Yale University Library 39002009727570 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ETHIC:. FROM THE LATIN OF BENEDICT DE SPINOZA FTWTtT- DEMONSTRATED IN ^j x 111*0. GEOMETRICAL ORDER, AND DIVIDED INTO FIVE PARTS, WHICH TREAT (1) OF GOD; (2) OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND; (3) OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE AFFECTS; (4) OF HUMAN BON DAGE, OR OF THE STRENGTH OF THE AFFECTS; (5) OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT, OR OF HUMAN LIBERTY TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN OF BENEDICT DE SPINOZA BY W. HALE WHITE ; TRANSLATION REVISED BY AMELIA HUTCHIN SON STIRLING M.A. (Edm.) %&§&$& SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED, WITH NEW PREFACE NEW YORK : MACMILLAN AND CO. MDCCCXCIV PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The second edition of the present translation has been carefully revised by Miss Stirling and myself, and a few improved renderings have been introduced. The object of tho translators throughout has been to present a version of the Ethic which shall be perfectly literal, and yet be intelligible, so far as they can understand it. Those who complain of obscurity must remember that the Latin is often obscure. Eor example, the word modus at one time means mode, as denned in the fifth definition of the first book, and at another time " manner " or " way." Again, it may often be supposed that the right name has not been given to some of what are called the *" affects," and it is undoubtedly difficult at times to see under the name given in the translation all that Spinoza would connote by it ; but individual passages must not be isolated, and we had to select that word which best meets the requirements of all the passages taken together in which a particular affect is mentioned. "With regard to the use of the terms " subjective " and " objective," it is to be observed that with Spinoza and Descartes thoy bear- a moaning exactly tho reverse of that now assigned to them. Dr. Stirling has been good enough to furnish the following historical noto upon this subject. " Pr.wtl (vol. iii. p. 208) says of theso words ' subjectivo ' find ' objeo- " tivo iu Duns Scotus — ' In innumerable places "rum now on to tho v vi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. " ' eighteenth century (that is, until Alexander Baumgarten) we find this " ' use oi the words ' objective ' and ' subjective ' which relates itself to- " ' the present one as exactly the reverse : namely, ' subjective ' then " ' meant what refers itself to the subject of the judgments ; consequently " * to the concrete objects of thoughts : ' objective ' again what lies in the " ' mere objicere, that is, in the making conceivable or mentally repre- " ' sentable, and falls consequently to the score of the conceiver— the " ' mental representee ' Trendelenburg (El. Log. Aristotel. p. 52, note) " ' also observes : ' Thus subject during the Middle Ages has tbe force of " ' underlying substance, as it has also with Descartes and Spinoza. '"The latter (Princip. Philos. Cartes, p. n, ed. Paul.) says,— ' Every- " ' thing in which, as in a subject, there is immediately any property, " ' whose real idea is in us, is called substance.' So esse subjectivum (to '{'be subjective— subjective Being), quite contrary to the present usage "' ' amongst the Germans, is said by Occam (Sec. XIV.) to be ' that which, " ' as though a thing in nature, is placed outside of the forms of the " ' mind, and is not imaged by thought alone ;' whereas esse objectivum- " ' (objective Being), on the contrary, is explained as Cognition itself, and " 'consequently a certain imaged Being (esse quoddamftctum).' (Occam, " ' scntent. lib. I. distinct. II. quaDst. 8.) From which it will be evident " ' what is the meaning of objective reality with Descartes (c.r)., in med. 3). " ' Amongst the Germans, chiefly Kant and then Fiehte being the origi- " ' nators of tho change, the use of these words is completely inverted. "'While the subject is said to be he who knows; the object, on the "'contrary, is something which, while subjected in thinking (i.e., the " ' subject of thought), still maintains, nevertheless, its own nature in " ' independence of the opinions of him who thinks. Hence it is that " ' subjective is said to be that which lies in the changing condition of the " ' thinker, and objective, again, that which lies in the fixed nature of tho " ' thing itself.' " It may be added that a blemish which has disfigured previous translations, both French, German, and English, and indeed most Latin editions, has been removed ; for the references to the different propositions, axioms, and postulates have been carefully verified and corrected. Barueh de Spinoza was born at Amsterdam on the 24th of November, 1632.1 The name Barueh was changed 1 Old style. The now stylo was December since 1586. Auerbach's adopted in the Protestant Nether- story, Spinoza cin Denkcrkbcn, al- lands on the 1SU1 of February, 1700, though professedly a romance, is liiilthoyrarliadlieen reckoned from well worth reading as a most sue- (he ist ol .hmiiiiry to llic 31st of ccssful and sympathetic attempt by PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. vii for Benedict after he ceased to he a Jew. His father was a Portuguese Jew, a merchant, living at Amsterdam, and member of a small Jewish * community which had found in Holland a refuge from the Inquisition. It is worth while to notice more particularly in what directions men's thoughts were turned about this time. The telescope was discovered by Jan Lipperhey in 1608 : Kepler died in 1630 ; and Galileo in 1610 announced the revolution of Jupiter's satellites, and a little later that Venus presented phases like the moon; thereby con firming finally the truth of the Copernican system. Before Spinoza was twenty-four years old Huyghens had constructed his larger telescope and had seen Saturn's ring and his fourth satellite. We know from Spinoza's correspondence that he took the deepest interest in these discoveries, and it was impossible that it should be otherwise, for probably never before in human history had there been an epoch so revolutionary and so suggestive. The scientific value of the Copernican system was immense, but its moral value was perhaps even greater ; and it is really to the mathematicians and astronomers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the effectual overthrow of popular theology is due ; it is they who are answerable for that vast reconstruction of which we have even now seen but the beginning. The influence of the new revelation was everywhere, and it was not a mere accident that Spinoza's philosophy should have been what it was. What he did in theology and ethic is parallel to the work which Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Huyghens did in the science of worlds, for his main achievements are the enlargement of the idea of God : the removal of God from the provincial and potty position He had formerly occupied, and the a Jew, thoroughly acquainted with latiou is not so correct as it Jewish customs, to realise Spinoza might be. Unfortunately tho Fngliah trans- viii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. introduction of unity into our conceptions of man and nature. It is noticeable also that the occupation Spinoza selected was that of a maker of lenses. No calling more characteristic or significant could have been chosen. Of the character of Spinoza's father and his mother nothing whatever is known. He had two sisters, Rebekah and Miriam. He learned Latin at first from a German master, but afterwards from Francis Van den Ende, a physician in Amsterdam, who not only practised medicine but instructed the children of the richest merchants of the city. Co] eras, the biographer of Spinoza, says that Van den Ende taught atheism as well as Latin, aud that many of his pupils "bless every day the memory of their parents who took care in due time to remove them from the school of so pernici ous and impious a master." The charge is not im probable, for Van den Ende's character was of the insurrectionary type, and he was executed at Paris in 1674 for his share in a conspiracy against the French king ; the main object of which, so far at least as Van den Ende was concerned, was to give such employment to that monarch that, his forces could not bo turned against the United Provinces. Colerus says that Van den Ende had an only daughter, who was able to teach her father's scholars in his absence ; that Spinoza fell in love with her, and often confessed that he designed to marry her. She accepted, however, a rival named Kerkkrinck. Van Vloten, the editor of the last edition of Spinoza, has discovered that Clara Maria Van den Ende was married to Kerkkrinck in 1671, at the age of twenty- seven years. If these dates are correct, she was eleven or twelve years younger than Spinoza. Now the sentence of excommunication was passed on Spinoza in 1656, and about that time, although the date is not certain, he had moved from Amsterdam to the house of PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. ix a friend on the Ouwerkerk Road. Clara was then about twelve years old and Spinoza twenty-four. It has been therefore assumed that the story of Colerus is without foundation. But Colerus does not say that in 1656 Spinoza had determined to make Clara an offer, and as the marriage did not take place till 1671 there is no reason to conclude that the tale is untrue. While Spinoza was in the Ouwerkerk Road he was close to Amsterdam ; he was never throughout his life very far from the city, and we know he visited it frequently. When ho had learned Latin Spinoza gave up what Colerus calls "Divinity" and betook himself to the study first of all of natural philosophy and then of Descartes. He must have worked hard at his natural philosophy, for his books and his letters show a con siderable knowledge of mathematics, both pure and applied, which helped him largely afterwards in his trade. He now began to forsake the synagogue and the Jewish doctors. They expected that he would become a Chris tian, but they were mistaken ; for, although he abandoned the religion of his fathers, he never professed conversion to any other recognised creed. At the outset the Jews endeavoured by bribing to persuade him to conformity. A pension of one thousand florins was offered him if he would remain quiet and appear now and then in the synagogue. The offer was declined, and assassination, which was happily avoided, was attempted. Finally he was excommunicated with a curse, which may be read at length in Van Vloten's Supplementum. He was cursed by day and night; in sleeping and rising; in going out and in coming in ; with all the curses with which Joshua cursed Jericho and Elisha cursed the children. Van Vloten says that it is known that Spinoza was not present when the sentence was pronounced on him, but that he sent an answer. Unhappily it has been lost. In 166 1, as we learn from a letter from Oldenburg x PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. Secretary to the English Boyal Society, Spinoza was at Bijnsburg. Oldenburg had called on him there and had discussed with him "God, Extension and Infinite Thought," and he now addresses his friend as clarissime Domine, Amice colende.1 At this time Spinoza's first work, the Renati des Cartes Principia Philosophies, &c, had not been published, and Oldenburg's attitude to wards him is therefore remarkable and may be taken as a proof of his personal power. It is difficult, by the way, to discover what are the dates of Spinoza's changes of residence. Colerus distinctly says that Spinoza went straight from Ouwerkerk to Bijnsburg in 1664; but, as we have already seen, he was living at Bijnsburg in 1661, and a letter to Oldenburg, dated i7-27th of July, 1663,2 shows that he moved to Voorburg in April, 1663. In 1670, or the early part of 1671, we know that he made another move to the Hague, and lived there till his death. In 1673 Spinoza was invited to Utrecht to meet Lieutenant-Colonel Stoupe, an officer in the service of Lewis XIV, who assured him, apparently not without authority, that a pension might be given to him if he would dedicate a book to the French monarch. Spinoza, however, refused. On his return he found the mob at the Hague greatly incensed against him, as France and Holland were at that time at war. His landlord was alarmed, and feared lest his house should bo plundered and his tenant murdered. Spinoza, however, calmed him by the assurance that the reason of his visit to Stoupe was well known, and by a promise that as soon as the least noise was made at the door he would present him self outside, even if he knew he should be killed. He would certainly have done so, for Leibnitz says that, after the massacre of the brothers De Witt, Spinoza was " Better 1. The numbering of the letters quoted is that in Van Vloten and Laud's edition. ' Letter 13. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xi with difficulty restrained from going out on the same night and protesting by written notice, to be affixed to some public place, against the crime. In 1673, after his return from Utrecht, he received through Professor Fabritius, who was also a member of the council of the Elector Palatine, an offer from that prince of a chair at Heidelberg.1 He was to have the most ample freedom in philosophy, the only condition being that he should not disturb the established religion. The Tractatus Thiologico-Politicus was published in 1670. In 1671 we find that the excitement against the book was so great 1 Charles Lewis, Elector Pala- he set up the schools again, and tine, son of Frederick V, Elector the University of Heidelberg was Palatine, "Winter King" of Boho- reopened with much ceremony in mia and Elizabeth, daughter of 1651. His troubles, however, were James I. of England, was brother not at an end. War broke out consequently to Prince Bupert and onee more in 1672 between the Sophia, mother of George I. He Emperor and the King of France, was born on tho 22nd of December, and the Palatinate was again the 1 617, and educated at Leyden. scene of the usual horrors. The He fell upon evil times. The Elector did not live to see the end. Palatinate was occupied successive- He died on the 28th of August, ly by Swedes, French, and the 1680, in his sixty-third year, and, Imperial troops, and it is said that notwithstanding the almost ruinous the population was reduced to a losses the country had undergone, fiftieth part of what it was in the he left the State free of debt and a days of its prosperity. When ho considerable sum in the treasury, was a youth he went to England tolerably good evidence of economi- to seek the assistance of his undo, cal administration. His marriage Chaibis I., and fell iuto dissipation, with Charlotte, daughter of the but when he grow up to be a man Landgrave of Hesse, was not par- ho altered his way of life, and ticularly happy, and after separa- becamo a lover of the sciences. tion from her, lie married again, After tho peace of Westphalia ho morganaticaliy, Louisa von Dcgeu- eame into the possession of that fold. part of the Palatinate which was It is quite in harmony with assigned to him, and proved him- what we know of his character sell a wise ruler. The devastation that ho should haveinvited Spinoza and misery were inconceivable, but to Heidelberg, and it is clear that he gradually restored prosperity. the only condition imposed, absti- His government was very tolerant, nence from attack on tho State and all sects, oven such as the religion, was due not to bigotry or Anabaptists, were protected from timidity but to motives of State persecution. As soon as possible policy. xii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. that Spinoza begged his friend Jarigh Jellis to stop its translation into Dutch, so that it might not be placed under interdict. In the same year formal complaint against it was addressed to the States General, and in 1674 it was prohibited. Before 1674 the editions subse quent to the first were printed under false titles. It is true it was published anonymously, but the author was well known, and the liberality of the Elector was there fore singular. Spinoza nevertheless felt obliged to refuse. In the first place ho did not know within what limits liberty of philosophising would be permitted, nor how the condition as to disturbing established religion would be interpreted. He feared also lest his professional duties would withdraw him from his studies. His constitution was sickly ; he was " unhealthy and lean," according to Colerus, " and had been troubled with aPthysick above twenty yearB." Either he did not expect his death, or, expecting it, the anticipation of it did not affect him, for on his landlord's return from church on Saturday, the 20th of February, 1677, at about four o'clock in the afternoon, Spinoza went down stairs and talked to him for some time, chiefly upon the sermon, which, in accordance with tho usual custom, had been preached on that day to admonish people to prepare for the Holy Communion to bo administered on the Sunday of the last week before Lent. Spinoza smoked a pipe and went early to bed. On Sunday morning before church-time ho came down again and conversed with his landlord and his wife. He had, however, sent for his friend Lewis Meyer, a physician at Amsterdam, who came and ordered him at once some fowl-broth. He drank the broth and ate a part of the fowl, but in the afternoon — 21st of February, 1677— about three o'clock, he died, Meyer being the only person present at his death. All sorts of stories were circulated about the manner of his death; but Colerus, who was strictly PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xiii orthodox, affirms them to be " mere lies " ; and as to his reported invocations of God when he was ill, "he always expressed in all his sufferings a truly stoical constancy ; even so as to reprove others when they happened to complain and to show in their sicknesses little courage or too great a sensibility." His property was sold by auction, and fetched four hundred florins and thirteen pence. He was of middle height, dark skinned, and had black curly hair. His mode of life was that of the student. When ho first went to the Hague he bearded with a widow, but his food was often taken into his own /00m, where he would remain sometimes for two or three days without seeing anybody. Afterwards, thinking he spent too much, he took a room in another house and supplied himself with his own victuals. He was ex tremely frugal and temperate, not to say abstemious, and his household accounts found after his death show at most two half-pints of wine a month. His conver sation was " very sweet and easy " : he was never very melancholy nor very merry, and if he happened to be what he considered unduly affected, he was in the habit of retiring lest he should be betrayed into anything unbecoming. He was no lover of money, and his economies were due rather to a dislike to complications and to a preference for simplicity and the freedom it brings, than to any desire to accumulate. A young medical student, Simon de Vries, was much drawn to Spinoza, his " amicus iutegerrimus," and gave him two thousand florins; but the gift was declined on the ground that so much money would divert him from his studies and occupations. De Vries wished to make Spinoza his heir ; but he would not consent and per suaded De Vries to leave his estate to his brother. This was done on condition that a sum should be paid to Spinoza annually sufficient for his support. But when, after tho death of Do Vrios, it was proposed that the xiv PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. annuity should be five hundred florins, Spinoza refused to take more than three hundred, as five hundred were too much. After the death of his father Spinoza handed over to his sisters his own legal share in the estate, with the exception of a bed and its furniture, although they had done all they could, without success, to exclude him as a legatee. His attitude towards the religion of the day is \ characteristic. We have the express testimony of Colerus that he put his landlady's children "in mind of going often to church: that he sometimes went to church himself to hear Dr.. Cordes, whom he much esteemed ; and that he advised his landlord and the people of the house not to miss any sermon of so excellent a preacher." His landlady asked him once whether he believed she could be saved in the religion she professed. He replied, " Your religion is a good one ; you need not look for another, nor doubt that you may be saved in it, provided, whilst you apply yourself to piety, you live at the same time a peaceable and quiet life."' On the other hand he never shrinks from the expression of his own creed to his correspondents. His friend Oldenburg was alarmed at the prospect of some thing dangerous in the Ethic, and begged him not say anything which would in any way loosen (labefactare) * "the practice of religious virtue; especially because this degenerate and evil age hunts after nothing more greedily than doctrines of this sort, conclusions from which appear to sanction outrageous vices." This was mitten in 1675 in England, and Oldenburg might be well excused if he did not desire that anything should be done to accelerate the dissolution of manners and virtue. But Spinoza quietly answers'* that whatever " is in conformity with reason is most useful to virtue." He does not believe in qualification or postponement Letter 62. * Letter 68. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xv of the truth, because qualification or postponement will destroy any existing support for morality. This is the uniform tenour of multitudes of passages in his letters in which he replies to remonstrances. For example, he tells Blyenbergh, in answer to the usual objections,1 *' If you think that God speaks more clearly and effectu ally through sacred Scripture than through the light of the natural intellect which He has also granted to us, and assiduously by His Divine Wisdom preserves firm and uncorrupted, you have sufficient reasons for bending your intellect to opinions which you assign to Sacred Scripture. I myself, however, could not do other than I Mve done " {quin ipse hand aliterfacere possem). Spinoza was a mathematician, and he had a high opinion of it as an education. He believed that it had powerfully contributed to prevent utter submergence in theological ignorance. He uses the example of two non- concentric circles, one of which encloses the other, to show that number cannot, without contradiction, express all inequalities of distance, and that the true Infinite is not the beyond and beyond of the finite. We find him also begging Oldenberg to tell him whether the movements of two comets confirm Kepler's "hypo thesis," and the treatise on the Bainbow is an explana tion, following Descartes, of the laws governing the refraction and reflection of the rays of light forming the two bows. Huyghens knew Spinoza, the " Jew of Voor- burg," as he calls him, as a maker of remarkably good lenses of small dimensions, and Leibnitz wrote to him expressly to ask a most interesting question about Spinoza'B own craft. Leibnitz had heard that a young man, Johannes Oltius Helvetius, had promised a lens which would collect all the rays from all points of an object " into so many other corresponding points." 2 "My proposal is," says Leibnitz, "not that the rays « Letter 21. ' Letter 45. b xvi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. from all points should be re-united : this with an object at any distance or of any figure is impossible, so far as we at present know, but that rays from points outside the optic axis may be united exactly in the same way as those in the optic axis, so that the apertures of glasses may be made of any size desired without impairing distinctness of vision." Leibnitz, of course, was aiming at the correction of spherical aberration, but he is obscure, and Spinoza replied that he could not under stand him, nor offer any suggestion. The great problem was not to bo solved until some eighty years later by an English optician. Spinoza's works are as follows, the dates being those of publication ; — i. "Eenati des Cartes, Principiorum Philosophise Pars I. et II, more geometrico demonstrate per Benedictum de Spinoza Amstelodamensem. Accesserunt ejusdem cogitata metaphysica, in quibus difficiliores, quEe tarn in parte meta- physices generali, quam Bpeciali occurrunt, quffisti- ones breviter explicantur." 1663. 2. "Tractatus Theologico-politicus continens disserta- tiones aliquot, quibus ostenditur libertatem philo- sophandi non tantum salva pietate et reipublic-e pace posse concedi: sed eandem, nisi cum pace reipublicEe ipsa-que pietate, tolli non posse." 1670. These are the only books published and printed by Spinoza during his lifetime ; and the second, although its authorship was well known, did not boar his name. Other works of his were circulated by him in manuscript amongst his friends. After his death there appeared — 3. " B. D. S. Opera Posthuma" (1677), containing — (a) Ethica, Ordino geometrico deinonstrata. (/») Tractatus Politicvis; in quo demonstratur PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. XVII quomodo societas, ubi imperium monarehi- cum locum habet, sicut et ea, ubi optimi imperant, debet institui, ne in tyrannidem labatur, et ut pax, libertas-que oivium invio- lata maneat.1 Wanting. By substance, Iunder- stand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself ; in other words, that, the concep tion of whioh does not need the conception of another thing from which it must bo formed. By mode, I under stand the affections of substance, or that which is in another thing through which also it is conceived. AXIOMS. I. Substance is prior Substance, by reason in nature to its of its nature, is prior to accidents. its modifications. Substance is by its nature prior to its affec tions.1 Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by the difference of the attributes of the sub stances, or by tho dif ference of their affec tions.1 II. Excepting sub- Things which differ stances and acci- are distinguished either dents, nothing really or modally. re r.Uy exists, or Things which are really [•vis;* outside the distinguished have intellect. cither different attri butes, such as thought and extension, or are assigned to different attributes, as, for ex ample, intellect and motion, of which the first belongs to thought, the latter to extension. IH. Thinp-s which Things which have Two substances hav- lm\.' .hiferent at- different attributes, or ing different attributes tritmU'S h:ivo no- thnso which belong to have nothing in corn- thing in common, dift'erent attributes, have mon with ono another.1 nothing in common. A thing which has If two things have nothing in itself which nothing in common with is common with another one another, oue cannot , ..... ., ,.„ thing cannot bo the bo the cause of the cauah" of another, cause of the exislcnco other.1 Of that other thing. IV. H things have nothing in cum- mon, one of them c u n not bo the • Thcso all appear in tho ICthic aa propositions lo bo jirovcil. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. PROPOSITIONS. OLDENBDIJG. I. In nature there cannot exist two substances which do not differ in essence totally (or, as Oldenburg puts it, two substances possessing the same attribute). TREATISE AND APPENDIX. II. Substance cannot be produced. It belongs to its nature to exist. III. All substnnce must be infinite or absolutely perfect in its own kind. IV. Existence fol lows, not from tho definition alone of anything, but only from the definition or idea of any at tribute; that is to say, of a thing which is conceived through itself and in itself. (This is a noto or scholium to the three pro positions, and is not given as a whole in tho cor- respondenee. It cannot, therefore be completely re stored. Two similar substances do not exist. To no substance whioh exists can one and the same attribute be ascribed which is ascribed to another sub stance, or, which comes to the samo tiling, there cannot bo in Nature two substances which aro really distinct. One substance cannot produce another. One substance cannot be tho cause of the ex istence of another sub stance. It pertains to tho essence of every substance to exist, so that it is impossible that there should be in the infinite understand ing an idea of the essence of a substance which does not exist in Nature. There is no finite sub stance, but all substance must be infinitely perfect in its men kind. Every attribute or substance is by its nature infinite and absolutely perfect in its own kind. I. In Nature there can not be two or more sub stances of the same nature or attribute. One substance cannot be produced by another substance. It pertains to tho nature of substance to exist. (These are two distinct propositions in the Ethic.) Every substance necessarily infinite. is There is nothing exactly corresponding to this in the Ethic. See, however, Prop, viii., Schol. 2, pt. i. In the infinite under. See scholium to Prop, standing of God there is xvii., p;. i. 7io substance which is not formally in Nature. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxiu It is clear from this comparison that what Spinoza €ent to Oldenburg was neither the Treatise nor, as has been usually supposed, the Ethic, and it seems nearly certain that the Treatise proper is earlier than the letters, and that the appendices are much nearer to them. The Ethic is of course the final revision. It is particularly to be noticed that the proposition, " it per- " tains to the nature of substance to exist," is not in the Treatise proper, and that the axioms of the correspon dence and the appendices are all considered in tho Ethic as needing demonstration. "Wliat, then, is the date of the Ethic ? All we can con fidently say is that it must have been completed in its present form in 1675. In his letter r of the 22nd of July, 1675, Oldenburg alludes to the " Treatise in five parts," and in the Tschirnhausen correspondence of 1675-6 the propositions are quoted in the order in which we now have tbem, and substantially in the same words. The first allu sion to the Ethic is in a letter3 of the 24th February, 1663, from De Vries. There was a kind of club of young men at Amsterdam occupied in discussing the propositions wliich Spinoza sent them in sections. When they could not understand them they wrote to the master. In this Utter tho scholium to the present 10th proposition, part 1, is quoted as the " 3rd scholium, proposition 8," 3 and De Vrifs's thanks for the scholium to Prop. 19 can- rint refer to tho unimportant scholium to the present l'rop. 19. Iu 16654 Spinoza promises to send to an unnamed friond the third book of the Ethic up to the S..tli proposition. The arrangement of the propositions, therefore, must have been altered after this date, if 1 Letter 6z. ' I.i ItcT 8. 1 In the correct version of the biter there is no reference to "li.rfil; i." Tho editors of tho Opera Posthuma added theso words, and corrected the reference from Prop. S to Prop. 10, intend ing, no doubt, to assist the reader, but mutilating historical evidence. This is not a solitary case. ' Letter 2S. ***!¦* PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. nothing else was altered. The third book contains now h Sr, IU a lGtte ' t0 %^ergh of thl X for tl«' fi 6f5'+SpU1°Za mentions« ^ necdum "Ethic'' • if' "^ 81Ving hiS b00k the *a™ of whether the thief and just man are equally perfect and nappy I answer, No. For by a just man I nndelltZd «Z£*£% fy k™ that each p-^SS "stiate -•, ml S hlS °Wn< This desire I demon- »a se V^r ^V0* y6t PuWi^ed, necessarily to. anse m the piOUS from the clear Wled £ £ ..^J1^™ -d God. Asathie^f hast desire of this kmd he is necessarily deprived of a knowledge of God and himself, that f. to^l* afj chief hirjg whlch makeg Qs men>„ m ^ a letters 0 Oldenburg the-E^CWas ready for the press. It was not published, fox- the author's intention hadVeen d scovered, and consequently information had been laid before the authorities. We thus see and this is a point worth notice, that he Ethic was the result of consideration, and -econ- sideration during at least twelve or thirteen' years ; that Spinoza took the unusual course of submitting it to his fnende before publication, and that, as it now stands, it is an expression of what his deliberate conviction was after hearing all they had to say. It was not a "flash of mspn-ation " hastily reproduced, a representation without correction of what just occurred to him, and the mathematical form which was assumed on revision whether a mistake or not, is at least evidence that he . \ p^ )ion,,,es beatosreddit SSU'SJS-I'S >s the readmg ,„ Paulus and Lru- the edition of 1677 der But the edition of ,677 has 3 Letter lost, but Oldenburg auod nos homines reildit, and is reply is Letter 62, 22ndJuy. 