Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/improvementofund01spin 
 

 oaXDOnxx» 
 
 mt a c pcoc o. » ^ umnn rxw xm 
 
 zxe^uxi^ 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF THE 
 UNDERSTANDING, ETHICS { 
 AND CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BENEDICT DE SPINOZA 
 
 I 
 
 1 ftQQfs-r 
 
 JL %j %J kJ 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN BY 
 
 R. H. M. EL WES 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 
 
 FRANK SEWALL, A. M. 
 
 i 
 
«MTIIIHT, 1 * 01 , 
 
 BY 
 
 M. WALTER DUNNE, 
 
'tf/, 
 
 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I n 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 representecTby 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 (1632-1677) 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 (1646-1716) 
 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 h 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) 
 
 1 . 09953 . 
 
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 exhib^ed 
 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 Church 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 1671, 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 wa? 
 
SPINOZA 
 
 viii 
 
 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 (< Tractatus Theologico- Politicus ,® 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: 
 1 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 PosthumaP 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 (< Tractatus Politicus ® 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 natura et origine mentis ; III. 
 de natura et origine affectuum ; IV. de servitute humana 
 seu de affectuum viribus ; V. de potentia intellectus 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 
 
 4 - 
 
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 
 natura natur ata, or the created "mode,” and not of the 
 thought in God, or natura naturans. 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 with 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 ites tres confus Baruch Spinoza: mais etes vous 
 aussi dangereux qu 'on le dit ? Je souhais que non: et ma 
 raison c'est que vous etes confus , que vous avez ecrit en 
 mauvais latin , et qu'il n'y a pas dix per sonnes 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. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 FAGB 
 
 ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING . r 
 
 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 . . . . io 
 
 Answers to objections 13 
 
 First part of method. Distinction of true ideas from fictitious 
 
 ideas 15 
 
 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 31 
 
 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 40 
 
 Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot 
 
 be one the cause of the other 41 
 
 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 
 
 (xiii) 
 
 41 
 
XIV 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 PAOB 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 PartI. 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 61 
 
 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 78 
 
 Definitions 78 
 
 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 
 
 PA.es 
 
 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 in 
 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 
 
 xvu 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind — Continued. 
 Digression on the nature of bodies — Axioms I., II. Lem- 
 mas I. — III 9° 
 
 Axioms I., II 
 
 Definition — Axiom III. — Lemmas IV., V 
 
 Lemmas VI., VII 
 
 Postulates 
 
 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 
 
 Prop. XV. The idea, which constitutes the actual being of 
 the human mind, is not simple, but compounded of a great 
 
 number of ideas 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 Prop. XXI. This idea of the mind is united to the mind, 
 in the same way as the mind is united to the body . 
 Prop. XXII. The human mind perceives not only the modi- 
 fications of the body, but also the ideas of such modifi- 
 cations 
 
 Prop. XXIII. The mind does not know itself, except in so 
 far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the 
 
 body 
 
 Prop. XXIV. The human mind does not involve an ade- 
 quate knowledge of the parts composing the human body 
 
 91 
 
 92 
 
 93 
 
 94 
 
 94 
 
 94 
 
 95 
 
 95 
 
 97 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 101 
 
 101 
 
SPINOZA 
 
 xviii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part II. Of the Nature 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 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 108 
 
 Prop. XL. Whatsoever ideas in the mind follow from ideas, 
 which are therein adequate, are also themselves adequate 109 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 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 
 
 dist inguish the true from the false 112 
 
 Prop. XLlir. 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 . 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 J 
 
 V ' 
 
 116 
 
 ri8 
 
 Part III. On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions . 127 
 
 Definitions 128 
 
 Postulates 
 
 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 134 
 
 Prop. IV. Nothing can be destroyed, except by a cause 
 
 external to itself 135 
 
 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 135 
 
 Prop. VI. Everything in so far as it is in itself, endeavors 
 to persist in its own being 
 
 135 
 
XX 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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 . . . 136 
 
 Prop. X. An idea, which excludes the existence of our 
 body cannot be postulated in our mind, but is contrary 
 
 thereto 137 
 
 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 . . . 14a 
 
 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 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part III. 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 .... 
 
 Prop. XX. He who conceives that the object of his hate 
 
 is destroyed will feel pleasure 
 
 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 
 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 ... 
 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 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 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 .... 
 Prop. XXVIII. We endeavor to bring about whatsoever 
 we conceive to conduce to pleasure; but we endeavor 
 to remove or destroy whatsoever we oonceive to be 
 truly repugnant thereto, or to conduce to pain . 
 
 PAG» 
 
 144 
 
 144 
 
 145 
 
 145 
 
 146 
 
 147 
 
 147 
 
 147 
 
 148 
 149 
 
xxii 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 FAGB 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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 — Continued. 
 
 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. XLV 1 1 . 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 163 
 
 Prop. L. Anything whatever can be, accidentally, a cause 
 of hope or fear ' . , , 163 
 
XXIV 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 PASS 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part III. Origin and Nature of the Emotions — Continued. 
 
 Prop. LI. Different men may be differently 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 
 greater 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 173 
 
 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 
 
 Preface 
 
 Definitions 
 
 Axiom 
 
 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 
 
 189 
 
 189 
 
 19a 
 
 194 
 
 194 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XXV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 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 195 
 
 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. 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 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 
 
XXvl 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part IV. Of Human Bondage — Continued. 
 
