THE LETTERS
Dedicated to Spinoza's Insights
Table of Letters
JBY Web Pages - Spinoza
Electronic Texts
Bibliography and Citation Abbreviations -
Topics & Threads
Browser Notes—Links -
Site Search
JBY Notes:
1. Unless noted, the texts are
the translations of the "Selected
Letters"
by R. H. M. Elwes, (based on Bruder's
1843 Latin Text), as printed by
Dover Publications (NY: 1955) in Book
I. This is, the book assures
us,
"an unabridged and unaltered republication
of the Bohn Library
edition
originally published by George
Bell and Sons in 1883.'' As it is more
than a century old,
it is incontestably in the public domain.
2. Page numbers given refer to Book I except where otherwise noted.
3. See Terry Neff for Selected Correspondence from Book 1.
4. See Shirley's
Bk.XIII for
Shirley's translation and an "Introduction
and Notes"
by Steven Barbone, Lee Rice, and Jacob
Adler.
See Note 8.
5. Paragragh numbers, added by JBY, are shown thus [x].
6. Symbols:
(Spinoza's
quote or the Latin word),
[ Curley's
Book VIII Translation variation or
Footnote ],
] Shirley's
Book XIII or Book
XIII Translation variation or Footnote [,
< Parkinson's
Book XV Translation variation or
Endnote >,
{ JBY
Comment }. LINKS.
7. For letters not included see Book 1 or Book XIII Correspondence.
8. Elwes's Letter
Numbering ( sorted according to correspondent )
is as found in the
written-in-Latin Opera Posthuma.
Letter Numbers shown
green (xx)
are as arranged in Van Vloten's
edition (sorted according to date) and are those used in Book
XIII
(see
Bk.1:2751). I recommend reading
the Letters in Bk,
XIII because
of its Introduction and informative footnotes.
For
introduction to Oldenburg
correspondence see LT:Bk.XIII:8.
9. See Photocopy
of end of L52(46):371
from Spinoza to Leibniz.
Book
XIII:248
10. Please report errors, clarification requests,
disagreement, or
suggestions
to josephb@yesselman.com.
Letters
1, 2, 3, 4, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 25A,
26, 27, 28, 29,
30,
31,
32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 41A,
42, 49,
50, 56, 58, 60,
62, 64,
65,
66, 68b, 70,
72, 73, 74, 75.
| JBY File: Bk.1 Letter # (Bk.XIII Let #): Bk.1 Page # |
Writer to Receiver Place, Date |
Remarks |
| EL:L01(01):275 |
Oldenburg
to Spinoza London,16/26 Aug.1661 Bk.I:2751,2—EL:[20]:xvi1. |
Oldenburg after complimenting Spinoza,
asks him to enter into a philosophical correspondence. Bk.XIII:591. |
| EL:L02(02):276 Neff |
Spinoza to Oldenburg Sept. 1661? |
Answer to L01(01):275.