675 PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxv wished his readers to understand that what he offered to them had been reached by careful deduction. It is also clear that he was in no hurry. It did not particularly matter to him whether the Ethic was published during his life-time or not. We now proceed to a consideration of the four works by Spinoza, which are connected with the Ethic and of the Ethic itself. It is a mistake to suppose that the Short Treatise is not well worth reading. It has been superseded by the Ethic ,- it is often obscure ; there are constant gaps ; and it is obviously imperfect, for there are allusions in it to arguments which are no longer there ; but it is most interesting, not only because it shows how Spinoza worked his way to further development, but because many things which recur in the Ethic are presented in the Treatise in a new light. There are also many things in it which are true but are omitted in the Ethic, appa rently for want of room, or because they are not perti nent. A few examples of what is in the Treatise are ap pended, not in order to give any idea of its contents as a whole, but rather for the sake of inducing a study Dialogue I. 3 : " Wo conceive Nature as infinite ; in which everything is comprehended, and the negation of the same we call the Nothing." The Nothing ; the Void is a mere negation, a figment. Dialogue II. 13 : » So long as we have not a clear idea of God which unites us to Him in such a manner that ( it is impossible for us to love anything except Him ' wo cannot say that we are in truth united to God or" " immediately depend upon Him." « Pw i,' °? ?' 3 : " The under^anding is also a Son, a Work of God, or an immediate creation by Him created from all eternity and to all eternity remaining unchangeable. Its sole attribute is to understand .XXVI PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. " everything clearly and distinctly at all times. Hence "unchangeably arises an infinite or absolutely perfect "contentment (genoegen) which cannot omit to do that " which it does." Part ii. cap. xviii. 2: "Hence it follows that we are "of a truth the servants, or rather the slaves of God, "and that it is our greatest perfection that it should "necessarily be so. For if we were handed over to our- " selves, and not dependent upon God, there would be "little or nothing which we could accomplish, and con sequently we should grieve. Now, however, on the " contrary, we see that we depend on that which is most "Perfect, so that we are a part of the Whole— that is to " say, of Him— and contribute, so to speak, that which is "ours to the accomplishment of so many admirably " arranged and perfect works dependent on Him." Part ii. cap. xxiv. 6 : " For although men make laws " for their own welfare* and have no end in view, excepting "the furtherance thereby of their own well-being, this " end, as subordinate to other ends, which another Being " has in view, who is above men, and causes them to "act as parts of Nature, this end, I say, may be so "ordered as to concur with the eternal laws which are " appointed by God from eternity, and so contributes to "make all things work together. For although, for "example, the bees in all their work, and with strict "order which they observe amongst themselves, have "no other end in view than to make sure provision for •" themselves in the winter, the man, who superintends " them, has an entirely different end in his nurture of "them and care for them: to wit, that he may have " honey. So man, in so far as he is a being by himself, " has no other end than his limited essence can attain, "but in so far as he is a part and an instrument of' " Nature as a whole, this end cannot be the final end of " Mature, for Nature is infinite and employs him as its " instrument with all other things." PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxvii Part ii. cap. xxv. i, 2 : " If the devil is a thing which " is entirely opposed to God and has nothing from Him, "he is absolutely indistinguishable from the Nothing. " of which we have already spoken. But, if we suppose "with some that the devil is a thinking thing, who " neither wills nor does anything whatever that is good, "he is certainly most miserable, and if prayers could " help him we ought to pray for his conversion." The Tractatus de Emendatione has been left unfinished and the text is imperfect in places. There are passages in it which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to under stand, and others which the editors of the posthumous works justly describe as ohscura, rudia adhuc et impolita, but nevertheless it is, as Bruder calls it, aureus libellus. At the very beginning we find that the aim which Spinoza proposed to himself was what we call moral. There is no satisfaction in ordinary pleasures, and he desires to discover something which will give him "a joy continuous and supreme to eternity." It is impor tant to bear in mind that this was the purpose of his enterprise. His object, therefore, becomes fourfold — to know himself ; to know nature ; to know how it can be modified, and what power over it man has. The first thing that ho has to do is to purify and strengthen the intellect, so that it may be free from error. There aro four modes of arriving at truth. 1. Testimony. 2. Loose induction (vaga expericntia). 3. Determination of the essence of a thing from some other thing, but not adequately. When we infer a cause from an effect, we can attribute to the cause nothing more than the effect contains. 4. Perception through essence, or through knowledge of the proximate cause. This is called intuitive knowledgo in the Ethic. The things which can be known in this way, says Spinoza, are very few. XXV111 PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The difference between the third and fourth modes comes out clearly in one of the examples given. We conclude by the third mode that the body and soul are united, and that, as we are conscious of sensation, the union is the cause of it; but what that union is we can not understand. Under the fourth mode, however, we know that the essence of soul iB union with body. Spinoza here anticipates the second book of the Ethic, but his point is plain. The fourth mode is not mere inference. It enables us to see that the meaning of soul is that it and the body aro ono being. The first and second modes are dismissed as not the means of obtaining the intellectual perfection desired, and the third mode per se is insufficient. We are promised an explanation of tho manner in which things are to be understood by the fourth mode ; but in tho Treatise, as we now have it, the explanation is not forthcoming. We have something answering to it in the Ethic. It is quite clear from the further description of the fourth mode in Schol. 2, Prop, xl., pt. 2, and from Prop. xxiv. and following propositions of Part 5 of the Ethic, that Spinoza believed in the possibility of possessing what he calls an adequate knowledge of an attribute of God, by which wo arrive at a more intimate knowledge of things. If we could havo this adequate knowledge of gravity we should know, not merely what some of its laws are, but what it is, in the same way as we know a circle, and not merely one or two of its properties. Whatever we may think of the possibility of scientific progress by .adequate conception, the desire for it is characteristic of Spinoza. To him it is blessedness. It is true also that every advance in our knowledge brings us closer to it. In the case of light it is nearer to us now that we have the theory of an ether and vibrations than when we knew merely how light behaved when it was reflected or refracted ; and we ought to remember in this connection PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. XXIX that Spinoza's method is not d priori, but through the knowledge of individual things. If the adequate idea ought to be our object in physics, it should be still more so in morals; and it is to the absence of it that our moral anarchy is due. We cannot endure, or, at any rate, the English people cannot endure, abstract dis cussions. An attempt to define justice would be gener ally considered to be in place in a debating society, but only there. The consequence is, for one thing, this weltering chaos called politics, which is nothing moro than the eddying conflict of individual greed. The Treatise now takes another turn and considers the grounds of certainty, an inquiry suggested of course by Descartes. Spinoza points out that there cannot be a regrcssus ad infinitum. We cannot go on asking why we know and why we know that we know, etc., etc. Certitude and " objective essence" are the same ; objec tive essence being the presence of the essence of the thing in me.1 Spinoza endeavours to illustrate his meaning by the example of an idea of an object in the mind ; but it is necessary to know in what sense he uses the word " idea." The idea of a circle is, in the first place, not an actual circle but its intellectual counterpart; what we should now call the idea of a circle as dis tinguished from my personal thought. If we take Spinoza's own definition of definition, we might say that in this sense the idea is a complete definition. But in the second place the idea is something resident in me ; it is my idea, notion, conception of a circle. In the first sense the idea is the formal essence, and in the latter the objective essence of the circle. Spinoza ¦ Tho full explanation of this is in God of the thing, are the same hardly possible until Wo have read thing conceived under two different the Elide. It must suflico to say attributes — those of extension and that the thing and tho " objective thought. essence," that is to say the thought xxx PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. does not always keep these two senses distinct ; but in the example he proceeds to give idea is objective essence. The idea of any man, Peter, for instance, is a something intelligible, and may therefore be the object of another idea, which in its turn may be made the object of a third, and so on. But, in order to understand Peter, it is not necessary that I should understand the idea of Peter, and still less the idea of the idea.1 What now follows had better be translated. " But since the relationship between two ideas " is the same as the relationship between the formal " essences of their ideas, it follows that the reflective " knowledge which we have of the idea of the most " perfect Being is more excellent than the reflective "knowledge of other ideas — that is to say, that method " will be the most perfect which shows, according to the " law of the given idea of the most perfect Being, in " what manner the mind, is to be directed. Hence it is " easy to see how the mind by increasing its knowledge, "at the same time acquires other instruments by which "it may more easily advance in understanding. For,. " as may be collected from what has been said, there- "must first of all exist in us a true idea, an innate "instrument as it were ; and if this idea be understood, " the difference which there is between such a perception " and all others is at the same time understood. Herein "consists one part of the method, and since it is self- " evident that the mind understands itself better the " more it understands Nature, it is clear that this part " of the method will be more perfect the more things the " mind understands ; and will be most perfect when the " mind attends to, or reflects on, the knowledge of the most 1 What Spinoza understands by say no more than that I havo the the example of Peter is that there idea. If I begin to ask for its is no intellectual rcgressus ad infi- credentials, I must ask for the cre- nitumit I have to understand the dentials of the orodcntials. fact of Peter's existence. I can PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. XXXI " perfect Being. Again, the more things the mind knows, " the better it understands its own powers, and the order *" of Nature; and the better it understands its own powers " the more easily it can direct itself and propose rules "to itself; the better also it understands the order of " Nature, the more easily it can restrain itself from that *" which is useless. In this, as we have said, the whole '" method consists." In other words, the wider our knowledge of nature, the more perfect our method becomes ; and the wider our knowledge of nature, the better we know ourselves. The true idea, the innate instrument is pre-supposed, and certainty grows as our acquaintance with Nature in creases. Furthermore (and this becomes even more evident a little later on) it is plain that the " law of the given idea of the most perfect Being " means simply the law of what we call the Universe. The continued accu mulation of facts therefore results in a rule — a law of the most perfect Being, by which we direct our subsequent research. The next point is the distinction between a true idea and other ideas, and the fictitious idea is first con sidered. By fictitious idea Spinoza means any sup position or hypothesis we may choose to imagine which is unsupported by facts. No fictitious idea can be formed of eternal truths — that is to say, we cannot con ceive them to be other than they are. Eternal truths arc those which, if they are affirmative, could not be negative I may, however, suppose a thing to be what I know it is not : as, for example, that the sun moves round tho earth, or I may imagine a candle burning before me is not burning. These, however, are not really fictitious ideas. In the first case, that of the sun, I recall an actual mistake, or one which I might have made, and in the second case, that of the candle, I imagine the candle before it was alight, or another candle unlighted. XXXll PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The more distinct and the wider our knowledge becomes- the less power we have of forming fictitious ideas. If we know what the mind is we cannot ascribe squareness to it, and if we really know what men are and what trees are we cannot suppose that trees can speak. Perfect distinctness of conception is the test. All confusion arises either from partial knowledge, or because we attend to many things at the same time in an object without separating them. A note reminds us that the imagination never creates anything entirely new, but only combines. The difference between a fictitious and a false idea is that in the case of the false idea we give our assent. The remedy for falsity is that perfect clearness of con ception which also prevents fiction. There is no ex trinsic mark distinguishing falsity from truth. If, for example, I say that Peter exists, and I do not know that he exists, the affirmation is false, even though Peter does really exist. Whether a thought is true, or, as Spinoza calls it, the form of true thought, depends upon the thought itself, upon what we have before us. It is true that a globe is produced by the revolution of a semicircle ; but it is also false to assert that any globe is so produced. Simple ideas, such as the simple idea of a semicircle, cannot be false, for there is no affirma tion beyond the idea. Spinoza makes the remark that one frequent cause of error is the conjunction of what we imagine confusedly with what we really understand. We thoroughly comprehend some one particular thing: then we join to it a half-understood thing, the result being complete untruth. The Stoics knew that there were' certain subtle matters or fluids which penetrated everything. They had aho a notion of a soul which they imagined to be immortal. They did not under- stand what a soul is, nor what immortality is ; but there scorned to be a certain fitness or connection between this PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. XXXlll immortal soul and the fluid, and straightway we have the doctrine that the soul is a mysterious immortal subtlety pervading the body. The section on the false idea concludes with renewed cautions oft-repeated against the danger of abstractions. They are a fruitful cause of error, if we imagine that they have any real existence ; and if we deal too much in them we lose sight of differ ences. That which belongs to a thing is its own and cannot be extended to another. Doubt and memory are next considered, but not much is said about them. Spinoza observes that no single conception taken by itself can be said to be doubtful. Doubt arises from the presence of a second idea which is not clear and distinct. For example, if we have never considered the liability of the senses to deception, no doubt arises as to whether the sun is larger or smaller than he seems to be. When we know confusedly that the senses deceive us, we doubt his size ; when we have a thorough knowledge of the manner in which size diminishes with distance, doubt disappears. Before proceeding to the Second Part we encounter a difficult passage, which becomes only clear in part after its fuller exposition in the Ethic. " But we have shown " that the true idea is simple, or composite of simple " ideas ; and that it shows in what manner and why " anything is or has become what it is, and that I its 1 •' Et quod ipsius effectusobjeo- " ti vi in anima proccdunt ad ratio- " nini fnrnialitatis ipsius objecti." Au<-rhiii-h gives as usual a perfectly lit' r.d translation. " TJnd dass " ihre objectiven wirkungon in der " S. i-l<- nncli Verhiiltniss der For- '• mnliiiil di-M objects selbst vorge- " lirii."' Sais.;ct, also as usual, i-l u wn that he perfectly understands th.' Latin, so fur as grammatical i.nowledgo goes, but is determined at all costs to be lucid. " Que les " effets objectifs des choses dan3 " l'ame s'y produisent ii, 1'imnge de " ce qu'il y a de formel dans l'objet " lui-meme." Mr. Pollock's version is " that the effects of the object, " as represented in tho mind, corre. "sponds to tho reality of the object " itself." On tho whole I am inclined to think that the first ipsius refers to tho " idea ; " and that the mean ing is that the development of the XXXIV PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. " objective effects in the mind proceed according to the " rule of that which is formal in the object itself. This " is what the ancients said, that true science proceeds " from the cause to the effects, although they have never " conceived, so far as I know, as we do here, that the " mind acts according to certain laws, and, as if, so to " speak, it were some spiritual automaton." Perhaps it would represent Spinoza's thought to say that the mind and external objects are in a sense one, mind is not set here and external objects are not set there with no connection between them, save that mind looks at externality as something foreign, and tries to make it out. Thought and extension are rather inside and out side of the same thing. Spinoza goes on to insist, as he does so earnestly in the Ethic, that the intellect is not limited by the imagination, and that words deceive us because they are framed by the imagination. Positive realities therefore, like infinity, have negative' names because we can only represent them as something con trary to what the imagination can picture. The object of the Second Part of the Treatise is to discover the mode of acquiring clear and distinct ideas which shall be the counterpart of nature ; and to dis tinguish the products of the intellect from those of the imagination. If we are to have a clear and distinct idea of anything self caused, we must know it through its essence. If it be a created thing, we must know it through its proximate cause. The more complete our knowledgo of the effect, in the case of created things, the more complete will be our knowledge of the cause, and hence " we cannot know anything of nature without " increasing our knowledge of the first cause, or of God." Spinoza does not, therefore, intend to say that before we idea is that of tho object. What and connection of ideas is the wc have lure is, in fact, Prop. 7, same as the order and connection Look 11. of the Ethic. Tho order of things. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. can understand a thing we must completely understand its proximate cause, but, that until we know the proxi mate cause, we cannot be said to completely understand the effect — that is to say, to have "a clear and distinct idea of it." Spinoza now presents us with one of those surprises which are not infrequent with him. " The best conclu- " sion," he says, " will be drawn from some particular " affirmative essence — that is to say, from a true and " legitimate definition." At first sight, we are disposed to say that Spinoza, as a mathematician, has his own science and nothing else in view ; but, of course, this is impossible. In fact, he expressly refers to "physical " entities and realities " as distinguished from figures ; and it is for these physical entities and realities that the true definition is specially necessary. But let us hear what he means by definition. A definition of anything self caused should be such that the object will need for its own explanation no other being but itself. The definition alBo should imply existence, and should be ultimate — that is to say, without abstract terms. Of theso self-caused things Spinoza gives us no example, and wc hear nothing more of them in the Treatise. We shall meet with them in the Ethic. The definition of tho created thing ought to include tho proximate cause, ui id to bo such that from the definition alone all the properties of tho thing can be deduced. Spinoza gives un example of tho false and true definition. If we define a circle to bo a figure, such that all the lines drawn from the centre to the circumference are equal, we have really got, not au explanation of the essence of a circle, but of one of its properties. The true definition is that a circle is a liguro described by a line, one end of which is fixed unci the other moves. Spinoza's theory is that, in some eases— although probably he would have admitted them to bo very few— it is possible to build up a definition xxxvi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. which shall not bo partially descriptive, but wholly ex planatory. In fact, definition in this sense answers to adequate conception, and the illustration I have given (p. xxviii) of an approach to an adequate conception may serve the same purpose with regard to definition. We have no definition of light, but we are certainly nearer to it since Dr. Young's time, and its " essence " is more nearly within our grasp than it was when we knew nothing more than a few facts about it. Spinoza thinks that when onco a truo definition has been obtained, it may be used deductively. Undoubtedly it can, and wo have many instances of an "optima conclusio" obtained from the definition of light as a series of spherical waves propagated in ether. We ought, perhaps, to be more cautious than Spinoza would have been in using a definition as he would use it, and we should not be content if we did not continually attempt independent verification; but, at any rate, the definition a3 he defines it is the goal of all our research. The next question is "whether there is any Being, and, " if so, what it is, which is the cause of all things, so that " its objective essence may be also the cause of all our "ideas, and our mind, as we have said, may exactly " repeat nature." The phrases " Being " and " cause of " all things " are difficult. There is but little doubt from the context that what Spinoza meant was what we should call tho uniformity of nature. We have to re member the Jewish tendency in him towards unity which leads him to describe as ens the rigid sequence of cause and effect on the universe. To ascertain what this ens is, " we must deduce all " our ideas from natural objects — that is to say, from " real entities — advancing as much as possible according " to the series of causes from one real being to another " being." Nevertheless, true knowledge is not a know ledge of particulars, but of what Spinoza calls "fixed PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxxvii " and eternal things," on which individual things depend in such a way that, without these fixed and eternal things, individual things cannot be nor be conceived. Further more, the fixed and eternal things are a kind of universals, or definitions of things individual and mutable, and are their proximate causes. We are of course at once re minded of the Baconian Forms. " The Form of a nature "is such," says Bacon (Nov. Org., book ii. 4), "that " given the Form, the nature infallibly follows," and " if "it be taken away, the nature infallibly vanishes." They are " eternal and immutable " (Noo. Org., book ii. 9). They "govern and constitute any simple "nature" (Nov. Org., book ii. 17). "Their commen- "surations and co-ordinations make all this variety" (De Augmentis, book iii.). We know that Spinoza had studied Bacon, and the doctrine of Forms would he that which would mainly attract him ; but whether they are really his " fixed and eternal things " we cannot positively determine. All we can affirm is, that if they are not — that is to say, if Spinoza had not Bacon distinctly before him — they both thought that it was possible to reach something which Spinoza calls a definition and Bacon a Form, which should be expressive of Essence and the cause of all things. After a short recapitulation, which seems to show that there are some omissions in the Treatise as we now havo it, it comes to an end abruptly. The editors of the Posthumous works give us no information as to their copy, and thore is both internal and external evidence that one more complete must have existed. In the letter ** to Oldenburg, previously quoted, Spinoza distinctly saya he has written an integrum opusculum, in which he dis cusses the beginning of things, the marker in which they depend on the first cause, the attributes of God and the union of God with nature, as well as the im- 1 Letter 6. XXXVlll PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. provement of the intellect. This description is much too wide for our edition of the Treatise. What is the main drift and purpose of this remarkable fragment, so far as we can ascertain it, notwithstanding. its incompleteness and defective arrangement ? The primary object is contentment, satisfaction, peace of mind; in other words, the end is practical and ethical, as it always is with Spinoza. This peace of mind is to be obtained by a knowledge of nature or of individual things, which leads us to the contemplation of a fixed order or of God. The mind undertakes this quest, not as an outside task, but because it is its native office. Certainty arises when the formal essence of things becomes objective in the mind, and there is no other test. When wc are certain, our conceptions are per fectly clear : confusion and error are due to imperfect apprehension. We shall meet with all these proposi tions in the Ethic, altered in form, but unaltered in substance; for they were not chance opinions with. Spinoza, but convictions. We shall have to say it again, perhaps, but it will bear repetition, that their chief his torical value, and then chief value for us, lie in the implied denial of any other source of salvation than the study of Nature, and in the identification of nature and the mind ; for to this it really comes. The relationship of the Descartes to Spinoza himself calls for some explanation. Meyer, who wrote the Pre face, is most careful to tell us that, neither in the Prin- cipia nor in tho Appendix, is there anything " except " the opinions of Descartes and their demonstrations as " they are to be found in his writings, or as they are "strictly deducible by legitimate reasoning from his " conclusions " ; and there is much in the book which not only is not Spinoza's, but is distinctly controverted by him. Such, for example, are the doctrine of the- freedom of the will and the extension of the will beyond PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxxix the understanding. On the other hand, the Scholium to Prop. VII., pt. i., is really directed against Descartes.1 Spinoza's own account of the Principia is as follows. It is to be found in a letter to Oldenburg, 17-27H1 of July, 1663 2:— " When I moved hither (Voorburg), in April, "I went to Amsterdam. Tbere some of my friends " asked me to impart to them a certain treatise contain- " ing, in a brief form, the second part of the Principles " of Descartes, demonstrated in geometrical order, and " tho chief points of Metaphysics. This treatise I had " some time before dictated to a youth, to whom I was " unwilling to teach my opinions openly. They then " asked me to treat, as soon as possible, the First Part "by tho same method. Not desiring to. oppose their "wishes, I immediately addressed myself to the under- " taking, finished it in a fortnight, and handed the " treatise over to them. They then asked me that they " might print the whole of it, and I readily consented, "on the condition that some one of them, under my " supervision, should put it into more elegant language, " and add a preface, in which my readers should be " warned that I do not acknowledge as my own everything " which is contained in the Treatise ; for in it I have " written not a little which is exactly contrary to my " own belief, as I have once or twice shown by way of " example." 1 Dr. Miutineau is sovcro upon Spiti'>/:n for teaching in tho l'rin. ri; 11 w hut ho does not believe. Hi' mh:ht hive Ml himself bound, Pr. Ma-iineau thinks, to expound CartesianUm, but ho had no busi ness to support it by arguments of hi* own ; and he upbraids him for nivyitn.; in the Tractatus Thcologico- I'.hiicus, "Hoc homiuum com- " i.miioviiumi e.^l, consiliasua, ttsi " t i"iio opus est, nliis credere." Put "vitium" is not "vice," as Pr. Martincau seems to interpret it. It is rather weakness ; and Spinoza is actually arguing, as tho context shows, against the folly of at tempting to suppress free speech. It is because men are unable to refrain from express1 .u — nam neo peritissimi, no dicam plebem, tacere sciunt — that it is foolish to compel silence. 2 Letter 3. xl PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. This young man was probably Albert Burgh, of whom Spinoza thus writes in his letter to Simon de Vries, February, 1663 x : — " You need not envy my fellow- " lodger, for there is nobody more hateful to me than "he, nor anybody against whom I have taken more " pains to be on my guard ; I should therefore like you " and all your friends to be warned not to communicate " my opinions to him until he attains to riper years. " At present he is too childish and fickle, and cares "more for novelty than truth. I hope in a few years "he will amend these youthful faults ; indeed, as far as " I can judge from his disposition, I am almost certain " he will, and so his general character makes me love " him." Spinoza -was, however, too sanguine, and Albert Burgh became a Boman Catholic, and had the impertinence after his conversion to write to Spinoza a most curiously silly and fanatical letter. Supposing him to be the pupil for whom the Principia was in tended, and bearing in mind what Meyer says — that Spinoza promised to teach Cartesianism, and that it was a sacred point of honour with him (religio ipsi fait) not to depart a hair's breadth from his master — his position becomes more intelligible, and the occasional divergence from Descartes is the "example" which he mentions in the letter to Oldenburg. It is worth while to notice in this letter to De Vries, Spinoza's expression of his belief that we should not communicate to people ideas in advance of then- general mental position. The modern practice is the reverse, and consequently men and women adopt all kinds of notions, which they cannot appropriate because they are out of harmony with then character. It often happens that we see a man in possession of a conclusion, if it can be called a possession, to which he has no right, and we feel that, although it may be true, he would be better 1 Letter 9. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xii without it. Sceptical or philosophical results, for example, are frequently taken up by persons who are unprepared for them, and unable to verify or use them, the result being the introduction of disorder, which destroys unity and directness of action. Those who desire to study in detail the relationship of Descartes to Spinoza, and Spinoza's relationship to his predecessors generally,! had better turn to Schwegler, Trendelenburg, and more particularly to Mr. Pollock, whose account of the influence of the Cartesian physics on Spinoza is specially interesting.