 Prop. XIII. 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 
 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 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 
 
 PASS 
 
 THE ETHICS — 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 308 
 
 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 21 1 
 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 21 1 
 Prop. XXXV. In so far only as men live 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 ma n , 219 
 
xxviii 
 
 SPINOZA 
 
 PAQB 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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 . 2x9 
 
 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 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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. LXII. 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. LX1V. 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. LXVII. 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. LXXII. 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 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part V. On the Power of the Understanding, or of 
 
 Human Freedom 
 
 Preface 
 
 Axioms 
 
 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 
 Prop. II. 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 . 
 Prop. III. An emotion, which is a passion, ceases to be 
 a passion as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea 
 
 thereof 
 
 Prop. IV. There is no modification of the body whereof 
 we cannot form some clear and distinct conception 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 Prop. VIII. An emotion is stronger in proportion to the 
 number of simultaneous concurrent causes whereby it 
 
 is aroused 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 PAGE 
 
 250 
 
 250 
 
 253 
 
 253 
 
 254 
 
 254 
 
 254 
 
 256 
 
 256 
 
 257 
 
 258 
 
 258 
 
 258 
 
 261 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XXXI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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 h 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. XXI. 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 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 Part V. On the Power of the Understanding — Continued. 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 Prop. XXXI. Intuition depends on the mind, as its formal 
 cause, in so far as the mind itself is eternal 
 Prop. XXXII. Whatsoever we understand by intuition, we 
 take delight in, and our delight is accompanied by the 
 
 idea of God as cause 
 
 Prop. XXXIII. The intellectual love of God, which arises 
 
 from intuition, is eternal 
 
 Prop. XXXIV. The mind is, only while the body endures, 
 subject to those emotions which are attributable to passions 
 Prop. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intellec- 
 tual love 
 
 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 
 Prop. XXXVII. There is nothing in nature, which is con- 
 trary to this intellectual love, or which can take it away . 
 
 — 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 .... 
 
 Prop. XXXIX. He who possesses a body capable of the 
 greatest number of activities possesses a soul whereof 
 
 the greatest part is eternal 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 PAG* 
 
 268 
 
 269 
 
 269 
 
 270 
 
 271 
 271 
 271 
 
 272 
 
 273 
 
 273 
 
 274 
 
 275 
 
 276 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 PAQB 
 
 THE ETHICS — Continued. 
 
 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. — XXVIII. 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 XLIII. (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, 
 
 et c 374 
 
 Letters LI., LII. (1671). Between Spinoza and Leibnitz . 376 
 
 Letters LIIL, 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 416 
 
 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 "tcTlose 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")" :o be the highest good, may be classed 
 under the three heads — Riches" Fame, and the Pleasures 
 of Sense: with these three the mind is so absorbed that 
 it has little power to reflect on any different good. By 
 
 ~ (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 mo re we 
 acqui re, 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, 1^ c ame j n 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 certam 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 ^ happi ness o r un happiness ^ 
 is made wholly to depend on the quality of the object 
 which we love. When a th ing is not loved, no quarrel s 
 will arise concer ning it — no sadness will be felt if it 
 perishes — no envy if it is p ossessed by another — no 
 fear no hatred, in short no disturbances of the mind. 
 
 AU 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 fandom 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 
 forthwith lay aside all love of riches, sensual enjoyment, 
 and fame. 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 pleastfre, or fame, 
 is only a Tiindrance, 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 jail 
 things which co me to pass, come to pa ss 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 Tt Ts‘ 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 -fc 
 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 s ci ences doe s not serve 
 to promote our object jvill 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: 
 
 n7 ~To speaFTh “ 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 our 
 purpose ; I lay no stress on their order. 
 
6 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OP THE UNDERSTANDING 
 
 i III. i 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 thatjall modes of perception or knowl- 
 edge may be reduced to four: 
 
 ( L Perception arising from hearsay or from some sign 
 which everyone may name as he pleases. 
 
 (n, 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. 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^IIL/ 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. 
 
 v 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 
 toyself 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 something, 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 hold* 
 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 know ledg e 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 
 
 *1 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 i dea 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 W'* 
 for us, we must indicate the way and the method 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 
 
ty?C jLvIftfiUsrrtf/t J'L. crjf *cn~tc£/cc / / tn. .&MJ& y&cfcjZjZ-' 
 
 10 IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNDERSTANDING 
 
 tools, and from the 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 understanding 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 ( ideatum ) ; 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 
 formalis ) 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, 
 fes I shall afterwards explain in my philosophy. 
 
SPINOZA 
 
 ii 
 
 (for malit er}. 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, 
 again, 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 forjtruth it self , or the sutrjectiye 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 
 understood 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 
 
i4 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 philosophy. 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 
 
j/iasd' ■/ ^Lt/e*z<Z^ 
 
 SPINOZA 15 
 
 that they are ignorant of ^Uffe 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 / s 
 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, when 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 
 if 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 considerations, 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 Z & 
 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, 
 
 2 
 
1 8 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 
 i 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 
 
 * . . ^&/ccz&/ 
 
 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 correctlyj^httributable 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, ^ 4 
 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 exTsf 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 legitimately 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 
 v 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 
 being 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 proceed 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 words, 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. 
 
