absence of doubt.

However, in order that the foregoing proposition may
be fully explained, I will draw attention to a few addi-
tional points, and I will furthermore answer the objec-
tions which may be advanced against our doctrine. Lastly,
in order to remove every scruple, I have thought it worth
while to point out some of the advantages, which follow
therefrom. I say "some,'^ for they will be better appre-
ciated from what we shall set forth in the fifth part.

I begin, then, with the first point, and warn my readers
to make an accurate distinction between an idea, or con-
ception of the mind and the images of things which we
imagine. It is further necessary that they should distin-
guish between idea and words, whereby we signify things.
These three — namely, images, words, and ideas — are by
many persons either entirely confused together, or not dis-
tinguished with sufficient accuracy or care, and hence
people are generally in ignorance, how absolutely neces-
sary is a knowledge of this doctrine of the will, both
for philosophic purposes and for the wise ordering of life.
Those who think that ideas consist in images which are
formed in us by contact with external bodies, persuade
themselves that the ideas of those things, whereof we
can form no mental picture, are not ideas, but only fig-
ments, which we invent by the free decree of our will;
they thus regard ideas as though they were inanimate
pictures on a panel, and filled with this misconception,
do not see that an idea, inasmuch as it is an idea, involves
an affirmation or negation. Again, those who confuse
words with ideas, or with the affirmation which an idea
involves, think that they can wish something contrary to
what they feel, affirm, or deny. This misconception will
easily be laid aside by one who reflects on the nature of

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 121

knowledge, and seeing that it in no wise involves the
conception of extension, will therefore clearly understand,
that an idea (being a mode of thinking) does not con-
sist in the image of anything, nor in words. The essence
of words and images is put together by bodily motions,
which in no wise involve the conception of thought.

These few words on this subject will suffice: I will
therefore pass on to consider the objections which may
be raised against our doctrine. Of these, the first is ad-
vanced by those, who think that the will has a wider
scope than the understanding, and that therefore it is
different therefrom. The reason for their holding the
belief, that the will has wider scope than the understand-
ing, is that they assert, that they have no need of an in-
crease in their faculty of assent, that is of affirmation
or negation, in order to assent to an infinity of things
which we do not perceive, but that they have need of an
increase in their faculty of understanding. The will is
thus distinguished from the intellect, the latter being
finite and the former infinite. Secondly, it may be objected
that experience seems to teach us especially clearly, that we
are able to suspend our judgment before assenting to
things which we perceive, this is confirmed by the fact
that no one is said to be deceived; in so far as he per-
ceives anything, but only in so far as he assents or dis-
sents.

For instance, he who feigns a winged horse, does not
therefore admit that a winged horse exists; that is, he
is not deceived, unless he admits in addition that a
winged horse does exist. Nothing therefore seems to be
taught more clearly by experience, than that the will or
faculty of assent is free and different from the faculty
of understanding. Thirdly, it may be objected that one
affirmation does not apparently contain more reality than
another; in other words, that we do not seem to need
for affirming, that what is true is true, any greater power
than for affirming, that what is false is true. We have,
however, seen that one idea has more reality or perfection
than another, for as objects are some more excellent than
others, so also are the ideas of them som.e more excelr

122 THE ETHICS

lent than others; this also seems to point to a difference
between the understanding and the will. Fourthly, it
may be objected, if man does not act from free will,
what will happen if the incentives to action are equally
balanced as in the case of Buridan's ass? Will he per-
ish of himger and thirst ? If I say that he would, I shall
seem to have in my thoughts an ass or the statue of a
man rather than actual man. If I say that he would not,
he would then determine his own action, and would con-
sequently possess the faculty of going and doing whatever
he liked. Other objections might also be raised, but, as
I am not bound to put in evidence everything that any
one may dream, I will only set myself to the task of re-
futing those I have mentioned, and that as briefly as
possible.

To the FIRST objection I answer, that I admit that the
will has a wider scope than the understanding, if by the
understanding be meant only clear and distinct ideas;
but I deny that the will has a wider scope than the per-
ceptions, and the faculty of forming conceptions; nor do
I see why the faculty of volition should be called infinite,
any more than the faculty of feeling: for, as we are
able by the same faculty of volition to affirm an infinite
number of things (one after the other, for we cannot
affirm an infinite number simultaneously), so also can
we, by the same faculty of feeling, feel or perceive ( in
succession) an infinite number of bodies. If it be said
that there is an infinite number of things which we can-
not perceive, I answer, that we cannot attain to such
things by any thinking, nor, consequently, by any faculty
of volition. But, it may still be urged, if God wished
to bring it about that we should perceive them, he would
be obliged to endow us with a greater faculty of per-
ception, but not a greater faculty of volition than we
have already. This is the same as to say that, if God
wished to bring it about that we should understand an
infinite number of other entities, it would be necessary
for him to give us a greater understanding, but not a
more universal idea of entity than that which w^e have
already, in order to grasp such infinite entities. We have

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 123

shown that will is a universal entity or idea, whereby we
explain all particular volitions — in other words, that
which is common to all such volitions.

As, then, our opponents maintain that this idea, com-
mon or universal to all volitions, is a faculty, it is little
to be wondered at that they assert, that such a faculty
extends itself into the infinite, beyond the limits of the
understanding: for what is universal is predicated alike
of one, of many, and of an infinite number of indi-
viduals.

To the SECOND objection I reply by denying, that we
have a free power of suspending our judgment; for,
when we say that any one suspends his judgment, we
merely mean that he sees, that he does not perceive the
matter in question adequately. Suspension of judg-
ment is, therefore, strictly speaking, a perception, and
not free will. In order to illustrate the point, let us sup-
pose a boy imagining a horse, and perceiving nothing
else. Inasmuch as this imagination involves the existence
of the horse (II. xvii. Coroll.), and the boy does not per-
ceive anything which would exclude the existence of the
horse, he will necessarily regard the horse as present ; he
will not be able to doubt of its existence, although he
be not certain thereof. We have daily experience of such
a state of things in dreams; and I do not suppose that
there is any one, who would maintain that, while he is
dreaming, he has the free power of suspending his
judgment concerning the things in his dream, and
bringing it about that he should not dream those things,
which he dreams that he sees; yet it happens, notwith-
standing, that even in dreams we suspend our judgment,
namely, when we dream that we are dreaming.

Further, I grant that no one can be deceived, so far
as actual perception extends — that is, I grant that the
mind's imaginations, regarded in themselves, do not in-
volve error (II. xvii., note); but I deny, that a man does
not, in the act of perception, make any affirmation. For
what is the perception of a winged horse, save affirming
that a horse has wings ? If the mind could perceive
nothing else but the winged horse, it would regard the

124 THE ETHICS

same as present to itself; it would have no reasons for
doubting- its existence, nor any faculty of dissent, unless
the imagination of a winged horse be joined to an idea
which precludes the existence of the said horse, or un-
less the mind perceives that the idea which it possesses
of a winged horse is inadequate, in which case it will
either necessarily deny the existence of such a horse, or
will necessarily be in doubt on the subject.

I think that I have anticipated my answer to the third
objection, namely, that the will is something- universal
which is predicated of all ideas, and that it only signi-
fies that which is common to all ideas, namely, an
affirmation, whose adequate essence must, therefore, in
so for as it is thus conceived in the abstract, be in every
idea, and be, in this respect alone, the same in all, not
in so far as it is considered as constituting the idea's
essence: for, in this respect, particular affirmations differ
one from the other, as much as do ideas. For instance,
the affirmation which involves the idea of a circle,
differs from that which involves the idea of a triangle,
as much as the idea of a circle differs from the idea of
a triangle.

Further, I absolutely deny, that we are in need of an
equal power of thinking, to affirm that that which is
true is true, and to affirm that that which is false is
true. These two affirmations, if we regard the mind,
are in the same relation to one another as being and
not being; for there is nothing positive in ideas, which
constitutes the actual reality of falsehood (II. xxxv. note,
and xlvii. note).

We must therefore conclude that we are easily de-
ceived, when we confuse universals with singulars, and
the entities of reason and abstractions with realities.
As for the fourth objection, I am quite ready to admit,
that a man placed in the equilibrium described (namely,
as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain
food and a certain drink, each equally distant from him)
would die of hunger and thirst. If I am asked, whether
such an one should not rather be considered an ass than
a man ; I answer, that I do not know, neither do I know

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 125

how a man should be considered, who hangs himself,
or how we should consider children, fools, madmen, etc.
It remains to point out the advantages of a knowledge
of this doctrine as bearing on conduct, and this may be easily
gathered from what has been said. The doctrine is good.

1. Inasmuch as it teaches us to act solely according to
the decree of God, and to be partakers in the Divine
nature, and so much the more, as we perform more per-
fect actions and more and more understand God. Such
a doctrine not only completely tranquillizes our spirit, but
also shows us where our highest happiness and blessed-
ness is, namely, solely in the knowledge of God, whereby
we are led to act only as love and piety shall bid us.
We may thus clearly understand, how far astray from a
true estimate of virtue are those who expect to be deco-
rated by God with high rewards for their virtue, and their
best actions, as for having endured the direst slavery; as
if virtue and the service of God were not in itself happi-
ness and perfect freedom.

2. Inasmuch as it teaches us, how we ought to conduct
ourselves with respect to the gifts of fortune, or matters
which are not in our own power, and do not follow from
our nature. For it shows us that we should await and
endure fortune's smiles or frowas with an equal mind,
seeing that all things follow from the eternal decree of
God by the same necessity, as it follows from the essence
of a triangle, that the three angles are equal to two right
angles.

3. This doctrine raises social life, inasmuch as it teaches
us to hate no man, neither to despise, to deride, to envy,
or to be angry with any. Further, as it tells us that
each should be content with his own, and helpful to his
neighbor, not from any womanish pity, favor, or super-
stition, but solely by the guidance of reason, accord-
ing as the time and occasion demand, as I will show in
Part III.

4. Lastly, this doctrine confers no small advantage on
the commonwealth ; for it teaches how citizens should be
governed and led, not so as to become slaves, but so that
they may freely do whatsoever things are best.

126 THE ETHICS

I have thus fulfilled the promise made at the begin-
ning of this note, and I thus bring the second part of my
treatise to a close. I think I have therein explained the
nature and properties of the human mind at sufficient
length, and, considering the difficulty of the subject, with
sufficient clearness. I have laid a foundation, whereon
may be raised many excellent conclusions of the highest
utility and most necessary to be known, as will, in what
follows, be partly made plain.

V

s

/

I

)

PART III.

ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE

EMOTIONS.

Most writers on the emotions and on human conduct
seem to be treating rather of matters outside nature than
of natural phenomena following nature's general laws.
They appear to conceive man to be situated in nature as
a kingdom within a kingdom: for they believe that he
disturbs rather than follows nature's order, that he has
absolute control over his actions, and that -he is deter-
mined solely by himself. They attribute human infirmities
and fickleness, not to the power of nature in general, but
to some mysterious flaw in the nature of man, which
accordingly they bemoan, deride, despise, or, as usually
happens, abuse : he, who succeeds in hitting off the weak-
ness of the human mind more eloquently or more acutely
than his fellows is looked upon as a seer. Still there has
been no lack of very excellent men ( to whose toil and
industry I confess myself much indebted ), who have written
many noteworthy things concerning the right way of life,
and have given much sage advice to mankind. But no
one, so far as I know, has defined the nature and strength
of the emotions, and the power of the mind against them
for their restraint.

I do not forget, that the illustrious Descartes, though
he believed, that the mind has absolute power over its
actions, strove to explain human emotions by their primary
causes, and, at the same time, to point out a way, by
which the mind might attain to absolute dominion over
them. However, in my opinion, he accomplishes nothing
beyond a display of the acuteness of his own great
intellect, as I will show in the proper place. For the
present I wish to revert to those, who would rather-

(127)

128 THE ETHICS

abuse or deride human emotions than understand them.
Such persons will doubtless think it strange that I should
attempt to treat of human vice and folly geometrically,
and should wish to set forth with rigid reasoning those
matters which they cry out against as repugnant to
reason, frivolous, absurd, and dreadful. However, such
is my plan. Nothing comes to pass in nature, which can
be set down to a flaw therein; for nature is always the
same, and everywhere one and the same in her efficacy
and power of action ; that is, nature's laws and ordinances,
whereby all things come to pass and change from one
form to another, are everywhere and always the same;
so that there should be one and the same method of
imderstanding the nature of all things whatsoever, namely,
through nature's universal laws and rules. Thus the
passions of hatred, anger, envy, and so on, considered
in themselves, follow from this same necessity and
efficacy of nature; they answer to certain definite causes,
through which they are understood, and possess certain
properties as worthy of being known as the properties
of anything else, whereof the contemplation in itself
affords us delight. I shall, therefore, treat of the nature
and strength of the emotions according to the same
method, as I employed heretofore in my investigations
concerning God and the mind. I shall consider human
actions and desires in exactly the same manner, as
though I were concerned with lines, planes, and solids.

Definitions.

I. By an adequate cause, I mean a cause through which
its effect can be clearly and distinctly perceived. By an
INADEQUATE or partial cause, I mean a cause through
which, by itself, its effect cannot be understood.

II. I say that we act when anything takes place, either
within us or externally to us, whereof we are the adequate
cause ; that is ( by the foregoing definition ) when through
our nature something takes place within us or externally
to us, which can through our nature alone be clearly
and distinctly understood. On the other hand, I say that
we are passive as regards something when that something

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 129

takes place within us, or follows from our nature exter-
nally, we being only the partial cause.

III. By EMOTION I mean the modifications of the body,
whereby the active power of the said body is increased
or diminished, aided or constrained, and also the ideas
of such modifications.

N. B. If we can be the adequate cause of any of these
modifications, I then call the emotion an activity, other-
wise I call it a passion, or state wherein the mind is

passive.

Postulates.

I. The human body can be affected in many ways,
whereby its power of activity is increased or diminished,
and also in other ways which do not render its power of
activity either greater or less.

N. B. This postulate or axiom rests on Postulate i. and
Lemmas v. and vii. , which see after II. xiii.

II. The human body can undergo many changes, and,
nevertheless, retain the impressions or traces of objects
{cf. II. Post. V.) and, consequently, the same images of
things (see note II. xvii.).

Prop. I. Our mind is in certain cases active, and in
certain cases passive. In so far as it has adequate ideas
it is necessarily active, and in so far as it has inadequate
ideas, it is necessarily passive.

Proof. — In every human mind there are some adequate
ideas, and some ideas that are fragmentary and confused
(II. xl. note). Those ideas which are adequate in the
mind are adequate also in God, inasmuch as he con-
stitutes the essence of the mind (11. xl. Coroll.), and
those which are inadequate in the mind are likewise (by
the same Coroll.) adequate in God, not inasmuch as he
contains in himself the essence of the given mind alone,
but as he, at the same time, contains the minds of other
things. Again, from any given idea some effect must
necessarily follow (I. 36 ) ; of this effect God is the ade-
quate cause (III. Def. i.) not inasmuch as he is infinite,
but inasmuch as he is conceived as affected by the given
idea (II. ix.). But of that effect whereof God is the
cause, inasmuch as he is affected by an idea which is ade-
9 . ^

I30 THE ETHICS

quate in a given mind, of that effect, I repeat, the mind
in question is the adequate cause (II. xi. Coroll.).
Therefore our mind, in so far as it has adequate ideas
(III. Def. ii.), is in certain cases necessarily active; this
was our first point. Again, whatsoever necessarily fol-
lows from the idea which is adequate in God, not by
virtue of his possessing in himself the mind of one man
only, but by virtue of his containing, together with the
mind of that one man, the minds of other things also,
of such an effect (II. xi. Coroll.) the mind of the given
man is not an adequate, but only a partial cause; thus
(III. Def. ii.) the mind, inasmuch as it has inadequate
ideas, is in certain cases necessarily passive ; this was our
second point. Therefore our mind, etc. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that the mind is more or
less liable to be acted upon, in proportion as it posses-
ses inadequate ideas, and contrariwise, is more or less ac-
tive in proportion as it possesses adequate ideas.

Prop. II. Body cannot determine mind to think, neither
can mind determine body to motion or rest or any state
different from these, if such there be.

Proof. — All modes of thinking have for their cause
God, by virtue of his being a thinking thing, and not by
virtue of his being displayed under any other attribute
(II. vi.). That, therefore, which determines the mind
to thought is a mode of thought, and not a mode of ex-
tension; that is (II. Def. i.), it is not body. This was
our first point. Again^ the motion and rest of a body
must arise from another body, which has also been de-
termined to a state of motion or rest by a third body,
and absolutely everything which takes place in a body
must spring from God, in so far as he is regarded as
affected by some mode of extension, and not by some
mode of thought (II. vi.); that is, it cannot spring from
the mind, which is a mode of thought. This was our
second point. Therefore body cannot determine mind,
etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — This is made more clear by what was said in
the note to II. vii., namely, that mind and body are one
and the same thing, conceived first under the attribute

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 131

of thought, secondly, tinder the attribute of extension.
Thus it follows that the order or concatenation of things
is identical, whether nature be conceived under the one
attribute or the other; consequently the order of states
of activity and passivity in our body is simultaneous in
nature with the order of states of activity and passivity
in the mind. The same conclusion is evident from the
manner in which we proved II. xii.

Nevertheless, though such is the case, and though
there be no further room for doubt, I can scarcely be-
lieve, until the fact is proved by experience, that men
can be induced to consider the question calmly and fairly,
so firmly are they conceived that it is merely at the bid-
ding of the mind that the body is set in motion or at
rest, or performs a variety of actions depending solely on
the mind's will or the exercise of thought. However, no
one has hitherto laid down the limits to the, powers of
the body, that is, no one has as yet been taught by ex-
perience what the body can accomplish solely by the
laws of nature, in so far as she is regarded as extension.
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge
of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its
functions; nor need I call attention to the fact that
many actions are observed in the lower animals, which
far transcend human sagacity, and that somnambulists
do many things in their sleep, which they would not
venture to do when awake: these instances are enough
to show, that the body can by the sole laws of its nature
do many things which the mind wonders at.

Again, no one knows how or by what means the mind
moves the body, nor how many various degrees of
motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can
move it. Thus, when men say that this or that physical
action has its origin in the mind, which latter has
dominion over the body, they are using words without
meaning, or are confessing in specious phraseology that
they are ignorant of the cause of the said action, and do
not wonder at it.

But, they will say, whether we know or do not know
the means whereby the mind acts on the body, we have,

132 THE ETHICS

at any rate, experience of the fact that unless the human
mind is in a fit state to think, the body remains inert.
Moreover, we have experience, that the mind alone can
determine whether we speak or are silent, and a variety
of similar states which, accordingly, we say depend on
the mind's decree. But, as to the first point, I ask such
objectors, whether experience does not also teach, that if
the body be inactive the mind is simultaneously unfitted
for thinking ? For when the body is at rest in sleep,
the mind simultaneously is in a state of torpor also, and
has no power of thinking, such as it possesses when the
body is awake. Again, I think everyone's experience
will confirm the statement, that the mind is not at all
times equally fit for thinking on a given subject, but
according as the body is more or less fitted for being
stimulated by the image of this or that object, so also is
the mind more or less fitted for contemplating the said
object.

But, it will be urged, it is impossible that solely from
the laws of nature considered as extended substance, we
should be able to deduce the causes of buildings, pictures,
and things of that kind, which are produced only by
human art; nor would the human body, unless it were
determined and led by the mind, be capable of building
a single temple. However, I have just pointed out that
the objectors cannot fix the limits of the body's power,
or say what can be concludea from a consideration of its
sole nature, whereas they have experience of many things
being accomplished solely by the laws of nature, which
they would never have believed possible except under
the direction of mind: such are the actions performed by
somnambulists while asleep, and wondered at by their
performers when awake. I would further call attention
to the mechanism of the human body which far sur-
passes in complexity all that has been put together by
human art, not to repeat what I have already shown,
namely, that from nature, under whatever attribute she
be considered, infinite results follow. As for the second
objection, I submit that the world would be much hap-
pier, if men were as fully able to keep silence as they

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE EMOTIONS 133

are to speak. Experience abundantly shows that men
can govern anything more easily than their tongues, and
restrain anything more easily than their appetites; whence
it comes about that many believe, that we are only free
in respect to objects which we moderately desire, be-
cause our desire for such can easily be controlled by
the thought of something else frequently remembered,
but that we are by no means free in respect to what
we seek with violent emotion, for our desire cannot
then be allayed with the remembrance of anything
else. However, unless such persons had proved by
experience that we do many things which we afterward
repent of, and again that we often, when assailed by con-
trary emotions, see the better and follow the worse, there
would be nothing to prevent their believing that we are
free in all things. Thus an infant believes that of its
own free will it desires milk, an angry child b.elieves that
it freely desires vengeance, a timid child believes that it
freely desires to run away; further, a drunken man be-
lieves that he utters from the free decision of his mind
words which, when he is sober, he w^ould willingly have
withheld: thvis, too, a delirious man, a garrulous woman,
a child, and others of like complexion, believe that they
speak from the free decision of their mind, when they are
in reality unable to restrain their impulse to talk. Experi-
ence teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men
believe themselves to be free, simply because they are
conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes
whereby those actions are determined ; and, further, it is
plain that the dictates of the mind are but another name
for the appetites, and therefore vary according to the
varying state of the body. Every one shapes his actions
according to his emotion, those who are assailed by con-
flicting emotions know not what they wish ; those who are
not attacked by any emotion are readily swayed this way
or that. All these considerations clearly show that a
mental decision and a bodily appetite, or determined
state, are simultaneous, or rather are one and the same
thing, which we call decision, when it is regarded under
and explained through the attribute of thought, and a

134 THE ETHICS

conditioned state, when it is regarded under the attribute
of extension, and deduced from the laws of motion and
rest. This will appear yet more plainly in the sequel.
For the present I wish to call attention to another point,
namely, that we cannot act by the decision of the mind,
unless we have a remembrance of having done so. For
instance, we cannot say a word without remembering that
we have done so. Again, it is not within the free power
of the mind to remember or forget a thing at will. There-
fore the freedom of the mind must in any case be limited
to the power of uttering or not uttering something which
it remem.bers. But when we dream that we speak, we
believe that we speak from a free decision of the mind,
yet we do not speak, or, if we do, it is by a spontaneous
motion of the body. Again, we dream that we are con-
cealing something, and we seem to act from the same
decision of the mind as that, whereby we keep silence
when awake concerning something we know. Lastl}'-, we
dream that from the free decision of our mind we do
something, which we should not dare to do when awake.

Now I should like to know whether there be in the
mind two sorts of decisions, one sort illusive, and the
other sort free ? If our folly does not carry us so far as
this, we must necessarily admit, that the decision of the
mind which is believed to be free, is not distinguishable
from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more
than the affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being
an idea, necessarily involves ( II. xlix.). Wherefore these
decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same
necessity, as the ideas of things actually existing. There-
fore, those who believe, that they speak or keep silence or
act in any way from the free decision of their mind,
do but dream with their eyes open.

Prop. III. The activities of the mind arise solely from
adequate ideas; the passive states of the mind depend
solely on inadequate ideas.

Proof. — The first element, which constitutes the essence
of the mind, is nothing else but the idea of the actually
existent body (II. xi. and xiii.), which (II. xv.) is com-
pounded of many other ideas, whereof some are adequate

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 135

and some inadequate (II. xxix. Coroll., II. xxxviii Coroll.).
Whatsoever therefore follows from the nature of mind,
and has mind for its proximate cause, through which it
must be understood, must necessarily follow either from
an adequate or from an inadequate idea. But in so far
as the mind (III. i.) has inadequate ideas, it is necessarily
passive : wherefore the activities of the mind follow solely
from adequate ideas, and accordingly the mind is only
passive in so far as it has inadequate ideas. Q.E.D.

Note. — Thus we see, that passive states, are not attrib-
uted to the mind, except in so far as it contains some-
thing involving negation, or in so far as it is regarded as
a part of nature which cannot be clearly and distinctly
perceived through itself without other parts : I could thus
show, that passive states are attributed to individual
things in the same way that they are attributed to
the mind, and that they cannot otherwise be_ perceived,
but my purpose is solely to treat of the human mind.

Prop. IV. Nothing can be destroyed, except by a cause
external to itself.

Proof. — This proposition is self-evident, for the defini-
tion of anything affirms the essence of that thing, but
does not negative it; in other words, it postulates the
essence of the thing, but does not take it away. So long
therefore as we regard only the thing itself, without
taking into account external causes, we shall not be able
to find in it anything which could destroy it. Q.E.D.

Prop. V. Things are naturally contrary, that is, cannot
exist in the same object, in so far as one is capable of
destroying the other.

Proof. — If they could agree together or coexist in the
same object, there would then be in the said object
something which could destroy it; but this, by the fore-
going proposition, is absurd; therefore things, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. VI. Everything, in so far as it is in itself,
endeavors to persist in its own being.

Proof. — Individual things are modes whereby the attri-
butes of God are expressed in a given determinate man-
ner (I. XXV. Coroll.), that is (I. xxxiv.), they are things
which express in a given determinate manner the power

136 THE ETHICS

of God, whereby God is and acts; now no thing- contains
in itself anything whereby it can be destroyed, or which
can take away its existence (III. iv.); but contrariwise
it is opposed to all that could take away its existence
(III. v.). Therefore, in so far as it can, and in so far
as it is in itself, it endeavors to persist in its own being.
Q.E.D.

Prop. VII. The endeavor, wherewith everything en-
deavors to persist in its own being, is nothing else but
the actual essence of the thing in question.

Proof. — From the given essence of anything certain
consequences necessarily follow (I. xxxvi. ), nor have
things any power save such as necessarily follows from
their nature as determined ( I. xxix. ) ; wherefore the
power of any given thing, or the endeavor whereby,
either alone or with other things, it acts, or endeavors
to act, that is (III. vi.), the power or endeavor, where-
with it endeavors to persist in its own being-, is nothing
else but the given or actual essence of the thing in
question. Q.E.D.

Prop. VIII. The endeavor, whereby a thing endeavors
to persist in its being, involves no finite time, but an
indefinite time.

Proof. — If it involved a limited time, which should
determine the duration of the thing, it would then follow
solely from that power whereby the thing- exists, that the
thing could not exist beyond the limits of that time, but
that it must be destroyed; but this (III. iv.) is absurd.
Wherefore the endeavor wherewith a thing exists involves
no definite time; but, contrariwise, since (III. iv.) it will,
by the same power whereby it already exists, always con-
tinue to exist, unless it be destroyed by some external
cause, this endeavor involves an indefinite time.

Prop. IX. The mind, both in so far as it has clear and
distinct ideas, and also in so far as it has confused ideas,
endeavors to persist in its being for an indefinite period,
and of this endeavor it is conscious.

Proof. — The essence of the mind is constituted by ade-
quate and inadequate ideas (III. iii.); therefore (III. vii.),
both in so far as it possesses the former, and in so far as

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 137

it possesses the latter, it endeavors to persist in its own
being, and that for an indefinite time (III. viii.). Now
as the mind (11. xxiii.) is necessarily conscious of itself
through the ideas of the modifications of the body, the
mind is therefore (III. vii.) concious of its own en-
deavor.

JSlote. — This endeavor, when referred solely to the mind,
is called will, when referred to the mind and body in
conjunction it is called appetite; it is, in fact, nothing
else but man's essence, from the nature of which neces-
sarily follow all those results which tend to its preserva-
tion ; and which man has thus been determined to perform.

Further, between appetite and desire there is no differ-
ence, except that the term desire is generally applied to
men, in so far as they are conscious of their appetite, and
may accordingly be thus defined: Desire is appetite with
CONSCIOUSNESS THEREOF. It is thus plain from what has
been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long
for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good,
but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because
we strive for it, wish for it, long for it, or desire it.

Prop. X. An idea, which excludes the existence of our
body, cannot be postulated in our mind, but is contrary
thereto.

Proof. — Whatsoever can destroy "our body, cannot be
postulated therein (III. v.). Therefore, neither can the
idea of such a thing occur in God, in so far as he has
the idea of our body (II. ix. Coroll.); that is (II. xi.xiii.),
the idea of that thing cannot be postulated as in our
mind, but contrariwise, since (II. xi. xiii.,) the first ele-
ment, that constitutes the essence of the mind, is the
idea of the human body as actually existing, it follows
that the first and chief endeavor of our mind is the en-
deavor to affirm the existence of our body ; thus, an idea,
which negatives the existence of our body, is contrary to
our mind, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XI. Whatsoever increases or diminishes, helps or
hinders the power of activity in our body, the idea there-
of increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power of
thought in our mind.

138 THE ETHICS

Proof. — This proposition is evident from II. vii. or
from II. xiv.

Note. — Thus we see, that the mind can undergo many
changes, and can pass sometimes to a state of greater
perfection, sometimes to a state of lesser perfection.
These passive states of transition explain to us the emotions
of pleasure and pain. By pleasure therefore in the fol-
lowing propositions I shall signify a passive state

WHEREIN THE MIND PASSES TO A GREATER PERFECTION. By

PAIN I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind
PASSES TO a lesser PERFECTION. Further, the emotion of
pleasure in reference to the body and mind together I shall
call stimulation (titillatio) or merriment [hilaritas), the
emotion of pain in the same relation I shall call suffering
or melancholy. But we must bear in mind, that stimu-
lation and suffering are attributed to man, when one
part of his nature is more affected than the rest, merri-
ment and melancholy, when all parts are alike affected.
What I mean by desire I have explained in the note to
Prop. ix. of this part; beyond these three I recognize no
other primary emotion; I will show as I proceed, that
all other emotions arise from these three. But, before I
go further, I should like here to explain at greater
length Prop. x. of this part, in order that we may clearly
understand how one idea is contrary to another. In the
note to II. xvii. we showed that the idea, which consti-
tutes the essence of mind, involves the existence of
body, so long as the body itself exists. Again, it follows
from what we have pointed out in the Coroll. to II. viii.,
that the present existence of our mind depends solely on
the fact, that the mind involves the actual existence of
the body. Lastly, we showed (II. xvii. xviii. and note)
that the power of the mind, whereby it imagines and
remembers things, also depends on the fact, that it in-
volves the actual existence of the body. Whence it
follows, that the present existence of the mind and its
power of imagining are removed, as soon as the mind
ceases to affirm the present existence of the body. Now
the cause, why the mind ceases to affirm this existence
of the body, cannot be the mind itself (III. iv.), nor

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 139

again the fact that the body ceases to exist. For (by II.
vi.) the cause, why the mind affirms the existence of
the body, is not that the body began to exist; therefore,
for the same reason, it does not cease to affirm the
existence of the body, because the body ceases to exist ;
but (II. xvii.) this result follows from another idea,
which excludes the present existence of our body and,
consequently of our mind, and which is therefore con-
trary to the idea constituting the essence of our mind.

Prop. XII. The mind, as far as it can, endeavors to
conceive those things, which increase or help the power
of activity in the body.

Proof. — So long as the human body is affected in a
mode, which involves the nature of any external body,
the human mind will regard that external body as pres-
ent (II. xvii.), and consequently (II. vii.), so long as the
human mind regards an external body as -present, that
is (11. xvii. note), conceives it, the human body is affected
in a mode, which involves the nature of the said external
body; thus so long as the mind conceives things, which
increase or help the power of activity in our body, the
body is affected in modes which increase or help its
power of activity (III. Post, i.); consequently (III. xi.)
the mind's power of thinking is for that period increased
or helped. Thus (III. vi. ix.) the mind, as far as it can,
endeavors to imagine such things. Q.E.D.

Prop. XIII. When the mind conceives things which
diminish or hinder the body's power of activity, it
endeavors, as far as possible, to remember things which
exclude the existence of the first-named things.

Proof. — So long as the mind conceives anything of the
kind alluded to, the power of the mind and body is
diminished or constrained {cf. III. xii. Proof); neverthe-
less it will continue to conceive it, until the mind con-
ceives something else, which excludes the present existence
thereof (II. xvii.); that is (as I have just shown), the
power of the mind and of the body is diminished, or
constrained, until the mind conceives something else,
which excludes the existence of the former thing
conceived: therefore the mind (III. ix.), as far ..as it

I40 THE ETHICS

can, will endeavor to conceive or remember the latter.
Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that the mind shrinks
from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain
the power of itself and of the body.

Note. — From what has been said we may clearly under-
stand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing
else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an exter-
nal cause: Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied
BY the idea of an EXTERNAL CAUSE. We further see,
that he who loves necessarily endeavors to have, and to
keep present to him, the object of his love; while he
who hates endeavors to remove and destroy the object
of his hatred. But I will treat of these matters at more
length hereafter.

Prop. XIV. If the mind has once been affected by two
emotions at the same time, it will, whenever it is after-
ward affected by one of the two, be also affected by the
other.

Proof. — If the human body has once been affected by
two bodies at once, whenever afterward the mind con-
ceives one of them, it will straightway remember the
other also (II. xviii.). But the mind's conceptions indi-
cate rather the emotions of our body than the nature of
external bodies (II. xvi. CoroU. ii.) ; therefore, if the body,
and consequently the mind (III. Def. iii.) has been once
affected by two emotions at the same time, it will, when-
ever it is afterward affected by one of the two, be also
affected by the other.

Prop. XV. Anything can accidentally be the cause of
pleasure, pain, or desire.

Proof. — Let it be granted that the mind is simultane-
ously affected by two emotions, of which one neither
increases nor diminishes its power of activity, and the
other does either increase or diminish the said power
(III. Post. i.). From the foregoing proposition it is evi-
dent that, whenever the mind is afterward affected by
the former, through its true cause, which (by hypothesis)
neither increases nor diminishes its power of action, it
will be at the same time affected by the latter, which

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 141

does increase or diminish its power of activity, that is
(III. xi. note), it will be affected with pleasure or pain.
Thus the former of the two emotions will, not through
itself, but accidentally, be the cause of pleasure or
pain. In the same way also it can be easily shown,
that a thing may be accidentally the cause of desire.
Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Simply from the fact that we have re-
garded a thing with the emotion of pleasure or pain,
though that thing be not the efficient cause of the emo-
tion, we can either love or hate it.

Proof. — For from this fact alone it arises (III. xiv.),
that the mind afterward conceiving the said thing is
affected with the emotion of pleasure or pain, that is
(III. xi. note), according as the power of the mind and
body may be increased or diminished, etc. ; and conse-
quently (III. xii.), according as the mind may desire or
shrink from the conception of it (III. xiii. Coroll.), in
other words (III. xiii. note), according as it may love or
hate the same. Q.E.D.

Note. — Hence we understand how it may happen, that
we love or hate a thing without any cause for our emo-
tion being known to us; merely, as the phrase is, from
SYMPATHY or ANTIPATHY. We should refer to the same
category those objects, which affect us pleasurably or
painfully, simply because they resemble other objects
which affect us in the same way. This I will show in
the next proposition. I am aware that certain authors, who
were the first to introduce these terms " sympathy '* and
** antipathy," wished to signify thereby some occult
qualities in things; nevertheless I think we may be per-
mitted to use the same terms to indicate known or man-
ifest qualities.

Prop. XVI. Simply from the fact that we conceive that
a given object has some point of resemblance with another
object which is wont to affect the mind pleasurably or
painfully, although the point of resemblance be not the
efficient cause of the said emotions, we shall still regard
the first-named object with love or hate.

Proof. — The point of resemblance was in the object (by

142 THE ETHICS

hypothesis), when we regarded it with pleasure or pain,
thus (III. xiv.), when the mind is affected by the image
thereof, it will straightway be affected by one or the other
emotion, and consequently the thing, which we perceive
to have the same point of resemblance, will be acci-
dentally (III. XV.) a cause of pleasure or pain. Thus
( by the foregoing Corollary), although the point in which
the two objects resemble one another be not the efficient
cause of the emotion, we shall still regard the first-named
object with love or hate. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVII. If we conceive that a thing which is
wont to affect us painfully, has any point of resemblance
with another thing which is wont to affect us with an
equally strong emotion of pleasure, we shall hate the
first-named thing, and at the same time we shall love it.

Proof. — The given thing is (by hypothesis) in itself a
cause of pain, and (III. xiii. note), in so far as we im-
agine it with this emotion, we shall hate it: further,
inasmuch as we conceive that it has some point of resem-
blance to something else, which is wont to affect us with
an equally strong emotion of pleasure, we shall with an
equally strong impulse of pleasure love it (III. xvi.);
thus we shall both hate and love the same thing. Q. E. D.

Note. — This disposition of the mind, which arises from
two contrary emotions, is called vacillation; it stands to
the emotions in the same relation as doubt does to the
imagination ( II. xliv. note ) ; vacillation and doubt do not
differ one from the other except as greater differs from
less. But we must bear in mind that I have deduced
this vacillation from causes, which give rise through them-
selves to one of the emotions, and to the other acciden-
tally. I have done this, in order that they might be more
easily deduced from what went before ; but I do not deny
that vacillation of the disposition generally arises from
an object, which is the efficient cause of both emotions.
The human body is composed (II. Post, i.) of a variety
of individual parts of different nature, and may therefore
(Ax. i. after Lemma iii. after II. xiii.) be affected in a
variety of different ways by one and the same body; and
contrariwise, as one and the same thing can be affected

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 143

in many ways, it can also in many different ways affect
one and the same part of the body. Hence we can easily
conceive, that one and the same object may be the cause
of many and conflicting emotions.

Prop. XVIII. A man is as much affected pleasurably
or painfully by the image of a thing past or future as
by the image of a thing present.

Proof. — So long as a man is affected by the image of
anything, he will regard that thing as present, even though
it be non-existent (II. xvii. and Coroll.), he will not con-
ceive it as past or future, except in so far as its image
is joined to the image of time past or future (II. xliv.
note). Wherefore the image of a thing, regarded in
itself alone, is identical, whether it be referred to time
past, time future, or time present; that is (II. xvi. Coroll.),
the disposition or emotion of the body is identical,
whether the image be of a thing past, future, or pres-
ent. Thus the emotion of pleasure or pain is the same,
whether the image be of a thing past or future. Q. E.D.

Note I. — I call a thing past or future, according as
we either have been or shall be affected thereby. For
instance, according as we have seen it, or are about to
see it, according as it has recreated us, or will recreate
us, according as it has harmed us, or will harm us. For,
as we thus conceive it, we affirm its existence; that is,
the body is affected by no emotion which excludes the
existence of the thing, and therefore (II. xvii.) the body
is affected by the image of the thing, in the same way
as if the thing were actually present. However, as
it generally happens that those, who have had many ex-
periences, vacillate, so long as they regard a thing as
future or past, and are usually in doubt about its issue
(II. xliv. note) ; it follows that the emotions which arise
from similar images of things are not so constant, but
are generally disturbed by the images of other things,
until men become assured of the issue.

Note II. — From what has just been said, we under-
stand what is meant by the terms Hope, Fear, Confi-
dence, Despair, Joy, and Disappointment. Hope is noth-
ing else but an inconstant pleasure, arising from the

144 THE ETHICS

!i

image of something future or past, whereof we do not
yet know the issue. Fear on the other hand, is an in-
constant pain also arising from the image of something
concerning which we are in doubt. If the element of
doubt be removed from these emotions, hope becomes
Confidence and fear becomes Despair. In other words,
Pleasure or Pain arising from the image of something
concerning which we have hoped or feared. Again, Joy
is Pleasure arising from the image of something past
whereof we doubted the issue. Disappointment is the
Pain opposed to Joy.

Prop. XIX. He who conceives that the object of his
love is destroyed will feel pain ; if he conceives that it is
preserved he will feel pleasure.

Proof. — The mind, as far as possible, endeavors to
conceive those things which increase or help the body's
power of activity (III. xii.); in other words (III, xii.
note), those things which it loves. But conception is
helped by those things which postulate the existence of
a thing, and contrariwise is hindered by those which
|l exclude the existence of a thing (II. xvii.); therefore the

images of things, which postulate the existence of an
object of love, help the mind's endeavor to conceive the
object of love, in other words (III. xi. note), affect the
mind pleasurably; contrariwise those things, which
exclude the existence of an object of love, hinder the
aforesaid mental endeavor; in other words, affect the
mind painfully. He, therefore, who conceives that
the object of his love is destroyed will feel pain, etc.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XX. He who conceives that the object of his
hate is destroyed will feel pleasure.

Proof. — The mind (III. xiii.) endeavors to conceive
those things, which exclude the existence of things
whereby the body's power of activity is diminished or
constrained; that is (III. xiii. note), it endeavors to
conceive such things as exclude the existence of what
it hates; therefore the image of a thing, which excludes
the existence of what the mind hates, helps the aforesaid
mental effort, in other words (III. xi. note), affects the

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 145

mind pleasurably. Thus he who conceives that the object
of his hate is destroyed will feel pleasure. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXI. He who conceives that the object of
his love is affected pleasurably or painfully, will him-
self be affected pleasurably or painfully; and the one
or the other emotion will be greater or less in the
lover according as it is greater or less in the thing
loved.

Proof. — The images of things (as we showed in III,
xix.) which postulate the existence of the object of love,
help the mind's endeavor to conceive the said object.
But pleasure postulates the existence of something feel-
ing pleasure, so much the more in proportion as the
emotion of pleasure is greater; for it is (III. xi. note) a
transition to a greater perfection; therefore the image
of pleasure in the object of love helps the mental en-
deavor of the lover ; that is, it affects the lover pleasurably,
and so much the more, in proportion as this emotion
may have been greater in the object of love. This was
our first point. Further, in so far as a thing is affected
with pain, it is to that extent destroyed, the extent
being in proportion to the amount of pain (III. xi.
note); therefore (III. xix.) he who conceives, that the
object of his love is affected painfully, will himself be
affected painfully, in proportion as the said emotion is
greater or less in the object of love. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXII. If we conceive that anything pleasurably
affects some object of our love, we shall be affected
with love toward that thing. Contrariwise, if we con-
ceive that it affects an object of our love painfully, we
shall be affected with hatred toward it.

Proof.— Yi&, who affects pleasurably or painfully the
object of our love, affects us also pleasurably or pain-
fully— that is, if we conceive the loved object as af-
fected with the said pleasure or pain (III. xxi.). But
this pleasure or pain is postulated to come to us accom-
panied by the idea of an external cause; therefore (III.
xiii. note), if we conceive that any one affects an object
of our love pleasurably or painfully, we shall be affected
with love or hatred toward him. Q.E.D.
10

146 THE ETHICS

Note. — Prop. xxi. explains to us the nature of Pity,
which we may define as pain arising from another's
HURT. What term we can use for pleasure arising from
another's gain, I know not.

We will call the love toward him who confers a
BENEFIT ON ANOTHER, APPROVAL; and the hatred toward
him who injures another, we will call Indignation.
We must further remark, that we not only feel pity for
a thing which we have loved (as shown in III. xxi.),
but also for a thing which we have hitherto regarded
without emotion, provided that we deem that it resembles
ourselves (as I will show presently). Thus, we bestow
approval on one who has benefited anything resembling
ourselves, and, contrariwise, are indignant with him who
has done it an injury.

Prop. XXIII. He who conceives, that an object of
his hatred is painfully affected, will feel pleasure. Con-
trariwise, if he thinks that the said object is pleasurably
affected, he will feel pain. Each of these emotions will
be greater or less, according as its contrary is greater or
less in the object of hatred.

Proof. — In so far as an object of hatred is painfully
affected, it is destroyed to an extent proportioned to the
strength of the pain (III. xi. note). Therefore, he
(III. XX.) who conceives, that some object of his hatred
is painfully affected, will feel pleasure to an extent pro-
portioned to the amount of pain he conceives in the
object of his hatred. This was our first point. Again,
pleasure postulates the existence of the pleasurably
affected thing (III. xi. note), in proportion as the pleasure
is greater or less. If anyone imagines that an object of
his hatred is pleasurably affected, this conception (III.
xiii.) will hinder his own endeavor to persist; in other
words (III. xi. note), he who hates will be painfully
affected. Q.E.D.

Note. — This pleasure can scarcely be felt unalloyed,
and without any mental conflict. For (as I am about
to show in Prop, xxvii.), in so far as a man conceives
that something similar to himself is affected by pain,
he will himself be affected in like manner; and he will

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 147

have the contrary'- emotion in contrary circumstances. But
here we are regarding hatred only.

Prop. XXIV. If we conceive that anyone pleasurably
affects an object of our hate, we shall feel hatred toward
him also. If we conceive that he painfully affects the
said object, we shall feel love toward him.

Proof. — This proposition is proved in the same way as
III, xxii., which see.

Note. — These and similar emotions of hatred are attrib-
utable to ENVY, which, accordingly, is nothing else but

HATRED, IN SO FAR AS IT IS REGARDED AS DISPOSING A MAN
TO REJOICE IN another's HURT, AND TO GRIEVE AT AN-
OTHER'S ADVANTAGE.

Prop. XXV. We endeavor to affirm, concerning our-
selves, and concerning what we love, everything that we
conceive to affect pleasurably ourselves, or the loved
object. Contrariwise, we endeavor to negative every-
thing, which we conceive to affect painfully ourselves or
the loved object.

Proof. — That, which we conceive to affect an object of
our love pleasurably or painfully, affects us also pleasur-
ably or painfully (III, xxi.). But the mind (III. xii.)
endeavors, as far as possible, to conceive those things
which affect us pleasurably; in other words (II. xvii. and
Coroll.), it endeavors to regard them as present. And,
contrariwise (III. xiii.), it endeavors to exclude the exist-
ence of such things as affect us painfully; therefore, we
endeavor to affirm concerning ourselves, and concerning
the loved object, whatever we conceive to aft'ect ourselves,
or the loved object pleasurably. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVI. We endeavor to affirm, concerning that
which we hate, everything which we conceive to affect it
painfully; and, contrariwise, we endeavor to deny, con-
cerning it, everything which we conceive to affect it
pleasurably.

Proof. — This proposition follows from III. xxiii., as the
foregoing proposition followed from III. xxi.

Note. — Thus we see that it may readily happen, that a
man may easily think too highly of himself, or a loved
object, and, contrariwise, too meanly of a hated object.

148 THE ETHICS

This feeling is called pride, in reference to the man who
thinks too highly of himself, and is a species of madness,
wherein a man dreams with his eyes open, thinking that
he can accomplish all things that fall within the scope of
his conception, and thereupon accounting them real, and
exulting in them, so long as he is unable to conceive
anything which excludes their existence, and determines
his own power of action. Pride, therefore, is pleasure

SPRINGING FROM A MAN THINKING TOO HIGHLY OF HIMSELF.

Again, the pleasure which arises from a man thinking
TOO highly of another is called over-esteem. Whereas
the pleasure which arises from thinking too little of
A MAN is called disdain.

Prop. XXVII. By the very fact that we conceive a
thing, which is like ourselves, and which we have not
regarded with any emotion, to be affected with any emo-
tion, we are ourselves affected with a like emotion
( affect lis) .

Proof. — The images of things are modifications of the
human body, whereof the ideas represent external bodies
as present to us (II. xvii.); in other words (II. x.),
whereof the ideas involve the nature of our body, and,
at the same time, the nature of external bodies as pres-
ent. If, therefore, the nature of the external body be
similar to the nature of our body, then the idea which
we form of the external body will involve a modification
of our own body similar to the modification of the ex-
ternal body. Consequently, if we conceive anyone similar
to ourselves as affected by any emotion, this conception
will express a modification of our body similar to that
emotion. Thus, from the fact of conceiving a thing like
ourselves to be affected with any emotion, we are our-
selves affected with a like emotion. If, however, we hate
the said thing like ourselves, we shall, to that extent,
be affected by a contrary, and not similar, emotion.
Q.E.D.

Note I. — This imitation of emotions, when it is re-
ferred to pain, is called compassion {cf. III. xxii. note);
when it is referred to desire, it is called emulation,
which is nothing else but the desire of anything

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 149

ENGENDERED IN US BY THE FACT THAT WE CONCEIVE THAT
OTHERS HAVE THE LIKE DESIRE.

Corollary I. — If we conceive that anyone, whom we
have hitherto regarded with no emotion, pleasurably af-
fects something similar to ourselves, we shall be affected
with love toward him. If, on the other hand, we con-
ceive that he painfully affects the same, we shall be
affected with hatred toward him.

Proof. — This is proved from the last proposition in the
same manner as III. xxii. is proved from III. xxi.

Corollary II. — We cannot hate a thing which we pity,
because its misery affects us painfully.

Proof. — If we could hate it for this reason, we should
rejoice in its pain, which is contrary to the hypothesis.

Corollary III — We seek to free from misery, as far as
we can, a thing which we pity.

Proof. — That, which painfully affects the object of our
pity, affects us also with similar pain (by the foregoing
proposition ) ; therefore, we shall endeavor to recall every-
thing which removes its existence, or which destro5^s it
(^/. III. xiii); in other words (III. ix. note), we shall
desire to destroy it, or we shall be determined for its
destruction; thus, we shall endeavor to free from misery
a thing which we pity. Q.E.D.

Note II. — This will or appetite for doing good, which
arises from pity of the thing whereon we would confer a
benefit, is called benevolence, and is nothing else but
DESIRE ARISING FROM COMPASSION, Couceming lovc OT hatc
toward him who has done good or harm to something,
which we conceive to be like ourselves, see III. xxii.
note.

Prop. XXVIII, We endeavor to bring about whatso-
ever we concede to conduce to pleasure ; but we endeavor
to remove or destroy whatsoever we conceive to be truly
repugnant thereto, or to conduce to pain.

Proof. — We endeavor, as far as possible, to conceive
that which we imagine to conduce to pleasure (III. xii.);
in other words (II. xvii.) we shall endeavor to conceive
it as far as possible as present or actually existing. But
the endeavor of the mind, or the mind's power of thought,.

150 THE ETHICS

is equal to and simultaneous with, the endeavor of the
body, or the body's power of action. (This is clear from
II. vii. Coroll. and II. xi. Coroll.) Therefore we make
an absolute endeavor for its existence, in other words
(which by III. ix. note come to the same thing) we
desire and strive for it; this was our first point. Again,
if we conceive that something, which we believe to be
the cause of pain, that is (III. xiii. note), which we hate,
is destroyed, we shall rejoice (III. xx.). We shall, there-
fore ( by the first part of this proof ), endeavor to destroy
the same, or (III. xiii.) to remove it from us, so that
we may not regard it as present; this was our second
point. Wherefore whatsoever conduces to pleasure, etc.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIX. We shall also endeavor to do whatsoever
we conceive men* to regard with pleasure, and contrari-
wise we shall shrink from doing that which we conceive
men to shrink from.

Proof. — From the fact of imagining, that men love or
hate anything, we shall love or hate the same thing (III.
xxvii.). That is (III. xiii. note), from this mere fact we
shall feel pleasure or pain at the thing's presence. And
so we shall endeavor to do whatever we conceive men to
love or regard with pleasure, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — This endeavor to do a thing or leave it undone,
solely in order to please men, we call ambition, especially
when we so eagerly endeavor to please the vulgar, that
we do or omit certain things to our own or another's
hurt: in other cases it is generally called kindliness.
Furthermore I give the name of praise to the pleas-
ure, WITH WHICH WE CONCEIVE THE ACTION OF ANOTHER,
WHEREBY HE HAS ENDEAVORED TO PLEASE US; but of
BLAME to the PAIN WHEREWITH WE FEEL AVERSION TO
HIS ACTION.

Prop. XXX. If anyone has done something which he
conceives as affecting other men pleasurably, he will be
affected by pleasure, accompanied by the idea of himself
as cause; in other words, he will regard himself with

* N. B. By << men » in this and the following propositions, I mean
men whom we regard without any particular emotion.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 151

pleasure. On the other hand, if he has done anything
which he conceives as affecting others painfully, he will
regard himself with pain.

Proof. — He who conceives, that he affects others with
pleasure or pain, will, by that very fact, himself be
affected with pleasure or pain (III. xxvii.), but, as a
man, (II. xix. and xxiii. ) is conscious of himself through
the modifications whereby he is determined to action, it
follows that he who conceives, that he affects others
pleasurably, will be affected with pleasure accompanied
by the idea of himself as cause; in other words, will re-
gard himself with pleasure. And so mutatis mutandis in
the case of pain. Q.E.D.

Note. — As love (III. xiii.) is pleasure accompanied by
the idea of an external cause, and hatred is pain accom-
panied by the idea of an external cause ; the pleasure and
pain in question will be a species of love and hatred.
But, as the terms love and hatred are used in reference
to external objects, we will employ other names for the
emotions now under discussion : pleasure accompanied by
the idea of an external cause we will style Honor, and
the emotion contrary thereto we will style Shame: I mean
in such cases as where pleasure or pain arises from a
man's belief, that he is being praised or blamed: other-
wise pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external
cause is called self-complacency, and its contrary pain
is called repentance. Again, as it may happen (II. xvii.
Coroll.) that the pleasure, wherewith a man conceives
that he affects others, may exist solely in his own imagi-
nation, and as (III. xxv.) everyone endeavors to conceive
concerning himself that which he conceives will affect him
with pleasure, it may easily come to pass that a vain man
may be proud and may imagine that he is pleasing to
all, when in reality he may be an annoyance to all.

Prop. XXXI. If we conceive that anyone loves, desires,
or hates anything which we ourselves love, desire, or hate,
we shall thereupon regard the thing in question with more
steadfast love, etc. On the contrary, if we think that
anyone shrinks from something that we love, we shall
undergo vacillation of soul.

152 THE ETHICS

Proof. — From the mere fact of conceiving that anyone
loves anything we shall ourselves love that thing (III.
xxvii.): but we are assumed to love it already; there is,
therefore, a new cause of love, whereby our former
emotion is fostered; hence we shall thereupon love it
more steadfastly. Again, from the mere fact of conceiv-
ing that anyone shrinks from anything, we shall ourselves
shrink from that thing (III. xxvii.). If we assume that
we at the same time love it, we shall then simultaneously
love it and shrink from it; in other words, we shall be
subject to vacillation (III. xvii. note). Q.E.D.

Corollary. — From the foregoing, and also from III.
xxviii. it follows that everyone endeavors, as far as pos-
sible, to cause others to love what he himself loves, and
to hate what he himself hates: as the poet says: "As
lovers let us share every hope and every fear: iron-hearted
were he who should love what the other leaves. '^

Note. — This endeavor to bring it about, that our own
likes and dislikes should meet with universal approval, is
really ambition (see III, xxix. note) ; wherefore we see
that every one by nature desires {appcterc), that the rest
of mankind should live according to his own individual
disposition: when such a desire is equally present in all,
every one stands in every one else's way, and in wishing
to be loved or praised by all, all become mutually hate-
ful.

Prop. XXXII. If we conceive that any one takes delight
in something, which only one person can possess, we shall
endeavor to bring it about that the man in question shall
not gain possession thereof.

Proof. — From the mere fact of our conceiving that an-
other person takes delight in a thing (III. xxvii. and
Coroll.) we shall ourselves love that things and desire to
take delight therein. But we assumed that the pleasure
in question would be prevented by another's delight in its
object; we shall, therefore, endeavor to prevent his posses-
sion thereof (III. xxviii.). Q.E.D.

Note. — We thus see that man's nature is generally so
constituted, that he takes pity on those who fare ill, and
envies those who fare well with an amount of hatred

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 153

proportioned to his own love for the goods in their posses-
sion. Further, we see that from the same property of
human nature, whence it follows that men are merciful,
it follows also that they are envious and ambitious.
Lastly, if we make appeal to Experience, we shall find that
she entirely confirms what we have said; more especially
if we turn our attention to the first years of our life. We
find that children, whose body is continually, as it were,
in equilibrium, laugh or cry simply because they see
others laughing or crying; moreover, they desire forth-
with to imitate whatever they see others doing, and to
possess themselves whatever they conceive as delighting
others: inasmuch as the images of things are, as we have
said, modifications of the human body, or modes wherein
the human body is affected and disposed by external
causes to act in this or that manner.

Prop. XXXIII. When we love a thing similar to our-
selves we endeavor, as far as we can, to bring about that
it should love us in return.

Proof. — That which we love we endeavor, as far as we
can, to conceive in preference to anything else (III. xii.).
If the thing be similar to ourselves, we shall endeavor to
affect it pleasurably in preference to anything else (III.
xxix.). In other words, we shall endeavor, as far 'as we
can, to bring it about, that the thing should be affected
with pleasure, accompanied by the idea of ourselves,
that is (III. xiii. note) that it should love us in return.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXIV. The greater the emotion with which we
conceive a loved object to be affected toward us, the
greater will be our complacency.

Proof. — We endeavor ( III. xxxiii.), as far as we can,
to bring about, that what we love should love us in re-
turn ; in other words, that what we love should be affected
with pleasure accompanied by the idea of ourself as
cause. Therefore, in proportion as the loved object is
more pleasurably affected because of us, our endeavor
will be assisted — that is (III. xi. and note) the greater
will be our pleasure. But when we take pleasure in the
fact, that we pleasurably affect something similar to our-.

154 THE ETHICS

selves, we regard ourselves with pleasure (III. 30);
therefore the greater the emotion with which we con-
ceive a loved object to be affected, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXV. If any one conceive, that an object of his
love joins itself to another with closer bonds of friend-
ship than he himself has attained to, he will be affected
with hatred toward the loved object and with envy
toward his rival.

Proof. — In proportion as a man thinks that a loved
object is well affected toward him, will be the strength
of his self-appro-"^al (by the last Prop.), that is (III. xxx.
note), of his pleasure; he will, therefore (III. xxviii.), en-
deavor, as far as he can, to imagine the loved object as
most closely bound to him: this endeavor or desire will
be increased, if he thinks that some one else has a similar
desire (III. xxxi.). But this endeavor or desire is assumed
to be checked by the image of the loved object in con-
junction with the image of him whom the loved object has
joined to itself; therefore (III. xi. note) he will for that
reason be affected with pain, accompanied by the idea of
the loved object as a cause in conjunction with the image
of his rival; that is, he will be (III. xiii.) affected with
hatred toward the loved object and also toward his rival
(III. XV. Coroll.), which latter he will envy as enjoying the
beloved object. Q.E.D.

Note. — This hatred toward an object of love joined with
envy is called Jealousy, which accordingly is nothing else
but a wavering of the disposition arising from combined
love and hatred, accompanied by the idea of some rival
who is envied. Further, this hatred toward the object of
love will be greater, in proportion to the pleasure which
the jealous man had been wont to derive from the recip-
rocated love of the said object; and also in proportion to
the feelings he had previously entertained toward his
rival. If he had hated him, he will forthwith hate the
object of his love, because he conceives it is pleasurably
affected by one whom he himself hates: and also because
he is compelled to associate the image of his loved one
with the image of him whom he hates. This condition
generally comes into play in the case of love for a woman :

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 155

for he who thinks, that a woman whom he loves prosti-
tutes herself to another, will feel pain, not only because
his own desire is restrained, but also because, being com-
pelled to associate the image of her he loves with the
parts of shame and the excreta of another, he therefore
shrinks from her.

We must add, that a jealous man is not greeted by his
beloved with the same joyful countenance as before,
and this also gives him pain as a lover, as I will now
show

Prop. XXXVI. He who remembers a thing, in which he
has once taken delight, desires to possess it under the
same circumstances as when he first took delight therein.

Proof. — Everything, which a man has seen in conjunc-
tion with the object of his love, will be to him accident-
ally a cause of pleasure (III. xv.); he will, therefore,
desire to possess it in conjunction with that wherein he
has taken delight; in other words, he will desire to pos-
sess the object of his love under the same circumstances
as when he first took delight therein. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — A lover will, therefore, feel pain if one of
the aforesaid attendant circumstances be missing.

Proof. — For, in so far as he finds some circumstances
to be missing, he conceives something which excludes its
existence. As he is assumed to be desirous for love's
sake of that thing or circumstance (by the last Prop.),
he will, in so far as he conceives it to be missing, feel
pain (III. xix.). Q.E.D.

Note. — This pain, in so far as it has reference to the
absence of the object of love, is called Regret.

Prop. XXXVII. Desire arising through pain or pleas-
ure, hatred or love, is greater in proportion as the emo-
tion is greater.

Proof. — Pain diminishes or constrains man's power of
activity (III. xi. note), in other words (III. vii.), di-
minishes or constrains the effort, wherewith he endeavors
to persist in his own being; therefore (III. v.) it is con-
trary to the said endeavor: thus all the endeavors of a
man affected by pain are directed to removing that pain.
But (by the definition of pain), in proportion as the

156 THE ETHICS

pain is greater, so also is it necessarily opposed to a
greater part of man's power of activity; therefore the
greater the pain, the greater the power of activity em-
ployed to remove it; that is, the greater will be the
desire or appetite in endeavoring to remove it. Again,
since pleasure (III. xi. note) increases or aids a man's
power of activity, it may easily be shown in like man-
ner, that a man affected by pleasure has no desire
further than to preserve it, and his desire will be in pro-
portion to the magnitude of the pleasure.

Lastly, since hatred and love are themselves emotions
of pain and pleasure, it follows in like manner that the
endeavor, appetite, or desire, which arises through ha-
tred or love, will be greater in proportion to the hatred
or love. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXVIII. If a man has begun to hate an ob-
ject of his love, so that love is thoroughly destroyed, he
will, causes being equal, regard it with more hatred
than if he had never loved it, and his hatred will be in
proportion to the strength of his former love.

Proof. — If a man begins to hate that which he had
loved, more of his appetites are put under restraint than
if he had never loved it. For love is a pleasure ( III.
xiii. note ) which a man endeavors as far as he can to
render permanent (III. xxviii.); he does so by regarding
the object of his love as present, and by affecting it as
far as he can pleasurably; this endeavor is greater in
proportion as the love is greater, and so also is the
endeavor to bring about that the beloved should return
his affection (III. xxxiii.). Now these endeavors are con-
strained by hatred toward the object of love (III. xiii.
CoroU, and III. xxiii.); wherefore the lover (III. xi. note)
will for this cause also be affected with pain, the more
so in proportion as his love has been greater; that is, in
addition to the pain caused by hatred, there is a pain
caused by the fact that he has loved the object; where-
fore the lover will regard the beloved with greater pain,
or in other words, will hate it more than if he had never
loved it, and with the more intensity in proportion as his
former love was greater. Q.E.D.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 157

Prop. XXXIX. He who hates anyone will endeavor to
do him an injury, unless he fears that a greater injury
will thereby accrue to himself; on the other hand, he
who loves anyone will, by the same law, seek to benefit
him.

Proof. — To hate a man is (III. xiii. note) to conceive
him as a cause of pain; therefore he who hates a man
will endeavor to remove or destroy him. But if anything
more painful, or, in other words, a greater evil, should
accrue to the hater thereby — and if the hater thinks he
can avoid such evil by not carrying out the injury,
which he planned against the object of his hate — he
will desire to abstain from inflicting that injury (III.
xxviii.), and the strength of his endeavor (III. xxxvii.),
will be greater than his former endeavor to do injury,
and will therefore prevail over it, as we asserted. The
second part of this proof proceeds in the same manner.
Wherefore he who hates another, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — By good I here mean every kind of pleasure,
and all that conduces thereto, especially that which satis-
fies our longings, whatsoever they may be. By evil, I
mean every kind of pain, especially that which frustrates
our longings. For I have shown (III. ix. note) that we
in no case desire a thing because we deem it good, but,
contrariwise, we deem a thing good because we desire
it : consequently we deem evil that which we shrink from ;
every one, therefore, according to his particular emotions,
judges or estimates what is good, what is bad, what is
better, what is worse, lastly, what is best, and what is
worst. Thus a miser thinks that abundance of money is
the best, and want of money the worst; an ambitious
man desires nothing so much as glory, and fears nothing
so much as shame. To an envious man nothing is more
delightful than another's misfortune, and nothing more
painful than another's success. So every man, according
to his emotions, judges a thing to be good or bad, useful
or useless. The emotion, which induces a man to turn
from that which he wishes, or to wish for that which he
turns from, is called timidity, which may accordingly be
defined as the fear whereby a man is induced to avoid

158 THE ETHICS

AN EVIL WHICH HE REGARDS AS FUTURE BY ENCOUNTERING

A LESSER EVIL (III, xxviii.). But if the evil which he
fears be shame, timidity becomes bashfulness. Lastly,
if the desire to avoid a future evil be checked by the
fear of another evil, so that the man knows not which
to choose, fear becomes consternation, especially if both
the evils feared be very great.