** An additional word or two, however, may not be out of place. The Meditations had been published barely twenty years when Spinoza was writing the De Emendatione, and it was utterly impossible for him to escape the influence of its author. Descartes, says Schwegler, "is the originator " and father of modern philosophy." . . . "The absolute " protest maintained by Descartes against the accept- "ance of anything for true because it is so given us, or "so found by us, and not something determined and "established by thought, became thenceforward the " fundamental principle of the moderns." Accordingly, at every turn in parts of Spinoza we are reminded of Descartes. His RuggcBtivenoBs to Spinoza is manifest in the great and most fruitful distinction between the imagination and the intellect. Descartes insists that it is no argu ment to snytbat a thing is unbelievable because if is * It 13 supposed by many that Ppino/.n was much indebted to t'mr.bino Druno, although thcro is no dinct evidence that ho over rrnd Itrun... Somo of the most striking parallel passages from I: num are given at the end of this ' Tho present opportunity may serve for saying that Sir F. Pol lock's Spinoza is a book which 71111st be read by those who wish to study Spinoza. It is a type of what such a book should be, a model of accurate scholarship and of that genuine criticism which judges sympathetically after com prehension. xlii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. unpicturable, and this is one of the foundations of the Ethic. Error and imperfection also to Descartes, as well as to Spinoza, are nothing positive, but simply deficiency, and Descartes also affirms that falsity is due to confusion and to the fact that the individual is a part and not the whole. The Substance of Descartes is that which needs nothing beyond itself in order that it may exist, and the distinction between attribute and mode also belongs to him. But it is as a general intellectual stimulus that Spinoza owes so much to Descartes, to such sayings, for example, as that indifference is not freedom, and that we are never more free than when we are impelled to a thing because we know it to be true and good. Spinoza must have been greatly impressed too with that memorable proposition of the Principles that we shall never err if wo give our assent to nothing ex cepting what we clearly and distinctly perceive. It was the enthronement of Beason; the deposition of Ob scurantism and the beginning of the new era. It may be remarked, by the way, that this proposition was announced by a Frenchman, and is curiously character istic of the service French thought haa rendered to the world. On the other hand, the divergence of Spinoza from Descartes is as remarkable as his correspondence with him. The attitude of Descartes towards established religion and theology is deferential. Descartes, after taking the greatest pains to free himself from presuppo sitions, and to establish a basis in reason for his beliefs, suddenly halts and protests that not for one moment does he mean to offer any criticism on revelation. " We " ought," ho says (Principia, part i. lxxvi.), "to prefer "the Divine authority to our perception . . . what " God has revealed is incomparably more certain than " anything else," and, in fact, he overdoes his submis sion every now and then so far that we cannot help sus pecting it to be irony or a piece of formality to protect PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xliii him from theological controversy and give him greater freedom. ' Descartes believes in an extension of the will be yond the understanding. Spinoza believes that the will and understanding are coincident. To Descartes God is set over against His works, and we feel that the argu ment is for the existence of a Deity as distinct from creation as Jehovah. Similarly, thought is set over against extension and the mind against the body. When we have got all these entities before us, we ask bow they came there, each separate and independent. There is also a remarkable difference between the two men, so far as the doctrine of evil is concerned. Des cartes insists on God's wisdom and goodness, although these attributes do not follow : and are not realised. They are, in fact, merely taken over by him as a sup posed necessity. To Spinoza they are something he does not understand as applied to God, and there is no need of any assumption or supernatural supposition in order to reconcile actual facts with our idea of God for the conception of evil is due to our inadequate way of look ing at things, and to God there is no such thing as evil. As to the intellectual stature of the two men there can bo no question, and Descartes has not, at least to the same extent, that fascination of genius which will attract men to Spinoza for ever. The Trart.it us Thcologico-Politicus is at least, from one point of view, the most difficult book Spinoza has written. Tho reader naturally is prepared for a purely rationalistic treatment of the Bible, but he finds to hia astonishment that Spinoza seems to accept much of it, and even of the supernatural part of it, simply as it Btands. It is worth while, not only for Spinoza's sake, but as a very interesting problem in itself, to try to find out what his position in the Tractatus really xliv PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. is ; more especially as the common opinion both at home and abroad is that the Tractatus is simply destructive. Wo shall, perhaps, best attain our end if we endea vour to make it as far as possible speak for itself. The result will not be so clear or so sharply cut as a thesis would be which is directed to a particular conclusion, but perhaps decisive definition in this case would be mis leading. At any rate, if the reader finds the abstract not consecutive nor satisfactory, he must remember that it may be that the book itself is somewhat of a puzzle. Its object, according to the preface, is to prove that liberty of thought and speech may safely be granted by the State to its subjects. Spinoza does not overlook the objection that words are deeds. He deals with that later on. Observing the bitterness of religious hatred and dissension, he determines to examine the Bible and to see what our conclusions will be if we neither affirm nor admit anything as to its doctrine which the Bible itself does not teach. It will at once be objected with perfect truth that to treat the Bible inductively as a whole is impossible. We now admit that it is made up of separate tracts or collections, and that the authority of each differs. But we must remember that Spinoza's argu ment is addressed to the orthodox. He wishes to show them what are the deductions from their own premisses, and to prove that, if they will but be honest in dealing with the Scriptures in tho way in which it is maintained we ought to deal with them, a theology and a religion will emerge very different from that which is usually extracted from them. A beginning is made with Prophecy. "Whatever " may be said about it must be sought from Scripture, " since we have no true knowledge of prophecy, nor can " we explain it through its first causes." Prophetical PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xlv revelation tho Bible attributes either to a real voice — such as that with which God spoke to Moses — or to one which was imaginary. But by what law of nature this happened wo aro ignorant. "I might indeed say, with " others, that it was done by the power of God ; but I " should but chatter; for I should do nothing but explain " by a transcendental term the form of something which " is singular since everything is done by the power of God; " Indeed it is certain that, inasmuch as the power of " Nature is nothing but the power itself of God, we do '* not understand the power of God so long as we are "ignorant of natural causes; and therefore, if we are " ignorant of the natural cause of anything, it is foolish " to have recourse to the power of God ; for Divine power " and the natural cause are the same thing. However, " it is not our business now to understand the cause " of prophetic knowledge. As I have already observed, " we here endeavour only to investigate the documents " of Scripture, so that we may draw our own con- " elusions from them as if they were facts of Nature. " With the sources of the documents we have nothing " to do." "It is evident," he goes on to say, "that God used " some kind of real voice, since Moses found God ready " t<> speak with him whenever he wished." Further- morr, m an instance of external revelation, the story of J Mbium is mentioned, and tho opinion of Maimonides — that all angelic apparitions appear during sleep, because ii..b.vly can eco an angel— is declared to be absurd and nn attempt to foist upon Scripture Aristotelian quibbles and tho figments of commentators. Is Spinoza really "•peaking here in his own proper person, or have we be fore us merely tho Spinoza who, for the time being, has chosen to assume the character of an interpreter of S. -ripturc? It will be better, perhaps, to postpone an ici-wer until we have read a little further. There can, xlvi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. however, be no mistake when it is declared of Christ that the ordinances of God, which lead men to salva tion, were revealed to Him, not bywords or visions, but immediately; " that " the voice of Christ may be called the voice of God like that which Moses heard," and that, in this sense, we may say that the wisdom ol God-that is to say, wisdom which is more than « S"?rt! becomes stronger in" this (the third) kind of knowledge, the more is he consciou « tvT?e, m*ell^tuaI love of God, which arises from the third kind of knowledge, is eternal." ;' God loves Himself with an infinite, intellectual love " The intellectual love of the mind towards God is the very love with which He loves Himself, not in so far a He is infinite, but in so far as He can be manifested thnmgh the essence of the human mind conside d tual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love with which God loves Himself " "Our salvation, or blessedness, or liberty consists in "LZtr* J0' *T* l0V6 Wrda <>°*- o^n the love of God towards men." « -VJr? is"otbinS m nature which is contrary to this intellectual love, or which can negate it." J ^Goethe refers to these propositions in his Autobio- "Tbe mind," he says, "which worked upon me so dedsively, and which was destined to affec s 22 my whole mode of thinking, was Spinoza. After Lot * Truth and Poetry out of My Life, part iii., book 14. xc PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. " ing through the world in vain to find a means of " development for my strange nature, I at last fell upon " the Ethic of this man. Of what I read out of the " work and of what I read into it, I can give no account. " Enough that here I found a sedative for my passions, " and that a free, wide view over the material world " seemed to open before me. But what especially bound " me to him, was the great disinterestedness which " shone from every proposition. That wonderful expres- " sion, ' who loves God truly must not desire God to love "him in return,' with all the preliminary propositions " on which it rests, and all the consequences that follow " from it, filled my whole mind. To be disinterested in " everything, but the most so in love and friendship, was " my highest desire, my maxim, my practice, and so "that audacious saying of mine afterwards, 'If I love "thee, what is that to thee? ' was spoken right out of " my heart.1 Moreover, it must not here be denied that " the most inward unions are those of opposites. The " all-composing calmness of Spinoza was in striking " contrast with my all-disturbing activity, his mathe- "matical method was the opposite of my poetic imagi- " nation and way of writing, and the very precision which " was thought not adapted to moral subjects made me " his enthusiastic disciple, his most decided worshipper. " Mind and heart, understanding and feeling sought each " other with an eager affinity, binding together the most " different natures." What is the meaning in Spinoza of the words " love of God," or, as he puts it more precisely, "the intellectual' " love of the mind towards God" ? 1 It is curious and suggestivo wounded and is uncomfortable that this fine saying, taken almost because she waits on him so assidu- directly from the profoundest sec- ously," Wennichdich lieb habc, was tion of tho Ethic, should bo put by gchCsdichant»(WUhclm'sMcisleT'» Goethe into tho mouth of Philiua, Apprenticeship, part i., book 4, who says to Wilhelm, when ho lies chap. 9.) PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xci It is always allowable in the case of Spinoza to inter pret him by himself. It is not always allowable in the case of many writers. In the Short Treatise we hear of a blessedness which ¦comes to man through the fourth kind of knowledge, answering to the third of the Ethic. If we become united with God through knowledge of this order we are 'happy. **" Hence it follows incontrovertibly that it is " knowledge which is the cause of love, so that when we " learn, to know God in this way, we must necessarily " unite ourselves to Him, for He cannot be known, nor ¦" can He reveal Himself save as that which is supremely " great and good. In this union alone, a3 we have "already said, our happiness consists. I do not say " that we must know Him adequately : but it is sufficient *" for us, in order to be united with Him, to know Him in -" a measure, for the knowledge we have of the body is -" not of such a kind that we can know it as it is or " perfectly, and yet what a union ! what love ! " We were born when we were united with the body : our second birth is our union with this spiritual object. 2 " When we say that God does not love man we are not " to suppose that God has left him, so to speak, to wander " alone where he pleases, but we are to understand God's " love in this way, that, inasmuch as man, together with " everything which exists, is in God, so that God consists " in this whole, there can be no special love in God, "because everything really subsists in a single thing, " which is God Himself." This really corresponds with the account given in tho Ethic, though it is expressed in different language. If we read carefully, not only the propositions con cerning the love of God, but those upon which these propositions depend, we find that it is caused by a .better understanding of ourselves and our affects, and a 1 Short Treatise, part ii. chap 22. ' Short Treatise, part ii. chap. 24. xcu PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. reference to the "idea of God" so that our active power is increased. This means joy ; and joy, accom panied with the idea of God as a cause, is love to Him. This is not all however; there is an intel lectual love of God. Let us see how it is generated. It comes through a knowledge of individual objects; it comes also through understanding individual objects by the third kind of knowledge— the " intuitive science " —which " advances from an adequate idea of the formal "essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate " knowledge of the essence of things "—that is to say, a knowledge of things through a complete knowledge of God's attributes. But the knowledge of the attributes is only obtainable through a knowledge of things. Spinoza nowhere says that we know God's attributes^ any other way ; in fact, ho expressly states the contrary. As before pointed out, he is not arguing in a circle. Wo obtain a law from observation ; but after obtaining it, wo unhositatingly apply it to other cases which may be now. The intellectual lovo of God, therefore, is the discovery of law or attribute, and the inclusion of the world under it. It is observable that Spinoza distinctly gives the name mentis acquiescentia to the condition which arises from understanding things by the third kind of knowledge. It is the repose which the mind feels in the exercise of its true function and in the con templation of the order of the universe. "We cannot, as we have said before in a similar case, be absolutely certain that Spinoza intended nothing more than this. Occasionally, in his description of the intellectual love, it looks as if something more was included ; but that the interpretation here given was at least the largest part of his meaning seems clear. He does not express himself as we should express ourselves now ; but he was a Jew, and those persons who have been trained in a religion never lose its influence, and generally find, however free PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. they may afterwards become, that much of its terminology still suits them, and expresses more exactly than any other what they have to say. Mr. Carlyle is a case in point. No man of our time was less bound by theo logical formulas than he ; but his dialect is continually as Puritan as that of his ancestors. Furthermore, Spinoza evidently wished to distinguish the emotion which, for him at least, accompanied mental exercise. It was not dull, dry, mechanical work which Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Huyghens had been doing. It was joy, peace of mind, delight ; the love of God was in it. If not there, they were nowhere to be found.1 We now approach the last and greatest difficulty of the Ethic — the argument for the eternity of the mind. It is introduced in the middle of the Fifth Part. I do not for a moment mean to say that I can make it fully intelligible to my readers, or that it is clearly intelligible to myself. It may be doubted whether it was clearly intelligible to Spinoza in tho senso in which a cubic block of stone in full sunlight is intelligible. It may also be doubted whether intelligibility after this fashion is possible. It is not easy to explain these singular pro positions and yet keep perfectly close to their author. The tendency is to diverge into statements which may 1 " It (the doctrine of the One) " presents itself onee more, now " altogether boyond Christian in- " fluence, in tho hard and ambitious " intellcctualism of Spinoza; a doo- " trine of pure repellent substance " — substance ' in vacuo,' to be " lost in which, however, would be " the proper consummation of the " transitory individual life. Spi- " noza's own absolutely colourless " existence was a practical com- " ment on it." — Plato and Pla- tonism, by Walter Pater, p. 33. This characterisation of Spinoza seems strange, even after a super ficial study of these propositions. The word " colourless," in one senso, may corlainly bo applied to him ; for sunlight is colourless, for the reason that it includes all tho rays of the spectrum. The coloured light is that of the priest, the pro phet, or the Church. " "Repellent " and " in vacuo " are instructive examples of the seductive influence of phrases on an artist in style, and of the danger to which he is con tinually exposed of lapsing thereby into unintelligibility. XC1V PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. have their own value, but are not Spinoza's. An attempt, however, will be made to throw a little light upon his doctrine, and to ascertain, by reference to and comparison with himself, what some of the principal ascertainable points in it are. It is clear that Spinoza is no believer in immortality in the ordinary sense of the word. Nobody can be plainer than he in its denial. The mind, he expressly says, cannot imagine, nor can it recollect anything that is past, except while the body lasts, and there is no con tinuation of the self without memory and imagination. It is noticeable that although in the Short Treatise the word " immortality " is used, it is not used in the Ethic. It is also clear, on the other hand, that Spinoza believed in something more than a survival of what we have done. Aristotle was to him a partaker in eternity, not only because he filled the- world with ideas which will never die, but in some different sense. If Spinoza believed in nothing but the very simple fact of the immortality of achievements, he certainly would not have gone out of his way to express himself in such abstruse language. The difficulty which lies at the threshold is the phrase " form of eternity." The twenty-second proposition declares that, although imagination and memory depend upon the body, " in God, nevertheless, there necessarily " oxists an idea which expresses the essence of this or "that human body under the form of eternity." The eighth axiom of the first book defines eternity as "exist- " ence itself, so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow "from the definition alone of the eternal thing." In a letter to Meyer of the 20th of April, 16G3,1 Spinoza distinguishes between eternity and duration, even if duration be prolonged indefinitely. " Through dura- "tion," he says, "we can explain only the existence of " Letter 12. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xcv "modes; but through eternity that of substance — that "is to say, an infinite enjoyment of existence, or rather " (although the Latin does not lend itself to such a mode " of expression) of Being (essendi)." He goes on to warn us that eternity is not conceivable by the imagination, but by the intellect alone. In the second corollary of the forty-fourth proposition of the second book we are told that "it is of the nature of reason to perceive things "under a certain form of eternity," and the demonstra tion shows that, when we conceive them under the form of eternity, toe conceive them as necessary, and this neces sity is a part of the eternal nature of God. The same thing is said in the thirtieth proposition of the fifth book ; and it is added that things are conceived under the form of eternity when " through the essence of God " they involve existence." To the same purpose, and a little clearer, is the scholium to the twenty-ninth pro position of the fifth book : " Things are conceived by us " as actual in two ways — either in so far as we conceive "them to exist with relation to a fixed time and place, " or in so far as we concoivo them to be contained in "God and to follow from the necessity of the Divine "nature. But thoso things which are conceived in this " second way as true or real, wo concoivo undor tho form "of eternity, and their ideas involve the eternal and "infinite essence of God." Perhaps we shall now be able to obtain some insight into Spinoza's thought. We have to dismiss the imagination altogether ; we are not to use it in any way in our conception of eternity ; we have to conceive an existence to which time is not applicable— as, for example, geometrical truths. We feel that it is absurd to apply time to the theorem that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, for there was no time when that truth came into being, nor will it cease to be at any given time.- Necessary truths, in short, are not subject to tho cate- xcvi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. gory of time, and the form of eternity and necessity correspond. We can now proceed. Notwithstanding there is no memory without the body, the twenty-second proposi tion declares that "in God nevertheless there neces sarily _ exists an idea which expresses the essence "of this or that human body under the form of *! eternity." Now essence is that " which, being given, " the thing itself is necessarily posited, and being taken away,, the thing is necessarily taken; or, in other " words, that, without which the thing can neither be "nor be conceived, and which in its turn cannot be nor "be conceived without the thing." Also "the essence " of man consists of certain modifications of the attri- " butes of God," and " the human mind is a part of the "infinite intellect of God." This definition of essence and tho two following propositions we have already passed in the second book. Now comes the question- as the essence of the human body is the mind, does Spinoza mean that the whole complete idea of the body- that is to say mind— is eternal? He does not say dis tinctly in this twenty-second proposition what he means, but that he does not mean the whole complete idea is evident from what follows. For example, take the undermentioned scholia and corollaries. Schol. Prop, xxiii. : " Our mind, in so far as it involves " the essence of the body under the form of eternity, is "eternal." Schol. Prop. xxxi. : " The mind is eternal, in so far " as it conceives things under the form of eternity." Coroll. Prop, xxxiv. : "No love, except intellectual " love, is eternal." "Schol. Prop, xxxviii. : " It is possible for tho human "mind to be of such a nature that that part of it which " wo have shown perishes with its body, in comparison "with the part of it which remains is of no conse- " quence." /-"*•*>, PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. Cl oil. Prop. xl. : "That part of the mind which " abides, whether great or small, is more perfect than "the other part. For the part of the mind which is "eternal is the intellect, through which alone we are " said to act ; but that part which, as we have shown, "perishes is the imagination, through which alone we " are said to suffer." Lastly, the twenty- third proposition says that "the " human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the " body, but something of it remains which is eternal." We are now another step further, and we note in the next place the scholium to the twenty-third proposition. " Nevertheless we feel and know by experience that we " are eternal. For the mind is no less sensible of those " things whioh it conceives through intelligence than of " those which it remembers, for demonstrations are the " eyes of the mind by which it sees and observes things." Spinoza here does not refer to vague presentiments of immortality. The eternal part, therefore, is plainly that which is conversant with demonstrations, or that which is not affected by the duration of the body. This is the know ledge of God and through this knowledge the mind " knows that it is in God, and is conceived through " Him." A quotation from tho Short Treatise1 may be appended. After saying that the soul dies, in so far as it is united with the body, it iB added, " If the soul is united with " some other thing which is and remains unchangeable, " it muBt on the contrary also remain unchangeable and " permanent." What then can we conclude for our own purposes from this presentation, which has been made as far as possible in Spinoza's own words. What can we extract from them after putting on one side what we cannot 1 Part ii. chap. 23. xcviii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. understand ? Spinoza believes that the more reasonable we are the better will it be for us both here and here after ; for us in some sense, although in what sense us is obscure. There is no heaven for . him but this. Heaven is not a hereafter of reward : it is the here and hereafter of the intellectual love of God. In so far as the mind is capable of intellectual love, it is not only eternal but a part of God Himself. Man perceiving things under the form of eternity is not a thing down here created by a Being up there, of whom he knows nothing, save what has been revealed to him, but he is actually one with the God who has created Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades, and the chambers of the south, and in a sense may be said to have had a share in their creation. Spinoza never goes nearer to inspiration than in the propositions on the relationship between God and man, and there is an unmistakable boat in them which shows that they were dear to him. " God loves Himself "with an infinite, intellectual love," and "the intel- " lectual love of the mind towards God is the very lovo " with which He loves Himself, not in so far as He is " infinite, but in so far as He can be manifested through " the essence of the human mind considered under the " form of eternity ; that is to say, the intellectual love of " the mind towards God is part of the infinite love with " which God loves Himself. . . . Hence it follows that "God, in so far as He loves Himself, loves men, and " consequently that the love of God towards men, and " the intellectual love of the mind towards God, are one " and the same thing." *" 1 ""Further, this creative reason " does not at ono timo think, at " another time not think [it thinks " eternally] : and when separated " from the body it remains nothing " but what it essentially is : and " thus it is alone immortal and " eternal. Of this unceasing work "of thought, however, we retain "no memory, because this reason "is unaffected by its objects; "whereas the receptive, passive "intellect (which is affected) is " perishable, and can really think PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xcix Spinoza could not, however, thus conclude his Ethic and in a few words at the end he reminds us that the advantages of piety and religion and the superiority of reason to passion are not dependent upon any theory of eternity. A man may not believe he is going to live for ever, but that is no reason why he should prefer noxious poisons to food. Morality is not martyrdom, and life is not a continual sacrifice. Blessedness is not a reward for restraint, but we restrain ourselves because we are blessed, a most pregnant hint. To prevent all misunderstanding it may be as well again to say that I have not attempted in this account of the Ethic to do what has been done so completely in Germany, and partially in this country-that is to say to connect Spinoza with metaphysics before and after' in the first place I have not the necessary knowledge for the mere titles of Germany's contributions on this subject would fill a couple of pages of small octavo print: m the second place much that is in Spinoza is not completely luminous to me, and lastly, he himself I believe, would have desired to rest his claim to men's attention mainly upon his Ethic, strictly bo called Jinough, however, has perhaps been said to explain his influence. It is impossible, after familiar acquaintance with him, to live for a single day as we should have lived without him. He was the first to protest against the ordinary treatment of wrongdoing-the theological rea ment we may say-although it is current bejond the hunts of theology, and will survive it. It was he who reheved men, or who did his best to relieve them from the trouble and despair consequent upon what was really a dual government of the world, and it was he "sssic^^ :::" ^ r souis - ^^(WaUace'stranslatio;; ¦ ]££. S£ arelll i™ 1°' "I bdieve," said Pantagruel, ol^f ' ^"^ b°°k ** c PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. who gave vitality and a practical meaning to the great doctrine of the Unity of God, for which we have, in the main, to thank his race; not a mere barren Unity, however, with him, but a unity of law and a unity of origin. Lastly, he may be said to have contributed something towards a truly human religion. Beligion has been said to consist in that of which we are assured, but it is partly that which we hope or even that which we dream, and perhaps the influence of the hope and the dream is greater than that of the certainty. PAEALLEL PASSAGES FEOM GIORDANO BEUNO. •The passages quoted below from Giordano Bruno may serve to show in a measure the correspondence between him and Spinoza. It must however be borne in mind that many of them may be taken to show, not a corre spondence between Spinoza and Bruno alone, but between Spinoza and earlier thinkers from whom Bruno derived them : — The universal intellect is related to the production of natural things as our intellect is related to the con gruous production of rational species (De la Causa, Dial. 2). Dicsono. I should like to see you distinguish how you understand it to be external cause and how as internal. Teoflo. I call it external cause because, as being the efficient cause, it is not a part of the components and the things produced, and I call it internal cause, in so far as it does not operate round about matter, or outside of it (De la Causa, Dial. 2). The aim and final cause which the Efficient Cause sets before himself are the perfection of the universe, which means that in the different parts of matter all forms should have actual existence, in which end the intellect delights so much that it is never weary of cii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. exciting all sorts of forms from matter (De la Causa, Dial. 2). If anything whatever of the substances should be destroyed, the world would become a void (De la Causa, Dial. 2).1 Teofih. We do not see with one and the same eye the substratum of the arts (ordinary matter) and the substratum of Nature. Gervasio. You mean to say that we see the former with the sensuous eye and the latter with the eye of the reason. Teofih. Exactly so (De la Causa, Dial. 3). Of the existence of this basis of all natural things we can convince ourselves through the reason alone (De la Causa, Dial. 3). The universe is everything which it can be, in a mode which is explicit, dispersed, differentiated (De la Causa, Dial. 3). These things (death, corruption, evil, defects, mis carriages) are not reality and potence, but unreality and impotence (De la Causa, Dial. 3). Teofih. The whole (the all), as to substance, is one, as perhaps Parmenides understood ? Dicsono. Do you mean that substance is twofold, the one spiritual, the other corporeal : that both belong to one being, to one root ? (De la Causa, Dial. 3). ' This is one of the most re markable coincidences between liruno and Spinoza. Spinoza says in a letter to Oldenburg (No. <1) (undated), in reply to Oldenburg's letter of Sept. 27, 1G61, si una pars material annihilarctur, simul etiam, tola extensio evanesceret. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. cm Granted then that there are countless individuals, at last is everything one, and the recognition of this unity forms the goal and end of all philosophy and all natural research (De la Causa, Dial. 4). It is not changeable into another form, because it has no external through which it may suffer, or through which it may be affected in any way (De la Causa, Dial. 5). The universe is one, infinite, immovable. ... It cannot diminish nor increase, since it is infinite, from which, just as nothing can be added to it, so nothing can be taken away, because the infinite has not propor tionate parts. . . . There is no proportionate part, nor part at all which differs from the whole. . . . Because, if you wish to say part of the infinite, you must call it infinite ; and, if it is infinite, it unites in one being with the whole; therefore the universe is one, infinite indivisible. And, if in the infinite there is no difference, as of a whole and part, or as of one and another, then certainly the infinite is one (De la Causa, Dial. 5). In the One, infinite and immovable, which is sub stance, which is Being, there is multitude, number, which by being mode and variety of Being that dis tinguishes thing from thing, does not make that which is Being more than one, but multiform, many-figured. . . . Every production, of whatever kind it may be, is a change, while substance remains always the same. . . . So think the philosophers who say that nothing ia produced as to substance, nor is destroyed (De la Causa, .Dial. 5). civ PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. Everything which we apprehend in the Universe, since it has that which is all in all in itself, embraces in its own way the whole world-soul, which is in every part of the same completely, but, as we have said above, not totally (De la Causa, Dial. 5). Why shall we, or can we, think that the Divine efficacy is idle? Why shall we say that the Divine goodness, which can communicate itself to infinite things, and can diffuse itself infinitely, desires to with draw itself and to contract itself into nothing ? since every finite thing, with regard to the infinite, is nothing (De Vinfinito universo, Dial. 1). Since the universe is infinite and immovable, there is no need to seek the mover of it. . . . All the worlds are moved by an internal principle . . . and therefore it is vain to seek their external motor (De Vinfinito, Dial. 1). As it is immutable, there is no contingency in its operation nor in its efficacy, but from a determined and certain efficacy depends a determined and certain effect immutably ; thus it cannot be other than what it is ; it cannot be what it is not; it cannot have power to do anything but what it can ; it cannot will anything but what it wills; and necessarily it cannot do anything but what it does ; since to have power distinct from action belongs solely to mutable things (De Vinfinito, Dial. 1). The Divine action is necessary because it proceeds from a will which is most immutable — or rather im mutability itself — and yet necessity itself, whence liberty, will, necessity, are entirely the same thing, and PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. cv so are voluntary action, power and being (De Vinfinito, Dial. 1). In number, then, and multitude, there is the infinite movable and infinite moving ; but in unity and singu larity there is the infinite immovable mover, and the infinite immovable universe; and this infinite number and magnitude, and that infinite unity and simplicity, coincide in one very simple and individual principle, true Being. Thus there is no primum mobile to which, in a fixed order, the second succeeds, and so on to the last, or rather ad infinitum; but all the movable things are equally near to, and distant from, the first and universal mover. As, speaking logically, all the species have an equal relation to the same genus, all the individuals to tho same species, thus from one infinite universal mover in an infinite space there is a universal infinite movement, from which infinite movables and infinite movers depend, each of which is finite in nature and action (De Vinfinito, Dial. 5). ETHIC. — ?? jl-irst $ art OF GOD. Definitions. I. By cause of itself, I understand that, whose essence involves existence ; or that, whose nature cannot bo con ceived unless existing. II. That thing is called finite in its own kind (in suo gcnere) which can be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is called finite, be cause we always conceive another which is greater. So a thought is limited by another thought ; but a body is not limited by a thought, nor a thought by a body. III. By substance, I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; in other words, that, the conception of which does not need the concep tion of another thing from which it must be formed. IV. By attribute, I understand that which the intel lect perceives of substance, as if constituting its essence. V. By mode, I understand the affections of substance, or that which is in another thing through which also it is conceived. VI. By God, I understand Being absolutely infinite, i that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, \ each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence. | Explanation. — I say absolutely infinite but not infinite A 2 ETHIC. in its own kind (in suo genere) ; for of whatever is infinite only in its own kind (in suo genere), we can deny infinite attributes ; but to the essence of that which is absolutely infinite pertains whatever expresses essence and involves no negation. VII. That thing is called free which exists from the necessity of its own nature alone, and is determined to action by itself alone. That thing, on the other hand, is called necessary, or rather compelled, which by another is determined to existence and action in a fixed and pre scribed manner. VIII. By eternity, I understand existence itself, so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow from the defi nition alone of the eternal thing. Explanation. — For such existence, like the essence of the thing, is conceived as an eternal truth. It cannot therefore be explained by duration or time, even if the duration be conceived without beginning or end. Axioms. I. Everything which is, is either in itself or in another. II. That which cannot be conceived through another must be conceived through itself. III. From a given determinate cause an effect neces sarily follows ; and, on the other hand, if no determinate cause be given, it is impossible that an effect can follow. IV. The knowledge (cognitio) of an effect depends upon and involves the knowledge of the cause. V. Those things which have nothing mutually in common with one another cannot through one another be mutually understood, that is to say, the conception of the one does not involve the conception of the other. VI. A true idea must agree with that of which it is the idea (cum suo ideato). VII. Tho essence of that thing which can be con ceived as not existing does no:; involve existence. OF GOD. 3 Prof. I. — Substance is by its nature prior to its affections. Demonst. — This is evident from Defs. 3 and 5. Prop. II. — Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. Demonst. — This is also evident from Def. 3. For each substance must be in itself and must be conceived through itself, that is to say, the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other. — q.e.d. Prop. III. — If two things have nothing in common with one another, one cannot be the cause of the other. Demonst. — If they have nothing mutually in common with one another, they cannot (Ax. 5) through one an other be mutually understood, and therefore (Ax. 4) one ¦cannot be 'the cause of the other. — q.e.d. Prop. IV. — Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, eitlier by the difference of the attri butes of the substances, or by the difference of their affections. Demonst. — Everything which is, is either in itself or in another (Ax. 1), that is to say (Defs. 3 and 5), outside, the intellect there is nothing but substances and their' affections. There is nothing therefore outside the intel lect by which a number of things can be distinguished one from another, but substances or (which is the same thing by Def. 4) their attributes and their affections. — Q.E.D. OF GOD. 4 ETHIC. Prop. V. — In nature there cannot be two or more sub stances of tlie same nature or attribute. Demonst. — If there were two or more distinct sub stances, they must be distinguished one from the other by difference of attributes or difference of affections- (Prop. 4). If they are distinguished only by difference of attributes, it will be granted that there is but one substance of the same attribute. But if they are distin guished by difference of affections, since substance is prior by nature to its affections (Prop. 1), the affections- therefore being placed on one side, and the substance being considered in itself, or, in other words (Def. 3 and Ax. 6), truly considered, it cannot be conceived as distin guished from another substance, that is to say (Prop. 4),. there cannot be two or more substances, but only one possessing the same nature or attribute. — q.e.d. Prop. VI. — One substance cannot be produced by another substance. Demonst. — There cannot in nature be two substances- of the same attribute (Prop. 5), that is to say (Prop. 2), two which have anything in common with one another. And therefore (Prop. 3) one cannot be the cause of the other, that is to say, one cannot be produced by the other. — q.e.t>. Corol. — Hence it follows that there is nothing by which substance can be produced, for in nature there is nothing but substances and their affections (as is evident from Ax. 1 and Defs. 3 and 5). But substance cannot be produced by substance (Prop. 6). Therefore abso lutely there is nothing by which substance can be pro duced. Q.E.D. Another Demonst. — This corollary is demonstrated more easily by the rcductio ad absurdum. For if there- were anything by which substance could be produced, the knowledge of substance would be dependent upon 5 the knowledge of its cause (Ax. 4), and therefore (Def. 3) it would not be substance. Prop. VII. — It pertains to the nature of substance to exist. — Demonst. — There is nothing by which substance can be produced (Corol. Prop. 6). It will therefore be the cause of itself, that is to say (Def. 1), its essence neces sarily involves existence, or in other words it pertains to its nature to exist. — Q.E.D. Prop. VIII. — Every substance is necessarily infinite. Demonst. — Substance which has only one attribute •cannot exist except as one substance (Prop. 5), and to the nature of this one substance it pertains to exist (Prop. 7). It must therefore from its nature exist as finite or infinite. But it cannot exist as finite substance, for (Def. 2) it must (if finite) be limited by another substance of the same nature, which also must necessarily exist (Prop. 7), and therefore there would be two substances of the same attribute, which is absurd (Prop. 5). It exists therefore as infinite substance. — Q.E.D. Schol. 1. — Since finiteness is in truth partly negation, and infinitude absolute affirmation of existence of some kind, it follows from Prop. 7 alone that all substance must be infinite. Schol. 2. — I fully expect that those who judge things confusedly, and who have not been accustomed to cognise things through their first causes, will find it difficult to comprehend the demonstration of the 7th Proposition, since they do not distinguish between the modifications of substances and substances themselves, and are igno rant of the manner in which things are produced. Hence it comes to pass that they erroneously ascribe to substances a beginning like that which they see belongs to natural things ; for those who are ignorant of the true causes of things confound everything, and without any mental repugnance represent trees speaking like men, or imagine ¦Xio*- 6 ETHIC. that men are made out of stones as well as begotten from seed, and that all forms can be changed the one into the other. So also those who confound human nature with the divine, readily attribute to God human affects,1 especially so long as they are ignorant of the manner in which affects are produced in the mind. But if men would attend to the nature of substance, they could not entertain a single doubt of the truth of Proposition 7 ; indeed this proposition would be considered by all to be axiomatic, and reckoned amongst common notions. For by "substance" would be understood that which is in itself and is conceived through itself, or, in other words, that, the knowledge of which does not need the know ledge of another thing. But by " modifications " would be understood those things which are in another thing — those things, the conception of which is formed from the concep tion of the thing in which they are. Hence we can have true ideas of non-existent modifications, since although they may not actually exist outside the intellect, their essence nevertheless is so comprehended in something else, that they ma.j be conceived through it. But the truth of substances is not outside the intellect unless in the substances themselves, because they are conceived through themselves. If any one, therefore, were to say that he possessed a clear and distinct, that is to say, a true idea of substance, and that he nevertheless doubted whether such a substance exists, he would forsooth be in the same position as if he were to say that he had a true idea and nevertheless doubted whether or not it was false (as is evident to any oue who pays a little attention). Similarly if any one were to affirm that substance is created, he- would affirm at the same time that a false idea had become true, and this is a greater absurdity than can be conceived. 1 Afj'ce tus is translated by ' ' af- Affcctus has sometimes been trans- feet" and ojl'cctw by "affection." latod "passion," but Spinoza uses There scums to be no other way in passio for passion, and means some- thc English language of marking thing different from afj'cctua. Sea the relationship of the two words Def. III., part 3. and preserving their exact meaning. OF GOD. 7 It is therefore necessary to admit that the existence of sub stance, like its essence, is an eternal truth. Hence a demonstration (which I have thought worth while to append) by a different method is possible, showing that there are not two substances possessing the same nature. But in order to prove this methodically it is to be noted : 1. That the true definition of any one thing neither involves nor expresses anything except the nature of the thing defined. From which it follows, 2. That a defini tion does not involve or express any certain number of individuals, since it expresses nothing but the nature of the thing defined. For example, the definition of a triangle expresses nothing but the simple nature of a triangle, and not any certain number of triangles. 3. It is to be observed that of every existing thing there is some certain cause by reason of wliich it exists. 4. Finally, it is to be observed that this cause, by reason of which a thing exists, must either be con tained in the nature itself and definition of the existing thing (simply because it pertains to the nature of the thing to exist), or it must exist outside the thing. This being granted, it follows that if a certain num ber of individuals exist in nature, there must neces sarily be a cause why those individuals, and neither more nor fewer, exist. If, for example, there are twenty- men in existence (whom, for the sake of greater clearness, I suppose existing at the same time, and that no others existed before them), it will not be sufficient, in order that we may give a reason why twenty men exist, to give a cause for human nature generally ; but it will be necessary, in addition, to give a reason why neither more nor fewer than twenty exist, since, as we have already observed under the third head, there must necessarily be a cause why each exists. But this cause (as we have shown under the second and third heads) cannot be con tained in human nature itself, since the true definition of a man does not involve the number twenty, and therefore S ETHIC. (by the fourth head) the cause why these twenty men exist, and consequently the cause why each exists, must necessarily lie outside each one ; and therefore we must conclude generally that whenever it is possible for several individuals of the same nature to exist, there must neces sarily be an external cause for their existence. Since now it pertains to the nature of substance to exist (as we have shown in this scholium), its definition must involve necessary existence, and consequently from its definition alone its existence must be concluded. But from its definition (as we have already shown under the second and third heads) the existence of more substances than one cannot be deduced. It follows, therefore, from this definition necessarily that there cannot be two sub stances possessing the same nature. Prop. IX. — The more reality or being a thing possesses, the more attributes belong to it. Demonst. — This is evident from Def. 4. Prop. X. — Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself. Demonst. — For an attribute is that which the intel lect perceives of substance, as if constituting its essence (Def. 4), and therefore (Def. 3) it must be conceived through itself. — Q.E.D. Schol. — From this it is apparent that although two attributes may be conceived as really distinct — that is to say, one without the assistance of the other — we cannot nevertheless thence conclude that they constitute two beings or two different substances ; for this is the nature of substance, that each of its attributes is conceived through itself, since all the attributes which substance possesses were always in it together, nor could one be pro duced by another; but each expresses the reality or being of substance. It is very far from being absurd, OF COD. therefore, to ascribe to one substance a number of attributes, since nothing in nature is clearer than that each being must be conceived under some attribute, and the more reality or being it has, the more attributes it possesses expressing necessity or eternity and infinity. Nothing consequently is clearer than that Peeing abso lutely infinite is necessarily defined, as we have shown (Def. 6), as Being which consists of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses a certain essence, eternal and infinite. But if any one—now asfe by wh.it Jgn, therefore, ~we may distinguish between substances, let him read the following propositions, which show that in nature only one snhst,a.nf».a exists, and that it is absolutely infinite. For this reason that sign would be sought for in vain. W ^S-OP. XL — God, or substance consisting of infinite attri- , tf* butes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. s. Demonst. that God does this be denied, conceive, if it be possible," not exist. Then it follows (Ax. 7) that ' His essence does"n*olrlnvolve existence. But this (Prop. 7) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists. — Q.E.D. Another proof. — For the existence or non-existence of "everything there must be a reason or caused For exampl e, if a triangle exists, there must be a reason or cause why it exists ; and if it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which hinders its existence or which negates it. But this reason or cause must either be contained jn the nature of the thing or lie oiitsjde it. For example, the nature of the thing itself shows the reason why a square circle does not exist, the reason being that a square circle involves a contradiction. And the reason, on the other hand, why substance exists follows from its nature alone, which involves existence (see Prop. 7). But 'the reason why a circle or trianglo exists or does IO ETHIC. not exist is not drawn from th^eir nature, but from the order of corporeal nature generally; for~from~~that''it must follow, either that a triangle .necessarily~:.exists, or that it is impossible for it to exist. But this is self- evident. Therefore it follows that if there be no cause nor reason which hinders a thing from existing, it exists necessarily. If, therefore, there be no reason nor cause which hinders God from existing, or which- negates His existence, we must conclude absolutely that He neces sarily exists. But if there bo such a reason or cause, it must be either in the nature itself of God or niir*"triic outside it^Jliat is to say, in another substance of "another nature. For if the reason lay in a substance of the same nqtirrf^tlir- ovistjmce of God would be by this very fact_admiticiL_ But substance possessing another nature could Jiayejnothing in common with "Jod"(ri'opT~T*~)7Tind therefore could not give Him exi*"***e*r*c*e~ nor negate it. Since, therefore, the reason or cause which uuuld negate the divine existence cannot be outside the divine nature, it will necessarily, supposing that the divine nature does not exist„^e_in His nature itself, which would therefore involve a contradiction But to affirm this of the Bein^ absolutely mffriite and consummately perfect is absurd. Therefore neither in God nor outside God is there any cause or reason which can negate His existence, and therefore God necessarily exists. — q.e.d. Another proof. — Inability to exist is impotence, and, on the other hand, ability to exist is power, as is self- evident. If, therefore, there is nothing which necessarily exists excepting things finite, it follows that things finite are more powerful than the absolutely infinite Being, and this (as is self-evident) is absurd ; therefore either nothing exists or Being absolutely infinite also necessarily exists. But we ourselves exist, either in ourselves or in some thing else which necessarily exists (Ax. I and Prop. 7). Therefore the Being absolutely infinite, that is to say, (Def. 6), God, necessarily exists. — Q.E.D. OF GOD. © Schol. — In this last demonstration I wished to prove the existence of God a posteriori, in order that the de monstration might be the more easily understood, and not because the existence of God does not follow a priori from the same grounds. For since ability to exist is power, it follows that the more reality belongs to the nature of anything, the greater is the power for existence it derives from itself ; and it also follows, therefore, that the Being absolutely infinite, or God, has from Himself an absolutely infinite power of existence, and that He therefore neces sarily exists. Many persons, nevertheless, will perhaps not be able easily to see the force of this demonstration, because they have been accustomed to contemplate those things alone which flow from external causes, and ' they see also that those things which arc quickly produced from these causes, that is to say, which easily exist, easily perish, whilst, on the other hand, they adjudge those things to be more difficult to produce, that is to say, not so easy to bring into existence, to which they conceive more properties pertain. In order that these prejudices may be removed, I do not need here to show in what respect this saying, "What is quickly made quickly perishes," is true, nor to inquire whether, looking at the whole of nature, all things are or are not equally easy. But this only it will be sufficient for me to observe, that I do not speak of things which are produced by exter nal causes, but that I speak of substances alone which (Prop. 6) can be produced by no external cause. For whatever perfection or reality those things may have which are produced by external causes, whether they consist of many parts or of few, they owe it all to the virtue of an external cause, and therefore their existence springs from the perfection of an external cause alone and not from their own. On ihe other hand, whatever perfection substance has is due to no external cause. Therefore its existence must follow from its nature alone, and is therefore nothing else than its 12 ETHIC. essence. Perfection consequently does not prevent the existence of a thing, but establishes it; imperfection, on the other hand, prevents existence, and so' of no existence can we be more sure than of the existence of the Being absolutely infinite or perfect, that is to say, God. For since His essence shuts out all imperfection and involves absolute perfection, for this very reason all cause of doubt concerning His existence is taken away, and the highest Certainty concerning it is given, — a truth which I trust will be evident to any one who bestows only moderate attention. PROP. XII. — No attribute of substance can be truly con ceived from which it follows tJiat substance can be divided.^ ,v, v,v.«iY) Demonst. — For the parts into which substance thus conceived would be divided will or will not retain the nature of substance. If they retain it, then (Prop. 8) each part will be infinite, and (Prop. 6) the cause of itself, and will consist of an attribute differing from that of any other part (Prop. 5), so that from one substance more substances could be formed, which (Prop. 6) is absurd. Moreover the parts (Prop. 2) would have nothing in common with their whole, and the whole (Def. 4 and Prop. 10) could be, and could be conceived without its parts, which no one will doubt to be an absurdity. But if the second case be supposed, namely, that the parts will not retain the nature of substance, then, since the whole substance might be divided into equal parts, it would lose the nature of substance and cease to be, which (Prop. 7) is absurd. Prop. XIII. — Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible. Demonst. — For if it were divisible, the parts into which it would be divided will or will not retain the nature of substance absolutely infinite. If they retain it, there will OF GOD. *3 be a plurality of substances possessing the same nature, which (Prop. 5) is absurd. If the second case be sup posed, then (as above), substance absolutely infinite can cease to be, which (Prop. 1 1) is also absurd. Corol. — Hence it follows that no substance, and con sequently no bodily substance in so far as it is substance, is divisible. Schol. — That substance is indivisible is more easily to be understood from this consideration alone, that the nature of substance cannot be conceived unless as infinite, and that by a part of substance nothing else can be understood than finite substance, which (Prop. 8) involves a manifest contradiction. PROP. XIV. — Besides God, no substance can be nor can be conceived. Demonst. — Since God is Being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute can be denied which expresses the essence of substance (Def. 6), and since He necessarily exists (Prop. 11), it follows that if there were any sub stance besides God, it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances would exist possessing the same attribute, which (Prop. 5) is absurd ; and therefore there cannot be any substance ex cepting God, and consequently none other can be con ceived. For if any other could be conceived, it would necessarily be conceived as existing, and this (by the first part of this demonstration) is absurd. Therefore besides God no substance can be, nor can be cenceived. — q.e.d. Corol. 1. — Hence it follows with the greatest clearness, firstly, that God is one, that is to say (Def. 6), in nature there is but one substance, and it is absolutely infinite, as (Schol. Prop. 1 o) we have already intimated. Corol. 2. — It follows, secondly, that the thing extended (rem extensam) and the thing thinking (rem cogilantem) are either attributes of God or (Ax. 1) affections of the attributes of God. H ETHIC. Prop. XV. — Wliatever is, is in God, and nothing can either be or be conceived without God. Demonst. — Besides God there is no substance, nor can any be conceived (Prop. 14), that is to say (Def. 3), no thing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (Def. 5) can neither be nor be conceived with out substance ; therefore in the divine nature only can they be, and through it alone can they be conceived. But be sides substances and modes nothing is assumed (Ax. 1). Therefore nothing can be or be conceived without God. — Q.E.D. Schol. — There are those who imagine God to be like a man, composed of body and soul and subject to pas sions ; but it is clear enough from what has already been demonstrated bow far off men who believe this are from the true knowledge of God. But these I dismiss, for all men who have in any way looked into the divine nature deny that God is corporeal. That He cannot be so they conclusively prove by showing that by " body " we understand a certain quantity possessing length, breadth, and depth, limited by some fixed form; and that to attribute these to God, a being absolutely infinite, is the greatest absurdity. But yet at the same time, from other arguments by which they endeavour to confirm their proof, they clearly show that they remove altogether from the divine nature substance itself corporeal or extended, affirm ing that it was created by God. By what divine power, however, it could have been created they are altogether ignorant, so that it is clear they do not understand what they themselves say. But I have demonstrated, at least in my own opinion, with sufficient clearness (see Corol. Prop. 6 and Schol. 2, Prop. 8), that no substance can be produced or created by another. Moreover (Prop. 14), wc have shown that besides God no substance can be nor can be conceived; and hence wc have concluded that extended substance is one of the infinite attributes OF GOD. IS of God. But for the sake of a fuller explanation, I will refute my adversaries' arguments, which, taken altogether come to this. First, that corporeal substance, in so°far as' it is substance, consists, as they suppose, of parts, and therefore they deny that it can be infinite, and con sequently that it can pertain to God. This they illustrate by many examples, one or two of which I will adduce If corporeal substance, they say, be infinite, let us con ceive it to be divided into two parts ; each part, therefore will be either finite or infinite. If each part be finite then the infinite is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If each part be infinite, there is then an infinite twice as great as another infinite, which is also absurd. Again, if infinite quantity be measured by equal Tarts of a foot each, it must contain an infinite number of such parts, and similarly if it.be measured by equal parts of an inch each ; and therefore one infinite number will be twelve times greater than another infinite number. Lastly if from one point of any infinite quantity it be imao-ined that two lines, AB, AC, which at first are at a certain and determinate distance from one another, be infinitely extended, it is plain that the distance between B and C will be continually increased, and at length from beino- dcterminatc will be indeterminable. Since therefore these absurdities follow, as they think, from supposing quantity to be infinite, they conclude that corporeal substance must be finite, and consequently cannot pertain to tho essence of Cod. A second argument is assumed from the absolute perfection of God. ].'