28 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 
 understanding. 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 
 
^ -^SlsGSTVC ; -£,^zz- 
 
 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 IMPROVEMENT 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 
 
 '^c >-*r 
 
 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 things, 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- '"j 
 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 
 3 
 
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 interrupts 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 thin gs, 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 e ternity, 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 UNDERSTANDING 
 
 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 wanting . ] 
 
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 mean that which the intellect per- f ■, 
 
 1 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 Jiy 
 the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action 
 
 * (< Affectiones .» 
 
 (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. 
 
 Explanation . — 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 
 
 4i 
 
 Prop. III. Things which have nothing i n 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 ar e distinguished 
 one fro m the other either by the difference of the attri- 
 butes of the substances, or b y 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 7 
 may be distinguished one from the other, except the sjih- ' 
 st ances , 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 
 s ubstances having the sa me nature or attribute. 
 
 Proof . — If 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. 
 
 P rop. VI. One substance cann ot be produced by another 
 s ubstanc e^ 
 
 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. V II. 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 ; 
 
 4 tfjM 
 7 
 
 1 
 
44 
 
 THE ETHICS 
 
 i. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor 
 . expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. 
 From this it follows that — 
 
 a. 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 attribute s (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, consistin g of infinite attri- 
 butes, of which ea ch 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 
 
 •s/oZ 
 
 v 
 
4 6 
 
 THE ETHICS 
 
 non-existence — e. 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 h posteriori , so that the proof might be more 
 easily followed, not because, from the same premises, 
 God’s existence does not follow h 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, w 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 at tribute 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. 
 
 Coro llary . — It foll ows t hat no substance, and con se- 
 quently no extended substance, in so far as it is sub- _ 
 s tance, is d ivisible! 
 
 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. B es ides God no substance can be granted 
 or c onceived. 
 
 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 i s on e, that is 
 
 (by Def. vi.) o nly one substance can be granted in th e 
 universe, and that substance is absolutely infinite, as we 
 have already indicated (in the note to Prop. x.). 
 
 Corollary II . — It follows : 2 . Th at ext ension and thought 
 are either attributes of God or (by Ax. i.) accidents ( affec- 
 tiones ) o f the attributes of God. 
 
 Prop. XV. Whatsoever is. is in G od, and without God 1 
 n othing can be, or be co nceived. . 
 
 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 
 
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 
 I 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 
 
 Si 
 
 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 
 
 tji at is, all things which can fall wit hin 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 /. — 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 ac cident of his nature^ 
 
 Corollary III . — It follows, thirdly, that God is the abso- 
 lutely first cause. 
 
 P rop. XVII. God acts solely b y the laws of his own na- 
 ture, and is not constr ained by any_onOr- 
 
 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 
 
 c ause which, either extrinsically or i ntrinsically, besides 
 the perfection of his own nature, moves God to act. 
 
 ~'HWffltary II . — It follows: 2. That God is the sole 
 
CONCERNING GOD 
 
 55 
 
 f ree cau se. 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 
 
5 « 
 
 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 faf 
 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 i s 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- 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 58 
 
 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. T he ex i stence of God and his essence are 
 one and the sam e. 
 
 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 i t follows t hat God’s e xistence, .like 
 his esse nce, is an eternal truth. 
 
 Corollary II. — Secondly, it follows that God, and all the 
 at tributes of God, are u nchangeabl e. For if th ey 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 G od, in so far as it is modified by a m odification, 
 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- 
 sjtrily, 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 
 
 61 
 
 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 rerum). 
 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., Coroll.) 
 
 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: — 1. 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 ( natura natur ans ), and nature viewed as passive 
 {natura natur at a). 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 he 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 . — I t foll ows 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, 
 
 5 
 
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 solely 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. 
 
7 ° 
 
 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 
 
 7i 
 
 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, i. 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 truth. 
 
 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 versd: 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, w 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 fact 
 
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 1 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., Coroll.). 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 (Parti., 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 
 
 81 
 
 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., Coroll.). 
 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 ( ideata ) 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 - 
 6 
 
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 
 ( for malit er ), 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 
 thing; 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 
 
8 4 
 
 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. — Whatsoeve r 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* o f 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. 15) 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 
 
 8 7 
 
 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^fir 
 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. 
 pa rt 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. Whatsoev er comes to pass in the object of 
 the idea, wh ich constitutes the h uman mind, must be per- 
 ceived by the human mind, or there will necessa rily be 
 an idea i n the hum an mind of the said occurrence. T hat 
 is, if the object of the idea constitu ting the hu man mind 
 be a b ody, nothing can take place in that body without 
 being perceive d by fhp..jmitvd- — - 
 
 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 mind, 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 understood from II. vii., which see. 
 
 Prop. XIII. The object of the idea cons ti tuting tim 
 human min d is the body, in other wbrds a c ertain mode 
 of extension which actually exists, and nothin? else. 
 
 human mind, the ideas of the modifications of the body 
 would not be in God (II. ix. Coroll.) in virtue of his con- 
 
 Proof . — If indeed 
 
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.» 
 
9 ° 
 
 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 i n motion o r at rest. 
 
 Axiom II. Every body is moved some times mor e slowly, 
 sometimes more quickly. 
 