Prop. XL. He, who conceives himself to be hated by
another, and believes that he has given him no cause
for hatred, will hate- that other in return.

Proof. — He who conceives another as affected with
hatred, will thereupon be affected himself with hatred
(HL xxvii.), that is, with pain, accompanied by the idea
of an external cause. But, by the hypothesis, he con-
ceives no cause for this pain except him who is his enemy;
therefore, from conceiving that he is hated by some one,
he will be affected with pain, accompanied by the idea
of his enemy ; in other words, he will hate his enemy in
return. Q.E.D.

Note. — He who thinks that he has given just cause for
hatred will (IIL xxx. and note) be affected with shame;
but this case ( IIL xxv. ) rarely happens. This recipro-
cation of hatred may also arise from the hatred, which
follows an endeavor to injure the object of our hate ( IIL
xxxix. ). He therefore who conceives that he is hated
by another will conceive his enemy as the cause of some
evil or pain; thus he will be affected with pain or fear,
accompanied by the idea of his enemy as cause ; in other
words, he will be affected with hatred toward his enemy,
as I said above.

Corollary I. — He who conceives, that one whom he
loves hates him, will be a prey to conflicting hatred and
love. For, in so far as he conceives that he is an object
of hatred, he is determined to hate his enemy in return.
But, by the hypothesis, he nevertheless loves him : where-
fore he will be a prey to conflicting hatred and love.

Corollary II, — If a man conceives that one, whom he
has hitherto regarded without emotion, has done him any
injury from motives of hatred, he will forthwith seek to
repay the injury in kind.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 159

Proof. — He who conceives, that another hates him, will
(by the last proposition) hate his enemy in return, and
( III. xxvi. ) will endeavor to recall everything which can
affect him painfully; he will moreover, endeavor to do him
an injury (III. xxxix. ). Now the first thing of this sort
which he conceives is the injury done to himself; he will,
therefore, forthwith endeavor to repay it in kind. Q. E. D.

Note. — The endeavor to injure one whom we hate is
called Anger; the endeavor to repay in kind injury done
to ourselves is called Revenge.

Prop. XLI. If any one conceives that he is loved by
another, and believes that he has given no cause for such
love, he will love that other in return. {^cf. III. xv.
Coroll., and III. xvi. ).

Proof. — This proposition is proved in the same way as
the preceding one. See also the note appended thereto.

Note. — If he believes that he has given ju.st cause for
the love, he will take pride therein (III. xxx. and note);
this is what most often happens ( III. xxv. ), and we said
that its contrary took place whenever a man conceives
himself to be hated by another. ( See note to preceding
proposition). This reciprocal love, and consequently the
desire of benefiting him who loves us (III. xxxix.),
and who endeavors to benefit us, is called gratitude
or THANKFULNESS. It thus appears that men are much
more prone to take vengeance than to return benefits.

Corollary. — He who imagines, that he is loved by
one whom he hates, will be a prey to conflicting hatred
and love. This is proved in the same way as the first
corollary of the preceding proposition.

Note. — If hatred be the prevailing emotion, he will
endeavor to injure him who loves him; this emotion
is called cruelty, especially if the victim be believed
to have given no ordinary cause for hatred.

Prop. XLII. He who has conferred a benefit on any
one from motives of love or honor will feel pain, if
he sees that the benefit is received without gratitude.

Proof. — When a man loves something similar to him-
self, he endeavors, as far as he can, to bring it about that
he should be loved thereby in return ( III. xxxiii.). . There-

i6o THE ETHICS

fore he who has conferred a benefit confers it in obedi,
ence to the desire, which he feels of being loved in return;
that is ( III. xxxiv,) from the hope of honor or (III. xxx.
note ) pleasure ; hence he will endeavor, as far as he can,
to conceive this cause of honor, or to regard it as actually
existing. But, by the hypothesis, he conceives something
else, which excludes the existence of the said cause of
honor: wherefore he will thereat feel pain (III. xix. )
O.E.D.

Prop. XLIII. Hatred is increased by being reciprocated,
and can on the other hand be destroyed by love.

Proof. — He who conceives, that an object of his hate
hates him in return, will thereupon feel a new hatred,
while the former hatred ( by hypothesis ) still remains
(III. xl.). But if on the other hand, he conceives that
the object of hate loves him, he will to this extent (III.
xxxviii.) regard himself with pleasure, and (III. xxix.)
will endeavor to please the cause of his emotion. In other
words, he will endeavor not to hate him (III. xli.), and
not to affect him painfully; this endeavor (III. xxxvii. )
will be greater or less in proportion to the emotion from
which it arises. Therefore, if it be greater than that
which arises from hatred, and through which the man
endeavors to affect painfully the thing which he hates,
it will get the better of it and banish the hatred from
his mind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLIV. Hatred which is completely vanquished
by love passes into love: and love is thereupon greater
than if hatred had not preceded it.

Proof. — The proof proceeds in the same way as Prop,
xxxviii. of this Part: for he who begins to love a thing,
which he was wont to hate or regard with pain, from the
very fact of loving feels pleasure. To this pleasure
involved in love is added the pleasure arising from aid
given to the endeavor to remove the pain involved in
hatred (III. xxxvii.), accompanied by the idea of the
former object of hatred as cause.

Note. — Though this be so, no one will endeavor to
hate anything, or to be affected with pain for the sake
of enjoying this greater pleasure; that is, no one will

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS i6i

desire that he should be injured, in the hope of recover-
ing from the injury, nor long to be ill for the sake of
getting well. For every one will always endeavor to per-
sist in his being, and to ward off pain as far as he can.
If the contrary is conceivable, namely, that a man should
desire to hate some one, in order that he might love him
the more thereafter, he will always desire to hate him.
For the strength of the love is in proportion to the
strength of the hatred, wherefore the man would desire,
that the hatred be continually increased more and more,
and, for a similar reason, he would desire to become
more and more ill, in order that he might take greater
pleasure in being restored to health; in such a case he
would always endeavor to be ill, which (III. vi.) is ab-
surd.

Prop. XLV. If a man conceives, that any one similar
to himself hates anything also similar to himself, which
he loves, he will hate that person.

Proof. — The beloved object feels reciprocal hatred
toward him who hates it (III. xl.); therefore the lover, in
conceiving that any one hates the beloved object, conceives
the beloved thing as affected by hatred, in other words
(III. xiii.), by pain; consequently he is himself affected
by pain accompanied by the idea of the hater of the be-
loved thing as cause ; that is, he will hate him who hates
anything which he himself loves (III. xiii. note). Q.E.D.

Prop. XLVI. If a man has been affected pleasurably or
painfully by any one, of a class or nation different from
his own, and if the pleasure or pain has been accompan-
ied by the idea of the said stranger as cause, under the
general category of the class or nation : the man will feel
love or hatred not only to the individual stranger, but
also to the whole class or nation whereto he belongs.

Proof. — This is evident from III. xvi.

Prop. XLVIL Joy arising from the fact, that anything
we hate is destroyed, or suffers other injury, is never
unaccompanied by a certain pain in us.

Proof. — This is evident from III. xxvii. For in so far
as we conceive a thing similar to ourselves to be affected
with pain, we ourselves feel pain.
u

i62 THE ETHICS

Note. — This proposition can also be proved from the
Corollary to II. xvii. Whenever we remember anything,
even if it does not actually exist, we regard it only as
present and the body is affected in the same manner;
wherefore, in so far as the remembrance of the thing is
strong, a man is determined to regard it with pain ; this
determination, while the image of the thing in question
lasts, is indeed checked by the remembrance of other
things excluding the existence of the aforesaid thing, but
is not destroyed: hence, a man only feels pleasure in so
far as the said determination is checked: for this reason
the joy arising from the injury done to what we hate is
repeated, every time we remember that object of hatred.
For, as we have said, when the image of the thing in
question is aroused, inasmuch as it involves the thing's
existence, it determines the man to regard the thing
with the same pain as he was wont to do, when it actually
did exist. However, since he has joined to the image
of the thing other images, which exclude its existence,
this determination to pain is forthwith checked, and the
man rejoices afresh as often as the repetition takes place.
This is the cause of men's pleasure in recalling past
evils, and delight in narrating dangers from which they
have escaped. For when men conceive a danger, they
conceive it as still future, and are determined to fear it;
this determination is checked afresh by the idea of free-
dom, which became associated with the idea of the
danger when they escaped therefrom: this renders them
secure afresh: therefore they rejoice afresh.

Prop. XLVIII. Love or hatred toward, for instance,
Peter is destroyed, if the pleasure involved in the former,
or the pain involved in the latter emotion, be associated
with the idea of another cause: and will be diminished
in proportion as we conceive Peter not to have been the
sole cause of either emotion.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from the mere defini-
tion of love and hatred (III. xiii. note). For pleasure is
called love toward Peter, and pain is called hatred toward
Peter, simply in so far as Peter is regarded as the cause
of one emotion or the other. When this condition of

ORIGIN AND NATURE OP THE EMOTIONS 163

causality is either wholly or partly removed, the emo-
tion toward Peter also wholly or in part vanishes. Q. E. D.

Prop. XLIX. Love or hatred toward a thing, which
we conceive to be free, must, other conditions being sim-
ilar, be greater than if it were felt toward a thing act-
ing by necessity.

Proof. — A thing which we conceive as free must (I. Def.
vii.) be perceived through itself without anything else.
If, therefore, we conceive it as the cause of pleasure or
pain, we shall therefore (III. xiii. note) love it or hate it,
and shall do so with the utmost love or hatred that can
arise from the given emotion. But if the thing which
causes the emotion be conceived as acting by necessity,
we shall then (by the same Def. vii. Part i.) conceive
it not as the sole cause, but as one of the causes of the
emotion, and therefore our love or hatred toward it will
be less. Q.E.D.

Note. — Hence it follows, that men, thinking themselves
to be free, feel more love or hatred toward one another
than toward anything else: to this consideration we must
add the imitation of emotions treated of in III. xxvii.
xxxiv. xl. and xliii.

Prop. L. Anything whatever can be, accident-ally, a
cause of hope or fear.

Proof. — This proposition is proved in the same way
as III. XV., which see, together with the note to III.
xviii.

Note. — Things which are accidently the causes of hope
or fear are called good or evil omens. Now, in so far
as such omens are the cause of hope or fear, they are
(by the definitions of hope and fear given in III. xviii.
note) the causes also of pleasure and pain; consequently
we, to this extent, regard them with love or hatred, and
endeavor either to invoke them as means toward that
which we hope for, or to remove them as obstacles, or
causes of that which we fear. It follows, further, from
III. XXV., that we are naturally so constituted as to be-
lieve readily in that which we hope for, and with diffi-
culty in that which we fear; moreover, we are apt to
estimate such objects above or below their true value.'

i64 THE ETHICS

Hence there have arisen superstitions, whereby men are
everywhere assailed. However, I do not think it worth
while to point out here the vacillations springing from
hope and fear; it follows from the definition of these
emotions, that there can be no hope without fear, and
no fear without hope, as I will duly explain in the proper
place. Further, in so far as we hope for or fear anj^thing,
we regard it with love or hatred ; thus everyone can apply
by himself to hope and fear what we have said concerning
love and hatred.

Prop, LI. Different men may be differently affected by
the same object, and the same man may be differently
affected at different times by the same object.

Proof. — The human body is affected by external bodies
in a variety of ways (II. Post. iii.). Two men may
therefore be differently affected at the same time, and
therefore (by Ax. i. after Lemma iii. after II. xiii.) may
be differently affected by one and the same object.
Further (by the same Post.) the human body can be
affected sometimes in one way, sometimes in another;
consequently (by the same Axiom) it may be differently
affected at different times by one and the same object.
Q.E.D.

Note. — We thus see that it is possible, that what one
man loves another may hate, and that what one man
fears another may not fear; or, again, that one and the
same man may love what he once hated, or may be bold
where he once was timid, and so on. Again, as every-
one judges according to his emotions what is good, what
bad, what better, and what worse (III. xxxix. note), it
follows that men's judgments may vary no less than their
emotions,* hence when we compare some with others, we
distinguish them solely by the diversity of their emo-
tions, and style some intrepid, others timid, others by
some other epithet. For instance, I shall call a man
INTREPID, if he despises an evil which I am accustomed
to fear; if I further take into consideration, that, in his
desire to injure his enemies and to benefit those whom

*This is possible, though the human mind is part of the divine
intellect, as I have shown in II. xiii. note.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 165

he loves, he is not restrained by the fear of an evil
which is sufficient to restrain me, I shall call him daring.
Again, a man will appear timid to me, if he fears an evil
which I am accustomed to despise ; and if I further take
into consideration that his desire is restrained by the fear
of an evil, which is not sufficient to restrain me, I shall
say that he is cowardly ; and in like manner will every-
one pass judgment.

Lastly, from this inconstancy in the nature of human
judgment, inasmuch as a man often judges of things
solely by his emotions, and inasmuch as the things which
he believes cause pleasure or pain, and therefore endeav-
ors to promote or prevent, are often purely imaginary, not
to speak of the uncertainty of things alluded to in III.
xxviii. ; we may readily conceive that a man may be at
one time affected with pleasure, and at another with pain,
accompanied by the idea of himself as cause.. Thus we
can easily understand what are Repentance and Self-
complacency. Repentance is pain, accompanied by the

IDEA OF one's self AS CAUSE; SeLF-COMPLACENCY IS PLEAS-
URE, accompanied by the idea of one's self as CAUSE,

and these emotions are most intense because men believe
themselves to be free (III. xlix.).

Prop. LII. An object which we have formerly seen in
conjunction with others, and which we do not conceive
to have any property that is not common to many, will
not be regarded by us for so long, as an object which
we conceive to have some property peculiar to itself.

Proof. — As soon as we conceive an object which we
have seen in conjunction with others, we at once remem-
ber those others (II. xviii. and note), and thus we pass
forthwith from the contemplation of one object to the
contemplation of another object. And this is the case
with the object, which we conceive to have no property
that is not common to many. For we thereupon assume
that we are regarding therein nothing, which we have
not before seen in conjunction with other objects. But
when we suppose that we conceive in an object some-
thing special, which we have never seen before, we must
needs say that the mind, while regarding that, object,-

i66 THE ETHICS

has in itself nothing which it can fall to regarding in-
stead thereof; therefore it is determined to the contempla-
tion of that object only. Therefore an object, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — This mental modification, or imagination of a
particular thing, in so far as it is alone in the
mind, is called Wonder; but if it be exited by an object
of fear, it is called Consternation, because wonder at
an evil keeps a man so engrossed in the simple contem-
plation thereof, that he has no power to think of any-
thing else whereby he might avoid the evil. If, how-
ever, the object of wonder be a man's prudence, indus-
try, or anything of that sort, inasmuch as the said man
is thereby regarded as far surpassing ourselves, wonder
is called Veneration; otherwise, if a man's anger, envy,
etc., be what we wonder at, the emotion is called Hor-
ror. Again, if it be the prudence, industry, or what
not, of a man we love, that we wonder at, our love will
on this account be the greater (III. xii.), and when
joined to wonder or veneration is called Devotion. We
may in like manner conceive hatred, hope, confidence,
and the other emotions, as associated with wonder; and
we should thus be able to deduce more emotions than
those which have obtained names in ordinary speech.
Whence it is evident, that the names of the emotions
have been applied in accordance rather with their ordi-
nary manifestations than with an accurate knowledge of
their nature.

To wonder is opposed Contempt, which generally
arises from the fact that, because we see someone won-
dering at, loving, or fearing something, or because some-
thing, at first sight, appears to be like things, which we
ourselves wonder at, love, fear, etc., we are, in conse-
quence (III. XV. Coroll. and iii. xxvii.), determined to
wonder at, love, or fear that thing. But if from the
presence, or more accurate contemplation of the said
thing, we are compelled to deny concerning it all that
can be the cause of wonder, love, fear, etc., the mind,
then, by the presence of the thing, remains determined
to think rather of those qualities which are not in it,
than of those which are in it; whereas, on the other

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 167

hand, the presence of the object would cause it more
particularly to regard that which is therein. As devo-
tion springs from wonder at a thing which we love, so
does Derision spring from contempt of a thing which
we hate or fear, and Scorn from contempt of folly, as
veneration from wonder at prudence. Lastly, we can
conceive the emotions of love, hope, honor, etc., in associa-
tion with contempt, and can thence deduce other emo-
tions, which are not distinguished one from another by
any recognized name.

Prop. LIII. When the mind regards itself and its own
power of activity, it feels pleasure; and that pleasure is
greater in proportion to the distinctness wherewith it
conceives itself and its own power of activity.

Proof. — A man does not know himself except through
the modifications of his body, and the ideas thereof (II.
xix. and xxiii.). When, therefore, the mind is able to
contemplate itself, it is thereby assumed to pass to a
greater perfection, or (III. xi. note) to feel pleasure ; and
the pleasure will be greater in proportion to the distinct-
ness, wherewith it is able to conceive itself and its own
power of activity. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — This pleasure is fostered more and more,
in proportion as a man conceives himself to be praised
by others. For the more he conceives himself as praised
by others, the more he will imagine them to be affected
with pleasure, accompanied by the idea of himself (III.
xxix. note); thus he is (III. xxvii.) himself affected with
greater pleasure, accompanied by the idea of himself.
Q.E.D.

Prop. LIV. The mind endeavors to conceive only such
things as assert its power of activity.

Proof. — The endeavor or power of the mind is the
actual essence thereof (III. vii.); but the essence of the
mind obviously only affirms that which the mind is and
can do ; not that which it neither is nor can do ; therefore
the mind endeavors to conceive only such things as assert
or affirm its power of activity. Q.E.D.

Prop. LV. When the mind contemplates its own weak-
ness, it feels pain thereat.

x68 THE ETHICS

Proof. — The essence of the mind only affirms that
which the mind is, or can do; in other words, it is the
mind's nature to conceive only such things as assert its
power of activity (last Prop.). Thus, when we say that
the mind contemplates its own weakness, we are merely
saying that while the mind is attempting to conceive
something which asserts its power of activity, it is
checked in its endeavor — in other words (III. xi.
note), it feels pain. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — This pain is more and more fostered, if a
man conceives that he is blamed by others ; this may be
proved in the same way as the corollary to III. liii.

Note. — This pain, accompanied by the idea of our own
weakness, is called humility; the pleasure, which springs
from the contemplation of ourselves, is called self-love
or SELF-COMPLACENCY. And inasmuch as this feeling is
renewed as often as a man contemplates his own virtues,
or his own power of activity, it follows that every one is
fond of narrating his own exploits, and displaying the
force both of his body and mind, and also that for this
reason, men are troublesome one to another. Again, it
follows that men are naturally envious (III. xxiv. note,
and III. xxxii. note), rejoicing in the shortcomings of
their equals, and feeling pain at their virtues. For when-
ever a man conceives his own actions, he is affected
with pleasure (III. liii.), in proportion as his actions dis-
play more perfection, and he conceives them more dis-
tinctly— that is (II. xl. note), in proportion as he can
distinguish them from others, and regard them as some-
thing special. Therefore, a man will take most pleasure
in contemplating himself, when he contemplates some
quality which he denies to others. But, if that which he
affirms of himself be attributable to the idea of man or
animals in general, he will not be so greatly pleased; he
will, on the contrary, feel pain, if he conceives that his
own actions fall short when compared with those of
others. This pain (III. xxviii.) he will endeavor to re-
move, by putting a wrong construction on the actions of
his equals, or by, as far as he can, embellishing his
own.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 169

It is thus apparent that men are naturally prone to
hatred and envy, which latter is fostered by their edu-
cation. For parents are accustomed to incite their chil-
dren to virtue solely by the spur of honor and envy.
But, perhaps, some will scruple to assent to what I have
said, because we not seldom admire men's virtues, and
venerate their possessors. In order to remove such
doubts, I append the following corollary.

Corollary. — No one envies the virtue of anyone who
is not his equal.

Proof. — Envy is a species of hatred (III. xxiv. note) or
(III. xiii. note) pain, that is (III. xi. note), a modification
whereby a man's power of activity, or endeavor toward
activity, is checked. But a man does not endeavor or
desire to do anything, which cannot follow from his
nature as it is given ; therefore a man will not desire any
power of activity or virtue (which is the same thing) to
be attributed to him, that is appropriate to another's
nature and foreign to his own; hence his desire cannot
be checked, nor he himself pained by the contemplation
of virtue in some one unlike himself, consequently he
cannot envy such an one. But he can envy his equal,
who is assumed to have the same nature as himself.
Q.E.D.

Note. — When, therefore, as we said in the note to III.
lii., we venerate a man, through wonder at his prudence,
fortitude, etc., we do so, because we conceive those quali-
ties to be peculiar to him, and not as common to our
nature ; we, therefore, no more envy their possessor, than
we envy trees for being tall, or lions for being courageous.

Prop. LVI. There are as many kinds of pleasure, of
pain, of desire, and of every emotion compounded of
these, such as vacillations of spirit, or derived from these,
such as love, hatred, hope, fear, etc., as there are kinds
of objects whereby we are affected.

Proof. — Pleasure and pain, and consequently the emo-
tions compounded thereof, or derived therefrom, are
passions, or passive states (III. xi. note) ; now we are
necessarily passive (HI. i.), in so far as we have inade-
quate ideas ; and only in so far as we have such ideas are'

I70 THE ETHICS

we passive (III. iii.); that is, we are only necessarily
passive (II. xl. note), in so far as we conceive, or (II.
xvii. and note) in so far as we are affected by an emo-
tion, which involves the nature of our own body, and
the nature of an external body. Wherefore the nature
of every passive state must necessarily be so explained,
that the nature of the object whereby we are affected
be expressed. Namely, the pleasure, which arises from,
say, the object a, involves the nature of that object a,
and the pleasure, whi'ch arises from the object b, involves
the nature of the object b; wherefore these two pleas-
urable emotions are by nature different, inasmuch as the
causes whence they arise are by nature different. So
again the emotion of pain, which arises from one object,
is by nature different from the pain arising from another
object, and, similarly, in the case of love, hatred, hope,
fear, vacillation, etc.

Thus, there are necessarily as many kinds of pleasure,
pain, love, hatred, etc., as there are kinds of objects
whereby we are affected. Now desire is each man's es-
sence or nature, in so far as it is conceived as determined
to a particular action by any given modification of itself
(III. ix. note) ; therefore, according as a man is affected
through external causes by this or that kind of pleasure,
pain, love, hatred, etc., in other words, according as his
nature is disposed in this or that manner, so will his
desire be of one kind or another, and the nature of one
desire must necessarily differ from the nature of another
desire, as widely as the emotions differ, wherefrom each
desire arose. Thus there are as many kinds of desire,
as there are kinds of pleasure, pain, love, etc., conse-
quently (by what has been shown) there are as many
kinds of desire, as there are kinds of objects whereby
we are affected. Q.E.D.

Note. — Among the kinds of emotions, which, by the
last proposition, must be very numerous, the chief are

LUXURY, DRUNKENNESS, LUST, AVARICE, and AMBITION, being

merely species of love or desire, displaying the nature
of those emotions in a manner varying according to the
object, with which they are concerned. For by luxury.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 171

drunkenness, lust, avarice, ambition, etc., we simply
mean the immoderate love of feasting, drinking, venery,
riches, and fame. Furthermore, these emotions, in so far
as we distinguish them from others merely by the objects
wherewith they are concerned, have no contraries. For
TEMPERANCE, SOBRIETY, and CHASTITY, which wc are wont
to oppose to luxury, drunkenness, and lust, are not emo-
tions or passive states, but indicate a power of the mind
which moderates the last named emotions. However, I
cannot here explain the remaining kinds of emotions (see-
ing that they are as numerous as the kinds of objects),
nor, if I could, would it be necessary. It is sufficient
for our purpose, namely, to determine the strength of
the emotions, and the mind's power over them, to have
a general definition of each emotion. It is sufficient, I
repeat, to understand the general properties of the emo-
tions and the mind, to enable us to determine the quality
and extent of the mind's power in moderating and check-
ing the emotions. Thus, though there is a great difference
between various emotions of love, hatred, or desire, for in-
stance between love felt toward children, and love felt
toward a wife, there is no need for us to take cognizance
of such differences, or to track out further the nature and
origin of the emotions.

Prop. LVII. Any emotion of a given individual differs
from the emotion of another individual, only in so far
as the essence of the one individual differs from the essence
of the other.

Proof. — This proposition is evident from Ax. i. (which
see after Lemma iii. Prop. xiii. Part ii.). Nevertheless,
we will prove it from the nature of the three primary
emotions.

All emotions are attributable to desire, pleasure, or
pain, as their definitions above given show. But desire is
each man's nature or essence (HI. ix. note); therefore
desire in one individual differs from desire in another
individual, only in so far as the nature or essence of the
one differs from the nature or essence of the other.
Again, pleasure and pain are passive states or passions,
whereby every man's power or endeavor to persist in. his

172 THE ETHICS

being is increased or diminished, helped or hindered
(III. xi. and note). But by the endeavor to persist in its
being-, in so far as it is attributable to mind and body in
conjunction, we mean appetite and desire (III. ix. note);
therefore pleasure and pain are identical with desire or
appetite, in so far as by external causes they are in-
increased or diminished, helped or hindered, in other
words, they are every man's nature; wherefore the pleasure
and pain felt by one man differ from the pleasure and
pain felt by another man, only in so far as the nature
or essence of the one man differs from the essence of the
other; consequently, any emotion of one individual only
differs, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — Hence it follows, that the emotions of the
animals which are called irrational (for after learning
the origin of mind we cannot doubt that brutes feel),
differ only from man's emotions, to the extent that brute
nature differs from human nature. Horse and man are
alike carried away by the desire of procreation; but the
desire of the former is equine, the desire of the latter is
human. So also the lusts and appetites of insects, fishes,
and birds must needs vary according to the several na-
tures. Thus, although each individual lives content and
rejoices in that nature belonging to him wherein he has
his being, yet the life, wherein each is content and re-
joices, is nothing else but the idea, or soul, of the said
individual, and hence the joy of one differs only in nature
from the joy of another, to the extent that the essence
of one differs from the essence of another. Lastly, it
follows from the foregoing proposition, that there is no
small difference between the joy which actuates, say, a
drunkard, and the joy possessed by a philosopher, as I
just mention here by the way. Thus far I have treated
of the emotions attributable to man, in so far as he is
passive. It remains to add a few words on those attrib-
utable to him in so far as he is active.

Prop. LVIII. Besides pleasure and desire, which are
passivities or passions, there are other emotions derived
from pleasure and desire, which are attributable to us in
so far as we are active.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS 173

Proof. — When the mind conceives itself and its power
of activity, it feels pleasure (III. liii.): now the mind
necessarily contemplates itself, when it conceives a true
or adequate idea (II. xliii). But the mind does conceive
certain adequate ideas ( II. xl. note 2 ). Therefore, it
feels pleasure in so far as it conceives adequate ideas;
that is, in so far as it is active (III. i). Again, the
mind, both in so far as it has clear and distinct ideas,
and in so far as it has confused ideas, endeavors to per-
sist in its own being (III. ix.); but by siich an endeavor
we mean desire (by the note to the same Prop.); there-
fore, desire is also attributable to us, in so far as we
understand, or (III. i.) in so far as we are active.
Q.E.D.

Prop. LIX. Among all the emotions attributable to the
mind as active, there are none which cannot be referred
to pleasure or pain.

Proof. — All emotions can be referred to desire, pleasure,
or pain, as their definitions, already given, show. Now
by pain we mean that the mind's power of thinking is
diminished or checked (III, xi. and note); therefore, in
so far as the mind feels pain, its power of understanding,
that is, of activity, is diminished or checked (III. i.);
therefore, no painful emotions can be attributed to the
mind in virtue of its being active, but only emotions
of pleasure and desire, which (by the last Prop.) are
attributable to the mind in that condition. Q.E.D.

Note. — All actions following from emotion, which are
attributable to the mind in virtue of its understanding,
I set down to strength of character {fortitudo), which
I divide into courage {aniniositas) and high-mindedness
{generositas). By courage I mean the desire whereby

EVERY MAN STRIVES TO PRESERVE HIS OWN BEING IN AC-
CORDANCE SOLELY WITH THE DICTATES OF REASON. By
HIGH-MINDEDNESS I mean THE DESIRE WHEREBY EVERY MAN
ENDEAVORS, SOLELY UNDER THE DICTATES OF REASON, TO
AID OTHER MEN AND TO UNITE THEM TO HIMSELF IN FRIEND-
SHIP. Those actions, therefore, which have regard solely
to the good of the agent I set down to courage, those
which aim at the good of others I set down, to high-

174 THE ETHICS

mindcdness. Thus temperance, sobriety, and presence
of mind in danger, etc., are varieties of courage; courtesy,
mercy, etc., are varieties of high-mindedness.

I think I have thus explained, and displayed through
their primary causes the principal emotions and vacillations
of spirit, which arise from the combination of the three
primary emotions, to wit, desire, pleasure, and pain. It is
evident from what I have said, that we are in many ways
driven about by external causes, and that like waves of the
sea driven by contrary winds we toss to and fro unwitting
of the issue and of our fate. But I have said, that I have
only set forth the chief conflicting emotions, not all that
might be given. For, by proceeding in the same way as
above, we can easily show that love is united to repentance,
scorn, shame, etc. I think everyone will agree from what
has been said, that the emotions may be compounded one
with another in so many ways, and so many variations may
arise therefrom, as to exceed all possibility of computation.
However, for my purpose, it is enough to have enumerated
the most important; to reckon up the rest which I have
omitted would be more curious than profitable. It remains
to remark concerning love, that it very often happens that
while we are enjoying a thing which we longed for, the
body, from the act of enjoyment, acquires a new disposi-
tion, whereby it is determined in another way, other images
of things are aroused in it, and the mind begins to con-
ceive and desire something fresh. For example, when we
conceive something which generally delights us with its
flavor, we desire to enjoy, that is, to eat it. But whilst
we are thus enjoying it, the stomach is filled and the body
is otherwise disposed. If, therefore, when the body is thus
otherwise disposed, the image of the food which is present
be stimulated, and consequently the endeavor or desire to
eat it be stimulated also, the new disposition of the body
will feel repugnance to the desire or attempt, and conse-
quently the presence of the food which we forinerly longed
for will become odious. This revulsion of feeling is called
SATIETY or weariness. For the rest, I have neglected the
outward modifications of the body observable in emotions,
such, for instance, as trembling, pallor, sobbing, laughter,

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 175

etc., for these are attibutable to the body only, without
any reference to the mind. Lastly, the definitions of the
emotions require to be supplemented in a few points; I
will therefore repeat them, interpolating such observations
as I think should here and there be added.

Definitions of the Emotions.

I. Desire is the actual essence of man, in so far as it
is conceived, as determined to a particular activity by
some given modification of itself.

Explanation. — We have said above, in the note to Prop,
ix. of this part, that desire is appetite, with consciousness
thereof; further, that appetite is the essence of man, in
so far as it is determined to act in a way tending to pro-
mote its own persistence. But, in the same note, I also
remarked that, strictly speaking, I recognize no distinc-
tion between appetite and desire. For whether a man
be conscious of his appetite or not, it remains one and
the same appetite. Thus, in order to avoid the appear-
ance of tautology, I have refrained from explaining desire
by appetite ; but I have taken care to define it in such a
manner, as to comprehend, under one head, all those
endeavors of human nature, which we distinguish by the
terms appetite, will, desire, or impulse. I might, indeed,
have said, that desire is the essence of man, in so far
as it is conceived as determined to a particular activity;
but from such a definition (r/. II. xxiii.) it would not
follow that the mind can be conscious of its desire or
appetite. Therefore, in order to imply the cause of such
consciousness, it was necessary to add, in so far as it is
determined by some given modification, etc. For, by a
modification of man's essence, we understand every dis-
position of the said essence, whether such disposition be
innate, or whether it be conceived solely under the
attribute of thought, or solely under the attribute of
extension, or whether, lastly, it be referred simultane-
ously to both these attributes. By the term desire, then,
I here mean all man's endeavors, impulses, appetites, and
volitions, which vary according to each man's disposition,
and are, therefore, not seldom opposed one to another, .

176 THE ETHICS

according as a man is drawn in different directions, and
knows not where to turn.

II. Pleasure is the transition of a man from a less to
a greater perfection.

III. Pain is the transition of a man from a greater to
a less perfection.

Explatiation. — I say transition: for pleasure is not per-
fection itself. For, if man were born with the perfection
to which he passes, he would possess the same, without
the emotion of pleasure. This appears more clearly from
the consideration of the contrary emotion, pain. No one
can deny that pain consists in the transition to a less
perfection and not in the less perfection itself : for a man
cannot be pained, in so far as he partakes of perfection
of any degree. Neither can we say that pain consists
in the absence of a greater perfection. For absence is
nothing, whereas the emotion of pain is an activity;
wherefore this activity can only be the activity of transi-
tion from a greater to a less perfection — in other words, it
is an activity whereby a man's power of action is lessened
or constrained {cf. III. xi. note). I pass over the defini-
tions of merriment, stimulation, melancholy, and grief,
because these terms are generally used in reference to
the body, and are merely kinds of pleasure or pain.

IV. Wonder is the conception {iniagmatio) of any-
thing, wherein the mind comes to a stand, because the
particular concept in question has no connection with
other concepts {cf. III. lii. and note).

Explanation. — In the note to II. xviii. we showed the
reason why the mind, from the contemplation of one
thing, straightway falls to the contemplation of another
thing, namely, because the images of the two things are
so associated and arranged, that one follows the other.
This state of association is impossible, if the image of the
thing be new; the mind will then be at a stand in the
contemplation thereof, until it is determined by other
causes to think of something else.

Thus the conception of a new object, considered in
itself, is of the same nature as other conceptions; hence, I
do not include wonder among the emotions, nor do I see

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 177

why I should so include it, inasmuch as this distraction
of the mind arises from no positive cause drawing away
the mind from other objects, but merely from the absence
of a cause, which should determine the mind to pass from
the contemplation of one object to the contemplation of
another.

I, therefore, recognize only three primitive or primary
emotions (as I said in the note to III. xi.), namely,
pleasure, pain, and desire. I have spoken of wonder,
simply because it is customary to speak of certain emo-
tions springing from the three primitive ones by different
names, when they are referred to the objects of our
wonder. I am led by the same motive to add a definition
of contempt.

V. Contempt is the conception of anything which
touches the mind so little, that its presence leads the
mind to imagine those qualities which are not in it,
rather than such as are in it {cf. III. Hi. note).

The definitions of veneration and scorn I here pass over,
for I am not aware that any emotions are named after
them.

VI. Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of an
external cause.

Explanation. — This definition explains sufficiently clearly
the essence of love ; the definition given by those authors
who say that love is the lover's wish to unite himself
TO the loved object expresses a property, but not the
essence of love ; and, as such authors have not sufficiently
discerned love's essence, they have been unable to acquire
a true conception of its properties, accordingly their defi-
nition is on all hands admitted to be very obscure. It
must, however, be noted, that when I say that it is a
property of love, that the lover should wish to unite
himself to the beloved object, I do not here mean by
WISH consent, or conclusion, or a free decision of the
mind (for I have shown such, in II. xlviii. to be fic-
titious) ; neither do I mean a desire of being united to
the loved object when it is absent, or of continuing in
its presence when it is at hand ; for love can be conceived
without either of these desires; but by wish I mean the
12

178 THE ETHICS

contentment, which is in the lover, on account of the
presence of the beloved object, whereby the pleasure of
the lover is strengthened, or at least maintained.

VII. Hatred is pain, accompanied by the idea of an
external cause.

Explanation. — These observations are easily grasped
after what has been said in the explanation of the pre-
ceding definition {cf. also III. xiii. note).

VIII. Inclination is pleasure accompanied by the idea
of something which -is accidentally a cause of pleasure.

IX. Aversion is pain, accompanied by the idea of some-
thing which is accidentally the cause of pain (r/. III. xv.
note).

X. Devotion is love toward one whom we admire.
Explanation. — Wonder [adviiratio) arises (as we have

shown. III. Hi.) from the novelty of a thing. If, there-
fore, it happens that the object ,of our wonder is often
conceived by us, we shall cease to wonder at it; thus we
see, that the emotion of devotion readily degenerates into
simple love.

XI. Derision is pleasure arising from our conceiving
the presence of a quality, which we despise, in an object
which we hate.

Explanation. — In so far as we despise a thing which
we hate, we deny existence thereof (III. Hi. note), and
to that extent rejoice ( III. xx.). But since we assume
that man hates that which he derides, it follows that the
pleasure in question is not without alloy {cf. III. xlvii.
•note).

XII. Hope is an inconstant pleasure, arising from the
idea of something past or future, whereof we to a certain
extent doubt the issue.

XIII. Fear is an inconstant pain arising from the idea
of something past or future, whereof we to a certain
extent doubt the issue {cf. III. xviii. note ).

Explanation. — From these definitions it follows, that
there is no hope unmingled with fear, and no fear un-
mingled with hope. For he, who depends on hope and
doubts concerning the issue of anything, is assumed to
conceive someihing, which excludes the existence of the

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 179

said thing in the future ; therefore he, to this extent,
feels pain (r/". III. xix.); consequently while dependent
on hope, he fears for the issue. Contrariwise he, who
fears, in other words doubts, concerning the issue of
something which he hates, also conceives something which
excludes the existence of the thing in question; to this
extent he feels pleasure, and consequently to this extent
he hopes that it will turn out as he desires (III. xx.).

XIV. Confidence is pleasure arising from the idea of
something past or future, wherefrom all cause of doubt
has been removed.

XV. Despair is pain arising from the idea of some-
thing past or future, wherefrom all cause of doubt has
been removed.

Explanation. — Thus confidence springs from hope, and
despair from fear, when all cause for doubt as to the issue
of an event has been removed: this comes to pass, because
man conceives something past or future as present and
regards it as such, or else because he conceives other
thinofs. which exclude the existence of the causes of his
doubt. For, although we can never be absolutely certain
of the issue of any particular event (II. xxxi. CoroU,),
it may nevertheless happen that we feel no doubt con-
cerning it. For we have shown, that to feel no doubt
concerning a thing is not the same as to be quite certain
of it (II. xlix. note). Thus it may happen that we are
affected by the same emotion of pleasure or pain con-
cerning a thing past or future, as concerning the
conception of a thing present; this I have already
shown in III. xviii. to which, with its note, I refer the
reader.

XVI. Joy is pleasure accompanied by the idea of some-
thing past, which has had an issue beyond our hope.

XVII. Disappointment is pain accompanied by the idea
of something past, which has had an issue contrary to
our hope,

XVIII. Pity is pain accompanied by the idea of evil,
which has befallen some one else whom we conceive to
be like ourselves {^cf. III. xxii. note, and III. xxvii. note).

Explanation. — Between pity and sympathy {rnisericordiay

i8o THE ETHICS

there seems to be no difference, unless perhaps that the
former term is used in reference to a particular action,
and the latter in reference to a disposition.

XIX. Approval is love toward one who has done good
to another.

XX. Indignation is hatred toward one who has done
evil to another.

Explanation. — I am aware that these terms are employed
in senses somewhat different from those usually assigned.
But my purpose is to explain, not the meaning of words,
but the nature of things. I therefore make use of such
terms, as may convey my meaning without any violent
departure from their ordinary signification. One state-
ment of my method will suffice. As for the cause of the
above named emotions see III, xxvii. CoroU. i., and III.
xxii. note.

XXI. Partiality is thinking too highly of any one because
of the love we bear him.

XXII. Disparagement is thinking too meanly of any one,
because we hate him,

Explanatio7i. — Thus partiality is an effect of love and
disparagement an effect of hatred: so that partiality may
also be defined as love, in so far as it induces a man to
think too highly of a beloved object. Contrariwise, dis-
paragement may be defined as hatred, in so far as it
induces a man to think too meanly of a hated object.
cf. III. xxvi. note.

XXIII. Envy is hatred, in so far as it induces a man
to be pained by another's good fortune, and to rejoice in
another's evil fortune.

Explanatiofi. — Envy is generally opposed to sympathy,
which, by doing some violence to the meaning of the
word, may therefore be thus defined:

XXIV. Sympathy [inisericordia) is love, in so far as it
induces a man to feel pleasure at another's good fortune,
and pain at another's evil fortune.

Explanatio7i. — Concerning envy see the notes to III.
xxiv. and xxxii. These emotions also arise from pleasure
or pain accompanied by the idea of something external,
as cause either in itself or accidentally. I now pass on

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS i8i

to other emotions, which are accompanied by the idea of
something within as a cause.

XXV. Self-approval is pleasure arising from a man's
contemplation of himself and his own power of action.

XXVI. Humility is pain arising from a man's con-
templation of his own weakness of body or mind.

Explanation. — Self-complacency is opposed to humility,
in so far as we thereby mean pleasure arising from a
contemplation of our own power of action; but, in so far
as we mean thereby pleasure accompanied by the idea
of any action which we believe we have performed by the
free decision of our mind, it is opposed to repentance,
which we may thus define:

XXVII. Repentance is pain accompanied by the idea
of some action, which we believe we have performed by
the free decision of our mind.

Explanation. — The causes of these emotions we have
set forth in III. li. note, and in III. liii. liv. Iv. and note.
Concerning the free decision of the mind, see II. xxxv.
note. This is perhaps the place to call attention to the
fact that it is nothing wonderful that all those actions,
which are commonly called wrong, are followed by pain,
and all those, which are called right, are followed by
pleasure. We can easily gather, from what has been said,
that this depends in great measure on education. Parents,
by reprobating the former class of actions, and by fre-
quently chiding their children because of them, and also
by persuading to and praising the latter class, have brought
it about that the former should be associated with pain
and the latter with pleasure. This is confirmed by ex-
perience. For custom and religion are not the same
among all men, but that which some consider sacred
others consider profan-e, and what some consider honor-
able others consider disgraceful. According as each man
has been educated, he feels repentance for a given action
or glories therein.

XXVIII. Pride is thinking too highly of one's self from
self-love.

Explanation. — Thus pride is different from partiality,
for the latter term is used in reference to an external

i83 THE ETHICS

object, but pride is used of a man thinking too highly of
himself. However, as partiality is the effect of love, so
is pride the effect or property of self-love, which may
therefore be thus defined, love of self or self-approval,
IN so far as it leads a man to think too highly of
HIMSELF. To this emotion there is no contrary. For no
one thinks too meanly of himself because of self-hatred;
I say that no one thinks too meanly of himself, in so far
as he conceives that he is incapable of doing this or that.
For whatsoever a man imagines that he is incapable of
doing, he imagines this of necessity, and by that notion
he is so disposed, that he really cannot do that which he
conceives that he cannot do. For, so long as he con-
ceives that he cannot do it, so long is he not determined
to do it, and consequently so long is it impossible for
him to do it. However, if we consider such matters as
only depend on opinion, we shall find it conceivable that
a man may think too meanly of himself; for it may hap-
pen, that a man, sorrowfully regarding his own weakness,
should imagine that he is despised by all men, while the
rest of the world are thinking of nothing less than of de-
spising him. Again, a man may think too meanly of
himself, if he deny of himself in the present something
in relation to a future time of which he is uncertain.
As, for instance, if he should say that he is unable to
form any clear conceptions, or that he can desire and do
nothing but what is wicked and base, etc. We may also
say, that a man thinks too meanly of himself, when we
see him from excessive fear of shame refusing to do
things which others, his equals, venture. We can,
therefore, set down as a contrary to pride an emotion
which I will call self-abasement, for as from self-
complacency springs pride, so from humility springs self-
abasement, which I will accordingly, thus define:

XXIX. Self-abasement is thinking too meanly of one's
self by reason of pain.

Explanation. — We are nevertheless generally accus-
tomed to oppose pride to humility, but in that case we
pay more attention to the effect of either emotion than
to its nature. We are wont to call proud the man who

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 183

boasts too much (III, xxx. note), who talks of nothing-
but his own virtues and other people's faults, who wishes
to be first ; and lastly who goes through life with a style
and pomp suitable to those far above him in station. On
the other hand, we call humble the man who too often
blushes, who confesses his faults, who sets forth other
men's virtues, and who, lastly, walks with bent head and
is negligent of his attire. However, these emotions,
humility and self-abasement, are extremely rare. For
human nature, considered in itself, strives against them
as much as it can (see III. xiii. liv.); hence those, who
are believed to be most self-abased and humble, are gen-
erally in reality the most ambitious and envious.

XXX. Honor is pleasure accompanied by the idea of
some action of our own, which we believe to be praised
by others.

XXXI. Shame is pain accompanied by the idea of some
action of our own, which we believe to be' blamed by
others.

Explanation. — On this subject see the note to III. xxx.
But we should here remark the difference which exists
between shame and modesty. Shame is the pain follow-
ing the deed whereof we are ashamed. ^lodesty is the
fear or dread of shame, which restrains a man from
committing a base action. Modesty is usually opposed
to shamelessness, but the latter is not an emotion, as I
will duly show; however, the names of the emotions (as
I have remarked already) have regard rather to their
exercise than to their nature.

I have now fulfilled my task of explaining the emo-
tions arising from pleasure and pain. I therefore proceed
to treat of those which I refer to desire.

XXXII. Regret is the desire or appetite to possess
something, kept alive by the remembrance of the said
thing, and at the same time constrained by the remem-
brance of other things which exclude the existence of it.

Explanation. — When we remember a thing, we are by
that very fact, as I have already said more than once, dis-
posed to contemplate it with the same emotion as if it
were something present ; but this disposition or endeavor,

i84 THE ETHICS

while we are awake, is generally checked by the images
of things which exclude the existence of that which we
remember. Thus when we remember something which
affected us with a certain pleasure, we by that very fact
endeavor to regard it with the same emotion of pleasure
as though it were present, but this endeavor is at once
checked by the remembrance of things which exclude the
existence of the thing in question. Wherefore, regret is,
strictly speaking, a pain opposed to that pleasure, which
arises from the absence of something we hate {cf. III.
xlvii. note). But, as the name regret seems to refer to
desire, I set this emotion down, among the emotions
springing from desire.

XXXIII. Emulation is the desire of something, engen-
dered in us by our conception that others have the same
desire.

Expla7iatio7i. — He who runs away, because he sees others
running away, or he who fears, because he sees others in
fear; or again, he who, on seeing that another man has
burnt his hand, draws toward him his own hand, and
moves his body as though his own hand were burnt ; such
an one can be said to imitate another's emotion, but not to
emulate him ; not because the causes of emulation and imi-
tation are different, but because it has become customary
to speak of emulation only in him, who imitates that which
we deem to be honorable, useful, or pleasant. As to the
cause of emulation, cf. III. xxvii. and note. The reason
why this emotion is generally coupled with envy may be
seen from III. xxxii. and note.

XXXIV. Thankfulness or Gratitude is the desire or
zeal springing from love, whereby we endeavor to benefit
him, who with similar feelings of love has conferred a
benefit on us. Cf. Ill, xxxix. note and xl.

XXXV. Benevolence is the desire of benefiting one
whom we pity. Cf. III. xxvii. note.

XXXVI. Anger is the desire, whereby through hatred
we are induced to injure one whom we hate. III. xxxix.

XXXVII. Revenge is the desire whereby we are induced,
through mutual hatred, to injure one who, with similar
feelings, has injured us. (See III. xl. Coroll. ii. and note.)

DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 185

XXXVIII. Cruelty or savageness is the desire, where-
by a man is impelled to injure one whom we love or
pity.

Explanation. — To cruelty is opposed clemency, which
is not a passive state of the mind, but a power whereby
man restrains his anger and revenge.

XXXIX. Timidity is the desire to avoid a greater evil,
which we dread, by undergoing a lesser evil. Cf. III.
xxxix. note.

XL. Daring, is the desire, whereby a man is set on to do
something dangerous which his equals fear to attempt.

XLI. Cowardice is attributed to one, whose desire is
checked by the fear of some danger which his equals
dare to encounter.

Explanation. — Cowardice is, therefore, nothing else but
the fear of some evil, which most men are wont not to
fear; hence I do not reckon it among the emotions spring-
ing from desire. Nevertheless, I have chosen to explain
it here, because, in so far as we look to the desire, it is
truly opposed to the emotion of daring.

XLII. Consternation is attributed to one, whose de-
sire of avoiding evil is checked by amazement at the
evil which he fears.

Explanation. — Consternation is, therefore, a species of
cowardice. But, inasmuch as consternation arises from a
double fear, it may be more conveniently defined as a
fear which keeps a man so bewildered and wavering,
that he is not able to remove the evil. I say bewildered,
in so far as we understand his desire of removing the
evil to be constrained by his amazement. I say waver-
ing, in so far as we understand the said desire to be
constrained by the fear of another evil, which equally
torments him: whence it comes to pass that he knows
not, which he may avert of the two. On this subject,
see III. xxxix. note, and III. Hi. note. Concerning
cowardice and daring, see III. li. note.

XLIII. Courtesy, or deference {humanitas seu tnodes-
tia), is the desire of acting in a way that should please
men, and refraining from that which should displease
them.

i86 THE ETHICS

XLIV. Ambition is the immoderate desire of power.

Explanation. — Ambition is the desire, whereby all the
emotions {cf. III. xxvii. and xxxi.) are fostered and
strengthened; therefore this emotion can with difficulty
be overcome. For, so long as a man is bound by any
desire, he is at the same time necessarily bound by this,
"The best men,^^ says Cicero, "are especially led by
honor. Even philosophers, when they write a book con-
temning honor, sign their names thereto,** and so on.

XLV. Luxury is excessive desire, or even love of liv-
ing sumptuously.

XLVI. Intemperance is the excessive desire and love
of drinking.

XLVII. Avarice is the excessive desire and love of
riches.

XLVIII. Lust is desire and love in the matter of sex-
ual intercourse.

Explanation. — Whether this desire be excessive or not,
it is still called lust. These last five emotions (as I have
shown in III. Ivi.) have no contraries. For deference is
a species of ambition. Cf. III. xxix. note.

Again, I have already pointed out, that temperance,
sobriety and chastity indicate rather a power than a
passivity of the mind. It may, nevertheless, happen,
that an avaricious, an ambitious, or a timid man may ab-
stain from excess in eating, drinking, or sexual indul-
gence, yet avarice, ambition, and fear are not contraries
to luxury, drunkenness, and debauchery. For an avari-
cious man is often glad to gorge himself with food and drink
at another man's expense. An ambitious man will re-
strain himself in nothing, so long as he thinks his in-
dulgences are secret; and if he lives among drunkards
and debauchees, he will, from the mere fact of being
ambitious, be more prone to those vices. Lastly, a timid
man does that which he would not. For though an av-
aricious man should, for the sake of avoiding death, cast
his riches into the sea, he will none the less remain
avaricious; so, also, if a lustful man is downcast, because
he cannot follow his bent, he does not, on the ground
of abstention, cease to be lustful. In fact, these emo-

GENERAL DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 187

tions are not so much concerned with the actual feasting,
drinking, etc., as with the appetite and love of such.
Nothing, therefore, can be opposed to these emotions,
but high-mindedness and valor, whereof I will speak
presently.

The definitions of jealousy and other waverings of the
mind I pass over in silence, first, because they arise
from the compounding of the emotions already described ;
secondly, because many of them have no distinctive names,
which shows that it is sufficient for practical purposes
to have merely a general knowledge of them. However,
it is established from the definitions of the emotions,
which we have set forth, that they all spring from de-
sire, pleasure, or pain, or rather, that there is nothing
besides these three; wherefore each is wont to be called
by a variety of names in accordance with its various rela-
tions and extrinsic tokens. If we now direct our attention
to these primitive emotions, and to what has been said
concerning the nature of the mind, we shall be able thus
to define the emotions, in so far as they are referred to
the mind only.

General Definition of the Emotions.

Emotion, which is called a passivity of the soul, is a
confused idea, whereby the mind affirms concerning its
body, or any part thereof, a force for existence {existendi
vis) greater or less than before, and by the presence of
which the mind is determined to think of one thing
rather than another.

Explanation. — I say, first, that emotion or passion of
the soul is a confused idea. For we have shown that
the mind is only passive, in so far as it has inadequate
or confused ideas. (III. iii.) I say, further, whereby
the mind affirms concerning its body or any part
thereof a force for existence greater than before.
For all the ideas of bodies, which we possess, denote
rather the actual disposition of our own body (II. xvi.
CoroU. ii.) than the nature of an external body. But
the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion
must denote or express the disposition of the body, or of

i88 THE ETHICS

some part thereof, which is possessed by the body, or
some part thereof, because its power of action or force
for existence is increased or diminished, helped or hin-
dered. But it must be noted that, when I say a greater
OR LESS FORCE FOR EXISTENCE than before, I do not
mean that the mind compares the present with the past
disposition of the body, but that the idea which consti-
tutes the reality of an emotion affirms something of the
body, which, in fact, involves more or less of reality
than before.

And inasmuch as the essence of mind consists in the
fact (II. xi. xiii.), that it affirms the actual existence of
its own body, and inasmuch as we understand by per-
fection the very essence of a thing, it follows that the
mind passes to greater or less perfection, when it hap-
pens to affirm concerning its own body, or any part
thereof, something involving more or less reality than
before.

When, therefore, I said above that the power of the
mind is increased or diminished, I merely meant that the
mind had formed of its own body, or of some part
thereof, an idea involving more or less of reality, than
it had already affirmed concerning its own body. For
the excellence of ideas, and the actual power of think-
ing are measured by the excellence of the object. Lastly,
I have added by the presence of which the mind is

DETERMINED TO THINK OF ONE THING RATHER THAN AN-
OTHER, SO that, besides the nature of pleasure and pain,
which the first part of the definition explains, I might
also express the nature of desire.

PART IV.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE, OR THE STRENGTH OF

THE EMOTIONS.

Preface.

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emo-
tions I name bondage; for, when a man is a prey to his
emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the
mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often com-
pelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to fol-
low that which is worse. Why this is so, and what is
good or evil in the emotions, I propose to show in this
part of my treatise. But, before I begin, it would be
well to make a few prefatory observations on perfection
and imperfection, good and evil.

When a man has purposed to make a given thing,
and has brought it to perfection, his work will be pro-
nounced perfect, not only by himself, but by everyone
who rightly knows, or thinks that he knows, the inten-
tion and aim of its author. For instance, suppose
anyone sees a work (which I assume to be not yet com-
pleted) and knows that the aim of the author of that
work is to build a house, he will call the work imper-
fect; he will, on the other hand, call it perfect, as soon
as he sees that it is carried through to the end, which
its author had purposed for it. But if a man sees a
work, the like whereof he has never seen before, and if
he knows not the intention of the artificer, he plainly
cannot know, whether that work be perfect or imper-
fect. Such seems to be the primary meaning of these
terms.

But, after men began to form general ideas, to think
out types of houses, buildings, towers, etc., and to prefer'

(189) .

I90 THE ETHICS

certain types to others, it came about, that each man
called perfect that which he saw agree with the general
idea he had formed of the thing in question, and called
imperfect that which he saw agree less with his own
preconceived type, even though it had evidently been
completed in acordance with the idea of its artificer.
This seems to be the only reason for calling natural
phenomena, which, indeed, are not made with human
hands, perfect or imperfect: for men are wont to form
general ideas of things natural, no less than of things
artificial, and such ideas they hold as types, believing
that Nature (who they think does nothing without an
object) has them in view, and has set them as types
before herself. Therefore, when they behold something
in Nature, which does not wholly conform to the pre-
conceived type which they have formed of the thing in
question, they say that Nature has fallen short or has
blundered, and has left her work incomplete. Thus we
see that men are wont to style natural phenomena per-
fect or imperfect rather from their own prejudices, than
from true knowledge of what they pronounce upon.

Now we showed in the appendix to Part I., that
nature does not work with an end in view. For the
eternal and infinite being, which we call God or nature,
acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists.
For we have shown that by the same necessity
of its nature, whereby it exists, it likewise works (I.
xvi.). The reason or cause why God or nature exists,
and the reason why he acts, are one and the same.
Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end,
so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his
existence and of his action there is neither origin nor
end. Wherefore, a cause which is called final is nothing
else but human desire, in so far as it is considered as
the origin or cause of anything. For example, when we
say that to be inhabited is the final cause of this or that
house, we mean nothing more than that a man. conceiv-
ing the convenience of household life, had a desire to
build a house. Wherefore, the being inhabited, in so
far as it is regarded as a final cause, is nothing else but

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 191

this particular desire, which is really the efficient cause;
it is regarded as the primary cause, because men are
generally ignorant of the causes of their desires. They
are, as I have often said already, conscious of their own
actions and appetites, but ignorant of the causes whereby
they are determined to any particular desire. Therefore,
the common saying that nature sometimes falls short, or
blunders, and produces things which are imperfect, I set
down among the glosses treated of in the appendix to
Part I. Perfection and imperfection, then, are in reality
merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form
from a comparison among one another of individuals of
the same species; hence I said above (II. Def. vi.), that
by reality and perfection I mean the same thing. For
we are wont to refer all the individual things in nature
to one genus, which is called the highest genus, namely,
to the category of being, whereto absolutely all individ-
uals in nature belong. Thus, in so far as we refer the
individuals in nature to this category, and comparing
them one with another, find that some possess more of
being or reality than others, we, to this extent, say that
some are more perfect than others. Again, in so far as
we attribute to them anything implying negation — as
term, end, infirmity, etc., — we, to this extent, call them
imperfect, because they do not affect our mind so much
as the things which we call perfect, not because they
have any intrinsic deficiency, or because nature has
blundered. For nothing lies within the scope of a thing's
nature, save that which follows from the necessity of
the nature of its efficient cause, and whatsoever follows
from the necessity of the nature of its efficient cause
necessarily comes to pass.

As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no pos-
itive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are
merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form
from the comparison of things one with another. Thus
one and the same thing can be at the same time good,
bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for
him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns; for
him that is deaf, it is neither good nor bad.

192 THE ETHICS

Nevertheless, though this be so, the terms should still
be retained. For, inasmuch as we desire to form an
idea of man as a type of human nature which we may
hold in view, it will be useful for us to retain the terms
in question, in the sense I have indicated.

In what follows, then, I shall mean by "good*' that
which we certainly know to be a means of approaching
more nearly to the type of human nature, which we
have set before ourselves; by **bad,** that which we cer-
tainly know to be' a hindrance to us in approaching the
said type. Again, we shall say that men are more per-
fect, or more imperfect, in proportion as they approach
more or less nearly to the said type. For it must be
specially remarked that, when I say that a man passes
from a lesser to a greater perfection, or vice versd, I do
not mean that he is changed from one essence or real-
ity to another; for instance, a horse would be as com-
pletely destroyed by being changed into a man, as by
being changed into an insect. What I mean is, that we
conceive the thing's power of action, in so far as this is
understood by its nature, to be increased or diminished.
Lastly, by perfection in general I shall, as I have said,
mean reality — in other words, each thing's essence, in so
far as it exists, and operates in a particular manner, and
without paying any regard to its duration. For no given
thing can be said to be more perfect, because it has
passed a longer time in existence. The duration of
things cannot be determined by their essence, for the
essence of things involves no fixed and definite period
of existence; but everything, whether it be more perfect
or less perfect, will always be able to persist in exist-
ence with the same force wherewith it began to exist;
wherefore, in this respect, all things are equal.

Definitions.

I. By good I mean that which we certainly know to be
useful to us.

II. By EVIL I mean that which we certainly know to
be a hindrance to us in the attainment of any good.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 193

(Concerning these terms see the foregoing preface
toward the end.)

III. Particular things I call contingent in so far as,
while regarding their essence only, we find nothing
therein, which necessarily asserts their existence or ex-
cludes it.

IV. Particular things I call possible in so far as, while
regarding the causes whereby they must be produced, we
know not, whether such causes be determined for pro-
ducing them.

( In I. xxxiii. note i. , I drew no distinction between
possible and contingent, because there was in that place
no need to distinguish them accurately.)

V. By CONFLICTING EMOTIONS I mean those which draw
a man in different directions, though they are of the
same kind, such as luxury and avarice, which are both
species of love, and are contraries, not by nature, but by
accident.

VI. What I mean by emotion felt toward a thing,
future, present, and past, I explained in III. xviii., notes
i. and ii., which see,

( But I should here also remark, that we can only dis^
tinctly conceive distance of space or time up to a certain
definite limit; that is, all objects distant from us more
than two hundred feet, or whose distance from the place
where we are exceeds that which we can distinctly
conceive, seem to be an equal distance from us, and
all in the same plane; so also objects, whose time
of existing is conceived as removed from the pres-
ent by a longer interval than we can distinctly con-
ceive, seem to be all equally distant from the present,
and are set down, as it were, to the same moment of
time.)

VII. By an end, for the sake of which we do some-
thing, I mean a desire.

VIII. By VIRTUE {virtus) and power I mean the same
thing; that is ( III. vii.), virtue, in so far as it is referred
to man, is a man's nature or essence, in so far as it has
the power of effecting what can only be understood by
the laws of that nature.

13

194 THE ETHICS

Axiom.

There is no individual thing in nature, than which
there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatso-
ever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby
it can be destroyed.

Prop. I. No positive quality possessed by a false idea
is removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of
its being true.

Proof. — Falsity consists solely in the privation of knowl-
edge which inadequate ideas involve (II. xxxv.), nor
have they any positive quality on account of which
they are called false (II. xxxiii.); contrariwise, in so
far as they are referred to God, they are true ( II. xxxii.).
Wherefore, if the positive quality possessed by a false
idea were removed by the presence of what is true, in
virtue of its being true, a true idea would then be
removed by itself, which ( IV. iii. ) is absurd. There-
fore, no positive quality possessed by a false idea, etc.
Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition is more clearly understood from
II. xvi. Coroll. ii. For imagination is an idea, which indi-
cates rather the present disposition of the human body
than the nature of the external body ; not indeed distinctly,
but confusedly; whence it comes to pass, that the mind is
said to err. For instance, when we look at the sun, we
conceive that it is distant from us about two hundred feet ;
in this judgment we err, so long as we are in ignorance of
its true distance; when its true distance is known, the
error is removed, but not the imagination ; or, in other
words, the idea of the sun, which only explains the nature
of that luminary, in so far as the body is affected thereby:
wherefore, though we know the real distance, we shall still
nevertheless imagine the sun to be near us. For, as we
said in II. xxxv. note, we do not imagine the sun to be so
near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but
because the mind conceives the magnitude of the sun to
the extent that the body is affected thereby. Thus, when
the rays of the sun falling on the surface of water are re-
flected into our eyes, we imagine the sun as if it were in

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 195

the water, though we are aware of its real position; and
similarly other imaginations, wherein the mind is deceived,
whether they indicate the natural disposition of the body,
or that its power of activity is increased or diminished, are
not contrary to the truth, and do not vanish at its pres-
ence. It happens indeed that, when we mistakenly fear
an evil, the fear vanishes when we hear the true tidings ;
but the contrary also happens, namely, that we fear an
evil which will certainly come, and our fear vanishes
when we hear false tidings; thus imaginations do not
vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being
true but because other imaginations, stronger than the
first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that
which we imagined, as I have shown in II. xvii.

Prop. II. We are only passive, in so far as we are a part
of Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself without
other parts.

Proof. — We are said to be passive, when something
arises in us, whereof we are only a partial cause (III.
Def. ii.), that is (III. Def. i.), something which cannot
be deduced solely from the laws of our nature. We are
passive therefore, in so far as we are a part of Nature,
which cannot be conceived by itself without other parts.
Q.E.D.