„r God, they say sinco He is a being absolutely perfect, cannot suffer; but cor poreal substance, since it is divisible, can suffer- it \6 ETHIC. follows, therefore, that it does not pertain to God's essence. These are the arguments which I find in authors, by which they endeavour to show that corporeal substance is unworthy of the divine nature, and cannot pertain to it. But any one who will properly attend will discover that I have already answered these argu ments, since the sole foundation of them is the supposi tion that bodily substance consists of parts, a supposition which (Prop. 1 2 and Corol. Prop. 13)1 have shown to be absurd. Moreover, if any one will rightly consider the matter, he will see that all these absurdities (supposing that they are all absurdities, a point which I will now take for granted), from which these authors attempt to draw the conclusion that substance extended is finite, do not by any means follow from the supposition that quantity is infinite, but from the supposition that infinite quantity is measurable, and that it is made up of finite parts. Therefore, from the absurdities to which this leads nothing can be concluded, excepting that infinite quantity is not measurable, and that it cannot be com posed of finite parts. But this is what we have already demonstrated (Prop. 12, &c), and the shaft therefore which is aimed at U3 turns against those who cast it. If, therefore, from these absurdities any one should at tempt to conclude that substance extended must be finite, he would, forsooth, be in the position of tho man who supposes a circle to have the properties of a square, and then concludes that it has no centre, such that all the lines drawn from it to the circumference are equal. For corporeal substance, which cannot be conceived ex cept as infinite, one and indivisible (Props. 8, 5, and 12), is conceived by those against whom I argue to be composed of finite parts, and to be multiplex and divisible, in order that they may prove it finite. Just in the same way others, after they have imagined a line to consist of points, know how to discover many arguments, by which they show that a line cannot be OF GOD. 17 divided ad infinitum ; and indeed it is not less absurd to suppose that corporeal substance is composed of bodies or parts than to suppose that a body is composed of surfaces, surfaces of lines, and that lines, finally, are composed of points. Every one who knows that clear reason is infallible ought to admit this, and especially those who deny that a vacuum can exist. For if corporeal substance could be so divided that its parts could be really distinct, why could not one part be annihilated, the rest remaining, as before, connected with one another ? And why must all be so fitted together that there can be no vacuum ? For of things which are really distinct the one from the other, one can be and remain in its own position without the other. Since, therefore, it is supposed that there is no vacuum in nature (about which I will speak at another time), but that all the parts must be united, so that no vacuum can exist, it follows that they cannot be really separated; that is to say, that corporeal substance, in so far as it is substance, cannot be divided. If. nevertheless, any one should now ask why there is a natural tendency to consider quantity as capable of division, I reply that quantity is conceived by us in two ways : either abstractly or super ficially ; that is to say, as we imagine it, or else as sub stance, in which way it is conceived by the intellect alone. If, therefore, we regard quantity (as we do very often and easily) as it exists in the imagination, we find it to be finite, divisible, and composed of parts ; but if we regard it as it exists in the intellect, and conceive it in so°far as it is substance, which is very difficult, then, as we have already sufficiently demonstrated, we find it to be infinite, one, and indivisible. This will be plain enough to all who know how to distinguish between the imagination and the intellect, and more especially if we remember that matter is everywhere the same, and that, except in so far as we regard it as affected in different ways, parts are not distinguished in it ; that is to say, they arc dis- B i8 ETHIC. tinguished with regard to mode, but not with regard to reality. For example, we conceive water as being divided, in so far as it is water, and that its parts are separated from one another ; hut in so far as it i3 corporeal substance we cannot thus conceive it, for as such it is neither separated nor divided. Moreover, water, in so far as it is waterris originated and destroyed ; but in so far as it is substance, it is neither originated nor destroyed. By this reasoning I think that I have also answered the second argument, since that too is based upon the assumption that matter, considered as sub stance, is divisible and composed of parts. And even if what I have urged were not true, I do not know why matter should be unworthy of the divine nature, since (Prop. 1 4) outside God no substance can exist from which the divine nature could suffer. All things, I say, are in God, and everything which takes place takes place by the laws alone of the infinite nature of God, and follows (as I shall presently show) from the necessity of His essence. Therefore in no way whatever can it be asserted that God suffers from anything, or that substance extended, even if it be supposed divisible, is unworthy of the divine nature, provided only it be allowed that it is eternal and infinite. But enough on this point for the present. Prop. XVI. — From the necessity of the divine nature infinite numbers of things in infinite ways (that is to say, all things which can be conceived by the infinite intellect) must follow. Demonst. — This proposition must be plain to every one who considers that from the given definition of any thing a number of properties necessarily following from it (that is to say, following from the essence of the thing itself) are inferred by the intellect, and just in proportion as the definition of the thing expresses a greater reality, that is to say, just in proportion as the essence of the OF GOD. 19 thing defined involves a greater reality, will more pro perties be inferred. But the divine nature possesses absolutely infinite attributes (Def. 6), each one of which expresses infinite essence in its own kind (in suo genere), and therefore, from the necessity of the divine nature, infinite numbers of things in infinite ways (that is to say, all things which can be conceived by the infinite intellect) must necessarily follow. — q.e.d. Corol. 1. — Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of all things which can fall under the infinite in tellect. Corol. 2. — It follows, secondly, that God is cause ¦through Himself, and not through that which is con tingent (per accidens). Corol. 3. — It follows, thirdly, that God is absolutely the first cause. Prop. XVII. — God acts from the laws of His own nature only, and is compelled by no one. Demonst. — We have just shown (Prop. 16) that from the necessity, or (which is the same thing) from the laws only of the divine nature, infinite numbers of things absolutely follow ; and we have demonstrated (Prop. 1 5) that nothing can be, nor can be conceived, without God, but that all things are in God. Therefore, outside Him self, there can be nothing by which He may be deter mined or compelled to act ; and therefore He acts from the laws of His own nature only, and is compelled by no one. — Q.E.D. Corol. 1. — Hence it follows, firstly, that there is no ¦cause, either external to God or within Him, which can excite Him to act except the perfection of His own nature, Corol. 2. — It follows, secondly, that God alone is a free cause ; for God alone exists from the necessity alone of His own nature (Prop, n, and Corol. 1, Prop. 14), and acts from the necessity alone of His own ETHIC. nature (Prop. 17). Therefore (Def. 7) He alone is a free cause.— Q.E.D. Schol. — There are some who think that God is a free cause because He can, as they think, bring about that those things which we have said follow from His nature — that is to say, those things which are in His power — should not be, or should not be produced by Him. But this is simply saying that God could bring about that it should not follow from the nature of a triangle that its three angles should be equal to two right angles, or that from a given cause an effect should not follow, which is absurd. But- I shall show farther on, without the help of this proposi tion, that neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God. IT know, indeed, that there are many who think them selves able to demonstrate that intellect of the highest order and freedom of will both pertain to the nature of God, for they say that they know nothing more perfect which they can attribute to Him than that which is the chief perfection in ourselves. But although they con ceive God as actually possessing the highest intellect, they nevertheless do not believe that He can bring about that all those things should exist which are actually in His intellect, for they think that by such a supposi tion they would destroy His power. If He had created,. they say, all things which are in His intellect, He could have created nothing more, and this, they believe, does not accord with God's omnipotence ; so then they prefer to consider God as indifferent to all things, and creating nothing excepting that which He has decreed to create by a certain absolute will. But I think that I have shown with sufficient clearness (Prop. 16) that from the supreme power of God, or from His infinite nature, infinite things in infinite ways, that is to "say, all things, have necessarily flowed, or continually follow by the same necessity, in the same way as it follows from the nature of a triangle, from eternity and to eternity, that its OF GOD. 21 three angles are equal to two right angles. The omni potence of God has therefore been actual from eternity, and in the same actuality will remain to eternity. In this way the omnipotence of God, in my opinion, is far more firmly established. My adversaries, indeed (if I may be permitted to speak plainly), seem to deny the ¦omnipotence of God, inasmuch as they are forced to admit that He has in His mind an infinite number of things which might be created, but which, nevertheless, He will never be able to create, for if He were to create all things which He has in His mind, He would, accord ing to them, exhaust His omnipotence and make Himself imperfect. Therefore, in order to make a perfect God, "they are compelled to make Him incapable of doing all those things to which His power extends, and anything more absurd than this, or more opposed to God's omni potence, I do not think can be imagined. Moreover — to say a word, too, here about the intellect and will which we commonly attribute to God — if intellect and will pertain to His eternal essence, these attributes cannot be under stood in the sense in which men generally use them, for the intellect and will which could constitute His essence would have to differ entirely from our intellect and will, and could resemble ours in nothing except in name. There could be no further likeness than that between the celestial constellation of the Dog and the animal which barks. This I will demonstrate as follows. If intellect pertains to the divine nature, it cannot, like our intellect, follow the things which are its object (as many suppose), nor can it be simultaneous in its nature with them, since God is prior to all things in causality (Corol. 1, Prop. 16) ; but, on the contrary, the truth and formal essence of things is what it is, because as such it exists objectively in God's intellect. Therefore the intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute His essence, is in truth the cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence, — a truth which seems to have been understood 22 ETHIC. by those who have maintained that God's intellect, will, and power are one and the same thing. Since, therefore, God's intellect is the sole cause of things, both of then- essence and of their existence (as we have already shown), it must necessarily differ from them with regard both to its essence and existence; for an effect differs from its cause precisely in that which it has from its cause. For example, one man is the cause of the exist ence but not of the essence of another, for the essence is- an eternal truth ; and therefore with regard to essence the two men may exactly resemble one another, but with regard to existence they must differ. Consequently if the existence of one should perish, that of the other will not therefore perish ; but if the essence of one could be destroyed and become false, the essence of the other would be likewise destroyed. Therefore a thing which is the cause both of the essence and of the existence of any effect must differ from that effect both with regard to its essence and with regard to its existence. But the intellect of God is the cause both of the essence and exis tence of our intellect; therefore the intellect of God, so far as it is conceived to constitute the divine essence, differs from our intellect both with regard to its essence and its existence, nor can it coincide with our intellect in anything except the name, which is what we essayed ta prove. The same demonstration may be applied to the will, as any one may easily see for himself. Prop. XVIII. — God is the immanent, and not the transitive1, cause of all things. Demonst. — All things which are, are in God and must be conceived through Him (Prop. 15), and therefore (Corol. 1, Prop. 16) He is the cause of the things which arc in Himself. This is the first thing which was to be proved. Moreover, outside God there can be no sub- 1 Transient, passing over and into from the outside. OF GOD. 23 stance (Prop. 14), that is to say (Def. 3), outside Him nothing can exist which is in itself. This was the second thing to be proved. God, therefore, is the immanent, but not the transitive cause of all things. — Q.E.D. Prop. XIX.— God is eternal, or, in other words, all His attributes are eternal. Demonst. — For God (Def. 6) is substance, which (Prop. 11) necessarily exists, that is to say (Prop. 7), a sub stance to whose nature it pertains to exist, or (which is the same thing) a substance from the definition of which it follows that it exists, and therefore (Def. 8) He is eternal. Again, by the attributes of God is to be understood that which (Def. 4) expresses the essence of the divine substance, that is to say, that which pertains to substance. It is this, I say, which the attributes them selves must involve. But eternity pertains to the nature of substance (Prop. 7). Therefore each of the attributes must involve eternity, and therefore all are eternal. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This proposition is as clear as possible, too, frorrxs the manner in which (Prop. II ) I have demonstrated the existence of God. From that demonstration I say it is plain that the existence of God, like His essence, is an eternal truth. Moreover (Prop. 1 9 of the " Principles of the Cartesian Philosophy"), I have demonstrated by another method the eternity of God, and there is no need to repeat the demonstration here. Prop. XX. — The existence of God and His essence are one and the same thing. God (Prop. 19) and all His attributes are eternal, that is to say (Def. 8), each one of His attributes expresses existence. The same attributes of God, there fore, which (Def. 4) manifest the eternal essence of God, at the same time manifest His eternal existence; that is to say, the ver)' same thing which constitutes the essence of 24 ETHIC. God constitutes at the same time His existence, and there fore His existence and His essence are one and the same thing.— q.e.d. Corol. i. — Hence it follows, I. That the existence of God, like His essence, is an eternal, truth. Corol. 2. — It follows, 2. That God is immutable, or (which is the same thing) all His attributes are immutable ; for if they were changed as regards their existence, they must be changed also as regards their essence (Prop. 20) ; that is to say (as is self-evident), from being true, they would become false, which is absurd. Prop. XXI. — All things which follow from the absolute nature of any attribute of God must for ever exist, and must be infinite ; that is to say, through tliat same attribute they are eternal and infinite. Demonst. — Conceive, if possible (supposing that the truth of the proposition is denied), that in some attribute of God something which is finite and has a determinate existence or duration follows from the absolute nature of that attribute ; for example, an idea of God in thought.1 But thought, since it is admitted to be an attribute of God, is necessarily (Prop. 1 1) in its nature infinite. But so far as it has the idea of God it is by supposition finite. But (Def. 2) it cannot be conceived as finite unless it be deter mined by thought itself. But it cannot be determined by thought itself so far as it constitutes the idea of God, for so far by supposition it is finite. Therefore it must bo determined by thought so far as it does not constitute the idea of God, but which, nevertheless (Prop. 1 1), neces sarily exists. Thought, therefore, exists which does not form the idea of God, and therefore from its nature, in so far as it is absolute thought, the idea of God does not necessarily follow (for it is conceived as forming and as 1 Not tho idea whioh man forms of God, but rather one of God's ideas. The original "idea Dei" admits either interpretation when taken without the context Tii. OF GOD. 25 not forming the idea of God), which is contrary to the hypothesis. Therefore, if an idea of God in thought, or anything else in any attribute of God, follow from the necessity of the absolute nature of that attribute (for the demonstration being universal will apply in every case), that thing must necessarily be infinite, which was the first thing to be proved. Again, that which thus follows from the necessity of the nature of any attribute cannot have a determinate duration. For, if the truth of this be denied, let it be supposed that in some attribute of God a thing exists which follows from the necessity of the nature of the attribute — for example, an idea of God in thought — and let it be supposed that at some time it has either not existed or will not exist. But since thought is supposed to be an attribute of God, it must exist both necessarily and unchangeably (Prop. 11, and Corol. 2, Prop. 20). Therefore, beyond the limits of the duration of the idea of God (for it is supposed that at some time it has either not existed or will not exist), thought must exist with out the idea of God ; but this is contrary to hypothesis, for the supposition is that thought being given, the idea of God necessarily follows. Therefore neither an idea of God in thought, nor anything else which necessarily follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God, can have a determinate duration, but through- the same attribute is eternal ; which was the second thing to be proved. Observe that what we have affirmed here is true of everything which in any attribute of God necessarily follows from the absolute nature of God. Prop. XXII. — Whatever follows from any attribute of God, in so far as it is modified by a modification which throwfh the same attribute exists necessarily and infi nitely, must also exist necessarily and infinitely. Demonst. — This proposition is demonstrated in tho same manner as the preceding proposition. 26 ETHIC. Prop. XXIII. — Every mode which exists necessarily and infinitely must necessarily follow either from the ab solute nature of some attnbute of God, or from some attribute modified by a modification which exists neces sarily and infinitely. Demonst.— -Mode is that which is in something else through which it must be conceived (Def. 5), that is to say (Prop. 15), it is in God alone and through God alone can be conceived. If a mode, therefore, be conceived to exist necessarily and to be infinite, its necessary existence and infinitude must be concluded from some attribute of God or perceived through it, in so far as it is con ceived to express infinitude and necessity of existence, that is to say (Def. 8), eternity, or, in other words (Def. 6 and Prop. 19), in so far as it is considered absolutely. A mode, therefore, which exists necessarily and infinitely must follow from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, either immediately (Prop. 21), or mediately through some modification following from His absolute nature, that is to say (Prop. 22), a modification which necessarily and infinitely exists. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXIV. — The essence of things produced by God does not involve existence. This is evident from the first Definition ; for that thing whose nature (considered, that is to say, in itself) involves existence, is the cause of itself and exists from tho necessity of its own nature alone. Corol. —Hence it follows that God is not only the cause of the commencement of the existence of things, but also of their continuance in existence, or, in other words (to use scholastic phraseology), God is the causa, fsscruli rcrum. For if we consider the essence of things, whether existing or non-existing, we discover that it neither involves existence nor duration, and therefore OF GOD. =7 the essence of existing things cannot be the cause of their existence nor of their duration, but God only is the cause, to whose nature alone existence pertains (Corol. I, Prop. 1 4). Prop. XXV. — God is not only the efficient cause of the existence of things, but also of their essence. Demonst. — Suppose that God is not the cause of the essence of things ; then (Ax. 4) the essence of things can be conceived without God, which (Prop. 15) is absurd. Therefore God is the cause of the essence of things. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This proposition more clearly follows from Prop. 16. For from this proposition it follows that, from the existence of the divine nature, both the essence of things and their existence must necessarily be con cluded, or, in a word, in the same sense in which God is said to be the cause of Himself He must be called the cause of all things. This will appear still more clearly from .the following corollary. Corol. — Individual things are nothing but affections or modes of God's attributes, expressing those attributes in a certain and determinate manner. This is evident from Prop. 15 and Def. 5. Prop. XXVI. — A thing which has been determined to any action was necessarily so determined by God, and that which has not been thus determined by God cannot determine itself to action. Demonst. — That by which things are said to be deter mined to any action is necessarily something positive (as is self-evident) ; and therefore God, from the neces sity of His nature, is the efficient cause both of its essence and of its existence (Props. 25 and 16), which was the first thing to be proved. From this also the second part 2S ETHIC. of the proposition follows most clearly. For if a thin- iwJ-Ti10! ^^ defcermined *y G°* could determine itself the first part of the proposition would be false shown SUPP°Se ^^ P0SSiWe iS aU absurdit^ as we ^va PROP. XXVII.—^ thing wUch has been determined by God to any action cannot render itself indeterminate. Demonst— This proposition is evident from the third Axiom. PROP. XXVIII.—^ individual thing, or a thing which is finite and which has a determinate existence, cannot exist nor be determined to action unless it be deter mined to existence and action by another cause which is also finite and has a determinate existence; and again, this cause cannot exist nor be determined to action unless by anotlier cause which is also finite and determined to existence and action, and so on ad infinitum. i?emOTlsi._Whatever is determined to existence and action is thus determined by God (Prop. 26 and Corol Prop. 24). But that which is finite and which has a de terminate existence could not be produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God, for whatever follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and eternal (Prop. 21). The finite and determinate must therefore follow from God, or from some attribute of God, m so far as the latter is considered to be affected by some mode, for besides substance and modes nothing exists (Ax. 1, and Defs. 3 and 5), and modes (Corol! Prop. 25) are nothing but affections of God's attributes. But the finite and determinate could not follow from God, or from any one of His attributes, so far as that attribute is affected with a modification which is eternal OF GOD. 29 and infinite (Prop. 22). It must, therefore, follow or be determined to existence and action by God, or by some attribute of God, in so far as the attribute is modified by a modification which is finite, and which has a determinate existence. This was the first thing to be proved. Again, this cause or this mode (by the same reasoning by which we have already demonstrated the first part of this proposition) must be determined by another cause, which is also finite, and which has a determinate existence, and this last cause (by the same reasoning) must, in its turn, be determined by another cause, and so on continually (by the same reasoning) ad infinitum. Sclwl. — Since certain things must have been immediately produced by God, that is to say, those which necessarily follow from His absolute nature ; these primary products being the mediating cause for those things which, never theless, without God can neither be nor can be conceived ; it follows, firstly, that of things immediately produced by God He is the proximate cause absolutely, and not in their own kind (in suo genere), as we say ; for effects of God can neither be nor be conceived without their cause (Prop. 1 5, and Corol. Prop. 24). It follows, secondly, that God cannot be properly called the remote cause of individual things, unless for the sake of distinguishing them from the things which He has immediately produced, or rather which follow from His absolute nature. For by a remote cause we under stand that which is in no way joined to its effect. But all things which are, are in God, and so depend upon Him that without Him they can neither be nor be con ceived. PROP. XXIX.— In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things arc determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and act in a certain manner 3° ETHIC. Demonst. — Whatever is, is in God (Prop. 1 5) ; but God cannot be called a contingent thing, for (Prop. 11) He exists necessarily and not contingently. Moreover, the modes of the divine nature have followed from it necessarily and not contingently (Prop. 16), and that, too, whether it be considered absolutely (Prop. 21), or as determined to action in a certain manner (Prop. 27). But God is the cause of these modes, not only in so far as they simply exist (Corol. Prop. 24), but also (Prop. 26) in so far as they are considered as determined to any action. And if they are not determined by God (by the same proposition), it is an impossibility and not a contingency that they should determine themselves ; and, on the other hand (Prop. 27), if they are determined by God, it is an impossibility and not a contingency that they should render themselves indeterminate. Where fore all things are determined from a necessit}- ol the divine nature, not only to exist, but to exist and act in a certain manner, and there is nothing contingent. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Before I go any farther, I wish here to explain, or rather to recall to recollection, what we mean by natura naturans and what by natura naturata.1 For, from what has gone before, I think it is plain that by natura naturans wc are to understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of substance which express eternal and infinite essence, that is to say (Corol. 1, Prop. 14, and Corol. 2, Prop. 1 7), God in so far as He is considered as a free cause. But by natura naturata I understand everything which follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any one of God's attributes, that is to say, all the modes of God's attributes in so far as they arc considered as 1 These are two expressions do- world, and yet at the same time to .rivi'd from a Kchohislic philosophy mark by a difTuienco of inflexion which strove to signify by the »aiito that there was not absolute identity. verb the oneness of God and the —Til. OF GOD. 3* things which are in God, and which without God can neither be nor can be conceived. Prop. XXX. — The actual intellect,1 whether finite or in finite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the affections of God, and nothing else. Demonst. — A true idea must agree with that of which it is the idea (Ax. 6), that is to say (as is self-evident), that which is objectively contained in the intellect must necessarily exist in nature. But in nature (Corol. 1, Prop. 14) only one substance exists, namely, God, and no affections (Prop. 15) excepting those which are in God, and which (by the same proposition) can neither be nor be conceived without God. Therefore the actual intellect, whether finite or infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the affections of God, and nothing else. — Q.K.D. Prop. XXXI. — The actual intellect, whether it be finite or infinite, together with the will, desire, love, &c., must be referred to the natura naturata and not to the natura naturans. Demonst. — For by the intellect (as is self-evident) we do not understand absolute thought, but only a certain mode of thought, which mode differs from other modes, such as desire, love, &c, and therefore (Def. 5) must be conceived through absolute thought, that is to say (Prop. 1 5 and Def. 6), it must be conceived through some attribute of God which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of thought in such a manner that without that attribute it can neither be nor can be conceived. There fore (Schol. Prop. 29) the actual intellect, &c, must be referred to tho natura naturata, and not to the natura naturans, in the same manner as all other modes of thought. — Q.E.D. 1 Distinguished from potential intellect, Scliol. 1'inp. 31. — Tu. 32 ETHIC. Scliol. — I do not here speak of the actual intellect because I admit that any intellect potentially exists, but because I wish, in order that there may be no con fusion, to speak of nothing excepting of that which we perceive with the utmost clearness, that is to say, the understanding itself, which we perceive as clearly as we perceive anything. For we can understand nothing through the intellect which does not lead to a more perfect knowledge of the understanding. Prop. XXXII. — The will cannot be called a free cause, but can only be called necessart/. Demonst. — The will is only a certain mode of thought, like the intellect, and therefore (Prop. 28) no volition can exist or be determined to action unless it be de termined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. And if the will be supposed infinite, it must be determined to existence and action by God, not in so far as He is substance absolutely infinite, but in so far as He possesses an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought (Prop. 23). In whatever way, therefore, the will be conceived, whether as finite or infinite, it requires a cause by which it may be determined to existence and action, and there fore (Def. 7) it cannot be called a free cause, but only necessary or compelled. — q.e.d. Corol. 1. — Hence it follows, firstly, that God does not act from freedom of the will. Corol. 2. — It follows, secondly, that will and intellect are related to the nature of God as motion and rest, and absolutely as all natural things, which (Prop. 29) must be determined by God to existence and action in a cer tain manner. For the will, like all other things, needs a cause by which it may be determined to existence and action in a certaih manner, and although from a given will or intellect infinite things may follow, God cannot OF GOD. 33 on this account be said to act from freedom of will, any more than He can be said to act from freedom of motion and rest by reason of the things which follow from motion and rest (for from motion and rest infinite numbers of things follow). Therefore, will does not appertain to the nature of God more thau other natural things, but is related to it as motion and rest and all other things are related to it ; these all following, as we have shown, from the ^cessity °L the divine. naturet and being determined to existence and action in a certain manner. * Prop. XXXIII. — Things could have been produced by God in no other manner and in no other order than that in which they have been produced. Demonst. — All things have necessarily followed from the given nature of God (Prop. 16), and from the neces sity of His nature have been determined to existence and action in a certain manner (Prop. 29). If, therefore, things could have been of another nature, or could have been determined in another manner to action, so that the order of nature would have been different, the nature of God might then be different to that which it now is, and hence (Prop. 1 1) that different nature would neces sarily exist, and there might consequently be two or more Gods, which (Corol. i, Prop. 14) is absurd. There fore, things could be produced by God in no other manner and in no other order than that in which they have been produced. — q.e.d. Schol. 