 Lemma I. “Bodies are distinguished from one another in- 
 respect of motion and rest , quickness and sl owness, 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 agre e 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 body, 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 
 
 9i 
 
 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, u ntil it is determined to~a~s ta te^ of rest 
 bv some~oUieF~bodv : a nd a bo dy at r est remains so, until 
 it is determined to a state of motion by some other b ody . 
 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 affe cted by 
 anothe r 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, dif ferent b odies may be mo ved in 
 d ifferent modes by one and the same body. 
 
 Axiom II 
 body at rest 
 
 W hen a body in motion impinges on ano ther 
 which it is unable to move, it recoils in 
 
 order to c ontin ue its motion, and the angle made by the 
 lmelff'~5mtion in the recoil and the plane of the body a t 
 r esU wh ereon the moving bod y has impinged, will be e qual 
 to the angle formed ~by the line of mot ion 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 
 (fortnam) 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. 
 
 Note . — 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 - 
 J vid ual parts, of diverse nature, each one of which is in 
 ' itself extremely cnmplpjz. — 
 
 II. Of the i ndividual parts composing the human body 
 some are fluid, so me soft, some haxcL- 
 
 III. The individual parts composing the human body, 
 and conseque ntly the human body itself, are affected in 
 a variety of ways by external hndies- 
 
 IV. T he human body stands in need for its pres e rva- 
 tion of a number of other bodies, by which it is conti nu- 
 all y, so to speak, regene rated. 
 
 V. W hen the fluid part of the human body is deter-^ 
 mined by an ex ternal body to impinge often on another 
 soft part, it changes t he surface of the latter, an d, as it 
 were, leaves the impression thereup on of the ex ternal 
 body which imp.els.it. 
 
 VI. The human body can move external bodies, and 
 arran ge them in a variety of wav s. 
 
 Prop. XIV. The hu man mind is capable of per ceiving 
 a jjreat number of things, and is so in propo rtion as its 
 bod y is capable ot receiving a Jgreat numb er of im.- 
 pressions. 
 
 Proof. — The human body (by Post. iii. and vi.) is 
 affected in very 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. T he idea, which constitutes the actual being 
 of the human mi nd, is not simple, but compounded of a 
 great number of ideas. 
 
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 
 
 95 
 
 Proof . — The idea constituting- the actual being of the 
 human mind is the idea of the body (II. xiii.), which 
 (Post, i.) is composed of a great number of complex 
 individual parts. But there is necessarily in God the 
 idea of each individual part whereof the body is com- 
 posed (II. viii., Coroll.); therefore (II. vii.), the idea of 
 the human body is composed of these numerous ideas of 
 its component parts. Q. E.D. 
 
 Prop. XVI. The idea of every mode, in w hich the, 
 human b ody is affecte d by external bodies, must in volve 
 theliature of the human body, a nd also the nature" of the 
 external S6dyT'~~' 
 
 Proof. — ATT 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 
 paind perceives the nature of a variety of bodies, together 
 with the nature of its own. 
 
 Corollary IL - — 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 amply illustrated this in the Appendix to Part I. 
 
 Prop. XVII. If the human body is affected in a man- 
 ne r which involves~the nature ~b f~ any ext ernal body, the 
 human mind will regard the said external body as actually 
 existing, oras present to itself, untiTtKe human body be 
 affecte d in such a w ay, as to exclude the existence or the' 
 pr esence of the said external body. 
 
 Proof . — This proposition is self-evident, 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., Coroll, i.) will 
 regard the external body as actually existing, until it is 
 affected, etc. Q.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 t he hu man body has once been affected ' 
 by two or more bodies at the same time, when the mind 
 afterward imag ines any of th em, it will straightway 
 remembe r the o t her s 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 
 
 cjl/ 
 
 (9 
 
 7 
 
9 8 
 
 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 ( affectiones ) 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 pomum (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 pomum , 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. Th e hu man mind has no knowledge of the 
 body, and d oes not know it to exist, save th rough t he 
 i deas 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 referre d 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. 
 
IOO 
 
 THE ETHICS 
 
 Prop. XXI. This jdea of t he mind is united to the 
 mind in the same wav 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, knows 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 ide as 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 
 
 IOI 
 
 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 f ar 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- 
 
102 
 
 THE ETHICS 
 
 ticular 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 human 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 modifica tion of th e hu - 
 man body does not involve an a dequat e 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 
 
 ma l oocly as actually existing , except 
 id eas of the modifications ..o f- 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. T he idea of each modification of the 
 human body does not involve an adequate knowledge of 
 
 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 t he 
 human body, in so far as they Iiave reference only to' the 
 'human rnmd," ar(T n ot clear and distinct, but confusedT~ 
 
 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 human 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. 
 
104 
 
 THE ETHICS 
 
 Prop. XXIX. The idea of the id ea of each modification 
 of the human body does not involve an adequate knowl - 
 edge of the human min d- 
 
 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 ad equat e but only a confus ed and 
 fragmen tary knowl edge of itself, of i ts 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 ha ve a very i nad equate 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, which 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 c an only have a very in adequ ate knowl- 
 e dge of the duration of particular things e xternal 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 t hat all particular things 
 are contingent and pe rishable. 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 t rue. 
 
 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 nothi ng pos itive in id eas, 
 which ca uses 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 p rivation of knowl- 
 edge, which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas, 
 involve. 
 