Prop. III. The force whereby a man persists in exist-
ing is limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power
of external causes.

Proof. — This is evident from the axiom of this part.
For, when man is given, there is something else — say a
— more powerful; when a is given, there is something
else — say b — more powerful than a, and so on to in-
finity ; thus the power of man is limited by the power of
some other thing, and is infinitely surpassed by the power
of external causes. Q.E.D.

Prop. IV. It is impossible, that man should not be a
part of Nature, or that he should be capable of under-
going no changes, save such as can be understood through
his nature only as their adequate cause.

Proof. — The power, whereby each particular thing, and
consequently man, preserves his being, is the power ,of

196 THE ETHICS

God or of Nature (I. xxiv. Coroll.); not in so far as it is
infinite, but in so far as it can be explained by the actual
human essence (III. vii.). Thus the power of man, in so
far as it is explained through his own actual essence, is
a part of the infinite power of God or Nature, in other
words, of the essence thereof ( I. xxxiv.). This was our
first point. Again, if it were possible, that man should
undergo no changes save such as can be understood
solely through the nature of man, it would follow that
he would not be able to die, but would always necessarily
exist; this would be the necessary consequence of a cause
whose power was either finite or infinite; namely, either
of man's power only, inasmuch as he would be capable
of removing from himself all changes which could spring
from external causes or of the infinite power of Nature,
whereby all individual things would be so ordered, that
man should be incapable of undergoing any changes save
such as tended toward his own preservation. But the
first alternative is absurd (by the last Prop., the proof
of which is universal, and can be applied to all indi-
vidual things). Therefore, if it be possible, that man
should not be capable of undergoing any changes, save
such as can be explained solely through his own nature,
and consequently that he must always (as we have shown)
necessarily exist; such a result must follow from the in-
finite power of God, and consequently ( I. xvi.) from the
necessity of the divine nature, in so far as it is regarded
as affected by the idea of any given man, the whole
order of nature as conceived under the attributes of ex-
tension and thought must be deducible. It would there-
fore follow (I. xxi.) that man is infinite, which (by the
first part of this proof ) is absurd. It is, therefore, im-
possible that man should not undergo any changes save
those whereof he is the adequate cause. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that man is necessarily
always a prey to his passions, that he follows and obeys
the general order of nature, and that he accommodates
himself thereto, as much as the nature of things demands.

Prop. V. The power and increase of every passion, and
its persistence in existing are not defined by the power,

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 197

whereby we ourselves endeavor to persist in existing, but
by the power of an external cause compared with our own.

Proof. — The essence of a passion cannot be explained
through our essence alone (III. Def. i. and ii.), that is
(III. vii.), the power of a passion cannot be defined by
the power, whereby we ourselves endeavor to persist in
existing, but (as is shown in II. xvi.) must necessarily be
defined by the power of an external cause compared with
our own. Q.E.D.

Prop. VI. The force of any passion or emotion can
overcome the rest of a man's activities or power, so that
the emotion becomes obstinately fixed to him.

Proof. — The force and increase of any passion and its
persistence in existing are defined by the power of an
external cause compared with our own (by the foregoing
Prop.); therefore (IV. iii.) it can overcome a man's power,
etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. VII. An emotion can only be controlled or de-
stroyed by another emotion contrary thereto, and with more
power for controlling emotion.

Proof. — Emotion, in so far as it is referred to the mind,
is an idea, whereby the mind affirms of its body a greater
or less force of existence than before {cf. the General Defi-
nition of the Emotions at the end of Part III.). When,
therefore, the mind is assailed by any emotion, the body
is at the same time affected with a modification whereby
its power of activity is increased or diminished. Now,
this modification of the body (IV. v.) receives from its
cause the force for persistence in its being; which force
can only be checked or destroyed by a bodily cause (II. vi.),
in virtue of the body being affected with a modifi-
cation contrary to (III. v.) and stronger than itself
(IV. Ax.) ; wherefore ( II. xii.) the mind is affected by the
idea of a modification contrary to and stronger than the
former modification, in other words (by the General Defi-
nition of the Emotions) the mind will be affected by an
emotion contrary to and stronger than the former emotion,
which will exclude or destroy the existence of the former
emotion; thus an emotion cannot be destroyed nor con-
trolled except by a contrary and stronger emotion. Q.E.D.-

198 THE ETHICS

Corollary. — An emotion, in so far as it is referred to
the mind, can only be controlled or destroyed through
an idea of a modification of the body contrary to, and
stronger than, that which we are undergoing. For the
emotion which we undergo can only be checked o^ de-
stroyed by an emotion contrary to, and stronger than,
itself; in other words (by the General Definition of the
Emotions), only by an idea of a modification of the body
contrary to, and stronger than, the modification which
we undergo.

Prop. VIII. The knowledge of good and evil is nothing
else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as we
are conscious thereof.

Proof. — We call a thing good or evil, when it is of
service or the reverse in preserving our being (IV. Def. i.
and ii.), that is (III. vii.), when it increases or dimin-
ishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity. Thus, in
so far as we perceive that a thing affects us with pleas-
ure or pain, we call it good or evil ; wherefore the knowl-
edge of good and evil is nothing else but the idea of the
pleasure or pain, which necessarily follows from that
pleasurable or painful emotion (II. xxii.). But this idea
is united to the emotion in the same way as mind is
united to body (II. xxi.); that is, there is no real dis-
tinction between this idea and the emotion or idea of
the modification of the body, save in conception only.
Therefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing else
but the emotion, in so far as we are conscious thereof.
Q.E.D.

Prop. IX. An emotion whereof we conceive the cause
to be with us at the present time, is stronger than if we
did not conceive the cause to be with us.

Proof. — Imagination or conception is the idea, by which
the mind regards a thing as present (II. xvii. note), but
which indicates the disposition of the mind rather than
the nature of the external thing (II. xvi. Coroll. ii.). An
emotion is therefore a conception, in so far as it indi-
cates the disposition of the body. But a conception (by
II. xvii.) is stronger, so long as we conceive nothing
which excludes the present existence of the external

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 199

object; wherefore an emotion is also stronger or more
intense, when we conceive the cause to be with us at the
present time, than when we do not conceive the cause
to be with us. Q.E.D.

Note. — When I said above in III. xviii. that we are
affected by the image of what is past or future with the
same emotion as if the thing conceived were present, I
expressly stated that this is only true in so far as we
look solely to the image of the thing in question itself;
for the thing's nature is unchanged, whether we have
conceived it or not; I did not deny that the image
becomes weaker, when we regard as present to us other
things which exclude the present existence of the future
object; I did not expressly call attention to the fact,
because I purposed to treat of the strength of the emo-
tions in this part of my work.

Corollary. — The image of something past or future,
that is, of a thing which we regard as in relation to
time past or time future, to the exclusion of time pres-
ent, is, when other conditions are equal, weaker than
the image of something present; consequently an emo-
tion felt toward what is past or future is less intense,
other conditions being equal, than an emotion felt toward
something present.

Prop. X. Toward something future, which we conceive
as close at hand, we are affected more intensely, than if
we conceive that its time for existence is separated from
the present by a longer interval; so too by the remem-
brance of what we conceive to have not long passed
away we are affected more intensely, than if we conceive
that it has long passed away.

Proof. — In so far as we conceive a thing as close at
hand, or not long passed away, we conceive that which
excludes the presence of the object less, than if its period
of future existence were more distant from the present,
or if it had long passed away (this is obvious); there-
fore (by the foregoing Prop.) we are, so far, more
intensely affected toward it. Q.E.D,

Corollary. — From the remarks made in Def. vi. of this
part it follows that, if objects are separated from the

200 THE ETHICS

present by a longer period than we can define in
conception, though their dates of occurrence be widely
separated one from the other, they all affect us equally
faintly.

Prop. XI. An emotion toward that which we conceive
as necessary is, when other conditions are equal, more-
intense than an emotion toward that which is possible,
or contingent, or non-necessary.

Proof. — In so far as we conceive a thing to be neces«
sary, we, to that extent, affirm its existence; on the
other hand we deny a thing's existence, in so far as we
conceive it not to be necessary (I. xxxiii. note i.); where-
fore (IV. ix.) an emotion toward that which is necessary
is, other conditions being equal, more intense than an
emotion toward that which is non-necessary. Q.E.D.

Prop. XII. An emotion toward a thing, which we know
not to exist at the present time, and which we conceive
as possible, is more intense, other conditions being equal,
than an emotion toward a thing contingent.

Proof. — In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent,
we are affected by the conception of some further thing,
which would assert the existence of the former (IV. Def.
iii.) ; but, on the other hand, we (by hypothesis) conceive
certain things which exclude its present existence. But,
in so far as we conceive a thing to be possible in the
future, we thereby conceive things which assert its exist-
ence (IV. iv.), that is (III. xviii.), things which promote
hope or fear: wherefore an emotion toward something
possible is more vehement. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — An emotion toward a thing, which we know
not to exist in the present, and which we conceive as con-
tingent, is far fainter than if we conceive the thing to be
present with us.

Proof. — Emotion toward a thing, which we conceive
to exist, is more intense than it would be, if we con-
ceived the thing as future (IV. ix. Coroll.), and is much
more vehement, than if the future time be conceived as
far distant from the present (IV. x.). Therefore an
emotion toward a thing, whose period of existence we
conceive to be far distant from the present, is far fainter.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 201

than if we conceive the thing as present ; it is, neverthe-
less, more intense, than if we conceived the thing
as contingent, wherefore an emotion toward a thing,
which we regard as contingent, will be far fainter,
than if we conceived the thing to be present with us.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XIII. Emotion toward a thing contingent,
which we know not tc exist in the present, is, other con-
ditions being equal, fainter than an emotion toward a
thing past.

Proof. — In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent,
we are not affected by the image of any other thing,
which asserts the existence of the said thing ( IV. Def.
iii.), but, on the other hand (by hypothesis), we con-
ceive certain things excluding its present existence. But,
in so far as we conceive it in relation to time past, we
are assumed to conceive something, which .recalls the
thing to memory, or excites the image thereof ( II. xviii.
and note), which is so far the same as regarding it
as present (II. xvii. Coroll.). Therefore (IV. ix.) an
emotion toward a thing contingent, which we know does
not exist in the present, is fainter, other conditions being
equal, than an emotion toward a thing past. Q.E.D.

Prop. XIV. A true knowledge of good and evil cannot
check any emotion by virtue of being true, but only in so
far as it is considered as an emotion.

Proof. — An emotion is an idea, whereby the mind
affirms of its body a greater or less force of existing than
before (by the General Definition of the Emotions) ; there-
fore it has no positive quality, which can be destroyed
by the presence of what is true ; consequently the knowl-
edge of good and evil cannot, by virtue of being true,
restrain any emotion. But, in so far as such knowledge
is an emotion (IV. viii.), if it have more strength for
restraining emotion, it will to that extent be able to
restrain the given emotion. Q.E.D.

Prop. XV. Desire arising from the knowledge of good
and bad can be quenched or checked by many of the
other desires arising from the emotions whereby we are
assailed.

202 THE ETHICS

Proof. — From the true knowledge of good and evil, in
so far as it is an emotion, necessarily arises desire (Def.
of the Emotions, i.), the strength of which is propor-
tioned to the strength of the emotion wherefrom it arises
(III. xxxvii.). But, inasmuch as this desire arises (by
hypothesis) from the fact of our truly understanding
anything, it follows that it is also present with us, in so
far as we are active (III. i.), and must therefore be
understood through our essence only (III. Def. ii.); con-
sequently (III. vii.) its force and increase can be defined
solely by human power. Again, the desires arising from
the emotions whereby we are assailed are stronger, in
proportion as the said emotions are more vehement;
wherefore their force and increase must be defined solely
by the power of external causes, which, when compared
with our own power, indefinitely surpass it (IV. iii.);
hence the desires arising from like emotions may be more
vehement, than the desire which arises from a true
knowledge of good and evil, and may, consequently, con-
trol or quench it. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVI. Desire arising from the knowledge of good
and evil, in so far as such knowledge regards what is
future, may be more easily controlled or quenched, than
the desire for what is agreeable at the present moment.

Proof. — Emotion toward a thing, which we conceive
as future, is fainter than emotion toward a thing that is
present (IV. ix. Coroll.). But desire, which arises from
the true knowledge of good and evil, though it be con-
cerned with things which are good at the moment, can
be quenched or controlled by any headstrong desire (by
the last Prop., the proof whereof is of universal applica-
tion). Wherefore desire arising from such knowledge,
when concerned with the future, can be more easily
controlled or quenched, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVII. Desire arising from the true knowledge
of good and evil, in so far as such knowledge is con-
cerned with what is contingent, can be controlled far
more easily still, than desire for things that are present.

Proof. — This proposition is proved in the same way as
the last proposition from IV. xii. Coroll.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 203

l^ote. — I think I have now shown the reason, why men
are moved by opinion more readily than by true reason,
why it is that the true knowledge of good and evil stirs
up conflicts in the soul, and often yields to every kind
of passion. This state of things gave rise to the exclama-
tion of the poet: —

«The better path I gaze at and approve,
The worse — I follow.^*

Ecclesiastes seems to have had the same thought in his
mind, when he says, *^ He who increaseth knowledge in-
crease th sorrow. '* I have not written the above with the
object of drawing the conclusion, that ignorance is more
excellent than knowledge, or that a wise man is on a par
with a fool in controlling his emotions, but because it is
necessary to know the power and the infirmity of our
nature, before we can determine what reason can do in
restraining the emotions, and what is beyond her power.
I have said, that in the present part I shall merely treat
of human infirmity. The power of reason over the emo-
tions I have settled to treat separately.

Prop. XVIII. Desire arising from pleasure is, other con-
ditions being equal, stronger than desire arising from pain.

Proof. — Desire is the essence of a man (Def. of the
Emotions, i. ), that is, the endeavor whereby a man en-
deavors to persist in his own being. Wherefore desire
arising from pleasure is, by the fact of pleasure being
felt, increased or helped; on the contrary, desire arising
from pain is, by the fact of pain being felt, diminished
or hindered ; hence the force of desire arising from pleas-
ure must be defined by human power together with
the power of an external cause, whereas desire arising
from pain must be defined by human power only. Thus
the former is the stronger of the two. Q.E.D.

Note. — In these few remarks I have explained the
causes of human infirmity and inconstancy, and shown
why men do not abide by the precepts of reason. It
now remains for me to show what course is marked out
for us by reason, which of the emotions are in harmony
with the rules of human reason, and which of them^ are

204 THE ETHICS

contrary thereto. But, before I begin to prove my propo-
sitions in detailed geometrical fashion, it is advisable to
sketch them briefly in advance, so that every one may
more readily grasp my meaning.

As reason makes no demands contrary to nature, it
demands that every man should love himself, should
seek that which is useful to him — I mean, that which is
really useful to him, should desire everything which
really brings man to greater perfection, and should, each
for himself, endeavor as far as he can to preserve his
own being. This is as necessarily true, as that a whole
is greater than its part. {Cf. III. iv.)

Again, as virtue is nothing else but action in accord-
ance with the laws of one's own nature (IV. Def. viii.),
and as no one endeavors to preserve his own being, ex-
cept in accordance with the laws of his own nature, it
follows, FIRST, that the foundation of virtue is the en-
deavor to preserve one's own being, and that happiness
consists in man's power of preserving his own being;
SECONDLY, that virtue is to be desired for its own sake, and
that there is nothing more excellent or more useful to us,
for the sake of which we should desire it; thirdly and lastly,
that suicides are weak-minded, and are overcome by exter-
nal causes repugnant to their nature. Further, it follows
from Postulate iv. Part II., that we can never arrive at
doing without all external things for the preservation of
our being or living, so as to have no relations with
things which are outside ourselves. Again, if we con-
sider our mind, we see that our intellect would be more
imperfect, if mind were alone, and could understand
nothing besides itself. There are, then, many things
outside ourselves, which are useful to us, and are, there-
fore, to be desired. Of such none can be discerned more
excellent, than those which are in entire agreement with
our nature. For if, for example, two individuals of en-
tirely the same nature are united, they form a combina-
tion twice as powerful as either cf them singly.

Therefore, to man there is nothing more useful than
man — nothing, I repeat, more excellent for preserving
their being can be wished for by men, than that all should

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 205

so in all points agree, that the minds and bodies of all
should form, as it were, one single mind and one single
body, and that all should, with one consent, as far as they
are able, endeavor to preserve their being, and all with
one consent seek what is useful to them all. Hence, men
who are governed by reason — that is, who seek what is
useful to them in accordance with reason — desire for
themselves nothing, which they do not also desire for the
rest of mankind, and, consequently, are just, faithful, and
honorable in their conduct.

Such are the dictates of reason, which I purposed thus
briefly to indicate, before beginning to prove them in
greater detail. I have taken this course in order, if pos-
sible, to gain the attention of those who believe, that the
principle that every man is bound to seek what is useful
for himself is the foundation of impiety, rather than of
piety and virtue.

Therefore, after briefly showing that the contrary is the
case, I go on to prove it by the same method, as that
whereby I have hitherto proceeded.

Prop. XIX. Every man, by the laws of his nature,
necessarily desires or shrinks from that which he deems
to be good or bad.

Proof. — The knowledge of good and evil is (IV. viii.)
the emotion of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are con-
scious thereof; therefore, every man necessarily desires
what he thinks good, and shrinks from what he thinks
bad. Now this appetite is nothing else but man's nature
or essence {cf. the Def. of Appetite, III. ix. note, and
Def. of the Emotions, i.). Therefore, every man, solely
by the laws of his nature, desires the one, and shrinks
from the other, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XX. The more every man endeavors, and is able
to seek what is useful to him — in other words, to pre-
serve his own being — the more is he endowed with vir-
tue ; on the contrary, in proportion as a man neglects to
seek what is useful to him, that is, to preserve his own
being, he is wanting in power.

Proof. — Virtue is human power, which is defined solely
by man's essence (IV. Def. viii.), that is, which is defined

2o6 THE ETHICS

solely by the endeavor made by man to persist in his own
being. Wherefore, the more a man endeavors, and is able
to preserve his own being, the more is he endowed with
virtue, and, consequently (III. iv. and vi.), in so far as a
man neglects to preserve his own being, he is wanting in
power. Q. E. D.

Note. — No one, therefore, neglects seeking his own good
or preserving his own being, unless he be overcome by
causes external and foreign to his nature. No one, I say,
from the necessity of his own nature, or otherwise than
under compulsion from external causes, shrinks from food,
or kills himself; which latter may be done in a variety
of ways. A man, for instance, kills himself under the
compulsion of another man, who twists round his right
hand, wherewith he happened to have taken up a sword,
and forces him to turn the blade against his own heart;
or, again, he may be compelled, like Seneca, by a
tyrant's command, to open his own veins — that is, to
escape a greater evil by incurring a lesser; or, lastly,
latent external causes may so disorder his imagination, and
so affect his body, that it may assume a nature contrary
to its former one, and whereof the idea cannot exist in
the mind (III. x.). But that a man, from the necessity
of his own nature, should endeavor to become non-exist-
ent, is as impossible as that something should be made
out of nothing, as every one will see for himself, after a
little reflection.

Prop. XXI. No one can desire to be blessed, to act
rightly and to live rightly, without at the same time wish-
ing to be, to act, and to live — in other words, to actually
exist.

Proof. — The proof of this proposition, or rather the
proposition itself, is self-evident, and is also plain from
the definition of desire. For the desire of living, acting,
etc., blessedly or rightly, is (Def. of the Emotions, i.)
the essence of man — that is (III. vii.), the endeavor
made by every one to preserve his own being. There-
fore, no one can desire, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXII. No virtue can be conceived as prior to
this endeavor to preserve one's own being.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 207

Proof. — The effort for self-preservation is the essence
of a thing- (III, vii.); therefore, if any virtue could be
conceived as prior thereto, the essence of a thing would
have to be conceived as prior to itself, which is obvi-
ously absurd. Therefore no virtue, etc. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — The effort for self-preservation is the first
and only foundation of virtue. For prior to this princi-
ple nothing can be conceived, and without it no virtue
can be conceived.

Prop. XXIII. Man, in so far as he is determined to a
particular action because he has inadequate ideas, cannot
be absolutely said to act in obedience to virtue; he can
only be so described, in so far as he is determined for
the action because he understands.

Proof. — In so far as a man is determined to an action
through having inadequate ideas, he is passive (III. i.),
that is (III. Def. i. and iii.), he does something, which
cannot be perceived solely through his essence, that is
(by IV. Def. viii.), which does not follow from his vir-
tue. But, in so far as he is determined for an action
because he understands, he is active; that is, he does
something, which is perceived through his essence alone,
or which adequately follows from his virtue. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIV. To act absolutely in obedience to virtue
is in us the same thing as to act, to live, or to preserve
one's being (these three terms are identical in meaning)
in accordance with the dictates of reason on the basis of
seeking what is useful to one's self.

Proof. — To act absolutely in obedience to virtue is
nothing else but to act according to the laws of one's
own nature. But we only act, in so far as we under-
stand (III. iii.): therefore to act in obedience to virtue is
in us nothing else but to act, to live, or to preserve one's
being in obedience to reason, and that on the basis of
seeking what is useful for us (IV. xxii. Coroll.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXV. No one wishes to preserve his being for
the sake of anything else.

Proof. — The endeavor, wherewith everything endeavors
to persist in its being, is defined solely by the essence
of the thing itself (III. vii.); from this alone, and not -

2o8 THE ETHICS

from the essence of anything else, it necessarily follows
(III. vi.) that everyone endeavors to preserve his being.
Moreover, this proposition is plain from IV. xxii. Coroll.,
for if a man should endeavor to preserve his being for
the sake of anything else, the last-named thing would
obviously be the basis of virtue, which, by the foregoing
corollary, is absurd. Therefore no one, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVI. Whatsoever we endeavor in obedience to
reason is nothing further than to understand; neither
does the mind, in so far as it makes use of reason, judge
anything to be useful to it, save such things as are con-
ducive to understanding.

Proof. — The effort for self-preservation is nothing else
but the essence of the thing in question (III. vii.),
which, in so far as it exists such as it is, is conceived to
have force for continuing in existence (III. vi.) and
doing such things as necessarily follow from its given
nature (see the Def. of Appetite, III. ix. note). But
the essence of reason is naught else but our mind, in
so far as it clearly and distinctly understands (see the
definition in II. xl. note ii.); therefore (II. xl.) whatso-
ever we endeavor in obedience to reason is nothing else
but to understand. Again, since this effort of the mind
wherewith the mind endeavors, in so far as it reasons,
to preserve its own being is nothing else but under-
standing; this effort at understanding is (IV. xxii.
Coroll.) the first and single basis of virtue, nor shall we
endeavor to understand things for the sake of any
ulterior object (IV. xxv.); on the other hand, the mind,
in so far as it reasons, will not be able to conceive any
good for itself, save such things as are conducive to
understanding.

Prop. XXVII. We know nothing to be certainly good
or evil, save such things as really conduce to understand-
ing, or such as are able to hinder us from understanding.

Proof. — The mind, in so far as it reasons, desires nothing
beyond understanding, and judges nothing to be useful
to itself, save such things as conduce to understanding
(by the foregoing Prop.). But the mind (II. xli. xliii.
and note ) cannot possess certainty concerning anything,

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 209

except in so far as it has adequate ideas, or ( what by II.
xl. note, is the same thing) in so far as it reasons.
Therefore we know nothing to be good or evil save such
things as really conduce, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVIII. The mind's highest good is the knowl-
edge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know
God.

Proof. — The mind is not capable of understanding any-
thing higher than God, that is (I. Def. vi.), than a Being
absolutely infinite, and without which (I. xv.) nothing
can either be or be conceived; therefore (IV. xxvi. and
xxvii.), the mind's highest utility or (IV. Def. i.) good
is the knowledge of God. Again, the mind is active only
in so far as it understands, and only to the same extent
can it be said absolutely to act virtuously. The mind's
absolute virtue is therefore to understand. Now, as we
have already shown, the highest that the mind can under-
stand is God; therefore the highest virtue of the mind is
to understand or to know God. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIX. No individual thing, which is entirely
different from our own nature, can help or check our
power of activity, and absolutely nothing can do us good
or harm, unless it has something in common with our
nature.

Proof. — The power of every individual thing, and con-
sequently the power of man, whereby he exists and
operates, can only be determined by an individual thing
(I. xxviii.), whose nature (II. vi.) must be understood
through the same nature as that, through which human
nature is conceived. Therefore our power of activity,
however it be conceived, can be determined and conse-
quently helped or hindered by the power of any other
individual thing, which has something in common with
us, but not by the power of anything, of which the
nature is entirely different from our own; and since we
call good or evil that which is the cause of pleasure or
pain (IV. viii.), that is (III. xi. note), which increases
or diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity;
therefore, that which is entirely different from our
nature can neither be to us good nor bad. Q.E.D.
14

2IO THE ETHICS

Prop. XXX, A thing cannot be bad for us through
the quality which it has in common with our nature,
but it is bad for us in so far as it is contrary to our
nature.

Proof. — We call a thing- bad when it is the cause of
pain (IV. viii.), that is (by the Def., which see in III.
xi. note ), when it diminishes or checks our power of action.
Therefore, if anything were bad for us through that
quality which it has in common with our nature, it
would be able itself to diminish or check that which it
has in common with our nature, which ( III. iv.) is ab-
surd. Wherefore nothing can be bad for us through
that quality which it has in common with us, but, on
the other hand, in so far as it is bad for us, that is ( as
we have just shown), in so far as it can diminish
or check our power of action, it is contrary to our nature.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXI. In so far as a thing is in harmony with
our nature, it is necessarily good.

Proof. — In so far as a thing is in harmony with our
nature, it cannot be bad for it. It will therefore neces-
sarily be either good or indifferent. If it be assumed
that it be neither good nor bad, nothing will follow from
its nature (IV. Def. i.), which tends to the preservation
of our nature, that is (by the hypothesis), which tends
to the preservation of the thing itself; but this (III. vi.)
is absurd; therefore, in so far as a thing is in harmony
with our nature, it is necessarily good. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows, that, in proportion as a
thing is in harmony with our nature, so is it more use-
ful or better for us, and vice versa, in proportion as a
thing is more useful for us, so is it more in harmony
with our nature. For, in so far as it is not in harmony
with our nature, it will necessarily be different there-
from or contrary thereto. If different, it can neither be
good nor bad (IV. xxix.); if contrary, it will be con-
trary to that which is in harmony with our nature, that
is, contrary to what is good — in short, bad. Nothing,
therefore, can be good, except in so far as it is in har-
mony with our nature; and hence a thing is useful, in

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 211

proportion as it is in harmony with our nature, and vice
versa. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXII. In so far as men are a prey to passion,
they cannot, in that respect, be said to be naturally in
harmony.

Proof. — Things, which are said to be in harmony
naturally, are understood to agree in power (III. vii.),
not in want of power or negation, and consequently
not in passion (III. iii, note); wherefore men, in so far
as they are a prey to their passions, cannot be said to
be naturally in harmony. Q.E.D.

Note. — This is also self-evident; for, if we say that
white and black agree only in the fact that neither is
red, we absolutely affirm that they do not agree in any
respect. So, if we say that a man and a stone agree
only in the fact that both are finite — wanting in power,
not existing by the necessity of their own nature, or,
lastly, indefinitely surpassed by the power of external
causes — we should certainly affirm that a man and a stone
are in no respect alike; therefore, things which agree
only in negation, or in qualities which neither pos-
sess, really agree in no respect.

Prop. XXXIII. Men can differ in nature, in so far as
they are assailed by those emotions, which are passions,
or passive states; and to this extent one and the same
man is variable and inconstant.

Proof. — The nature or essence of the emotions cannot
be explained solely through our essence or nature (III.
Def. i. ii.), but it must be defined by the power, that
is (III. vii.), by the nature of external causes in com-
parison with our own; hence it follows, that there are
as many kinds of each emotion as there are external
objects whereby we are affected (III. Ivi.), and that men
may be differently affected by one and the same object
(III. li.), and to this extent differ in nature; lastly, that
one and the same man may be differently affected toward
the same object, and may therefore be variable and in-
constant. Q. E. D.

Prop. XXXIV. In so far as men are assailed by emotions
which are passions, they can be contrary one to another.

212 THE ETHICS

Proof. — A man, for instance Peter, can be the cause
of Paul's feeling- pain, because he (Peter) possesses
something similar to that which Paul hates (III. xvi.),
or because Peter has sole possession of a thing which
Paul also loves (III. xxxii. and note), or for other causes
(of which the chief are enumerated in III. Iv. note) ; it
may therefore happen that Paul should hate Peter (Def.
of Emotions, vii.), consequently it may easily happen
also, that Peter should hate Paul in return, and that each
should endeavor to do the other an injury (III. xxxix.),
that is (IV. XXX.), that they should be contrary one to
another. But the emotion of pain is always a passion
or passive state (III. lix.); hence men, in so far as they
are assailed by emotions which are passions, can be con-
trary one to another. Q.E.D.

Note. — I said that Paul may hate Peter, because he
conceives that Peter possesses something which he ( Paul )
also loves; from this it seems at first sight, to follow,
that these two men, through both loving the same thing,
and, consequently, through agreement of their respective
natures, stand in one another's way; if this were so.
Props. XXX. and xxxi. of this Part would be untrue. But
if we give the matter our unbiased attention, we shall
see that the discrepancy vanishes. For the two men are
not in one another's way in virtue of the agreement of
their natures, that is, through both loving the same thing,
but in virtue of one differing from the other. For, in so
far as each loves the same thing, the love of each is
fostered thereby (III. xxxi.) that is (Def. of the Emo-
tions, vi.) the pleasure of each is fostered thereby.
Wherefore it is far from being the case, that they are
at variance through both loving the same thing, and
through the agreement in their natures. The cause for
their opposition lies, as I have said, solely in the fact
that they are assumed to differ. For we assume that
Peter has the idea of the loved object as already in his
possession, while Paul has the idea of the loved object
as lost. Hence the one man will be affected with pleas-
ure, the other will be affected with pain, and thus they
will be at variance one with another. We can easily

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 213

show in like manner, that all other causes of hatred de-
pend solely on differences, and not on the agreement
between men's natures.

Prop. XXXV. In so far only as men live in obedience
to reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature.

Proof. — In so far as men are assailed by emotions that
are passions, they can be different in nature ( IV. xxxiii.),
and at variance one with another. But men are only
said to be active, in so far as they act in obedience to
reason (III. iii.); therefore, whatsoever follows from
human nature in so far as it is defined by reason must
(III. Def. ii.) be understood solely through human nature
as its proximate cause. But, since every man by the
laws of his nature desires that which he deems good,
and endeavors to remove that which he deems bad
(IV. xix.); and further, since that which we, in accord-
ance with reason, deem good or bad, necessarily is good
or bad (II. xli.); it follows that men, in so far as they
live in obedience to reason, necessarily do only such
things as are necessarily good for human nature, and
consequently for each individual man (IV. xxxi. Coroll.);
in other words, such things as are in harmony with
each man's nature. Therefore, men in so far as they
live in obedience to reason, necessarily live always in
harmony one with another. Q.E.D.

Corollary I. — There is no individual thing in nature,
which is more useful to man, than a man who lives in
obedience to reason. For that thing is to man most
useful, which is most in harmony with his nature (IV.
xxxi. Coroll.); that is, obviously, man. But man acts
absolutely according to the laws of his nature, when he
lives in obedience to reason (III. Def. ii.), and to this
extent only is always necessarily in harmony with the
nature of another man (by the last Prop.); wherefore
among individual things nothing is more useful to man,
than a man who lives in obedience to reason. Q.E.D.

Corollary II. — As every man seeks most that which is
useful to him, so are men most useful one to another.
For the more a man seeks what is useful to him and
endeavors to preserve himself, the more is he endowed •

214 THE ETHICS

with virtue (IV. xx.), or, what is the same thing (IV.
Def. viii.), the more is he endowed with power to act
according to the laws of his own nature, that is to live in
obedience to reason. But men are most in natural har-
mony, when they live in obedience to reason ( by the last
Prop.); therefore (by the foregoing Coroll.) men will be
most useful one to another, when each seeks most that
which is useful to him. Q.E.D.

Note. — What we have just shown is attested by expe-
rience so conspicuously, that it is in the mouth of nearly
everyone : ^* Man is to man a God. '^ Yet it rarely hap-
pens that men live in obedience to reason, for things are
so ordered among them, that they are generally envious
and troublesome one to another. Nevertheless they are
scarcely able to lead a solitary life, so that the definition
of man as a social animal has met with general assent;
in fact, men do derive from social life much more con-
venience than injury. Let satirists then laugh their fill
at human affairs, let theologians rail, and let misan-
thropes praise to their utmost the life of untutored
rusticity, let them heap contempt on men and praises
on beasts; when all is said, they will find that men can
provide for their wants much more easily by mutual
help, and that only by uniting their forces can they
escape from the dangers that on every side beset them:
not to say how much more excellent and worthy of our
knowledge it is, to study the actions of men than the
actions of beasts. But I will treat of this more at length
elsewhere.

Prop. XXXVI. The highest good of those who follow
virtue is common to all, and therefore all can equally
rejoice therein.

Proof. — To act virtuously is to act in obedience with
reason (IV. xxiv.), and whatsoever we endeavor to do in
obedience to reason is to understand (IV. xxvi.); there-
fore (IV. xxviii.) the highest good for those who follow
after virtue is to know God; that is (II. xlvii. and note)
a good which is common to all and can be possessed by
all men equally, in so far as they are of the same nature.
Q.E.D. . .

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 215

Note. — Some one may ask how it would be, if the high-
est good of those who follow after virtue were not com-
mon to all? Would it not then follow, as above (IV.
xxxiv.), that men living in obedience to reason, that is (IV.
XXXV.), men in so far as they agree in nature, would be
at variance one with another ? To such an inquiry I
make answer, that it follows not accidentally but from
the very nature of reason, that man's highest good is
common to all, inasmuch as it is deduced from the very
essence of man, in so far as defined by reason ; and that
a man could neither be, nor be conceived without the
power of taking pleasure in this highest good. For it
belongs to the essence of the human mind (II. xlvii.), to
have an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite
essence of God.

Prop. XXXVII. The good which every man, who fol-
lows after virtue, desires for himself he will also desire
for other men, and so much the more, in proportion as
he has a greater knowledge of God.

Proof. — Men, in so far as they live in obedience to
reason, are most useful to their fellow men (IV. xxxv.,
Coroll. i.); therefore (IV. xix.), we shall in obedience to
reason necessarily endeavor to bring about that men
should live in obedience to reason. But the good which
every man, in so far as he is guided by reason, or, in
other words, follows after virtue, desires for himself, is
to understand (IV. xxvi.); wherefore the good, which
each follower of virtue seeks for himself, he will desire
also for others. Again, desire, in so far as it is referred
to the mind, is the very essence of the mind (Def. of the
Emotions, i.); now the essence of the mind consists in
knowledge (II. xi.), which involves the knowledge of God
(II. xlvii.) and without it (I. xv.), can neither be, nor
be conceived; therefore, in proportion as the mind's
essence involves a greater knowledge of God, so also
will be greater the desire of the follower of virtue, that
other men should possess that which he seeks as good for-
himself. Q.E.D.

Another Proof. — The good, which a man desires for him-
self and loves, he will love more constantly, if he sees that

2i6 THE ETHICS

others love it also (III. xxxi.); he will therefore endeavor
that others should love it also ; and as the good in question
is common to all, and therefore all can rejoice therein, he
will endeavor, for the same reason, to bring about that
all should rejoice therein, and this he will do the more
(III. xxxvii.), in proportion as his own enjoyment of the
good is greater.

Note I. — He who, guided by emotion only, endeavors to
cause others to love what he loves himself, and to make
the rest of the world live according to his own fancy, acts
solely by impulse, and is, therefore, hateful, especially to
those who take delight in something different, and accord-
ingly study and, by similar impulse, endeavor to make
men live in accordance with what pleases themselves.
Again, as the highest good sought by men under the
guidance of emotion is often such, that it can only be
possessed by a single individual, it follows that those who
love it are not consistent in their intentions, but, while they
delight to sing its praises, fear to be believed. But he, who
endeavors to lead men by reason, does not act by impulse
but courteously and kindly, and his intention is always
consistent. Again, whatsoever we desire and do, whereof
we are the cause in so far as we possess the idea of God, or
know God, I set down to religion. The desire of well-
doing, which is engendered by a life according to reason, I
call PIETY. Further, the desire, whereby a man living
according to reason is bound to associate others with him-
self in friendship, I call honor; by honorable I mean that
which is praised by men living according to reason, and by
base I mean that which is repugnant to the gaining of
friendship. I have also shown in addition what are the
foundations of a state; and the difference between true
virtue and infirmity may be readily gathered from what I
have said; namely, that true virtue is nothing else but
living in accordance with reason ; while infirmity is noth-
ing else but man's allowing himself to be led by things
which are external to himself, and to be by them deter-
mined to act in a manner demanded by the general dis-
position of things rather than by his own nature considered
solely in itself.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 217

Such are the matters which I engaged to prove in Prop,
xviii. of this Part, whereby it is plain that the law against
the slaughtering of animals is founded rather on vain
superstition and womanish pity than on sound reason.
The rational quest of what is useful to us further teaches
us the necessity of associating ourselves with our fellow-
men, but not with beasts, or things, whose nature is
different from our own ; we have the same rights in respect
to them as they have in respect to us. Nay, as every-
one's right is defined by his virtue, or power, men have
far greater rights over beasts than beasts have over men.
Still I no not deny that beasts feel: what I deny is, that
we may not consult our own advantage and use them as
we please, treating them in the way which best suits us ;
for their nature is not like ours, and their emotions are
naturally different from human emotions (III. Ivii. note).
It remains for me to explain what I mean by just and
unjust, sin and merit. On these points see the following
note.

Note II. — In the Appendix to Part I. I undertook to
explain praise and blame, merit and sin, justice and in-
justice.

Concerning praise and blame I have spoken in III.
xxix. note; the time has now come to treat of the re-
maining terms. But I must first say a few words con-
cerning man in the state of nature and in society.

Even man exists by sovereign natural right, and, con-
sequently, by sovereign natural right performs those
actions which follow from the necessity of his own nature ;
therefore by sovereign natural right every man judges
what is good and what is bad, takes care of his own ad-
vantage according to his own disposition ( IV. xix. and
XX.), avenges the wrongs done to him (III. xl. Coroll. ii.),
and endeavors to preserve that which he loves and to
destroy that which he hates (III. xxviii.). Now, if men
lived under the guidance of reason, everyone would re-
main in possession of this his right, without any injury
being done to his neighbor (IV. xxxv. Coroll. i.). But
seeing that they are a prey to their emotions, which far
surpass human power or virtue (IV. vi.), they are often

2i8 THE ETHICS

drawn in different directions, and being at variance one
with another (IV, xxxiii. xxxiv.), stand in need of mutual
help (IV. XXXV. note). Wherefore, in order that men
may live together in harmony, and may aid one another,
it is necessary that they should forego their natural right,
and, for the sake of security, refrain from all actions
which can injure their fellow-men. The way in which
this end can be attained, so that men who are necessarily
a prey to their emotions (IV. iv. CoroU.), inconstant, and
diverse, should be able to render each other mutually
secure, and feel mutual trust, is evident from IV. vii.
and III. xxxix. It is there shown, that an emotion can
only be restrained by an emotion stronger than, and
contrary to itself, and that men avoid inflicting injury
through fear of incurring a greater injury themselves.

On this law society can be established, so long as it
keeps in its own hand the right, possessed by everyone,
of avenging injury, and pronouncing on good and evil;
and provided it also possesses the power to lay down a
general rule of conduct, and to pass laws sanctioned, not by
reason, which is powerless in restraining emotion, but by
threats (IV. xvii. note). Such a society established with
laws and the power of preserving itself is called a State,
while those who live under its protection are called citi-
zens. We may readily understand that there is in the
state of nature nothing, which by universal consent is
pronounced good or bad; for in the state of nature every
one thinks solely of his own advantage, and according
to his disposition, with reference only to his individual
advantage, decides what is good or bad, being bound by
no law to anyone besides himself.

In the state of nature, therefore, sin is inconceivable;
it can only exist in a state, where good and evil are pro-
nounced on by common consent, and where everyone is
bound to obey the State authority. Sin, then, is nothing
else but disobedience, which is therefore punished by the
right of the State only. Obedience, on the other hand, is
set down as merit, inasmuch as a man is thought worthy
of merit, if he takes delight in the advantages which a
State provides.

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 219

Again, in the state of nature, no one is by common con-
sent master of anything, nor is there anything in nature,
which can be said to belong to one man rather than an-
other: all things are common to all. Hence, in the state
of nature, we can conceive no wish to render to every
man his own, or to deprive a man of that which belongs
to him; in other words, there is nothing in the state of
nature answering to justice and injustice. Such ideas are
only possible in a social state, when it is decreed by
common consent what belongs to one man and what to
another.

From all these considerations it is evident, that justice
and injustice, sin and merit, are extrinsic ideas, and not
attributes which display the nature of the mind. But I
have said enough.

Prop. XXXVIII. Whatsoever disposes the human body,
so as to render it capable of being affected in an increased
number of ways, or of affecting external bodies in an in-
creased number of ways, is useful to man; and is so, in
proportion as the body is thereby rendered more capable
of being affected or affecting other bodies in an increased
number of ways; contrariwise, whatsoever renders the
body less capable in this respect is hurtful to man.

Proof. — Whatsoever thus increases the capabilities of
the body increases also the mind's capability of percep-
tion (II. xiv. ) ; therefore, whatsoever thus disposes the
body and thus renders it capable, is necessarily good or
useful ( IV. xxvi. xxvii. ) ; and is so in proportion to the
extent to which it can render the body capable ; contrari-
wise (II. xiv., IV. xxvi. xxvii.), it is hurtful, if it ren-
ders the body in this respect less capable. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXIX. Whatsoever brings about the preserva-
tion of the proportion of motion and rest, which the parts
of the human body mutually possess, is good; contrari-
wise, whatsoever causes a change in such proportion is
bad.

Proof. — The human body needs many other bodies for
its preservation ( II. Post. iv. ). But that which consti-
tutes the specific reality {forma') of a human body is,
that its parts communicate their several motions one to

220 THE ETHICS

another in a certain fixed proportion ( Def. before Lemma
iv. after II. xiii. ). Therefore, whatsoever brings about
the preservation of the proportion between motion and
rest, which the parts of the human body mutiially pos-
sess, preserves the specific reality of the human body,
and consequently renders the human body capable of being
affected in many ways and of affecting external bodies in
many ways; consequently it is good (by the last Prop.),
Again, whatsoever brings about a change in the aforesaid
proportion causes ' the human body to assume another
specific character, in other words ( see Preface to this
Part toward the end, though the point is indeed self-
evident), to be destroyed, and consequently totally incapa-
ble of being affected in an increased number of ways;
therefore it is bad. Q. E.D.

Note. — The extent to which such causes can injure or
be of service to the mind will be explained in the Fifth
Part. But I would here remark that I consider that a body
undergoes death, when the proportion of motion and rest
which obtained mutually among its several parts is changed.
For I do not venture to deny that a human body, while
keeping the circulation of the blood and other properties,
wherein the life of the body is thought to consist, may
none the less be changed into another nature totally differ-
ent from its own. There is no reason, which compels me
to maintain that a body does not die, unless it becomes a
corpse ; nay, experience would seem to point to the oppo-
site conclusion. It sometimes happens, that a man under-
goes such changes, that I could hardly call him the same.
As I have heard tell of a certain Spanish poet, who had
been seized with sickness, and though he recovered there-
from yet remained so oblivious of his past life, that he
would not believe the plays and tragedies he had writ-
ten to be his own: indeed, he might have been taken
for a grown-up child, if he had also forgotten his native
tongue. If this instance seems incredible, what shall we
say of infants ? A man of ripe age deems their nature
so unlike his own, that he can only be persuaded that he too
has been an infant by the analogy of other men. How-
ever, I prefer to leave such questions undiscussed, lest I

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 221

should give ground to the superstitious for raising new
issues.

Prop. XL. Whatsoever conduces to man's social life, or
causes men to live together in harmony, is useful, whereas
whatsoever brings discord into a State is bad.

Proof. — For whatsoever causes men to live together in
harmony also causes them to live according to reason
(IV. XXXV.), and is therefore (IV. xxvi. and xxvii.) good,
and ( for the same reason ) whatsoever brings about discord
is bad. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLI. Pleasure in itself is not bad but good: con-
trariwise, pain in itself is bad.

Proof. — Pleasure ( III. xi. and note) is emotion, whereby
the body's power of activity is increased or helped; pain
is emotion, whereby the body's power of activity is di-
minished or checked; therefore (IV. xxxviii.) pleasure in
itself is good, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLII. Mirth cannot be excessive, but is always
good; contrariwise, Melancholy is always bad.

Proof. — Mirth (see its Def. in III. xi. note) is pleas-
ure, which, in so far as it is referred to the body, con-
sists in all parts of the body being affected equally: that
is (III. xi.), the body's power of activity is increased
or aided in such a manner, that the several parts main-
tain their former proportion of motion and rest; there-
fore Mirth is always good (IV. xxxix.), and cannot be
excessive. But Melancholy (see its Def. in the same
note to III. xi.) is pain, which, in so far as it is referred
to the body, consists in the absolute decrease or hind-
rance of the body's power of activity; therefore (IV.
xxxviii.) it is always bad. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLIII. Stimulation may be excessive and bad;
on the other hand, grief may be good, in so far as stim-
ulation or pleasure is bad.

Proof. — Localized pleasure or stimulation {titillatio) is
pleasure, which, in so far as it is referred to the body,
consists in one or some of its parts being affected more
than the rest (see its Def., III. xi. note); the power
of this emotion may be sufficient to overcome other
actions of the body (IV. vi.), and may remain obsti

222 THE ETHICS

nately fixed therein, thus rendering it incapable of being
affected in a variety of other ways: therefore (IV. xxxviii.)
it may be bad. Again, grief, which is pain, cannot as
such be good (IV. xli.). But, as its force and increase
is defined by the power of an external cause compared
with our own (IV. v.), we can conceive infinite degrees
and modes of strength in this emotion (IV. iii.); we can,
therefore, conceive it as capable of restraining stimula-
tion, and preventing its becoming excessive, and hinder-
ing the body's capabilities; thus, to this extent, it will
be good. Q.E.D.

Prop. XLIV. Love and desire may be excessive.

Proof. — Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of
an external cause (Def. of Emotions, vi.); therefore
stimulation, accompanied by the idea of an external
cause is love ( III. xi. note) ; hence love may be exces-
sive. Again, the strength of desire varies in proportion
to the emotion from which it arises (III. xxxvii.). Now
emotion may overcome all the rest of men's actions (IV,
vi.); so, therefore, can desire, which arises from the
same emotion, overcome all other desires, and become
excessive, as we showed in the last proposition concerning
stimulation.

Note. — Mirth, which I have stated to be good, can be
conceived more easily than it can be observed. For the
emotions, whereby we are daily assailed, are generally
referred to some part of the body which is affected more
than the rest; hence the emotions are generally excessive,
and so fix the mind in the contemplation of one object,
that it is unable to think of others; and although men,
as a rule, are a prey to many emotions — and very few
are found who are always assailed by one and the same
— yet there are cases, where one and the same emotion
remains obstinately fixed. We sometimes see men so ab-
sorbed in one object, that, although it be not present,
they think they have it before them; when this is the
case with a man who is not asleep, we say he is delirious
or mad; nor are those persons who are inflamed with love,
and who dream all night and all day about nothing but
their mistress, or some woman, considered as less mad,

OF HUMAN BONDAGE

223

for they are made objects of ridicule. But when a miser
thinks of nothing but gain or money, or when an am-
bitious man thinks of nothing but glory, they are not
reckoned to be mad, because they are generally harmful,
and are thought worthy of being hated. But, in reality.
Avarice, Ambition, Lust, etc., are species of madness,
though they may not be reckoned among diseases.

Prop. XLV. Hatred can never be good.

Proof. — When we hate a man, we endeavor to destroy
him (III. xxxix.), that is (IV. xxxvii.), we endeavor to
do something that is bad. Therefore, etc. Q.E.D.

N.B. Here, and in what follows, I mean by hatred
only hatred toward men.

Corollary. I. — Envy, derision, contempt, anger, revenge,
and other emotions attributable to hatred, or arising there-
from, are bad; this is evident from III. xxxix. and IV,
xxxvii.

Corollary II. — Whatsoever we desire from motives of
hatred is base, and in a state unjust. This also is evi-
dent from III. xxxix., and from the definitions of base-
ness and injustice in IV. xxxvii. note.

Note. — Between derision (which I have in Coroll. I.
stated to be bad ) and laughter I recognize a great differ-
ence. For laughter, as also jocularity, is merely pleas-
ure; therefore, so long as it be not excessive, it is in
itself good (IV. xli.). Assuredly, nothing forbids man to
enjoy himself, save grim and gloomy superstition. For
why is it more lawful to satiate one's hunger and thirst
than to drive away one's melancholy ? I reason, and have
convinced myself as follows : No deity, nor any one else,
save the envious, takes pleasure in my infirmity and dis-
comfort, nor sets down to my virtue the tears, sobs, fear,
and the like, which are signs of infirmity of spirit; on
the contrary, the greater the pleasure wherewith we are
affected, the greater the perfection whereto we pass; in
other words, the more must we necessarily partake of
the divine nature. Therefore, to make use of what comes
in our way, and to enjoy it as much as possible (not to
the point of satiety, for that would not be enjoyment)
is the part of a wise man. I say it is the part of a wise

224 THE ETHICS

man to refresh and recreate himself with moderate and
pleasant food and drink, and also with perfumes, with the
soft beauty of growing plants, with dress, with music,
with many sports, with theaters, and the like, such as
every man may make use of without injury to his neigh-
bor. For the human body is composed of very numer-
ous parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in
need of fresh and varied nourishment, so that the whole
body may be equally capable of performing all the actions,
which follow from the necessity of its own nature; and,
consequently, so that the mind may also be equally capa-
ble of understanding many things simultaneously. This
way of life, then, agrees best with our principles, and
also with general practice; therefore, if there be any
question of another plan, the plan we have mentioned
is the best, and in every way to be commended. There
is no need for me to set forth the matter more clearly
or in more detail.

Prop. XLVI. He who lives under the gfuidance of
reason, endeavors, as far as possible, to render back
love, or kindness, for other men's hatred, anger, con-
tempt, etc., toward him.

Proof. — All emotions of hatred are bad (IV. xlv. Cor-
oll. i.); therefore he who lives under the guidance of
reason will endeavor, as far as possible, to avoid being
assailed by such emotions (IV. xix.); consequently, he
will also endeavor to prevent others being so assailed
(IV. xxxvii.). But hatred is increased by being
reciprocated, and can be quenched by love (III. xliii.),
so that hatred may pass into love (III. xliv.); there-
fore he who lives under the guidance of reason will en-
deavor to repay hatred with love, that is, with kindness.
Q.E.D.

Note. — He who chooses to avenge wrongs with hatred
is assuredly wretched. But he, who strives to conquer
hatred with love, fights his battle in joy and confidence;
he withstands many as easily as one, and has very little
need of fortune's aid. Those whom he vanquishes yield
joyfully, not through failure, but through increase in their
powers ; all these consequences follow so plainly from the

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 225

mere definitions of love and understanding, that I have
no need to prove them in detail.

Prop. XLVII. Emotions of hope and fear cannot be in
themselves good.

Proof. — Emotions of hope and fear cannot exist with-
out pain. For fear is pain ( Def . of the Emotions, xiii.),
and hope ( Def. of the Emotions, Explanation xii. and
xiii.) cannot exist without fear; therefore (IV. xli.) these
emotions cannot be good in themselves, but only in so
far as they can restrain excessive pleasure (IV, xliii.).
Q.E.D.

Note. — We may add, that these emotions show defect-
ive knowledge and an absence of power in the mind; for
the same reason confidence, despair, joy, and disappoint-
ment are signs of a want of mental power. For although
confidence and joy are pleasurable emotions, they never-
theless imply a preceding pain, namely, hope and fear.
Wherefore the more we endeavor to be guided by reason,
the less do we depend on hope ; we endeavor to free our-
selves from fear, and, as far as we can, to dominate
fortune, directing our actions by the sure counsels of
wisdom.

Prop. XLVIII. The emotions of over-esteem and dis-
paragement are always bad.

Proof. — These emotions (see Def. of the Emotions, xxi.
xxii.) are repugnant to reason; and are therefore (IV.
xxvi. xxvii.) bad. Q.E.D.

Prop, XLIX, Over-esteem is apt to render its object
proud.

Proof. — If we see that anyone rates us too highly, for
love's sake, we are apt to become elated (III xli.), or to
be pleasurably affected (Def. of the Emotions, xxx.); the
good which we hear of ourselves we readily believe (III.
XXV.); and therefore, for love's sake, rate ourselves too
highly; in other words, we are apt to become proud,
Q.E.D.

Prop. L. Pity, in a man who lives under the guidance
of reason, is in itself bad and useless.

Proof. — Pity (Def. of the Emotions, xviii.) is a pain,
and therefore (IV. xli.) is in itself bad. The good effect
15

226 THE ETHICS

which follows, namely, our endeavor to free the object
of our pity from misery, is an action which we desire to
do solely at the dictation of reason (IV. xxxvii.); only
at the dictation of reason are we able to perform any
action, which we know for certain to be good (IV. xxvii.);
thus, in a man who lives under the guidance of reason,
pity in itself is useless and bad. Q.E.D.

Note. — He who rightly realizes that all things follow
from the necessity of the divine nature, and come to pass
in accordance with the eternal laws and rules of nature,
will not find anything worthy of hatred, derision, or con-
tempt, nor will he bestow pity on anything, but to the
utmost extent of human virtue he will endeavor to do
well, as the saying is, and to rejoice. We may add, that
he, who is easily touched with compassion, and is moved
by another's sorrow or tears, often does something which
he afterward regrets; partly because we can never be
sure that an action caused by emotion is good, partly
because we are easily deceived by false tears. I am in
this place expressly speaking of a man living under the
guidance of reason. He who is moved to help others
neither by reason nor by compassion, is rightly styled
inhuman, for (III. xxvii.) he seems unlike a man.

Prop. LI. Approval is not repugnant to reason, but can
agree therewith and arise therefrom.

Proof. — Approval is love toward one who has done
good to another (Def. of the Emotions, xix.); therefore
it may be referred to the mind, in so far as the latter
is active (III. lix.), that is (III. iii.) in so far as it under-
stands; therefore, it is in agreement with reason, etc.
Q.E.D.

Another Proof. — He who lives under the guidance of
reason, desires for others the good which he seeks for
himself (IV. xxxvii.); wherefore from seeing someone
doing good to his fellow his own endeavor to do good is
aided; in other words he will feel pleasure (III. xi. note)
accompanied by the idea of the benefactor. Therefore
he approves of him. Q.E.D.

Note. — Indignation as we defined it (Def. of the Emo-
tions, XX.) is necessarily evil (IV. xlv.); we may, how-

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 227

ever, remark that, when the sovereign power for the sake
of preserving peace punishes a citizen who has injured
another, it should not be said to be indignant with the
criminal, for it is not incited by hatred to ruin him, it
is led by a sense of duty to punish him.

Prop. LII. Self-approval may arise from reason, and
that which arises from reason is the highest possible.

Proof. — Self-approval is pleasure arising from a man's
contemplation of himself and his own power of action
(Def. of the Emotions, xxv.). But a man's true power
of action or virtue is reason herself (III. iii.), as the said
man clearly and distinctly contemplates her (II. xl. xliii.);
therefore self-approval arises from reason. Again, when
a man is contemplating himself, he only perceives clearly
and distinctly or adequately, such things as follow from
his power of action (III. Def. ii.), that is (III. iii.), from
his power of understanding; therefore in such contem-
plation alone does the highest possible self-approval arise.
Q.E.D.

Note. — Self-approval is in reality the highest object for
which we can hope. For (as we showed in IV. xxv.) no
one endeavors to preserve his being for the sake of any
ulterior object, and, as this approval is more and more
fostered and strengthened by praise (III. liii. Coroll.), and
on the contrary (III. Iv. Coroll.) is more and more dis-
turbed by blame, fame becomes the most powerful of
incitements to action, and life under disgrace is almost
unendurable.

Prop. LIII. Humility is not a virtue, or does not arise
from reason.

Proof. — Humility is pain arising from a man's contem-
plation of his own infirmities (Def. of the Emotions, xxvi.).
But, in so far as a man knows himself by true reason, he
is assumed to understand his essence, that is, his power
(III. vii.). Wherefore, if a man in self-contemplation per-
ceives any infirmity in himself, it is not by virtue of his
understanding himself, but (III. Iv.) by virtue of his power
of activity being checked. But, if we assume that a man
perceives his own infirmity by virtue of understanding
something stronger than himself, by the knowledge^ of

228 THE ETHICS

which he determines his own power of activity, this is the
same as sa3'ing' that we conceive that a man understands
himself distinctly ( IV. xxvi.), because his power of activity
is aided. Wherefore humility, or the pain which arises
from a man's contem.plation of his own infirmity, does not
arise from the contemplation or reason, and is not a virtue
but a passion. Q. E.D.

Prop. LIV. Repentance is not a virtue, or does not
arise from reason; but he who repents of an action is
doubly wretched or infirm.

Proof. — The first part of this proposition is proved
like the foregoing- one. The second part is proved from
the mere definition of the emotion in question ( Def. of
the Emotions, xxvii.). For the man allows himself to
be overcome, first, by evil desires; secondly, by pain.

Note. — As men seldom live under the guidance of
reason, these two emotions, namely, Humility and Re-
pentance, as also Hope and Fear, bring more good than
harm; hence, as we must sin, we had better sin in that
direction. For, if all men who are a prey to emotion
were all equally proud, they would shrink from noth-
ing, and would fear nothing; how then could they be
joined or linked together in bonds of union ? The crowd
plays the tyrant, when it is not in fear; hence we need
not wonder that the prophets, who consulted the good,
not of a few, but of all, so strenuously commended Humil-
ity, Repentance, and Reverence. Indeed, those who are
a prey to these emotions may be led much more easily
than others to live under the guidance of reason, that is,
to become free and to enjoy the life of the blessed.

Prop. LV. Extreme pride or dejection indicates extreme
ignorance of self.

Proof. — This is evident from Def. of the Emotions,
xxviii. and xxix.

Prop. LVI. Extreme pride or dejection indicates ex-
treme infirmity of spirit.

Proof. — The first foundation of virtue is self-preserva-
tion (IV. xxii. Coroll.) under the guidance of reason (IV.
xxiv.). He, therefore, who is ignorant of himself, is
ignorant of the foundation of all virtues, and conse-

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 229

quently of all \'irtiies. Again, to act virtuously is merely
to act under the guidance of reason (IV. xxiv.): now he,
that acts under the guidance of reason, must necessarily
know that he so acts (II. xliii.). Therefore, he who is
in extreme ignorance of himself, and consequently of all
virtues, acts least in obedience to virtue ; in other words
(IV. Def. viii.), is most infirm of spirit. Thus extreme
pride or dejection indicates extreme infirmity of spirit.
Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it most clearly follows, that the proud
and the dejected specially fall a prey to the emotions.

Note. — Yet dejection can be more easily corrected than
pride ; for the latter being a pleasurable emotion, and the
former a painful emotion, the pleasurable is stronger than
the painful (IV. xviii.).

Prop. LVII. The proud man delights in the company
of flatterers and parasites, but hates the company of the
high-minded.

Proof. — Pride is pleasure arising from a man's over-
estimation of himself ( Def. of the Emotions, xxviii. and
vi.); this estimation the proud man will endeavor to
foster by all the means in his power (III. xiii. note); he
will therefore delight in the company of flatterers and
parasites (whose character is too well known to need
definition here), and will avoid the company of high-
minded men, who value him according to his deserts.
Q.E.D.

Note. — It would be too long a task to enumerate here
all the evil results of pride, inasmuch as the proud are a
prey to all the emotions, though to none of them less
than to love and pity. I cannot, however, pass over in
silence the fact, that a man may be called proud from
his under-estimation of other people ; and, therefore, pride
in this sense may be defined as pleasure arising from the
false opinion, whereby a man may consider himself
superior to his fellows. The dejection, which is the
opposite quality to this sort of pride, may be defined as
pain arising from the false opinion, whereby a man may
think himself inferior to his fellows. Such being the
case, we can easily see that a proud man is necessarily

230 THE ETHICS

envious (III. xli. note), and only takes pleasure in the
company, who fool his weak mind to the top of his bent,
and make him insane instead of merely foolish.

Though dejection is the emotion contrary to pride, yet
is the dejected man very near akin to the proud man.
For, inasmuch as his pain arises from a comparison be-
tween his own infirmity and other men's power or virtue,
it will be removed, or, in other words, he will feel pleas-
ure, if his imagination be occupied in contemplating
other men's faults ; whence arises the proverb, " The un-
happy are comforted by finding fellow-sufferers.^^ Con-
trariwise, he will be the more pained in proportion as
he thinks himself inferior to others; hence none are so
prone to envy as the dejected, they are specially keen
in observing men's actions, with a view to fault-finding
rather than correction, in order to reserve their praises
for dejection, and to glory therein, though all the time
with a dejected air. These effects follow as necessarily
from the said emotion, as it follows from the nature of
a triangle, that the three angles are equal to two right
angles. I have already said that I call these and similar
emotions bad, solely in respect to what is useful to man.
The laws of nature have regard to nature's general or-
der, whereof man is but a part. I mention this, in pass-
ing, lest any should think that I have wished to set forth
the faults and irrational deeds of men rather than the
nature and properties of things. For, as I said in the
preface to the third Part, I regard human emotions and
their properties as on the same footing with other nat-
ural phenomena. Assuredly human emotions indicate
the power and ingenuity of nature, if not of human
nature, quite as fully as other things which we admire,
and which we delight to contemplate. But I pass on to
note those qualities in the emotions, which bring advan-
tage to man, or inflict injury upon him.

Prop. LVIII. Honor {gloria) is not repugnant to
reason, but may arise therefrom.

Proof. — This is evident from Def. of the Emotions,
XXX., and also from the definition of an honorable man
(IV. xxxvii. note i.).

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 231

Note. — Empty honor, as it is' styled, is self -approval
fostered only by the good opinion of the populace; when
this good opinion ceases there ceases also the self-
approval, in other words, the highest object of each man's
love ( IV. lii. note ) ; consequently he whose honor is
rooted in popular approval must, day by day, anxiously
strive, act, and scheme in order to retain his reputation.
For the populace is variable and inconstant, so that, if a
reputation be not kept up, it quickly withers away.
Everyone wishes to catch popular applause for himself,
and readily represses the fame of others. The object of
the strife being estimated as the greatest of all good,
each combatant is seized w4th a fierce desire to put down
his rivals in every possible way, till he who at last comes
out victorious is more proud of having done harm to
others than of having done good to himself. This sort
of honor, then, is really empty, being nothing.

The points to note concerning shame may easily be
inferred from what was said on the subject of mercy and
repentance. I will only add that shame, like compassion,
though not a virtue, is yet good in so far as it shows that
the feeler of shame is really imbued with the desire to
live honorably; in the same way as suffering is good, as
showing that the injured part is not mortified. There-
fore, though a man who feels shame is sorrowful, he is
yet more perfect than he, who is shameless, and has no
desire to live honorably.

Such are the points which I undertook to remark upon
concerning the emotions of pleasure and pain ; as for the
desires, they are good or bad according as they spring
from good or evil emotions. But all, in so far as they
are engendered in us by emotions wherein the mind is
passive, are blind (as is evident from what was said in
IV. xliv. note), and would be useless, if men could easily
be induced to live by the guidance of reason only, as I
will now briefly show.