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. |
| EL:L03(03):279 |
Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 27 Sept. 1661 |
Oldenburg propounds several questions
concerning God and His existence, thought, and the axioms of Ethics I. He also informs Spinoza of a philosophical society, and promises to send Boyle's book. Bk.XIII:6612; Bk.XVIII:75. |
| EL:L04(04):282 Neff |
Spinoza to Oldenburg Oct. 1661? |
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. Bk.XIII:6713-19. |
| EL:L05(05):284 |
Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 21 Oct. 1661 |
Oldenburg sends Boyle's book, and laments that
Spinoza has not been able to answer all his doubts. Bk.XIII:70. |
| EL:L06(06):285 | Spinoza to Oldenburg Early 1662? |
This letter refers to a question from Oldenburg
in Letter 05 about the nexus by which things depend on the first
cause. Bk.XIII:83. |
| EL:L15(32):290 | Spinoza to Oldenburg Voorburg, 20 Nov. 1665 {Famous letter of the "worm"} |
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" {organic}. He also makes a few remarks about Huyghens. Bk.XIII:192164-176. |
| LT:L16(33):293 | Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 8 Dec.,1665 |
After some remarks on Spinoza's last letter,
and an account of experiments at the Royal Society and at Oxford, Oldenburg mentions a report about the return of the Jews to Palestine. Wolf. See Bk.XIII:198
for full letter. |
| LT:L17(61):294 | Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 8 Jun.,16751 See Bk.I:2951, Bk.XIII:292, & Wolf |
Oldenburg thanks Spinoza for the
TTP despatched but not received, and modifies an adverse verdict expressed in a former letter (now lost). |
| LT:L18(62):295 | Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 22 July.,1675 |
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. |
| EL:L19(68):296 | Spinoza to Oldenburg Sept.,1675 |
Spinoza relates his journey to Amsterdam for
the purpose of publishing his Ethics; he was deterred by the dissuasions of theologians 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. |
| EL:L20(71):297 | Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 15 Nov.,1675 |
Response to previous Letter 19. |
| EL:L21(73):298 Neff |
Spinoza to Oldenburg Nov. or Dec.,1675 |
Response to previous Letter 20. |
| EL:L22(74):299 | Oldenburg
to Spinoza London, 16 Dec.,1675 |
Response to previous Letter
21. Oldenburg wishes to be enlightened concerning the doctrine of fatalism, of which Spinoza has been accused. He discourses on man's limited intelligence and on the incarnation of the Son of God. |
| EL:L23(75):301 Neff |
Spinoza to Oldenburg Dec.,1675 |
Response to previous Letter
22. Spinoza expounds to Oldenburg his views on fate and necessity, discriminates between miracles and ignorance, takes the resurrection of Christ as spiritual, and deprecates attributing to the sacred writers Western modes of speech. |
| EL:L24(77):304 | Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 14 Jan.,1676 |
Oldenburg returns to the questions of universal
necessity, of miracles, and of the literal and alle- gorical interpretation of Scripture. |
| EL:L25(78):305 Neff |
Spinoza to Oldenburg The Hague, 7 Feb.,1676 |
Spinoza again treats of fatalism.
He repeats that he accepts Christ's passion, death, and burial literally, but His resurrection spiritually. |
| EL:L25A(79):307 |
Oldenburg to Spinoza London, 11 Feb.,1676 |
Response to previous Letter
25. Oldenburg adduces certain further objections against Spinoza's doctrine of necessity and miracles, and exposes the inconsistency of a partial allegorization of Scripture. |
| L26(8):309 Neff |
Simon de Vries to Spinoza The Hague, 24 Feb.,1663 |
Simon de Vries, a
diligent student of Spinoza's writings and philosophy, describes a club formed for the study of Spinoza's MS. containing some of the matter afterwards worked into the Ethics, and asks questions about the difficulties felt by members of the club. Bk.XIB:14414—Bk.XII:421;
Bk.XIII:8744-52. |
| L27(9):313 Neff |
Spinoza to Simon de Vries Feb.,1663? Bk.I:3131,2,3. |
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. Bk.XIII:9153-58; Bk.XIV:1:1401,1526; Bk.XVIII:18, 66; Bk.XIX:35519, 3566, 35817. |
| L28(10):316 Neff |
Spinoza to Simon de Vries Mar.,1663? |
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. |
| E5:L29(12):305 Neff |
Spinoza to Lewis Meyer Rijnsburg, 20 Apr.,1663 {Famous letter on the Infinite} { Disclaimer } |
Spinoza answers question on the infinite