 Proof . — There is nothing positive in ideas, which causes 
 them to be 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. 
 Coroll.) 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 com mon to all (cf. 
 Lemma II. above), and which is equally in a part and 
 in the whole, does n ot constitute the essence of any par- 
 t icular t hing. 
 
 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 equaHy~ln~a part and in the^whole, 
 cannot be conceived e xcept 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.) 
 
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 t he human b ody and s uch other bodies as are 
 wont to affect the human body, and which is prese nt 
 equally in each part of either, or in the whole, will be 
 represented by an adequate ide a in the rmnd. 
 
 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 t he mind is fitted to 
 perceive adequately m ore things, in proportion as its body 
 has more in common with othe r -bodies. 
 
 Prop. XL. Whatsoeve r id eas 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. I & 
 
 Note I . — I have thus set forth the cause of those ^ iaA vv/vv%M 1 
 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 numbet 
 
I T C 
 
 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, \vhereby 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 
 
 nr 
 
 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. Besides 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. 
 
I 12 
 
 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 we infer the fourth number from an in- 
 tuitive grasping of the ratio, which the first bears to the 
 second. 
 
 Prop. XLI. Knowledge o f the first k ind is the o nly 
 sourc e of falsity, kno wledge of the second and thir d 
 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 tru e from the ialse. 
 
 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 
 
 ”3 
 
 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 
 8 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 114 
 
 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 
 II. 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 
 
 u 5 
 
 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 them 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 i 
 things under a certain form of eternity ( sub quddam J 
 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 par- 
 
1 1 6 
 
 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 
 perfects 
 
 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 
 
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND 
 
 117 
 
 (II. xix.) and external bodies (II. xvi. Coroll. 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 they 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. 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 / 
 
 v? 
 
 ' r \ 
 3 r 
 
 118 
 
 Prop. XLVIII. In the mind there is no abs olu te or 
 free will ; but the_jnind_is~ determined to wish this or that 
 by a cause, which has also been determined by another 
 c ause, a nd this la st 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 m ind no volition or 
 affirmation and negation, save that which an idea, inas- 
 much as it i s an idea , invol ves. . 
 
 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__areL . 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 
 
120 
 
 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 some more excel- 
 
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 hunger 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 we 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 frowns 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- 
 hing 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. 
 
ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE 
 EMOTIONS. 
 
 0 % 
 
 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 
 
 I 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 
 understanding 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^! 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, 
 though I were concerned with lines, planes, and soli 
 
 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, Vhereof 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 
 
 Definitions. i 
 
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 (II. 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 
 
13 ° 
 
 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, under 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 concluded 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 believes 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 would willingly have 
 withheld: thus, 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 remembers. 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. Lastly, 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 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 136 
 
 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. 
 
 C 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 1 , and that for an indefinite time (III. viii.). Now 
 as the mind (II. 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. __ 
 
 Note . — This endeavor, when referred solely to the mind, 
 is called j 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 v 
 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 
 pleasui^ in .reference to the body and mind together I shall 
 call stimulation {titillatio) or meXrIment ( hilaritas ), the 
 emotfdn/ of pain in the same relation I shall call suffering 
 or mel^cjjqly. 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 (II. 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 {of. 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 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 140 
 
 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. Coroll. 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 
 
 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 
 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 . — He, 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, 
 be 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 affect 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 
 {affectus). 
 
 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 destroys it 
 ( cf 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. Concerning love or hate 
 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, 
 
 4 
 
 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 150 
 
 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 
 
 / 
 f y 
 fs} 
 \/t 
 
 W 
 
 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. 
 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 152 
 
 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 (appetere), 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 thing 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, 'df 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-approval (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 I 
 
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. 
 Coroll, 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 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 158 
 
 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 
 (III. 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 ( III. xxx. and note ) be affected with shame ; 
 but this case ( III. 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 ( III. 
 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 just 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- 
 
(6o 
 
 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. ) 
 Q.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 161 
 
 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 anyone 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. 
 
 ii 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 162 
 
 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 OF 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. 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 164 
 
 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 anything, 
 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, 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 166 
 
 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. 
 
1 68 
 
 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 (III. i.), in so far as we have inade- 
 quate ideas; and only in so far as we have such ideas are 
 
170 
 
 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, which 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 we 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 (III. 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 accoiding 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 such 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 ( animositas ) 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 
 
 mindedness. 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 formerly 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 (cf 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. 
 
 Explanation . — 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 ( imaginatio ) 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. lii. 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 {cf. III. xv. 
 note ). 
 
 X. Devotion is love toward one whom we admire. 
 
 Explanation. — Wonder ( admiratio ) arises (as we have 
 
 shown, III. lii.) 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. lii. 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 something, which excludes the existence of the 
 
DEFINITIONS OF THE EMOTIONS 
 
 179 
 
 said thing in the future; therefore he, to this extent, 
 feels pain ( cf. 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 
 things, 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. Coroll.), 
 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 (; misericordia ) 
 
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. Coroll, i., and III. 
 xxii. note. 
 
 XXI. Partiality is thinking too highly of anyone because 
 of the love we bear him. 
 
 XXII. Disparagement is thinking too meanly of any one, 
 because we hate him. 
 
 Explanation . — 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. 
 