Prop. LIX. To all the actions, whereto we are deter-
mined by emotion wherein the mind is passive, we can
be determined without emotion by reason.

Proof. — To act rationally is nothing else (III. iii. and

232 THE ETHICS

Def. ii.) but to perform those actions, which follow from
the necessity of our nature considered in itself alone.
But pain is bad, in so far as it diminishes or checks the
power of action (IV. xli.); wherefore we cannot by pain
be determined to any action, which we should be unable
to perform under the guidance of reason. Again, pleas-
ure is bad only in so far as it hinders a man's capability
for action (IV. xli. xliii.); therefore to this extent we
could not be determined by it to any action, which we
could not perform under the guidance of reason. Lastly,
pleasure, in so far as it is good, is in harmony with
reason (for it consists in the fact that a man's capability
for action is increased or aided ) ; nor is the mind passive
therein, except in so far as a man's power of action is
not increased to the extent of affording him an ade-
quate conception of himself and his actions ( III. iii. and
note ).

Wherefore, if a man who is pleasurably affected be
brought to such a state of perfection that he gains an
adequate conception of himself and his own actions, he
will be equally, nay more, capable of those actions, to
which he is determined by emotion wherein the mind is
passive. But all emotions are attributable to pleasure,
to pain, or to desire (Def. of the Emotions, iv. explana-
tion); and desire (Def, of the Emotions, i.) is nothing
else but the attempt to act; therefore, to all actions, etc.
Q.E.D.

Another Proof . — A given action is called bad, in so far
as it arises from one being affected by hatred or any
evil emotion. But no action, considered in itself
alone, is either good or bad ( as we pointed out
in the preface to Part iv.), one and the same action
being sometimes good, sometimes bad; wherefore to
the action which is sometimes bad, or arises from
some evil emotion, we may be led by reason (IV. xix.).
Q.E.D.

Note. — An example will put this point in a clearer light.
The action of striking, in so far as it is considered physi-
cally, and in so far as we merely look to the fact that a
man raises his arm, clenches his fist, and moves his whole

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 233

arm violently downward, is a virtue or excellence which
is conceived as proper to the structure of the human body.
If, then, a man, moved by anger or hatred, is led to clench
his fist or to move his arm, this result takes place (as we
showed in Part II.), because one and the same action can
be associated with various mental images of things ; there-
fore we may be determined to the performance of one and
the same action by confused ideas, or by clear and distinct
ideas. Hence it is evident that every desire which springs
from emotion, wherein the mind is passive, would become
useless, if men could be guided by reason. Let us now see
why desire which arises from emotion, wherein the mind
is passive is called by us blind.

Prop. LX. Desire arising from a pleasure or pain, that
is not attributable to the whole body, but only to one or
certain parts thereof, is without utility in respect to a man
as a whole.

Proof. — Let it be assumed, for instance, that a, a part
of a body, is so strengthened by some external cause,
that it prevails over the remaining parts (IV. vi.). This
part will not endeavor to do away with its own powers,
in order that the other parts of the body may perform its
office ; for this it would be necessary for it to have a force
or power of doing away with its own powers, which (III,
vi.) is absurd. The said part, and, consequently, the mind
also, will endeavor to preserve its condition. Wherefore
desire arising from a pleasure of the kind aforesaid has
no utility in reference to a man as a whole. If it be
assumed, on the other hand, that the part, a, be checked
so that the remaining parts prevail, it may be proved in
the same manner that desire arising from pain has no
utility in respect to a man as a whole. Q.E.D.

Note. — As pleasure is generally (IV. xliv. note) attrib-
uted to one part of the body, we generally desire to pre-
serve our being without taking into consideration our
health as a whole : to which it may be added, that the de-
sires which have most hold over us (IV. ix.) take account
of the present and not of the future.

Prop. LXI. Desire which springs from reason cannot
be excessive.

234 THE ETHICS

Proof. — Desire ( Def. of the Emotions, i.) considered
absolutely in the actual essence of man, in so far as it
is conceived as in any way determined to a particular
activity by some given modification of itself. Hence de-
sire, which arises from reason, that is, (III. iii.), which
is engendered in us in so far as we act, is the actual es-
sence or nature of man, in so far as it is conceived as
determined to such activites as are adequately conceived
through man's essence only (III. Def, ii.). Now, if such
desire could be excessive, human nature considered in
itself alone would be able to exceed itself, or would be
able to do more than it can, a manifest contradiction.
Therefore, such desire cannot be excessive. Q.E. D.

Prop. LXII. In so far as the mind conceives a thing
under the dictates of reason, it is affected equally, whether
the idea be of a thing future, past, or present.

Proof. — Whatsoever the mind conceives under the
guidance of reason, it conceives under the form of eter-
nity or necessity (II. xliv. Coroll. ii.), and is therefore
affected with the same certitude (II. xliii. and note).
Wherefore, whether the thing be present, past, or future,
the mind conceives it under the same necessity and is
affected with the same certitude; and whether the idea
be of something present, past, or future, it will in all
cases be equally true (II. xli.); that is, it will always
possess the same properties of an adequate idea (II. Def.
iv.); therefore, in so far as the mind conceives things
under the dictates of reason, it is affected in the same
manner, whether the idea be of a thing future, past, or
present. Q.E.D.

Note. — If we could possess an adequate knowledge of
the duration of things, and could determine by reason
their periods of existence, we should contemplate things
future with the same emotion as things present; and the
mind would desire as though it were present the good
which it conceived as future ; consequently it would neces-
sarily neglect a lesser good in the present for the sake
of a greater good in the future, and would in no wise
desire that which is good in the present but a source of
evil in the future, as we shall presently show. However,

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 235

we can have but a very inadequate knowledge of the
duration of things (II. xxxi.); and the periods of their
existence (II. xliv. note) we can only determine by imagi-
nation, which is not so powerfully affected by the future
as by the present. Hence such true knowledge of good
and evil as we possess is merely abstract or general, and
the judgment which we pass on the order of things and
the connection of causes, with a view to determining
what is good or bad for us in the present, is rather
imaginary than real. Therefore it is nothing wonderful,
if the desire arising from such knowledge of good and
evil, in so far as it looks on into the future, be more read-
ily checked than the desire of things which are agreeable
at the present time. {Cf. IV. xvi.)

Prop. LXIII. He who is led by fear, and does good in
order to escape evil, is not led by reason.

Proof. — All the emotions which are attributable to the
mind as active, or in other words to reason, are emotions
of pleasure and desire (III. lix.); therefore, he who is
led by fear, and does good in order to escape evil, is
not led by reason.

Note. — Superstitious persons, who know better how to
rail at vice than how to teach virtue, and who strive not
to guide men by reason, but so to restrain them that
they would rather escape evil than love virtue, have no
other aim but to make others as wretched as themselves ;
wherefore it is nothing wonderful, if they be generally
troublesome and odious to their fellow-men.

Corollary. — Under desire which springs from reason,
we seek good directly, and shun evil indirectly.

Proof. — Desire which springs from reason can only
spring from a pleasurable emotion, wherein the mind is
not passive (III. lix.), in other words, from a pleasure
which cannot be excessive (IV. Ixi.), and not from pain;
wherefore this desire springs from the knowledge of good,
not of evil (IV. viii.); hence, under the guidance of rea-
son we seek good directly and only by implication shun
evil. Q.E.D.

Note. — This Corollary may be illustrated by the example
of a sick and a healthy man. The sick man through fear-

/

I

i

I.

236 THE ETHICS

of death eats what he naturally shrinks from, but the
healthy man takes pleasure in his food, and thus gets a
better enjoyment out of life, than if he were in fear of
death, and desired directly to avoid it. So a judge, who
condemns a criminal to death, not from hatred or anger,
but from love of the public well-being, is guided solely
by reason.

Prop. LXIV. The knowledge of evil is an inadequate
knowledge.

Proof. — The knowledge of evil (IV. viii.) is pain, in so
far as we are conscious thereof. Now pain is the tran-
sition to a lesser perfection (Def. of the Emotions, iii.),
and therefore cannot be understood through man's nature
(III. vi. and vii.); therefore it is a passive state (III.
Def. ii.) which (III. iii.) depends on inadequate ideas;
consequently the knowledge thereof (II. xxix.), namely,
the knowlege of evil, is inadequate. Q. E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that, if the human mind
possessed only adequate ideas, it would form no concep-
tion of evil.

Prop. LXV. Under the guidance of reason we should
pursue the greater of two good and the lesser of two evils.

Proof. — A good which prevents our enjoyment of a
greater good is in reality an evil ; for we apply the terms
good and bad to things, in so far as we compare them
one with another (see Preface to this Part) ; therefore,
evil is in reality a lesser good; hence under the guid-
ance of reason we seek or pursue only the greater good
and the lesser evil. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — We may, under the guidance of reason,
pursue the lesser evil as though it were the greater good,
and we may shun the lesser good, which would be the
cause of the greater evil. For the evil, which is here
called the lesser, is really good, and the lesser good is
really evil, wherefore we may seek the former and shun
the latter. Q.E.D.

Prop. LXVI. We may, under the guidance of reason,
seek a greater good in the future in preference to a lesser
good in the present, and we may seek a lesser evil in
the present in preference to a greater evil in the future.

/

OF HUMAN BONDAGE 237

Proof. — If the mind could have an adequate knowledge
of things future, it would be affected toward what is
future in the same way as toward what is present (IV.
Ixii.) ; wherefore, looking merely to reason, as in this
proposition we are assumed to do, there is no difference,
whether the greater good or evil be assumed as present,
or assumed as future; hence (IV. Ixv.) we may seek a
greater good in the future in preference to a lesser good
in the present, etc. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — We may, under the guidance of reason,
seek a lesser evil in the present, because it is the cause
of a greater good in the future, and we may shun a lesser
good in the present, because it is the cause of a greater
evil in the future. This Corollary is related to the fore-
going Proposition as the Corollary to IV. Ixv. is related
to the said IV. Ixv.

Note. — If these statements be compared with what we
have pointed out concerning the strength of the emotions
in this Part up to Prop, xviii., we shall readily see the
difference between a man, who is led solely by emotion
or opinion, and a man, who is led by reason. The former,
whether he will or no, performs actions whereof he is
utterly ignorant; the latter is his own master and only
performs such actions, as he knows are of primary im-
portance in life, and therefore chiefly desires; wherefore
I call the former a slave, and the latter a free man,
concerning whose disposition and manner of life it will
be well to make a few observations.

Prop. LXVII. A free man thinks of death least of all
things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but
of life.

Proof. — A free man is one who lives under the guid-
ance of reason, who is not led by fear (IV. Ixiii.), but
who directly desires that which is good ( IV. Ixiii. Cor-
oll.), in other words (IV. xxiv.), who strives to act, to
live, and to preserve his being on the basis of seeking
his own true advantage ; wherefore such an one thinks of
nothing less than of death, but his wisdom is a medita-
tion of life. Q.E.D.

Prop. LXVIII. If men were born free, they would, so

238 THE ETHICS

long as they remained free, form no conception of good
and evil.

Proof. — I call free him who is led solely by reason;
he, therefore, who is bom free, and who remains free,
has only adequate ideas; therefore (IV. Ixiv. Coroll.), he
has no conception of evil, or consequently (good and
evil being correlative) of good. Q.E.D.

Note. — It is evident, from IV. iv., that the hypothesis
of this Proposition is false and inconceivable, except in
so far as we loolc solely to the nature of man, or rather
to God ; not in so far as the latter is infinite, but only in
so far as he is the cause of man's existence.

This, and other matters which we have already proved,
seem to have been signified by Moses in the history of
the first man. For in that narrative no other power of
God is conceived, save that whereby he created man, that
is, the power wherewith he provided solely for man's ad-
vantage; it is stated that God forbade man, being free,
to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
and that, as soon as man should have eaten of it, he
would straightway fear death rather than desire to live.
Further, it is written that when man had found a wife,
who was in entire harmony with his nature, he knew
that there could be nothing in nature which could be
more useful to him ; but that after he believed the beasts
to be like himself, he straightway began to imitate their
emotions (III. xxvii.), and to lose his freedom; this free-
dom was afterward recovered by the patriarchs, led by
the spirit of Christ ; that is, by the idea of God, whereon
alone it depends, that man may be free, and desire
for others the good which he desires for himself, as we
have shown above (IV. xxxvii.).

Prop. LXIX. The virtue of a free man is seen to be
as great, when it declines dangers, as when it overcomes
them.

Proof. — Emotion can only be checked or removed by an
emotion contrary to itself, and possessing more power in
restraining emotion (IV. vii.). But blind daring and fear
are emotions, which can be conceived as equally great
( IV. v. and iii.) : hence, no less virtue or firmness is required

ON HUMAN BONDAGE 239

in checking daring than in checking fear (III. lix. note) ; in
other words (Def. of the Emotions, xl. andxli.),the free
man shows as much virtue, when he declines dangers, as
when he strives to overcome them. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — The free man is as courageous in timely
retreat as in combat; or, a free man shows equal cour-
age or presence of mind, whether he elect to give battle
or to retreat.

Note. — What courage {animositas) is, and what I mean
thereby, I explained in III. lix. note. By danger I mean
everything, which can give rise to any evil, such as pain,
hatred, discord, etc.

Prop, LXX. The free man, who lives among the igno-
rant, strives, as far as he can, to avoid receiving favors
from them.

Proof. — Everyone judges what is good according to his
disposition (III. xxxix. note); wherefore an ignorant man,
who has conferred a benefit on another, puts his own esti-
mate upon it, and, if it appears to be estimated less highly
by the receiver, will feel pain (III. xlii.). But the free
man only desires to join other men to him in friendship
(IV. xxxvii.), not repaying their benefits with others
reckoned as of like value, but guiding himself and others
by the free decision of reason, and doing only such things
as he knows to be of primary importance. Therefore
the free man, lest he should become hateful to the igno-
rant, or follow their desires rather than reason, will
endeavor, as far as he can, to avoid receiving their favors.

Note. — I say, as far as he can. For though men be
ignorant, yet are they men, and in cases of necessity
could afford us human aid, the most excellent of all
things: therefore it is often necessary to accept favors
from them, and consequently to repay such favors in
kind; we must, therefore, exercise caution in declining
favors, lest we should have the appearance of despising
those who bestow them, or of being, from avaricious
motives, unwilling to requite them, and so give ground
for offense by the very fact of striving to avoid it. Thus,
in declining favors, we must look to the requirements of
utility and courtesy.

240 THE ETHICS

Prop. LXXL Only free men are thoroughly grateful
one to another.

Proof. — Only free men are thoroughly useful one to
another, and associated among themselves by the closest
necessity of friendship (IV. xxxv. and CoroU. i.) only
such men endeavor, with mutual zeal of love, to confer
benefits on each other (IV. xxxvii.), and, therefore, only
they are thoroughly grateful one to another, Q.E.D.

Note. — The good will, which men who are led by blind
desire have for one another, is generally a bargaining or
enticement, rather than pure good will. Moreover, in-
gratitude is not an emotion. Yet it is base, inasmuch as
it generally shows, that a man is affected by excessive
hatred, anger, pride, avarice, etc. He who, by reason of
his folly, knows not how to return benefits, is not un-
grateful, much less he who is not gained over by the
gifts of a courtesan to serve her lust, or by a thief to
conceal his thefts, or by any similar persons. Contrari-
wise, such an one shows a constant mind, inasmuch as
he cannot by any gifts be corrupted, to his own or the
general hurt.

Prop. LXXII. The free man never acts fraudulently,
but always in good faith.

Proof — If it be asked: What should a man's conduct
be in a case where he could by breaking faith free him-
self from the danger of present death ? Would not his
plan of self-preservation completely persuade him to de-
ceive ? this may be answered by pointing out that, if
reason persuaded him to act thus, it would persuade all
men to act in a similar manner, in which case reason
would persuade men not to agree in good faith to unite
their forces, or to have laws in common, that is, not to
have any general laws, which is absurd.

Prop. LXXIII. The man who is guided by reason, is
more free in a State, where he lives under a general
system of law, than in solitude, where he is independent.

Proof. — The man who is guided by reason, does not
obey through fear (IV. Ixiii.): but, in so far as he en-
deavors to preserve his being according to the dictates
of reason, that is (IV. Ixvi. note), in so far as he

APPENDIX 241

endeavors to live in freedom, he desires to order his life
according to the general good (IV. xxxvii.), and conse-
quently (as we showed in IV. xxxvii. note ii.), to live ac-
cording to the laws of his country. Therefore the free
man, in order to enjoy greater freedom, desires to possess
the general rights of citizenship. Q.E.D.

Note. — These and similar observations, which we have
made on man's true freedom, may be referred to strength,
that is, to courage and nobility of character (III. lix.
note). I do not think it worth while to prove separately
all the properties of strength; much less need I show,
that he that is strong hates no man, is angry with no
man, envies no man, is indignant with no man, despises
no man, and least of all things is proud. These propo-
sitions, and all that relate to the true way of life and
religion, are easily proved from IV. xxxvii. and xlvi. ,
namely, that hatred should be overcome with love, and
that every man should desire for others the good which
he seeks for himself. We may also repeat what we drew
attention to in the note to IV. 1., and in other places;
namely, that the strong man has ever first in his thoughts,
that all things follow from the necessity of the divine
nature; so that whatsoever he deems to be hurtful and
evil, and whatsoever, accordingly, seems to him impious,
horrible, unjust, and base, assumes that appearance owing
his own disordered, fragmentary, and confused view of
the universe. Wherefore he strives before all things to
conceive things as they really are, and to remove the
hindrances to true knowledge, such as are hatred, anger,
envy, derision, pride, and similar emotions, which I have
mentioned above. Thus he endeavors, as we said before,
as far as in him lies, to do good, and to go on his way
rejoicing. How far human virtue if capable of attaining
to such a condition, and what its powers may be, I will
prove in the following Part.

Appendix.

What I have said in this Part concerning the right
way of life has not been arranged, so as to admit of
being seen at one view, but has been set forth, piece- •
16 • '

242 THE ETHICS

meal, according as I thought each proposition could most
readily be deduced from what preceded it. I propose,
therefore, to rearrange my remarks and to bring them
under leading heads.

I. All our endeavors or desires so follow from the ne-
cessity of our nature, that they can be understood either
through it alone, as their proximate cause, or by virtue
of our being a part of nature, which cannot be adequately
conceived through itself without other individuals.

II. Desires, which follow from our nature in such a
manner, that they can be understood through it alone,
are those which are referred to the mind, in so far as
the latter is conceived to consist of adequate ideas: the
remaining desires are only referred to the mind, in so
far as it conceives things inadequately, and their force
and increase are generally defined not by the power of
man, but by the power of things external to us: where-
fore the former are rightly called actions, the latter pas-
sions, for the former always indicate our power, the
latter, on the other hand, show our infirmity and frag-
mentary knowledge.

III. Our actions, that is, those desires which are defined
by man's power or reason, are always good. The rest
may be either good or bad.

IV. Thus in life it is before all things useful to per-
fect the understanding, or reason, as far as we can,
and in this alone man's highest happiness or blessed-
ness consists, indeed blessedness is nothing else but
the contentment of spirit, which arises from the intuitive
knowledge of God: now, to perfect the understanding
is nothing else but to understand God, God's attributes,
and the actions which follow from the necessity of
his nature. Wherefore of a man, who is led by rea-
son, the ultimate aim or highest desire, whereby he
seeks to govern all his fellows, is that whereby he is
brought to the adequate conception of himself and of
all things within the scope of his intelligence.

V. Therefore, without intelligence there is not rational
life : and things are only good in so far as they aid man
in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined

APPENDIX

243

by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder
man's perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy
the rational life, are alone called evil.

VI. As all things whereof man is the efficient cause are
necessarily good, no evil can befall man except through
external causes; namely, by virtue of man being a part
of universal nature, whose laws human nature is compelled
to obey, and to conform to in almost infinite ways.

VII. It is impossible, that man should not be a part o£
nature, or that he should not follow her general order;
but if he be thrown among individuals whose nature is
in harmony with his own, his power of action will thereby
be aided and fostered, whereas, if he be thrown among
such as are but very little in harmony with his nature,
he will hardly be able to accommodate himself to them
without undergoing a great change himself.

VIII. Whatsoever in nature we deem to be. evil, or to
be capable of injuring our faculty for existing and enjoy-
ing the rational life, we may endeavor to remove in
whatever way seems safest to us ; on the other hand, what-
soever we deem to be good or useful for preserving our
being, and enabling us to enjoy the rational life, we may
appropriate to our use and employ as we think best.
Every one without exception may, by sovereign right of na-
ture, do whatsoever he thinks will advance his own interest.

IX. Nothing can be in more harmony with the nature
of any given thing than other individuals of the same
species; therefore ( r/". vii.) for man in the preservation
of his being and the enjoyment of the rational life there
is nothing more useful than his fellow-man who is led
by reason. Further, as we know not anything among
individual things which is more excellent than a man led
by reason, no man can better display the power of his
skill and disposition, than in so training men, that they
come at last to live under the dominion of their own
reason.

X. In so far as men are influenced by envy or any
kind of hatred, one toward another, they are at vari-
ance, and are therefore to be feared in proportion, as
they are more powerful than their fellows.

244 THE ETHICS

XI. Yet minds are not conquered by force, but by love
and high-mindedness.

XII. It is before all things useful to men to associate
their ways of life, to bind themselves together with such
bonds as they think most fitted to gather them all into
unity, and generally to do whatsoever serves to strengthen
friendship.

XIII. But for this there is need of skill and watchful-
ness. For men are diverse ( seeing that those who live
under the guidance of reason are few), yet are they gen-
erally envious and more prone to revenge than to sym-
pathy. No small force of character is therefore required
to take every one as he is, and to restrain one's self from
imitating the emotions of others. But those who carp
at mankind, and are more skilled in railing at vice than
in instilling virtue, and who break rather than strengthen
men's dispositions, are hurtful both to themselves and
others. Thus many from too great impatience of spirit,
or from misguided religious zeal, have preferred to live
among brutes rather than among men ; as boys or youths,
who cannot peaceably endure the chidings of their parents,
will enlist as soldiers and choose the hardships of war
and the despotic discipline in preference to the comforts
of home and the admonitions of their father: suffering
any burden to be put upon them, so long as they may
spite their parents. >

XIV. Therefore, although men are generally governed
in everything by their own lusts, yet their association in
common brings many more advantages than drawbacks.
Wherefore it is better to bear patiently the wrongs they
may do us, and to strive to promote whatsoever serves
to bring about harmony and friendship.

XV. Those things, which beget harmony, are such as are
attributable to justice, equity, and honorable living.
For men brook ill not only what is unjust or iniquitous,
but also what is reckoned disgraceful, or that a man
should slight the received customs of their society. For
winning love those qualities are especially necessary which
have regard to religion and piety {^cf. IV. xxxvii. notes,
i. ii. ; xlvi. note; and Ixxiii. note).

APPENDIX 245

XVI. Further, harmony is often the result of fear; but
such harmony is insecure. Further, fear arises from
infirmity of spirit, and moreover belongs not to the exer-
cise of reason: the same is true of compassion, though
this latter seems to bear a certain resemblance to
piety.

XVII. Men are also gained over by liberality, especially
such as have not the means to buy what is necessary to
sustain life. However, to give aid to every poor man is
far beyond the power and the advantage of any private
person. For the riches of any private person are wholly
inadequate to meet such a call. Again, an individual
man's resources of character are too limited for him to
be able to make all men his friends. Hence providing
for the poor is a duty, which falls on the State as a
whole, and has regard only to the general advantage.

XVIII. In accepting favors, and in returning gratitude
our duty must be wholly different {cf. IV. Ixx. note;
Ixxi. note).

XIX. Again, meretricious love, that is, the lust of gen-
eration arising from bodily beauty, and generally every
sort of love, which owns anything save freedom of soul
as its cause, readily passes into hate ; unless indeed, what
is worse, it is a species of madness ; and then it promotes
discord rather than harmony i^cf. III. xxxi. Coroll.).

XX. As concerning marriage, it is certain that this is
in harmony with reason, if the desire for physical union
be not engendered solely by bodily beauty, but also by
the desire to beget children and to train them up wisely;
and moreover, if the love of both, to wit, of the man and
of the woman, is not caused by bodily beauty only, but
also by freedom of soul.

XXI. Furthermore, flattery begets harmony; but only
by means of the vile offense of slavishness or treachery.
None are more readily taken with flattery than the proud,
who wish to be first, but are not.

XXII. There is in abasement a spurious appearance of
piety and religion. Although abasement is the opposite
to pride, yet is he that abases himself most akin to the
proud (IV, Ivii. note),

246 THE ETHICS

XXIII. Shame also brings about harmony, but only
in such matters as cannot be hid. Further, as shame is
a species of pain, it does not concern the exercise of
reason.

XXIV. The remaining emotions of pain toward men
are directly opposed to justice, equity, honor, piety, and
religion ; and, although indignation seems to bear a certain
resemblance to equity, yet is life but lawless, where every
man may pass judgment on another's deeds, and vindi-
cate his own of other men's rights.

XXV. Correctness of conduct {inodcstia), that is, the
desire of pleasing men which is determined by reason, is
attributable to piety (as we said in IV. xxxvii, note i.).
But, if it spring from emotion, it is ambition, or the desire
whereby men, under the false cloak of piety, generally
stir up discords and seditions. For he who desires to aid
his fellows either in word or in deed so that they may
together enjoy the highest good, he, I say, will before all
things, strive to win them over with love: not to draw
them into admiration, so that a system may be called
after his name, nor to give any cause for envy. Further,
in his conversation, he will shrink from talking of men's
faults, and will be careful to speak but sparingly of human
infirmity; but he will dwell at length on human virtue
or power, and the way whereby it may be perfected.
Thus will men be stirred not by fear, nor by aversion,
but only by the emotion of joy, to endeavor, so far as in
them lies, to live in obedience to reason.

XXVI. Besides men, we know of no particular thing
in nature in whose mind we may rejoice, and whom we
can associate with ourselves in friendship or any sort of fel-
lowship ; therefore, whatsoever there be in nature besides
man, a regard for our advantage does not call on us to
preserve, but to preserve or destroy according to its
various capabilities, and to adapt to our use as best we
may.

XXVII. The advantage which we derive from things
external to us, besides the experience and knowledge
which we acquire from observing them, and from recom-
bining their elements in different forms, is principally the

APPENDIX 247

preservation of the body; from this point of view, those
things are most useful which can so feed and nourish
the body, that all its parts may rightly fulfil their func-
tions. For, in proportion as the body is capable of being
affected in a greater variety of ways, and of affecting
external bodies in a great number of ways, so much the
more is the mind capable of thinking ( IV. xxxviii. xxxix.).
But there seem to be very few things of this kind in
nature; wherefore for the due nourishment of the body
we must use many foods of diverse nature. For the
human body is composed of very many parts of dif-
ferent nature, which stand in continual need of va-
ried nourishment, so that the whole body may be equally
capable of doing everything that can follow from
its own nature, and consequently that the mind also
may be equally capable of forming many percep-
tions.

XXVIII. Now for providing these nourishments the
strength of each individual would hardly suffice, if men
did not lend one another mutual aid. But money has
furnished us with a token for everything: hence it is
with the notion of money, that the mind of the multitude
is chiefly engrossed : nay, it can hardly conceive any kind
of pleasure, which is not accompanied with the idea of
money as cause.

XXIX. This result is the fault only of those, who seek
money, not from poverty or to supply their necessary
wants, but because they have learned the arts of gain,
wherewith they bring themselves to great splendor. Cer-
tainly they nourish their bodies, according to custom,
but scantily, believing that they lose as much of their
wealth as they spend on the preservation of their body.
But they who know the true use of money, and who fix
the measure of wealth solely with regard to their actual
needs, live content with little.

XXX. As, therefore, those things are good which assist
the various parts of the body, and enable them to per-
form their functions; and as pleasure consists in an
increase of, or aid to, man's power, in so far as he is
composed of mind and body; it follows that all those

248 THE ETHICS

things which bring pleasure are good. But seeing that
things do not work with the object of giving us pleasure,
and that their power of action is not tempered to suit
our advantage, and lastly, that pleasure is generally
referred to one part of the body more than to the other
parts; therefore most emotions of pleasure (unless
reason and watchfulness be at hand), and conse-
quently the desires arising therefrom, may become
excessive. Moreover we may add that emotion
leads us to pay- most regard to what is agreeable in
the present, nor can we estimate what is future
with emotions equally vivid. ( IV. xliv. note, and Ix.
note.)

XXXI. Superstition, on the other hand, seems to ac-
count as good all that brings pain, and as bad all that
brings pleasure. However, as we have said above (IV. xlv.
note), none but the envious take delight in my infirmity
and trouble. For the greater the pleasure whereby we
are affected, the greater is the perfection whereto we
pass, and consequently the more do we partake of the
divine nature; no pleasure can ever be evil, which is
regulated by a true regard for our advantage. But con-
trariwise he, who is led by fear and does good only to avoid
evil, is not guided by reason.

XXXII. But human power is extremely limited, and is
infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes; we
have not, therefore, an absolute power of shaping to our
use those things which are without us. Nevertheless, we
shall bear with an equal mind all that happens to us in
contravention to the claims of our own advantage, so long
as we are conscious, that we have done our duty, and that
the power which we possess is not sufficient to enable
us to protect ourselves completely ; remembering that we
are a part of universal nature, and that we follow her
order. If we have a clear and distinct understanding of
this, that part of our nature which is defined by intelli-
gence, in other words the better part of ourselves, will
assuredly acquiesce in what befalls us, and in such
acquiescence will endeavor to persist. For, in so
far as we are intelligent beings, we cannot desire

APPENDIX 249

anything save that which is necessary, nor yield ab-
solute acquiescence to anything, save to that which is
true; wherefore, in so far as we have a right under-
standing of these things, the endeavor of the better part
of ourselves is in harmony with the order of nature as a
whole.

PART V.

OF THE POWER OF THE UNDERSTANDING,
OR. OF HUMAN FREEDOM.

Preface.

At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics,
which is concerned with the way leading to freedom, I
shall therefore treat therein of the power of the reason,
showing how far the reason can control the emotions, and
what is the nature of Mental Freedom or Blessedness; we
shall then be able to see, how much more powerful the
wise man is than the ignorant. It is no part of my de-
sign to point out the method and the means whereby the
understanding may be perfected, nor to show the skill
whereby the body may be so tended as to be capable of
the due performance of its functions. The latter question
lies in the province of Medicine, the former in the prov-
ince of Logic. Here, therefore, I repeat, I shall treat only
of the power of the mind, or of reason ; and I shall mainly
show the extent and nature of its dominion over the
emotions, for their control and moderation. That we do
not possess absolute dominion over them, I have already
shown. Yet the Stoics have thought, that the emotions de-
pended absolutely on our will, and that we could absolutely
govern them. But these philosophers were compelled, by
the protest of experience, not from their own principles,
to confess, that no slight practice and zeal is needed to
control and moderate them : and this someone endeavored
to illustrate by the example (if I remember rightly) of two
dogs, the one a house dog and the other a hunting dog.
For by long training it could be brought about, that the
house dog should become accustomed to hunt, and the
hunting dog to cease from running after hares. To this
(250)

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 251

opinion Descartes not a little inclines. For he maintained,
that the soul or mind is specially united to a particular
part of the brain, namely, to that part called the pineal
gland, by the aid of which the mind is enabled to feel
all the movements which are set going in the body, and
also external objects, and which the mind by a simple
act of volition can put in motion in various ways. He
asserted, that this gland is so suspended in the midst
of the brain, that it could be moved by the slightest
motion of the animal spirits: further, that this gland
is suspended in the midst of the brain in as many
different manners, as the animal spirits can impinge
thereon ; and, again, that as many different marks
are impressed on the said gland, as there are different
external objects which impel the animal spirits toward
it; whence it follows, that if the will of the soul sus-
pends the gland in a position, wherein it . has already
been suspended once before by the animal spirits driven
in one way or another, the gland in its turn reacts on
the said spirits, driving and determining them to the
condition wherein they were, when repulsed before by a
similar position of the gland. He further asserted, that
every act of mental volition is united in nature to a cer-
tain given motion of the gland. For instance, whenever
anyone desires to look at a remote object, the act of
volition causes the pupil of the eye to dilate, whereas, if
the person in question had only thought of the dilatation
of the pupil, the mere wish to dilate it would not have
brought about the result, inasmuch as the motion of the
gland, which serves to impel the animal spirits toward
the optic nerve in a way which would dilate or contract
the pupil, is not associated in nature with the wish to
dilate or contract the pupil, but with the wish to look
at remote or very near objects. Lastly, he maintained
that, although every motion of the aforesaid gland seems
to have been united by nature to one particular thought
out of the whole number of our thoughts from the very
beginning of our life, yet it can nevertheless become
through habituation associated with other thoughts; this
he endeavors to prove in the "Passions de I'ame,^^ I. 50..

252 THE ETHICS

He thence concludes, that there is no soul so weak, that it
cannot, under proper directions, acquire absolute power
over its passions. For passions as defined by him are
"perceptions, or feelings, or disturbances of the soul,
which are referred to the soul as species, and which (mark
the expression) are produced, preserved, and strengthened
through some movement of the spirits. '* (" Passions de
I'ame,'^ I. 27.) But seeing that we can join any motion
of the gland, or consequently of the spirits, to any voli-
tion, the determination of the will depends entirely on
our ov/n powers; if, therefore, we determine our will
with sure and firm decisions in the direction to which
we wish our actions to tend, and associate the motions of the
passions which we wish to acquire with the said decisions,
we shall acquire an absolute dominion over our passions.
Such is the doctrine of this illustrious philosopher (in so
far as I gather it from his own words) ; it is one which,
had it been less ingenious, I could hardly believe to
have proceeded from so great a man. Indeed, I am
lost in wonder, that a philosopher, who had stoutly as-
serted, that he would draw no conclusions which do not
follow from self-evident premises, and would affirm noth-
ing which he did not clearly and distinctly perceive, and
who had so often taken to task the scholastics for wishing
to explain obscurities through occult qualities, could
maintain a hypothesis, beside which occult qualities are
commonplace. What does he understand, I ask, by the
union of the mind and the body ? What clear and dis-
tinct conception has he got of thought in most intimate
iinion with a certain particle of extended matter ? Truly
I should like him to explain this union through its prox-
imate cause. But he had so distinct a conception of
mind being distinct from body, that he could not assign
any particular cause of the union between the two, or
of the mind itself, but was obliged to have recourse to the
cause of the whole universe, that is to God. Further, I
should much like to know what degree of motion the mind
can impart to this pineal gland and with what force can it
hold it suspended ? For I am in ignorance, whether this
gland can be agitated more slowly or more quickly by

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 253

the mind than by the animal spirits, and whether the
motions of the passions, which we have closely united
with firm decisions, cannot be again disjoined therefrom
by physical causes; in which case it would follow that,
although the mind firmly intended to face a given danger,
and had united to this decision the motions of boldness,
yet at the sight of the danger the gland might become
suspended in a way, which would preclude the mind
thinking of anything except turning away. In truth, as
there is no common standard of volition and motion, so
is there no comparison possible between the powers of
the mind and the power or strength of the body; conse-
quently the strength of one cannot in anywise be deter-
mined by the strength of the other. We may also add,
that there is no gland discoverable in the midst of the
brain, so placed that it can thus easily be set in motion
in so many ways, and also that all the nerves are not
prolonged so far as the cavities of the brain. Lastly, I
omit all the assertions which he makes concerning the will
and its freedom, inasmuch as I have abundantly proved
that his premises are false. Therefore, since the power
of the mind, as I have shown above, is defined by the
understanding only, we shall determine solely by the
knowledge of the mind the remedies against the emo-
tions, which I believe all have had experience of, but
do not accurately observe or distinctly see, and from the
same basis we shall deduce all those conclusions, which
have regard to the mind's blessedness.

Axioms.

I. If two contrary actions be started in the same sub-
ject, a change must necessarily take place, either in both,
or in one of the two, and continue until they cease to
be contrary.

II. The power of an affect is defined by the power of
its cause, in so far as its essence is explained or defined
by the essence of its cause.

(This axiom is evident from III. vii.)
Prop. I. Even as thoughts and the ideas of things are
arranged and associated in the mind, so are the mo4ifi-'

254 THE ETHICS

cations of the body or the images of things precisely
in the same way arranged and associated in the body.

Proof. — The order and connection of ideas is the same
(II. vii.) as the order and connection of things, and vice
versd the order and connection of things is the same
(II. vi. Coroll. and vii.) as the order and connection of
ideas. Wherefore, even as the order and connection of
ideas in the mind takes place according to the order and
association of modifications of the body (II. xviii.), so
vice versd (III. ii.) the order and connection of modifica-
tions of the body takes place in accordance with the
manner, in which thoughts and the ideas of things are
arranged and associated in the mind. Q.E.D.

Prop. II. If we remove a disturbance of the spirit,
or emotion, from the thought of an external cause, and
unite it to the other thoughts, then will the love or
hatred toward that external cause, and also the vacilla-
tions of spirit which arise from these emotions, be
destroyed.

Proof. — That, which constitutes the reality of love or
hatred, is pleasure or pain, accompanied by the idea of
an external cause ( Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii. ) ; where-
fore, when this cause is removed, the reality of love or
hatred is removed with it; therefore these emotions and
those which arise therefrom are destroyed. Q.E.D.

Prop. III. An emotion, which is a passion, ceases to
be a passion, as soon as we form a clear and distinct
idea thereof.

Proof. — An emotion, which is a passion, is a confused
idea (by the general Def. of the Emotions.). If, there-
fore, we form a clear and distinct idea of a given emo-
tion, that idea will only be distinguished from the emotion,
in so far as it is referred to the mind only, by reason
(II. xxi. and note); therefore (III. iii.) the emotion will
cease to be a passion. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — An emotion therefore, becomes more under
our control, and the mind is less passive in respect to
it, in proportion as it is mere known to us.

Prop. IV. There is no modification of the body, whereof
we cannot form some clear and distinct conception.

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 255

Proof. — Properties which are common to all things can
only be conceived adeqately (II. xxxviii.); therefore (II.
xii. and Lemma ii. after II. xiii.) there is no modification
of the body, whereof we cannot form some clear and
distinct conception. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that there is no emotion,
whereof we cannot form some clear and distinct concep-
tion. For an emotion is the idea of a modification of
the body (by the general Def. of the Emotions), and
must therefore (by the preceding Prop.) involve some
clear and distinct conception.

Note. — Seeing that there is nothing which is not fol-
lowed by an effect (I. xxxvi.), and that we clearly and
distinctly understand whatever follows from an idea,
which in us is adequate (II. xl.), it follows that every-
one has the power of clearly and distinctly understanding
himself and his emotions, if not absolutely, at any rate
in part, and consequently of bringing it about, that he
should become less subject to them. To attain this
result, therefore, we must chiefly direct our efforts to
acquiring, as far as possible, a clear and distinct knowl-
edge of every emotion, in order that the mind may thus,
through emotion, be determined to think of those things
which it clearly and distinctly perceives, and wherein it
fully acquiesces : and thus that the emotion itself may be
separated from the thought of an external cause, and
may be associated with true thoughts; whence it will
come to pass, not only that love, hatred, etc., will be
destroyed (V. ii.), but also that the appetites or desires,
which are wont to arise from such emotion, will become
incapable of being excessive (IV. Ixi.). For it must be
especially remarked, that the appetite through which a
man is said to be active, and that through which he is
said to be passive is one and the same. For instance,
we have shown that human nature is so constituted, that
everyone desires his fellow-men to live after his own
fashion (III. xxxi. note); in a man, who is not guided
by reason, this appetite is a passion which is called am-
bition, and does not greatly differ from pride; whereas
in a man, who lives by the dictates of reason, it is an

256 THE ETHICS

activity or virtue which is called piety ( IV. xxxvii. note
i. and second proof). In like manner all appetites or
desires are only passions, in so far as they spring from
inadequate ideas ; the same results are accredited to virtue,
when they are aroiised or generated by adequate ideas.
For all desires, whereby we are determined to any
given action, may arise as much from adequate as from
inadequate ideas (IV. lix.). Than this remedy for the
emotions (to return to the point from which I started),
which consists in a true knowledge thereof, nothing
more excellent, being within our power, can be devised.
For the mind has no other power save that of thinking
and of forming adequate ideas, as we have shown above
(III. iii.).

Prop. V. An emotion toward a thing, which we con-
ceive simply, and not as necessary, or as contingent, or
as possible, is, other conditions being equal, greater than
any other emotion.

Proof. — An emotion toward a thing, which we conceive
to be free, is greater than one toward w^hat we conceive to
be necessary (III. xlix.), and, consequently, still greater
than one toward what we conceive as possible, or con-
tingent (IV. xi.). But to conceive a thing as free can be
nothing else than to conceive it simply, while we are in
ignorance of the causes whereby it has been determined
to action (II. xxxv. note) ; therefore, an emotion toward
a thing which we conceive simply is, other conditions
being equal, greater than one, which we feel toward
what is necessary, possible, or contingent, and, conse-
quently, it is the greatest of all. Q.E.D.

Prop. VI. The mind has greater power over the emo-
tions and is less subject thereto, in so far as it under-
stands all things as necessary.

Proof. — The mind imderstands all things to be neces-
sary (I. xxix.) and to be determined to existence and
operation by an infinite chain of causes; therefore (by
the foregoing Proposition), it thus far brings it about,
that it is less subject to the emotions arising therefrom,
and (III. xlviii.) feels less emotion toward the things
themselves. Q.E.D.

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 257

Note. — The more this knowledge, that things are nec-
essary, is applied to particular things, which we conceive
more distinctly and vividly, the greater is the power of
the mind over the emotions, as experience also testifies.
For we see, that the pain arising from the loss of any
good is mitigated, as soon as the man who has lost it
perceives, that it could not by any means have been
preserved. So also we see that no one pities an infant,
because it cannot speak, walk, or reason, or lastly, be-
cause it passes so many years, as it were, in unconscious-
ness. Whereas, if most people were born full-grown
and only one here and there as an infant, every one
would pity the infants; because infancy would not then
be looked on as a state natural and necessary, but as a
fault or delinquency in Nature ; and we may note several
other instances of the same sort.

Prop. VII. Emotions which are aroused or spring from
reason, if we take account of time, are stronger than
those, which are attributable to particular objects that
we regard as absent.

Proof. — We do not regard a thing as absent, by reason
of the emotion wherewith we conceive it, but by reason
of the body being affected by another emotion excluding
the existence of the said thing (II. xvii.). Wherefore,
the emotion, which is referred to the thing which we
regard as absent, is not of a nature to overcome the rest
of a man's activities and power (IV. vi.), but is, on the
contrary, of a nature to be in some sort controlled by
the emotions, which exclude the existence of its external
cause (IV. ix.). But an emotion which springs from
reason is necessarily referred to the common properties
of things (see the Def. of Reason in II. xl. note ii.),
which we always regard as present (for there can be
nothing to exclude their present existence), and which
we always conceive in the same manner (II. xxxviii.).
Wherefore an emotion of this kind always remains the
same; and consequently (V. Ax. i.) emotions, which are
contrary thereto and are not kept going by their external
causes, will be obliged to adapt themselves to it more
and more until they are no longer contrarj'- to it ; to this
17

258 THE ETHICS

extent the emotion which springs from reason is more
powerful. Q. E.D.

Prop. VIII. An emotion is stronger in proportion to
the number of simiiltaneous concurrent causes whereby
it is aroused.

Proof. — Many simultaneous causes are more powerful
than a few (III. vii.): therefore (IV. v.), in proportion
to the increased number of simultaneous causes whereby
it is aroused, an emotion becomes stronger. Q.E.D.

Note. — This proposition is also evident from V. Ax. ii.

Prop. IX. An emotion, which is attributable to many
and diverse causes which the mind regards as simulta-
neous with the emotion itself, is less hurtful, and we are
less subject thereto and less affected toward each of its
causes, than if it were a different and equally powerful
emotion attributable to fewer causes or to a single cause.

Proof. — An emotion is only bad or hurtful, in so far
as it hinders the mind from being able to think ( IV.
xxvi. xxvii.); therefore, an emotion, whereby the mind
is determined to the contemplation of several things at
once, is less hurtful than another equally powerful emo-
tion, which so engrosses the mind in the single contem-
plation of a few objects or of one, that it is unable to
think of anything else; this was our first point. Again,
as the mind's essence in other words, its power (III. vii.),
consists solely in thought (II. xi.), the mind is less pas-
sive in respect to an emotion, which causes it to think
of several things at once, than in regard to an equally
strong emotion, which keeps it engrossed in the contem-
plation of a few or of a single object: this was our
second point. Lastly, this emotion (III. xlviii.), in so far
as it is attributable to several causes, is less powerful in
regard to each of them. Q.E.D.

Prop. X. So long as we are not assailed by emotions
contrary to our nature, we have the power of arranging
and associating the modifications of our body according
to the intellectual order.

Proof. — The emotions, which are contrary to our nature,
that is (IV. xxx.), which are bad, are bad in so far as
they impede the mind from understanding (IV. xxvii.).

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 259

So long, therefore, as we are not assailed by emotions
contrary to our nature, the mind's power, whereby it
endeavors to understand things (IV. xxvi.), is not im-
peded, and therefore it is able to form clear and distinct
ideas and to deduce them one from another (II. xl. note
ii. and xlvii. note ) ; consequently we have in such cases
the power of arranging and associating the modifications
of the body according to the intellectual order. Q.E.D.
Note. — By this power of rightly arranging and asso-
ciating the bodily modifications we can guard ourselves
from being easily affected by evil emotions. For (V. vii.)
a greater force is needed for controlling the emotions,
when they are arranged and associated according to the
intellectual order, than when they are uncertain and
unsettled. The best we can do, therefore, so long as we
do not possess a perfect knowledge of our emotions, is to
frame a system of right conduct, or fixed practical pre-
cepts, to commit it to memory, and to apply it forthwith
to the particular circumstances which now and again meet
us in life, so that our imagination may become fully
imbued therewith, and that it may be always ready to
our hand. For instance, we have laid down among the
rules of life (IV. xlvi. and note), that hatred should be
overcome with love or high-mindedness, and not requited
with hatred in return. Now, that this precept of reason
may be always ready to our hand in time of need, we
should often think over and reflect upon the wrongs
generally committed by men, and in what manner and
way they may be best warded off by high-mindedness:
we shall thus associate the idea of wrong with the idea
of this precept, which accordingly will always be ready
for use when a wrong is done to us (II. xviii.). If we
keep also in readiness the notion of our true advantage,
and of the good which follows from mutual friendships,
and common fellowships; further, if we remember that
complete acquiescence is the result of the right way of
life (IV. Hi.), and that men, no less than everything else,
act by the necessity of their nature : in such case I say the
wrong, or the hatred, which commonly arises therefrom,
will engross a very small part of our imagination and will

26o THE ETHICS

be easily overcome ; or, if the anger which springs from a
grievous wrong be not overcome easily, it will neverthe-
less be overcome, though not without a spiritual conflict,
far sooner than if we had not thus reflected on the sub-
ject beforehand. As is indeed evident from V. vi. vii.
viii. We should, in the same way, reflect on courage as
a means of overcoming fear; the ordinary dangers of life
should frequently be brought to mind and imagined, to-
gether with the means whereby through readiness of
resource and strength of mind we can avoid and over-
come them. But we must note, that in arranging
our thoughts and conceptions we should always bear in
mind that which is good in every individual thing ( IV.
Ixiii. Coroll. and III. lix.), in order that we may always
be determined to action by an emotion of pleasure. For
instance, if a man sees that he is too keen in the pursuit
of honor, let him think over its right use, the end for
which it should be pursued, and the means whereby he
may attain it. Let him not think of its misuse, and
its emptiness, and the fickleness of mankind, and the like,
whereof no man thinks except through a morbidness of
disposition; with thoughts like these do the most ambi-
tious most torment themselves, when they despair of
gaining the distinctions they hanker after, and in thus
giving vent to their anger would fain appear wise.
Wherefore it is certain that those, who cry out the loud-
est against the misuse of honor and the vanity of the
world, are those who most greedily covet it. This is not
peculiar to the ambitious, but is common to all who are
ill-used by fortune, and who are infirm in spirit. For a
poor man also, who is miserly, will talk incessantly of the
misuse of wealth and of the vices of the rich; whereby
he merely torments himself, and shows the world that he
is intolerant, not only of his own poverty, but also of
other people's riches. So, again, those who have been
ill received by a woman they love think of nothing but
the inconstancy, treachery and other stock faults of the
fair sex; all of which they consign to oblivion, directly
they are again taken into favor by their sweetheart.
Thus he who would govern his emotions and appetite

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 261

solely by the love of freedom strives, as far as he can,
to gain a knowledge of the virtues and their causes, and
to fill his spirit with the joy which arises from the true
knowledsfe of them : he will in no wise desire to dwell on
men's faults, or to carp at his fellows, or to revel in a
false show of freedom. Whosoever will diligently observe
and practice these precepts (which indeed are not diffi-
cult) will verily, in a short space of time, be able for the
most part to direct his actions according to the command-
ments of reason.

Prop. XI. In proportion as a mental image is referred
to more objects, so is it more frequent, or more often
vivid, and occupies the mind more.

Proof. — In proportion as a mental image or an emotion
is referred to more objects, so are there more causes
whereby it can be aroused and fostered, all of which ( by
hypothesis ) the mind contemplates simultaneously in as-
sociation with the given emotion; therefore the emotion
is mofe frequent, or is more often in full vigor, and
( V. viii.) occupies the mind more. Q.E.D.

Prop. XII. The mental images of things are more
easily associated with the images referred to things
which we clearly and distinctly understand, than with
others.

Proof. — Things, which we clearly and distinctly under-
stand, are either the common properties of things or de-
ductions therefrom (see Def. of Reason, II. xl. note
ii.), and are consequently (by the last Prop.) more
often aroused in us. Wherefore it may more readily
happen, that we should contemplate other things in con-
junction with these than in conjunction with something
else, and consequently (II. xviii.) that the images of the
said things should be more often associated with the
images of these than with the images of something else,
Q.E.D.

Prop. XIII, A mental image is more often vivid, in
proportion as it is associated with a greater number of
other images.

Proof. — In proportion as an image is associated with
a greater number of other images, so ( II. . xviii.)

262 THE ETHICS

are there more causes whereby it can be aroused.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XIV. The mind can bring it about, that all
bodily modifications or images of things may be referred
to the idea of God.

Proof. — There is no modification of the body, whereof
the mind may not form some clear and distinct concep-
tion (V. iv.); wherefore it can bring it about, that they
should all be referred to the idea of God (I. xv.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XV. He who clearly and distinctly understands
himself and his emotions loves God, and so much the
more in proportion as he more understands himself and
his emotions.

Proof. — He who clearly and distinctly understands him-
self and his emotions feels pleasure (III. liii.), and this
pleasure is (by the last Prop.) accompanied by the idea
of God; therefore (Def. of the Emotions, vi.) such an one
loves God, and (for the same reason) so much the more
in proportion as he more understands himself and his
emotions. Q.E.D,

Prop. XVI. This love toward God must hold the chief
place in the mind.

Proof. — For this love is associated with all the modifi-
cations of the body (V. xiv.) and is fostered by them all
(V. XV.); therefore (V. xi.), it must hold the chief place
in the mind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he
afEected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Proof. — All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God,
are true (II. xxxii.), that is (II. Def. iv.) adequate; and
therefore ( by the General Def. of the Emotions ) God is
without passions. Again, God cannot pass either to a
greater or to a lesser perfection (I. xx. Coroll. ii.); there-
fore (by Def. of the Emotions, ii. iii.), he is not affected
by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Corollary. — Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate
anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected
by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently ( Def. of
the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone.

Prop. XVIII. No one can hate God.

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 263

Proof. — The idea of God which is in us is adequate and
perfect (II. xlvi. xlvii.); wherefore, in so far as we con-
template God, we are active (III. iii.); consequently
(III. lix.) there can be no pain accompanied by the idea
of God, in other words (Def. of the Emotions, vii.), no
one can hate God. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Love toward God cannot be turned into
hate.

Note. — It maybe objected that, as we understand God as
the cause of all things, we by that very fact regard God
as the cause of pain. But I make answer, that, in so far
as we understand the causes of pain, it to that extent
(V. iii) ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be
pain (III. lix.); therefore, in so far as we understand God
to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.

Prop. XIX. He, who loves God, cannot endeavor that
God should love him in return.

Proof. — For if a man should so endeavor, he would
desire (V. xvii. Coroll.) that God, whom he loves, should
not be God, and consequently he would desire to feel
pain (III. xix.); which is absurd (III. xxviii.). There-
fore, he who loves God, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XX. This love toward God cannot be stained by
by the emotion of envy or jealousy: contrariwise, it is
the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater
number of men to be joined to God by the same bond
of love.

Proof. — This love toward God is the highest good
which we can seek for under the guidance of reason
(IV. xxviii.), it is common to all men (IV. xxxvi.), and
we desire that all should rejoice therein (IV. xxxvii.);
therefore (Def. of the Emotions, xxiii.), it cannot be
stained by the emotion of envy, nor by the emotion of
jealousy (V. xviii. see Def. of Jealousy, III. xxxv. note) ;
but, contrariwise, it must needs be the more fostered,
in proportion as we conceive a greater number of men
to rejoice therein. Q.E.D.

Note. — We can in the same way show, that there is
no emotion directly contrary to this love, whereby this
love can be destroyed; therefore we may conclude, that

264 THE ETHICS

this love toward God is the most constant of all the emo-
tions, and that, in so far as it is referred to the body,
it cannot be destroyed unless the body be destroyed also.
As to its nature, in so far as it is referred to the mind
only, we shall presently inquire.

I have now gone through all the remedies against the
emotions, or all that the mind, considered in itself alone,
can do against them. Whence it appears that the mind's
power over the emotions consists:

I. In the actual knowledge of the emotions (V. iv.
note).

II. In the fact that it separates the emotions from the
thought of an external cause, which we conceive con-
fusedly (V. ii. and iv. note).

III. In the fact, that, in respect to time, the emotions
referred to things, which we distinctly understand, sur-
pass those referred to what we conceive in a confused
and fragmentary manner (V. vii.).

IV. In the number of causes whereby those modifica-
tions* are fostered, which have regard to the common
properties of things or to God (V. ix. xi.).

V. Lastly, in the order wherein the mind can arrange
and associate, one with another, its own emotions (V. x.
note and xii. xiii. xiv.).

But in order that this power of the mind over the
emotions may be better understood, it should be specially
observed that the emotions are called by us strong, when
we compare the emotion of one man with the emotion of
another, and see that one man is more troubled than
another by the same emotion; or when we are comparing
the various emotions of the same man one with another,
and find that he is more affected or stirred by one emo-
tion than by another. For the strength of every emotion
is defined by a comparison of our own power with the
power of an external cause. Now the power of the mind
is defined by knowledge only, and its infirmity or passion
is defined by the privation of knowledge only: it there-
fore follows, that that mind is most passive, whose great-
est part is made up of inadequate ideas, so that it may

* AJfectiones. Camerer reads affect us — emotions.

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 265

be characterized more readily by its passive states than
by its activities: on the other hand, that mind is most
active, whose greatest part is made up of adequate ideas,
so that, although it may contain as many inadequate
ideas as the former mind, it may yet be more easily
characterized by ideas attributable to human virtue, than
by ideas which tell of human infirmity. Again, it must
be observed, that spiritual unhealthiness and misfortunes
can generally be traced to excessive love for something
which is subject to many variations, and which we can
never become masters of. For no one is solicitous
or anxious about anything, unless he loves it; neither
do wrongs, suspicions, enmities, etc., arise, except in
regard to things whereof no one can be really mas-
ter.

We may thus readily conceive the power which clear
and distinct knowledge, and especially that third kind of
knowledge (II. xlvii. note), founded on the actual knowl-
edge of God, possesses over the emotions; if it does not
absolutely destroy them, in so far as they are passions
(V. iii. and iv. note); at any rate, it causes them to
occupy a very small part of the mind (V. xiv.). Fur-
ther, it begets a love toward a thing immutable and
eternal (V. xv.), whereof we may really enter into pos-
session (II. xlv.); neither can it be defiled with those
faults which are inherent in ordinary love; but it may
grow from strength to strength, and may engross the
greater part of the mind, and deeply penetrate it.

And now I have finished with all that concerns this
present life; for, as I said in the beginning of this note,
I have briefly described all the remedies against the emo-
tions. And this every one may readily have seen for him-
self, if he has attended to what is advanced in the pres-
ent note, and also to the definitions of the mind and its
emotions, and, lastly to Propositions i. and iii. of Part
III. It is now, therefore, time to pass on to those mat-
ters, which appertain to the duration of the mind, with-
out relation to the body.

Prop. XXI. The mind can only imagine anything, or
remember what is passed, while the body endures. .

266 THE ETHICS

Proof. — The mind does not express the actual exist-
ence of its body, nor does it imagine the modifications
of the body as actual, except while the body endures
(II. viii. Coroll.); and, consequently, (II. xxvi.), it does
not imagine anybody as actually existing, except while
its own body endures. Thus it cannot imagine anything
(for Def. of Imagination, see II. xvii. note), or re-
member things past, except while the body endures (see
Def. of Memory, II. xviii. note). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXII. Nevertheless in God there is necessarily
an idea, which expresses the essence of this or that
human body under the form of eternity.

Proof. — God is the cause, not only of the existence of
this or that human body, but also of its essence ( I.
XXV.). This essence, therefore, must necessarily be con-
ceived through the very essence of God (I. Ax. iv.), and
be thus conceived by a certain eternal necessity (I. xvi.);
and this conception must necessarily exist in God (II.
iii.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIII. The human mind cannot be absolutely
destroyed with the body, but there remains of it some-
thing which is eternal.

Proof. — There is necessarily in God a concept or idea,
which expresses the essence of the human body (last
Prop.), which, therefore, is necessarily something apper-
taining to the essence of the human mind (II. xiii.).
But we have not assigned to the human mind any
duration, definable by time, except in so far as it
expresses the actual existence of the body, which is
explained through duration, and may be defined by time
— that is (II. viii. Coroll.), we do not assign to it dura-
tion, except while the body endures. Yet, as there is
something, notwithstanding, which is conceived by a
certain eternal necessity through the very essence of God
(last Prop.); this something, which appertains to the
essence of the mind, will necessarily be eternal. Q.E.D.

Note. — This idea, which expresses the essence of the
body under the form of eternity, is, as we have said, a
certain mode of thinking, which belongs to the essence
of the mind, and is necessarily eternal. Yet it is not

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 267

possible that we should remember that we existed before
our body, for our body can bear no trace of such exist-
ence, neither can eternity be defined in terms of time,
or have any relation to time. But, notwithstanding, we
feel and know that we are eternal. For the mind feels
those things that it conceives by understanding, no less
than those things that it remembers. For the eyes of
the mind, whereby it sees and observes things, are none
other than proofs. Thus, although we do not remember
that we existed before the body, yet we feel that our
mind, in so far as it involves the essence of the body,
under the form of eternity, is eternal, and that thus its
existence cannot be defined in terms of time, or explained
through duration. Thus our mind can only be said to
endure, and its existence can only be defined by a fixed
time, in so far as it involves the actual existence of the
body. Thus far only has it the power of determining
the existence of things by time, and conceiving them
under the category of duration.

Prop. XXIV. The more we understand particular
things, the more do we understand God.

Proof. — This is evident from I. xxv. CoroU.

Prop. XXV. The highest endeavor of the mind, and the
highest virtue is to understand things by the third kind
of knowledge.

Proof. — The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an
adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an ade-
quate knowledge of the essence of things (see its defini-
tion II. xl. note ii.) ; and, in proportion as we understand
things more in this way, we better understand God (by
the last Prop.); therefore (IV. xxviii.) the highest virtue
of the mind, that is (IV. Def. viii.) the power, or
nature, or (III. vii.) highest endeavor of the mind,
is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge.
Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVI. In proportion as the mind is more
capable of understanding things by the third kind of
knowledge, it desires more to understand things by that kind.

Proof. — This is evident. For, in so far as we. conceive
the mind to be capable of conceiving things by this kind

268 THE ETHICS

of knowledg-e, we, to that extent, conceive it as deter-
mined thus to conceive things; and consequently (Def.
of the Emotions, i.), the mind desires so to do, in pro-
portion as it is more capable thereof. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVII. From this third kind of knowledge
arises the highest possible mental acquiescence.

Proof. — The highest virtue of the mind is to know
God (IV. xxviii.), or to understand things by the third
kind of knowledge (V. xxv.), and this virtue is greater
in proportion as the mind knows things more by the
said kind of knowledge (V. xxiv.): consequently, he who
knows things by this kind of knowledge passes to the
summit of human perfection, and is therefore (Def. of
the Emotions, ii.) affected by the highest pleasure, such
pleasure being accompanied by the idea of himself and
his own virtue: thus (Def. of the Emotions, xxv.), from
this kind of knowledge ' arises the highest possible
acquiescence. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVIII. The endeavor or desire to know things
by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the
first, but from the second kind of knowledge.

Proof. — This proposition is self-evident. For whatso-
ever we understand clearly and distinctly, we understand
either through itself, or through that which is conceived
through itself; that is, ideas which are clear and distinct
in us, or which are referred to the third kind of knowl-
edge (II. xl. noteii.) cannot follow from ideas that are
fragmentary aud confused, and are referred to knowledge
of the first kind, but must follow from adequate ideas,
or ideas of the second and third kind of knowledge;
therefore (Def. of the Emotions, i.), the desire of know-
ing things by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise
from the first, but from the second kind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIX. Whatsoever the mind understands under
the form of eternity, it does not understand by virtue of
conceiving the present actual existence of the body, but
by virtue of conceiving the essence of the body under
the form of eternity.

Proof. — In so far as the mind conceives the present
existence of its body, it to that extent conceives duration

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 269

which can be determined by time, and to that extent
only has it the power of conceiving things in relation to
time (V. xxi. II. xxvi.). But eternity cannot be explained in
terms of duration (I. Def. viii. and explanation). There-
fore to this extent the mind has not the power of con-
ceiving things under the form of eternity, but it possesses
such power, because it is of the nature of reason to con-
ceive things under the form of eternity (II. xliv. Coroll.
ii.), and also because it is of the nature of the mind to
conceive the essence of the body under the form of
eternity (V. xxiii.), for besides these two there is nothing
which belongs to the essence of mind (II. xiii.). There-
fore this power of conceiving things under the form of
eternity only belongs to the mind in virtue of the mind's
conceiving the essence of the body under the form of
eternity. Q.E.D.

Note. — Things are conceived by us as actual in two
ways: either as existing in relation to a given time and
place, or as contained in God and following from the
necessity of the divine nature. Whatsoever we conceive
in this second way as true or real, we conceive under the
form of eternity, and their ideas involve the eternal and
infinite essence of God, as we showed in II. xlv. and note,
which see.

Prop. XXX. Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and
the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent
necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in
God, and is conceived through God.

Proof. — Eternity is the very essence of God, in so fat
as this involves necessary existence (I. Def. viii.). There-
fore to conceive things under the form of eternity, is to
conceive things in so far as they are conceived through
the essence of God as real entities, or in so far as they
involve existence through the essence of God; wherefore
our mind, in so far as it conceives itself and the body
under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily
a knowledge of God, and knows, etc. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXI. The third kind of knowledge depends on
the mind, as its formal cause, in so far as the mind
itself is eternal.