and in answering briefly explains the terms substance, mode, eternity, and duration. |
| L30(17):325 Neff |
Spinoza to Peter Balling Voorburg, 20 Jul.,1664 Bk.I:3251; Bk.XIII:46. |
Concerning omens and phantoms. The
mind may have a confused presentiment of the future. Bk.XIB:304114, 306155; Bk.XIII:12587 - 90. |
| LT:L31(18):327 |
Blyenbergh to Spinoza Dordrecht, 12 Dec.,1664 Bk.I:3271—EL:[21]:xvi5. |
Bk.XIII:12587-90, Wolf. Blyenbergh-Spinoza Correspondence. |
| LT:L32(19):331 Neff |
Spinoza to Blyenbergh Lg. Orchard, 5 Jan.,1665 Bk.I:331—EL:[11]:xi1. |
Spinoza answers with his usual courtesy
the question propounded by Blyenbergh. Bk.XIII:13297-102; Bk.XIV:1:1434; Bk.XIX:587, 24831. |
| LT:L33(20):336 summary LT:Bk.XIII:137 full letter |
Blyenbergh to Spinoza Dordrecht, 16 Jan.,1665 |
A summary only of this letter is
here given—Tr. {Full letter taken from Shirley's Bk.XIII:137 follows.} Bk.XIB:306161,162; Bk.XIX:587, 25140. |
| LT:L34(21):336 Neff |
Spinoza to Blyenbergh Schiedam, 28 Jan.,1665 This letter
is important. |
Spinoza complains that Blyenbergh
has misunder- stood him: he sets forth the true meaning. Spinoza wants no further correspondence. JBYnote1 Bk.XIII:151105-116; Bk.XIA:7075-79; Bk.XIV:1:1434; Bk.XIX:9118, 25141. |
| LT:L35(22):336 Neff |
Blyenbergh to Spinoza Dordrecht, 19 Feb.,1665 |
This letter (extending over five
pages) is only given here in brief summary. See Bk.XIII:159 for full letter and Notes 117-119. Bk.XIX:24832, 25037, 25242. |
| LT:L36(23):345 Neff |
Spinoza to Blyenbergh Voorburg, 13 Mar.,1665 |
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. Bk.XIII:165120-122. Bk.XVIII:240; Bk.XIX:25037,38. |
| L37(24):350 Omitted in Bk. I LT:L37(24):170 from Bk. XIII |
Blyenbergh to Spinoza Dordrecht, 27 Mar.,1665 |
Blyenbergh, who had been to see Spinoza,
asks the latter to send him a report of their conversation, and to answer five questions. Bk.XIX:2023. |
| LT:L38(27):350 Neff |
Spinoza to Blyenbergh Voorburg, 3 Jun., 1665 |
Spinoza declines further correspondence
with Blyenbergh, but says he will give explanations of certain points by word of mouth. Wolf. See Bk.XIII:177 for Shirley's translation. |
| L39(34):351 Neff |
Spinoza to John Hudde Voorburg, 7 Jan., 1665 Bk.XIII:40, Wolf. |
Treating of the Unity of God. See Bk.XIII:201 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:201184—E1:VIIIn2:48, 202185, Bk.XIII:41Ep34. |
| L40(35):353 Neff |
Spinoza to John Hudde Voorburg, 10 Apr., 1665 |
Further arguments for the unity of
God. See Bk.XIII:203 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:203186 to 195, Bk.XIII:41Ep35. |
| L41(36):355 Neff |
Spinoza to John Hudde June, 1665? |
Further discussion concerning the
unity of God. Spinoza asks for advice about polishing lenses. See Bk.XIII:206 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:206196,199, Bk.XIII:41Ep36. |
| L41a(28):358 Neff |
Spinoza to Bouwmeester Voorburg, June, 1665 Bk.I:358f:notes. |
Spinoza urges his correspondent to
be diligent in studying philosophy, promises to send part of the Ethics, and adds some personal details. See Bk.XIII:203 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:203186 to 195. |
| EL:L42(37):360 Neff |
Spinoza to Bouwmeester Voorburg, 10, Jun, 1666 Bk.XIII:46. |
Concerning the best
method, by which we may safely arrive at the knowledge of things. See Bk.XIII:211 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:211200 to 203; Bk.XIX:1294, 1319, 13315, 14032, 1476; Bk. 32:pg 113. |
| EL:L49(43):364 Neff |
Spinoza to Isaac Orobio The Hague, 1671 ] to Jacob Ostens [ |
A defence of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. |
| L50(50):369 Neff |
Spinoza to Jarig Jellis The Hague, 2 Jun.,1674 |
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-Politicus. Bk.XIII:258255
to 260. |
| L56(52):376 Neff |
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel The Hague, Sept.,1674 Bk.XIII:43. |
Spinoza answers that he does not
know what ghosts are, and can gain no information from antiquity. |
| L58(54):380 Neff |
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel The Hague, Sept.,1674? |
Spinoza treats of the necessary
creation of the world— he refutes his friend's arguments and quotations. Bk.XIII:267270
to 273. |
| L60(56):385 Neff |
Spinoza to Hugo Boxel The Hague, Sept.,1674? |
Spinoza again answers the argument
in favour of ghosts. EL:Bk.XIII:276276, Bk.XIII:43Ep56. |
| TEI:L62(58):389 Neff |
Spinoza to G. H. Schuller The Hague, Oct.,1674 |
Spinoza gives his opinions on liberty and necessity.