 Explanation . — Envy is generally opposed to sympathy, 
 which, by doing some violence to the meaning of the 
 word, may therefore be thus defined: 
 
 XXIV. Sympathy ( misericordia ) 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. 
 
 Explanation . — 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 181 
 
 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. lv. 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 profane, 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 
 
182 
 
 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. Modesty 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, 
 
184 
 
 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. 
 
 Explanation . — 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. III. 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 
 
 i8 S 
 
 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. lii. note. Concerning 
 cowardice and daring, see III. li. note. 
 
 XLIII. Courtesy, or deference ( humanitas seu modes- 
 tia ), is the desire of acting in a way that should please 
 men, and refraining from that which should displease 
 them. 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 186 
 
 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. lvi.) 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 ina dequate 
 
 or confuged~4deas. -(ITL-iif. ) I say, further, whereby 
 
 thI mind afTtkm5~"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. 
 Coroll, 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 
 
1 88 
 
 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. 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 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) 
 
 
190 
 
 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 diss 
 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 
 
 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 or 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 to 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. 
 iff.), 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, W3 
 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 
 
 Note . — 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- 
 creaseth 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 of 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 
 
206 
 
 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 
 
208 
 
 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 
 
210 
 
 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 versd, 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 
 
OP HUMAN BONDAGE 
 
 21 1 
 
 proportion as it is in harmony with our nature, and vice 
 versd. 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, wdiich 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. lvi.), 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. lv. 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 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 216 
 
 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 
 
 2i 7 
 
 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. lvii. 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 
 
2l8 
 
 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. Coroll.), 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 mutually 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 guidance 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 
 
 22 7 
 
 ever, remark that, when the sovereign power for the sake 
 of preserving peace punishes a citizen who has injured 
 another, it should not he 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. lv. 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. lv.) 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 saying 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 contemplation 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 virtues. 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 with 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 
 
 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. lxi.), 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 
 
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. LX VI. 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. 
 
OP 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. 
 lxii.) ; 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. lxv.) 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. lxv. is related 
 to the said IV. lxv. 
 
 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. lxiii. ), but 
 who directly desires that which is good ( IV. lxiii. 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 born free, and who remains free, 
 has only adequate ideas; therefore (IV. lxiv. 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 look 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. and xli.), 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. LXXI. 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 Coroll, 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 tc 
 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. lxiii.): but, in so far as he en- 
 deavors to preserve his being according to the dictates 
 of reason, that is (IV. lxvi. 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- 
 
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 of 
 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 ( cf. 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 lxxiii. 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. lxx. note; 
 lxxi. 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 {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. lvii. 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 or other men’s rights. 
 
 XXV. Correctness of conduct {modestia), 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 lx. 
 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 sonl 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 Fame,® 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 
 
 l’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 own 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 go 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 
 union 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 modifi- 
 
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. lxi.). 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 
 
THE ETHICS 
 
 256 
 
 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 aroused 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 what 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 understands 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 contrary 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 simultaneous 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. lii.), 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 
 
26 o 
 
 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. 
 lxiii. 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 
 knowledge 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 ob j e cts, ^so__is~it-'-more~frequent , or more often 
 vivid, and" 'occupies the mind more. ' ________ 
 
 Prtiof . — In proportion as a mental image or an emotion 
 ys 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. 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 
 affected 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. 
 
 Npte . — 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 fa^ 
 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^Iove-Ji im in retur n. ___ 
 
 Proof .— ¥ or if a man should so endeavor, he would 
 ^^de'sire (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 
 
 * Affectiones. Camerer reads affectus — 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. 
 
 \^e 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. 
 
 in.). Q^E^B.'" ' ~ 
 
 Prop. XXIII. The human mind cannot be absolutely 
 destroyed. _with the body, but there remains of if somg^- 
 
 thing 1 which is eternal. "" — 
 
 Proof . — There is necessarily in God a concept or idea, 
 which expresses- The essence of the human bo^.y^ ( last 
 Prop.), which, therefore," -is~neGessarily---sometfiing 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 
 
 
 pos&tMe that we should remember that we existed before 
 j'ur 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^ onTy TJU defirred ^by a fixed 
 time, ItT^rfar 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. Coroll. 
 
 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 th is-, wav, we better understand God (by 
 the" last "Prop. ) ; therefore ( IV. xxviii.) -the highesVvirttie 
 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. 
 
 j rop. 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 knowledge, 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 froltf adequate ideas, 
 or ideas o£ 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 far 
 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. 
 
 Pk6p. 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. — From 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 
 
 r 
 
OF HUMAN FREEDOM 
 
 271 
 
 God jas 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. 
 
 Note . — 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. -^ HmTce~~i t f oTiows"~tffat 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, 
 
27 * 
 
 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 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 
 regarded 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. 
 
 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 
 mmdr' toward God are ident ical , — \ 
 
 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 
 railed i ntuitive 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. 
 and 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, 
 
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. 
 
 X/ 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. x:si.) should be 
 of little importance when compared with the part which 
 endures. But I will soon treat of the subject at greater 
 len gth. i — 1 ~ 
 
 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.js (IV. xxx.), by 
 those emotions which are contrary to our natur» f 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 " " 1 ^ ™ ^ 
 
 number of activities, there is no doubt but that they 
 
 Note. — Since human 
 
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 scarcely con- 
 scious of itself, or of God, or of things ; whereas, he, who 
 has a body capable cf 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 versd, 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 (-II L 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 showed 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. N ow^ .. white" we 'determ ined 
 what reason prescribes' as' liseful, 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 
 
2 7 8 
 
 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. 
 