270 THE ETHICS

Proof. — The mind does not conceive anything- under
the form of eternity, except in so far as it conceives its
own body under the form of eternity ( V. xxix. ) ; that is,
except in so far as it is eternal (V. xxi. xxiii.); therefore
(by the last Prop.), in so far as it is eternal, it possesses
the knowledge of God, which knowledge is necessarily
adequate (II. xlvi.); hence the mind, in so far as it is
eternal, is capable of knowing everything which can
follow from this given knowledge of God (II. xl.), in
other words, of knowing things by the third kind of
knowledge (see Def. in II. xl. note ii.), whereof accord-
ingly the mind (III. Def. i.), in so far as it is eternal,
is the adequate or formal cause of such knowledge.
Q.E.D.

Note. — In proportion, therefore, as a man is more
potent in this kind of knowledge, he will be more com-
pletely conscious of himself and of God ; in other words,
he will be more perfect and blessed, as will appear
more clearly in the sequel. But we must here observe
that, although we are already certain that the mind is
eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form
of eternity, yet, in order that what we wish to show
may be more readily explained and better understood,
we will consider the mind itself, as though it had just
begun to exist and to understand things under the
form of eternity, as indeed we have done hitherto; this
we may do without any danger of error, so long as we
are careful not to draw any conclusion, unless our
premises are plain.

Prop. XXXII. Whatsoever we understand by the third
kind of knowledge, we take delight in, and our delight is
accompanied by the idea of God as cause.

Proof.— Yxorci this kind of knowledge arises the highest
possible mental acquiescence, that is (Def. of the Emotions,
XXV.), pleasure, and this acquiescence is accompanied by
the idea of the mind itself (V. xxvii.), and consequently
(V. XXX.) the idea also of God as cause. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — From the third kind of knowledge neces-
sarily arises the intellectual love of God. From this kind
of knowledge arises pleasure accompanied by the idea of

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 271

God as cause, that is ( Def. of the Emotions, vi.), the love
of God; not in so far as we imagine him as present (V.
xxix.), but in so far as we understand him to be eternal;
this is what I call the intellectual love of God.

Prop. XXXIII. The intellectual love of God, which
arises from the third kind of knowledge, is eternal.

Proof. — The third kind of knowledge is eternal (V.
xxxi. I. Ax. iii.); therefore (by the same Axiom), the love
which arises therefrom is also necessarily eternal. Q.E.D,

]^ote. — Although this love toward God has (by the fore-
going Prop.) no beginning, it yet possesses all the per-
fections of love, just as though it had arisen as we feigned
in the Corollary of the last Proposition. Nor is there
here any difference, except that the mind possesses as
eternal those same perfections which we feigned to ac-
crue to it, and they are accompanied by the idea of God
as eternal cause. If pleasure consists in the transition
to a greater perfection, assuredly blessedness must con-
sist in the mind being endowed with perfection itself.

Prop. XXXIV. The mind is, only while the body en-
dures, subject to those emotions which are attributable to
passions.

Proof. — Imagination is the idea wherewith the mind
contemplates a thing as present (II. xvii. note); yet this
idea indicates rather the present disposition of the human
body than the nature of the external thing ( II. xvi. Coroll.
ii.). Therefore emotion (see General Def. of Emotions)
is imagination, in so far as it indicates the present dis-
position of the body; therefore (V. xxi.) the mind is,
only while the body endures, subject to emotions which
are attributable to passions. Q.E.D.

Corollary. — Hence it follows that no love save intel-
lectual love is eternal.

Note. — If we look to men's general opinion, we shall

see that they are indeed conscious of the eternity of

their mind, but that they confuse eternity with duration,

' and ascribe it to the imagination or the memory which they

believe to remain after death.

Prop. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intel-
lectual love.

272 THE ETHICS

Proof. — God is absolutely infinite (I. Def. vi.), that is
(II. Def. vi.), the nature of God rejoices in infinite per-
fection; and such rejoicing is (II. iii.) accompanied by
the idea of himself, that is (I. xi. and Def. i.), the idea
of his own cause : now this is what we have ( in V. xxxii.
Coroll ) described as intellectual love.

Prop. XXXVI, The intellectual love of the mmd toward
God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself,
not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can
be explained through the essence of the human mind
regarded imder the form of eternity ; in other words, the
intellectual love of the mind toward God is part of the
infinite love wherewith God loves himself.

Proof. — This love of the mind must be referred to the
activities of the mind (V. xxxii. Coroll. and III. iii.); it
is itself, indeed, an activity whereby the mind regards
itself accompanied by the idea of God as cause (V. xxxii.
and Coroll.); that is (I. xxv. Coroll. and II. xi. Coroll.)
an activity whereby God, in so far as he can be explained
through the human mind, regards himself accompanied
by the idea of himself; therefore (by the last Prop.),
this love of the mind is part of the infinite love where-
with God loves himself. Q.E.D.

Corollary — Hence it follows that God, in so far as he
loves himself, loves man, and consequently, that the
love of God toward men, and the intellectual love of the
mind toward God are identical.

Note, — From what has been said we clearly understand,
wherein our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom, con-
sists: namely, in the constant and eternal love toward
God, or in God's love toward men. This love or blessed-
ness is, in the Bible, called Glory, and not undeservedly.
For whether this love be referred to God or to the mind, it
may rightly be called acquiescence of spirit, which (Def.
of the Emotions, xxv. xxx.) is not really distinguished
from glory. In so far as it is referred to God, it is (V.
XXXV ) pleasure, if we may still use that term, accom-
panied by the idea of itself, and, in so far as it is referred
to the mind, it is the same (V. xxvii.).

Again, since the essence of our mind consists solely in

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 273

knowledge, whereof the beginning- and the foundation is
God (I. XV. and II. xlvii. note), it becomes clear to us,
in what manner and way our mind, as to its essence and
existence, follows from the divine nature and constantly
depends on God. I have thought it worth while here to
call attention to this, in order to show by this example
how the knowledge of particular things, which I have
called intuitive or of the third kind (II. xl. note ii.), is
potent, and more powerful than the universal knowledge,
which I have styled knowledge of the second kind. For,
although in Part I. I showed in general terms, that all
things (and consequently, also, the human mind) depend
as to their essence and existence on God, yet that demon-
stration, though legitimate and placed beyond the chances
of doubt, does not affect our mind so much, as when the
same conclusion is derived from the actual essence of
some particular thing, which we say depends on God.

Prop. XXXVII. There is nothing in nature, which is
contrary to this intellectual love, or which can take it
away.

Proof. — This intellectual love follows necessarily from
the nature of the mind, in so far as the latter is regarded
through the nature of God as an eternal truth (V. xxxiii.
anjd xxix.). If, therefore, there should be anything
which would be contrary to this love, that thing would
be contrary to that which is true; consequently, that,
which should be able to take away this love, would cause
that which is true to be false; an obvious absurdity.
Therefore there is nothing in nature which, etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — The Axiom of Part IV. has reference to partic-
ular things, in so far as they are regarded in relation
to a given time and place: of this, I think, no one can
doubt.

Prop. XXXVIII. In proportion as the mind understands
more things by the second and third kind of knowledge,
it is less subject to those emotions which are evil, and
stands in less fear of death.

Proof. — The mind's essence consists in knowledge (II,
xi.); therefore, in proportion as the mind understands
more things by the second and third kinds of knowledge,
18

274 THE ETHICS

the greater will be the part of it that endures (V. xxix.
and xxiii.), and, consequently (by the last Prop.), the
greater will be the part that is not touched by the emo-
tions, which are contrary to our nature, or in other words,
evil (IV. XXX.). Thus, in proportion as the mind under-
stands more things by the second and third kinds of
knowledge, the greater will be the part of it, that remains
unimpaired, and, consequently, less subject to emotions,
etc. Q.E.D.

Note. — Hence we understand that point which I touched
on in IV. xxxix. note, and which I promised to explain
in this Part; namely, that death becomes less hurtful, in
proportion as the mind's clear and distinct knowledge is
greater, and, consequently, in proportion as the mind
loves God more. Again, since from the third kind of
knowledge arises the highest possible acquiescence (V.
xxvii.), it follows that the human mind can attain to
being of such a nature, that the part thereof which we
have shown to perish with the body (V. xxi.) should be
of little importance when compared with the part which
endures. But I will soon treat of the subject at greater
length.

Prop. XXXIX. He, who possesses a body capable of
the greatest number of activities, possesses a mind whereof
the greatest part is eternal.

Proof. — He, who possesses a body capable of the great-
est number of activities, is least agitated by those emo-
tions which are evil (IV. xxxviii.) — that is (IV. xxx.), by
those emotions which are contrary to our nature; there-
fore (V. X.), he possesses the power of arranging and
associating the modifications of the body according to the
intellectual order, and, consequently, of bringing it about,
that all the modifications of the body should be referred
to the idea of God ; whence it will come to pass that (V.
XV.) he will be affected with love toward God, which
(V. xvi.) must occupy or constitute the chief part of the
mind; therefore (V. xxxiii.), such a man will possess a
mind whereof the chief part is eternal. Q.E.D.

Note. — Since human bodies are capable of the greatest
number of activities, there is no doubt but that they

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 275

may be of such a nature, that they may be referred to
minds possessing a great knowledge of themselves and
of God, and whereof the greatest or chief part is eternal,
and, therefore, that they should scarcely fear death. But,
in order that this may be understood more clearly, we
must here call to mind, that we live in a state of per-
petual variation, and, according as we are changed for
the better or the worse, we are called happy or un-
happy.

For he, who, from being an infant or a child, becomes
a corpse, is called unhappy; whereas it is set down to
happiness, if we have been able to live through the
whole period of life with a sound mind in a sound body.
And, in reality, he, who, as in the case of an infant or
a child, has a body capable of very few activities, and
depending, for the most part, on external causes, has a
mind which, considered in itself alone, is sca,rcely con-
scious of itself, or of God, or of things ; whereas, he, who
has a body capable of very many activities, has a mind
which, considered in itself alone, is highly conscious of
itself, of God, and of things. In this life, therefore, we
primarily endeavor to bring it about, that the body of a
child, in so far as its nature allows and conduces thereto,
may be changed into something else capable of very
many activities, and referable to a mind which is highly
conscious of itself, of God, and of things; and we desire
so to change it, that what is referred to its imagination
and memory may become insignificant, in comparison
with its intellect, as I have already said in the note to
the last Proposition.

Prop. XL. In proportion as each thing possesses more
of perfection, so is it more active, and less passive ; and,
vice versa, in proportion as it is more active, so is it more
perfect.

Proof. — In proportion as each thing is more perfect,
it possesses more of reality (II. Def. vi.), and, conse-
quently (III. iii. and note), it is to that extent more
active and less passive. This demonstration may be re-
versed, and thus prove that, in proportion as a thing is
more active, so is it more perfect. Q.E.D.

276 THE ETHICS

Corollary. — Hence it follows that the part of the mind
which endures, be it great or small, is more perfect than
the rest. For the eternal part of the mind (V, xxiii.
xxix.) is the understanding, through which alone we are
said to act (III. iii.); the part which we have shown to
perish is the imagination (V. xxi.), through which only
we are said to be passive (III. iii. and general Def. of
the Emotions) ; therefore, the former, be it great or
small, is more perfect than the latter. Q.E.D.

Note. — Such are the doctrines which I had purposed
to set forth concerning the mind, in so far as it is re-
garded without relation to the body; whence, as also from
I. xxi. and other places, it is plain that our mind, in so
far as it understands, is an eternal mode of thinking,
which is determined by another eternal mode of thinking,
and this other by a third, and so on to infinity; so that
all taken together at once constitute the eternal and in-
finite intellect of God.

Prop. XLI. Even if we did not know that our mind is
eternal, we should still consider as of primary importance
piety and religion, and generally all things which, in
Part. IV., we show^ed to be attributable to courage and
high-mindedness.

Proof. — The first and only foundation of virtue, or the
rule of right living is (IV. xxii. Coroll. and xxiv.) seek-
ing one's own true interest. Now, while we determined
what reason prescribes as useful, we took no account of
the mind's eternity, which has only become known to us
in this Fifth Part. Although we were ignorant at that
time that the mind is eternal, we nevertheless stated that
the qualities attributable to courage and high-minded-
ness are of primary importance. Therefore, even if we
were still ignorant of this doctrine, we should yet put
the aforesaid precepts of reason in the first place. Q.E.D.

Note. — The general belief of the multitude seems to
be different. Most people seem to believe that they are
free, in so far as they may obey their lusts, and that
they cede their rights, in so far as they are bound to
live according to the commandments of the divine law.
They therefore believe that piety, religion, and generally,

OF HUMAN FREEDOM 277

all things attributable to firmness of mind, are burdens,
which, after death, they hope to lay aside, and to re-
ceive the reward for their bondage, that is, for their
piety and religion; it is not only by this hope, but also,
and chiefly, by the fear of being horribly punished after
death, that they are induced to live according to the di-
vine commandments, so far as their feeble and infirm
spirit will carry them.

If men had not this hope and this fear, but believed
that the mind perishes with the body, and that no hope
of prolonged life remains for the wretches who are
broken down with the burden of piety, they would re-
turn to their own inclinations, controlling everything in
accordance with their lusts, and desiring to obey fortune
rather than themselves. Such a course appears to me
not less absurd than if a man, because he does not be-
lieve that he can by wholesome food sustain his body
for ever, should wish to cram himself with poisons and
deadly fare; or if, because he sees that the mind is not
eternal or immortal, he should prefer to be out of his
mind altogether, and to live without the use of reason;
these ideas are so absurd as to be scarcely worth refuting.

Prop. XLII. Blessedness is not the reward of virtue,
but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because
we control our lusts, but contrariwise, because we rejoice
therein, we are able to control our lusts.

Proof. — Blessedness consists in love toward God (V.
xxxvi. and note), which love springs from the third kind
of knowledge ( V. xxxii. Coroll. ) ; therefore this love ( III.
iii. lix. ) must be referred to the mind, in so far as the
latter is active ; therefore ( IV. Def . viii. ) it is virtue it-
self. This was our first point. Again, in proportion as
the mind rejoices more in this divine love or blessedness,
so does it the more understand ( V. xxxii. ) ; that is ( V.
iii. Coroll. ), so much the more power has it over the
emotions, and ( V. xxxviii. ) so much the less is it sub-
ject to those emotions which are evil; therefore, in pro-
portion as the mind rejoices in this divine love or
blessedness, so has it the power of controlling lusts. And,
since human power in controlling the emotions, consists

278 THE ETHICS

solely in the understanding, it follows that no one re-
joices in blessedness, because he has controlled his lusts,
but, contrariwise, his power of controlling his lusts arises
from this blessedness itself. Q.E.D.

Note. — I have thus completed all I wished to set forth
touching the mind's power over the emotions and the
mind's freedom. Whence it appears, how potent is the
wise man, and how much he surpasses the ignorant man,
who is driven only by his lusts. For the ignorant man
is not only distracted in various ways by external causes
without ever gaining the true acquiescence of his spirit,
but moreover lives, as it were unwitting of himself, and
of God, and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer,
ceases also to be.

Whereas the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as
such, is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being
conscious of himself, and of God, and of things, by a
certain eternal necessity, never ceases to be, but always
possesses true acquiescence of his spirit.

If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this
result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be
discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom
found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready
to our hand, and could without great labor be found,
that it should be by almost all men neglected ? But all
things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER I. (I.*)
Henry Oldenburg to B. de Spinoza.

[Oldenburg, after complimenting Spinoza, asks him to enter into a
philosophical correspondence.]

Illustrious Sir, and Most Worthy Friend, — So pain-
ful to me was the separation from you the other day-
after our meeting in your retreat at Rhijnsburg, that it
is my first endeavor, now that I am returned to Eng-
land, to renew, as far as is possible by correspondence,
my intercourse with you. Solid learning, conjoined with
courtesy and refinement of manners (wherewith both
nature and art have most amply endowed you), carries
with it such charms as to command the love of every
honorable and liberally-educated man. Let us then, most
excellent sir, join hands in sincere friendship, and let us
foster the feeling with every zealous endeavor and kind
office in our power. Whatever my poor means can fur-
nish I beg you to look on as your own. Allow me in
return to claim a share in the riches of your talents, as
I may do without inflicting any loss on yourself.

We conversed at Rhijnsburg of God, of extension, of
infinite thought, of the differences and agreements be-
tween these, of the nature of the connection between the
human soul and body, and further, of the principles of
the Cartesian and Baconian philosophies.

But, as we then spoke of these great questions merely
cursorily and by the way, and as my mind has been not
a little tormented with them since, I will appeal to the

* The number of each letter as arranged in Van Vloten's edition is
given in parentheses.

(279) ^

28o SPINOZA'S [LETTER U.

rights of our newly cemented friendship, and most
affectionately beg you to give me at somewhat greater
length your opinion on the subjects I have mentioned.
On two points especially I ask for enlightenment, if I
may presume so far; first: In what do you place the
true distinction between thought and matter? secondly:
What do you consider to be the chief defects in the Car-
tesian and Baconian philosophies, and how do you think
they might best be removed, and something more sound
substituted ? The more freely you write to me on these
and similar subjects, the more closely will you tie the
bonds of our friendship, and the stricter will be the obli-
gation laid on me to repay you, as far as possible, with
similar services.

There is at present in the press a collection of physio-
logical discourses written by an Englishman of noble
family and distinguished learning.* They treat of the
nature and elasticity of the air, as proved by forty-three
experiments ; also of its fluidity, solidity, and other anal-
ogous matters. As soon as the work is published, I
shall make a point of sending it to you by any friend
who may be crossing the sea. Meanwhile, farewell, and
remember your friend, who is

Yours, in all affection and zeal,

Henry Oldenburg.
London, 16-26 Aug., 1661.

LETTER II. (II.)
Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Answer to Letter I. Spinoza defines «God,>> and << attribute, '^ and
sends definitions, axioms, and first four propositions of Book I.
of Ethics. Some errors of Bacon and Descartes discussed.]

Illustrious Sir, — How pleasant your friendship is to
me, you may yourself judge, if your modesty will allow
you to reflect on the abundance of your own excellences.

* Robert Boyle.

LETTER IL] CORRESPONDENCE 281

Indeed the thought of these makes me seem not a little
bold in entering into such a compact, the more so when
I consider that between friends all things, and especially
things spiritual, ought to be in common. However, this
must lie at the charge of your modesty and kindness
rather than of myself. You have been willing to lower
yourself through the former and to fill me with the
abundance of the latter, till I am no longer afraid to
accept the close friendship, which you hold out to me,
and which you deign to ask of me in return; no effort
on my part shall be spared to render it lasting.

As for my mental endowments, such as they are, I
would willingly allow you to share them, even though I
knew it would be to my own great hindrance. But this
is not meant as an excuse for denying to you what you
ask by the rights of friendship. I will therefore en-
deavor to explain my opinions on the topics you touched
on; though I scarcely hope, unless your kindness inter-
vene, that I shall thus draw the bonds of our friendship
closer.

I will then begin by speaking briefly of God, whom
I define as a Being consisting in infinite attributes,
whereof each is infinite or supremely perfect, after its
kind. You must observe that by attribute I mean every-
thing, which is conceived through itself and in itself, so
that the conception of it does not involve the conception
of anything else. For instance, extension is conceived
through itself and in itself, but motion is not. The lat-
ter is conceived through something else, for the conception
of it implies extension.

That the definition above given of God is true appears
from the fact, that by God we mean a Being supremely
perfect and absolutely infinite. That such a Being exists
may easily be proved from the definition; but as this is
not the place for such proof, I will pass it over. What I
am bound here to prove, in order to satisfy the first inquiry
of my distinguished questioner, are the following conse-
quences : FIRST, that in the universe there cannot exist two
substances without their differing utterly in. essence;
SECONDLY, that substance cannot be produced or created—

282 SPINOZA'S [LETTER II.

existence pertains to its actual essence; thirdly, that all
substance must be infinite or supremely perfect after its kind.

When these points have been demonstrated, my dis-
tinguished questioner will readily perceive my drift, if he
reflects at the same time on the definition of God. In
order to prove them clearly and briefly, I can think of
nothing better than to submit them to the bar of your
judgment proved in the geometrical method.* I therefore
enclose them separately and await your verdict upon
them.

Again, you ask me what errors I detect in the Carte-
sian and Baconian philosophies. It is not my custom to
expose the errors of others, nevertheless I will yield to
your request. The first and the greatest error is, that
these philosophers have strayed so far from the knowledge
of the first cause and origin of all things; the second is,
that they did not know the true nature of the human
mind; the third, that they never grasped the true cause
of error. The necessity for correct knowledge on these
three points can only be ignored by persons completely
devoid of learning and training.

That they have wandered astray from the knowledge
of the first cause, and of the human mind, may easily be
gathered from the truth of the three propositions given
above; I therefore devote myself entirely to the demon-
stration of the third error. Of Bacon I shall say very
little, for he speaks very confusedly on the point, and
works out scarcely any proofs: he simply narrates. In
the first place he assumes that the human intellect is
liable to err, not only through the fallibility of the senses,
but also solely through its own nature, and that it frames
its conceptions in accordance with the analogy of its own
nature, not with the analogy of the universe, so that it is
like a mirror receiving rays from external objects un-
equally, and mingling its own nature with the nature of
things, etc.

Secondly, that the human intellect is, by reason of its
own nature, prone to abstractions; such things as are in
flux it feigns to be constant, etc.

*The allusion is to Eth. I., Beginning — Prop. iv.

LETTER III] CORRESPONDENCE 283

Thirdly, that the human intellect continually aug-
ments, and is unable to come to a stand or to rest con-
tent. The other causes which he assigns may all be
reduced to the one Cartesian principle, that the human
will is free and more extensive than the intellect, or, as
Verulam himself more confusedly puts it, that ** the
understanding is not a dry light, but receives infusion
from the will. '^ (We may here observe that Verulam
often employs " intellect ^^ as synonymous with mind,
differing in this respect from Descartes.) This caiise,
then, leaving aside the others as unimportant, I shall
show to be false; indeed its falsity would be evident to
its supporters, if they would consider, that will in general
differs from this or that particular volition in the same
way as whiteness differs from this or that white object,
or humanity from this or that man. It is, therefore, as
impossible to conceive, that will is the cause of a given
volition, as to conceive that humanity is the cause of
Peter and Paul.

Hence, as will is merely an entity of the reason, and
cannot be called the cause of particular volitions, and as
some cause is needed for the existence of such volitions,
these latter cannot be called free, but are necessarily such
as they are determined by their causes ; lastly, according
to Descartes, errors are themselves particular volitions;
hence it necessarily follows that errors, or, in other words,
particular volitions, are not free, but are determined by
external causes, and in nowise by the will. This is what
I undertook to prove.

LETTER III. (III.)
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg propounds several questions concerning God and his
existence, thought, and the axioms of Eth. I. He also informs
Spinoza of a philosophical society, and promises to send Boyle's
book.]

Most excellent Friend, — Your learned letter has been
delivered to me, and read with great pleasure.

284 SPINOZA'S [LETTER III.

I highly approve of your geometrical method of proof,
but I must set it down to my dullness, that I cannot
follow with readiness what you set forth with such
accuracy. Suffer me, then, I beg, to expose the slow-
ness of my understanding, while I put the following
questions, and beg of you to answer them.

First. Do you clearly and indisputably understand
solely from the definition you have given of God, that
such a Being exists ? For my part, when I reflect that
definitions contain only the conceptions formed by our
minds, and that our mind forms many conceptions of
things which do not exist, and is very fertile in multi-
plying and amplifying what it has conceived, I do not
yet see, that from the conception I have of God I can
infer God's existence. I am able by a mental combina-
tion of all the perfections I perceive in men, in animals,
in vegetables, in minerals, etc., to conceive and to form
an idea of some single substance uniting in itself all
such excellences ; indeed my mind is able to multiply and
augment such excellences indefinitely; it may thus figure
forth for itself a most perfect and excellent Being, but
there would be no reason thence to conclude that such a
Being actually exists.

Secondly. I wish to ask, whether you think it unques-
tionable, that body cannot be limited by thought, or
thought by body; seeing that it still remains undecided,
what thought is, whether it be a physical motion or a
spiritual act quite distinct from body ?

Thirdly. Do you reckon the axioms, which you have
sent to me, as indemonstrable principles known by the
light of nature and needing no proof ? Perhaps the first
is of this nature, but I do not see how the other three
can be placed in a like category. The second assumes
that nothing exists in the universe save substances and
accidents, but many persons would say that time and
place cannot be classed either as one or the other. Your
third axiom, that things having different attributes
HAVE NO QUALITY IN COMMON, is SO far from being clear to
me, that its contrary seems to be shown in the whole uni-
verse. All things known to us agree in certain respects

LETTER III.] CORRESPONDENCE 285

and differ in others. Lastly, your fourth axiom, that

WHEN THINGS HAVE NO QUALITY IN COMMON, ONE CANNOT BE

PRODUCED BY ANOTHER, is not SO plain to my groping in-
telligence as to stand in need of no further illumination.
God has nothing actually in common with created things,
yet nearly all of us believe him to be their cause.

As you see that in my opinion your axioms are not
established beyond all the assaults of doubt, you will
readily gather that the propositions you have based upon
them do not appear to me absolutely firm. The more I
reflect upon them, the more are doubts suggested to my
mind concerning them.

As to the first, I submit that two men are two sub-
stances with the same attribute, inasmuch as both are
rational ; whence I infer that there can be two substances
with the same attribute.

As to the second, I opine that, as nothing can be its
own cause, it is hardly within the scope of our intellect
to pronounce on the truth of the proposition, that sub-
stance CANNOT be produced EVEN BY ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE.

Such a proposition asserts all substances to be self-caused,
and all and each to be independent of one another, thus
making so many gods, and therefore denying the first
cause of all things. This, I willingly confess, I cannot
understand, unless you will be kind enough to explain your
theory on this sublime subject somewhat more fully and
simply, informing me what may be the origin and mode
of production of substances, and the mutual interdepend-
ence and subordination of things. I most strenuously beg
and conjure you by that friendship which we have entered
into, to answer me freely and faithfully on these points;
you may rest assured, that everything which you think fit
to communicate to me will remain untampered with and
safe, for I will never allow anything to become public
through me to your hurt or disadvantage. In our philo-
sophical society we proceed diligently as far as opportu-
nity offers with our experiments and observations, lingering
over the compilation of the history of mechanic arts, with
the idea that the forms and qualities of things can best
be explained from mechanical principles, and that^ all

286 SPINOZA'S [LETTER IV.

natural effects can be produced through motion, shape,
and consistency, without reference to inexplicable forms
or occult qualities, which are but the refuge of ignorance.
I will send the book I promised, whenever the Dutch
Ambassadors send (as they frequently do) a messenger to
the Hague, or whenever some other friend whom I can
trust goes your way. I beg you to excuse my prolixity
and freedom, and simply ask you to take in good part, as
one friend from another, the straightforward and unpol-
ished reply I have sent to your letter, believing me to be
without deceit or affectation,

Yours most faithfully,

Henry Oldenburg.
London, 27 Sept, 1661.

LETTER IV. (IV.)
Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Spinoza answers some of Oldenburg's questions and doubts, but has
not time to reply to all, as he is just setting out for Amsterdam.]

Illustrious Sir: — As I was starting for Amsterdam,
where I intend staying for a week or two, I received your
most welcome letter, and noted the objections you raise
to the three propositions I sent you. Not having time to
reply fully, I will confine myself to these three.

To the first I answer, that not from every definition
does the existence of the thing defined follow, but only
(as I showed in a note appended to the three proposi-
tions) from the definition or idea of an attribute, that is
(as I explained fully in the definition given of God) of
a thing conceived through and in itself. The reason for
this distinction was pointed out, if I mistake not, in the
above-mentioned note sufficiently clear at any rate for
a philosopher, who is assumed to be aware of the differ-
ence between a fiction and a clear and distinct idea, and
also of the truth of the axiom that every definition or
clear and distinct idea is true. When this has been duly

LETTER IV.] CORRESPONDENCE 287

noted, I do not see what more is required for the solu-
tion of your first question.

I therefore proceed to the solution of the second,
wherein you seem to admit that, if thought does not
belong- to the nature of extension, then extension will
not be limited by thought; your doubt only involves the
example given. But observe, I beg, if we say that exten-
sion is not limited by extension but by thought, is not
this the same as saying that extension is not infinite
absolutely, but only as far as extension is concerned, in
other words, infinite after its kind ? But you say : per-
haps thought is a corporeal action: be it so, though I by
no means grant it: you, at any rate, will not deny that
extension, in so far as it is extension, is not thought, and
this is all that is required for explaining my definition
and proving the third proposition.

Thirdly. You proceed to object, that my axioms ought
not to be ranked as universal notions. I will not dispute
this point with you; but you further hesitate as to their
truth, seeming to desire to show that their contrary is
more probable. Consider, I beg, the definition which I
gave of substance and attribute, for on that they all
depend. When I say that I mean by substance that
which is conceived through and in itself; and that I
mean by modification or accident that, which is in some-
thing else, and is conceived through that wherein it is,
evidently it follows that substance is by nature prior to
its accidents. For without the former the latter can
neither be nor be conceived. Secondly, it follows that,
besides substances and accidents, nothing exists really or
externally to the intellect. For everything is conceived
either through itself or through something else, and the
conception of it either involves or does not involve the
conception of something else. Thirdly, it follows that
things which possess different attributes have nothing in
common. For by attribute I have explained that I mean
something, of which the conception does not involve the
conception of anything else. Fourthly, and lastly, it fol-
lows that, if two things have nothing in common, one
cannot be the cause of the other. For, as there would-

288 SPINOZA'S [LETTER V.

be nothing- in common between the effect and the cause,
the whole effect would spring from nothing. As for your
contention that God has nothing actually in common with
created things, I have maintained the exact opposite in
my definition. I said that God is a being consisting of in-
finite attributes, whereof each one is infinite or supremely
perfect after its kind. With regard to what you say con-
cerning my first proposition, I beg you, my friend, to
bear in mind, that men are not created, but born, and
that their bodies already exist before birth, though
under different forms. You draw the conclusion, wherein
I fully concur, that, if one particle of matter be annihi-
lated, the whole of extension would forthwith vanish.
My second proposition does not make many gods but
only one, to wit, a Being consisting of infinite attributes,
etc.

LETTER V. (V.)
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg sends Boyle's book, and laments that Spinoza has not
been able to answer all his doubts.]

Most respected Friend: — Please accept herewith the
book I promised you, and write me in answer your
opinion on it, especially on the remarks about nitre, and
about fluidity, and solidity. I owe you the warmest
thanks for your learned second letter, which I received
to-day, but I greatly grieve that your journey to Amster-
dam prevented you from answering all my doubts. I beg
you will supply the omission, as soon as you have leisure.
You have much enlightened me in your last letter, but
have not yet dispelled all my darkness; this result will,
I believe, be happily accomplished, when you send me
clear and distinct information concerning the first origin
of things. Hitherto I have been somewhat in doubt as
to the cause from which, and the manner in which things
took their origin ; also, as to what is the nature of their
connection with the first cause, if such there be. All

LETTER VII.] CORRESPONDENCE 289

that I hear or read on the subject seems inconclusive.
Do you then, my very learned master, act, as it were, as
my torch-bearer in the matter. You will have no reason
to doubt my confidence and gratitude. Such is the earn-
est petition of Yours most faithfully,

Henry Oldenburg.

LETTER VI. (VI.)

Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Containing detailed criticisms by Spinoza of Robert Boyle's book.]

Omitted.

LETTER Vn. (VII.)

Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[After thanking Spinoza, in the name of himself and Boyle, Olden-
burg mentions the foundation of the Royal Society, and begs his
correspondent to publish his theologfical and philosophical works.]

wfi ^C *|5 ^5 ^5 ^p ^p

The body of philosophers which I formerly mentioned
to you has now, by the king's grace, been constituted as
a Royal Society, and furnished with a public charter,
whereby distinguished privileges are conferred upon it,
and an excellent prospect afforded of endowing it with
the necessary revenues,

I would by all means advise you not to begrudge to
the learned those works in philosophy and theology,
which you have composed with the talent that distin-
guishes you. Publish them, I beg, whatever be the ver-
dict of petty theologians. Your country is free; the
course of philosophy should there be free also. Your own
prudence will, doubtless suggest to you, that your ideas
and opinions should be put forth as quietly as possible.
19

290 SPINOZA'S [LETTER VIII.

For the rest, commit the issue to fortune. Come, then,
good sir, cast away all fear of exciting against you the
pigmies of our time. Long enough have we sacrificecl
to ignorance and pedantry. Let us spread the sails of
true knowledge, and explore the recesses of nature more
thoroughly than heretofore. Your meditations can, I take
it, be printed in your country with impunity; nor need
any scandal among the learned be dreaded because of
them. If these be j'our patrons and supporters (and I
warrant me you will find them so), why should you
dread the carping of ignorance ? I will not let you go,
my honored friend, till I have gained my request; nor
will I ever, so far as in me lies, allow thoughts of such
importance as yours to rest in eternal silence. I earn-
estly beg you to communicate to me, as soon as you
conveniently can, your decision in the matter. Perhaps
events will occur here not unworthy of your knowledge.
The Society I have mentioned will now proceed more
strenuously on its course, and, if peace continues on our
shores, will possibly illustrate the republic of letters
with some extraordinary achievement. Farewell, excel-
lent sir, and believe me.

Your most zealous and friendly,

Henry Oldenburg.

LETTER VIIL (XL)

Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[After further replying to Spinoza's criticisms on Boyle's book, Olden
burg again exhorts his correspondent to publish.]

* 4: !(: 4: « « 4c

I NOW proceed to the question which has arisen between
us. First, permit me to ask you whether you have
finished the important little work, in v/hich you treat
"of the origin of things and their dependence on the
first cause, and of the improvement of our understanding. *
Truly, my dear sir, I believe nothing more pleasing or

LETTER IX.] CORRESPONDENCE 291

acceptable to men of true learning- and discrimination
could possibly be published than such a treatise. This
is what a man of your talent and disposition should look
to, far more than the gratification of theologians of our
time and fashion. The latter have less regard for
truth than for their own convenience, I, therefore,
conjure you, by the bond of our friendship, by every
duty of increasing and proclaiming the truth, not to
begrudge us, or withhold from us your writings on these
subjects. If anything of greater importance than I can
foresee prevents you from publishing the work, I earnestly
charge you to give me a summary of it by letter.

Another book is soon to be published by the learned
Boyle, which I will send you as an exchange. I will add
papers, which will acquaint you with the whole constitu-
tion of our Royal Society, whereof I, with twenty others,
am on the Council, and, with one other, am' Secretary.
I have no time to discourse of any further subjects.
All the confidence which honest intentions can inspire,
all the readiness to serve, which the smallness of my
powers will permit, I pledge to you, and am heartily,

Dear sir, yours wholly,

H. Oldenburg.
London, 3 April, 1663.

LETTER IX. (XIII.)

Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Spinoza informs Oldenburg that he has removed to Rhijnsburg, and
has spent some time at Amsterdam for the purpose of publishing the
« Principles of Cartesian Philosophy. » He then replies to Boyle's
objections.]

Distinguished Sir, — I have at length received your
long wished for letter, and am at liberty to answer it.
' But, before I do so, I will briefly tell you, what has pre-
vented my replying before. When I removed my house-
hold goods here in April, I set out for Amsterdam.
While there certain friends asked me to impart to them
a treatise containing, in brief, the second part of the

292 SPINOZA'S [LETTER IX.

principles of Descartes treated geometrically, together
with some of the chief points treated of in metaphysics,
which I had formerly dictated to a youth, to whom I
did not wish to teach my own opinions openly. They
further requested me, at the first opportunity, to compose
a similar treatise on the first part. Wishing to oblige
m)'- friends, I at once set myself to the task, which I
finished in a fortnight, and handed over to them. They
then asked for leave to print it, which I readily granted
on the condition that one of them should, under my
supervision, clothe it in more elegant phraseology, and
add a little preface warning readers that I do not
acknowledge all the opinions there set forth as my own,
inasmuch as I hold the exact contrary to much that is
there written, illustrating the fact by one or two exam-
ples. All this the friend who took charge of the treatise
promised to do, and this is the cause for my prolonged
stay in Amsterdam. Since I returned to this village, I
have hardly been able to call my time my own, because
of the friends who have been kind enough to visit me.
At last, my dear friend, a moment has come, when I
can relate these occurrences to you, and inform you why
I allow this treatise to see the light. It may be that on
this occasion some of those, who hold the foremost
positions in my country, will be found desirous of seeing
the rest of my writings, which I acknowledge as my
own ; they will thus take care that I am enabled to pub-
lish them without any danger of infringing the laws of
the land. If this be as I think, I shall doubtless publish
at once; if things fall out otherwise, I would rather be
silent than obtrude my opinions on men, in defiance of
my country, and thus render them hostile to me. I
therefore hope, my friend, that you will not chafe at
having to wait a short time longer : you shall then receive
from me either the treatise printed, or the summary of
it which you ask for. If meanwhile you would like to
have one or two copies of the work now in the press, I
will satisfy your wish, as soon as I know of it and of
means to send the book conveniently.

[The rest of the letter is taken up with criticisms on Boyle's book.]

LETTER XIII. A.] CORRESPONDENCE 293

LETTERS X.— XIV.*

[Contain further correspondence concerning Boyle's book, and kin-
dred subjects.]

LETTER Xin.A.
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[The place of this letter is between Letters XIII. and XIV. It was
written apparently in September, 1665. It mentions the plague, which
was then at its height, the war, and the labors of the Royal Society,
and especially of Boyle. Then comes the passage here given. The
letter terminates with references to the comets, and to Huyghens.]

I see that you are engaged not so much in philosophy
as in theology, if I may say so. That is, you are record-
ing your thoughts about angels, prophecy, and miracles,
but you are doing this, perhaps, in a philosophical man-
ner; however that may be, I am certain that the workf
is worthy of you, and that I am most anxious to have it.
Since these most difficult times prevent free intercourse,
I beg at least that you will not disdain to signify to me
in your next letter J your design and aim in this writing
of yours.

Here we are daily expecting news of a second || naval
battle, unless indeed your fleet has retired into port.
Virtue, the nature of which you hint is being discussed
among your friends, belongs to wild beasts not to men.
For if men acted according to the guidance of reason,
they would not so tear one another in pieces, as they

* These letters are numbered by Van Vloten, XIV., XVI., XXV.,
XXVI., XXXI.

fThe «Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.»

X Spinoza's answer to this letter is not extant.

I The English fleet twice defeated the Dutch in 1665, on June 3d.
and Sept. 4th. Secundo perhaps means <* successful, >^ but this hardly
agfrees with Oldenburg's politeness. — [Tr.]

294 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XV.

evidently do. But what is the good of my complaining ?
Vices will exist while men do; but yet they are not
continuous, but compensated by the interposition of better
things.

ilft ^ft Hlf 4t * * *

LETTER XV. (XXXII.)
Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Spinoza writes to his friend concerning the reasons which lead us
to believe, that « every part of nature agrees with the whole, and
is associated with all other parts. >> He also makes a few remarks
about Huyghens. ]

Distinguished Sir, — For the encouragement to pursue
my speculations given me by yourself and the distin-
guished R. Boyle, I return you my best thanks. I pro-
ceed as far as my slender abilities will allow me, with
full confidence in your aid and kindness. When you ask
me my opinion on the question raised concerning our
knowledge of the means, whereby each part of nature
agrees with its whole, and the manner in which it is as-
sociated with the remaining parts, I presume you are
asking for the reasons which induce us to believe, that
each part of nature agrees with its whole, and is asso-
ciated with the remaining parts. For as to the means
whereby the parts are really associated, and each part
agrees with its whole, I told you in my former letter that
I am in ignorance. To answer such a question, we should
have to know the whole of nature and its several parts.
I will therefore endeavor to show the reason, which led
me to make the statement; but I will premise that I do
not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order
or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can
things be called beautiful or deformed, ordered or con-
fused.

By the association of parts, then, I merely mean that
the laws or nature of one part adapt themselves to the
laws or nature of another part, so as to cause the least

LETTER XV.] CORRESPONDENCE 295

possible inconsistency. As to the whole and the parts,
I mean that a given number of things are parts of a
whole, in so far as the nature of each of them is adapted
to the nature of the rest, so that they all, as far as pos-
sible, agree together. On the other hand, in so far as
they do not agree, each of them forms, in our mind, a
separate idea, and is to that extent considered as a whole,
not as a part. For instance, when the parts of lymph,
chyle, etc., combine, according to the proportion of the
figure and size of each, so as to evidently unite, and
form one fluid, the chyle, lymph, etc., considered under
this aspect, are part of the blood; but, in so far as we
consider the particles of lymph as differing in figure
and size from the particles of chyle, we shall consider
each of the two as a whole, not as a part.

Let us imagine, with your permission, a little worm,
living in the blood, able to distinguish by sight the par-
ticles of blood, lymph, etc., and to reflect on the manner
in which each particle, on meeting with another particle,
either is repulsed or communicates a portion of its own
motion. This little worm would live in the blood, in the
same way as we live in a part of the universe, and would
consider each particle of blood, not as a part, but as a
whole. He would be unable to determine how all the parts
are modifled by the general nature of blood, and are com-
pelled by it to adapt themselves, so as to stand in a fixed
relation to one another. For, if we imagine that there
are no causes external to the blood, which could com-
municate fresh movements to it, nor any space beyond
the blood, nor any bodies whereto the particles of blood
could communicate their motion, it is certain that the
blood would always remain in the same state, and its
particles would undergo no modifications, save those which
may be conceived as arising from the relations of motion
existing between the lymph, the chyle, etc. The blood
would then always have to be considered as a whole, not
as a part. But, as there exist, as a matter of fact, very
many causes which modify, in a given manner, the nature
of the blood, and are, in turn, modified thereby, it follows
that other motions and other relations arise in the blood,-

296 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XV.

springing not from the mutual relations of its parts only,
but from the mutual relations between the blood as a whole
and external causes. Thus the blood comes to be re-
garded as a part, not as a whole. So much for the whole
and the part.

All natural bodies can and ought to be considered in the
same way as we have here considered the blood, for all
bodies are surrounded by others, and are mutually deter-
mined to exist and operate in a fixed and definite propor-
tion, while the relations between motion and rest in the
sum total of them, that is, in the whole universe, remain
unchanged. Hence it follows that each body, in so far
as it exists as modified in a particular manner, must be
considered as a part of the whole universe, as agreeing with
the whole, and associated with the remaining parts. As
the nature of the universe is not limited, like the nature of
blood, but is absolutely infinite, its parts are by this nature
of infinite power infinitely modified, and compelled to
undergo infinite variations. But, in respect to substance,
I conceive that each part has a more close union with its
whole. For, as I said in my first letter* (addressed to
you while I was still at Rhijnsburg), substance being
infinite in its nature, f it follows, as I endeavored to show,
that each part belongs to the nature of substance, and
without it, can neither be nor be conceived.

You see, therefore, how and why I think that the human
body is a part of nature. As regards the human mind, I
believe that it also is a part of nature; for I maintain
that there exists in nature an infinite power of thinking,
which, in so far as it is infinite, contains subjectively the
whole of nature, and its thoughts proceed in the same
manner as nature — that is, in the sphere of ideas. Further,
I take the human mind to be identical with this said
power, not in so far as it is infinite and perceives the
whole nature, but in so far as it is finite, and per-
ceives only the human body; in this manner, I maintain
that the human mind is a part of an infinite under-
standing.

* Letter IL
f Ethics, 1. viii.

LETTER XVL] CORRESPONDENCE 297

But to explain, and accurately prove, all these and kin-
dred questions, would take too long; and I do not think
you expect as much of me at present, I am afraid that I
may have mistaken your meaning-, and given an answer
to a different question from that which you asked. Please
inform me on this point.

You write in your last letter, that I hinted that nearly
all the Cartesian laws of motion are false. What I said
was, if I remember rightly, that Huyghens think so ; I
myself do not impeach any of the laws except the sixth,
concerning which I think Huyghens is also in error. I
ask you at the same time to communicate to me the
experiment made according to that hypothesis in your
Royal Society; as you have not replied, I infer that you
are not at liberty to do so. The above-mentioned Huy-
ghens is entirely occupied in polishing lenses. He has
fitted up for the purpose a handsome workshop, in which
he can also construct molds. What will be the result I
know not, nor, to speak the truth, do I greatly care.
Experience has sufficiently taught me, that the free hand
is better and more sure than any machine for polishing
spherical molds. I can tell you nothing certain as yet
about the success of the clocks or the date of Huyghens's
journey to France.

LETTER XVL (XXXIII.)

Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[After some remarks on Spinoza's last letter, and an account of
experiments at the Royal Society and at Oxford, Oldenburg men-
tions a report about the return of the Jews to Palestine.]

****** 41

But I pass on to politics. Every one here is talking of
a report that the Jews, after remaining scattered for
more than two thousand years, are about to return to
their country. Few here believe in it, but many desire

298 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XVII.

it. Please tell your friend what you hear and think on
the matter. For my part, unless the news is confirmed
from trustworthy sources at Constantinople, which is the
place chiefly concerned, I shall not believe it. I should
like to know, what the Jews of Amsterdam have heard
about the matter, and how they are affected by such
important tidings which, if true, would assuredly seem to
harbinger the end of the world. , . . Believe me to be

Yours most zealously,

Henry Oldenburg.
London, S Dec, 1665.

P. S. I will shortly {D.v.) tell you the opinion of our
philosophers on the recent comets.

LETTER XVII. (LXI.)
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg thanks Spinoza for the «Tractatus Theoligico-Politicus *
dispatched but not received, and modifies an adverse verdict
expressed in a former letter (now lost).]

I WAS unwilling to let pass the convenient opportunity
offered me by the journey to Holland of the learned Dr.
Bourgeois, an adherent of the Reformed religion, for
expressing my thanks a few weeks ago for your treatise
forwarded to me, but not yet arrived. But I am doubt-
ful whether my letter was duly delivered. I indicated in
them my opinion on the treatise ; but on deeper and more
careful inspection I now think that my verdict was hasty.
Certain arguments seemed to me to be urged at the ex-
pense of religion, as measured by the standard supplied
by the common run of theologians and the received
formulas of creeds which are evidently biased. But a
closer consideration of the whole subject convinced me,
that you are far from attempting any injury to true
religion and sound philosophy, but, on the contrary,
strive to exalt and establish the true object of the

LETTER XVIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 299

Christian religion and the divine loftiness of fruitful
philosophy.

Now that I believe that this is your fixed purpose, I
would most earnestly beg you to have the kindness to
write frequently and explain the nature of what you are
now preparing and considering with this object to your
old and sincere friend, who is all eager for the happy
issue of so lofty a design. I sacredly promise you that
I will not divulge a syllable to any one, if you enjoin
silence ; I will only endeavor gently to prepare the minds
of good and wise men for the reception of those truths,
which you will some day bring before a wider public,
and I will try to dispel the prejudices, which have been
conceived against your doctrines. Unless I am quite mis-
taken, you have an insight deeper than common into the
nature and powers of the human mind, and its union
with the human body. I earnestly beg you to favor
me with your reflections on this subject. Farewell, most
excellent sir, and favor the devoted admirer of your
teaching and virtue. Henry Oldenburg.

London, 8 June, 1675.*

LETTER XVin. (LXIL)

Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg rejoices at the renewal of correspondence, and alludes to
the five books of the Ethics which Spinoza ( in a letter now lost ) had
announced his intention of publishing.]

Our correspondence being thus happily renewed, I
should be unwilling to fall short of a friend's duty in
the exchange of letters. I understand from your answer
delivered to me on July 5, that you intend to publish
your treatise in five parts. Allow me, I beg, to warn

*The old edition gives the date 8 Oct., 1665, but this is obviously
incorrect, as the «Tractatus Theologico-Politicus » was not published
till 1670.

300 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XIX.

you by the sincerity of your affection for me, not to in-
sert any passages which may seem to discourage the
practice of religion and virtue: especially as nothing is
more sought after in this degenerate and evil age than
doctrines of the kind, which seem to give countenance to
rampant vice.

However, I will not object to receiving a few copies
of the said treatise. I will only ask you that, when the
time arrives, they may be intrusted to a Dutch mer-
chant living in London, who will see that they are for-
warded to me. There is no need to mention, that books
of the kind in question have been sent to me: if they
arrive safely to my keeping, I do not doubt that I can
conveniently dispose of some copies to my friends here
and there, and can obtain a just price for them. Fare-
well, and when you have leisure write to

Yours most zealously,

Henry Oldenburg.

London, 22 July, 1675.

LETTER XIX. (LXVIII.)

Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[Spinoza relates his journey to Amsterdam for the purpose of pub-
lishing his « Ethics »; he was deterred by the dissuasions of theolo-
gians and Cartesians. He hopes that Oldenburg will inform him
of some of the objections to the <<Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,>>
made by learned men, so that they may be answered in notes.]

Distinguished and Illustrious Sir, — When I received
your letter of the 22nd July, I had set out to Amster-
dam for the purpose of publishing the book I had men-
tioned to you. While I was negotiating, a rumor gained
currency that I had in the press a book concerning God,
wherein I endeavored to show that there is no God.
This report was believed by many. Hence certain theo-
logians, perhaps the authors of the rumor, took occasion
to complain of me before the prince and the magistrates;

LETTER XX.] CORRESPONDENCE 301

moreover, the stupid Cartesians, being suspected of
favoring me, endeavored to remove the aspersion by-
abusing everywhere my opinions and writings, a course
which they still pursue. When I became aware of this
through trustworthy men, who also assured me that the
theologians were everywhere lying in wait for me, I
determined to put off publishing till I saw how things
were going, and I proposed to inform you of my inten-
tions. But matters seem to get worse and worse, and I
am still uncertain what to do. Meanwhile I do not like
to delay any longer answering your letter. I will first
thank you heartily for your friendly warning, which I
should be glad to have further explained, so that I may
know, which are the doctrines which seem to you to be
aimed against the practice of religion and virtue. If
principles agree with reason, they are, I take it, also
most serviceable to virtue. Further, if it be not troub-
ling you too much I beg you to point out the passages
in the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus'* which are objected
to by the learned, for I want to illustrate that treatise
with notes, and to remove if possible the prejudices
conceived against it. Farewell,

LETTER XX. (LXXI.)

Oldenburg to Spinoza.

As I SEE from your last letter, the book you propose
to publish is in peril. It is impossible not to approve
your purpose of illustrating and softening down those pas-
sages in the « Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, '* which have
given pain to its readers. First I would call attention to
the ambiguities in your treatment of God and Nature: a
great many people think you have confused the one with
the other. Again, you seem to many to take, away the
authority and value of miracles, whereby alone,. as nearly

302 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXI.

all Christians believe, the certainty of the divine revelation
can be established.

Again, people say that you conceal your opinion con-
cerning- Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world, the
only Mediator for mankind, and concerning his incarna-
tion and redemption : they would like you to give a clear
explanation of what you think on these three subjects.
If you do this and thus give satisfaction to prudent and
rational Christians, I think your affairs are safe. Fare-
well.

London, 15 Nov., 1675.

P.S.' — Send me a line, I beg, to inform me whether
this note has reached you safely.

LETTER XXL (LXXIIL)

Spinoza to Oldenburg.

Distinguished Sir, — I received on Saturday last your
very short letter dated 15th Nov. In it you merely indi-
cate the points in the theological treatise, which have
given pain to readers, whereas I had hoped to learn from
it, what were the opinions which militated against the
practice of religious virtue, and which you formerly
mentioned. However, I will speak on the three subjects
on which you desire me to disclose my sentiments, and
tell you, first, that my opinion concerning God differs
widely from that which is ordinarily defended by modern
Christians. For I hold that God is of all things the
cause immanent, as the phrase is, not transient. I say
that all things are in God and move in God, thus agree-
ing with Paul, and, perhaps, with all the ancient philos-
ophers, though the phraseology may be different; I will
even venture to affirm that I agree with all the ancient
Hebrews, in so far as one may judge from their tradi-
tions, though these are in many ways corrupted. The
supposition of some, that I endeavor to prove in the

LETTER XXL] CORRESPONDENCE 303

** Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ^^ the unity of God and
Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corpo-
real matter), is wholly erroneous.

As regards miracles, I am of opinion that the revela-
tion of God can only be established by the wisdom of
the doctrine, not by miracles, or in other words, by igno-
rance. This I have shown at sufficient length in Chapter
VI. concerning miracles. I will here only add, that I
make this chief distinction between religion and super-
stition, that the latter is founded on ignorance, the
former on knowledge; this, I take it, is the reason why
Christians are distinguished from the rest of the world,
not by faith, nor by charity, nor by the other fruits of
the Holy Spirit, but solely by their opinions, inasmuch
as they defend their cause, like everyone else, by mira-
cles, that is, by ignorance, which is the source of all
malice ; thus they turn a faith, which may be true, into
superstition. Lastly, in order to disclose my opinions on
the third point, I will tell you that I do not think it
necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the
flesh : but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is,
the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself
in all things and especially in the human mind, and above
all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise. For with-
out this no one can come to a state of blessedness,
inasmuch as it alone teaches, what is true or false, good
or evil. And, inasmuch as this wisdom was made espe-
cially manifest through Jesus Christ, as I have said, his
disciples preached it, in so far as it was revealed to them
through him, and thus showed that they could rejoice in
that spirit of Christ more than the rest of mankind.
The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that
God took upon himself human nature, I have expressly
said that I do not understand ; in fact, to speak the truth,
they seem to me no less absurd than would a statement,
that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of a square.
This I think will be sufficient explanation of my opin-
ions concerning the three points mentioned. Whether it
will be satisfactory to Christians you will know better
than L Farewell.

304 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXII.

LETTER XXII. (LXXIV.)
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg wishes to be enlightened concerning the doctrine of fatal-
ism, of which Spinoza has been accused. He discourses on man's
limited intelligence and on the incarnation of the Son of God.]

As YOU seem to accuse me of excessive brevity, I will
this time avoid the charge by excessive prolixity. You
expected, I see, that I should set forth those opinions in
your writings, which seem to discourage the practice of
religious virtue in your readers. I will indicate the mat-
ter which especially pains them. You appear to set up a
fatalistic necessity for all things and actions ; if such is con-
ceded and asserted, people aver, that the sinews of all
laws, of virtue, and of religion, are severed, and that all re-
wards and punishment are vain. Whatsoever can compel,
or involves necessity, is held also to excuse; therefore
no one, they think, can be without excuse in the sight
of God. If we are driven by fate, and all things follow
a fixed and inevitable path laid down by the hard hand
of necessity, they do not see where punishment can come
in. What wedge can be brought for the untying of this
knot, it is very difficult to say. I should much like to
know and learn what help you can supply in the matter.

As to the opinions which you have kindly disclosed to
me on the three points I mentioned, the following in-
quiries suggest themselves. First, In what sense do you
take MIRACLES and ignorance to be synonymous and
equivalent terms, as you appear to think in your last
letter ?

The bringing back of Lazarus from the dead, and the
resurrection from death of Jesus Christ seem to surpass
all the power of created nature, and to fall within the
scope of divine power only; it would not be a sign of
culpable ignorance, that it was necessary to exceed the
limits of finite intelligence confined within certain bounds.
But perhaps you do not think it in harmony with the

LETTER XXIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 305

created mind and science, to acknowledge in the uncre-
ated mind and supreme Deity a science and power capa-
ble of fathoming, and bringing to pass events, whose
reason and manner can neither be brought home nor ex-
plained to us poor human pigmies ? " We are men '* ; it
appears, that we must ^^ think everything human akin to
ourselves. '^

Again, when you say that you cannot understand that
God really took upon himself human nature, it becomes
allowable to ask you, how you understand the texts in
the Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, whereof the
first says, ^* The Word was made flesh, '^ * and the other,
* For verily he took not on him the nature of angels ;
but he took on him the seed of Abraham. '^ f Moreover,
the whole tenor of the Gospel infers, as I think, that
the only begotten Son of God, the Word (who both was
God and was with God), showed himself in. human na-
ture, and by his passion and death offered up the sacri-
fice for our sins, the price of the atonement. What you
have to say concerning this without impugning the truth
of the Gospel and the Christian religion, which I think
you approve of, I would gladly learn.

I had meant to write more, but am interrupted by
friends on a visit, to whom I cannot refuse the duties
of courtesy. But what I have already put on paper is
enough, and will perhaps weary you in your philosophiz-
ing. Farewell, therefore, and believe me to be ever an
admirer of your learning and knowledge.

London, 16 Dec, 1675.

LETTER XXIII. (LXXV.)
Spinoza to Oldenburg.

[ Spinoza expounds to Oldenburg his views on fate and necessity,
discriminates between miracles and ignorance, takes the resurrection of

*John i. 14.
fHeb. ii. i6.
20

3o6 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIII.

Christ as spiritual, and deprecates attributing to the sacred writers
western modes of speech.]

Distinguished Sir: — At last I see what it was that
you begged me not to publish. However, as it forms
the chief foundation of everything in the treatise which
I intended to bring out, I should like briefly to explain
here in what sense I assert that a fatal necessity presides
over all things and actions. God I in no wise subject to
fate: I conceive that all things follow with inevitable
necessity from the nature of God, in the same way as
every one conceives that it follows from God's nature that
God understands himself. This latter consequence all
admit to follow necessarily from the divine nature, yet
no one conceives that God is under the compulsion of any
fate, but that he understands himself quite freely, though
necessarily.

Further, this inevitable necessity in things does away
neither with divine nor human laws. The principles of
morality, whether they receive from God himself the
form of laws or institutions, or whether they do not, are
still divine and salutary; whether we receive the good,
which flows from virtue and the divine love, as from
God in the capacity of a judge, or as from the necessity
of the divine nature, it will in either case be equally
desirable; on the other hand, the evils following from
wicked actions and passions are not less to be feared be-
cause they are necessary consequences. Lastly, in our
actions, whether they be necessary or contingent, we are
led by hope and fear.

Men are only without excuse before God, because they
are in God's power, as clay is in the hands of the potter,
who from the same lump makes vessels, some to honor,
some to dishonor. If you will reflect a little on this,
you will, I doubt not, easily be able to reply to any ob-
jections which may be urged against my opinion, as many
of my friends have already done.

I have taken miracles and ignorance as equivalent terms,
because those, who endeavor to establish God's existence
and the truth of religion by means of miracles, seek to
prove the obscure by what is more obscure and completely

LETTER XXIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 307

unknown, thus introducing a new sort of argument, the
reduction, not to the impossible, as the phrase is, but to
ignorance. But, if I mistake not, I have sufficiently ex-
plained my opinion on miracles in the '' Theologico-Political "
treatise. I will only add here, that if you will reflect on
the facts; that Christ did not appear to the council, nor
to Pilate, nor to any unbeliever, but only to the faithful ;
also that God has neither right hand nor left, but is by
his essence not in a particular spot, but everywhere ; that
matter is everywhere the same ; that God does not mani-
fest himself in the imaginary space supposed to be outside
the world; and lastly, that the frame of the human body
is kept within due limits solely by the weight of the air;
you will readily see that this apparition of Christ is not
unlike that wherewith God appeared to Abraham, when
the latter saw men whom he invited to dine with him.
But, you will say, all the Apostles thoroughly believed,
that Christ rose from the dead and really ascended to
heaven: I do not deny it. Abraham, too, believed that
God had dined with him, and all the Israelites believed
that God descended, surrounded with fire, from heaven to
Mount Sinai, and there spoke directly with them ; whereas,
these apparitions or revelations, and many others like
them, were adapted to the understanding and opinions of
those men, to whom God wished thereby to reveal his
will. I therefore conclude, that the resurrection of Christ
from the dead was in reality spiritual, and that to the
faithful alone, according to their understanding, it was
revealed that Christ was endowed with eternity, and had
risen from the dead (using dead in the sense in which
Christ said, **let the dead bury their dead"*), giving by
his life and death a matchless example of holiness.
Moreover, he to this extent raises his disciples from the
dead, in so far as they follow the example of his own life
and death. It would not be difficult to explain the whole
Gospel doctrine on this hypothesis. Nay, i Cor. ch. xv.
cannot be explained on any other, nor can Paul's argu-
ments be understood : if we follow the common interpre-
tation, they appear weak and can easily be refuted: not
* Matt. viii. 22 ; Luke ix. 60.

3o8 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIV.

to mention the fact, that Christians interpret spiritually
all those doctrines which the Jews accepted literally. I
join with you in acknowledging human weakness. But on
the other hand, I venture to ask you whether we <* human
pigmies *^ possess sufficient knowledge of nature to be able
to lay down the limits of its force and power, or to say
that a given thing surpasses that power ? No one could
go so far without arrogance. We may, therefore, without
presumption explain miracles as far as possible by natural
causes. When we cannot explain them, nor even prove
their impossibility, we may well suspend our judgment
about them, and establish religion, as I have said, solely
by the wisdom of its doctrines. You think that the texts
in John's Gospel and in Hebrews are inconsistent with
what I advance, because you measure oriental phrases by
the standards of European speech; though John wrote his
gospel in Greek, he wrote it as a Hebrew. However this
may be, do you believe, when Scripture says that God
manifested himself in a cloud, or that he dwelt in the
tabernacle, or the temple, that God actually assumed the
nature of a cloud, a tabernacle, or a temple ? Yet the ut-
most that Christ says of himself, that he is the Temple
of God,* because, as I said before, God had specially man-
ifested himself in Christ. John, wishing to express the
same truth more forcibly, said that " the Word was made
flesh." But I have said enough on the subject.

LETTER XXIV. (LXXVII.)
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg returns to the questions of universal necessity, of miracles,
and of the literal and allegorical interpretation of Scripture.]

£U Ttpdrretv.

You hit the point exactly, in perceiving the cause why
I did not wish the doctrine of the fatalistic necessity of

* John ii. 19. Cy. Matt. xxvi. 60; Mark xiv. 58.

LETTER XXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 309

all things to be promulgated, lest the practice of virtue
should thereby be aspersed, and rewards and punishments
become ineffectual. The suggestions in your last letter
hardly seem sufficient to settle the matter, or to quiet the
human mind. For if we men are, in all our actions,
moral as well as natural, under the power of God, like
clay in the hands of the potter, with what face can any
of us be accused of doing this or that, seeing that it was
impossible for him to do otherwise ? Should we not be
able to cast all responsibility on God? Your inflexible
fate, and your irresistible power, compel us to act in a
given manner, nor can we possibly act otherwise. Why,
then, and by what right do you deliver us up to terrible
punishments, which we can in no way avoid, since you
direct and carry on all things through supreme necessity,
according to your good will and pleasure ? When you say
that men are only inexcusable before God, because they
are in the power of God, I should reverse the argument,
and say, with more show of reason, that men are evi-
dently excusable, since they are in the power of God.
Everyone may plead, <<Thy power cannot be escaped
from, O God; therefore, since I could not act otherwise,
I may justly be excused. ^^

Again, in taking miracles and ignorance as equivalent
terms, you seem to bring within the same limits the
power of God and the knowledge of the ablest men;
for God is, according to you, unable to do or pro-
duce anything, for which men cannot assign a
reason, if they employ all the strength of their facul-
ties.

Again, the history of Christ's passion, death, burial,
and resurrection seems to be depicted in such lively and
genuine colors, that I venture to appeal to your con-
science, whether you can believe them to be allegorical,
rather than literal, while preserving your faith in the
narrative ? The circumstances so clearly stated by the
Evangelists seem to urge strongly on our minds, that
the history should be understood literally. I have ven-
tured to touch briefly on these points, and I earnestly
beg you to pardon me, and answer me as a friend with

3IO SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXV.

your usual candor. Mr. Boyle sends you his kind
regards. I will, another time, tell you what the Royal
Society is doing. Farewell, and preserve me in your
affection.

London, 14 Jan., 1676.

LETTER XXV. (LXXVIII.)

Written 7 Feb., 1676.

Spinoza to Oldenburg.

\ Spinoza again treats of fatalism. He repeats that he accepts Christ's
passion, death, and burial literally, but his resurrection spiritually.]