Bk.XIII:283287
to 293. |
| TEI:L64(60):395 Neff |
Spinoza to
Tschirnhausen The Hague, Jan.,1675 |
The difference between a true and an adequate
idea is merely extrinsic, &c. Bk.XIII:290296
to 300. |
| LT:L65(63):396 |
G. H. Schuller to Spinoza Amsterdam, 25 Jul.,1675 |
Schuller asks for answers to four
questions of his friend Tschirnhausen on the attributes of God, and mentions that Tschirnhausen has removed the unfavorable opinion of Spinoza lately conceived by Boyle and Oldenburg. |
| LT:L66(64):398 Neff |
Spinoza to
Tschirnhausen The Hague, 29 Jul.,1675 |
Spinoza answers by references to the first
three books of the Ethics. Bk.XIII:298317
- 325; Bk.XIB:234101;
Bk.XIV:1:1524. |
| L68b(72):404 Neff |
Spinoza to G. H. Schuller The Hague, 18 Nov.,1675 |
Spinoza answers all the points in Schuller's
letter, and hesitates to entrust his writings to Leibniitz. Bk.XIII:330357
- 361. |
| L70(81):407 Neff |
Spinoza to
Tschirnhausen The Hague, 5 May,1676 |
Spinoza explains his view of the infinite.
See TL:L29(12):317
for famous letter on the infinite. |
| L72(83):409 Neff |
Spinoza to
Tschirnhausen The Hague,15 Jul,1676 |
Spinoza gives the required explanation. Mentions
the treatise of Huet, &c. Bk.XIII:355395 - 398; Bk.III:156, 210. Bk.XIV:1:2374 Bk.XVIII:112. |
| EL:L73(67):410 | Albert Burgh To Spinoza Florence, 3 Sept,1675 Bk.XIII:43. |
Albert Burgh announces his reception into the
Romish Church, and exhorts Spinoza to follow his example. The whole of this very long letter is not given here, but only such parts as seemed most characteristic, or are alluded to in Spinoza's reply. See Bk.XIII:303 for full letter. Bk.XIII:44Ep67. |
| EL:L74(76):414 Neff |
Spinoza to Albert Burgh The Hague, Dec. 1675 |
Response to previous Letter
73. Spinoza laments the step taken by his pupil, and answers his arguments. See Bk.XIII:340 for Shirley's translation. Bk.XIII:340374 - 384. Bk.XIII:44Ep76. |
| L75(69):419 Neff |
Spinoza to L. Velthuysen The Hague, Autm. 1675 |
Of the proposed annotation of the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus." Bk.XIII:323341
to 344. |
From Shirley's Bk.XIII:8—Introduction
to Oldenburg
correspondence.
The period from 1661 to 1665 includes an extended correspondence
with Bx.
XIII:200183
Spinoza and marks a
continued effort on Oldenburg's part to obtain a full
understanding of Spinoza's philosophy.
Spinoza's reply to Oldenburg's
offer to initiate an exchange
of letters (Ep2, dated
September of 1661
and sent from Rijnsburg) reveals both
the enthusiasm generated by their
earlier meeting and his
respect and affection for his correspondent.