 /V obit 
 
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 ) 
 
SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER II. 
 
 280 
 
 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 II.] 
 
 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 cause, 
 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 he 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 bom, 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 VII. (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 theological and philosophical works.] 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 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. 
 
 *9 
 
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 sacrificed 
 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 your 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 Oldenburc. 
 
 LETTER VIII. (XI.) 
 
 Oldenburg to Spinoza. 
 
 [After further replying to Spinoza’s criticisms on Boyle’s book, Olden 
 burg again exhorts his correspondent to publish.] 
 
 ******* 
 
 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 which 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 
 my 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 XIII. 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 work f 
 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 \ 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. 
 
 f The (< Tractatus Theologico- Politicus.® 
 
 t 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 
 agrees 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. 
 
 * + * * * * * 
 
 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 modified 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 no' 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 1 1. 
 
 f Ethics, I. viii. 
 
LETTER XVI.] 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 XVI. (XXXIII.) 
 
 Oldenburg to Spinoza. 
 
 [After some remarks on Spinoza’s last letter, and an account ol 
 experiments at the Royal Society and at Oxford, Oldenburg men- 
 tions a report about the return of the Jews to Palestine.] 
 
 ******* 
 
 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, 8 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 XVIII.] 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 XVIII. (LXII.) 
 
 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 a Tractatus Theologico-Politicus w was not published 
 till 1670. 
 
3oo 
 
 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 
 
SPINOZA’S 
 
 302 
 
 [LETTER XXL 
 
 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 XXI. (LXXIII.) 
 
 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 XXI.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 3°3 
 
 * 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 I. Farewell. 
 
3°4 
 
 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 XXIII.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 3<>S 
 
 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. 16. 
 
 20 
 
SPINOZA’S 
 
 306 
 
 [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 XXIII.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 3°7 
 
 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, 1 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. 
 
3°8 
 
 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.] 
 
 e 5 irparrecv. 
 
 You hit the point exactly, in perceiving the cause why 
 I did not wish the doctrine of the fatalistic necessity of 
 # John ii. 19. Cf. Matt xxvi. 60; Mark xiv. 58. 
 
LETTER XXIV.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 3°9 
 
 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 
 
 3 “ 
 
 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 
 zeal 
 
 * 2 Cor. v. 16 
 
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 me 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 physical 
 soundness of body follows from mechanical causes, but 
 soundness of mind depends on purpose and design. You 
 add, that men may be inexcusable,! 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 \ 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. 
 
 f Surely this is a mistake for «excusable.» — [T r.] 
 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- 
 rary, 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. 
 
3*4 
 
 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 
 
 3IS 
 
 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 . n 
 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 : w 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.] 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.» 
 
SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER XXVII. 
 
 3*8 
 
 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 XXVIIL 
 
 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. n, 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 only 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 fruitionem ). 
 
 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 undergo. 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 wish 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 consult 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 XXXI.] 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 XXXI. (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, B 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 fruit, 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. T 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 latter, 
 
 22 
 
33 » 
 
 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 relation 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 
 
34 ° 
 
 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 what 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. For 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. 
 
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; when 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. Hence 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 HE 
 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 created 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 should 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 
 angles; 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 we 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 no 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 
 
35 ° 
 
 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. 
 
LETTER XXXVI.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 3Si 
 
 LETTER XXXVI. (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 matri cidal 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 XXXVI.] 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 I 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 XXXVIII.] 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 will 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 XXXVIII. (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 10th. 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. 
 
 II. 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 which 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. 
 
360 
 
 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 
 
 36* 
 
 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, I 
 merely wished to show, that such a being could neither 
 be divided into parts of the same nature or parts of a 
 different nature, whether those of a different nature im 
 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 XLII.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 36s 
 
 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 XLII. (XXXVII.) 
 
 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, subject 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 XL VI.] 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. 1, 1666.)] 
 
 Omitted. 
 
 LETTERS XLIV., XLV., XLVI. (XXXIX., XL., XLI.) 
 Spinoza to I. I. 
 
 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 XLVII. (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 ? w 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 
 
37 ° 
 
 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, a 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. w 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 virtue 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 
 
 37 » 
 
 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 necessity 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,” etc. 
 
 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 endeavors 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 that 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. w 
 
 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-Politicus. »] 
 
 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 
 
 37 $ 
 
 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 LI. (XLV.) 
 
 Godfrey Leibnitz to Spinoza. 
 
 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 (< Physico-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 LII. (XLVI.) 
 
 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 * pandochae ® 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 Lin. ] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 379 
 
 LETTER LIII. (XL VII.) 
 
 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. 
 
380 
 
 SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER XLIV. 
 
 LETTER LIV. (XLVIII.) 
 
 Spinoza to Fabritius. 
 
 [Spinoza thanks the Elector for his kind offer, 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.] 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 38i 
 
 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.] 
 
 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 noth- 
 
SPINOZA’S 
 
 382 
 
 [LETTER LVI. 
 
 ing about war and rumors, inasmuch as our lot is cast in 
 an age, etc. Farewell. 
 
 14 Sept , 1674. 
 
 LETTER LVI. (LII.) 
 