Distinguished Sir, — When I said in my former letter
that we are inexcusable, because we are in the power of
God, like clay in the hands of the potter, I meant to be
understood in the sense that no one can bring a com-
plaint against God for having given him a weak nature,
or infirm spirit. A circle might as well complain to God
of not being endowed with the properties of a sphere, or
a child who is tortured, say, with stone, for not being
given a healthy body, as a man of feeble spirit, because
God has denied to him fortitude, and the true knowledge
and love of the Deity, or because he is endowed with so
weak a nature that he cannot check or moderate his
desires. For the nature of each thing is only competent
to do that which follows necessarily from its given cause.
That every man cannot be brave, and that we can no
more command for ourselves a healthy body than a
healthy mind, nobody can deny, without giving the lie
to experience, as well as to reason. "But,** you urge,
" if men sin by nature, they are excusable " ; but you do
not state the conclusion you draw, whether that God can-
not be angry with them or that they are worthy of
blessedness — that is, of the knowledge and love of God.
If you say the former, I fully admit that God cannot be

LETTER XXV.] CORRESPONDENCE 311

angry, and that all things are done in accordance with
his will; but I deny that all men ought, therefore, to be
blessed — men may be excusable, and, nevertheless, be
without blessedness and afflicted in many ways. A horse
is excusable for being a horse and not a man ; but, never-
theless, he must needs be a horse and not a man. He
who goes mad from the bite of a dog is excusable, yet
he is rightly suffocated. Lastly, he who cannot govern
his desires, and keep them in check with the fear of the
laws, though his weakness may be excusable, yet he can-
not enjoy with contentment the knowledge and love of
God, but necessarily perishes. I do not think it neces-
sary here to remind you, that Scripture, when it says
that God is angry with sinners, and that he is a Judge
who takes cognizance of human actions, passes sentence
on them, and judges them, is speaking humanely, and
in a way adapted to the received opinion of the
masses, inasmuch as its purpose is not to teach phi-
losophy, nor to render men wise, but to make them
obedient.

How, by taking miracles and ignorance as equiva-
lent terms, I reduce God's power and man's knowl-
edge within the same limits, I am unable to discern.

For the rest, I accept Christ's passion, death and burial
literally, as you do, but his resurrection I understand
allegorically. I admit, that it is related by the Evangelists
in such detail, that we cannot deny that they themselves
believed Christ's body to have risen from the dead and
ascended to heaven, in order to sit at the right hand of
God, or that they believed that Christ might have been
seen by unbelievers, if they had happened to be at hand,
in the places where he appeared to his Disciples; but in
these matters they might, without injury to Gospel teach-
ing, have been deceived, as was the case with other
prophets mentioned in my last letter. But Paul, to whom
Christ afterward appeared, rejoices that he knew Christ
not after the flesh, but after the spirit.* Farewell, hon-
orable Sir, and believe me yours in all affection and
zeaJ

* 2 Cor. V. i6

312 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXV. a.

LETTER XXV. A.
Oldenburg to Spinoza.

[Oldenburg adduces further objections against Spinoza's doctrine
of necessity and miracles, and exposes the inconsistency of a partial
allegorization of Scripture.]

To THE most illustrious Master Benedict de Spinoza
Henry Oldenburg sends greetings.

In your last letter,* written to nie on the 7th of Feb-
ruary, there are some points which seem to deserve criti-
cism. You say that a man cannot complain, because
God has denied him the true knowledge of himself, and
strength sufficient to avoid sins ; forasmuch as to the na-
ture of everything nothing is competent, except that
which follows necessarily from its cause. But I say, that
inasmuch as God, the Creator of men formed them after
his own image, which seems to imply in its concept wis-
dom, goodness and power, it appears quite to follow, that
it is more within the sphere of man's power to have a
sound mind than to have a sound body. For phj^sical
soundness of body follows from mechanical causes, but
soundness of mind depends on purpose and design. You
add, that men may be inexcusable, f and yet suffer pain
in many ways. This seems hard at first sight, and what
you add by way of proof, namely, that a dog J mad from
having been bitten is indeed to be excused, but yet is
rightly killed, does not seem to settle the question. For
the killing of such a dog would argue cruelty, were it
not necessary in order to preserve other dogs and ani-
mals, and indeed men, from a maddening bite of the
same kind.

But if God implanted in man a sound mind, as he is
able to do, there would be no contagion of vices to be

* Letter XXV.

t Surely this is a mistake for « excusable. >> — [Tr.]

t See Letter XXV. Oldenburg misunderstands Spinoza's illustra-
tion to mean <<a dog which goes mad from a bite,>> instead of <<he who
goes mad from the bite of a dog. >>

LETTER XXV. A.] CORRESPONDENCE 313

feared. And, surely, it seems very cruel, that God
should devote men to eternal, or at least terrible tempo-
TcLTj, torments, for sins which by them could be no
wise avoided. Moreover, the tenor of all Holy Scripture
seems to suppose and imply, that man can abstain from
sins. For it abounds in denunciations, and promises, in
declarations of rewards and punishments, all of which
seem to militate against the necessity of sinning, and
infer the possibility of avoiding punishment. And if
this were denied, it would have to be said that the
human mind acts no less mechanically than the human
body.

Next, when you proceed to take miracles and ignorance
to be equivalent, you seem to rely on this foundation,
that the creature can and should have perfect insight
into the power and wisdom of the Creator: and that the
fact is quite otherwise, I have hitherto been firmly per-
suaded.

Lastly, where you affirm that Christ's passion, death,
and burial are to be taken literally, but his resurrection
allegorically, you rely, as far as I can see, on no proof
at all. Christ's resurrection seems to be delivered in the
Gospel as literally as the rest. And on this article of
the Resurrection the whole Christian religion and its
truth rest, and with its removal Christ's mission and
heavenly doctrine collapse. It cannot escape you, how
Christ, after he was raised from the dead, labored to
convince his Disciples of the truth of the Resurrection
properly so called. To want to turn all these things
into allegories is the same thing, as if one were to busy
one's self in plucking up the whole truth of the Gospel
history.

These few points I wished again to submit in the
interest of my liberty of philosophizing, which I earnestly
beg you not to take amiss.

Written in London, ii Feb., 1676.

I will communicate with you shortly on the present
studies and experiments of the Royal Society, if God
grant me life and health.

314 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXVI.

LETTER XXVI. (VIII.)
Simon de Vries to Spinoza.

[Simon de Vries. a diligent student of Spinoza's writings and philoso-
phy, describes a club formed for the study of Spinoza's MS. con.
taining some of the matter afterward worked into the Ethics,
and asks questions about the difficulties felt by members of the
club.]

Most Honorable Friend: — I have for a long time
wished to be present with you; but the weather and the
hard winter have not been propitious to me. I sometimes
complain of my lot, in that we are separated from each
other by so long a distance. Happy, yes most happy, is
the fellow-lodger, abiding under the same roof with you,
who can talk with you on the best of subjects, at dinner,
at supper, and during your walks. However, though I
am far apart from you in body, you have been very fre-
quently present to my mind, especially in your writings,
while I read and turn them over. But as they are not all
clear to the members of our club, for which reason we have
begun a fresh series of meetings, and as I would not have
you think me unmindful of you, I have applied my mind
to writing this letter.

As regards our club, the following is its order. One
of us (that is every one by turn) reads through and, as
far as he understands it, expounds and also demonstrates
the whole of your work, according to the sequence and
order of your propositions. Then, if it happens that on
any point we cannot satisfy one another, we have resolved
to make a note of it and write to you, so that, if possi-
ble, it may be made clearer to us, and that we may be
able under your guidance to defend the truth against
those who are superstitiously religious and against the
Christians, and to withstand the attack of the whole
world. Well then, since, when we first read through
and expounded them, the definitions did not all seem
clear to us, we differed about the nature of definition.
Next, in your absence we consulted as our authority a

LETTER XXVI.] CORRESPONDENCE 315

celebrated mathematician, named Borel: for he makes
mention of the nature of definition, axiom, and postu-
late, and adduces the opinions of others on the subject.
But his opinion is as follows : ^^ Definitions are cited in
a demonstration as premises. Wherefore it is necessary,
that they should be accurately known ; otherwise scientific
or accurate knowledge cannot be attained by their means. **
And elsewhere he says. "The primary and. most known
construction or passive quality of a given subject should
not be chosen rashly, but with the greatest care; if the
construction or passive quality be an impossibility, no
scientific definition can be obtained. For instance, if
any one were to say, let two straight lines enclosing a
space be called figurals, the definition would be of non-
existences and impossible: hence ignorance rather than
knowledge would be deduced therefrom. Again, if the
construction or passive quality be possible and true, but
unknown or doubtful to us, the definition will not be
good. For conclusions arising from what is unknown or
doubtful are themselves uncertain or doubtful ; they there-
fore bring about conjecture or opinion, but not certain
knowledge."

Jacquet seems to dissent from this opinion, for he
thinks that one may proceed from a false premise directly
to a true conclusion, as you are aware. Clavius, how-
ever, whose opinion he quotes, thinks as follows : " Defi-
nitions," he says, "are artificial phrases, nor is there any
need in reasoning that a thing should be defined in a
particular way; but it is sufficient that a thing defined
should never be said to agree with another thing, until
it has been shown that its definition also agrees there-
with. »

Thus, according to Borel, the definition of a given
thing should consist, as regards its construction or passive
quality, in something thoroughly known to us and true.
Clavius, on the other hand, holds that it is a matter of
indifference, whether the construction or passive quality
be well known and true, or the reverse ; so long as we
do not assert, that our definition agrees with anything,
before it has been proved.

3i6 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXVI.

I should prefer Borel's opinion to that of Clavius. I
know not which you would assent to, if to either. As
these difficulties have occurred to me with regard to the
nature of definition, which is reckoned among the car-
dinal points of demonstration, and as I cannot free my
mind from them, I greatly desire, and earnestly beg
you, when you have leisure and opportunity, to be kind
enough to send me your opinion on the matter, and at
the same time to .tell me the distinction between axioms
and definitions. Borel says that the difference is merely
nominal, but I believe you decide otherwise.

Further, we cannot make up our minds about the third
definition.* I adduced to illustrate it, what my master
said to me at the Hague, to wit, that a thing may be
regarded in two ways, either as it is in itself, or as it is in
relation to something else; as in the case of the intellect,
for that can be regarded either under the head of
thought or as consisting in ideas. But we do not see
the point of the distinction thus drawn. For it seems to
us, that, if we rightly conceive thought, we must range
it under the head of ideas; as, if all ideas were removed
from it, we should destroy thought. As we find the
illustration of the matter not sufficiently clear, the mat-
ter itself remains somewhat obscure, and we need further
explanation.

Lastly, in the third note to the eighth proposition, the
beginning runs thus : * Hence it is plain that, although
two attributes really distinct be conceived, that is, one
without the aid of the other, we cannot therefore infer,
that they constitute two entities or two different sub-
stances. For it belongs to the nature of substance, that
each of its attributes should be conceived through itself,
though all the attributes it possesses exist simultaneously
in it." Here our master seems to assume, that the nature
of substance is so constituted, that it may have several
attributes. But this doctrine has not yet been proved,
unless you refer to the sixth definition, of absolutely
infinite substance or God. Otherwise, if it be asserted
that each substance has only one attribute, and I have

* The third definition of the «Ethics>\ as they now exist

LETTER XXVII.J CORRESPONDENCE 317

two ideas of two attributes. I may rightly infer that,
where there are two different attributes, there are also
different substances. On this point also we beg you to
give a further explanation. Besides I thank you very
much for your writings communicated to me by P.
Balling, which have greatly delighted me, especially
your note on Proposition XIX.* If I can do you any
service here in anything that is within my power, I am
at your disposal. You have but to let me know. I have
begun a course of anatomy, and am nearly half through
with it; when it is finished, I shall begin a course of
chemistry, and thus under your guidance I shall go
through the whole of medicine. I leave off, and await
your answer. Accept the greeting of

Your most devoted

S. J. DE Vries.
Amsterdam, 24 Feb., 1663.

LETTER XXVII. (IX.)
Spinoza to Simon de Vries.

[Spinoza deprecates his correspondent's jealousy of Albert Burgh ; and
answers that distinction must be made between different kinds of
definitions. He explains his opinions more precisely.]

Respected Friend, — I have received your long wished-
for letter, for which, and for your affection toward me,
I heartily thank you. Your long absence has been no
less grievous to me than to you; yet in the meantime I
rejoice that my trifling studies are of profit to you and
our friends. For thus while you are away, I in my
absence speak to you. You need not envy my fellow-
lodger. There is no one who is more displeasing to me,
nor against whom I have been more anxiously on my
guard; and therefore I would have you and all my ac-
quaintance warned not to communicate my opinions to

* There is no note to « Ethics, » I. xix. As there is nothing to show
what proposition is intended, the old version suppressed the whole pas-
sage from « Besides I thank you » to « medicine. »

31 8 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXVII.

him, except when he has come to maturer years. So far
he is too childish and inconstant, and is fonder of
novelty than of truth. But I hope, that in a few years
he will amend these childish faults. Indeed I am almost
sure of it, as far as I can judge from his nature. And
so his temperament bids me like him.

As for the questions propounded in your club, which
is wisely enough ordered, I see that your difficulties arise
from not distinguishing between kinds of definition: that
is, between a definition serving to explain a thing, of
which the essence only is sought and in question, and a
definition which is put forward only for purposes of inquiry.
The former having a definite object ought to be true, the
latter need not. For instance, if some one asks me for a
description of Solomon's temple, I am bound to give him
a true description, unless I want to talk nonsense with
him. But if I have constructed, in my mind, a temple
which I desire to build, and infer from the description
of it that I must buy such and such a site and so many
thousand stones and other materials, will any sane person
tell me that I have drawn a wrong conclusion because
my definition is possibly untrue ? or will anyone ask me
to prove my definition ? Such a person would simply be
telling me, that I had not conceived that which I had
conceived, or be requiring me to prove, that I had con-
ceived that which I had conceived; in fact, evidently
trifling. Hence a definition either explains a thing, in so
far as it is external to the intellect, in which case it
ought to be true and only to differ from a proposition or
an axiom in being concerned merely with the essences of
things, or the modifications of things, whereas the latter
has a wider scope and extends also to eternal truths. Or
else it explains a thing, as it is conceived or can be con-
ceived by us; and then it differs from an axiom or prop-
osition, inasmuch as it only requires to be conceived
absolutely, and not like an axiom as true. Hence a bad
definition is one which is not conceived. To explain my
meaning, I will take Borel's example — a man saying that
two straight lines enclosing a space shall be called
" figurals. " If the man means by a straight line the same

LETTER XXVII.] CORRESPONDENCE 319

as the rest of the world means by a curved line, his
definition is good (for by the definition would be meant
some such figure as (), or the like); so long as he does
not afterward mean a square or other kind of figure.
But, if he attaches the ordinary meaning to the words
straight line, the thing is evidently inconceivable, and
therefore there is no definition. These considerations are
plainly confused by Borel, to whose opinion you incline.
I give another example, the one you cite at the end of
your letter. If I say that each substance has only one
attribute, this is an unsupported statement and needs
proof. But, if I say that I mean by substance that which
consists in only one attribute, the definition will be good,
so long as entities consisting of several attributes are
afterward styled by some name other than substance.
When you say that I do not prove, that substance (or
being) may have several attributes, you do not perhaps
pay attention to the proofs given. I adduced two: First,
" that nothing is plainer to us, than that every being may
be conceived by us under some attribute, and that the
more reality or essence a given being has, the more attri-
butes may be attributed to it. Hence a being absolutely
infinite must be defined, etc. '^ Secondly, and I think this
is the stronger proof of the two, "the more attributes I
assign to any being, the more am I compelled to assign
to it existence ; '^ in other words, the more I conceive it
as true. The contrary would evidently result if I were
feigning a chimera or some such being.

Your remark that you cannot conceive thought except
as consisting in ideas, because, when ideas are removed,
thought is annihilated, springs, I think, from the fact
that while you a thinking thing, do as you say, you ab-
stract all your thoughts and conceptions. It is no mar-
vel that, when you have abstracted all your thoughts and
conceptions, you have nothing left for thinking with. On
the general subject, I think I have shown sufficiently
clearly and plainly, that the intellect, although infinite,
belongs to nature regarded as passive rather than nature
regarded as active ( ad naturam naturatam, non vero ad
naturam naturantem).

320 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXVIII.

However, I do not see how this helps toward under-
standing the third definition, nor what difficulty the lat-
ter presents. It runs, if I mistake not, as follows : *' By
substance I mean that, which is in itself and is con-
ceived through itself; that is, of which the conception does
not involve the conception of anything else. By attribute I
mean the same thing; except that it is called attribute
with respect to the understanding, which attributes to
substance the particular nature aforesaid.^* This defini-
tion, I repeat, explains with sufficient clearness what I
wish to signify by substance or attribute. You desire,
though there is no need, that I should illustrate by an
example, how one and the same thing can be stamped
with two names. In order not to seem miserly, I will
give you two. First, I say that by Israel is meant the
third patriarch; I mean the same by Jacob, the name
Jacob being given, because the patriarch in question had
caught hold of the heel of his brother. Secondly, by a
colorless surface I mean a surface, which reflects all
rays of light without altering them. I mean the same
by a white surface, with this difference, that a surface
is called white in reference to a man looking at it, etc.

LETTER XXVIII. (X.)

Spinoza to Simon de Vries.

[Spinoza, in answer to a letter from De Vries now lost, speaks of the
experience necessary for proving a definition, and also of eternal
truths.]

Respected Friend, — You ask me if we have need of
experience, in order to know whether the definition of
a given attribute is true. To this I answer that we never
need experience, except in cases when the existence of
the thing cannot be inferred from its definition, as, for
instance, the existence of modes (which cannot be inferred
from their definition) ; experience is not needed, when the
existence of the things in question is not distinguished from

LETTER XXIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 321

their essence, and is therefore inferred from their defini-
tion. This can never be taught us by any experience,
for experience does not teach us any essences of things;
the utmost it can do is to set our mind thinking about
definite essences only. Wherefore, when the existence of
attributes does not differ from their essence, no experi-
ence is capable of attaining it for us.

To your further question, whether things and their
modifications are eternal truths, I answer; Certainly. If
you ask me, why I do not call them eternal truths, I
answer, in order to distinguish them, in accordance with
general usage, from those propositions, which do not make
manifest any particular thing or modification of a thing;
for example, nothing comes from nothing. These and
such like propositions are, I repeat, called eternal truths
simply, the meaning merely being, that they have no
standpoint external to the mind, etc.

LETTER XXIX. (XII.)

Spinoza to L. M. (Lewis Meyer).

Dearest Friend, — I have received two letters from
you, one dated Jan. 11, delivered to me by our friend,
N. N., the other dated March 26, sent by some unknown
friend to Leyden. They were both most welcome to me,
especially as I gathered from them, that all goes well
with you, and that you are often mindful of me. I also
owe and repay you the warmest thanks for the courtesy
and consideration, with which you have always been kind
enough to treat me: I hope you will believe, that I am
in no less degree devoted to you, as, when occasion offers,
I will always endeavor to prove, as far as my poor powers
will admit. As a first proof, I will do my best to answer
the questions you ask in your letters. You request me
to tell you, what I think about the Infinite; I will most
readily do so.
21

322 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIX.

Everyone regards the question of the Infinite as most
difficult, if not insoluble, through not making a distinc-
tion between that which must be infinite from its very-
nature, or in virtue of its definition, and that which has
no limits, not in virtue of its essence, but in virtue of
its cause; and also through not distinguishing between
that which is called infinite, because it has no limits, and
that, of which the parts cannot be equalled or expressed
by any number, though the greatest and least magnitude
of the whole may be known; and, lastly, through not
distinguishing between that, which can be understood
but not imagined, and that which can also be imagined.
If these" distinctions, I repeat, had been attended to,
inquirers would not have been overwhelmed with such
a vast crowd of difficulties. They would then clearly
have understood, what kind of infinite is indivisible and
possesses no parts; and what kind, on the other hand,
may be divided without involving a contradiction in
terms. They would further have understood, what kind
of infinite may, without solecism, be conceived greater
than another infinite, and what kind cannot be so con-
ceived. All this will plainly appear from what I am
about to say.

However, I will first briefly explain the terms substance,

MODE, ETERNITY, and DURATION.

The points to be noted concerning substance are these :
First, that existence appertains to its essence; in other
words, that solely from its essence and definition its
existence follows. This, if I remember rightly, I have
already proved to you by word of mouth, without the
aid of any other propositions. Secondly, as a conse-
quence of the above, that substance is not manifold,
but single: there cannot be two of the same nature.
Thirdly, every substance must be conceived as in-
finite.

The modifications of substance I call modes. Their defi-
nition, in so far as it is not identical with that of sub-
stance, cannot involve any existence. Hence, though they
exist, we can conceive them as non-existent. From this
it follows, that, when we are regarding only the essence

LETTER XXIX.] CORRESPONDENCE

323

of modes, and not the order of the whole of nature, we
cannot conclude from their present existence, that they
will exist or not exist in the future, or that they have
existed or not existed in the past; whence it is abund-
antly clear, that we conceive the existence of substance
as entirely different from the existence of modes.
From this difference arises the distinction between
ETERNITY and DURATION. DURATION is ouly applicable to
the existence of modes; eternity is applicable to the
existence of substance, that is, the infinite faculty of ex-
istence or being {infinitum existendi sive — invitd Latini-
tate — essendi fruitionent) .

From what has been said it is quite clear that when,
as is most often the case, we are regarding only the es-
sence of modes and not the order of nature, we may
freely limit the existence and duration of modes without
destroying the conception we have formed of them; we
may conceive them as greater or less, or may divide
them into parts. Eternity and substance, being only
conceivable as infinite, cannot be thus treated without our
conception of them being destroyed. Wherefore it is mere
foolishness, or even insanity, to say that extended sub-
stance is made up of parts or bodies really distinct from
one another. It is as though one should attempt by the
aggregation and addition of many circles to make up a
square, or a triangle, or something of totally different es-
sence. Wherefore the whole heap of arguments, by which
philosophers commonly endeavor to show that extended
substance is finite, falls to the ground by its own weight.
For all such persons suppose, that corporeal substance is
made up of parts. In the same way, others who have
persuaded themselves that a line is made up of points,
have been able to discover many arguments to show that
a line is not infinitely divisible. If you ask, why we are
by nature so prone to attempt to divide extended sub-
stance, I answer, that quantity is conceived by us in two
ways, namely, by abstraction or superficially, as we
imagine it by the aid of the senses, or as substance,
which can only be accomplished through the understand-
ing. So that, if we regard quantity as it exists in the

324 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIX.

imagination (and this is the more frequent and easy
method), it will be found to be divisible, finite, com-
posed of parts, and manifold. But, if we regard it as it
is in the understanding, and the thing be conceived as it is
in itself (which is very difficult), it will then, as I have
sufficiently shown you before, be found to be infinite, in-
divisible, and single.

Again, from the fact that we can limit duration and
quantity at our .pleasure, when we conceive the latter
abstractedly as apart from substance, and separate the
former from the manner whereby it flows from things
eternal, there arise time and measure; time for the pur-
pose of limiting duration, measure for the purpose of
limiting quantity, so that we may, as far as is possible,
the more readily imagine them. Further, inasmuch as
we separate the modifications of substance from substance
itself, and reduce them to classes, so that we may, as
far as is possible, the more readily imagine them, there
arises number, whereby we limit them. Whence it is
clearly to be seen, that measure, time, and number, are
merely modes of thinking, or, rather, of imagining. It
is not to be wondered at, therefore, that all who have
endeavored to understand the course of nature, by means
of such notions, and without fully understanding even
them, have entangled themselves so wondrously, that they
have at last only been able to extricate themselves by
breaking through every rule and admitting absurdities
even of the grossest kind. For there are many things
which cannot be conceived through the imagination but
only through the understanding, for instance, substance,
eternity, and the like; thus, if any one tries to explain
such things by means of conceptions which are mere aids
to the imagination, he is simply assisting his imagination
to run away with him. Nor can even the modes of sub-
stance ever be rightly understood, if we confuse them
with entities of the kind mentioned, mere aids of the
reason or imagination. In so doing we separate them
from substance, and the mode of their derivation from
eternity, without which they can never be rightly under-
stood. To make the matter yet more clear, take the

LETTER XXIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 325

following example: when a man conceives of duration
abstractedly, and, confusing it with time, begins to divide
it into parts, he will never be able to understand how
an hour, for instance, can elapse. For in order that an
hour should elapse, it is necessary that its half should
elapse first, and afterward half of the remainder, and
again half of the half of the remainder, and if you go
on thus to infinity, subtracting the half of the residue,
you will never be able to arrive at the end of the hour.
Wherefore many, who are not accustomed to distinguish
abstractions from realities, have ventured to assert that
duration is made up of instants, and so in wishing to
avoid Charybdis have fallen into Scylla. It is the same
thing to make up duration out of instants, as it is to
make number simply by adding up naughts.

Further, as it is evident from what has been said, that
neither number, nor measure, nor time, being mere aids
to the imagination, can be infinite ( for, otherwise, num-
ber would not be number, nor measure measure, nor
time time ) ; it is hence abundantly evident, why many
who confuse these three abstractions with realities, through
being ignorant of the true nature of things, have actu-
ally denied the Infinite.

The wretchedness of their reasoning may be judged by
mathematicians, who have never allowed themselves to
be delayed a moment by arguments of this sort, in the
case of things which they clearly and distinctly perceive.
For not only have they come across many things, which
cannot be expressed by number (thus showing the in-
adequacy of number for determining all things ) ; but also
they have found many things, which cannot be equalled
by any number, but surpass every possible number. But
they infer hence, that such things surpass enumeration,
not because of the multitude of their component parts,
but because their nature cannot, without manifest con-
tradiction, be expressed in terms of number. As, for
instance, in the case of two circles, non-concentric,
whereof one incloses the other, no number can express
the inequalities of distance which exist between the two
circles, nor all the variations which matter in motion in

326 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIX.

the intervening space may tinderg-o. This conclusion is
not based on the excessive size of the intervening space.
However small a portion of it we take, the inequalities
of this small portion will surpass all numerical expression.
Nor, again, is the conclusion based on the fact, as in
other cases, that we do not know the maximum and the
minimum of the said space. It springs simply from the
fact, that the nature of the space between two non-con-
centric circles cannot be expressed in number. There-
fore, he who would assign a numerical equivalent for the
inequalities in question, would be bound, at the same
time, to bring about that a circle should not be a cir-
cle.

The same result would take place — to return to my
subject — if one were to wash to determine all the motions
undergone by matter up to the present, by reducing them
and their duration to a certain number and time. This
would be the same as an attempt to deprive corporeal sub-
stance, which we cannot conceive except as existent, of
its modifications, and to bring about that it should not
possess the nature which it does possess. All this I could
clearly demonstrate here, together with many other points
touched on in this latter, but I deem it superfluous.

From all that has been said, it is abundantly evident
that certain things are in their nature infinite, and can
by no means be conceived as finite ; whereas there are
other things, infinite in virtue of the cause from which
they are derived, which can, when conceived abstractedly,
be divided into parts, and regarded as finite. Lastly,
there are some which are called infinite or, if you prefer,
indefinite, because they cannot be expressed in number,
which may yet be conceived as greater or less. It does
not follow that such are equal, because they are alike
incapable of numerical expression. This is plain enough,
from the example given, and many others.

Lastly, I have put briefly before you the causes of error
and confusion, which have arisen concerning the question
of the infinite. I have, if I mistake not, so explained
them that no question concerning the infinite remains
untreated, or cannot readily be solved from what I have

LETTER XXIX.A.] CORRESPONDENCE 327

said; wherefore, I do not think it worth while to detain
you longer on the matter.

But I should like it first to be observed here, that the
later Peripatetics have, I think, misunderstood the proof
given by the Ancients who sought to demonstrate the
existence of God. This, as I find it in a certain Jew
named Rabbi Ghasdai, runs as follows: "If there be an
infinite series of causes, all things which are, are caused.
But nothing which is caused can exist necessarily in virtue
of its own nature. Therefore, there is nothing in nature,
to whose essence existence necessarily belongs. But this
is absurd. Therefore, the premise is absurd also. ^^ Hence
the force of the argument lies not in the impossibility
of an actual infinite or an infinite series of causes; but
only in the absurdity of the assumption that things, which
do not necessarily exist by nature, are not conditioned
for existence by a thing, which does by its own nature
necessarily exist.

I would now pass on, for time presses, to your
second letter: but I shall be able more conveniently to
reply to its contents, when you are kind enough to pay
me a visit. I therefore beg that you will come as soon
as possible; the time for traveling is at hand. Enough.
Farewell, and keep in remembrance.

Yours, etc.

Rhijnsburg, 20 April, 1663.

LETTER XXIX.A.

Spinoza to Lewis Meyer.

Dear Friend, — The preface you sent me by our friend
De Vries, I now send back to you by the same hand.
Some few things, as you will see, I have marked in the
margin; but yet a few remain, which I have judged it
better to mention to you by letter. First, where on page
4 you give the reader to know on what occasion I com-
posed the first part; I would have you likewise explain

328 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXIX. a.

there, or where you please, that I composed it within a
fortnight. For when this is explained none will suppose
the exposition to be so clear as that it cannot be bet-
tered, and so they will not stick at obscurities in this
and that phrase on which they may chance to stumble.
Secondly, I would have you explain, that when I prove
many points otherwise than they be proved by Descartes,
'tis not to amend Descartes, but the better to preserve
my order, and not to multiply axioms overmuch: and
that for this same reason I prove many things which by
Descartes are barely alleged without any proof, and must
needs add other matters which Descartes let alone.
Lastly, I will earnestly beseech you, as my especial
friend, to let be everything you have written toward
the end against that creature, and wholly strike it out.
And though many reasons determine me to this request,
I will give but one. I would fain have all men readily
believe that these matters are published for the common
profit of the world, and that your sole motive in bring-
ing out the book is the love of spreading the truth; and
that it is accordingly all your study to make the work
acceptable to all, to bid men, with all courtesy to the
pursuit of genuine philosophy, and to coubult their com-
mon advantage. Which every man will be ready to
think when he sees that no one is attacked, nor anything
advanced where any man can find the least offense.
Notwithstanding, if afterward the person you know of,
or any other, be minded to display his ill-will, then you
may portray his life and character, and gain applause by
it. So I ask that you will not refuse to be patient thus
far, and suffer yourself to be entreated, and believe me
wholly bounden to you, and

Yours with all affection

B. DE Spinoza.
VooRBURG, Aug. 3, 1663.

Our friend De Vries had promised to take this with him ;
but seeing he knows not when he will return to you, I
send it by another hand.

Along with this I send you part of the scholium to
Prop, xxvii. Part II. where page 75 begins, that you

LETTER XXX.J CORRESPONDENCE 329

may hand it to the printer to be reprinted. The matter
I send you must of necessity be reprinted, and fourteen
or fifteen lines added, which may easily be inserted.

LETTER XXX. (XVII.)
Spinoza to Peter Balling.

[Concerning omens and phantoms. The mind may have a confused
presentiment of the future.]

Beloved Friend, — Your last letter, written, if I mistake
not, on the 26th of last month, has duly reached me. It
caused me no small sorrow and solicitude, though the
feeling sensibly diminished when I reflected on the good
sense and fortitude, with which you have known how to
despise the evils of fortune, or rather of opinion, at a
time when they most bitterly assailed you. Yet my
anxiety increases daily; I therefore beg and implore you
by the claims of our friendship, that you will rouse your-
self to write me a long letter. With regard to Omens,
of which you make mention in telling me that, while
your child was still healthy and strong, you heard groans
like those he uttered when he was ill and shortly after-
ward died, I should judge that these were not real
groans, but only the effect of your imagination; for you
say that, when you got up and composed yourself to listen,
you did not hear them so clearly either as before or as
afterward, when you had fallen asleep again. This, I
think, shows that the groans were purely due to the im-
agination, which, when it was unfettered and free, could
imagine groans more forcibly and vividly than when you
sat up in order to listen in a particular direction. I think I
can both illustrate and confirm what I say by another oc-
currence, which befell me at Rhijnsburg last winter. When
one morning, after the day had dawned, I woke up from a
very unpleasant dream, the images, which had presented
themselves to me in sleep, remained before my eyes just
as vividly as though the things had been real, especially

330 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXX.

the image of a certain black and leprous Brazilian whom
I had never seen before. This image disappeared for
the most part when, in order to divert my thoughts, I
cast my eyes on a book, or something else. But, as soon
as I lifted my eyes again without fixing my attention on
any particular object, the same image of this same negro
appeared with the same vividness again and again, until
the head of it gradually vanished. I say that the same
thing which occurred with regard to my inward sense
of sight, occurred with your hearing; but as the causes
were very different, your case was an omen and mine
was not. The matter may be clearly grasped by means
of what I am about to say. The effects of the imagina-
tion arise either from bodily or mental causes. I will
proceed to prove this, in order not to be too long, solely
from experience. We know that fevers and other bodily
ailments are the causes of delirium, and that persons of
stubborn disposition imagine nothing but quarrels, brawls,
slaughterings, and the like. We also see that the imagin-
ation is to a certain extent determined by the character
of the disposition, for, as we know by experience, it
follows in the tracks of the understanding in every
respect, and arranges its images and words, just as the
understanding arranges its demonstrations and connects
one with another; so that we are hardly at all able to
say what will not serve the imagination as a basis for
some image or other. This being so, I say that no
effects of imagination springing from physical causes can
ever be omens of future events ; inasmuch as their causes
do not involve any future events. But the effects of
imagination, or images originating in the mental dispo-
sition, may be omens of some future event; inasmuch as
the mind may have a confused presentiment of the
future. It may, therefore, imagine a future event as
forcibly and vividly, as though it were present; for
instance a father (to take an example resembling your
own ) loves his child so much that he and the beloved
child are, as it were, one and the same. And since (like
that which I demonstrated on another occasion) there
must necessarily exist in thought the idea of the essence

LETTER XXXL] CORRESPONDENCE 331

of the child's states and their results, and since the
father, through his union with his child, is a part of the
said child, the soul of the father must necessarily par-
ticipate in the ideal essence of the child and his states,
and in their results, as I have shown at greater length
elsewhere.

Again, as the soul of the father participates ideally in
the consequences of his child's essence, he may (as I
have said) sometimes imagine some of the said conse-
quences as vividly as if they were present with him,
provided that the following conditions are fulfilled: I.
If the occurrence in his son's career be remarkable. II.
If it be capable of being readily imagined. III. If the
time of its happening be not too remote. IV. If his
body be sound, in respect not only of health but of free-
dom from every care or business which could outwardly
trouble the senses. It may also assist the result, if we
think of something which generally stimulates similar
ideas. For instance, if while we are talking with this or
that man we hear groans, it will generally happen that,
when we think of the man again, the groans heard when
we spoke with him will recur to our mind. This, dear
friend, is my opinion on the question you ask me. I
have, I confess, been very brief, but I have furnished
you with material for writing to me on the first oppor-
tunity, etc.

VooRBURG, 20 July, 1664.

LETTER XXXL (XVIII.)
William de Blyenbergh to Spinoza.

Unknown Friend and Sir, — I have already read sev-
eral times with attention your treatise and its appendix
recently published. I should narrate to others more be-
comingly than to yourself the extreme solidity I found

332 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXI.

in it, and the pleasure with which I perused it. But I
am unable to conceal my feelings from you, because the
more frequently I study the work with attention, the
more it pleases me, and I am constantly observing some-
thing which I had not before remarked. However, I
will not too loudly extol its author, lest I should seem
in this letter to be a flatterer. I am aware that the gods
grant all things to labor. Not to detain you too long
with wondering who I may be, and how it comes to pass
that one unknown to you takes the great liberty of writ-
ing to you, I will tell you that he is a man who is im-
pelled by his longing for pure and unadulterated truth,
and desires during this brief and frail life to fix his feet
in the ways of science, so far as our human faculties
will allow; one who in the pursuit of truth has no goal
before his eyes save truth herself; one who by his sci-
ence seeks to obtain as the result of truth neither honor
nor riches, but simple truth and tranquillity; one who,
out of the whole circle of truths and sciences, takes de-
light in none more than in metaphysics, if not in all
branches at any rate in some; one who places the whole
delight of his life in the fact, that he can pass in the
study of them his hours of ease and leisure. But no one,
I rest assured, is so blessed as yourself, no one has car-
ried his studies so far, and therefore no one has arrived
at the pitch of perfection which, as I see from your work,
you have attained. To add a last word, the present writer
is one with whom you may gain a closer acquaintance,
if you choose to attach him to you by enlightening
and interpenetrating, as it were, his halting medita-
tions.

But I return to your treatise. While I found in it many
things which tickled my palate vastly, some of them
proved difficult to digest. Perhaps a stranger ought not
to report to you his objections, the more so as I know
not whether they will meet with your approval. This is
the reason for my making these prefatory remarks, and
asking you, if you can find leisure in the winter evenings,
and, at the same time, will be willing to answer the diffi-
culties which I still find in your book, and to forward me

LETTER XXXI.] CORRESPONDENCE 333

the result, always under the condition that it does not
interrupt any occupation of greater importance or pleas-
ure ; for I desire nothing more earnestly than to see the
promise made in your book fulfilled by a more detailed
exposition of your opinions. I should have communicated
to you by word of mouth what I now commit to paper;
but my ignorance of your address, the infectious disease,*
and my duties here, prevented me. I must defer the
pleasure for the present.

However, in order that this letter may not be quite
empty, and in the hope that it will not be displeasing to
you, I will ask you one question. You say in various
passages in the «Principia," and in the "Metaphysical
Reflections,^^ either as your own opinion, or as explain-
ing the philosophy of Descartes, that creation and pre-
servation are identical (which is, indeed, so evident to
those who have considered the question as to be a
primary notion) ; secondly, that God has not only created
substances, but also motions in substances — in other
words, that God, by a continuous act of creation preserves,
not only substances in their normal state, but also the
motion and the endeavors of substances. God, for in-
stance, not only brings about by his immediate will and
working (whatever be the term employed), that the soul
should last and continue in its normal state; but he is
also the cause of his will determining, in some way, the
movement of the soul — in other words, as God, by a
continuous act of creation, brings about that things
should remain in existence, so is he also the cause of
the movements and endeavors existing in things. In
fact, save God, there is no cause of motion. It therefore
follows that God is not only the cause of the substance
of mind, but also of every endeavor or motion of mind,
which we call volition, as you frequently say. From this
statement it seems to follow necessarily, either that there
is no evil in the motion or volition of the mind, or else

* The plague, which had prevailed on the Continent during 1664,
was introduced into London in the very month in which this letter
was written, perhaps from Holland.

334 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXI.

that God directly brings about that evil. For that which
we call evil comes to pass through the soul, and, conse-
quently, through the immediate influence and concurrence
of God. For instance, the soul of Adam wishes to eat
of the forbidden fruit. It follows from what has been
said above, not only that Adam forms his wish through
the influence of God, but also, as will presently be shown,
that through that influence he forms it in that particular
manner. Hence, either the act forbidden to Adam is not
evil, inasmuch as God himself not only caused the wish,
but also the manner of it, or else God directly brought
about that which we call evil. Neither you nor Descartes
seem to have solved this difficulty by saying that evil is
a negative conception, and that, as such, God cannot
bring it about. Whence, we may ask, came the wish to
eat the forbidden friiit, or the wish of devils to be equal
with God ?

For since (as you justly observe) the will is not some-
thing different from the mind, but is only an endeavor
or movement of the mind, the concurrence of God is as
necessary to it as to the mind itself. Now the concur-
rence of God, as I gather from your writings, is merely
the determining of a thing in a particular manner through
the will of God. It follows that God concurs no less in
an evil wish, in so far as it is evil, than in a good wish
in so far as it is good, in other words he determines it.
For the will of God being the absolute cause of all that
exists, either in substance or in effort, seems to be also
the primary cause of an evil wish, in so far as it is evil.
Again, no exercise of volition takes place in us, that God
has not known from all eternity. If we say that God
does not know of a particular exercise of volition, we
attribute to him imperfection. But how could God gain
knowledge of it except from his decrees ? Therefore
his decrees are the cause of our volitions, and hence it
seems also to follow that either an evil wish is not evil,
or else that God is the direct cause of the evil and brings
it about. There is no room here for the theological dis-
tinction between an act and the evil inherent in that act.
For God decrees the mode of the act no less than the

LETTER XXXII.] CORRESPONDENCE 335

act, that is, God not only decreed that Adam should eat,
but also that he should necessarily eat contrary to the
command given. Thus it seems on all sides to follow,
either that Adam's eating contrary to the command was
not an evil, or else that God himself brought it to
pass.

These, illustrious sir, are the questions in your treatise,
which I am unable at present, to elucidate. Either alter-
native seems to me difficult of acceptance. However, I
await a satisfactory answer from your keen judgment
and learning, hoping to show you hereafter how deeply
indebted I shall be to you. Be assured, illustrious sir,
that I put these questions from no other motive than the
desire for truth. I am a man of leisure, not tied to any
profession, gaining my living by honest trade, and devot-
ing my spare time to questions of this sort. I humbly
hope that my difficulties will not be displeasing to you.
If you are minded to send an answer, as I most ardently
hope, write to, etc, William de Blyenbergh.

Dordrecht, 12 Dec, 1664.

LETTER XXXII. (XIX.)
Spinoza to Blyenbergh.

[Spinoza answers with his usual courtesy the question propounded by

Blyenbergh.]

Unknown Friend, — I received, at Schiedam, on the
26th of December, your letter dated the 12th of Decem-
ber, inclosed in another written on the 24th of the same
month. I gather from it your fervent love of truth, and
your making it the aim of all your studies. This com-
pelled me, though by no means otherwise unwilling, not
only to grant your petition by answering all the questions
you have sent, or may in future send, to the best of
my ability, but also to impart to you everything in my
power, which can conduce to further knowledge and sincere-

336 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXII.

friendship. So far as in me lies, I value, above all other
things out of my own control, the joining hands of friend-
ship with men who are sincere lovers of truth. I believe
that nothing in the world, of things outside our own con-
trol, brings more peace than the possibility of affectionate
intercourse with such men; it is just as impossible that
the love we bear them can be disturbed (inasmuch as it
is founded on the desire each feels for the knowledge of
truth), as that truth once perceived should not be assented
to. It is, moreover, the highest and most pleasing source
of happiness derivable from things not under our own
control. Nothing save truth has power closely to unite
different feelings and dispositions. I say nothing of the
very great advantages which it brings, lest I should detain
you too long on a subject which, doubtless, you know
already, I have said thus much, in order to show you
better how gladly I shall embrace this and any future
opportunity of serving you.

In order to make the best of the present opportunity,
I will at once proceed to answer your question. This
seems to turn on the point "that it seems to be clear,
not only from God's providence, which is identical with
his will, but also from God's co-operation and continu-
ous creation of things, either that there are no such
things as sin or evil, or that God directly brings sin and
evil to pass.'* You do not, however, explain what you
mean by evil. As far as one may judge from the ex-
ample you give in the predetermined act of volition of
Adam, you seem to mean by evil the actual exercise of
volition, in so far as it is conceived as predetermined in
a particular way, or in so far as it is repugnant to the
command of God. Hence you conclude ( and I agree with
you if this be what you mean ) that it is absurd to adopt
either alternative, either that God brings to pass any-
thing contrary to his own will, or that what is contrary
to God's will can be good.

For my own part, I cannot admit that sin and evil
have any positive existence, far less that anything can
exist, or come to pass, contrary to the will of God. On the
contrary, not only do I assert that sin has no positive

LETTER XXXII. ] CORRESPONDENCE 337

existence, I also maintain that only in speaking improperly,
or humanly, can we say that we sin against God, as in
the expression that men offend God.

As to the first point, we know that whatsoever is, when
considered in itself without regard to anything else, pos-
sesses perfection, extending in each thing as far as the
limits of that thing's essence : for essence is nothing else.
I take for an illustration the design or determined will
of Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. This design or
determined will, considered in itself alone, includes per-
fection in so far as it expresses reality; hence it may be
inferred that we can only conceive imperfection in things,
when they are viewed in relation to other things possess-
ing more reality: thus in Adam's decision, so long as we
view it by itself and do not compare it with other things
more perfect or exhibiting a more perfect state, we can
find no imperfection: nay, it may be compared with an
infinity of other things far less perfect in this respect
than itself, such as stones, stocks, etc. This, as a matter
of fact, everyone grants. For we all admire in animals
qualities which we regard with dislike and aversion in
men, such as the pugnacity of bees, the jealousy of doves,
etc ; these in human beings are despised but are never-
theless considered to enhance the value of animals. This
being so, it follows that sin, which indicates nothing save
imperfection, cannot consist in anything that expresses
reality, as we see in the case of Adam's decision and its
execution.

Again, we cannot say that Adam's will is at variance
with the law of God, and that it is evil because it is
displeasing to God; for besides the fact that grave im-
perfection would be imputed to God, if we say that any-
thing happens contrary to his will, or that he desires
anything which he does not obtain, or that his nature
resembled that of his creatures in having sympathy
with some things more than others; such an occurrence
would be at complete variance with the nature of the
divine will.

The will of God is identical with his intellect; hence
the former can no more be contravened than the latjter;
22

338 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXII.

in other words, anything- which should come to pass
against his will must be of a nature to be contrary to
his intellect, such, for instance, as a round square.
Hence the will or decision of Adam regarded in itself
was neither evil nor, properly speaking, against the will
of God: it follows that God may — or rather, for the
reason you call attention to, must — be its cause; not in
so far as it was evil, for the evil in it consisted in the
loss of the previous state of being which it entailed on
Adam, and it is certain that loss has no positive exist-
ence, and is only so spoken of in respect to our and not
God's understanding. The difficulty arises from the fact
that we give one and the same definition to all the indi-
viduals of a genus, as for instance, all who have the out-
ward appearance of men: we accordingly assume all
things which are expressed by the same definition to be
equally capable of attaining the highest perfection possi-
ble for the genus; when we find an individual whose
actions are at variance with such perfection, we suppose
him to be deprived of it, and to fall short of his nature.
We should hardly act in this way, if we did not hark
back to the definition and ascribe to the individual a
nature in accordance with it. But as God does not know
things through abstraction, or form general definitions
of the kind above mentioned, and as things have no
more reality than the divine understanding and power
have put into them and actually endowed them with, it
clearly follows that a state of privation can only be
spoken of in relation to our intellect, not in jelation to
God.

Thus, as it seems to me, the difficulty is completely
solved. However, in order to make the way still plainer,
and remove every doubt, I deem it necessary to answer
the two following difficulties: First, why Holy Scripture
says that God wishes for the conversion of the wicked,
and also why God forbade Adam to eat of the fruit when
he had ordained the contrary ? Secondly, that it seems
to follow from what I have said, that the wicked, by
their pride, avarice, and deeds of desperation, worship
God in no less degree than the good do by their noble-

LETTER XXXII.] CORRESPONDENCE 339

ness, patience, love, etc., inasmuch as both execute God's
will.

In answer to the first question, I observe that Scrip-
ture, being- chiefly fitted for and beneficial to the multi-
tude, speaks popularly after the fashion of men. For the
multitude are incapable of grasping sublime conceptions.
Hence I am persuaded that all matters, which God re-
vealed to the prophets as necessary to salvation, are set
down in the form of laws. With this understanding, the
prophets invented whole parables, and represented God
as a king and a lawgiver, because he had revealed the
means of salvation and perdition, and was their cause;
the means which were simply causes they styled laws
and wrote them down as such; salvation and perdition,
which are simply effects necessarily resulting from the
aforesaid means, they described as reward and punish-
ment; framing their doctrines more in accordance with
such parables than with actual truth. They constantly
speak of God as resembling a man, as sometimes angry,
sometimes merciful, now desiring what is future, now
jealous and suspicious, even as deceived by the devil;
so that philosophers and all who are above the law, that
is, who follow after virtue, not in obedience to law,
but through love, because it is the most excellent of all
things, must not be hindered by such expressions.

Thus the command given to Adam consisted solely in
this, that God revealed to Adam, that eating of the fruit
brought about death; as he reveals to us, through our
natural faculties, that poison is deadly. If you ask, for
what object did he make this revelation, I answer in
order to render Adam to that extent more perfect in
knowledge. Hence, to ask God why he had not bestowed
on Adam a more perfect will, is just as absurd as to ask,
why the circle has not been endowed with all the proper-
ties of a sphere. This follows clearly from what has been
said, and I have also proved it in my " Principles of Carte-
sian Philosophy, >> I. 15.

As to the second difficulty, it is true that the wicked
execute after their manner the will of God: but they,
cannot, therefore, be in any respect compared with the

340 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIII.

good. The more perfection a thing has, the more does
it participate in the Deity, and the more does it express
perfection. Thus, as the good have incomparably more
perfection than the bad, their virtue cannot be likened
to the virtue of the wicked, inasmuch as the wicked
lack the love of God, which proceeds from the knowl-
edge of God, and by which alone we are, according to
our human understanding, called the servants of God.
The wicked, knowing not God, are but as instruments
in the hand of the workman, serving unconsciously, and
perishing in the using; the good, on the other hand,
serve consciously, and in serving become more perfect.

This, Sir, is all I can now contribute to answering
your question, and I have no higher wish than that it may
satisfy you. But in case you still find any difficulty, I
beg you to let me know of that also, to see if I may be
able to remove it. You have nothing to fear on your side,
but so long as you are not satisfied, I like nothing better
than to be informed of your reasons, so that finally the
truth may appear. I could have wished to write in the
tongue in which I have been brought up. I should, per-
haps, have been able to express my thoughts better. But
be pleased to take it as it is, amend the mistakes yourself,
and believe me.

Your sincere friend and servant.

Long Orchard, near Amsterdam,
Jan. 5, 1665.

LETTER XXXIII. (XX.)

Blyenbergh to Spinoza.

(A summary only of this letter is here given. — Tr.)

I HAVE two rules in my philosophic inquiries^; I. Con-
formity to reason; II. Conformity to Scripture. I consider
the second the most important. Examining your letter
by the first, I observe that your identification of God's
creative power with his preservative power seems to

LETTER XXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 341

involve, either that evil does not exist, or else that God
brings about evil. If evil be only a term relative to our
imperfect knowledge, how do you explain the state of a
man who falls from a state of grace into sin ? If evil
be a negation, how can we have the power to sin ? If
God causes an evil act, he must cause the evil as well
as the act. You say that every man can only act, as he,
in fact does act. This removes all distinction between
the good and the wicked. Both, according to you, are
perfect. You remove all the sanctions of virtue and re-
duce us to automata. Your doctrine, that strictly speak-
ing, we cannot sin against God, is a hard saying.

[The rest of the letter is taken up with an examina-
tion of Spinoza's arguments in respect to their conformity
to Scripture.]

Dordrecht, 16 Jan., 1665.

LETTER XXXIV. (XXI.)

Spinoza to Blyenbergh.

[Spinoza complains that Blyenbergh has misunderstood him: he sets

forth his true meaning.]

VooRBURG, 28 Jan., 1665.

Friend and Sir: — When I read your first letter, I
thought that our opinions almost coincided. But from
the second, which was delivered to me on the 21st of
this month, I see that the matter stands far otherwise,
for I perceive that we disagree, not only in remote in-
ferences from first principles, but also in first principles
themselves ; so that I can hardly think that we can derive
any mutual instruction from further correspondence. I
see that no proof, though it be by the laws of proof most
sound, has any weight with you, unless it agrees with
the explanation, which either you yourself, or other the-,
ologians known to you, attribute to Holy Scripture. How-
ever, if you are convinced that God speaks more clearly

342 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIV.

and effectually through Holy Scripture than through the
natural understanding, which he also has bestowed upon
us, and with his divine wisdom keeps continually stable
and uncorrupted, you have valid reasons for making your
understanding bow before the opinions which you attrib-
ute to Holy Scripture ; I myself could adopt no different
course. For my own part, as I confess plainly, and with-
out circumlocution, that I do not understand the Script-
ures, though I have spent some years upon them, and
also as I feel that when I have obtained a firm proof, I
cannot fall into a state of doubt concerning it, I acquiesce
entirely in wiiat is commended to me by my understand-
ing, without any suspicion that I am being deceived in
the matter, or that Holy Scripture, though I do not
search, could gainsay it : for " truth is not at variance
with truth, ^^ as I have already clearly shown in my ap-
pendix to ^^The Principles of Cartesian Philosophy'^ (I
cannot give the precise reference, for I have not the book
with me here in the country). But if in any instance I
found that a result obtained through my natural under-
standing was false, I should reckon myself fortunate, for
I enjoy life, and try to spend it not in sorrow and sigh-
ing, but in peace, joy, and cheerfulness, ascending from
time to time a step higher. Meanwhile I know (and this
knowledge gives me the highest contentment and peace
of mind), that all things come to pass by the power
and unchangeable decree of a Being supremely perfect.
To return to your letter, I owe you many and sincere
thanks for having confided to me your philosophical
opinions; but for the doctrines, which you attribute to
me, and seek to infer from my letter, I return you no
thanks at all. What ground, I should like to know, has
my letter afforded you for ascribing to me the opinions;
that men are like beasts, that they die and perish after
the manner of beasts, that our actions are displeasing to
God, etc. ? Perhaps we are most of all at variance on
this third point. You think, as far as I can judge, that
God takes pleasure in our actions, as though he were a
man, who has attained his object, when things fall out
as he desired. P'or my part, have I not said plainly

LETTER XXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 343

enough, that the good worship God, that in continually
serving him they become more perfect, and that they
love God ? Is this, I ask, likening them to beasts, or
saying that they perish like beasts, or that their actions
are displeasing to God ? If you had read my letter
with more attention, you would have clearly perceived,
that our whole dissension lies in the following alternative :
Either the perfections which the good receive are im-
parted to them by God in his capacity of God, that is
absolutely without any human qualities being ascribed to
him — this is what I believe; or else such perfections are
imparted by God as a judge, which is what you main-
tain. For this reason you defend the wicked, saying that
they carry out God's decrees as far as in them lies, and
therefore serve God no less than the good. But if my
doctrine be accepted, this consequence by no means
follows; I do not bring in the idea of God as a judge,
and, therefore I estimate an action by its intrinsic merits,
not by the powers of its performer; the recompense which
follows the action follows from it as necessarily as from
the nature of a triangle it follows, that the three angles
are equal to two right angles. This may be understood
by every one who reflects on the fact, that our highest
blessedness consists in love toward God, and that such
love flows naturally from the knowledge of God, which
is so strenuously enjoined on us. The question may very
easily be proved in general terms, if we take notice of
the nature of God's decrees, as explained in my appendix.
However, I confess that all those, who confuse the divine
nature with human nature, are gravely hindered from
understanding it.

I had intended to end my letter at this point, lest I
should prove troublesome to you in these questions, the
discussion of which (as I discover from the extremely
pious postscript added to your letter) serves you as a
pastime and a jest, but for no serious use. However,
that I may not summarily deny your request, I will pro-
ceed to explain further the words privation and negation,
and briefly point out what is necessary for the elucida-
tion of my former letter.

I

344 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIV.

I say then, first, that privation is not the act of de-
priving, but simply and merely a state of want, which is
in itself nothing: it is a mere entity of the reason, a
mode of thought framed in comparing one thing with
another. We say, for example, that a blind man is de-
prived of sight, because we readily imagine him as see-
ing, or else because we compare him with others who
can see, or compare his present condition with his past
condition when he could see; whea we regard the man
in this way, comparing his nature either with the nature
of others or with his own past nature, we affirm that
sight belongs to his nature, and therefore assert that he
has been deprived of it. But when we are considering
the nature and decree of God, we cannot affirm privation
of sight in the case of the aforesaid man any more than
in the case of a stone; for at the actual time sight lies
no more within the scope of the man than of the stone;

SINCE THERE BELONGS TO MAN AND FORMS PART OF HIS NA-
TURE ONLY THAT WHICH IS GRANTED TO HIM BY THE UNDER-
STANDING AND WILL OF GoD. Hencc it follows that God
is no more the cause of a blind man not seeing, than he
is of a stone not seeing. Not seeing is a pure negation.

So ALSO, WHEN WE CONSIDER THE CASE OF A MAN WHO IS
LED BY LUSTFUL DESIRES, WE COMPARE HIS PRESENT DESIRES
WITH THOSE WHICH EXIST IN THE GOOD, OR WHICH EXISTED
IN HIMSELF AT SOME OTHER TIME; WE THEN ASSERT THAT HB
IS DEPRIVED OF THE BETTER DESIRES, BECAUSE WE CONCEIVE
THAT VIRTUOUS DESIRES LIE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS NA-
TURE. This we cannot do, if we consider the nature

AND DECREE OF GOD. FOR, FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW, VIR-
TUOUS DESIRES LIE AT THAT TIME NO MORE WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE NATURE OF THE LUSTFUL MAN, THAN WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE NATURE OF THE DEVIL OR A STONE.

Hence, from the latter standpoint the virtuous desire is
not a privation but a negation.

Thus PRIVATION is nothing else than denying of a
thing something, which we think belongs to its nature;
NEGATION is denying of a thing something, which we do
not think belongs to its nature.

We may now see, how Adam's desire for earthly things

LETTER XXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 345

was evil from our standpoint, but not from God's.
Although God knew both the present and the past state
OF Adam, he did not, therefore, regard Adam as
deprived of his past state, that is, he did not regard
Adam's past state as within the scope of Adam's pres-
ent NATURE. Otherwise God would have apprehended
something contrary to his own will, that is, contrary to
his own understanding. If you quite grasp my meaning
here and at the same time remember, that I do not
grant to the mind the same freedom as Descartes does
— L[ewis] M[eyer] bears witness to this in his preface
to my book — you will preceive that there is not the
smallest contradiction in what I have said. But I see
that I should have done far better to have answered you
in my first letter with the words of Descartes, to the
effect that we cannot know how our freedom and its con-
sequences agree with the foreknowledge and freedom of
God (see several passages in my appendix), that, there-
fore, we can discover no contradiction between creation
by God and our freedom, because we cannot understand
how God create'd the universe, nor (what is the same
thing) how he preserves it. I thought that you had read
the preface, and that by not giving you my real opinions
in reply, I shoiild sin against those duties of friendship
which I cordially offered you. But this is of no con-
sequence.

Still, as I see that you have not hitherto thoroughly
grasped Descartes's meaning, I will call your attention to
the two following points: First, that neither Descartes
nor I have ever said, that it appertains to our nature to
confine the will within the limits of the understanding;
we have only said, that God has endowed us with a de-
termined understanding and an undetermined will, so
that we know not the object for which he has created
us. Further, that an undetermined or perfect will of
this kind not only makes us more perfect, but also, as I
will presently show you, is extremely necessary for us.

Secondly: that our freedom is not placed in a certain
contingency nor in a certain indifference, but in the
method of affirmation or denial; so that, in proportion

346 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIV.

as we are less indifferent in affirmation or denial, so are
we more free. For instance, if the nature of God be
known to us, it follows as necessarily from our nature to
affirm that God exists, as from the nature of a triangle
it follows, that the three angles are equal to two right
aneles; we are never more free than when we affirm a
thing in this way. As this necessity is nothing else but
the decree of God (as I have clearly shown in my appen-
dix), we may hence, after a fashion, understand how we
act freely and are the cause of our action, though all the
time wc are acting necessarily and according to the de-
cree of God. This, I repeat, we may, after a fashion,
understand, whenever we affirm something, which we
clearly and distinctly perceive, but when we assert some-
thing which we do not clearly and distinctly understand,
in other words, when we allow our will to pass beyond
the limits of our understanding, we no longer perceive
the necessity nor the decree of God, we can only see our
freedom which is always involved in our will; in which
respect only our actions are called good or evil. If we
then try to reconcile our freedom with God's decree and
continuous creation, we confuse that which we clearly
and distinctly understand with that which we do not
perceive, and therefore, our attempt is vain. It is, there-
fore, sufficient for us to know that we are free, and that
we can be so notwithstanding God's decree, and further
that we are the cause of evil, because an act can only
be called evil in relation to our freedom. I have said
thus much for Descartes in order to show that, in the
question we are considering, his words exhibit no con-
tradiction.

I will now turn to what concerns myself, and will first
briefly call attention to the advantage arising from my
opinion, inasmuch as, according to it, our understanding
offers our mind and body to God freed from all super-
stition. Nor do I deny that prayer is extremely useful
to us. For my understanding is too small to determine
all the means whereby God leads men to the love of
himself, that is, to salvation. So far is my opinion from
being hurtful, that it offers to those who are not taken

LETTER XXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 347

up with prejudices and childish superstitions, the only
means for arriving at the highest stage of blessedness.

When you say that, by making men so dependent on
God, I reduce them to the likeness of the elements,
plants or stones, you sufficiently show that you have
thoroughly misunderstood my meaning, and have con-
fused things which regard the understanding with things
which regard the imagination. If by your intellect only
you had perceived what dependence on God means, you
certainly would not think that things, in so far as they
depend on God are dead, corporeal, and imperfect (who
ever dared to speak so meanly of the Supremely Perfect
Being ?) ; on the contrary, you would understand that for
the very reason that they depend on God they are per-
fect; so that this dependence and necessary operation
may best be understood as God's decree, by considering,
not stocks and plants, but the most reasonable and per-
fect creatures. This sufficiently appears from my second
observation on the meaning of Descartes, which you
ought to have looked to.

I cannot refrain from expressing my extreme astonish-
ment at your remarking, that if God does not punish
wrong-doing (that is, as a judge does, with a punish-
ment not intrinsically connected with the offense, for
our whole difference lies in this), what reason prevents
me from rushing headlong into every kind of wickedness ?
Assuredly he, who is only kept from vice by the fear
of punishment (which I do not think of you), is in no
wise acted on by love, and by no means embraces virtue.
For my own part, I avoid or endeavor to avoid vice,
because it is at direct variance with my proper nature and
would lead me astray from the knowledge and love of God.

Again, if you had reflected a little on human nature
and the nature of God's decree (as explained in my
appendix), and perceived, and known by this time, how
a consequence should be deduced from its premises,
before a conclusion is arrived at; you would not so rashly
have stated that my opinion makes us like stocks, etc. :
nor would you have ascribed to me the many absurdities
you conjure up.

348 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIV.

As to the two points which you say, before passing on
to your second rule, that you cannot understand ; I answer,
that the first may be solved through Descartes, who says
that in observing your own nature you feel that you can
suspend your judgment. If you say that you do not feel
that you have at present sufficient force to keep your
judgment suspended, this would appear to Descartes to be
the same as saying that we cannot at present see, that
so long as we exist we shall always be thinking things,
or retain the nature of thinking things; in fact it would
imply a contradiction.

As to your second difficulty, I say with Descartes,
that if we cannot extend our will beyond the bounds of
our extremely limited understanding, we shall be most
wretched — it will not be in our power to eat even a crust
of bread, or to walk a step, or to go on living, for all
things are uncertain and full of peril.

I now pass on to your second rule, and assert that I
believe, though I do not ascribe to Scripture that sort of
truth which you think you find in it, I nevertheless assign
to it as great if not greater authority than you do. I am
far more careful than others not to ascribe to Scripture
any childish and absurd doctrines, a precaution which de-
mands either a thorough acquaintance with philosophy
or the possession of divine revelations. Hence I pay very
little attention to the glosses put upon Scripture by ordinary
theologians, especially those of the kind who always inter-
pret Scripture according to the literal and outward mean-
ing: I have never, except among the Socinians, found any
theologian stupid enough to ignore that Holy Scripture
very often speaks in human fashion of God and expresses
its meaning in parables; as for the contradiction which
you vainly (in my opinion) endeavor to show, I think
you attach to the word parable a meaning different from
that usually given. For who ever heard, that a man,
who expressed his opinions in parables, had therefore
taken leave of his senses ? When Micaiah said to King
Ahab, that he had seen God sitting on a throne, with
the armies of heaven standing on the right hand and the
left, and that God asked his angels which of them would

LETTER XXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 349

deceive Ahab, this was assuredly a parable employed by
the prophet on that occasion (which was not fitted for the
inculcation of sublime theological doctrines), as sufficiently
setting forth the message he had to deliver in the name
of God. We cannot say that he had in anywise taken
leave of his senses. So also the other prophets of God
made manifest God's commands to the people in this
fashion as being the best adapted, though not expressly
enjoined by God, for leading the people to the primary
object of Scripture, which, as Christ himself says, is to
bid men love God above all things, and their neighbor
as themselves. Sublime speculations have, in my opin-
ion, no bearing on Scripture. As far as I am concerned
I have never learned or been able to learn any of God's
eternal attributes from Holy Scripture.