Hampered in part by his theological
inclinations and also by his lack of
formal training in philosophy, Oldenburg
was never to achieve this goal
of a deep understanding
of Spinoza's philosophy. Spinoza's patient and
detailed replies to his queries, often elaborated
with examples, make this {
Importance of
block of correspondence extremely
valuable for understanding the more correspondence
}
complex sections of
the Ethics. Meinsma's remark on this count is worth
quoting:
What he lacked in understanding
was made up for by Oldenburg
with friendship and moderation. At no time did he forget the
respect
which the mind and character of his friend had inspired,
never did he
become sidetracked on the false
routes pursued by the vociferous
and the fanatics who hatefully
assaulted the philosopher, whom
condemn
they in no way understood, treating
him as an anti-christ and as an
apostle of disbelief.
]Meinsma
465, translation ours[
Despite their continual disagreements and
misunderstandings in matters JBYnote1
of philosophy and of physics,
the two thinkers retained both respect
and deep friendship for one
another throughout their many exchanges.
The first four letters (Ep l-4),
dated 1661, deal with general questions of
philosophical method, and probably
relate directly to
the conversations
between them during Oldenburg's visit.
Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 8 Dec. 1665
{Oldenburg
responds to Spinoza Letter 15.}
{Oldenburg
correspondence.}
[After some remarks on Spinoza's last letter, and an account
of experiments at the Royal Society and at Oxford,
Oldenburg mentions a report about the return of the
Jews to Palestine].
*
* *
* *
*
But I pass on to politics. Everyone
here is talking of a report that the Jews, after remaining scattered for
more than two thousand years, are
about to return to their country181.
Few here believe in it, but many desire 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
page 294
which, if true, would assuredly
seem to harbinger the end of the world. *
* * * *
Believe me to be ]a
world crisis ^ [
Yours
most zealously,
HENRY
OLDENBURG
P.S. I will shortly, (D.V.) tell you the opinion of our
philosophers on the recent comets.
Henry Oldenburg
London, 8 Dec.,16651 &
183
]Bk.
XIII:200181.
The reference is to a movement led by Sabbatai
Zevi (1626-1676), who was a false messiah rather than a proto-Zionist.
Spinoza's reply to this letter, unfortunately, is lost; but
we know (see the TTP, Chapter 3) that
he had no sympathy for proto-Zionism. For a summary
of the Marrano
{a Spanish or Portuguese Jew forced to convert to
Christianity during the late Middle Ages} origins
of many of the Zionist
movements in the seventeenth century, see Gabriel
Albiac, La synagogue vide: Les sources marranes
du spinozisme, trs. M.-L. Copete and J.-F. Schaub
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994). On
Zevi see Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1973 [note spelling as 'Sevi']. Contemporary
sources of Zevi's works include The Restauration of the Jewes (London:
R.R., 1665); Several New Letters Concerning the
Jevves (London: Printed by A. Maxwel, 1666); and
God's Love of His People Israel (London: Printed by A. Maxwell,
1666) [note different spellings of 'Maxwel(l)]. Peter
Serrarius was no doubt Oldenburg's main source of information regarding
Zevi. He was known to have been in contact with Oldenburg.[
]Bk. XIII:200183.
Following this Letter 16 there is a gap of approximately
ten years in the correspondence between Spinoza
and Oldenburg. This gap is partly explained by the
war between England and Holland (1665-1667), the Great Fire (1666), and
the imprisonment of Oldenburg in the Tower of London (30 June until 26
August 1667).[
{See
Footnote 1.}
Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 8 Dec.,16751
& 183
]
Known only From the
O.P. The original is lost. The data, wrongly
given
in
the Latin, is correctly given in the Dutch edition. [
{Oldenburg
correspondence}
[Oldenburg thanks Spinoza for the Tractatus
Theoligico-Politicus despatched
but not received, and modifies
an adverse verdict expressed in a former letter (now lost).]
[L17:1] 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 doubtful 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
expense of religion,
as measured by the standard supplied by the common
run of theologians and the received
formulas of creeds which are evidently biassed. 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 ]commend[
and establish the true object ]purpose[,
{Mark
Twain} of the
Christian religion
{Hampshire:202,
JBYnote1}
and the divine loftiness of fruitful philosophy.
[L17:2] Now that I believe
that this is your fixed purpose ]intention[
, 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 ]divine
undertaking[.