 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 L VII. ] 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 LVII. (LIII.) 
 
 Hugo Boxel to Spinoza. 
 
 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 Caesars, * 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 w 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, B ch. xxxii. ; 
 Valerius Maximus, I. 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 modem, 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 writers, 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 answer, 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 made 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, 
 
383 
 
 SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER LV111. 
 
 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 LVIII.] 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 universe, 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 
 
39 ° 
 
 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 his 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, 
 Maximus Tyrius, Apuleius, and others, bear witness to ghosts ; and 
 no modem 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. (LVI.) 
 
 Spinoza to Hugo Boxel. 
 
 [Spinoza again answers the argument in favor of ghosts. ( The Hague, 
 
 1674.)] 
 
 Dear Sir, — I hasten to answer yonr 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 
 
392 
 
 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 own 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 divine 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 contrary, 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 human 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 some. 
 
394 
 
 SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER LX. 
 
 When I learned Euclid’s Elements, I understood that the 
 three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, 
 and this property of a triangle I perceived clearly, 
 though I might be ignorant of many others. 
 
 As regards spectres or ghosts, I have hitherto heard 
 attributed to them no intelligible property: they seem 
 like phantoms, which no one can understand. When you 
 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 invisible, seems to me to be equivalent to say- 
 ing that they do not exist, not to stating their nature; 
 unless, perhaps, you wish to indicate, that they render 
 themselves visible or invisible 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 trifles, should 
 have also devised 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 you for denying 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 any 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.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 395 
 
 LETTER LXI. ( LVII. ) 
 
 . . . to Spinoza. 
 
 [Philosophers often differ through using words in different senses. 
 Thus in the question of free will Descartes means by free, constrained 
 by no cause. You mean by the same, undetermined in a particular 
 way by a cause. The question of free will is threefold : — I. Have we 
 any power whatever over things external to us ? II. Have we 
 absolute power over the intentional movements of our own body ? 
 III. Have we free use of our reason ? Both Descartes and 
 yourself are right according to the terms employed by each 
 (8th October, 1674).] 
 
 LETTER LXII. (LVIII.) 
 
 Spinoza to . . . (The Hague, October 1674.) 
 
 [Spinoza gives his opinions on liberty and necessity.] 
 
 Sir: — Our friend, J. R., has sent me the letter which 
 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 friend wishes to imply by his remark before he 
 appeals to experience, I know not. What he adds, that 
 
 WHEN ONE OF TWO DISPUTANTS AFFIRMS SOMETHING WHICH 
 THE OTHER DENIES, BOTH MAY BE RIGHT, is true, 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 te 
 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. Thus 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 LXII.] 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 
 necessarily, 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 LXIII.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 399 
 
 LETTER LXIII. (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 h 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 
 
4oo 
 
 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 which 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 
 
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. (LXIII.) 
 
 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 Tschimhausen 
 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 Tschimhausen is enjoying the same in England, 
 and has three times in the letters he has sent me bidden 
 
LETTER LXV.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 4°3 
 
 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 thoroughly 
 
 understand), and that the more it has of reality or 
 
 BEING, THE MORE ATTRIBUTES APPERTAIN TO IT. It Seems 
 
 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 
 allows it. He further relates, that Mr. Boyle and Old- 
 
404 
 
 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 
 worthy 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. h 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 
 understanding 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 LXVI. ] 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 ( facies 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 LXVII. (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 B 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 LX VIII.] 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 difficulties will be removed by further re- 
 flection. 
 
 London, 12 Aug., 1675. 
 
 LETTER LXVIII. (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, * II. vii. , and as is 
 also evident from I. x. If you will reflect on these 
 
408 SPINOZA’S [LETTER LXVIII.a. 
 
 passages a little, you will see that all difficulty vanishes, 
 etc. 
 
 The Hague, 18 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 LXVIILa.] 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. 
 
 4 « ♦ > 1 « * ♦ ♦ 
 
 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. 
 
 t 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 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. 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, 18 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 figure, 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 THEIR 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. (LXXXI.) 
 
 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. (LXXXII.) 
 
 . . . to Spinoza. 
 
 [How can the variety of the universe be shown a priori from the Spino- 
 zistic conception of extension ?] 
 
 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 LXXII.] CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 4IS 
 
 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 
 things, 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 LXXII. (LXXXIII.) 
 
 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 
 
416 
 
 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 LXXIII. ] 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 
 
4i 8 
 
 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, make 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 ? 
 
 ******* 
 
 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 bom 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 
 your 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 
 with 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. (LXXVI.) 
 
 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 for Catholicism 
 at Florence in 1669. 
 
422 
 
 SPINOZA’S 
 
 [LETTER LXX1V. 
 
 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 only 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 ? * SL question 
 
 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 who 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, 1644. ® — 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 you 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.) 
 
 Spinoza to Lambert van Velthuysen 
 (Doctor of Medicine at Utrecht). 
 
 [Of the proposed annotation of the (< Tractatus Theologico- Politicus.»] 
 
 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 
 I 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-Politicus.» 
 
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. 
 



 Duke University Libraries 
 
 
 
 DOO52IP 
 
 
 TRANS. FROM H, 
 
 ft» 
 
 'J 
 
 50 
 
 c 
 
 S758I 
 
 'J b 
 
 109952 
 
 \