The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• On the Improvement of the Understanding.
• The Ethics.
• Part I.: Concerning God.
• Part II.: Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind.
• Part III.: On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions.
• Part IV.: Of Human Bondage, Or the Strength of the Emotions.
• Part V.: Of the Power of the Understanding, Or of Human Freedom.
• Spinoza’s Correspondence.
• Letter I. (i. 1 ): Henry Oldenburg 2 to B. De Spinoza.
• Letter II. (ii.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter III. (iii.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter IV. (iv.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter V. (v.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter VI. (vi.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter VII. (vii.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter Viii (xi.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter IX. (xiii.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letters X.—XIV. 1: Letter XIII. A.: Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XV. (xxxii.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter XVI. (xxxiii.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XVII. (lxi.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XVIII. (lxii.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XIX. (lxviii.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter XX. (lxxi.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XXI. (lxxiii.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter XXII. (lxxiv.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XXIII. (lxxv.): Spinoza to Oldenburg.
• Letter XXIV. (lxxvii.): Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XXV. (lxxviii.)
• Letter XXV. A.: Oldenburg to Spinoza.
• Letter XXVI. (viii.): Simon De Vries 1 to Spinoza.
• Letter XXVII. (ix.): Spinoza to Simon De Vries.
• Letter XXVIII. (x.): Spinoza to Simon De Vries.
• Letter XXIX. (xii.): Spinoza to L. M. 1 (lewis Meyer).
• Letter XXIX. A. 1: Spinoza to Lewis Meyer.
• Letter XXX. (xvii.): Spinoza to Peter Balling. 1
• Letter XXXI. (xviii.): William De Blyenbergh 1 to Spinoza.
• Letter XXXII. (xix.): Spinoza to Blyenbergh.
• Letter XXXIII. (xx.): Blyenbergh to Spinoza.
• Letter XXXIV. (xxi.): Spinoza to Blyenbergh.
• Letter XXXV. (xxii.): Blyenbergh to Spinoza.
• Letter XXXVI. (xxiii.): Spinoza to Blyenbergh.
• Letter XXXVII. (xxiv.): Blyenbergh to Spinoza.
• Letter XXXVIII. (xxvii.): Spinoza to Blyenbergh.
• Letter XXXIX.: Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.
• Letter Xl. (xxxv.): Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.
• Letter Xli. (xxxvi.): Spinoza to Christian Huyghens.
• Letter Xli. A.: Spinoza to * * * * * 1 (may Or June, 1665).
• Letter Xlii. (xxxvii.): Spinoza to I. B. 1
• Letter Xliii. (xxxviii.): Spinoza to I. V. M. 1
• Letters Xliv., Xlv., Xlvi. (xxxix., Xl., Xli.): Spinoza to I. I. 2
• Xliv.
• Xlv.
• Xlvi.
• Letter Xlvii. (xliv.): Spinoza to I. I.
• Letter Xlviii.
• Letter Xlix.: Spinoza to Isaac Orobio. 1
• Letter L. (l.): Spinoza to Jarig Jellis.
• Letter Li. (xlv.): Godfrey Leibnitz to Spinoza.
• Letter Lii. (xlvi.): Spinoza to Leibnitz.
• Letter Liii. (xlvii.): Fabritius to Spinoza.
• Letter Liv. (xlviii.): Spinoza to Fabritius.
• Letter Lv. (li.): Hugo Boxel to Spinoza.
• Letter Lvi. (lii.): Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.
• Letter Lvii. (liii.): Hugo Boxel to Spinoza.
• Letter Lviii. (liv.): Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.
• Letter Lix. (lv.): Hugo Boxel to Spinoza.
• Letter Lx. (lvi.): Spinoza to Hugo Boxel.
• Letter Lxi. (lvii.): * * * * * to Spinoza. 1
• Letter Lxii. (lviii.): Spinoza to * * * * * 2 (the Hague, October, 1674).
• Letter Lxiii. (lix.): * * * * * to Spinoza. 1
• Letter Lxiv. (lx.): Spinoza to * * * * *. 1
• Letter Lxv. (lxiii.): G. H. Schaller to Spinoza. 1
• Letter Lxvi. (lxiv.): Spinoza to * * * * *. 1
• Letter Lxvii. (lxv.): * * * * * 1 to Spinoza.
• Letter Lxviii. (lxvi.): Spinoza to * * * * *. 1
• Letter Lxviii. A.: G. H. Schaller to Spinoza.
• Letter Lxviii. B.: Spinoza to Schaller.
• Letter Lxix. (lxxx.): * * * * * 1 to Spinoza.
• Letter Lxx. (lxxxi.): Spinoza to * * * * * 1
• Letter Lxxi. (lxxxii.): * * * * * 1 to Spinoza.
• Letter Lxxii. (lxxxiii.): Spinoza to * * * * 1
• Letter Lxxiii. (lxvii.): Albert Burgh to Spinoza.
• Letter Lxxiv. (lxxvi.): Spinoza to Albert Burgh.
• Letter Lxxv. (lxix.): Spinoza to Lambert Van Velthuysen ( Doctor of Medicine At Utrecht. ) 1

LETTER LXVIII.a.

G. H. Schaller to Spinoza.

Amsterdam, 14 Nov., 1675.

Most learned and excellent Master, my most venerable Patron,—

I hope that you duly received my letter with—’s method,1 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 fulness 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 conversation, and made very much of him personally. This greatly pleased Huygens; so he answered that he likewise 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 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.

* * * * * *

To the objection that you last made he replies, that those few words which I wrote at the Master’s dictation,1 explained to him your meaning more thoroughly, and that he has favourably entertained the said reasonings (for by these two methods2 they best admit of explanation). 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 contradiction 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 application 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 understanding 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.”

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 labours 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 practised 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 advantage, 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 honourably keep them concealed as he has promised, as in fact he has not made the slightest mention of them. Leibnitz also highly values the Theologico-Political 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 possible, 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,1 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 tun, which he promised to do, and added a most friendly greeting.

Finally, excuse my unpractised style and hurried writing, 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.

Spinoza to Schaller.

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 you 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 the whole confusion.1 Accordingly 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 counsellor at Frankfort, 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 entrust my writings to him. I should like first to know what is his business in France, and the judgment of our friend von Tschirnhausen, 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 any way 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 devoted servant,

B. de Spinoza.

The Hague, 18 Nov., 1675.

[1 ] See the next Letter.

[1 ] Letter LXVIII.

[2 ] That is, I think, hearing from the author criticized what his precise meaning is, and attending carefully to his arguments in favour of the opinion thus precisely ascertained.—[Tr.]

[1 ] See Letters XLI.a, XLII.

[1 ] It appears to me, that Schaller correctly states the difficulty of Tschirnhausen, but that by leaving out a negative in the sentence in question, he has attributed the doctrine of Prop. v. to Prop. vii., and vice versà.—[Tr.]