1. — Since I have thus shown, with greater clear ness than that of noonday light, that in things there is absolutely nothing by virtue of which they can be called contingent, I wish now to explain in a few words what is to be understood by contingent, but firstly, what is to be understood by necessary and impossible. A thino- is called necessary either in reference to its essence or° its cause. For the existence of a thing necessarily follows c 34 ETHIC. either from the essence and definition of the thin- itself, or from a given efficient cause. In the same way a thing is said to be impossible either because the essence of the thing itself or its definition involves a contradiction, or because no external cause exists deter minate to the production of such a thing. But a tluno- cannot be called contingent unless with reference to a deficiency m our knowledge. For if we do not know that the essence of a thing involves a contradiction or if we actually know that it involves no contradiction and nevertheless we can affirm nothing with certainty about its existence because the order of causes is con cealed from us, that thing can never appear to us either as necessary or impossible, and therefore we call it either contingent or possible. Schol. 2.— From what has gone before it clearly follows that things have been produced by God in the hio-hest degree of perfection, since they have necessarily followed from the existence of a most perfect nature. Nor does this doctrine accuse God of any imperfection, but, on the contrary, His perfection has compelled us to affirm it Indeed, from its contrary would clearly follow, as I have shown above, that God is not absolutely perfect, since if things had been produced in any other fashion, another nature would have had to be assigned to Him, different from that which the consideration of the most perfect Bein- compels us to assign to Him. I do not doubt that many will reject this opinion as ridiculous, nor will they care to apply themselves to its consideration, and this from no other reason than that they have been in the habit of assigning to God another liberty widely different from that absolute will which (Def. 6) we have taught. On the other hand, I do not doubt, if they were willing to study the matter and properly to consider the series of our demonstrations, that they would altogether reject this liberty which they now assign to God, not only as of no value, but as a great obstacle to knowledge. 'Neither is OF GOD. 35 there any need that I should here repeat those things which are said in the scholium to Prop. 17. But for the sake of those who differ from me, I will here show that although it be granted that will pertains to God's essence, it follows nevertheless from His perfection that things could be created in no other mode or order by Him. This it will be easy to show if we first consider that which my opponents themselves admit, that it depends upon the decree and will of God alone that each thing should be what it is, for otherwise God would not bo the cause of all things. It is also admitted that all God's decrees were decreed by God Himself from all eternity, for otherwise imperfection and inconstancy would be proved against Him. But since in eternity there is no when nor before nor after, it follows from the perfection of God alone that He neither can decree nor ¦could ever have decreed anything else than that which He has decreed; that is to say, God has not existed before His decrees, and can never exist without them. But it is said that although it be supposed that God had made the nature of things different from that which it is, or that from eternity He had decreed something else about nature and her order, it would not thence follow that any imperfection exists in God. But if this be said, it must at the same time be allowed that God can change His decrees. For if God had decreed something about nature and her order other than that which He has decreed— that is to say, if He had willed and conceived something else about nature— He would necessarily have had an intellect and a will different from those which He now has. And if it be allowed to assign to God another intellect and another will without any change of His essence and of His perfections, what is the retiscn why He cannot now change His decrees about creation and neveithcless remain equally perfect ? For His intel lect and will regarding created things and their order remain the same in relationship to His essence end per- 36 ETHIC. fection in whatever manner His intellect and will are conceived. Moreover, all the philosophers whom I have seen admit that there is no such thing as.an intellect existing potentially in God, but only an intellect existing actually. But since His intellect and -His will are not distinguishable from His essence, as all admit, it follows from this also that if God had had another intellect actu ally and another will, His essence would have been neces sarily different, and hence, as I showed at the beginning,. if things had been produced by God in a manner different from that in which they now exist, God's intellect and will, that is to say, His essence (as has been granted),. must have been different, which is absurd. Since, therefore, things could have been produced by God in no other manner or order, this being a truth which follows from His absolute perfection, there is no sound reasoning which can persuade us to believe that God was unwilling to create all things which are in His intellect with the same perfection as that in which they exist in His intellect. But we shall be told that there is no perfection nor imperfection in things, but that that which is in them by reason of which they are perfect or imperfect and are said to be good or evil depends upon the will of God alone,. and therefore if God had willed He could have effected that that which is now perfection should have been the extreme of imperfectiou, and vice versa. But what else would this be than openly to affirm that God, who neces sarily understands what He wills, is able by His will to understand things in a manner different from that in which He understands them, which, as I have just shown, is a great absurdity ? I can therefore turn the argument on my opponents in this way. All things depend upon the power of God. In order that things may be differently constituted, it would be necessary that God's will should be differently constituted ; but God's will cannot be other than it in, as we have lately most clearly deduced from His perfection. Tilings therefore cannot be differently OF GOD. 37 constituted. I confess that this opinion, which subjects all things to a certain indifferent God's will, and affirms that all things depend upon God's good pleasure, is at a less distance from the truth than the opinion of those who affirm that God does everything for the sake of the •Good. For these seem to place something outside of God which is independent of Him, to which He looks while He is at work as to a model, or at which He aims as if at a certain mark. This is indeed nothing else than to subject God to fate, the most absurd thing which can be affirmed of Him whom we have shown to be the first and only free cause of the essence of all things as well as of their existence. Therefore it is not worth while that I should waste time in refuting this absurdity. Prop. XXXIV. — The power of God is His essence itself. Demonst. — From the necessity alone of the essence of God it follows that God is the cause of. Himself (Prop. 1 1), and (Prop. 16 and its Corol.) the cause of all things. Therefore the power of God, by which He Himself and all things are and act, is His essence itself. Q.E.D. Prop. XXXV. — Whatever we conceive to be in God's power necessarily exists. Demonst. — For whatever is in God's power must (Prop. 34) bo so comprehended in His essence that it necessarily follows from it, and consequently exists neces sarily. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXVI. — Nothing exists from whose nature an effect does not follow. Demonst. — Whatever exists expresses the nature or the essence of God in a certain and determinate manner 38 ETHIC. (Corol. Prop. 25); that is to say (Prop. 34), whatever exists expresses the power of God, which is the cause of all things, in a certain and determinate manner, and therefore (Prop. 16) some effect must follow from^it. APPENDIX I have now explained the nature of God and its pro perties. I have shown that He necessarily exists ; that He is one God; that from the necessity alone of His own nature He is and acts ; that He is, and in what way He is, the free cause of all things ; that ail things are in Him, and so depend upon Him that without Him they can neither be nor can be conceived ; and, finally, that all things have been predetermined by Him, not indeed from freedom of will or from absolute good pleasure, but , from His absolute nature or infinite power. *- Moreover, wherever an opportunity was afforded, I have endeavoured to remove prejudices which might hinder the perception of the truth of what I have demonstrated ; but because not a few still remain which have been and are now sufficient to prove a very great hindrance to the comprehension of the connection of things in the manner in which I have explained it, I have thought it worth while to call them up to be examined by reason. But all these prejudices which I here undertake to point out depend upon this solely : that it is commonly supposed that all things in nature, like men, work to some end -r and indeed it is thought to be certain that God Him self directs all things to some sure end, for it is said that God has made all things for man, and man that he may worship God. This, therefore, I will first investi gate by inquiring, firstly, why so many rest in this. prejudice, and why all are so naturally inclined to embrace it ? I shall then show its falsity, and, finally, the manner in which there have arisen from it pre- OP GOD. 39 judices concerning good and evil, merit and sin, praise and blame, order and disorder, beauty and deformity, and so forth. This, however, is not the place to de duce these things from the nature of the human mind. It will be sufficient if I here take as an axiom that which no one ought to dispute, namely, that man is born igno rant of the causes of things, and that he has a desire, of which he is conscious, to seek that which is profitable to him. From this it follows, firstly, that he thinks himself free because he is conscious of his wishes and appetites, whilst at the same time he is ignorant of the causes by which he is led to wish and desire, not dreaming what they are ; and, secondly, it follows that man does everything for an end, namely, for that which is profitable to him, which is what he seeks. Hence it happens that he attempts to discover merely the final causes of that which has happened; and when he has heard them he is satisfied, because there is no longer any cause for further uncertainty. But if he cannot hear from another what these final causes are, nothing remains but to turn to himself and reflect upon the ends which usually determine him to the like actions, and thus by his own mind he necessarily judges that of another. Moreover, since he discovers, both within and without himself, a multitude of means which contribute not a little to the attainment of what is profitable to himself — for example, the eyes, which are useful for seeing, the teeth for mastication, plants and animals for nourish ment, the sun for giving light, the sea for feeding fish, &c. — it comes to pass that all natural objects are con sidered as means for obtaining what is profitable. Theso too being evidently discovered and not created by man, hence he has a cause for believing that some other per son exists, who has prepared them for man's use. For having considered them as means it was impossible to believe that they had created themselves, and so he was obliged to infer from the means which he was in 40 ETHIC. the habit of providing for himself that some ruler or rulers of nature exist, endowed with human liberty who have taken care of all things for him, and have made all things for his use. Since he never heard any thing about the mind of these rulers, he was compelled to judge of it from his own, and hence he affirmed that the gods direct everything for his .advantage, in order that he may be bound to them and hold them in the highest honour. This is the reason why each man has devised for himself, out of his own brain, a different mode of worshipping God, so that God might love him above others, and direct all nature to the service of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus has this prejudice been turned into a superstition and has driven deep roots into the mind— a prejudice which was the reason why every one has so eagerly tried to discover and explain the final causes of things. The attempt, however, to show that nature does nothing in vain (that is to say, nothing which is not profitable to man), seems to end in showing that nature, the gods, and man are alike mad. Do but see, I pray, to what all this has led. Amidst so much in nature that is beneficial, not a few things must have been observed which are injurious, such as°storms, earthquakes, diseases, and it was affirmed that these things happened either because the gods were angry because of wrongs which had been inflicted on them°by man, or because of sins committed in the method of wor shipping them ; and although experience daily contradicted \ this, and showed by an infinity of examples that both the I beneficial and the injurious were indiscriminately bestowed on the pious and the impious, the inveterate prejudices on this point have not therefore been abandoned. For it was much easier for a man to place tlie.se things asiilo with others of the use of which be was ignorant, and thus retain his present and inborn state of ignorance, than to destroy the whole superstructure and think out a new OF GOD. 4' one. Hence it was looked upon as indisputable that the judgments of the gods far surpass our comprehension; and this opinion alone would have been sufficient to keep the human race in darkness to all eternity, if mathematics, which does not deal with ends, but with the essences and properties of forms, had not placed before us another rule of truth. In addition to mathematics, other causes also might be assigned, which it is super fluous here to enumerate, tending to make men reflect upon these universal prejudices, and leading them to a true knowledge of things. I have thus sufficiently explained what I promised in the first place to explain. There will now be no need of many words to show that nature has set no end before herself, and that all final causes are nothing but human fictions. For I believe that this is sufficiently evident both from the foundations and causes of this prejudice and from Prop. 16 and Corol. Prop. 32, as well as from all those propositions in which I have shown that all things are begotten by a certain eternal necessity of nature and in absolute perfection. Thus much, never theless, I will add, that this doctrine concerning an end altogether overturns nature. For that which is in truth the cause it considers as the effect, and vice versa. Again that which is first in nature it puts last ; and, finally, that which is supreme and most perfect it makes the most imperfect. For (passing by the first two assertions as self- evident) it is plain from Props. 21, 22, and 23, that that effect is the most perfect which is immediately produced by God, and in proportion as intermediate causes are necessary for the production of a thing is it imperfect. i»ut if things which are immediately produced by God were made in order that He might obtain the eml Ho had m view, then the last things for the sal™ of which the first exist, must be the most perfect of all. A»ain this doctrine does away with God's perfection. For if God works to obtain an end, He necessarily seeks somethii," 42 ETHIC. of which he stands in need. And although theologians and metaphysicians distinguish between the end of want and the end of assimilation (finem indigentia et finem assimilationis), they confess that God has done all things for His own sake, and not for the sake of the things to be oreated, because before the creation they can assign nothing excepting God for the sake of which God could do anything; and therefore they are necessarily com pelled to admit that God stood in need! of and desired those things for which He determined tc/ prepare means. Thia ift .sell'-evideiil,. Nor in it here tod>n winch they rely in arguing or in defending Llioir anllmiil.y, in taken away also. But theso things I lcavo and pium on to that which I determined to do in the third place. After man has persuaded himself that all things which exist are made for him, he must in everything adjudge that to be of the greatest importance which is most use ful to him, and he must esteem that to be of surpass ing worth by which he is most beneficially affected. In this way he is compelled to form those notions by which he explains nature; such, for instance, as good, evil,] order, confusion, heat, cold, beauty, and deformity, &c. ; j and because he supposes himself to be free, notions like • those of praise and blame, sin and merit, have arisen, j These latter I shall hereafter explain when I have treated of human nature ; the former I will here briefly unfold. It is to be observed that man has given the name; good to everything which leads to health and the wor- 1 ship of God; on the contrary, everything which does; not lead thereto he calls evil. But because those who do not understand nature affirm nothing about things them selves, but only imagine them, and take the imagination to be understanding, they therefore, ignorant of things and their nature, firmly believe an order to be in things ; for when things are so placed that, if they are repre sented to us through the senses, we can easily imagine 44 ETHIC. them, and consequently easily remember them, we call them well arranged ; but if they are not placed so that we can imagine and remember them, we call them badly arranged or confused. Moreover, since those things are more especially pleasing to us which we can easily imagine, men therefore prefer order to confusion, as if order were something in nature apart from our own imagination ; and they say that God has created every thing in order, and in this manner they ignorantly attribute imagination to God, unless they mean perhaps that God, out of consideration for the human imagina tion, has disposed things in the manner in which they can most easily be imagined. No hesitation either seems to be caused by the fact that an infinite number of things are discovered which far surpass our imagina tion, and very many which confound it through its weak ness. But enough of this. The other notions which I i have mentioned are nothing but modes in which the imagination is affected in different ways, and nevertheless they are regarded hy the ignorant as being specially attributes of things, because, as we have remarked, men consider all things as made for themselves, and call the nature of a thing good, evil, sound, putrid, or corrupt, just as they are affected by it. For example, if the motion by which the nerves are affected by means of objects represented to the eye conduces to well-being, the objects by which it is caused are called beautiful; while those exciting a contrary motion are called de formed. Those things, too, which stimulate the senses through the nostrils are called sweet-smelling or stink- in" ; those which act through the taste are called sweet or bitter, full-flavoured or insipid ; those which act through the touch, hard or soft, heavy or light ; those, lastly, which act through the ears are said to make a noise, sound, or harmony, the last having caused meu to lose their senses to such a degree that they have believed that God even is delighted with it. Indeed, philosophers OF GOD. 45 may be found who have persuaded themselves that the celestial motions beget a harmony. All these things sufficiently show that every one judges things by the constitution of his brain, or rather accepts the affec tions of his imagination in the place of things. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, as we may ob serve in passing, that all those controversies which we see have arisen amongst men, so that at last scepticism has been the result. For although human bodies agree in many things, they differ in more, and therefore that which to one person is good will appear to another evil, that which to one is well arranged to another is con fused, that which pleases one will displease another, and so on in other cases which I pass by both because we cannot notice them at length here, and because they are within the experience of every one. For every one has heard the expressions : So many heads, so many ways of thinking; Every one is satisfied with his own way of thinking ; Differences of brains are not less common than differences of taste; — all which maxims show that men decide upon matters according to the constitution of their brains, and imagine rather than understand things. If men understood things, they would, as mathe matics prove, at least be all alike convinced if they were not all alike attracted. We see, therefore, that all thosef methods by which the common people are in the habit; of explaining nature are only different sorts of imagina-j tions, and do not reveal the nature of anything in itself,; but only the constitution of the imagination ; and be-j cause they have names as if they were entities existing apart from the imagination, I call them entities not of the reason but of the imagination. All argument, therefore, urged against us based upon such notions can be easily refuted. Many people, for instance, are accus tomed to argue thus :— If all things have followed from the necessity of the most perfect nature of God, how is it that so many imperfections have arisen in nature— cor- 46 ETHIC. ruption, for instance, of things till they stink ; deformity, exciting disgust ; confusion, evil, crime, &c. ? But, as I \ have just observed, all this is easily answered. For the I perfection of things is to be judged by their nature and power alone ; nor are they more or less perfect because they delight or offend the human senses, or because they are beneficial or prejudicial to human nature. But to those who ask why God has not created all men in such a manner that they might be controlled by the dictates of reason alone, I give but this answer : Because to Him material was not wanting for the creation of everything, from the highest down to the very lowest grade of perfection ; or, to speak more properly, because the laws of His nature were so ample that they sufficed for the production of everything which can be con- eeived by an infinite intellect, as I have demonstrated in Prop. 1 6. These are the prejudices which I undertook to notice here. If any others of a similar character remain, they can easily be rectified with a little thought by any one. END OF THE FIRST PART. ( 47 ) ETHIC. Seconn $ai*t. OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. I pass on now to explain those things which must neces sarily follow from the essence of God or the Being eternal and infinite ; not indeed to explain all these tilings, for we have demonstrated (Prop. 16, pt. i) that an infini tude of things must follow in an infinite number of ways, —but to consider those things only which may conduct us as it were by the hand to a knowledge of the buman mind and its highest happiness. Definitions. I. By body, I understand a mode which expresses in a certain and determinate manner the essence of God in so far as He is considered as the thing extended. (See Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1.) II. I say that to the essence of anything pertains that, which being given, the thing itself is necessarily posited, and being taken away, the thing is necessarily taken ; or, in other words, that, without which the tliin<- can neither be nor be conceived, and which in its turn cannot be nor be conceived without the thing. III. By idea, I understand a conception of the mind which the mind forms because it is a thinking thing. Explanation. — I use the word conception rather °than perception because the name perception seems to indicate 48 ETHIC. that the mind is passive in its relation to the object. But the word conception seems to express the action of the mind. IV. By adequate idea, I understand an idea which, in so far as it is considered in itself, without reference to the object, has all the properties or internal signs (denominationes intrinsecas) of a true idea. Explanation. — I say internal, so as to exclude that which is external,. the agreement, namely, of the idea with its object. V. Duration is the indefinite continuation of existence. Explanation. — I cnll it indefinite because it cannot be determined by the nature itself of the existing thing nor by the efficient cause, which necessarily posits the exist ence of the thing but does not take it away. VI. By reality and perfection I understand the same- thing. VII. By individual things I understand things which are finite and which have a determinate existence ; and if a number of individuals so unite in one action that they are all simultaneously the cause of one effect, I consider them all, so far, as a one individual thing. Axioms. I. The essence of man does not involve necessary existence ; that is to say, the existence as well as the non-existence of this or that man may or may not follow from the order of nature. II. Man thinks. III. Modes of thought, such as love, desire, or the affections of the mind, by whatever name they may be called, do not exist, unless in the same individual the idea exist of a thing loved, desired, &c. But the idea may exist although no other mode of thinking exist. IV. We perceive that a certain body is affected in many ways. V. No individual things are felt or perceived by us excepting bodies and modes of thought. The postulates will be found after Proposition 13. THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 49 Prop. I. — Tliought is an attribute of God, or God is a, thinking thing. Demonst. — Individual thoughts, or this and that thought, are modes which express the nature of God in a certain and determinate manner (Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1). God therefore possesses an attribute (Def. 5, pt. 1), the conception of which is involved in all indi vidual thoughts, and through which they are conceived. Thought, therefore, is one of the infinite attributes of God which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of God (Def. 6, pt. 1), or, in other words, God is a thinking thing. — q.e.d. Schol. — This proposition is plain from the fact that we can conceive an infinite thinking Being. For the more things a thinking being can think, the more reality or perfection we conceive it to possess, and therefore the being which can think an infinitude of things in infinite ways is necessarily infinite by his power of thinking. Since, therefore, we can conceive an infinite Being by attending to thought alone, thought is neces sarily one of the infinite attributes of God (Defs. 4 and 6, pt. 1), which is the proposition we wished to prove. Prop. II. — Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing. Demonst. — The demonstration of this proposition is of the same character as that of the last. Prop. III. — In God there necessarily exists the idea of His essence, and of all things which necessarily follow from His essence. Demonst.— For God (Prop. 1, pt. 2) can think an infinitude of things in infinite ways, or (which is the same thing, by Prop. 16, pt. 1) can form an idea of His essence and of all the things which necessarily follow from it. But everything which is in the power of God D 5° ETHIC. is necessary (Prop. 35, pt 1), and therefore this idea necessarily exists, and (Prop. 15, pt. 1) it cannot exist unless in God. Schol. — The common people understand by God's power His free will and right over all existing things, which are therefore commonly looked upon as contingent ; for they say that God has the power of destroying every thing and reducing it to nothing. They very frequently, too, compare God's power with the power of kings. That there is any similarity between the two we have disproved in the first and second Corollaries of Prop. 3 2, pt. 1 , and in Trop. 16, pt. 1, we have shown that God does everything with that necessity with which He understands Himself; that is to say, as it follows from the necessity of the divine nature that God understands Himself (a truth admitted by all), so by the same necessity it follows that God does an infinitude of things in infinite ways. Moreover, in Prop. 34, pt. 1, we have shown that the power of God is no thing but the active essence of God, and therefore it is as impossible for us to conceive that God does not act as that He does not exist. If it pleased me to go farther, I could show besides that the power which the common people ascribe to God is not only a human power (which shows that they look upon God as a man, or as being like a man), but that it also involves weak ness. But I do not care to talk so much upon the same subject. Again and again I ask the reader to consider and reconsider what is said upon this subject in the first part, from Prop. 16 to the end. For it is not pos sible for any one properly to understand the things which I wish to prove unless he takes great care not to confound the power of God with the human power and right of kings. PliOP. IV — The idea of God,1 from which infinite numbers of things follow in infinite, ways, can be one only. Dcmo7ist. — The infinite intellect comprehends nothing 1 Or God's idea ( Idea Dei), see p. 24. Th, ¦ © THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OP THE MIND "but the attributes of God and His affections (Prop. 30, pt. 1). But God is one (Corol. 