I sacredly promise you, that I will not divulge a
syllable to anyone, if you enjoin silence; I
will only endeavour 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 ]some
day bring forth into the broader light of day[,
and I will try to dispel the prejudices,
which have been conceived against your doctrines
]thoughts[.
Unless I am quite mistaken, 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 favour me with your reflections on this subject.
Farewell, most excellent Sir, and favour the devoted
admirer of your teaching and virtue,
HENRY OLDENBURG.
Oldenburg to Spinoza
London, 8 Dec.,16751
1. The old edition gives the date
8 Oct., 1665; but this is obviously incorrect,
as the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
was not published till 1670. 183
Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 22 July.,1675
]
Known only from the
O.P. The original is lost. [
{Oldenburg
correspondence}
[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.]
[1] 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.303
Allow me, I beg, to warn you by the sincerity of your
affection for me, not to insert
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
{that
there is no good or bad}
of the kind, which seem to give
countenance to rampant vice.304
[L18:2] 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 entrusted to a Dutch merchant living in London, who will see that
they are forwarded 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. Farewell,
and when you have leisure write to
Yours
most zealously,
HENRY
OLDENBURG.
Oldenburg to Spinoza
London, 22 July.,1675
[End]
- L18(62):293
]Bk.
XIII:200303.
In L(28) (1665, to Bouwmeester), Spinoza's plans
appear to have been to divide the Ethics into three parts. By 1675 its
division was the fivefold one138
in which it was finally published after his death.[
]Bk. XIII:200304.
For the historical reasons for Oldenburg's adopting of a more cautious
and perhaps even fearful attitude than that expressed in his earlier letters,
see our Introduction, section 2.[
From Bk. XIII
(L28):179.
To the learned and experienced Johan Bouwmeester, from Spinoza.
[This letter is extant, but does not appear in the O.P. It was first published by Van Vloten in 1860. On the back of the letter is a note, presumably by one of the editors of the O.P., to the effect that the letter was 'of no value'. Hence its omission. It is undated, but can be assigned to June 1665.]
My very special friend,
[L(28):1]
I don't know whether you have completely forgotten me,
but there are many circumstances which make me think
so. First, when I was about to
set out on my journey and wanted to bid you good-bye, and felt sure, being
invited by you yourself, that
I would find you at home, I was told that you had gone to the Hague.
I returned to Voorburg, confident that you would at
least call on me in passing; but
you, if it pleases the gods, have returned home without greeting your friend.
Finally, I have waited three weeks, and in all that
time I have seen no letter from you. So if you want to banish this opinion
of mine, you will easily do so
by a letter, in which you can also indicate some way of arranging our correspondence,
of which we once talked in your house.
[L(28):2] Meanwhile
I should like to ask you in all earnestness, indeed,
to beseech and urge you by our friendship, to
apply yourself with real energy to serious work, and to prevail on yourself
to devote the better part of your life to
the cultivation of your intellect and your soul. Now, I say, while there
is yet time, and before you complain
that time, and indeed you yourself, have slipped by.
[L(28):3] Next,
to say something about our proposed correspondence
so as to encourage you to write more freely,
you should know that I have previously suspected and
am practically certain that you have rather less confidence in your abilities
than is right, and that you are
afraid that you may ask or propose something unbefitting a man of learning.
But is it not seemly for me to praise you to your
face and recount your gifts. Still,
if you fear that I may communicate your letters to others to whom you would
then become a laughing-stock, on
this matter I give you my word that I shall henceforth regard them as sacred
and shall not communicate them to any mortal without
your leave. On these terms you
Bk,XIII:180
can begin our correspondence, unless perchance you doubt my good faith,
which I don't believe. However,
I look to hear your views on this from
your first letter.
[L(28):4]
At the same time I also
expect some of the conserve of red roses136
which you promised, although I have now for a long time felt better.
On leaving there, I opened a vein once, but the fever
did not abate (although I was
somewhat more active even before the bloodletting because of the change
of air, I think). But I have
suffered two or three times with tertian fever, though by good diet I have
at last rid myself of it and sent it packing. Where
it went I know not, but I don't want it back.