As to your fifth argument (that the prophets thus made
manifest the word of God, since truth is not at variance
with truth), it merely amounts, for those who understand
the method of proof, to asking me to prove, that Scrip-
ture, as it is, is the true revealed word of God. The
mathematical proof of this proposition could only be at-
tained by divine revelation. I, therefore, expressed my-
self as follows: ^^ I believe, but I do not mathematic-
ally KNOW, THAT ALL THINGS REVEALED BY GOD TO THE

PROPHETS, '^ etc. Inasmuch as I firmly believe but do not
mathematically know, that the prophets were the most
trusted counsellors and faithful ambassadors of God. So
that in all I have written there is no contradiction,
though several such may be found among holders of the
opposite opinion.

The rest of your letter (to wit the passage where you
say, ^* Lastly, the supremely perfect Being knew before-
hand,** etc; and again, your objections to the illustration
from poison, and lastly, the whole of what you say of
the appendix and what follows) seems to me beside the
question.

As regards Lewis Meyer's preface, the points which
were still left to be proved by Descartes before establishing
his demonstration of free will, are certainly there set
forth; it is added that I hold a contrary opinion, my reasons

350 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXV.

for doing so being given. I shall, perhaps, in due time,
give further explanations. For the present I have no such
intention.

I have never thought about the work on Descartes, nor
given any further heed to it, since it has been translated
into Dutch. I have my reasons, though it would be tedious
to enumerate them here. So nothing remains for me but
to subscribe myself, etc.

LETTER XXXV. (XXII.)
Blyenbergh to Spinoza.

[This letter (extending over five pages) is only given here in brief

summary. ]

The tone of your last letter is very different from that
of your first. If our essence is equivalent to our state at
a given time, we are as perfect when sinning as when
virtuous: God would wish for vice as much as virtue.
Both the virtuous and the vicious execute God's will —
What is the difference between them ? You say some
actions are more perfect than others; wherein does this
perfection consist ? If a mind existed so framed, that
vice was in agreement with the proper nature, why should
such a mind prefer good to evil ? If God makes us all
that we are, how can we " go astray * ? Can rational sub-
stances depend on God in any way except lifelessly ?
What is the difference between a rational being's depend-
ence on God, and an irrational being's ? If we have no
free will, are not our actions God's actions, and our will
God's will ? I could ask several more questions, but do
not venture.

P. S. In my hurry I forgot to insert this question:
Whether we cannot by foresight avert what would other-
wise happen to us ?

Dordrecht, 19 Feb., 1665.

I

LETTER XXXVL] CORRESPONDENCE 351

LETTER XXXVL (XXIII.)
Spinoza to Blyenbergh.

[Spinoza replies, that there is a difference between the theological
and the philosophical way of speaking of God and things divine.
He proceeds to discuss Blyenbergh's questions.]

VooRBURG, 13th March, 1665.

Friend and Sir, — I have received two letters from you
this week; the second, dated 9th March, only served to
inform me of the first written on February 19th, and sent
to me at Schiedam. In the former I see that you com-
plain of my saying, that " demonstration carried no weight
with you, *^ as though I had spoken of my own arguments,
which had failed to convince you. Such was far from
my intention. I was referring to your own words, which
ran as follows : — ^^ And if after long investigation it comes
to pass, that my natural knowledge appears either to be
at variance with the word (of Scripture), or not suffi-
ciently well, etc. ; the word has so great authority with
me, that I would rather doubt of the conceptions, which
I think I clearly perceive,'^ etc. You see I merely repeat
in brief your own phrase, so that I cannot think you
have any cause for anger against me, especially as I
merely quoted in order to show the great difference
between our standpoints.

Again, as you wrote at the end of your letter that
your only hope and wish is to continue in faith and
hope, and that all else, which we may become convinced
of through our natural faculties, is indifferent to you; I
reflected, as I still continue to do, that my letters could
be of no use to you, and that I should best consult my
own interests by ceasing to neglect my pursuits (which
I am compelled while writing to you to interrupt) for
the sake of things which could bring no possible benefit.
Nor is this contrary to the spirit of my former letter,
for in that I looked upon you as simply a philosopher,
who (like not a few who call themselves Christians)

352 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXVI.

possesses no touchstone of truth save his natural under-
standing, and not as a theologian. However, you have
taught me to know better, and have also shown me that
the foundation, on which I was minded to build up our
friendship, has not, as I imagined, been laid.

As for the rest, such are the general accompaniments
of controversy, so that I would not on that account
transgress the limits of courtesy: I will, therefore, pass
over in your second letter, and in this, these and
similar expressions, as though they had never been
observed. So much for your taking offense ; to show
you that I have given you no just cause, and, also,
that I am quite willing to brook contradiction. I now
turn a second time to answering your objections.

I maintain, in the first place, that God is absolutely
and really the cause of all things which have essence,
whatsoever they may be. If you can demonstrate that
evil, error, crime, etc., have any positive existence, which
expresses essence, I will fully grant you that God is the
cause of crime, evil, error, etc, I believe myself to have
sufficiently shown, that that which constitutes the reality
of evil, error, crime, etc., does not consist in anything,
which expresses essence, and therefore we cannot say
that God is its cause. For instance, Nero's matricide, in
so far as it comprehended anything positive, was not a
crime; the same outward act was perpetrated, and the
same matricidal intention was entertained by Orestes;
who, nevertheless, is not blamed — at any rate not so
much as Nero. Wherein, then, did Nero's crime consist?
In nothing else, but that by his deed he showed himself
to be ungrateful, unmerciful, and disobedient. Certainly
none of these qualities express aught of essence, there-
fore, God was not the cause of them, though he was
the cause of Nero's act and intention.

Further, I would have you observe, that, while we
speak philosophically, we ought not to employ theolog-
ical phrases. For, since theology frequently, and not un-
wisely, represents God as a perfect man, it is often
expedient in theology to say, that God desires a given
thing, that he is angry at the actions of the wicked,

LETTER XXXVL] CORRESPONDENCE 353

and delights in those of the good. But in philosophy,
when we clearly perceive that the attributes which make
men perfect can as ill be ascribed and assigned to God,
as the attributes which go to make perfect the elephant
and the ass can be ascribed to man; here I say these
and similar phrases have no place, nor can we employ
them without causing extreme confusion in our concep-
tions. Hence, in the language of philosophy, it cannot
be said that God desires anything of any man, or that
anything is displeasing or pleasing to him: all these are
human qualities and have no place in God.

I would have it observed, that although the actions of
the good (that is, of those who have a clear idea of God,
whereby all their actions and their thoughts are deter-
mined) and of the wicked (that is, of those who do not
possess the idea of God, but only the ideas of earthly
things, whereby their actions and thoughts are deter-
mined), and, in fact, of all things that are, necessarily
flow from God's eternal laws and decrees; yet they do
not differ from one another in degree only, but also in
essence. A mouse no less than an angel, and sorrow no
less than joy depend on God; yet a mouse is not a kind
of angel, neither is sorrow a kind of joy. I think I have
thus answered your objections, if 1 rightly understand
them, for I sometimes doubt, whether the conclusions
which you deduce are not foreign to the proposition you
are undertaking to prove.

However, this will appear more clearly, if I answer
the questions you proposed on these principles. First,
Whether murder is as acceptable to God as almsgiving?
Secondly, Whether stealing is as good in relation to God
as honesty ? Thirdly and lastly, Whether if there be a
mind so framed, that it would agree with, rather than
be repugnant to its proper nature, to give way to lust,
and to commit crimes, whether, I repeat, there can be
any reason given, why such a mind should do good and
eschew evil ?

To your first question, I answer, that I do not know,
speaking as a philosopher, what you mean by the words
*^ acceptable to God. ^^ If you ask, whether God does-
23

354 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXVI.

not hate the wicked and love the good ? whether God
does not regard the former with dislike, and the latter
with favor ? I answer, No. If the meaning of your
question is: Are murderers and almsgivers equally good
and perfect ? my answer is again in the negative. To
your second question, I reply: If, by *^ good in relation
to God,*^ you mean that the honest man confers a favor
on God, and the thief does him an injury, I answer that
neither the honest man nor the thief can cause God any
pleasure or displeasure. If you mean to ask, whether the
actions of each, in so far as they possess reality, and are
caused by God, are equally perfect? I reply that, if we
merely regard the actions and the manner of their execu-
tion, both may be equally perfect. If you, therefore,
inquire whether the thief and the honest man are equally
perfect and blessed ? I answer. No. For, by an honest
man, I mean one who always desires that everyone
should possess that which is his. This desire, as I prove
in my ^* Ethics*^ (as yet unpublished), necessarily derives
its origin in the pious from the clear knowledge which
they possess of God and of themselves. As a thief has
no desire of the kind, he is necessarily without the
knowledge of God and of himself — in other words, with-
out the chief element of our blessedness. If you further
ask. What causes you to perform a given action, which
I call virtuous, rather than another ? I reply, that I can-
not know which method, out of the infinite methods at
his disposal, God employs to determine you to the said
action. It may be, that God has impressed you with a
clear idea of himself, so that you forget the world for
love of him, and love your fellow-men as yourself; it is
plain that such a disposition is at variance with those
dispositions which are called bad, and, therefore, could
not co-exist with them in the same man.

However, this is not the place to expound all the foun-
dations of my <^ Ethics, ** or to prove all that I have ad-
vanced; I am now only concerned in answering your
questions, and defending myself against them.

Lastly, as to your third question, it assumes a con-
tradiction, and seems to me to be, as though one asked;

LETTER XXXVIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 355

If it agreed better with a man's nature that he should
hang himself, could any reasons be given for his not
hanging himself ? Can such a nature possibly exist ? If
so, I maintain (whether I do or do not grant free will),
that such an one, if he sees that he can live more con-
veniently on the gallows than sitting at his own table,
would act most foolishly, if he did not hang himself.
So anyone who clearly saw that, by committing crimes,
he would enjoy a really more perfect and better life and
existence, than he could attain by the practice of virtue,
would be foolish if he did not act on his convictions.
For, with such a perverse human nature as his, crime
would become virtue.

As to the other question, which you add in your post-
script, seeing that one might ask a hundred such in an
hour, without arriving at a conclusion about any, and
seeing that you yourself do not press for an answer, I
will send none.

I w411 now only subscribe myself, etc.

LETTER XXXVII. (XXIV.)

Blyenbergh to Spinoza.

[Blyenbergh, who had been to see Spinoza, asks the latter to send him
a report of their conversation, and to answer five fresh questions.
(Dordrecht, 27th March, 1665.)]

Omitted.

LETTER XXXVIIL (XXVII.)

Spinoza to Blyenbergh

[Spinoza declines further correspondence with Blyenbergh, but says he
will give explanations of certain points by word of mouth. (Voor-
burg, 3d June, 1665.)]

Friend and Sir, — When your letter, dated 27th March,
was delivered to me, I was just starting for Amsterdam.

356 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XXXIX.

I, therefore, after reading half of it, left it at home, to
be answered on my return: for I thought it dealt only
with questions raised in our first controversy. However,
a second perusal showed me, that it embraced a far
wider subject, and not only asked me for proof of what,
in my preface to "Principles of Cartesian Philosophy,'*
I wrote (with the object of merely stating, without prov-
ing or urging my opinion), but also requested me to
impart a great portion of my " Ethics, '* which, as every-
one knows, ought to be based on physics and metaphysics.
For this reason, I have been unable to allow myself to
satisfy your demands. I wished to await an opportunity
for begging you, in a most friendly way, by word of
mouth, to withdraw your request, for giving you my
reasons for refusal, and for showing that your inquiries
do not promote the solution of our first controversy, but,
on the contrary, are for the most part entirely de-
pendent on its previous settlement. So far are they not
essential to the understanding of my doctrine concerning
necessity, that they cannot be apprehended, unless the
latter question is understood first. However, before such
an opportunity offered, a second letter reached me this
week, appearing to convey a certain sense of displeasure
at my delay. Necessity, therefore, has compelled me to
write you these few words, to acquaint you more fully
with my proposal and decision. I hope that, when the
facts of the case are before you, you will, of your own
accord, desist from your request, and will still remain
kindly disposed toward me. I, for my part, will, in all
things, according to my power, prove myself your, etc.

LETTER XXXIX.

Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.

[Treating of the Unity of God.]

Distinguished Sir, — The demonstration of the unity
of God on the ground that his nature involves necessary

LETTER XXXIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 357

existence, which you asked for, and I took note of, I have
been prevented by various business from sending to you
before. In order to accomplish my purpose, I will pre-
mise : —

I. That the true definition of anything includes noth-
ing except the simple nature of the thing defined. From
this it follows: —

II- That no definition can involve or express a multi-
tude or a given number of individuals, inasmuch as it
involves and expresses nothing except the nature of the
thing as it is in itself. For instance, the definition of a
triangle includes nothing beyond the simple nature of a
triangle; it does not include any -given number of tri-
angles. In like manner, the definition of the mind as a
thinking thing, or the definition of God as a perfect being,
includes nothing beyond the natures of the mind and of
God, not a given number of minds or gods.

III. That for everything that exists there must neces-
sarily be a positive cause, through which it exists.

IV. This cause may be situate either in the nature
and definition of the thing itself (to wit, because exist-
ence belongs to its nature or necessarily includes it), or
externally to the thing.

From these premises it follows, that if any given num-
ber of individuals exists in nature, there must be one or
more causes, which have been able to produce exactly
that number of individuals, neither more nor less. If,
for instance, there existed in nature twenty men ( in order
to avoid all confusion, I will assume that these all exist
together as primary entities), it is not enough to investi-
gate the cause of human nature in general, in order to
account for the existence of these twenty; we must also
inquire into the reason, why there exist exactly twenty
men , neither more nor less. For ( by our third hypothesis)
for each man a reason and a cause must be forthcom-
ing, why he should exist. But this cause ( by our second
and third hypotheses ) cannot be contained in the nature
of man himself; for the true definition of man does not
involve the number of twenty men. Hence (by our
fourth hypothesis) the cause for the existence of these

358 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XL.

twenty men, and consequently for the existence of each
of them, must exist externally to them. We may thus
absolutely conclude, that all things, which are conceived
to exist in the plural number, must necessarily be pro-
duced by external causes and not by the force of their
own nature. But since (by our second hypothesis) neces-
sary existence appertains to the nature of God, his true
definition must necessarily include necessary existence:
therefore from his true definition his necessary exist-
ence must be inferred. But from his true definition ( as
I have already demonstrated from our second and third
hypotheses ) the necessary existence of many gods cannot
be inferred. Therefore there only follows the existence
of a single God. Which was to be proved.

This, distinguished sir, has now seemed to me the best
method for demonstrating the proposition. I have also
proved it differently by means of the distinction between
essence and existence; but bearing in mind the object
you mentioned to me, I have preferred to send you the
demonstration given above. I hope it will satisfy you,
and I will await your reply, meanwhile remaining, etc.

VooRBURG, 7 Jan. 1666.

LETTER XL. (XXXV.)

Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.

( Further arguments for the unity of God. )

Distinguished Sir: — In your last letter, written on
March 30th, you have excellently elucidated the point,
which was somewhat obscure to me in your letter of
February loth. As I now know your opinion, I will set
forth the state of the question as you conceive it ; whether
there be only a single being who subsists by his own
sufficiency or force ? I not only affirm this to be so, but
also undertake to prove it from the fact, that the nature
of such a being necessarily involves existence; perhaps
it may also be readily proved from the understanding of

LETTER XL.] CORRESPONDENCE 359

God ( as I set forth, ** Principles of Cartesian Philosophy, *
I. Prop, i.), or from others of his attributes. Before
treating of the subject I will briefly show, as prelimi-
naries, what properties must be possessed by a being
including necessary existence. To wit:

I. It must be eternal. For if a definite duration be
assigned to it, it would beyond that definite duration be
conceived as non-existent, or as not involving necessary
existence, which would be contrary to its definition.

IL It must be simple, not made up of parts. For
parts must in nature and knowledge be prior to the
whole they compose: this could not be the case with
regard to that which is eternal.

III. It cannot be conceived as determinate, but only
as infinite. For, if the nature of the said being were
determinate, and conceived as determinate, that nature
would beyond the said limits be conceived as non-existent,
which again is contrary to its definition.

IV. It is indivisible. For if it were divisible, it could
be divided into parts, either of the same or of different
nature. If the latter, it could be destroyed and so not
exist, which is contrary to its definition; if the former,
each part would in itself include necessary existence, and
thus one part could exist without others, and consequently
be conceived as so existing. Hence the nature of the
being would be comprehended as finite, which, by what
has been said, is contrary to its definition. Thus we see
that in attempting to ascribe to such a being any im-
perfection, we straightway fall into contradictions. For,
whether the imperfection which we wish to assign to the
said being be situate in any defect, or in limitations pos-
sessed by its nature, or in any change which it might,
through deficiency of power, undergo from external
causes, we are always brought back to the contradiction,
that a nature v/hich involves necessary existence, does not
exist, or does not necessarily exist. I conclude, there-
fore—

V. That everything, which includes necessary existence,
cannot have in itself any imperfection, but must express
pure perfection.

36o SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLI.

VI. Further, since only from perfection can it come
about, that any being should exist by its own suffi-
ciency and force, it follows that, if we assume a being to
exist by its own nature, but not to express all per-
fections, we must further suppose that another being
exists, which does comprehend in itself all perfec-
tions. For, if the less powerful being exists by its own
sufficiency, how much more must the more powerful so
exist ?

Lastly, to deal with the question, I affirm that there
can only be a single being, of which the existence
belongs to its nature; such a being which possesses in
itself all perfections I will call God. If there be any
being to whose nature existence belongs, such a being
can contain in itself no imperfection, but must (by
my fifth premise) express every perfection; therefore,
the nature of such a being seems to belong to God
(whose existence we are bound to affirm by Premise VI.),
inasmuch as he has in himself all perfections and no
imperfections. Nor can it exist externally to God. For
if, externally to God, there existed one and the same
nature involving necessary existence, such nature would
be twofold; but this, by what we have just shown, is
absurd. Therefore there is nothing save God, but there is
a single God, that involves necessary existence, which
was to be proved.

Such, distinguished sir, are the arguments I can now
produce for demonstrating this question. I hope I may
also demonstrate to you, that I am, etc.

VooRBURG, 10 April, 1666.

LETTER XLI. (XXXVI.)

Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.

[Further discussion concerning the unity of God. Spinoza asks
for advice about polishing lenses. (Voorburg, May, 1666.)]

Distinguished Sir: — I have been by one means or
another prevented from answering sooner your letter.

LETTER XLI. CORRESPONDENCE 361

dated May 19th. As I gather that you suspend your
judgment with regard to most of the demonstration I
sent you (owing, I believe, to the obscurity you find in
it), I will here endeavor to explain its meaning more
clearly.

First, I enumerated four properties, which a being
existing by its own sufficiency or force must possess.
These four, and others like them, I reduced in my fifth
observation to one. Further, in order to deduce all
things necessary for the demonstration from a single
premise, I endeavored in my sixth observation to dem-
onstrate the existence of God from the given hypothesis ;
whence, lastly, taking (as you know) nothing beyond
the ordinary meaning of the terms, I drew the desired
conclusion.

Such, in brief, was my purpose and such my aim.
I will now explain the meaning of each step singly,
and will first start with the aforesaid four proper-
ties.

In the first you find no difficulty, nor is it anything
but, as in the case of the second, an axiom. By simple
I merely mean not compound, or not made up of parts dif-
fering in nature or other parts agreeing in nature. This
demonstration is assuredly universal.

The sense of my third observation (that if the being
be thought, it cannot be conceived as limited by thought,
but only as infinite, and similarly, if it be extension, it
cannot be conceived as limited by extension) you have
excellently perceived, though you say you do not per-
ceive the conclusion; this last is based on the fact, that
a contradiction is involved in conceiving under the cate-
gory of non-existence anything, whose definition in-
cludes or (what is the same thing) affirms existence.
And since determination implies nothing positive, but
only a limitation of the existence of the nature conceived
as determinate, it follows that, that of which the defini-
tion affirms existence, cannot be conceived as deter-
minate. For instance, if the term extension included
necessary existence, it would be alike impossible to con-
ceive extension without existence and existence without

362 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLI.

extension. If this were established, it would be impos-
sible to conceive determinate extension. For, if it be
conceived as determinate, it must be determined by its
own nature, that is by extension, and this extension,
whereby it is determined, must be conceived under the
category of non-existence, which by the hypothesis is
obviously a contradiction. In my fourth observation, 1
merely wished to show, that such a being could neithel^
be divided into parts of the same nature or parts of £»
different nature, whether those of a different nature in-,
volve necessary existence or not. If, I said, we adopt
the second view, the being would be destroyed; foi
destruction is merely the resolution of a thing into parts
so that none of them expresses the nature of the whole ;
if we adopt the first view, we should be in contradiction
with the first three properties.

In my fifth observation, I merely asserted, that per-
fection consists in being, and imperfection in the priva-
tion of being. I say the privation; for although extension
denies of itself thought, this argues no imperfection in
it. It would be an imperfection in it, if it were in
any degree deprived of extension, as it would be, if
it were determinate; or again, if it lacked duration,
position, etc.

My sixth observation you accept absolutely, and yet you
say, that your whole difficulty remains (inasmuch as
there may be, you think, several self-existent entities of
different nature; as for instance thought and extension
are different and perhaps subsist by their own sufficiency).
I am, therefore, forced to believe, that you attribute to
my observation a meaning quite different from the one
intended by me. I think I can discern your interpreta-
tion of it; however, in order to save time, I will merely
set forth my own meaning. I say then, as regards my
sixth observation, that if we assert that anything, which
is indeterminate and perfect only after its kind, exists by
its own sufficiency, we must also grant the existence of
a Being indeterminate and perfect absolutely; such a
Being I will call God. If, for example, we wish to assert
that extension or thought (which are each perfect after

LETTER XLI] CORRESPONDENCE 363

their kind, that is, in a given sphere of being) exists by-
its own sufficiency, we must grant also the existence of
God, who is absolutely perfect, that is, of a Being abso-
lutely indeterminate. I would here direct attention to
what I have just said with regard to the term imperfec-
tion ; namely, that it signifies that a thing is deficient in
some quality, which, nevertheless, belongs to its nature.
For instance, extension can only be called imperfect in
respect of duration, position, or quantity: that is, as not
enduring longer, as not retaining its position, or as not
being greater. It can never be called imperfect, because
it does not think, inasmuch as its nature requires nothing
of the kind, but consists solely in extension, that is in a
certain sphere of being. Only in respect to its own
sphere can it be called determinate or indeterminate, per-
fect or imperfect. Now, since the nature of God is not
confined to a certain sphere of being, but exists in being,
which is absolutely indeterminate, so his nature also
demands everything which perfectly expresses being;
otherwise his nature would be determinate and de-
ficient.

This being so, it follows that there can be only one
Being, namely God, who exists by his own force. If, for
the sake of an illustration, we assert, that extension
involves existence, it is, therefore, necessary that it should
be eternal and indeterminate, and express absolutely no
imperfection, but perfection. Hence extension will apper-
tain to God, or will be something which in some fashion
expresses the nature of God, since God is a Being, who
not only in a certain respect but absolutely is in essence
indeterminate and omnipotent. What we have here said
by way of illustration regarding extension must be asserted
of all that we ascribe a similar existence to. I, therefore,
conclude as in my former letter, that there is nothing
external to God, but that God alone exists by his own
sufficiency. I think I have said enough to show the
meaning of my former letter; however, of this you will
be the best judge. . .

(The rest of the letter is occupied with details about the polishing
of lenses.)

364 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLI.A.

LETTER XLI.A.

Spinoza to . . . (May or June, 1665).

[ Spinoza urges his correspondent to be diligent in studying philosophy,
promises to send part of the « Ethics, » and adds some personal
details.]

Dear Friend, — I do not know whether you have quite
forgotten me; but there are many circumstances which
lead me to suspect it. First, when I was setting out on
my journey, I wished to bid you good-bye ; and, after your
own invitation, thinking I should certainly find you at
home, heard that you had gone to The Hague. I return
to Voorburg, nothing doubting but that you would at
least have visited me in passing; but you, forsooth, with-
out greeting your friend, went back home. Three weeks
have I waited, without getting sight of a letter from you.
If you wish this opinion of mine to be changed, you may
easily change it by writing; and you can at the same
time, point out a means of entering into a correspond-
ence, as we once talked of doing at your house.

Meanwhile, I should like to ask you, nay I do beg and
entreat you, by our friendship, to apply yourself to some
serious work with real study, and to devote the chief
part of your life to the cultivation of your understanding
and your soul. Now, while there is time, and before
you complain of having let time and, indeed, your own
self slip by. Further, in order to set our correspondence
on foot, and to give you courage to write to me more
freely, I would have you know that I have long thought,
and, indeed, been almost certain, that you are somewhat
too diffident of your own abilities, and that you are afraid
of advancing some question or proposal unworthy of a
man of learning. It does not become me to praise you,
and expatiate on your talents to your face ; but, if you
are afraid that I shall show your letters to others, who
will laugh at you, I give you my word of honor, that I
will religiously keep them, and will show them to no

LETTER XLIL] CORRESPONDENCE 365

mortal without your leave. On these conditions, you may
enter on a correspondence, unless you doubt of my good
faith, which I do not in the least believe. I want to
hear your opinion on this in your first letter; and you
may, at the same time, send me the conserve of red
roses, though I am now much better.

After my journey, I was once bled; but the fever did
not cease, though I was somewhat more active than be-
fore the bleeding, owing, I think, to the change of air;
but I was two or three times laid up with a tertian.
This, however, by good diet, I have at length driven
away, and sent about its business. Where it has gone,
I know not ; but I am taking care it does not return here.

As regards the third part of my philosophy, I will
shortly send it you, if you wish to be its transmitter, or
to our friend De Vries; and, although I had settled not
to send any of it, till it was finished, yet, as it takes
longer than I thought, I am unwilling to keep you wait-
ing. I will send up to the eightieth proposition, or
thereabouts.

Of English affairs I hear a good deal, but nothing for
certain. The people continue to be apprehensive, and
can see no reason, why the fleet should not be despatched ;
but the matter does not yet seem to be set on foot. I
am afraid our rulers want to be overwise and prudent;
but the event will show what they intend, and what they
will attempt. May the gods turn it all to good. I want
to know what our people think, where you are, and what
they know for certain ; but, above all things, I want you
to believe me, etc.

LETTER XLIL (XXXVIL)
Spinoza to I. B,

[Concerning the best method, by which we may safely arrive at the

knowledge of things.]

Most Learned Sir and Dearest Friend, — I have not
been able hitherto to answer your last letter, received

366 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLII.

some time back. I have been so hindered by various
occupations and calls on my time, that I am hardly yet
free from them. However, as I have a few spare mo-
ments, I do not want to fall short of my duty, but take
this first opportunity of heartily thanking you for your
affection and kindness toward me, which you have often
displayed in your actions, and now also abundantly prove
by your letter.

I pass on to your question, which runs as follows : *^ Is
there, or can there be, any method by which we may,
without hindrance, arrive at the knowledge of the most
excellent things ? or are our minds, like our bodies, sub-
ject to the vicissitudes of circumstance, so that our thoughts
are governed rather by fortune than by skill ? ^^ I think
I shall satisfy you, if I show that there must necessarily
be a method, whereby we are able to direct our clear
and distinct perceptions, and that our mind is not,
like our body, svibject to the vicissitudes of circum-
stance.

This conclusion may be based simply on the consider-
ation that one clear and distinct perception, or several
such together, can be absolutely the cause of another
clear and distinct perception. Now, all the clear and
distinct perceptions, which we form, can only arise from
other clear and distinct perceptions, which are in us;
nor do they acknowledge any cause external to us. Hence
it follows that the clear and distinct perceptions, which
we form, depend solely on our nature, and on its certain
and fixed laws; in other words, on our absolute power,
not on fortune — that is, not on causes which, although
also acting by certain and fixed laws, are yet unknown
to us, and alien to our nature and power. As regards
other perceptions, I confess that they depend chiefly on
fortune. Hence clearly appears, what the true method
ought to be like, and what it ought chiefly to consist in
— namely, solely in the knowledge of the pure under-
standing, and its nature and laws. In order that such
knowledge may be acquired, it is before all things nec-
essary to distinguish between the understanding and the
imagination, or between ideas which are true and the

LETTER XLVL] CORRESPONDENCE 367

rest, such as the fictitious, the false, the doubtful, and
absolutely all which depend solely on the memory. For
the understanding- of these matters, as far as the method
requires, there is no need to know the nature of the
mind through its first cause; it is sufficient to put to-
gether a short history of the mind, or of perceptions, in
the manner taught by Verulam.

I think that in these few words I have explained and
demonstrated the true method, and have, at the same
time, pointed out the way of acquiring it. It only remains
to remind you, that all these questions demand assiduous
study, and great firmness of disposition and purpose. In
order to fulfil these conditions, it is of prime necessity
to follow a fixed mode and plan of living, and to set be-
fore one some definite aim. But enough of this for the
present, etc.

VooRBURG, 10 June, 1666.

LETTER XLIII. (XXXVIII.)
Spinoza to I. v. M.

[ Spinoza solves for his friend an arithmetical problem connected with
games of chance. (Voorburg, Oct. i, 1666.)]

Omitted.

LETTERS XLIV., XLV., XLVI. (XXXIX., XL., XLL)

Spinoza to I. 1.

XLIV. [Remarks on Descartes's treatise on Optics.]

XLV. [Remarks on some alchemistic experiments, on the third and

fourth meditations of Descartes, and on Optics.]

XLVI. [Remarks on Hydrostatics.]

368 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLVII.

LETTER XLVIL (XLIV.)

Spinoza to I. I.

[Spinoza begs his friend to stop the printing of the Dutch version of the
«Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.» Some remarks on a pernicious
pamphlet, « Homo Politicus,'> and on Thales of Miletus.]

Most Courteous Sir, — When Professor N. N. visited
me the other day, he told me that my ^^Theologico-Politi-
cal Treatise ^^ has been translated into Dutch, and that
someone whose name he did not know, was about print-
ing it. With regard to this, I earnestly beg you to
inquire carefully into the business, and, if possible, stop
the printing. This is the request not only of myself, but
of many of my friends and acquaintances, who would be
sorry to see the book placed under an interdict, as it
undoubtedly would be, if published in Dutch. I do not
doubt, but that you will do this service to me and the
cause.

One of my friends sent me a short time since a pam-
phlet called " Homo Politicus, *^ of which I had heard
much. I have read it, and find it to be the most per-
nicious work which man could devise or invent. Rank
and riches are the author's highest good; he adapts his
doctrine accordingly, and shows the means to acquire
them ; to wit, by inwardly rejecting all religion, and out-
wardly professing whatever best serves his own advance-
ment, also by keeping faith with no one, except in so far
as he himself is profited thereby. For the rest, to feign,
to make promises and break them, to lie, to swear falsely,
and many such like practices call forth his highest praises.
When I had finished reading the book, I debated whether
I should write a pamphlet indirectly aimed against its
author, wherein I should treat of the highest good and
show the troubled and wretched condition of those who
are covetous of rank and riches; finally proving by very
plain reasoning and many examples, that the insatiable
desire for rank and riches must bring and has brought
ruin to states.

LETTER XLIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 369

How much better and more excellent than the doc-
trines of the aforesaid writer are the reflections of Thales
of Miletus, appears from the following: All the goods
of friends, he says, are in common; wise men are the
friends of the gods, and all things belong to the gods;
therefore all things belong to the wise. Thus in a single
sentence this wisest of men accounts himself most rich,
rather by nobly despising riches than by sordidly seek-
ing them. In other passages he shows that the wise lack
riches, not from necessity, but from choice. For when
his friends reproached him with his poverty he answered,
*^ Do you wish me to show you, that I could acquire what
I deem unworthy of my labor, but you so diligently
seek ? *^ On their answering in the affirmative, he hired
every oil-press in the whole of Greece (for being a dis-
tinguished astrologer he knew that the olive harvest
would be as abundant as in previous years it had been
scanty), and sub-let at his own price what he had hired
for a very small sum, thus acquiring in a single year a
large fortune, which he bestowed liberally as he had
gained it industriously, etc.

The Hague, 17 Feb., 1671.

LETTER XLVIII.

[Written by a physician, Lambert de Velthuysen, to Isaac Orobio, and
forwarded by the latter to Spinoza. It contains a detailed attack on
the «Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.» Its tenor may be sufficiently
seen from Spinoza's reply. ( Written at Utrecht, January 24th, 1671. )
Velthuysen afterward became more friendly to Spinoza, as appears
from Letter LXXV.]

LETTER XLIX.

Spinoza to Isaac Orobio.

[A defense of the «Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.» (The Hague,

1671.)]
Most Learned Sir, — You doubtless wonder why I have
kept you so long waiting. I could hardly bring myself
24

370 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLIX.

to reply to the pamphlet of that person, which you
thought fit to send me ; indeed I only do so now because
of my promise. However, in order as far as possible to
humor my feelings, I will fulfill my engagement in as
few words as I can, and will briefly show how perversely
he has interpreted my meaning; whether through malice
or through ignorance I cannot readily say. But to the
matter in hand.

First he says, " that it is of little moment to know

WHAT NATION I BELONG TO, OR WHAT SORT OF LIFE I LEAD.**

Truly, if he had known, he would not so easily have
persuaded himself that I teach Atheism. For Atheists
are wont greedily to covet rank and riches, which I have
always despised, as all who know me are aware. Again,
in order to smooth his path to the object he has in view,
he says that, "I am possessed of no mean talents,** so
that he may, forsooth, more easily convince his readers,
that I have knowingly and cunningly with evil intent
argued for the cause of the deists, in order to discredit
it. This contention sufficiently shows that he has not
understood my reasons. For who could be so cunning
and clever, as to be able to advance under false pre-
tenses so many and such good reasons for a doctrine
which he did not believe in ? Who will pass for an
honest writer in the eyes of a man, that thinks one may
argue as soundly for fiction as for truth ? But after all
I am not astonished. Descartes was formerly served in
the same way by Voet, and the most honorable writers
are constantly thus treated.

He goes on to say, " In order to shun the reproach
of superstition, he seems to me to have thrown off
ALL religion.** What this writer means by religion and
what by superstition, I know not. But I would ask,
whether a man throws off all religion, who maintains
that God must be acknowledged as the highest good, and
must, as such, be loved with a free mind ? or, again, that
the reward of \nrtue is virtue itself, while the punishment
of folly and weakness is folly itself ? or, lastly, that every
man ought to love his neighbor, and to obey the com-
mands of the supreme power ? Such doctrines I have not

LETTER XLIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 371

only expressly stated, but have also demonstrated them
by very solid reasoning. However, I think I see the
mud wherein this person sticks. He finds nothing in
virtue and the understanding in themselves to please
him, but would prefer to live in accordance with his pas-
sions, if it were not for the single obstacle that he fears
punishment. He abstains from evil actions, and obeys
the divine commands like a slave, with unwillingness and
hesitation, expecting as the reward of his bondage to be
recompensed by God with gifts far more pleasing than
divine love, and greater in proportion to his dislike to
goodness and consequent unwillingness to practice it.
Hence it comes to pass, that he believes that all, who
are not restrained by this fear, lead a life of license and
throw off all religion. But this I pass over, and proceed
to the deduction, whereby he wishes to show, that " with

COVERT AND DISGUISED ARGUMENTS I TEACH ATHEISM.** The

foundation of his reasoning is, that he thinks I take away
freedom from God, and subject him to fate. This is
flatly false. For I have maintained, that all things fol-
low by inevitable necessity from the nature of God, in
the same way as all maintain that it follows from the
nature of God, that he understands himself: no one de-
nies that this latter consequence follows necessarily from
the divine nature, yet no one conceives that God is
constrained by any fate; they believe that he under-
stands himself with entire freedom, though necessarily. I
find nothing here, that cannot be perceived by every
one; if, nevertheless, my adversary thinks that these
arguments are advanced with evil intent, what does
he think of his own Descartes, who asserted that nothing
is done by us, which has not been pre-ordained by
God, nay, that we are newly created as it were by
God every moment, though none the less we act ac-
cording to our own free will ? This, as Descartes himself
confesses, no one can understand.

Further, this inevitable necessit)^ in things destroys
neither divine laws nor human. For moral principles,
whether they have received from God the form of laws
or not, are nevertheless divine and salutary. Whether we.

372 SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLIX.

accept the good, which follows from virtue and the divine
love, as given us by God as a judge, or as emanating from
the necessity of the divine nature, it is not in either case
more or less to be desired ; nor are the evils which follow
from evil actions less to be feared, because they follow
necessarily: finally, whether we act under necessity or
freedom, we are in either case led by hope and fear.
Wherefore the assertion is false, *^ that I maintain that

THERE IS NO ROOM LEFT FOR PRECEPTS AND COMMANDS.** Or

as he goes on to say, "that there is no expectation of

REWARD OR PUNISHMENT, SINCE ALL THINGS ARE ASCRIBED TO
FATE, AND ARE SAID TO FLOW WITH INEVITABLE NECESSITY

FROM God.**

I do not here inquire, why it is the same, or almost the
same to say that all things necessarily flow from God, as
to say that God is universal ; but I would have you observe
the insinuation which he not less maliciously subjoins,

*^THAT I WISH THAT MEN SHOULD PRACTICE VIRTUE, NOT BE-
CAUSE OF THE PRECEPTS AND LAW OF GOD, OR THROUGH
HOPE OF REWARD AND FEAR OF PUNISHMENT, BUT,** CtC.

Such a sentiment you will assuredly not find anywhere in
my treatise: on the contrary, I have expressly stated in
Chap. IV., that the sum of the divine law (which, as I
have said in Chap. II., has been divinely inscribed on our
hearts), and its chief precept is, to love God as the highest
good: not, indeed, from the fear of any punishment, for
love cannot spring from fear; nor for the love of any-
thing which we desire for our own delight, for then we
should love not God, but the object of our desire.

I have shown in the same chapter, that God revealed
this law to the prophets, so that, whether it received from
God the form of a command, or whether we conceive it
to be like God's other decrees, which involve eternal
necessity and truth, it will in either case remain God's
decree and a salutary principle. Whether I love God in
freedom, or whether I love him from the necessity of the
divine decree, I shall nevertheless love God, and shall be
in a state of salvation. Wherefore, I can now declare
here, that this person is one of that sort, of whom I have
said at the end of my preface, that I would rather that

LETTER XLIX.] CORRESPONDENCE 373

they utterly neglected my book, than that by misinter-
preting it after their wont, they should become hostile,
and hinder others without benefiting themselves.

Though I think I have said enough to prove what I
intended, I have yet thought it worth while to add a few
observations — namely, that this person falsely thinks,
that I have in view the axiom of theologians, which
draws a distinction between the words of a prophet when
propounding doctrine, and the same prophet when nar-
rating an event. If by such an axiom he means that
which in Chap. XV. I attributed to a certain R. Jehuda
Alpakhar, how could he think that I agree with it, when
in that very chapter I reject it as false ? If he does not
mean this, I confess I am as yet in ignorance as to what
he does mean, and, therefore, could not have had it in
view.

Again, I cannot see why he says, that all will adopt
my opinions, who deny that reason and philosophy should
be the interpreters of Scripture; I have refuted the doc-
trine of such persons, together with that of Maimonides.

It would take too long to review all the indications he
gives of not having judged me altogether calmly. I there-
fore pass on to his conclusion where he says, ^< that I

HAVE NO ARGUMENTS LEFT TO PROVE, THAT MaHOMET WAS

NOT A TRUE PROPHET. ^^ This he cudcavors to show from
my opinions, whereas from them it clearly follows, that
Mahomet was an impostor, inasmuch as he utterly
forbids that freedom, which the Catholic religion revealed
by our natural faculties and by the prophets grants, and
which I have shown should be granted in its complete-
ness. Even if this were not so, am I, I should like to
know, bound to show that any prophet is false ? Surely
the burden lies with the prophets, to prove that they are
true. But if he retorts that Mahomet also taught the
divine law, and gave certain signs of his mission, as the
rest of the prophets did, there is surely no reason why
he should deny that Mahomet also was a true prophet.
As regards the Turks and other non-Christian nations;
if they worship God by the practice of justice and char-
ity toward their neighbor, I believe tliat they have the

374 SPINOZA'S [LETTER L.

spirit of Christ, and are in a state of salvation, whatever
they may ignorantly hold with regard to Mahomet and
oracles.

Thus you see, my friend, how far this man has strayed
from the truth; nevertheless, I grant that he has in-
flicted the greatest injury, not on me, but on himself, in-
asmuch as he has not been ashamed to declare, that

* UNDER DISGUISED AND COVERT ARGUMENTS I TEACH
ATHEISM.'*

I do not think, that you will find any expressions I
have used against this man too severe. However, if
there be any of the kind which offend you, I beg you
to correct them as you shall think fit. I have no dispo-
sition to irritate him, whoever he may be, and to raise
up by my labors enemies against myself; as this is often
the result of disputes like the present, I could scarcely
prevail on myself to reply — nor should I have prevailed,
if I had not promised. Farewell. I commit to your pru-
dence this letter, and myself, who am, etc.

LETTER L. (L.)
Spinoza to Jarig Jellis.

[Of the difference between the political theories of Hobbes and
Spinoza, of the Unity of God, of the notion of figure, of the book
of a Utrecht professor against the <*Tractatus Theologico-PoUticus.*]

Most Courteous Sir, — As regards political theories,
the difference which you inquire about between Hobbes
and myself, consists in this, that I always preserve natural
right intact, and only allot to the chief magistrates in
every state a right over their subjects commensurate
with the excess of their power over the power of the
subjects. This is what always takes place in the state
of nature.

Again, with regard to the demonstration which I estab-
lish in the appendix to my geometric exposition of Car-

LETTER L.] CORRESPONDENCE 375

tesian principles, namely, that God can only with great
impropriety be called one or single, I answer that a
thing can only be called one or single in respect of exist-
ence, not in respect of essence. For we do not conceive
things under the category of numbers, unless they have
first been reduced to a common genus. For example, he
who holds in his hand a penny and a crownpiece will
not -think of the twofold number, unless he can call
both the penny and the crownpiece by one and the same
name, to wit, coins or pieces of money. In the latter
case he can say that he holds two coins or pieces of
money, inasmuch as he calls the crown as well as the
penny, a coin, or piece of money. Hence, it is evident
that a thing cannot be called one or single, unless there
be afterward another thing conceived, which ( as has
been said) agrees with it. Now, since the existence of
God is his essence, and of his essence we can form no
general idea, it is certain, that he who calls God one or
single has no true idea of God, and speaks of him very
improperly.

As to the doctrine that figure is negation and not any-
thing positive, it is plain that the whole of matter
considered indefinitely can have no figure, and that
figure can only exist in finite and determinate bodies.
For he who says, that he perceives a figure, merely indi-
cates thereby, that he conceives a determinate thing,
and how it is determinate. This determination, there-
fore, does not appertain to the thing according to its
being, but, on the contrary, is its non-being. As then
figure is nothing else than determination, and deter-
mination is negation, figure, as has been said, can be
nothing but negation.

The book, which a Utrecht professor wrote against
mine, and which was published after his death, I saw
lying in a bookseller's window. From the little I then
read of it, I judged it unworthy of perusal, still less of
reply. I, therefore, left the book, and its author. With
an inward smile I reflected, that the most ignorant are
ever the most audacious and the most ready to rush into
print. The Christians seem to me to expose their wares

376 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LI.

for sale like hucksters, who always show first that which
is worst. The devil is said to be very cunning, but to
my thinking the tricks of these people are in cunning
far beyond his. Farewell.

The Hague, 2 June, 1674.

LETTER LL (XLV.)
Godfrey Leibnitz to Spixoza.

Distinguished Sir, — Among your other merits spread
abroad by fame, I understand that you have remarkable
skill in optics. I have, therefore, wished to forward my
essay, such as it is, to you, as I am not likely to find a
better critic in this branch of learning. The paper, which
I send you, and which I have styled " a note on advanced
optics,*^ has been published with a view of more conven-
iently making known my ideas to my friends and the
curious in such matters. I hear that ... is very
clever in the same subject, doubtless he is well known
to you. If you could obtain for me his opinion and
kind attention, you would greatly increase my obligation
to you. The paper explains itself.

I believe you have already received the ^^ Prodromo *
of Francis Lana the Jesuit, written in Italian. Some
remarkable observations on optics are contained in it.
John Oltius too, a young Swiss very learned in these
matters, has published " Ph5'sico-Mechanical Reflections
Concerning Vision *^ ; in which he announces a machine
for the polishing all kinds of glasses, very simple and
of universal applicability, and also declares that he has
discovered a means of collecting all the rays coming
from different points of an object, so as to obtain an
equal number of corresponding points, but only under
conditions of a given distance and form of object.

My proposal is, not that the rays from all points should
be collected and rearranged (this is with any object or

LETTER LIL] CORRESPONDENCE 377

distance impossible at the present stage of our knowledge) ;
the result I aim at is the equal collection of rays from
points outside the optic axis and in the optic axis, so that
the apertures of glasses could be made of any size desired
without impairing the distinctness of vision. But this
must stand according to your skilled verdict. Farewell,
and believe me, distinguished sir, your obedient servant,

Godfrey Leibnitz,
J. U. D., Councillor of the Elector of Mainz.

Frankfort, 5 Oct., 1671 (new style).

LETTER LIL (XLVL)

Spinoza to Leibnitz.

[Answer to the foregoing letter.]

Most Learned and Distinguished Sir, — I have read
the paper you were kind enough to send me, and return
you many thanks for the communication. I regret that I
have not been able quite to follow your meaning, though
you explain it sufficiently clearly, whether you think that
there is any cause for making the apertures of the glasses
small, except that the rays coming from a single point are
not collected accurately at another single point, but in a
small area which we generally call the mechanical point,
and that this small area is greater or less in proportion to
the size of the aperture. Further, I ask whether the
lenses which you call " pandochse * correct this fault, so
that the mechanical point or small area, on which the rays
coming from a single point are after refraction collected,
always preserves the same proportional size, whether the
aperture be small or large. If so, one may enlarge the
aperture as much as one likes, and consequently these
lenses will be far superior to those of any other shape
known to me ; if not, I hardly see why you praise them so

378 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LII.

greatly beyond common lenses. For circular lenses have
everywhere the same axis; therefore, when we employ
them, we must regard all the points of an object as placed
in the optic axis; although all the points of the object be
not at the same distance, the difference arising thence will
not be perceptible, when the objects are very remote ; be-
cause then the rays coming from a single point would, as
they enter the glass, be regarded as parallel. I think your
lenses might be of service in obtaining a more distinct
representation of all the objects, when we wish to include
several objects in one view, as we do, when we employ very
large convex circular lenses. However, I would rather
suspend my judgment about all these details, till you have
more clearly explained your meaning, as I heartily beg
you to do. I have, as you requested, sent the other copy
of your paper to Mr. . . , He answers, that he has
at present no time to study it, but he hopes to have leisure
in a week or two,

I have not yet seen the ^^ Prodromo ^^ of Francis Lana,
nor the " Physico-Mechanical Reflections *^ of John Oltius.
What I more regret is, that your ^* Physical Hypothesis **
has not yet come to my hands, nor is there a copy for
sale here at the Hague. The gift, therefore, which you
so liberally promised me will be most acceptable to me;
if I can be of use to you in any other matter, you will
always find me most ready. I hope you will not think it
too irksome to reply to this short note.

Distinguished Sir,

Yours sincerely,

B. DE Spinoza.
The Hague, 9 Nov., 1671.

P.S. Mr. Diemerbroech does not live here. I am,
therefore, forced to intrust this to an ordinary letter
carrier. I doubt not that you know someone at the
Hague, who would take charge of our letters; I should
like to hear of such a person, that our correspondence
might be more conveniently and securely taken care of.
If the ^* Tractatus Theologico-Politicus " has not yet come
to your hands, I will, unless you have any objection,
send you a copy. Farewell.

LETTER LIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 379

LETTER LIIL (XLVII.)

Fabritius to Spinoza,

[Fabritius, under the order and in the name of the Elector Palatine,
offers Spinoza the post of Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg,
under very liberal conditions.]

Most Renowned Sir, — His Most Serene Highness the
Elector Palatine,* my most gracious master, commands
me to write to you, who are, as yet, unknown to me, but
most favorably regarded by his Most Serene Highness,
and to inquire of you, whether you are willing to accept
an ordinary professorship of Philosophy in his illustrious
university. An annual salary would be paid to you,
equal to that enjoyed at present by the ordinary profes-
sors. You will hardly find elsewhere a prince more
favorable to distinguished talents, among which he reck-
ons yourself. You will have the most ample freedom in
philosophical teaching, which the prince is confident you
will not misuse, to disturb the religion publicly estab-
lished. I cannot refrain from seconding the prince's
injunction. I therefore most earnestly beg you to reply
as soon as possible, and to address your answer either
under cover to the Most Serene Elector's resident at
the Hague, Mr. Grotius, or to Mr. Gilles Van der Hele,
so that it may come in the packet of letters usually sent
to the court, or else to avail yourself of some other con-
venient opportunity for transmitting it. I will only add,
that if you come here, you will live pleasantly a life
worthy of a philosopher, unless events turn out quite
contrary to our expectation and hope. So farewell.
I remain, illustrious Sir,

Your devoted admirer,

I. Lewis Fabritius.
Professor of the Academy of Heidelberg, and
Councillor of the Elector Palatine.

Heidelberg, 16 Feb., 1673.

* Charles Lewis, Elector, 1632-1680. ■ ^

38o SPINOZA'S [LETTER XLIV.

LETTER LIV. (XLVIII.)
Spinoza to Fabritius.

(Spinoza thanks the Elector for his kind oflfer, but, owing to his
unwillingness to teach in public, and other causes, humbly begs
to be allowed time to consider it.]

Distinguished Sir, — If I had ever desired to take a
professorship in any faculty, I could not have wished for
any other than that which is offered to me, through you,
by His Most Serene Highness the Elector Palatine, espe-
cially because of that freedom in philosophical teaching,
which the most gracious prince is kind enough to grant,
not to speak of the desire which I have long entertained,
to live under the rule of a prince, whom all men admire
for his wisdom.

But since it has never been my wish to teach in
public, I have been unable to induce myself to accept
this splendid opportunity, though I have long deliberated
about it. I think in the first place, that I should aban-
don philosophical research if I consented to find time for
teaching young students. I think, in the second place,
that I do not know the limits, within which the freedom
of my philosophical teaching would be confined, if I am
to avoid all appearance of disturbing the publicly estab-
lished religion. Religious quarrels do not arise so much
from ardent zeal for religion, as from men's various dis-
positions and love of contradiction, which causes them
to habitually distort and condemn everything, however
rightly it may have been said. I have experienced these
results in my private and secluded station, how much
more should I have to fear them after my elevation to
this post of honor.

Thus you see, distinguished Sir, that I am not holding
back in the hope of getting something better, but through
my love of quietness, which I think I can in some
measure secure, if I keep away from lecturing in public.

LETTER LV.l CORRESPONDENCE 381

I therefore most earnestly entreat you to beg of the
Most Serene Elector, that I may be allowed to consider
further about this matter, and I also ask you to concil-
iate the favor of the most gracious prince to his most
devoted admirer, thus increasing the obligations of your
sincere friend, B. de S.

The Hague, 30 March, 1673.

LETTER LV. (LI.)

Hugo Boxel to Spinoza.

[A friend asks Spinoza's opinion about ghosts. J

Distinguished Sir, — My reason for writing to you is,
that I want to know your opinion about apparitions and
ghosts or spectres; if you admit their existence, what do
you think about them, and how long does their life last?
For some hold them to be mortal, others immortal. As
I am doubtful whether you admit their existence, I will
proceed no further.

Meanwhile, it is certain, that the ancients believed in
them. The theologians and philosophers of to-day are
hitherto agreed as to the existence of some creatures
of the kind though they may not agree as to the nature of
their essence. Some assert that they are composed of
very thin and subtle matter, others that they are spiritual.
But, as I was saying before, we are quite at cross pur-
poses, inasmuch as I am doubtful whether you would
grant their existence; though as you must be aware, so
many instances and stories of them are found through-
out antiquity, that it would really be difficult either to
deny or to doubt them. It is clear that, even if you con-
fess that they exist, you do not believe that some of them
are the souls of the dead, as the defenders of the Romish
faith would have it. I will here end, and will say npth-

382 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LVI.

ing- about war and rumors, inasmuch as our lot is cast in
an age, etc. Farewell.
14 Sept, , 1674.

LETTER LVI. (LIL)
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.

[Spinoza answers that he does not know what ghosts are, and can
gain no information from antiquity. (The Hague, Sept., 1674.)]

Dear Sir, — Your letter, which I received yesterday,
was most welcome to me, both because I wanted to hear
news of you, and also because it shows that you have
not utterly forgotten me. Although some might think
it a bad omen, that ghosts are the cause of your writing
to me, I, on the contrary, can discern a deeper meaning
in the circumstance; I see that not only truths, but also
things trifling and imaginary may be of use to me.

However, let us defer the question, whether ghosts are
delusions and imaginary, for I see that not only denial of
them, but even doubt about them seems very singular to
you, as to one who has been convinced by the numerous
histories related by men of to-day and the ancients. The
great esteem and honor, in which I have always held and
still hold you, does not suffer me to contradict you, still
less to humor you. The middle course, which I shall
adopt, is to beg you to be kind enough to select from the
numerous stories which you have read, one or two of
those least open to doubt, and most clearly demonstra-
ting the existence of ghosts. For to confess the truth, I
have never read a trustworthy author, who clearly showed
that there are such things. Up to the present time I do
not know what they are, and no one has ever been able
to tell me. Yet it is evident, that in the case of a thing
so clearly shown by experience we ought to know what
it is; otherwise we shall have great difficulty in gather-
ing from histories that ghosts exist. We only gather that
something exists of nature unknown. If philosophers
choose to call things which we do not know "ghosts,*^ I

LETTER LVIL] CORRESPONDENCE 383

shall not deny the existence of such, for there are an
infinity of things, which I cannot make out.

Pray tell me, my dear Sir, before I explain myself
further in the matter. What are these ghosts or spectres ?
Are they children, or fools, or madmen ? For all that I
have heard of them seems more adapted to the silly than
the wise, or, to say the best we can of it, resembles the
pastimes of children or of fools. Before I end, I would
submit to you one consideration, namely, that the desire
which most men have to narrate things, not as they really
happened, but as they wished them to happen, can be
illustrated from the stories of ghosts and spectres more
easily than from any others. The principal reason for
this is, I believe, that such stories are only attested by
the narrators, and thus a fabricator can add or suppress
circumstances, as seems most convenient to him, without
fear of anyone being able to contradict him. He com-
poses them to suit special circumstances, in order to
justify the fear he feels of dreams and phantoms, or else
to confirm his courage, his credit, or his opinion. There
are other reasons, which lead me to doubt, if not the
actual stories, at least some of the narrated circumstances;
and which have a close bearing on the conclusion we are
endeavoring to derive from the aforesaid stories. I will
here stop, until I have learned from you what those stories
are, which have so completely convinced you, that you
regard all doubt about them as absurd, etc.

LETTER LVIL (LIIL)

Hugo Boxel to §pinoza.

Most Sagacious Sir, — You have sent me just the an-
swer I expected to receive, from a friend holding an
opinion adverse to my own. But no matter. Friends may
always disagree on indifferent subjects without injury to
their friendship.

384 SPINOZA'S ^ LETTER LVII.

You ask me, before you gave an opinion as to what
these spectres or spirits are, to tell you whether they are
children, fools, or madmen, and you add that everything
you have heard of them seems to have proceeded rather
from the insane than the sane. It is a true proverb,
which says that a preconceived opinion hinders the pur-
suit of truth.

I, then, believe that ghosts exist for the following rea-
sons: first, because it appertains to the beauty and per-
fection of the universe, that they should; secondly, because
it is probable that the Creator created them, as being
more like himself than are embodied creatures; thirdly,
because as body exists without soul, soul exists without
body; fourthly and lastly, because in the upper air,
region, or space, I believe there is no obscure body
without inhabitants of its own ; consequently, that the
measureless space between us and the stars is not empty,
but thronged with spiritual inhabitants. Perhaps the
highest and most remote are true spirits, whereas the
lowest in the lowest region of the air are creatures of
very thin and subtle substance, and also invisible. Thus
I think there are spirits of all sorts, but, perhaps, none
of the female sex.

This reasoning will in no wise convince those who
rashly believe that the world has been created by chance.
Daily experience, if these reasons be dismissed, shows
that there are spectres, and many stories, both new and
old, are current about them. Such may be found in
Plutarch's book " De viris illustribus, ^^ and in his other
works ; in Suetonius's " Lives of the Csesars, " also in \
Wierus's and Lavater's books about ghosts, where the
subject is fully treated and illustrated from writers of all
kinds. Cardano, celebrated for his learning, also speaks
of them in his books *' De Subtilitate, ** " De Varietate, **
and in his ^* Life ^* ; showing, by experience, that they
have appeared to himself, his relations, and friends.
Melancthon, a wise man and a lover of truth, testifies to
his experience of them, as also do many others. A cer-
tain burgomaster, learned and wise, who is still living,
once told me that he heard by night the noise of work-

LETTER LVII.] CORRESPONDENCE

385

ing in his mother's brew-house, going on just as it does
while beer is being brewed in the day; this he attested
as having occurred frequently. The same sort of thing
has happened to me and will never fade from my mem-
ory; hence I am convinced by the above-mentioned expe-
riences and reasons that there are ghosts.

As for evil spirits who torture wretched men in this
life and the next, and who work spells, I believe the
stories of them to be fables. In treatises about spirits
you will find a host of details. Besides those I have cited,
you may refer to Pliny the Younger, bk. vii., the letter
to Sura; Suetonius, "Life of Julius Caesar, ^^ ch. xxxii. ;
Valerius Maximus, L viii. , § § 7, 8; and Alexander ab Alex-
andro, " Dies Geniales. '* I am sure these books are access-
ible to you. I say nothing of monks and priests, for they
relate so many tales of souls and evil spirits, or as I
should rather say of spectres, that the reader becomes
wearied with their abundance. Thyraeus, a Jesuit, in the
book about the apparition of spirits, also treats of the
question. But these last named discourse on such sub-
jects merely for the sake of gain, and to prove that pur-
gatory is not so bad as is supposed, thus treating the
question as a mine, from which they dig up plenteous
store of gold and silver. But the same cannot be said
of the writers mentioned previously, and other mod-
erns, who merit greater credit from their absence of
bias.

As an answer to the passage in your letter, where you
speak of fools and madmen, I subjoin this sentence from
the learned Lavater, who ends with it his first book on
ghosts or spectres. ** He who is bold enough to gainsay
so many witnesses, both ancient and modern, seems to
me unworthy of credit. For as it is a mark of frivolity
to lend incontinent credence to everyone who says he
has seen a ghost; so, on the other hand, rashly and flatly
to contradict so many trustworthy historians. Fathers, and
other persons placed in authority would argue a remark-
able shamelessness. **

21 Sept., 1674,
25

386 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LVIII.

LETTER LVIII. (LIV.)
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.

[Spinoza treats of the necessary creation of the world — he refutes
his friend's arguments and quotations.]

Dear Sir, — I will rely on what you said in your letter
of the 2 1 St of last month, that friends may disagree on
indifferent questions, without injury to their friendship,
and will frankly tell you my opinion on the reasons and
stories, whereon you base your conclusion, that there

ARE GHOSTS OF EVERY KIND, BUT PERHAPS NONE OF THE

FEMALE SEX. The reason for my not replying sooner is
that the books you quoted are not at hand, in fact I have
not found any except Pliny and Suetonius. However,
these two have saved me the trouble of consulting any
other, for I am persuaded that they all talk in the same
strain and hanker after extraordinary tales, which rouse
men's astonishment and compel their wonder. I confess
that I am not a little amazed, not at the stories, but at
those who narrate them. I wonder that men of talent
and judgment should so employ their readiness of speech,
and abuse it in endeavoring to convince us of such trifles.

However, let us dismiss the w^riters, and turn to the
question itself. In the first place, we will reason a little
about your conclusion. Let us see whether I, who deny
that there are spectres or spirits, am on that account less
able to understand the authors, who have written on the
subject; or whether you, who assert that such beings
exist, do not give to the aforesaid writers more credit
than they deserve. The distinction you drew, in admit-
ting without hesitation spirits of the male sex, but doubt-
ing whether any female spirits exist, seems to me more
like a fancy than a genuine doubt. If it were really your
opinion, it would resemble the common imagination that
God is masculine, not feminine. I wonder that those,
who have seen naked ghosts, have not cast their eyes on

LETTER LVIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 387

those parts of the person, which would remove all doubt;
perhaps they were timid, or did not know of this dis-
tinction. You would say that this is ridicule, not reason-
ing: and hence I see, that your reasons appear to you
so strong- and well-founded, that no one can (at least in
your judgment) contradict them, unless he be some per-
verse fellow, who thinks the world has been made by
chance. This impels me, before going into your reasons,
to set forth briefly my opinion on the question, whether

THE WORLD WAS MADE BY CHANCE. But I aUSWCr, that aS

it is clear that chance and necessity are two contraries,
so it is also clear, that he, who asserts the world to be
a necessary effect of the divine nature, must utterly
deny that the world has been made by chance ; whereas,
he who affirms, that God need not have mxade the world,
confirms, though in different language, the doctrine that
it has been made by chance; inasmuch as he maintains
that it proceeds from a wish, which might never have
been formed. However, as this opinion and theory is on
the face of it absurd, it is commonly very unanimously
admitted, that God's will is eternal, and has never been in-
different ; hence it must necessarily be also admitted, you
will observe, that the world is a necessary effect of the
divine nature. Let them call it will, understanding, or
any name they like, they come at last to the same con-
clusion, that under different names they are expressing
one and the same thing. If you ask them, whether the
divine will does not differ from the human, they answer,
that the former has nothing in common with the latter
except its name; especially as they generally admit that
God's will, understanding, intellect, essence, and nature
are all identical ; so I, myself, lest I should confound the
divine nature with the human, do not assign to God
human attributes, such as will, understanding, attention,
hearing, etc. I therefore say, as I have said already,

that THE WORLD IS A NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE DIVINE
NATURE, AND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY CHANCE.

I think this is enough to persuade you, that the opinion
of those (if such there be), who say that the world has
been made by chance, is entirely contrary to mine ; and.

388 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LVIII.

relying on this hypothesis, I proceed to examine those
reasons which lead you to infer the existence of all kinds
of ghosts. I should like to say of these reasons gener-
ally, that they seem rather conjectures than reasons, and
I can with difficulty believe, that you take them for
guiding reasons. However, be they conjectures or be
they reasons, let us see whether we can take them for
foundations.