1, Prop. 14, pt. 1). Therefore the idea of God, from which infinite numbers of things follow in infinite ways, can be one only. — Q.E.D. .PROP. V. — The formal Being of ideas recognises God for its cause in so far only as He is considered as a thinking thing, and not in so far as He is manifested by any other attribute ; that is to say, the ideas both of God's attributes and of individual things do not recognise as tJieir efficient cause the objects of the ideas or tlic things which arc perceived, but God Himself in so far as He is a thinking thing. Demonst. — This is plain, from Prop. 3, pt. 2 ; for we there demonstrated that God can form an idea of His own essence, and of all things which necessarily follow from it, solely because He is a thinking thing, and not because He is the object of His idea. Therefore the formal Being of ideas recognises God as its cause in so far as He is a thinking thing. But the proposition can be proved in another way. The formal Being of ideas is a mode of thought (as is self-evident) ; that is to say, (Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1), a mode which expresses in a certain manner the nature of God in so far as He is a thinking thing. It is a mode, therefore (Prop. 10, pt. 1), that involves the conception of no other attribute of God, and consequently is the effect (Ax. 4, pt. 1) of no other attribute except that of thought ; therefore the formal Being of ideas, &c. — q.e.d. Prop. VI. — The modes of any attribute have God for a cause only in so far as He is considered under that attribute of jvhich they are modes, and not in so far as He is considered under any other attribute. Demonst. — Each attribute is conceived by itself and without any other (Prop. 10, pt. 1). Therefore the modes of any attribute involve the conception of that 5** ETHIC. attribute and of no other, and therefore (Ax. 4, pt. 1) have God for a cause in so far as He is considered under that attribute of which they are modes, and not so far as He is considered under any other attribute. — Q.KD. Corol. — Hence it follows that the formal Being of things which are not modes of thought does not follow from the divine nature because of His prior knowledge of these things, but, as we have shown, just as ideas- follow from the attribute of thought, in the same manner and with the same necessity the objects of ideas follow and are concluded from their attributes. Prop. VII. — The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. This is evident from Ax. 4, pt. I. For the idea of anything caused depends upon a knowledge of the cause of which the thing caused is the effect. Corol. — Hence it follows that God's power of thinking is equal to His actual power of acting ; that is to say,. whatever follows formally from the infinite nature of God, follows from the idea of God [idea Dei], in the same order and in the same connection objectively in God. Schol. — Before we go any farther, we must here recall to our memory what we have already demonstrated, that everything which can be perceived by the infinite in tellect as constituting the essence of substance pertains- entirely to the one sole substance only, and consequently that substance thinking and substance extended are one and the same substance, which is now comprehended under this attribute and now under that. Thus, also, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one ami the same thing expressed in two different ways — a truth which some of the Hebrews appear to have seen as if through a cloud, since they say that God, the intellect of God, and the things which are tho objects of that intellect are one and the same thing. For example, THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 53 the circle existing in nature and the idea that is in God of an existing circle are one and the same thing, which is manifested through different attributes; and, therefore, whether we think of nature under the attribute of ex tension, or under the attribute of thought, or under any ¦other attribute whatever, we shall discover one and the same order, or one and the same connection of causes; that is to say, in every case the same sequence of things. Nor have I had any other reason for saying that God is the cause of the idea, for example, of the circle in so far only as He is a thinking thing, and of the circle itself in so far as He is an extended thing, but this, that the formal Being of the idea of a circle can only be perceived through another mode of thought, as its proxi mate cause, and this again must be perceived through another, and so on ad infinitum. So that when things are considered as modes of thought, we must explain the •order of the whole of nature or the connection of causes by the attribute of thought alone, and when things are considered as modes of extension, the order of the whole of nature must be explained through the attribute of extension alone, and so with other attributes. Therefore God is in truth the cause of things as they are in them selves in so far as He consists of infinite attributes, nor for the present can I explain the matter more clearly. Prop VIII. — The ideas of non-existent individual things or modes are comprehended in the infinite idea of God, in the same way that the formal essences of individual things or modes are contained in the attributes of God. Demonst. — This proposition is evident from the pre ceding proposition, but is to be understood more clearly from the preceding scholium. Corol. — Hence it follows that when individual things >do not exist unless in so far as they are comprehended iu 54 ETHIC. the attributes of God, their objective Being or ideas do not exist unless in so far as the infinite idea of God exists ;. and when individual things are said to exist, not only in so far as they are included in God's attributes, but in so far as they are said to have duration, their ideas- involve the existence through which they are said to have duration. Srhol... -Tf any one desires an instance in order that wIih I, 1 have said may be more fully understood, I cannot give one which will adequately explain what I have been saying, since an exact parallel does not exist: never theless, I will endeavour to give as good an illustration as can be found. The circle, for example, possesses this property, that the rectangles contained by the segments of all straight lines cutting one another in the same circle are equal ; therefore in a circle there is contained an infinite number of rectangles equal to one another, but none of them can be said to exist unless in so far as the circle' exists, nor can the idea of any one of these rectangles be- said to exist unless in so far as it is comprehended in the idea of the circle. Out of this infinite number of rect angles, let two only, E and D, be conceived to exist. The ideas of these two rectangles do not now exist merely in so far as they are comprehended in the idea of the circle, but because they involve the existence of their rect angles, and it is this which distin guishes them from the other ideas- of the other rectangles. PROP. IX. — The idea of an individual thing actually existing has God for a cause, not in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He is considered to be affected by another idea of an individual thing' THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 55 actually existing, of which idea also He is the cause in so far as He is affected by a third, and so on ad infinitum. Demonst. — The idea of any individual thing actually existing is an individual mode of thought, and is distinct from other modes of thought (Corol. and Schol. Prop. 8, pt. 2), and therefore (Prop. 6, pt. 2) has God for a cause in so far only as He is a thinking thing ; not indeed as a thinking thing absolutely (Prop. 28, pt. 1), but iu so far as He is considered as affected by another mode of thought. Again, He is the cause of this latter mode of thought in so far as He is considered as affected by another, and so on ad infinitum. But the order and connection of ideas (Prop. 7, pt. 2) is the same as the order and connection of causes ; therefore every individual idea has for its cause another idea, that is te say, God in so far as He is affected by another idea; while of this second idea God is again the cause in the same way, and so on ad infinitum. — Q.E.D. Corol. — A knowledge of everything which happens in the individual object of any idea exists in God in so far only as He possesses the idea of that object. Demonst. — The idea of everything which happens in the object of any idea exists in God (Prop. 3, pt. 2), not in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He is con sidered as affected by another idea of an individual thing (Prop. 9, pt. 2) ; but (Prop. 7, pt. 2) the order and con nection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things, and therefore the knowledge of that which happens in any individual object will exist in God in so far only as He has the idea of that object. Prop. X. — Tlie Being of substance does not pertain to the essence of man, or, in other words, substance does not constitute the form of man. 56 ETHIC. Demonst. — The Being of substance involves necessary existence (Prop. 7, pt. 1). If, therefore, the Being of substance pertained to the essence of man, the existence of man would necessarily follow from the existence of substance (Def. 2, pt. 2), and consequently he would necessarily exist, which (Ax. 1, pt. 2) is an absurdity. Therefore the Being of substance does not pertain, &c. — Q.KD.Schol. — This proposition may be demonstrated from Prop. 5, pt. 1, which proves that there are not two sub stances of the same nature. For since it is possible for more, men than 0110 to exist, therefore that which consti tutes the form of man is not the Being of substance. This proposition is evident also from the other properties of substance ; as, for example, that it is by its nature infinite, immutable, indivisible, &c, as any one may easily see. [ Corol. — Hence it follows that the essence of man con- l sists of certain modifications of the attributes of God; for the Being of substance does not pertain to the essence of man (Prop. 10, pt. 2). It is therefore some thing (Prop. 15, pt. 1) which is in God, and which without God can neither be nor be conceived, or (Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1) an affection or mode which expresses the nature of God in a certain and determinate manner. Schol. — Every one must admit that without God nothing can be nor be conceived ; for every one admits that God is the sole cause both of the essence and of the existence of all things ; that is to say, God is not only the cause of things, to use a common expression, secundum fieri, but also secundum esse. But many people say that that pertains to the essence of a thing without which the thing can neither be nor can be conceived, and they there fore believe either that the nature of God belongs to the essence of created things, or that created things can be or can be conceived without God; or, which is THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 57 more probable, there is no consistency in their thought. I believe that the cause of this confusion is that they have not observed a proper order of philosophic study. For although the divine nature ought to be studied first, because it is first in the order of knowledge and in the ¦order of things, they think it last ; while, on the other hand, those things which are called objects of the senses are believed to stand before everything else. Hence it has come to pass that there was nothing of which men thought less than the divine nature while they have been°studying natural objects, and when they afterwards applied themselves to think about God, there was nothing of which they could think less than those prior fictions upon which they had built their knowledge of natural things, for these fictions could in no way help to the knowledge of the divine nature. It is no wonder, there fore, if we find them continually contradicting themselves. But this I pass by. For my only purpose was to give a reason why I did not say that that pertains to the essence of a thing without which the thing can neither be nor can be conceived ; and my reason is, that indivi dual things cannot be nor be conceived without God, and yet God does not pertain to their essence. I have rather, therefore, said that the essence of a thing is necessarily that which being given, the thing is posited, and being taken away, the thing is taken away, or that without which the thing can neither be nor be conceived, and which in its turn cannot be nor be conceived with- eut the thing. Prop. XL— The first thing which forms the actual Being of the human mind is nothing else than the idea of an individual thing actually existing. Demonst. — The essence of man is formed (Corol. Prop. 10, pt. 2) by certain modes of the attributes of God, that is to say (Ax. 2, pt. 2), modes of thought, the 58 ETHIC. idea of all of them being prior by nature to the modes of thought themselves (Ax. 3,pt. 2) ; and if this idea exists, other modes (which also have an idea in nature prior, to them) must exist in the same individual likewise (Ax. 3, pt. 2). Therefore an idea is the first thing which forms the Being of the human mind. But it is not the idea of a non-existent thing, for then the idea itself (Corol. Prop. 8, pt. 2) could not be said to exist. It will, there fore, be the idea of something actually existing. Neither will it be the idea of an infinite thing, for an infinite thing must always necessarily exist (Props. 21 and 22, pt. I), and this (Ax. 1, pt. 2) is absurd. Therefore the first thing which forms the actual Being of the human mind is the idea of an individual thing actually existing. — Q.E.D. Corol— Hence it follows that the human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God, and therefore, when we say that the human mind perceives this or that thing, we say nothing else than that God has this or that idea ; not indeed in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He is manifested through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as He forms the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not merely in so far as He forms the nature of the human mind, but in so far as He has at the same time with the human mind the idea also of another thing, then we say that the human mind perceives the thing partially or inadequately. gc]l0L — At this point many of my readers will no doubt stick fast, and will think of many things which will cause delay ; and I therefore beg of them to advance slowly, step by step, with me, and not to pronounce judgment until they shall have read everything which I have to say. Prop. XII. — Whatever hapipcns in the object of the idea constituting the human mind must be perceived by the human mind ; or, in other words, an idea of that THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 5*> thing will necessarily exist in the human mind That is to say, if the object of the idea constituting the human mind be a body, nothing can Mppen %% that body which is not perceived by the mind. Demonst.-The knowledge of everything which happen* in the object of any idea necessarily exists in God (Coroh Prop. 9. Pt- 2). « so far as He is considered as affec ed with the idea of that object; that is to say (Proi > 1 ; pt. 2), in so far as He forms the mind of any being The knowledge, therefore, necessarily exists in God ot everything which happens in the object of the idea con stituting the human mind ; that is to say 1 " ex^ ^ m Him in so far as He forms the nature of the human mind ; or, in other words (Corol. Prop. 1 1 , pt 2), the knowledge of this thing will necessarily be m the mmd, or the mind perceives it. — Q.e.d. Schoi-This proposition is plainly deducible and easily to be understood from Schol. Prop. 7» Pfc- 2> t(> which the reader is referred. Prop XIII —The object of the idea constituting the human 'mind is a body, or a certain mode of extension actually existing, and nothing else. Demonst.— For if the body were not the object of the human mind, the ideas of the affections of the body would not be in God (Corol. Prop. 9. pt- 2)m so far as He has formed our mind, but would be m Him in so far as He has formed the mind of another thing ; that is to say (Corol. Prop. 11, pt 2), the ideas of the affec ions of the body would not be in our mmd. But (Ax. 4 pt. ,) we have ideas of the affections of a body; therefore the object of the idea constituting the human mmd is a body, and that too (Prop. II, pt. 2) actually existing. A-ain, if there were also any other object of the mind be sides a body, since nothing exists from which some effec does not follow (Prop. 36, pt. 1), the idea of some effect €o ETHIC. produced by this object would necessarily exist in our mind (Prop. 1 1, pt. 2). But (Ax. 5, pt. 2) there is no such idea, and therefore the object of our mind is a body existing, and nothing else. — q.e.d. Corol— Hence it follows that man is composed of mind and body, and that the human body exists as we perceive it. ScJwl — Hence we see not only that the human mind is united to the body, but also what is to be understood by the union of the mind and body. But no one can understand it adequately or distinctly without know ing adequately beforehand the nature of our body; for those things which we have proved hitherto are altogether general, nor do they refer more to man thau to other individuals, all of which are animate, although in different degrees. For of everything there necessarily exists in God an idea of which He is the cause, in the same way as the idea of the human body exists in Him ; and therefore everything that we have said of the idea of the human body is necessarily true of the idea of any other thing. We cannot, however, deny that ideas, like objects themselves, differ from one another, and that one is more excellent and contains more reality than another, just as the object of one idea is more excel lent and contains more reality than another. There fore, in order to determine the difference between the human mind and other things and its superiority over them, we must first know, as we have said, the nature of its object, that is to say, the nature of the human body. I am not able to explain it here, nor is such an explanation necessary for what I wish to demon strate. Tims much, nevertheless, I will say generally, that in proportion as one body is better adapted than another to do or suffer many things, in the same proportion will the mind at the same time be better adapted to perceive many things, and the more the actions of a THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 61 body depend upon itself alone, and the less other bodies co-operate with it in action, the better adapted will the mind be for distinctly understanding. We can thus determine the superiority of one mind to another; we can also see the reason why we have only a very confused knowledge of our body, together with many other things which I shall deduce in what follows. For this reason I have thought it worth while more accurately to explain and demonstrate the truths just mentioned, to which end it is necessary for me to say beforehand a few words upon the nature of bodies. Axiom i. — All bodies .are either in a state of motion or rest. Axiom 2. — Every body moves, sometimes slowly, some times quickly. Lemma I. — Bodies are distinguished from one anotlier in respect of motion and rest, quickness and slowness, and not in respect of substance. Demonst. — I suppose the first part of this proposition to be self-evident. But it is plain that bodies are not distinguished in respect of substance, both from Prop. 5, pt. 1, and Prop. 8, pt. 1, and still more plainly from what I have said in the scholium to Prop. 15, pt. 1. Lemma II. — All bodies agree in some respects. Demonst. — For all bodies agree in this, that they involve the conception of one and the same attribute (Def. 1, pt. 2). They have, moreover, this in common, that they are capable generally of motion and of rest, and of motion at one time quicker and at another slower. Lemma III. — A body in motion or at rest must be. deter mined to motion or rest by another body, which was •S3 ETHIC. also determined to motion or rest by another, and that in its turn by another, and so on ad infinitum. Demonst. — Bodies (Def. i,pt. 2) are individual things, which (Lem. 1) are distinguished from one another in respect of motion and rest, and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 1) each one must necessarily be determined to motion or rest by another individual thing; that is to say (Prop. 6» Pt- 1), by another body which (Ax. 1) is also either in motion or at rest. But this body, by the same reasoning, could not be in motion or at rest unless it had been determined to motion or rest by another body, and this again, by the same reasoning, must have been determined by a third, and so on ad infinitum. — q.e.d. Corol. — Hence it follows that a body in motion will continue in motion until it be determined to a state of rest by another body, and that a body at rest will con tinue at rest until it be determined to a state of motion by another body. This indeed is self-evident. For if I suppose that a body, A, for example, is at rest, if I pay no regard to other bodies in motion, I can say nothing about the body A except that it is at rest. If it should afterwards happen that the body A should move, its motion could not certainly be a result of its former rest, for from its rest nothing could follow than that the body A should remain at rest. If, on the other hand, A bo supposed to be in motion, so long as we regard A alone, the only thing we can affirm about it is that it moves. If it should afterwards happen that A should be at rest, the rest could not certainly be a result of the former motion, for from its motion nothing could follow but that A should move ; the rest must therefore be a result of something which was not in A, that is to say, of an external cause by which it was determined to rest. Axiom i . — All the modes by which one body is affected THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 63 by another follow from the nature of the body affected, and at the same time from the nature of the affecting body, so that one and the same body may be moved in different ways according to the diversity of the nature of the moving bodies, and, on the other hand, different bodies may be moved in different ways by one and the same body. Axiom 2. — When a body in motion strikes against another which is at rest and immovable, it is reflected, in order that it may continue its motion, and the angle of the line of reflected motion with the plane of the body at rest against which it struck will be equal to the angle which the line of the motion of incidence makes with the same plane. Thus much for simplest bodies which are distinguished from one another by motion and rest, speed and slowness alone; let us now advance to composite bodies. Def. — When a number of bodies of the same or of different magnitudes are pressed together by others, so that they lie one upon the other, or if they are in motion with the same or with different degrees of speed, so that they communicate their motion to one another in a certain fixed proportion, these bodies are said to be mutually united, and taken altogether they are said to compose one body or individual, which is distinguished from other bodies by this union of bodies. Axiom 3. — Whether it is easy or difficult to force the parts composing an individual to change their situation, and consequently whether it is easy or difficult for the individual to change its shape, depends upon whether the parts of the individual or of the compound body lie with less, or whether they lie with greater surfaces upon one another. Hence bodies whose parts lie upon each other with greater surfaces I will call hard ; those soft, whose 64 ETHIC. parts lie on one another with smaller surfaces ; and those fluid, whose parts move amongst each other. Lemma IV.— 7/ a certain: number of bodies be separated from the body or individual which is composed of a number of bodies, and if their place be supplied by the same number of other bodies of the same nature, the individual will retain the nature which it had before witliout any change of form. Demonst— Bodies are not distinguished in respect of substance (Lcm. i) ; but that which makes the form of an individual is the union of bodies (by the preced ing definition). This form, however (by hypothesis), is retained, although there may be a continuous change of the bodies. The individual, therefore, will retain its nature, with regard both to substance and to mode, as before. Lemma V — If the parts composing an individual become greater en- less proportionately, so tliat they preserve towards one another the same kind of motion and rest, the individual will also retain the nature which it had before without any change of form. Demonst. — The demonstration is of the same kind as. that immediately preceding. Lemma VI. — If any number of bodies composing an indi vidual are compelled to divert into one direction the. motion they previously had in another, but are nevertheless able to continue and reciprocally com municate their motions in the same manner as before, the individual will then retain its nature without any change of form. Demonst. — This is self-evident, for the individual is supposed to retain everything which, according to the- definition, constitutes its form. THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 65 Lemma VII. — The individual thus composed will, moreover, retain its nature wliether it move as a whole or be at rest, or whetlier it move in this or that direction, pro vided that each part retain its own motion and com municate it as before to the rest. Demonst. — The proof is evident from the definition preceding Lemma 4. Schol. — We thus see in what manner a composite individual can be affected in many ways and yet retain its nature. Up to this point we have conceived an indi vidual to be composed merely of bodies which are dis tinguished from one another solely by motion and rest, speed and slowness, that is to say, to be composed of the most simple bodies. If we now consider an individual of another kind, composed of many individuals of diverse natures, we shall discover that it may be affected in many other ways, its nature nevertheless being preserved. For since each of its parts is composed of a number of bodies, each part (by the preceding Lemma), without any change of its nature, can move more slowly or more quickly, and consequently can communicate its motion more quickly or more slowly to the rest. If we now imagine a third kind of individual composed of these of the second kind, we shall discover that it can be affected in many other ways without any change of form. Thus, if we advance ad infinitum, we may easily conceive the whole of nature to be one individual, whose parts, that is to say, all bodies, differ in infinite ways without any change of the whole individual. If it had been my object to consider specially the question of a body, I should have had to explain and demonstrate these things more fully. But, as I have already said, I have another end in view, and I have noticed them only because I can easily deduce from them those things which I have proposed to demonstrate. Postulate 1. — The human body is composed of a 66 ETHIC. number of individuals of diverse nature, each of which is composite to a high degree. Postulate 2. — Of the individuals of which the human body is composed, some are fluid, some soft, and some hard. Postulate 3. — The individuals composing the human body, and consequently the human body itself, are affected by external bodies in many ways. Postulate 4. — The human body needs for its preserva tion many other bodies by which it is, as it were, con tinually regenerated. Postulate 5. — When a fluid part of the human body is determined by an external body, so that it often strikes upon another which is soft, the fluid part changes the plane of the soft part, and leaves upon it, as it were, some traces of the impelling external body. Postulate 6. — The human body can move aud arrange external bodies in many ways. Prop. XIV. — The human mind is adapted to the perception of many things, and its aptitude increases in propor tion to the number of ways in which its body can be disposed. Demonst. — The human body is affected (Post. 3 and 6) in many ways by external bodies, and is so dis posed as to affect external bodies in many ways. But the human mind must perceive (Prop. 12, pt. 2) every thing which happens in the human body. The human mind is therefore adapted, &c. — q.e.d. Prop. XV. — The idea which constitutes the formal Being of the human mind is 'not simple, but is composed of a number of ideas. Demonst. — The idea which constitutes the formal Being of the human mind is the idea of a body (Prop. 1 3, pt. 2) THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 67 which (Post. 1) is composed of a number of individuals eomposite to a high degree. But an idea of each indi vidual composing the body must necessarily exist in God (CoroL Prop. 8, pt. 2) ; therefore (Prop. 7, pt. 2) the idea of the human body is composed of these several ideas of the component parts. — q.e.d. Prop. XVI.-— The idea of every way in which the human body is affected by external bodies must involve the nature of the human body, and at the same time the nature of the external body. Demonst. — All ways in which any body is affected follow at the same time from the nature of the affected body, and from the nature of the affecting body (Ax. 1, following Corol. Lem. 3); therefore the idea of these affections (Ax. 4, pt. 1) necessarily involves the nature of each body, and therefore the idea of each way in which the human body is affected by an external body involves the nature of the human body and of the external body. — Q.E.D. Corol. 1.— Hence it follows, in the first place, that the human mind perceives the nature of many bodies together with that of its own body Corol. 2. ---It follows, secondly, that the ideas we have of external bodies indicate the constitution of our own body rather than the nature of external bodies. This I have explained in the Appendix of the First Part by many examples. PROP. XVII. — If the human body be affected in a ivay which involves the nature of any external body, the human mind will contemplate that external body as actually existing or as present, until the human body be affected by an affect which excludes the existence or presence of the external body. Demonst. — This is evident For so long as the 63 ETHIC. human body is thus affected, so long will the human mind (Prop. 12, pt. 2) contemplate this affection of the external body, that is to say (Prop. 16, pt. 2), it will have an idea of a mode actually existing which involves- the nature of the external body, that is to say, an idea which does not exclude the existence or presence of the nature of the external body, but posits it ; and therefore the mind (Corol. 1, Prop. 16, pt. 2) will contemplate the external body as actually existing, &c. — q.e.d. Corol. — The mind is able to contemplate external things by which the human body was once affected as if they were present, although they are not present and do not exist. Demonst. — When external bodies so determine the fluid parts of the human body that they often strike upon the softer parts, the fluid parts change the plane of the soft parts (Post. 5); and thence it happens that the lluid parts are reflected from the new planes in a direction different from that in which they used to be reflected (Ax. 2, following Corol. Lem. 3), and that also afterwards when they strike against these new planes by their own spontaneous motion, they are reflected in the same way as when they were impelled towards those planes by ex ternal bodies. Consequently those lluid bodies produce an affection in the human body while they keep up this rcllcx motion similar to that produced by the presence of an external body. The mind, therefore (Prop. 1 2, pt. 2), will think as before, that is to say, it will again con template the external body as present (Prop. 17, pt. 2). This will happen as often as the lluid parts of the human body strike against those planes by their own spontaneous motion. Therefore, although the external bodies by which the human body was once affected do not exist, the mind will perceive them as if they were pre sent so often as this action is repeated in the body. Schol. — We see, therefore, how it is possible for us to contemplate things which do not exist as if they were THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 69 actually present. This may indeed be produced by other causes, but I am satisfied with having here shown one cause through which I could explain it, just as if I had explained it through the true cause. I do not think, however, that I am far from the truth, since no postulate which I have assumed contains anything which is not confirmed by an experience that we cannot mistrust after we have proved the existence of the human body as we perceive it (Corol. following Prop. 1 3, pt. 2). Moreover (Corol. Prop. 17, pt. 2, arid Corol. 