[L(28):5] With
regard to the third part of my Philosophy, I
shall soon be sending some of it to you, if you wish to be its translator,
or to our friend de Vries.137
Although I had decided to send none of it until I
had finished it, yet since it
is turning out to be longer than expected, I don't want to keep you waiting
too long. I shall send it up
to about the eightieth proposition.138
[L(28):6]
I hear much about English affairs,139
but nothing certain. The people
do not stop suspecting all kinds of evil, and
no one can find any reason why the fleet does not set sail. And indeed
the situation does not yet seem secure. I
fear that our side want to be too wise and far-sighted. Still, the event
will show in due course what
they have in mind and what they are after—may the gods prosper it.140
I should like to know what our people there are thinking,
and what they know for certain, but
more than that, and above all else, that you consider me ...
![]()
{Signature
added.}
]Bk.
XIII:180136 Bouwmeester
was a physician (see our introduction, section 3), and, as it was held
that a conserve of red roses is remedial for diseases of the lungs, he
probably prescribed this remedy to Spinoza. Note
that this letter is the earliest indication we have of the tuberculosis
which eventually killed Spinoza.[
]Bk. XIII:180137, Concerning
de Vries, see our introduction, section 3.[
]Bk. XIII:180138. The
third part of the Ethics has only 59 propositions,
not 80. We believe that Spinoza had originally thought that this work would
include only three parts and that he decided to divide it into five parts.[
]Bk. XIII:180139. At
the time, the Dutch were at war with the English, and the Dutch navy remained
in the harbours instead of engaging the English.
Spinoza's worries turned out to be reasonable since
when the Dutch did finally attack on June 13, 1665, it was a disastrous
defeat for them.[
]Bk. XIII:180140. There
is more than one passage in which Spinoza refers to the gods (dei). Rather
than reflecting any type of polytheism on Spinoza's part, it was probably
just an idiomatic expression. Certainly
Spinoza could not say 'G-D willing'
and remain consistent with his own teaching. 'May
the gods prosper it' is just a
way of expressing a certain hope for the future.[
Letter 31(18):327—William
De Blyenbergh to Spinoza. S91
Dordrecht,
12 Dec., 1664.
[See Elwes Introduction,
p. xvi. The correspondence with Blyenbergh was originally conducted
in Dutch.]
Amusing testimonies to
Spinoza's reputation are afforded by the volunteered effusions of Blyenbergh.
[L31:1] Unknown Friend and Sir,—I have already read several times
with attention your treatise and its appendix recently
published. I should narrate to
others more becomingly than to yourself the extreme solidity I found 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
something 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 labour. Not to detain
you too long with wondering who I may be, and
how it comes to pass that one unknown to you page
328 takes the liberty of writing to you,
I will tell you that he is a man who is impelled 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 science 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 delight 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 carried 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 meditations.
[L31:2] 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 difficulties which I
still find in your book, and to forward me the result,
always under the condition that it does not interrupt
any occupation of greater importance or pleasure;
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, (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.) and
my duties here, prevented me. I
must defer the pleasure for the present.
[L31:3] However, in order that this letter
may not be quite page
329 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 explaining the philosophy of Descartes,
that creation and preservation 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 endeavours {conatus}
of substances. God, for instance,
not only brings about by His immediate will and working (whatever be the
term employed), that the soul
{'soul'
is not clear, not distinct—not hypothesized}
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 endeavours 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 endeavour or motion of mind,
which we call volition
{free-will
- Mark Twain},
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 that God
directly brings about that evil. For
that which we call evil comes to pass through the soul, and, consequently,
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 fruit,
or the wish of devils to be equal with God?
page 330
For since (as you justly observe) the will is not something different from
the mind, but is only an endeavour
or movement of the mind, the
concurrence of God is as necessary to it as to the mind itself.
Now the concurrence of G-D,
as I gather from your writings, is merely the determining of a thing in
a particular manner through the will
of G-D. 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 as 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 distinction
between an act and the evil inherent in that act.
For God decrees the mode of the act, no less than
the 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 i