Your first reason is, that the existence of ghosts is
needful for the beauty and perfection of the universe.
Beauty, my dear sir, is not so much a quality of the ob-
ject beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our
sight were longer or shorter, or if our constitution were
different, what now appears beautiful to us would seem
misshapen, and what we now think misshapen we should
regard as beautiful. The most beautiful hand seen
through the microscope will appear horrible. Some
things are beautiful at a distance, but ugly near; thus
things regarded in themselves, and in relation to God,
are neither ugly nor beautiful. Therefore, he who says
that God has created the world, so that it might be beau-
tiful, is bound to adopt one of the two alternatives,
either that God created the world for the sake of men's
pleasure and eyesight, or else that he created men's
pleasure and eyesight for the sake of the world. Now,
whether we adopt the former or the latter of these views,
how God could have furthered his object by the creation
of ghosts, I cannot see. Perfection and imperfection are
names, which do not differ much from the names beauty
and ugliness. I only ask, therefore (not to be tedious),
which would contribute most to the perfect adornment
of the world, ghosts, or a quantity of monsters, such as
centaurs, hydras, harpies, satyrs, gryphons, arguses, and
other similar inventions ? Truly the world would be
handsomely bedecked, if God had adorned and embel-
lished it, in obedience to our fancy, with beings, which
any one may readily imagine and dream of, but no one
can understand.

Your second reason is, that because spirits express
God's image more than embodied creatures, it is probable

LETTER LVIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 389

that he has created them. I frankly confess, that I am
as yet in ignorance, how spirits more than other crea-
tures express God. This I know, that between finite
and infinite there is no comparison; so that the differ-
ence between God and the greatest and most excellent
created thing is no less than the difference between God
and the least created thing. This argument, therefore,
is beside the mark. If I had as clear an idea of ghosts
as I have of a triangle or a circle, I should not in the
least hesitate to affirm that they had been created by
God; but as the idea I possess of them is just like the
ideas, which my imagination forms of harpies, gryphons,
hydras, etc., I cannot consider them as anything but
dreams, which differ from God as totally, as that which
is not differs from that which is.

Your third reason (that as body exists without soul,
so soul should exist without body) seems to me equally
absurd. Pray tell me, if it is not also likely, that memory,
hearing, sight, etc., exist without bodies, because bodies
exist without memory, hearing, sight, etc., or that a
sphere exists without a circle, because a circle exists
without a sphere ?

Your fourth, and last reason, is the same as your first,
and I refer you to my answer given above. I will only
observe here, that I do not know which are the highest
or which the lowest places, which you conceive as exist-
ing in infinite matter, unless you take the earth as the
centre of the universe. For if the sun or Saturn be the
centre of the imiverse, the sun or Saturn, not the earth,
will be the lowest.

Thus, passing by this argument and what remains, I
conclude, that these and similar reasons will convince no
one of the existence of all kinds of ghosts and spectres,
unless it be those persons, who shut their ears to the
understanding, and allow themselves to be led away by
superstition. This last is so hostile to right reason, that
she lends willing credence to old wives' tales for the
sake of discrediting philosophers.

As regards the stories, I have already said in my first
letter, that I do not deny them altogether, but .only the

390 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LIX.

conclusion drawn from them. To this I may add, that
I do not believe them so thoroughly, as not to doubt
many of the details, which are generally added rather
for ornament than for bringing out the truth of the story
or the conclusion drawn from it. I had hoped, that out
of so many stories you would at least have produced one
or two, which could hardly be questioned, and which
would clearly show that ghosts or spectres exist. The
case you relate of the burgomaster, who wanted to infer
their existence, because he heard spectral brewers work-
ing in liis mother's brew-house by night, and making the
same noises as he was accustomed to hear by day, seems
to me laughable. In like manner it would be tedious
here to examine all the stories of people, who have written
on these trifles. To be brief, I cite the instance of Julius
Caesar, who, as Suetonius testifies, laughed at such things
and yet was happy, if we may trust what Suetonius says
in the 59th chapter of his life of that leader. And so
should all, who reflect on the human imagination, and
the effects of the emotions, laugh at such notions; what-
ever Lavater and others, who have gone dreaming with
him in the matter, may produce to the contrary.

LETTER LIX. (LV.)

Hugo Boxel to Spinoza.

[ A continuation of the arguments in favor of ghosts, which may be
summarized as follows: I say a thing is done by chance, when it
has not been the subject of will on the part of the doer ; not when it
might never have happened. — Necessity and freedom, not necessity
and chance, are contraries. — If we do not in some sense attribute
human qualities to God, what meaning can we attach to the term ? —
You ask for absolute proof of the existence of spirits ; such proof is
not obtainable for many things, which are yet firmly believed. — Some
things are more beautiful intrinsically than others. — As God is a
spirit, spirits resemble him more than embodied creatures do. — A
ghost cannot be conceived as clearly as a triangle: can you say that
your own idea of God is as clear as your idea of a triangle ? — As a
circle exists without a sphere, so a sphere exists without a circle. —

LETTER LX. CORRESPONDENCE 391

We call things higher or lower in proportion to their distance from
the earth. — All the Stoics, Pythagoreans, and Platonists, Empedocles,
Masimus Tyrius, Apuleius, and others, bear witness to ghosts ; and
no modern denies them. It is presumption to sneer at such a body
of testimony. Caesar did not ridicule ghosts, but omens, and if he
had listened to Spurina he would not have been murdered.^

LETTER LX. (LVL)
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.

[Spinoza again answers the argument in favor of ghosts. ( The Hague,

1674.)]

Dear Sir, — I hasten to answer your letter, received
yesterday, for if I delay my reply, I may have to put it
off longer than I should like. The state of your health
would have made me anxious, if I did not understand
that you are better. I hope you are by this time quite
well again.

The difficulties experienced by two people following
different principles, and trying to agree on a matter,
which depends on many other questions, might be shown
from this discussion alone, if there were no reason to
prove it by. Pray tell me, whether you have seen or
read any philosophers, who hold that the world has been
made by chance, taking chance in your sense, namely,
that God had some design in making the world and yet
has not kept to the plan he had formed. I do not know,
that such an idea has ever entered anyone's mind. I am
likewise at a loss for the reasons, with which you want
to make me believe, that chance and necessity are not
contraries. As soon as I affirm that the three angles of
a triangle are equal to two right angles necessarily, I
deny that they are thus equal by chance. As soon as I
affirm that heat is a necessary effect of fire, I deny that
it is a chance effect. To say that necessary and free
are two contrary terms, seems to me no less absurd and
repugnant to reason. For no one can deny, that God
freely knows himself and all else, yet all with one voice
grant that God knows himself necessarily. Hence as it

393 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LX.

seems to me, you draw no distinction between constraint
or force and necessity. Man's wishes to live, to love, etc.,
are not under constraint, but nevertheless are necessary;
much more is it necessary that God wishes to be, to
know, and to act. If you will also reflect, that indiffer-
ence is only another name for ignorance or doubt, and
that a will always constant and determined in all things
is a necessary property of the understanding, you will
see that my words are in complete harmony with truth.
If we affirm, that God might have been able not to wish
a given event, or not to understand it, we attribute to
God two different freedoms, one necessary, the other in-
different; consequently we shall conceive God's will as
different from his essence and understanding, and shall
thus fall from one absurdity into another.

The attention, which I asked for in my former letter,
has not seemed to you necessary. This has been the
reason why you have not directed your thoughts to the
main issue, and have neglected a point which is very im-
portant.

Further, when you say that if I deny, that the opera-
tions of seeing, hearing, attending-, wishing, etc., can be
ascribed to God, or that they exist in him in any emi-
nent fashion, you do not know what sort of God mine is ;
I suspect that you believe there is no greater perfection
than such as can be explained by the aforesaid attri-
butes. I am not astonished; for I believe that, if a
triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that
God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say
that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each
would ascribe to God its owti attributes, would assume
itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-
shaped.

The briefness of a letter and want of time do not al-
low me to enter into my opinion on the di\'ine nature,
or the questions you have propounded. Besides, sug-
gesting difficulties is not the same as producing reasons.
That we do many things in the world from conjecture
is true, but that our reflections are based on conjectures
is false. In practical life we are compelled to follow

LETTER LX.] CORRESPONDENCE 393

what is most probable; in speculative thought we are
compelled to follow truth. A man would perish of hun-
ger and thirst, if he refused to eat or drink, till he had
obtained positive proof that food and drink would be
good for him. But in philosophic reflection this is not
so. On the con rary, we must take care not to admit as
true anything, which is only probable. For when one
falsity has been let in, infinite others follow.

Again, we cannot infer that because sciences of things
divine and hum^an are full of controversies and quar-
rels, therefore their whole subject-matter is uncertain;
for there have been many persons so enamored of
contradiction, as to turn into ridicule geometrical axioms.
Sextus Empiricus and other sceptics, whom you quote,
declare, that it is false to say that a whole is greater
than its part, and pass similar judgments on other axioms.

However, as I pass over and grant that -in default of
proof we must be content with probabilities, I say that a
probable proof ought to be such that, though we may
doubt about it, we cannot maintain its contrary; for
that which can be contradicted resembles not truth but
falsehood. For instance, if I say that Peter is alive,
because I saw him yesterday in good health, this is a
probability, in so far as no one can maintain the con-
trary ; but if anyone says that he saw Peter yesterday in
a swoon, and that he believed Peter to have departed
this life to-day, he will make my statement seem false.
That conjecture about ghosts and spectres seems false,
and not even probable, I have shown so clearly, that I
can find nothing worthy of answer in your reply.

To your question, whether I have of God as clear an
idea as I have of a triangle, I reply in the affirmative.
But if you ask me, whether I have as clear a mental
image of God as I have of a triangle, I reply in the
negative. For we are not able to imagine God, though
we can understand him. You must also here observe,
that I do not assert that I thoroughly know God, but
that I understand some of his attributes, not all nor the
greater part, and it is evident that my ignorance of very
many does not hinder the knowledge I have of som-e.

394 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LX.

When I learned Euclid's Elements, I understood tliat the

three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles,

and this property of a triangle I perceived clearly, a

though I might be ignorant of many others. *^-

As regards spectres or ghosts, I have hitherto heard
attributed to them no intelligible property: the}- seem
like phantoms, which no one can understand. When j'ou
say that spectres, or ghosts, in these lower regions ( I
adopt your phraseology, though I know not why matter
below should be inferior to matter above ) consist in a very
thin rarefied and subtle substance, you seem to me to be
speaking of spiders' webs, air, or vapors. To say, that
they are in\'isible, seems to me to be equivalent to say-
ing that they do not exist, not to stating their nature;
unless, perhaps. 3-ou wish to indicate, that they render
themselves \-isible or in\'isible at will, and that the
imagination, in these as in other impossibilities, will find
a difficulty.

The authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, does
not carry much weight with me. I should have been
astonished, if you had brought forward Epicurus, Democ-
ritus, Lucretius, or any of the atomists, or upholders
of the atomic theory. It is no wonder that persons,
who have invented occult qualities, intentional species,
substantial forms, and a thousand other trifies, should
have also de\-ised spectres and ghosts, and given credence
to old wives' tales, in order to take away the reputation
of Democritus, whom they were so jealous of, that
they burned all the books which he had published amid
so much eulogy. If you are inclined to believe such
witnesses, what reason have vou for denving the miracles
of the Blessed Virgin, and all the Saints ? These have
been described by so many famous philosophers,
theologians, and historians, that I could produce at least
a hundred such authorities for every one of the former.
But I have gone further, my dear Sir, than I intended:
I do not desire to cause an}' further annoyance by
doctrines which I know you will not grant. For the
principles which you follow are far different from
my own.

LETTER LXII.j CORRESPONDENCE 395

LJ-.TTEK LZI. rLVIJ. )

, . 'JO SJ'J.'.OZA.

[PhihMophen otten diSer tbr^xigh tuin^ words in different «enM«>
That in the questi^^n ^yf free will Deitcarte* means bjr free, constrained
by no canse. You mean by tiie same, undetermined in a particular
way by a cause. The question of free wiS is threefold -, — L li^ve we
any power whatever over things ezt^nal to us? IL Hare we
absolute power over the intentional movements of our own body?
III. Have we free use of our reason? Both Descartes and
yourself are ri'^t according to the terms «aiidoyed by ea<^
(8th October, 1674 j,]

LETTER LXII. fLVIII.)

Sn.'vozA -JO . . . (Tjjh liAOUfc, October 1674.)

[ Sj/ir^oKa gives his opinions on liberty and necessity.]

Sik: — Our friend, J. R., has sent me the letter whicli
you have been kind enough to write to me, and also the
judgment of your friend as to the opinions of Descartes
and myself regarding free will. Both inclosures were
very welcome to me. Though I am, at present, much
occupied with other matters, not to mention my delicate
health, your singular courtesy, or, to name the chief
motive, your love of truth, impels me to satisfy your
inquiries, as far as my poor abilities will permit. What
your trifrnd wishes to imply by his remark before he
appeals to experience, I know not. What he adds, that

WHEV OHE OF TWO DISPUTANTS AFTIllKS SOMETHING WHICH
THE OTHER DEXIES, BOTH MAY BE RIGHT, IS tme, if he

means that the two, though using the same terms, are
thinking of different things. I once sent several exam-
ples of this to our friend J, R-, and am now writing to
tell him to communicate them to you.

396 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXII.

I, therefore, pass on to that definition of liberty, which
he says is my own ; but I know not whence he has taken
it. I say that a thing is free, which exists and acts solely
by the necessity of its own nature. Thus also God under-
stands himself and all things freely, because it follows
solely from the necessity of his nature, that he should
understand all things. You see I do not place freedom
in free decision, but in free necessity. However, let
us descend to created things, which are all determined
by external causes to exist and operate in a given deter-
minate manner. In order that this may be clearly under-
stood, let us conceive a very simple thing. For instance,
a stone receives from the impulsion of an external cause,
a certain quantity of motion, by virtue of which it con-
tinues to move after the impulsion, given by the external
cause has ceased. The permanence of the stone's motion
is constrained, not necessarily, because it must be defined
by the impulsion of an external cause. What is true of
the stone is true of any individual, however complicated
its nature, or varied its functions, inasmuch as every
individual thing is necessarily determined by some exter-
nal cause to exist and operate in a fixed and determinate
manner.

Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing
in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing,
that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to
move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own
endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself
to be completely free, and would think that it continued
in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that
human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and
which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious
of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes
whereby that desire has been determined. Thiis an in-
fant believes that it desires milk freely; an angry child
thinks he wishes freely for vengeance, a timid child
thinks he wishes freely to run away. Again, a drunken
man thinks, that from the free decision of his mind he
speaks words, which afterward, when sober, he would
like to have left unsaid. So the delirious, the garrulous,

LETTER LXIL] CORRESPONDENCE 397

and others of the same sort think that they act from
the free decision of their mind, not that they are car-
ried away by impulse. As this misconception is innate
in all men, it is not easily conquered. For, although
experience abundantly shows, that men can do anything-
rather than check their desires, and that very often,
when a prey to conflicting emotions, they see the better
course and follow the worse, they yet believe themselves
to be free; because in some cases their desire for a
thing is slight, and can easily be overruled by the re-
collection of something else, which is frequently present
in the mind.

I have thus, if I mistake not, sufficiently explained my
opinion regarding free and constrained necessity, and also
regarding so-called human freedom: from what I have
said you will easily be able to reply to your friend's objec-
tions. For when he says, with Descartes, that he who is
constrained by no external cause is free, if by being con-
strained he means acting against one's will, I grant that
we are in some cases quite unrestrained, and in this respect
possess free will. But if by constrained he means acting
necessaril}^, although not against one's will (as I have ex-
plained above), I deny that we are in any instance
free.

But your friend, on the contrary, asserts that we may

EMPLOY OUR REASON ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS, IN COMPLETE

freedom; and is, I think, a little too confident on the
point. For who, he says, could deny, without contra-
dicting HIS own consciousness, that I CAN THINK WITH
MY THOUGHTS, THAT I WISH OR DO NOT WISH TO WRITE?

I should like to know what consciousness he is talking of,
over and above that which I have illustrated by the exam-
ple of the stone.

As a matter of fact I, without, I hope, contradicting my
consciousness, that is my reason and experience, and with-
out cherishing ignorance and misconception, deny that I
can by any absolute power of thought think, that I wish
or do not wish to write. I appeal to the consciousness,
which he has doubtless experienced, that in dreams he
has not the power of thinking that he wishes, or does not

398 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXII.

wish to write; and that, when he dreams that he wishes
to write, he has not the power not to dream that he
wishes to write. I think he must also have experienced,
that the mind is not always equally capable of thinking
of the same object, but according as the body is more
capable for the image of this or that object being excited
in it, so is the mind more capable of thinking of the
same object.

When he further adds, that the causes for his applying
his mind to writing have led him, but not constrained
him to write, he merely means (if he will look at the
question impartially), that his disposition was then in a
state, in which it could easily be acted on by causes,
which would have been powerless under other circum-
stances, as for instance, when he was under a violent
emotion. That is, causes, which at other times would not
have constrained him, have constrained him, in this case,
not to write against his will, but necessarily to wish to
write.

As for his statement, that if we were constrained by

EXTERNAL CAUSES, NO ONE COULD ACQUIRE THE HABIT OF

VIRTUE, I know not what is his authority for saying, that
firmness and constancy of disposition cannot arise from
predestined necessity, but only from free will.

What he finally adds, that if this were granted, all
WICKEDNESS WOULD BE EXCUSABLE, I meet with the ques-
tion. What then ? Wicked men are not less to be feared,
and are not less harmful, when they are wicked from
necessity. However, on this point I would ask you to
refer to my ^^ Principles of Cartesian Philosophy, '* Part
II., chap. viii.

In a word, I should like your friend, who makes these
objections, to tell me, how he reconciles the human virtue,
which he says arises from the free decision of the mind,
with God's pre-ordainment of the universe. If, with Des-
cartes, he confesses his inability to do so, he is endeavor-
ing to direct against me the weapon which has already
pierced himself. But in vain. For if you examine my
opinion attentively, you will see that it is quite consist-
ent, etc.

LETTER LXIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 399

LETTER LXIIL (LIX.)

. . . TO Spinoza.

[The writer exhorts Spinoza to publish the treatises on « Ethics >> and on
the « Improvement of the Understanding. » Remarks on the definition
of motion. On the difference between a true and an adequate
idea.]

Most Excellent Sir, — When shall we have your
method of rightly directing the reason in the acquisition
of unknown truths, and your general treatise on physics ?
I know you have already proceeded far with them. The
first has already come to my knowledge, and the second I
have become aware of from the Lemmas added to the sec-
ond part of the ^^ Ethics *^ ; whereby many difficulties in
physics are readily solved. If time and opportunity per-
mit, I humbly beg from you a true definition of motion
and its explanation; also to know how, seeing that ex-
tension in so far as it is conceived in itself is indivisible,
immutable, etc., we can infer a priori^ that there can
arise so many varieties of it, and consequently the exist-
ence of figure in the particles of any given body, which
are, nevertheless, in every body various, and distinct
from the figures of the parts, which compose the reality
of any other body. You have already, by word of mouth,
pointed out to me a method, which you employ in the
search for truths as yet unknown. I find this method to
be very excellent, and at the same time very easy, in so
far as I have formed an opinion on it, and I can assert
that from this single discovery I have made great prog-
ress in mathematics. I wish, therefore, that you would
give me a true definition of an adequate, a true, a false,
a fictitious, and a doubtful idea. I have been in search
of the difference between a true and an adequate idea.
Hitherto, however, I can ascertain nothing except after
inquiring into a thing, and forming a certain con-
cept or idea of it. I then (in order to elicit whether this
true idea is also an adequate idea of its object) inquire,
what is the cause of this idea or concept- when this is

400 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXIII.

ascertained, I again ask, What is the cause of this prior
concept ? and so I go on always inquiring for the causes
of the causes of ideas, until I find a cause of such a kind,
that I cannot find any cause for it, except that among
all the ideas which I can command this alone exists. If,
for instance, we inquire the true origin of our errors,
Descartes will answer, that it consists in our giving assent
to things not yet clearly perceived. But supposing this
to be the true idea of the thing, I nevertheless shall not
yet be able to determine all things necessary to be known
concerning it, unless I have also an adequate idea of
the thing in question; in order to obtain such, therefore,
I inquire into the cause of this concept, how it happens
that we give assent to things not clearly understood —
and I answer, that it arises from defective knowledge.
But here I cannot inquire further, and ask what is the
cause, that we are ignorant of certain things; hence I
see that I have detected an adequate idea of the origin
of our errors. Here, meanwhile, I ask you, whether, see-
ing that many things expressed in infinite modes have an
adequate idea of themselves, and that from every ade-
quate idea all that can be known of its object can be
inferred, though more readily from some ideas than others,
whether, I say, this may be the means of knowing which
idea is to be preferred ? For instance, one adequate idea
of a circle consists in the equality of its radii; another
adequate idea consists in the infinite right angles equal
to one another, made by the intersection of two lines, etc.,
and thus we have infinite expressions, each giving the
adequate nature of a circle. Now, though all the proper-
ties of a circle may be inferred from every one of them,
they may be deduced much more easily from some than
from others. So also he, who considers lines applied to
curves, will be able to draw many conclusions as to the
measurement of curves, but will do so more readily from
the consideration of tangents, etc. Thus I have wished
to indicate how far I have progressed in this study; I
await perfection in it, or, if I am wrong on any point,
correction; also the definition I asked for. Farewell.
5 Jan.. 1675.

LETTER LXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 401

LETTER LXIV. (LX.)

Spinoza to . . .

[ The difference between a true and an adequate idea is merely
extrinsic, etc. The Hague, Jan., 1675.]

Honored Sir. — Between a true and an adequate idea,
I recognize no difference, except that the epithet true only
has regard to the agreement between the idea and its
object, whereas the epithet adequate has regard to the
nature of the idea in itself ; .so that in reality there is no
difference between a true and an adequate idea beyond
this extrinsic relation. However, in order that I may
know, from Vv^hich idea out of many all the properties of
its object may be deduced, I pay attention to one point
only, namely, that the idea or definition should express
the efficient cause of its object. For instance, in inquiring
into the properties of a circle, I ask, whether from the idea
of a circle, that it consists of infinite right angles, I can
deduce all its properties. I ask, I repeat, whether this
idea involves the efficient cause of a circle. If it does
not, I look for another, namely, that a circle is the space
described by a line, of which one point is fixed, and the
other movable. As this definition explains the efficient
cause, I know that I can deduce from it all the properties
of a circle. So, also, when I define God as a supremely
perfect Being, then, since that definition does not express
the efficient cause ( I mean the efficient cause internal as
well as external ) I shall not be able to infer therefrom all
the properties of God; as I can, when I define God as a
Being, etc. (see <^ Ethics,'* I. Def. vi.). As for your other
inquiries, namely, that concerning motion, and those per-
taining to method, my observations on them are not yet
written out in due order, so I will reserve them for another
occasion.

As regards your remark, that he *^who considers lines

applied to curves makes many deductions with regard to
26

M

I *A

1

402 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXV.

the measurement of curves, but does so with greater
facility from the consideration of tangents,'* etc., I think
that from the consideration of tangents many deductions
will be made with more difficulty, than from the consid-
eration of lines applied in succession; and I assert abso-
lutely, that from certain properties of any particular thing
( whatever idea be given ) some things may be discovered
more readily, others with more difficulty, though all are
concerned with the nature of the thing. I think it need
only be observed, that an idea should be sought for of
such a kind, that all properties may be inferred, as has
been said above. He who is about to deduce all the
properties of a particular thing, knows that the ultimate
properties will necessarily be the most difficult to dis-
cover, etc.

LETTER LXV. (LXIIL)

G. H. SCHALLER TO SPINOZA.

[Schaller asks for answers to four questions of his friend Tschirn-
hausen on the attributes of God, and mentions that Tschirnhausen
has removed the unfavorable opinion of Spinoza lately conceived
by Boyle and Oldenburg.]

Most Distinguished and Excellent Sir, — I should
blush for my silence, which has lasted so long, and has
laid me open to the charge of ingratitude for your kind-
ness extended to me beyond my merits, if I did not reflect
that your generous courtesy inclines rather to excuse than
to accuse, and also know that you devote your leisure, for
the common good of your friends, to serious studies, which
it would be harmful and injurious to disturb without due
cause. For this reason I have been silent, and have mean-
while been content to hear from friends of your good
health: I send you this letter to inform you, that our noble
friend von Tschirnhausen is enjoying the same in England,
and has three times in the letters he has sent me bidden

LETTER LXV.] CORRESPONDENCE 403

me convey his kindest regards to the master, again bidding-
me request from you the solution of the following ques-
tions, and forward to him your hoped-for answer: would
the master be pleased to convince him by positive proof,
not by a reduction to the impossible, that we cannot know
any attributes of God, save thought and extension ?
Further, whether it follows that creatures constituted under
other attributes can form no idea of extension ? If so, it
would follow that there must be as many worlds as there
are attributes of God. For instance, there would be as
much room for extension in worlds affected by other
attributes, as there actually exists , of extension in our
world. But as we perceive nothing save thought besides
extension, so creatures in the other world would perceive
nothing besides the attributes of that world and thought.

Secondly, as the understanding of God differs from our
understanding as much in essence as in existence, it has,
therefore, nothing in common with it; therefore (by
*^ Ethics,** I. iii.), God's understanding cannot be the cause
of our own.

Thirdly (in ^^ Ethics,** I. x. note), you say, that nothing

IN NATURE IS CLEARER THAN THAT EVERY ENTITY MUST BE
CONCEIVED UNDER SOME ATTRIBUTE (this I thOTOUghly

understand), and that the more it has of reality or

BEING, THE MORE ATTRIBUTES APPERTAIN TO IT, It SeCmS

to follow from this, that there are entities possessing
three, four, or more attributes (though we gather from
what has been demonstrated that every being consists
only of two attributes, namely, a certain attribute of
God and the idea of that attribute).

Fourthly, I should like to have examples of those
things which are immediately produced by God, and
those which are produced through the means of some in-
finite modification. Thought and extension seem to be
of the former kind; understanding in thought and mo-
tion in extension seem to be of the latter.

And these are the points which our said friend von
Tschirnhausen joins with me in wishing to have ex-
plained by your excellence, if perchance your spare time
Pillows it. He further relates, that Mr. Boyle and Old-

HoA. SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXVI.

enburg had formed a strange idea of your personal char-
acter, but that he has not only removed it, but also given
reasons, which have not only led them back to a most
v/orthy and favorable opinion thereof, but also made them
value most highly the « Theologico-Political Treatise. '> Of
this I have not ventured to inform you, because of your
health. Be assured that I am, and live,

Most noble sir,
for every good office your most devoted servant,

G. H. SCHALLER,

Amsterdam, 25 July, 1675.

Mr. k Gent and J. Rieuwerts dutifully greet you.

LETTER LXVI. (LXIV.)
Spinoza to . . .

[Spinoza answers by reference to the first three books of the

« Ethics. »]

Dear Sir, — I am glad that you have at last had occa-
sion to refresh me with one of your letters, always most
welcome to me. I heartily beg that you will frequently
repeat the favor, etc.

I proceed to consider your doubts : to the first I answer,
that the human mind can only acquire knowledge of
those things which the idea of a body actually existing
involves, or of what can be inferred from such an idea.
For the power of anything is defined solely by its essence
("Ethics,* III. vii.); the essence of the mind ("Ethics,"
II. xiii.) consists solely in this, that it is the idea of
body actually existing; therefore, the mind's power of
imderstanding only extends to things, which this idea of
body contains in itself, or which follow therefrom. Now
this idea of body does not involve or express any of
God's attributes, save extension and thought. For its
object {ideatum), namely, body (by " Ethics, '^ II. vi.) has

LETTER LXVL] CORRESPONDENCE 405

God for its cause, in so far as he is regarded under the
attribute of extension, and not in so far as he is re-
garded under any other; therefore (<^ Ethics,*^ I. Ax. vi.),
this idea of the body involves the knowledge of God,
only in so far as he is regarded under the attribute of
extension. Further, this idea, in so far as it is a mode
of thinking, has also (by the same proposition) God for
its cause, in so far as he is regarded as a thinking
thing, and not in so far as he is regarded under any
other attribute. Hence (by the same axiom) the idea
of this idea involves the knowledge of God, in so far
as he is regarded under the attribute of thought, and
not in so far as he is regarded under any attribute. It
is therefore plain, that the human mind, or the idea of
the human body neither involves nor expresses any at-
tributes to God save these two. Now from these two
attributes, or their modifications, no other attribute of God
can (^^ Ethics," I. x.) be inferred or conceived. I therefore
conclude that the human mind cannot attain knowledge
of any attribute of God besides these, which is the propo-
sition you inquire about. With regard to your question,
whether there must be as many worlds as there are at-
tributes, I refer you to <^ Ethics," II. vii. note.

Moreover, this proposition might be proved more readily
by a reduction to the absurd; I am accustomed, when
the proposition is negative, to employ this mode of
demonstration as more in character. However, as the
question you ask is positive, I make use of the positive
method, and ask, whether one thing can be produced
from another, from which it differs both in essence and
existence; for things which differ to this extent seem to
have nothing in common. But since all particular things,
except those which are produced from things similar to
themselves, differ from their causes both in essence and
existence, I see here no reason for doubt.

The sense in which I mean that God is the efficient
cause of things, no less of their essence than of their ex-
istence, I think has been sufficiently explained in << Ethics ^*
I. XXV. note and corollary. The axiom in the note to
« Ethics" I. X., as I hinted at the end of the said note, is

4o6 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXVII.

based on the idea which we have of a Being absolutely-
infinite, not on the fact, that there are or may be beings
possessing three, four or more attributes.

Lastly, the examples you ask for of the first kind are,
in thought, absolutely infinite understanding; in exten-
sion, motion and rest; an example of the second kind is
the sum of the whole extended universe {fades totius
universi), which, though it varies in infinite modes, yet
remains always the same. Cf. " Ethics ^^ II. note to
Lemma vii. before Prop. xiv.

Thus, most excellent Sir, I have answered, as I think,
the objections of yourself and your friend. If you think
any uncertainty remains, I hope you will not neglect to
tell me, so that I may, if possible, remove it.

The Hague, 29 July, 1675.

LETTER LXVIL (LXV.)

. . . TO Spinoza.

[A fresh inquiry as to whether there are two or more attributes

of God. ]

Distinguished Sir, — I should like a demonstration of
what you say: namely, that the soul cannot perceive any
attributes of God, except extension and thought. Though
this might appear evident to me, it seems possible that
the contrary might be deduced from ^^ Ethics ^^ II. vii. note;
perhaps because I do not rightly grasp the meaning of
that passage. I have therefore resolved, distinguished
Sir, to show you how I make the deduction, earnestly
begging you to aid me with your usual courtesy, wher-
ever I do not rightly represent your meaning. I reason
as follows: — Though I gather that the universe is one,
it is not less clear from the passage referred to, that it
is expressed in infinite modes, and therefore that every
individual thing is expressed in infinite modes. Hence
it seems to follow, that the modification constituting my

LETTER LXVIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 407

mind, and the modification constituting my body, though
one and the same modification, is yet expressed in infi-
nite ways — first, through thought; secondly, through ex-
tension ; thirdly, through some attribute of God unknown
to me, and so on to infinity, seeing that there are in God
infinite attributes, and the order and connection of the
modifications seem to be the same in all. Hence arises
the question: Why the mind, which represents a cer-
tain modification, the same modification being expressed
not only in extension, but in infinite other ways, — why,
I repeat, does the mind perceive that modification only
as expressed through extension, to wit, the human body,
and not as expressed through any other attributes ? Time
does not allow me to pursue the subject further;
perhaps my diflSculties will be removed by further re-
flection.

London, 12 Aug., 1675.

LETTER LXVIIL (LXVI.)
Spinoza to . . .

[In this fragment of a letter Spinoza refers his friend to «Ethics,»

I. X. and II. vii. note.]

Distinguished Sir, — ... But in answer to your
objection I say, that although each particular thing be
expressed in infinite ways in the infinite understanding
of God, yet those infinite ideas, whereby it is expressed,
cannot constitute one and the same mind of a particular
thing, but infinite minds; seeing that each of these in-
finite ideas has no connection with the rest, as I have
explained in the same note to " Ethics,*^ XL vii., and as is
also evident from I. x. If you will reflect on these

4oS SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXVIII.a.

passages a little, you will see that all difficulty vanishes,
etc.

The Hague, i8 August, 1675.

LETTER LXVIII.A.

G. H; Schaller to Spinoza.

[ Schaller relates to Spinoza Tschirnhausen's doings in France, and
letter to him, and makes known to Spinoza the answers contained
in that letter to Spinoza's objections in Letter LXVIII. and the
request of Leibnitz to see Spinoza's unpublished writings. ]

Amsterdam, 14 Nov., 1675.

Most Learned and Excellent Master, my Most
Venerable Patron, — I hope that you duly receive my

letter with 's method,* and likewise, that you are up

to the present time in good health, as I am.

But for three months I had no letter from our friend
von Tschirnhausen, whence I formed sad conjectures that
he had made a fatal journey, when he left England for
France. Now that I have received a letter, in my full-
ness of joy I felt bound, according to his request, to
communicate it to the master, and to let you know, with
his most dutiful greeting, that he has arrived safely in
Paris, and found there Mr. Huygens, as we had told him,
and consequently has in every way sought to please him,
and is thus highly esteemed by him. He mentioned,
that the master had recommended to him Huygens's con-
versation, and made very much of him personally. This
greatly pleased Huygens; so he answered that he like-
wise greatly esteemed you personally, and he has now
received from you a copy of the ^^ Theologico-Political
Treatise,** which is esteemed by many there, and it is
eagerly inquired, whether there are extant any more of
the same writer's works. To this Mr. von Tschirnhausen

* See the next letter.

LETTER LXVIII.A.] CORRESPONDENCE 409

replied that he knew of none but the Demonstrations in
the first and second parts of the " Cartesian Principles. ^^
But he mentioned nothing about the master, but what I
have said, and so he hopes that he has not displeased
you herein.

^ ■(! I" V "!• ^F V

To the objection that you last made he replies, that
those few words which I wrote at the master's dicta-
tion, * explained to him your meaning more thoroughly,
and that he has favorably entertained the said reasonings
(for by these two methods f they best admit of explana-
tion). But two reasons have obliged him to continue in
the opinion implied in his recent objection. Of these
the first is, that otherwise there appears to be a contra-
diction between the fifth and seventh propositions of the
second book. For in the former of these it is laid down,
that the objects of ideas are the efficient causes of the
ideas, which yet seems to be refuted by the quotation,
in the proof of the latter, of the fourth axiom of Part I.
** Or, as I rather think, I do not make the right applica-
tion of this axiom according to the author's intention,
which I would most willingly be told by him, if his
leisure permits it. The second cause which prevented
me from following the explanation he gives was,
that thereby the attribute of thought is pronounced to
extend much more widely than other attributes. But
since every one of the attributes contributes to make up
the essence of God, I do not quite see how this fact
does not contradict the opinion just stated. I will say
just this more, that if I may judge the minds of others
by my own, there will be great difficulty in understand-
ing the seventh and eighth propositions of Book II., and
this for no other reason than that the author has been
pleased (doubtless because they seemed so plain to him)
to accompany the demonstrations annexed to them with
such short and laconic explanations.*

* Letter LXVIII.

f That is, I think, hearing from the author criticized what his precise
meaning is, and attending carefully to his arguments in favor of the
opinion thus precisely ascertained. — [Tr.]

4IO SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXVIII.a.

He further mentions, that he has found at Paris a man
called Leibnitz, remarkably learned, and most skilled in
various sciences, as also free from the vulgar prejudices
of theology. With him he has formed an intimate
acquaintance, founded on the fact that Leibnitz labors
with him to pursue the perfection of the intellect, and
in fact, reckons nothing better or more useful. Von
Tschirnhausen says, that he is most practiced in ethics,
and speaks without any stimulus of the passions by the
sole dictate of reason. He adds, that he is most skilled
in physics, and also in metaphysical studies concerning
God and the soul. Finally, he concludes that he is most
worthy of having communicated to him the master's
writings, if you will first give your permission, for he
believes that the author will thence gain a great advant-
age, as he promises to show at length, if the master be
so pleased. But if not, do not doubt, in the least, that
he will honorably keep them concealed as he has prom-
ised, as in fact he has not made the slightest mention of
them. Leibnitz also highly values the ^* Theologico-Polit-
ical Treatise,'^ on the subject of which he once wrote the
master a letter, if he is not mistaken. And therefore I
would beg my master, that, unless there is some reason
against him, you will not refuse your permission in
accordance with your gracious kindness, but will, if pos-
sible, open your mind to me, as soon as may be, for after
receiving your answers I shall be able to reply to our
friend von Tschirnhausen, which I would gladly do on
Tuesday evening, unless important hindrances cause my
master to delay.

Mr. Bresser, on his return from Cleves, has sent here a
large quantity of the beer of that country ; I suggested to
him that he should make a present to the master of half
a ton, which he promised to do, and added a most friendly
greeting.

Finally, excuse my unpracticed style and hurried writ-
ing, and give me your orders, that I may have a real
occasion of proving myself, most excellent sir,

Your most ready servant,

G. H. SCHALLER.

LETTER LXVIII.B.] CORRESPONDENCE 411

LETTER LXVIII.B.

Spinoza to Schaller.

[Spinoza answers all the points in Schaller's letter, and hesitates to
intrust his writings to Leibnitz.]

Most Experienced Sir, and Valued Friend, — I was
much pleased to learn from your letter, received to-day,
that you are well, and that our friend von Tschirnhausen
has happily accomplished his journey to France. In the
conversation which he had about me with Mr. Huygens,
he behaved, at least in my opinion, very judiciously; and
besides, I am very glad that he has found so convenient
an opportunity for the purpose which he intended. But
what it is he has found in the fourth axiom of Part I.
that seems to contradict Proposition v. of Part II. I do
not see. For in that proposition it is affirmed, that the
essence of every idea has for its cause God, in so far as
he is considered as a thinking thing; but in that axiom,
that the knowledge or idea of a cause depends on the
knowledge or idea of an effect. But, to tell the truth,
I do not quite follow, in this matter, the meaning of your
letter, and suspect that either in it, or in his copy of the
book, there is a slip of the pen. For 5'ou write, that it
is affirmed in Proposition v. that the objects of ideas are
the efficient causes of the ideas, whereas this is exactly
what is expressly denied in that proposition, and I now
think that this is the cause of th-e whole confusion. Ac-
cordingly it would be useless for me at present to try to
write at greater length on this subject, but I must wait
till you explain to me his mind more clearly, and till I
know whether he has a correct copy. I believe that I
have an epistolary acquaintance with the Leibnitz he
mentions. But why he, who was a counselor at Frank-
fort, has gone to France, I do not know. As far as I
could conjecture from his letters, he seemed to me a man
of liberal mind, and versed in every science. But yet I
think it imprudent so soon to intrust my writings . to

412 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXIX.

him. I should like first to know what is his business in
France, and the judgment of our friend von Tschirn-
hausen, when he has been longer in his company, and
knows his character more intimately. However, greet
that friend of ours in my name, and let him command
me what he pleases," if in anything I can be of service
to him, and he will find me most ready to obey him in
everything.

I congratulate my most worthy friend Mr. Bresser on
his arrival or return, and also thank him heartily for the
promised beer, and will requite him, too, in anyway
that I can. Lastly, I have not yet tried to find out your
relation's method, nor do I think that I shall be able to
apply my mind to trying it. For the more I think over
the thing in itself, the more I am persuaded that you have
not made gold, but had not sufficiently eliminated that
which was hidden in the antimony. But more of this
another time : at present I am prevented by want of leisure.
In the meanwhile, if in anything I can assist you, you will
always find me, most excellent sir, your friend and de-
voted servant,

B, DE Spinoza.
The Hague, i8 Nov., 1675.

LETTER LXIX. (LXXX.)

. . . TO Spinoza.

[ The writer asks for explanations of some passages in the letter
about the infinite (XXIX.).]

Distinguished Sir, — In the first place I can with great
difficulty conceive, how it can be proved, a priori, that
bodies exist having motion and figtire, seeing that, in
extension considered absolutely in itself, nothing of the
kind is met with. Secondly, I should like to learn from
you, how this passage in your letter on the infinite is to
be understood: ^* They do not hence infer that such

THINGS elude NUMBER BY THE MULTITUDE OF TH^II^ COM-

LETTER LXX.] CORRESPONDENCE 413

PONENT PARTS. '^ For, as a matter of fact, all mathema-
ticians seem to me always to demonstrate, with regard to
such infinities, that the number of the parts is so great,
as to elude all expression in terms of number. And in
the example you give of the two circles, you do not ap-
pear to prove this statement, which was yet what you
had undertaken to do. For in this second passage you
only show that they do not draw this conclusion from
"the excessive size of the intervening space, '^ or from
the fact that " we do not know the maximum and the
MINIMUM of the SAID SPACE*; but you do not demonstrate,
as you intended, that the conclusion is not based on the
multitude of parts, etc.

2 May, 1676.

LETTER LXX. (LXXXL)

Spinoza to . . .

[Spinoza explains his view of the infinite.]

Distinguished Sir, — My statement concerning the in-
finite, that an infinity of parts cannot be inferred from a
multitude of parts, is plain when we consider that if
such a conclusion could be drawn from a multitude of
parts, we should not be able to imagine a greater multi-
tude of parts ; the first-named multitude, whatever it was,
would have to be the greater, which is contrary to fact.
For in the whole space between two non-concentric cir-
cles we conceive a greater multitude of parts than in half
that space, yet the number of parts in the half, as in the
whole of the space, exceeds any assignable number.
Again, from extension, as Descartes conceives it, to wit,
a quiescent mass, it is not only difficult, as you say, but
absolutely impossible, to prove the existence of bodies.
For matter at rest, as it is in itself, will continue at rest,
and will only be determined to motion by some more pow-
erful external cause ; for this reason I have not hesitated

414 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXI.

on a former occasion to affirm, that the Cartesian princi-
ples of natural things are useless, not to say absurd.

The Hague, 5 May, 1676.

LETTER LXXI. (LXXXIL)

. . . TO Spinoza.

[How can the variety of the universe be shown a priori ivom. the Spino-
zistic conception of extension ?J

Most Learned Sir, — I wish you would gratify me in
this matter by pointing out how, from the conception of
extension, as you give it, the variety of the universe can
be shown a priori. You recall the opinion of Descartes,
wherein he asserts, that this variety can only be deduced
from extension, by supposing that, when motion was
started by God, it caused this effect in extension. Now
it appears to me, that he does not deduce the existence
of bodies from matter at rest, unless, perhaps, you count
as nothing the assumption of God as a motive power;
you have not shown how such an effect must, a priori,
necessarily follow from the nature of God. A difficulty
which Descartes professed himself unable to solve as
being beyond human understanding. I therefore ask you
the question, knowing that you have other thoughts on
the matter, unless perhaps there be some weighty cause
for your unwillingness hitherto to disclose your opinion.
If this, as I suppose, be not expedient, give me some
hint of your meaning. You may rest assured, that
whether you speak openly with me, or whether you em-
ploy reserve, my regard for you will remain unchanged.

My special reasons for making the requests are as fol-
lows: I have always observed in mathematics, that from
a given thing considered in itself, that is, from the defi-
nition of a given thing, we can only deduce a single
property; if, however, we require to find several proper-

LETTER LXXIL] CORRESPONDENCE 415

ties, we are obliged to place the thing defined in rela-
tion to other things. Then from the conjunction of the
definitions of these things new properties result. For
instance, if I regard the circumference of a circle by
itself, I can only infer that it is everywhere alike or
uniform, in which property it differs essentially from all
other curves; I shall never be able to infer any other
properties. But if I place it in relation with other
thines, such as the radii drawn from the centre, two in-
tersecting lines, or many others, I shall be able hence
to deduce many properties; this seems to be in
opposition to Prop. xvi. of your '■^ Ethics,** almost the princi-
pal proposition of the first book of your treatise. For it
is there assumed as known, that from the given defini-
tion of anything several properties can be deduced. This
seems to me impossible, unless we bring the thing de-
fined into relation with other things; and, further, I am
for this reason unable to see, how from any attribute
regarded singly, for instance, infinite extension, a variety
of bodies can result; if you think that this conclusion
cannot be drawn from one attribute considered by itself,
but from all taken together, I should like to be instructed
by you on the point, and shown how it should be con-
ceived. Farewell, etc.

Paris, 23 June, 1676.

LETTER LXXIL (LXXXIIL)
Spinoza to

• •

[Spinoza gives the required explanation. Mentions the treatise of

Huet, etc.]

Distinguished Sir, — With regard to your question as
to whether the variety of the universe can be deduced
a priori from the conception of extension only, I believe I
have shown clearly enough already that it cannot; and

4i6 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXIII.

that, therefore, matter has been ill-defined by Descartes as
extension; it must necessarily be explained through an
attribute, which expresses eternal and infinite essence.
But perhaps, some day, if my life be prolonged, I may
discuss the subject with you more clearly. For hitherto
I have not been able to put any of these matters into due
order.

As to what you add; namely, that from the definition
of a given thing considered in itself we can only deduce
a single property, • this is, perhaps, true in the case of
very simple things (among which I count figures), but
not in realities. For, from the fact alone, that I define
God as a being to whose essence belongs existence, I
infer several of his properties; namely, that he neces-
sarily exists, that he is one, unchangeable, infinite, etc.
I could adduce several other examples, which, for the
present, I pass over.

In conclusion, I ask you to inquire, whether Huet's
treatise (against the ^* Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ^^),
about which I wrote to you before, has yet been published,
and whether you could send me a copy. Also, whether
you yet know, what are the new discoveries about refrac-
tion. And so farewell, dear sir, and continue to regard
yours, etc.

The Hague, 15 July, 1676.

LETTER LXXIII. (LXVII.)
Albert Burgh to Spinoza.

[Albert Burgh announces his reception into the Romish Church, and
exhorts Spinoza to follow his example.]

I PROMISED to write to you on leaving my country, if
anything noteworthy occurred on the journey. I take the
opportunity which offers of an event of the utmost im-
portance, to redeem my engagement, by informing you

LETTER LXXIIL] CORRESPONDENCE 417

that I have, by God's infinite mercy, been received into
the Catholic Church and made a member of the same.
You may learn the particulars of the step from a letter
which I have sent to the distinguished and accomplished
Professor Craanen of Leyden. I will here subjoin a few
remarks for your special benefit.

Even as formerly I admired you for the subtlety and
keenness of your natural gifts, so now do I bewail and
deplore you ; inasmuch as being by nature most talented,
and adorned by God with extraordinary gifts; being a
lover, nay, a coveter of the truth, you yet allow yourself
to be ensnared and deceived by that most wretched and
most proud of beings, the prince of evil spirits. As for
all your philosophy, what is it but a mere illusion and
chimera ? Yet to it you intrust not only your peace of
mind in this life, but the salvation of your soul for
eternity. See on what a wretched foundation all your
doctrines rest. You assume that you have at length dis-
covered the true philosophy. How do you know that your
philosophy is the best of all that ever have been taught in
the world, are now being taught, or ever shall be taught ?
Passing over what may be devised in the future, have you
examined all the philosophies, ancient as well as modern,
which are taught here, and in India, and everywhere
throughout the whole world ? Even if you have duly
examined them, how do you know that you have chosen
the best ? You will say : ^^ My philosophy is in harmony
with right reason; other philosophies are not. ^* But all
other philosophers except your own followers disagree
with you, and with equal right say of their philosophy
what you say of yours, accusing you, as you do them, of
falsity and error. It is, therefore, plain, that before the
truth of your philosophy can come to light, reasons must
be advanced, which are not common to other philosophies,
but apply solely to your own; or else you must admit
that your philosophy is as uncertain and nugatory as
the rest.

However, restricting myself for the present to that

book of yours with an impious title,* and mingling your

*«Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.>>
27

4i8 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXIII.

philosophy with your theology, as in reality you mingle
them yourself, though with diabolic cunning you endeavor
to maintain, that each is separate from the other, and
has different principles, I thus proceed.

Perhaps you will say : " Others have not read Holy
Scripture so often as I have; and it is from Holy Scrip-
ture, the acknowledgment of which distinguishes Chris-
tians from the rest of the world, that I prove my
doctrines. But how ? By comparing the clear passages
with the more obscure I explain Holy Scripture, and out
of my interpretations I frame dogmas, or else confirm
those which are already concocted in my brain.'* But, I
adjure you, reflect seriously on what you say. How do
you know that you have made a right application of
your method, or again that your method is sufficient for
the interpretation of Scripture, and that you are thus
interpreting Scripture aright, especially as the Catholics
say, and most truly, that the universal Word of God is not
handed down to us in writing, hence that Holy Scripture
cannot be explained through itself, I will not say by one
man, but by the Church herself, who is the sole author-
ized interpreter? The Apostolic traditions must likewise
be consulted, as is proved by the testimony of Holy
Scripture and the Holy Fathers, and as reason and ex-
perience suggest. Thus, as your first principles are most
false and lead to destruction, what will become of all
your doctrine, built up and supported on so rotten a
foundation ?

Wherefore, if you believe in Christ crucified, acknowl-
edge your pestilent heresy, reflect on the perverseness of
your nature, and be reconciled with the Church.

How do your proofs differ from those of all heretics,
who ever have left, are now leaving, or shall in future
leave God's Church ? All, like yourself, inake use of the
same principle, to wit, Holy Scripture taken by itself,
for the concoction and establishment of their doctrines.

Do not flatter yourself with the thought, that neither
the Calvinists, it may be, nor the so-called Reformed
Church, nor the Lutherans, nor the Mennonites, nor the
Socinians, etc., can refute your doctrines. All these, as

LETTER LXXIII.J CORRESPONDENCE 419

I have said, are as wretched as yourself and like you are
dwelling in the shadow of death.

If you do not believe in Christ, you are more wretched
than I can express. Yet the remedy is easy. Turn away
from your sins, and consider the deadly arrogance of
your wretched and insane reasoning. You do not
believe in Christ, Why? You will say: ** Because the
teaching and the life of Christ, and also the Christian
teaching concerning Christ are not at all in harmony
with my teaching." But again, I say, then you dare to
think yourself greater than all those who have ever
risen up in the State or Church of God, patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, martyrs, doctors, confessors, and holy
virgins innumerable, yea, in your blasphemy, than
Christ himself. Do you alone surpass all these in doctrine,
in manner of life, in every respect ? Will you, wretched
pigmy, vile worm of the earth, yea, ashes, food of
worms, will you in your unspeakable blasphemy, dare to
put yourself before the incarnate, infinite wisdom of the
Eternal Father ? Will you, alone, consider yourself
wiser and greater than all those, who from the begin-
ning of the world have been in the Church of God, and
have believed, or believe still, that Christ would come or
has already come ? On what do you base this rash, insane,
deplorable, and inexcusable arrogance ?

T> ^ ^ •}! Iji H» •!»

If you cannot pronounce on what I have just been
enumerating (dividing rods, alchemy, etc.), why,
wretched man, are you so puffed up with diabolical pride,
as to pass rash judgment on the awful mysteries of
Christ's life and passion, which the Catholics themselves
in their teaching declare to be incomprehensible ? Why
do you commit the further insanity of silly and futile
carping at the numberless miracles and signs, which
have been wrought through the virtue of Almighty God
by the apostles and disciples of Christ, and afterward
by so many thousand saints, in testimony to, and con-
firmation of the truth of the Catholic faith; yea, which
are being wrought in our own time in cases without
number throughout the world, by God's almighty good-

420 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXIII.

ness and mercy ? If you cannot gainsay these, and
surely you cannot, why stand aloof any longer ? Join
hands of fellowship, and repent from your sins: put on
humility, and be born again.

[ Albert Burgh requests Spinoza to consider: (i.) The large number
of believers in the Romish faith, (ii.) The uninterrupted succession
of the Church, (iii.) The fact that a few unlearned men converted
the world to Christianity, (iv.) The antiquity, the immutability, the
infallibility, the incorruption, the unity, and the vast extent of the
Catholic Religion ; also the fact that secession from it involves damna-
tion, and that it will itself endure as long as the world, (v.) The
admirable organization of the Romish Church, (vi. ) The superior
morality of Catholics, (vii. ) The frequent cases of recantation of
opinions among heretics, (viii. ) The miserable life led by atheists,
whatever their outward demeanor may be.] . . .

I have written this letter to you with intentions truly
Christian; first, in order to show the love I bear to you,
though you are a heathen ; secondly, in order to beg you
not to persist in converting others.

I therefore will thus conclude : God is willing to snatch
5^our soul from eternal damnation, if you will allow him.
Do not doubt that the Master who has called you so
often through others, is now calling you for the last
time through me, who having obtained grace from the
ineffable mercy of God himself, beg the same for you
Vv'ith my whole heart. Do not deny me. For if you do
not now give ear to God who calls you, the wrath of
the Lord will be kindled against you, and there is a dan-
ger of your being abandoned by his infinite mercy, and
becoming a wretched victim of the Divine Justice, which
consumes all things in wrath. Such a fate may Almighty
God avert for the greater glory of his name, and for
the salvation of your soul, also for a salutary example
for the imitation of your most unfortunate and idolatrous
followers, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
who with the Eternal Father, liveth and reigneth in
the Unity of the Holy Spirit, God for all Eternity.
Amen.

Florence, Sept. 3, 1675.

LETTER LXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 421

LETTER LXXIV. (LXXVL)

Spinoza t© Albert Burgh.

[Spinoza laments the step taken by his pupil and answers his argu-
ments. The Hague, end of 1675.]

That, which I could scarcely believe when told me by-
others, I learn at last from your own letter ; not only have
you been made a member of the Romish Church, but you
are become a very keen champion of the same, and have
already learned wantonly to insult and rail against your
opponents.

At first I resolved to leave your letter unanswered,
thinking that time and experience will assuredly be of
more avail than reasoning, to restore you to yourself and
your friends; not to mention other arguments, which won
your approval formerly, when we were discussing the case
of Steno,* in whose steps you are now following. But
some of my friends, who, like myself had formed great
hopes from your superior talents, strenuously urge me not
to fail in the offices of a friend, but to consider what you
lately were, rather than what you are, with other arguments
of the like nature. I have thus been induced to write
you this short reply, which I earnestly beg you will think
worthy of calm perusal.

I will not imitate those adversaries of Romanism, who
would set forth the vices of priests and popes with a view
to kindling your aversion. Such considerations are often
put forward from evil and unworthy motives, and tend
rather to irritate than to instruct. I will even admit,
that more men of learning and of blameless life are
found in the Romish Church than in any other Christian
body; for, as it contains more members, so will every
type of character be more largely represented in it. You
cannot possibly deny, unless you have lost your memory
as well as your reason, that in every church there are

*A Danish anatomist, who renounced Lutheranism . f or Catholicism
at Florence in 1669.

422 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXIV.

thoroughly honorable men, who worship God with justice
and charity. We have known many such among the
Lutherans, the Reformed Church, the Mennonites, and the
Enthusiasts. Not to go further, you knew your own rela-
tions, who in the time of the Duke of Alva suffered every
kind of torture bravely and willingly for the sake of their
religion. In fact, you must admit, that personal holiness
is not peculiar to the Romish Church, but common to
all churches.

As it is by this, that we know ^* that we dwell in God
and he in us'' (i Ep. John, iv. 13), it follows, that what
distinguishes the Roman Church from others must be
something entirely superfluous, and therefore founded
solely on superstition. For, as John says, justice and
charity are the one sure sign of the true Catholic faith,
and the true fruits of the Holy Spirit. Wherever they
are found, there in truth is Christ; wherever they are
absent, Christ is absent also. For onl)'- by the spirit of
Christ can we be led to the love of justice and charity.
Had you been willing to reflect on these points, you
would not have ruined yourself, nor have brought deep
affliction on your relations, who are now sorrowfully be-
wailing your evil case.

But I return to your letter, which you begin, by lament-
ing that I allow myself to be ensnared by the prince of
evil spirits. Pray take heart and recollect yourself.
When you had the use of your faculties, you were wont,
if I mistake not, to worship an infinite God, by whose
efficacy all things absolutely come to pass and are pre-
served; now you dream of a prince, God's enemy, who
against God's will ensnares and deceives very many men
(rarely good ones, to be sure), whom God thereupon
hands over to this master of wickedness to be tortured
eternally. The Divine justice therefore allows the devil
to deceive men and remain unpunished; but it by no
means allows to remain unpunished the men, who have
been by that self-same devil miserably deceived and
ensnared.

These absurdities might so far be tolerated, if you
worshipped a God infinite and eternal; not one whom

LETTER LXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 423

Chastillon in the town which the Dutch call Tienen, gave
with impunity to horses to be eaten. And, poor wretch,
you bewail me ? My philosophy, which you never beheld,
you style a chimera ? O youth, deprived of understanding,
who has bewitched you into believing, that the supreme
and eternal is eaten by you, and held in your intestines ?
Yet you seem to wish to employ reason, and ask me,

"How I KNOW THAT MY PHILOSOPHY IS THE BEST AMONG
ALL THAT HAVE EVER BEEN TAUGHT IN THE WORLD, OR ARE
BEING TAUGHT, OR EVER WILL BE TAUGHT ? ** a questiou

which I might with much greater right ask you; for I do
not presume that I have found the best philosophy, I
know that I understand the true philosophy. If you ask
in what way I know it, I answer: In the same way as
you know that the three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles: that this is sufficient, will be denied
by no one whose brain is sound, and who does not go
dreaming of evil spirits inspiring us with false ideas like
the true. For the truth is the index of itself and of what
is false.

But you, who presume that you have at last found the
best religion, or rather the best men, on whom you have
pinned your credulity, you, " who know that they are

THE BEST AMONG ALL WHO HAVE TAUGHT, DO NOW TEACH,
OR SHALL IN FUTURE TEACH OTHER RELIGIONS. HaVE YOU
EXAMINED ALL RELIGIONS, ANCIENT AS WELL AS MODERN,
TAUGHT HERE AND IN InDIA AND EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT
THE WORLD ? And, IF YOU HAVE DULY EXAMINED THEM,
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE BEST,'^

since you can give no reason for the faith that is in you ?
But you will say, that you acquiesce in the inward testi-
mony of the spirit of God, while the rest of mankind are
ensnared and deceived by the prince of evil spirits. But
all those outside the pale of the Romish Church can with
equal right proclaim of their own creed what you pro-
claim of yours.

As to what you add of the common consent of myriads
of men and the uninterrupted ecclesiastical succession,
this is the very catch-word of the Pharisees. They with
no less confidence than the devotees of Rome bring for-

424 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXIV.

ward their myriad witnesses, who as pertinaciouly as the
Roman witnesses repeat what they have heard, as though
it were their personal experience. Further, they carry
back their line to Adam. They boast with equal arro-
gance, that their Church has continued to this day un-
moved and unimpaired in spite of the hatred of Chris-
tians and heathen. They more than any other sect are
supported by antiquity. They exclaim with one voice,
that they have received their traditions from God him-
self, and that they alone preserve the Word of God both
written and unwritten. That all heresies have issued
from them, and that they have remained constant
through thousands of years under no constraint of tem-
poral dominion, but by the sole efficacy of their super-
stition, no one can deny. The miracles they tell of
would tire a thousand tongues. But their chief boast is,
that they count a far greater number of martyrs than
any other nation, a number which is daily increased by
those w^ho suffer with singular constancy for the faith
they profess; nor is their boasting false. I myself knew
among others of a certain Judah called the faithful,*
who in the midst of the flames, when he was already
thought to be dead, lifted his voice to sing the hymn be-
ginning, "To Thee, O God, I offer up my soul,*' and so
singing, perished.

The organization of the Roman Church, which you so
greatly praise, I confess to be politic, and to many lucra-
tive. I should believe that there was no other more
convenient for deceiving the people and keeping men's
minds in check, if it were not for the organization of the
Mahometan Church, which far surpasses it. For from the
time when this superstition arose, there has been no
schism in its church.

If, therefore, you had rightly judged, you would have
seen that only your third point tells in favor of the
Christians, namely, that unlearned and common men

* « Don Lope de Vera y Alarcon de San Clemente, a Spanish noble-
man who was converted to Judaism through the study of Hebrew, and
was burnt at Valladolid on the 25th July, i644.» — Pollock's « Spinoza >'
chap. ii. , last note.

LETTER LXXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 425

should have been able to convert nearly the whole world
to a belief in Christ. But this reason militates not only
for the Romish Church, but for all those who profess the
name of Christ.

But assume that all the reasons you bring forward tell
in favor solely of the Romish Church. Do you think
that you can thereby prove mathematically the authority
of that Church ? As the case is far otherwise, why do
you wish me to believe that my demonstrations are in-
spired by the prince of evil spirits, while your own are
inspired by God, especially as I see, and as your letter
clearly shows, that yoti have been led to become a devotee
of this Church not by your love of God, but by your
fear of hell, the single cause of superstition ? Is this
your humility, that you trust nothing to yourself, but
everything to others, who are condemned by many
of their fellow men ? Do you set it down to pride and
arrogance, that I employ reason and acquiesce in this
true Word of God, which is in the mind and can never
be depraved or corrupted ? Cast away this deadly super-
stition, acknowledge the reason which God has given
you, and follow that, unless you would be numbered with
the brutes. Cease, I say, to call ridiculous errors myster-
ies, and do not basely confound those things which are
unknown to us, or have not yet been discovered, with
what is proved to be absurd, like the horrible secrets of
this Church of yours, which, in proportion as they are
repugnant to right reason, you believe to transcend the
understanding.

But the fundamental principle of the " Tractatus Theo-
logico-Politicus,** that Scripture should only be expounded
through Scripture, which you so wantonly without any
reason proclaim to be false, is not merely assumed, but
categorically proved to be true or sound; especially in
chapter vii., where also the opinions of adversaries are
confuted; see also what is proved at the end of chapter
XV. If you will reflect on these things, and also examine
the history of the Church (of which I see you are com-
pletely ignorant), in order to see how false, in many
respects, is Papal tradition, and by what course of events

426 SPINOZA'S [LETTER LXXV.

and with what cunning the Pope of Rome six hundred
years after Christ obtained supremacy over the Church, I
do not doubt that you will eventually return to your
senses. That this result may come to pass I, for your
sake, heartily wish. Farewell, etc.

LETTER LXXV. (LXIX.)

SriNOZA TO Lambert van Velthuysen

(Doctor of Medicine at Utrecht).

[Of the proposed annotation of the «Tractatus Theologico- Politic us. >>]

Most Excellent and Distinguished Sir, — I wonder at
our friend Neustadt having said, that I am meditating
the refutation of the various writings circulated against
my book,* and that among the works for me to refute
he places your MS. For I certainly have never enter-
tained the intention of refuting any of my adversaries:
they all seem to me utterly unworthy of being answered.
I do not remember to have said to Mr. Neustadt any-
thing more, than that I proposed to illustrate some of the
obscurer passages in the treatise with notes, and that I
should add to these your MS., and my answer, if your
consent could be gained, on which last point I begged
him to speak to you, adding, that if you refused per-
mission on the ground that some of the observations in
my answer were too harshly put, you should be given
full power to modify or expunge them. In the mean-
while, I am by no means angry with Mr. Neustadt, but
1 wanted to put the matter before you as it stands, that
if your permission be not granted, I might show you
that I have no wish to publish your MS. against your
will. Though I think it might be issued without endan-
gering your reputation, if it appears without your name,
I will take no steps in the matter, unless you give me
leave. But, to tell the truth, you would do me a far

♦The «Tractatus Theologico-PoUticus.»

LETTER LXXV.] CORRESPONDENCE 427

greater kindness, if you would put in writing the argu-
ments with which you think you can impugn my treatise,
and add them to your MS. I most earnestly beg you to
do this. For there is no one whose arguments I would
more willingly consider; knowing, as I do, that you are
bound solely by your zeal for truth, and that your mind
is singularly candid. I therefore beg you again and
again, not to shrink from undertaking this task, and to
believe me, Yours most obediently,

B. DE Spinoza.

"1

r'^^^^fz 4

,i vxl.i " H