2, Prop. 16, pt. 2), we clearly see what is the difference between the idea, for example, of Peter, which constitutes the essence of the mind itself of Peter, and the idea of Peter himself which is in another man ; for example, in Paul. For the former directly manifests the essence of the body of Peter himself, nor does it involve existence unleBS so long as Peter exists ; the latter, on the other hand, indicates rather the constitution of the body of Paul than the nature of Peter ; and therefore so long as Paul's body exists with that constitution, so long will Paul's mind contemplate Peter as present, although he does not exist. But in order that we may retain the customary phraseology, we will give to those affections of the human body, the ideas •of which represent to us external bodies as if they were present, the name of images of things, although they do not actually reproduce the forms of the things. When the mind contemplates bodies in this way, we will say that it imagines. Here I wish it to be observed, in order that I may begin to show what error is, that these ima ginations of the mind, regarded by themselves, contain no error, and that the mind is not in error because it ima gines, but only in so far as it is considered as wanting in an idea which excludes the existence of those things which it imagines as present. For if the mind, when" it ima gines non-existent things to be present, could at the same time know that those things did not really exist, it would think its power of imagination to be a virtue of its nature 7° ETHIC. and not a defect, especially if this faculty of imagining depended upon its own nature alone, that is to say (Def! 7, pt. i), if this faculty of the mind were free. PROP. XVIII. — If the human body has at any time been simultaneously affected by two or more bodies, when ever the mind afterwards imagines one of them, it will also remember the others. Demonst. — The mind imagines a body (Corol. Prop, 17, pt. 2) because the human body is affected and dis posed by the impressions of an external body, just as it was affected when certain of its parts received an im pulse from the external body itself. But by hypothesis, the body was at that time disposed in such a manner that the mind imagined two bodies at once ; therefore it will imagine two at once now, and whenever it imagines one, it will immediately recollect the other. — q.e.d. ° Schol. — We clearly understand by this what memory is. It is nothing else than a certain concatenation of ideas, involving the nature of things which are outside the human body, a concatenation which corresponds in the mind to the order and concatenation of the affections of the human body. I say, firstly, that it is a concatenation of those ideas only which involve the nature of things which are outside the human body, and not of those ideas which explain the nature of those things, for there are in truth (Prop. 16, pt. 2) ideas of the affections of the human body, which involve its nature as well as the nature of external bodies. I say, in the second place, that this concatenation takes place according to the order and concatenation of the affections of the human body, that I may distinguish it from the concatenation of ideas which takes place according to the order of the intellect, and enables the mind to perceive things through their first causes, and is the same in all men. Hence we can clearly understand how it is that the mind from the thought of one thing at once turns to the thought THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 71 of another thing which is not in any way like the first. For example, from the thought of the word pomum a Koman immediately turned to the thought of the iruit, which has no resemblance to the articulate sound pomum nor anything in common with it, excepting this that the body of that man was often affected by the • thing and the sound; that is to say, he often heard the word pomum when he saw the fruit. In this manner each person will turn from one thought to another according to the manner in which the habit of each has arranged the images of things in the body. The soldier for instance, if he sees the footsteps of a horse in the sand' will immediately turn from the thought of a horse to the' thought of a horseman, and so to the thought of war The countryman, on the other hand, from the thought of a horse will turn to the thought of his plough, his°field to*.; and thus each person will turn from one thought to this or that thought, according to the manner in which he has been accustomed to connect and bind together the images of things in his mind. = ' PROP. XIX.— The human mind does not know the human body itself nor does it know that the body exists except through ideas of affections by which the body DemonsL-The human mind is the idea itself or the knowledge of the human body (Prop m ^2) Tl,*» knowledge (Prop. 9, pt. 2) is in" God^n s'o 1 1 He considered as affected by another idea of an individual thmg. But because (Post. 4) the human body needs a number of bodies by which it is, as it were, continu ally regenerated, and because the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of causes (Prop. 7, pt. 2), this idea will be in God in so far as He is considered as affected by the ideas of a multitude of individual things. God, therefore, has the idea of the human body or 72 ETHIC. knows the human body in so far as He is affected by a multitude of other ideas, and not in so far as He forms the nature of the human mind ; that is to say (Corol. n, pt. 2), the human mind does not know the human body. But the ideas of the affections of the body are in God in so far as He forms the nature of the human mind ; that is to say (Prop. 1 2, pt. 2), the human mind perceives these affections, and consequently (Prop. 1 6, pt. 2) the human body itself actually existing (Prop. 17.pt. 2). The human mind, therefore, perceives the human body, &e. — q.e.d. Prop. XX. — There exists in God the idea or knowledge of the human mind, which follows in Him, and is related to Him in the same way as the idea or know ledge of the human body. Demonst. — Thought is an attribute of God (Prop. 1, pt. 2), and therefore there must necessarily exist in God an idea of Himself (Prop. 3, pt. 2), together with an idea of all His affections, and consequently (Prop. 1 1, pt. 2) au idea of the human mind. Moreover, this idea or know ledge of the mind does not exist in God in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He is affected by another idea of an individual thing (Prop. 9, pt. 2). But the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of causes (Prop. 7, pt. 2). This idea or knowledge of the mind, therefore, follows in God, and is related to God in the same manner as the idea or know ledge of the body. — q.e.d. Prop. XXI. — This idea of the mind is united to the. mind in the same ivay as the mind itself is united to the body. Demonst. — We have shown that the mind is united to the body because the body is the object of the mind (Props. 12 and 13, pt. 2), therefore, by the same reason- THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 73 ing, the idea of the mind must be united with its object, the mind itself, in the same way as the mind itself is united to the body. — Q.E.D. Schol— This proposition is to be understood much more clearly from what has been said in the scholium to Prop. 7, pt. 2, for we have there shown that the idea of the body and the body, that is to say (Prop. 1 3, pt. 2), the mind and the body, are one and the same individual, which at one time is considered under the attribute of thought, and at another under that of extension : the idea of the mind, therefore, and the mind itself are one and the same thing, which is considered under one and the same attribute, that of thought. It follows, I say, that the idea of the mind and the mind itself exist in God from the same necessity and from the same power of thought. For, indeed, the idea of the mind, that is to say, the idea of the idea, is nothing but the form of the idea in so far as this is considered as a mode of thought and without relation to the object, just as a person who knows anything, by that very fact knows that he knows, and knows that he knows that he knows, and so on ad infini tum. But more on this subject afterwards. Prop. XXII. — TIic human mind not only perceives the effect ions of the body, but also the ideas of these affni inn*. Demonst. — The ideas of the ideas of affections follow in Cod and are related to God in the same way as the ideas themselves of affections. This is demonstrated like Prop. 20, pt. 2. But the ideas of the affections of the body are in the human mind (Prop. 12, pt. 2), that is to say, in God (Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2), 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 to say (Prop. 21, pt 2), they will be in the 74 ETHIC. human mind itself, which, therefore, not only perceives the affections of the body, but also the ideas of these affections. — q.e.d. Prop. XXIII. — The mind does not know itself except in so far as it perceives the ideas of the affections of the body. Demonst. — The idea or knowledge of the mind (Prop. 20, pt. 2) follows in God and is related to God in the same way as the idea or knowledge of the body. But since (Prop. 19, pt. 2) the human mind does not know the human body itself, that is to say (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2), since the knowledge of the human body is not re lated to God in so far as He constitutes the nature of the human mind, therefore the knowledge of the mind is not related to God in so far as He constitutes the essence of the human mind ; and therefore (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2) the human mind so far does not know itself. Moreover, the ideas of the affections by which the body is affected involve the nature of the human body itself (Prop. 16, pt. 2), that is to say (Prop. 13, pt. 2), they agree with the nature of the mind ; therefore a knowledge of these ideas will necessarily involve a know ledge of the mind. But (Prop. 22, pt. 2) the knowledge of these ideas is in the human mind itself, and therefore the human mind so far only has a knowledge of itself. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXIV. — The human mind does not involve an ade quate knowledge of the parts composing the human body. Demonst. - -The parts composing the human body per tain to the essence of the body itself only in so far as they communicate their motions to one another by some cercain method (see Def. following Corol. Lem. 3), and THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 75 not in so far as they can be considered as individuals without relation to the human body. For the parts of the human body are individuals (Post. 1), composite to a high degree, parts of which (Lem. 4) can be separated from the human body and communicate their motions (Ax. 1, following Lem. 3) to other bodies in another way, although the nature and form of the human body itself is closely preserved. Therefore (Prop. 3, pt. 2) the idea or knowledge of each part will be in God in so far as He is considered as affected (Prop. 9, pt. 2) by another idea of an individual thing, which indi vidual thing is prior to the part itself in the order of nature (Prop. 7, pt. 2). The same thing may be said of each part of the individual itself composing the human body, and therefore tho knowledge of each part compos ing the human body exists in God in so far as He is affected by a number of ideas of things, and not in so far as He has the idea of the human body only ; that is to say (Prop. 13, pt. 2), the idea which constitutes the nature of the human mind ; and therefore (Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2) the human mind does not involve an adequate knowledge of the parts composing the human body. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXV. — The idea of each affection of the human body docs not involve an adequate knowledge of an external body. Demonst. — We have shown that the idea of an affec tion of the human body involves the nature of an ex ternal body so far as (Prop. 16, pt. 2) the external body determines the human body in some certain manner. But in so far as the external body is an individual which is not related to the human body, its idea or knowledge is in God (Prop. 9, pt. 2) in so far as He is considered as affected by the idea of another thing, which idea (Prop. 7, pt. 2) is prior by nature to the external body 76 ETHIC. itself. Therefore the adequate knowledge of an external body is not m God in so far as He has the idea of the affection of the human body, or, in other words, the idea ot the affection of the human body does not involve an adequate knowledge of an external body.— q.e.d. Prop. XXVI. — The human mind perceives no external body as actually existing, unless through the ideas of the affections of its body. Demonst.— Ii the human body is in no way affected by any external body, then (Prop. 7, pt. 2) the idea of the human body, that is to say (Prop. 13, pt. 2) the human mind, is not affected in any way by the idea of the existence of that body, nor does it in any way perceive the existence of that external body. But in so far as the human body is affected in any way by any external body, so far (Prop. 16, pt. 2, with its Corol.) does it perceive the external body. — q.e.d. Corol — In so far as the human mind imagines an external body, so far it has not an adequate knowledo-e of it. ° Demonst.— When the human mind through the ideas of the affections of its body contemplates external bodies, we say that it then imagines (Schol. Prop. 17, pt. 2), nor can the mind (Prop. 26, pt. 2) in any other way imagine external bodies as actually existing. Therefore (Prop. 25, pt. 2) in so far as the mind imagines external bodies it does not possess an adequate knowledge of them. q.e.d. Prop. XXVIL— The idea of any affection of the human body does not involve an adequate knowledge of the human body itself. Demonst. — Every idea of any affection of the human body involves the nature of the human body in so far as the human body itself is considered as affected in a certain THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 77 manner (Prop. 16, pt. 2). But in so far as the human body is an individual which can be affected in a multi tude of other ways, its idea, &c. (See Demonst. Prop. 25, pt. 2.) Prop. XXVIII. — The ideas of tlie affections of the human body, in so far as they are related only to the human mind, are not clear and distinct, but confused. Demonst. — The ideas of the affections of the human body involve the nature both of external bodies and of the human body itself (Prop. 16, pt. 2), and must involve the nature not only of the human body, but of its parts, for the affections are ways (Post. 3) in which the parts of the human body, and consequently the whole body, is affected. But (Props. 24 and 25, pt. 2) an adequate knowledge of external bodies and of the parts composing the human body does not exist in God in so far as He is considered as affected by the human mind, but in so far as He is affected by other ideas. These ideas of affections, therefore, in so far as they are related to the human mind alone, are like conclusions without premisses, that is to say, as is self-evident, they are confused ideas. — q.e.d. Schol. — The idea which forms the nature of the mind is demonstrated in the same way not to be clear and distinct when considered in itself. So also with the idea of the human mind, and the ideas of the ideas of the affections of the human body, in so far as they are related to the mind alone, as every one may easily see. Prop. XXIX. — The idea of the idea of any affection of the human body does not involve an adequate know ledge of the human mind. Demonst. — The idea of an affection of the human body 78 ETHIC. (Prop. 27, pt. 2) does not involve an adequate knowledge of the body itself, or, in other words, does not adequately express its nature, that is to say (Prop. 13, pt. 2), it does not correspond adequately with the nature of the human mind, and therefore (Ax. 6, pt. 1) the idea of this idea does not adequately express the nature of the human mind, nor involve an adequate knowledge of it. — Q.E.D. Corol. — From this it is evident that the human mind, when it perceives things in the common order of nature, has no adequate knowledge of itself nor of its own body, nor of external bodies, but only a confused and mutilated knowledge; for the mind does not know itself unless in so far as it perceives the ideas of the affections of the body (Prop. 23, pt. 2). Moreover (Prop. 19, pt. 2), it does not perceive its body unless through those same ideas of the affections by means of which alone (Prop. 26, pt. 2) it perceives external bodies. Therefore in so far as it possesses these ideas it possesses an adequate knowledge neither of itself (Prop. 29, pt. 2), nor of its body (Prop. 27, pt. 2), nor of external bodies (Prop. 25, pt. 2), but merely (Prop. 28, pt. 2, together with the scholium) a mutilated and confused knowledge. — Q.E.D. Schol. — I say expressly that the mind has no adequate knowledge of itself, nor of its body, nor of external bodies, but only a confused knowledge, as often as it perceives things in the common order of nature, that is to say, as often as it is determined to the contemplation of this or that externally — namely, by a chance coincidence, and not as often as it is determined internally — for the reason that it contemplates1 several things at once, and is determined to understand in what they differ, agree, or oppose one another ; for whenever it is internally disposed in this or in any other way, it then contemplates things clearly and distinctly, as I shall show presently. 1 In tliis tailor case. — Til. THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 79 Prop. XXX. — About the duration of our body we can have but a very inadequate knowledge. Demonst. — The duration of our body does not depend upon its essence (Ax. I, pt. 2), nor upon the absolute nature of God (Prop. 21, pt. 1), but (Prop. 28, pt. 1) the body is determined to existence and action by causes which also are determined by others to existence and action in a certain and determinate manner, whilst these, again, are determined by others, and so on ad infinitum. The duration, therefore, of our body depends upon the common order of nature and the constitution of things. But an adequate knowledge of the way in which things are con stituted, exists in God in so far as He possesses the ideas of all things, and not in so far as He possesses only the idea of the human body (Corol. Prop. 9, pt. 2). Therefore the knowledge of the duration of our body is altogether inadequate in God, in so far as He is only considered as constituting the nature of the human mind, that is to say (Corol. Prop. 1 1 , pt. 2), this knowledge in our mind is altogether inadequate. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXI. — About the duration of individual things which arc outside us ive can have but a very inadequate knoivlcdgc. Demonst. — Each individual thing, like the human body, must be determined to existence and action by another individual thing in a certain and determinate manner, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum (Prop. 28, pt. 1). But we have demonstrated in the preceding proposition, from this common property of individual things, that we have but a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of our own body ; therefore the same con clusion is to be drawn about the duration of individual things, that is to say, that we can have but a very in adequate knowledge of it. — Q.E.D. So ETHIC. Corol. — Hence it follows that all individual things are contingent and corruptible, for we can have no adequate knowledge concerning their duration (Prop. 31, pt. 2), and this is what is to be understood by us as their con tingency and capability of corruption (Schol. 1, Prop. 33, pt. 1); for (Prop. 29, pt. 1) there is no other contingency but this. Prop. XXXII. — All ideas, in so far as they are related to God, are true. Demonst. — All the ideas which are in God always agree with those things of which they are the ideas (Corol. Prop. 7, pt. 2), and therefore (Ax. 6, pt. 1) they are all true. — q.e.d. ; Tltor. XXXIII. — In ideas there is nothing positive on account of which they arc called false. Demonst. — If the contrary be asserted, conceive, if it be possible, a positive mode of thought which shall consti tute the form or error of falsity. This mode of thought cannot be in God (Prop. 32, pt. 2), but outside God it can neither be nor be conceived (Prop. 1 5, pt. 1), and therefore in ideas there is nothing positive on account of which they are called false. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXIV. — Every idea which in us is absolute, that is to say, adequate and perfect, is true. Demonst. — When we say that an adequate and perfect idea is in us, we say nothing else than (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2) that an adequate and perfect idea exists in God in so far as He constitutes the essence of the human mind, and consequently (Prop. 3 2, pt. 2) we say nothing else than that this idea is true. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXV. — Falsity consists in the privation of know- THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THB ^ ^ cannot consist in absolute pSj Pt' 2)" But fals% aud not bodies errandaremS { f°r We sa? that minds absolute ignorance for to I } '' ^ ^ * COnsist in example. For uufi^ZZT^^ J T" S™ aQ think themselves free anTL i ed beCause the7 - is that they JZ^jfc™" fe .^nkinj . ignorant of the causes by wLl! £ 0Wn aCtl°11S' and *»*ed. Their idea oThW^f T* aCti°ns are deter- W no cause for tLi * ^ * this-^t they that their actions depend ZLT"*^** ** '° S^ to -whioh no idea is £? ^a tT^ " ^ what manner it moves th* \ / lU ls' and in «* those who pretLl 0Serw f 3^ iS **»* dwelling-places of the soul Z V 6V1Se Seats a»d «* ^sgust. JU3t m L same "f 7 ^ °W lanSht«" the sun, we imagine 1 Z d^l ' ^ ^ Iook at Jj-t; the error not ^£?^™** ^ *>o but arising from our not know" , imagination, » ^en we imagine ^,5 V^ tfUe distau<* ""agination. p° althoth ^ ^ CaUSes of ™ t'-t the sun is mor Tarf 6™ ™Y aft*™* W distant from us, we im ° ^^ °f the ea*h *™gine it to be so nea noTl^ * "^ US' Since ™ its true distance but IT ** ™ are ^^nt of "•^vc. the essence 0f h!Se M .affection of our body i'self is affected by I ^ m S° hl' as ou' body 82 ETHIC. Prop. XXXVI. — Inadequate and confused ideas follow by ihe same necessity as adequate or clear and distinct ideas. Demonst. — All ideas are in God (Prop. I 5, pt. i), and in so far as they are related to God are true (Prop. 32, pt. 2) and (Corol. Prop. 7, pt. 2) adequate. ^ No ideas, therefore, are inadequate or confused unless in so far as they are related to the individual mind of some person (see Props. 24 and 28, pt. 2). All ideas, therefore, both adequate and inadequate, follow by the same necessity (Corol. Prop. 6, pt. 2). Prop. XXXVII. — That which is common to everything (see Lemma 2), and which is equally in the part and in the whole, forms the essence of no individual thing. Demonst.— For if this be denied, let that which is common be conceived, if possible, to constitute the essence of some individual thing, — the essence, for ex ample, of B. Without B, therefore (Def. 2, pt. 2), that which is common can neither be nor be conceived. But this is contrary to the hypothesis. Therefore that which is common does not pertain to the essence ot B, nor does it form the essence of any other individual thing. Prop. XXXVIII. — Those things which are common to everything, and which arc equally in the part and in the whole, can only be adequately conceived. Demonst. — Let there be something, A, which is com mon to all bodies, and which is equally in the part of each body and in the whole. I say that A can only be adequately conceived. For the idea of A (Corol. Prop. 7, pi. 2) will necessarily be adequate in God, both in so far as He has the idea of the human body and in so far as THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 83 He has the idea of its affections, which (Props. 16 25 and 27, pt. 2) involve the nature of the human body' and partly also the nature of external bodies ; that is to say (Props. 12 and 1 3, pt. 2), this idea will necessarily be adequate in God in so far as He constitutes the human mind, or in so far as He has ideas which are in the human mind. The mind, therefore (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2), neces- sardy perceives A adequately, both in so far as it per ceives itself or its own or any external body; nor can A be conceived in any other manner.— q.e.d. CW—Hence it follows that some ideas or notions exist which are common to all men, for (Lem. 2) all bodies agree in some things, which (Prop. 2S, pt <>) must be adequately, that is to say, clearly and distinctly perceived by all. J' Prop XXXIX.— There will exist in the human mind an adequate idea of that which is common and proper to the human body, and to any external bodies by which the human body is generally affected— of that which equcdly in the part of each of these external bodies and in the whole is common and proper. Demonst.-Let A be something which is common and proper to the human body and certain external bodies et lt exist equally in the human body and in those ex terna! bodies, and let it exist equally In the part of each external body and in the whole. An adequate idea of I Jar as He has the ldea of ^ ^^ as He has the idea of the given external bodies. Let i «¦ supposed that the human body is affected by an ex- - body through that which it has in common with e externa body that is to say, by A. The idea of this *dl,e on will involve the property of A (Prop. 16 pt I) Z So 7 (CTL p?p- 7' pt 2) the ^ ***£ -""'¦ m so far as it involves the property of A, will exist s4 ETHIC. adequately in God in so far as He is affected by the- idea of the human body, that is to say (Prop. 13, pt. 2),. in so far as He constitutes the nature of the human mind. Therefore (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2) this idea is- also adequate in the human mind. — q.e.d. Corol. — Hence it follows that the more things the- body has in common with other bodies, the more Ihings- will the mind be adapted to perceive. Prop. XL. — Tlwse ideas are also adequate which follow in- tlie mind from ideas which are adequate in it. Demonst.. — This is evident. For when we say that an idea follows in the human mind from ideas which. are adequate in it, we do but say (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2) that in the divine intellect itself an idea exists of which God is the cause, not in so far as He is infinite, nor in so- far as He is affected by the ideas of a multitude of indi vidual things, but in so far only as He constitutes the essence of the human mind. Schol. — I have thus explained the origin of those- notions which are called common, and which are the foundations of our reasoning ; but of some axioms or notions other causes exist which it would be advan tageous to explain by our method, for we should thus be able to distinguish those notions which are more useful than others, and those which are scarcely of any use ; those which are common ; those which are clear and dis tinct only to those persons who do not suffer from preju dice ; and, finally, those which are ill-founded. Moreover, it would be manifest whence these notions which are called second, and consequently the axioms founded upon them, have taken their origin, and other things, too, would be ex plained which I have thought about these matters at different times. Since, however, I have set apart this subject for another treatise, and because I do not wish to create disgust with excessive prolixity, I have determined to pass by this- THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 8S •matter here. But not to omit anything which is neces sary for us to know, I will briefly give the causes from •which terms called Transcendental, such as Being, Thina Something, have taken their origin. These terms have arisen because the human body, inasmuch as it is limited ¦¦an form distinctly in itself a certain number only of images at once. (For the explanation of the word image, see Schol. Prop 17, pt. 2.) If this number be exceeded the images will become confused; and if the number of uuages winch the body is able to form distinctly be greatly *'.x--rL,l--d, U-cy will all run one into another. Since this Y so, it is clear (Corol. Prop. 17, and Prop. iS, pt. 2) hat ,n proportion to the number of images which can be formed at the same time in the body will be the number oboches which the human mind can imagine at the same t»e If the images m the body, therefore, are all con- w „ r? m 2 COnfused^ ^agine all the bodies ?u hout distinguishing the one from the other, and will uclude them all. as it were, under one attribute, that of £? 7 "I1"* ?h° Same confusion ^7 also be caused by lack of uniform force in the images and from other analo gous causes, which there is no need to discuss here the consideration of one cause being sufficient for the pur- po**, we have m view. For it all comes to this, that esc r s,.-„,ry ideas in the highest degree con used tTOy hat ?°3e notions W arisen which > L L l " 1 lmaSeS °f men' f°r inStance* °™ ^d in 7 ^ °nCe' that ^ exceed fche power the 1,, ..nation, not entirely, but to such a degree that c mmd has no power to imagine the determinate munb 0 men and the small differences of each, such as colour ""1 ue &c. It will therefore distinctly inline tint -Iv i" which all of them agree in so for as th b y *e *? thr> for b^ that the body was chiefly all Hod, that is to say, by each individual, and this it will express by the name man, covering thereby an inlinite S6 ETHIC. number of individuals ; to imagine a determinate number of individuals being out of its power. But we must ob serve that these notions are not formed by all persons in the same way, but that they vary in each case according to the thing by which the body is more frequently affected°, and which the mind more easily imagines or recollects. For example, those who have more frequently looked with admiration upon the stature of men, by the name man will understand an animal of erect stature, while those who have been in the habit of fixing their thoughts on something else, will form another common image of men, describing man, for instance, as an animal capable of laughter, a biped without feathers, a rational animal, and so on; each person forming universal images of things according to the temperament of his own°body. It is not therefore to be wondered at that so many con troversies have arisen amongst those philosophers who- have endeavoured to explain natural objects by the images of things alone. Schol. 2. — From what has been already said, it clearly appears that we perceive many things and form univer sal ideas : i. From individual things, represented by the senses to us in a mutilated and confused manner, and without order to the intellect (Corol. Prop. 29, pt. 2). These perceptions I have therefore been in the habit of calling knowledge from vague experience. 2. From signs ; as, for example, when we hear or read certain words, we recollect things and form certain ideas of them similar to them, through which ideas we imagine things (Schol. Prop. 18, pt. 2). These two ways of looking at things I shall hereafter call knowledge of the- first kind, opinion or imagination. 3. From our possessing common notions and adequate- ideas of the properties of things (Corol. Prop. 3S, Pro]). 39, with Corol. and Prop. 40, pt. 2). This I shall call reason and knowledge of the second kind. THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 87 Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is a third, as I shall hereafter show, which we shall call intuitive science. This kind of knowing advances from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things. All this I will explain by one example. Let there be three numbers given through which it is required to discover a fourth which shall be to the third as the second is to the first. A merchant does not hesitate to multiply the second and third together and divide the product by the first, either because he has not yet forgotten the things which he heard without any demonstration from his schoolmaster, or because he has seen the truth of the rule with the more simple num bers, or because from the 19th Prop, in the 7th book of Euclid he understands tlie common property of all pro portionals. But with the simplest numbers there is no need of all this. If the numbers i, 2, 3, for instance, be given, every one can see that the fourth proportional is 6 much more clearly than by any demonstration, because from the ratio in which we see by one intuition that the first stands to the second we conclude the fourth. riiOP. XLL — Knowledge of the first kind alone is the cause of falsity ; knowledge of the second and third orders is necessarily true. Demonst.— To knowledge of the first kind we have said, in the preceding scholium, that all those ideas belong which are inadequate and confused, and, there fore (Prop. 35, pt. 2), this knowledge alone is the cause of falsity. Moreover, to knowledge of the second and third kind we have said that those ideas belong which are adequate, and therefore this knowledge (Prop. 34, pt. 2) is necessarily true. Prop. XLII. — It is the knowledge of the second and third. S8 ETHIC. and not tlmt of the first kind, which teaches us to distinguish the true from the false. Demonst. — This proposition is self-evident. For he who knows how to distinguish between the true and the false must have an adequate idea of the true and the false, that is to say (Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2), he must know the true and the false by the second or third kind of knowledge. Prop. XLIII. — He who has a true idea knoivs at the same time that he has a true idea, nor can he doubt the truth of the thing. Demonst. — A true idea in us is that which in God is adequate, in bo far as He is manifested by the nature of the human mind (Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2). Lot us sup pose, therefore, that there exists in God, in bo far as He is manifested by the nature of the human mind, an ade quate idea, A. Of this idea there must necessarily exist in God an idea, which is related to Him in the same way as the idea A (Prop. 20, pt. 2, the demonstration of which is universal). But the idea A is supposed to be related to God in so far as He is manifested by the nature of the human mind. The idea of the idea A must there fore be related to God in the same manner, that is to say (Corol. Prop. n,pt. 2), this adequate idea of the idea A will exist in the mind itself which has the adequate idea A. He therefore who has an adequate idea, that is to say (Prop. 34, pt. 2), he who knows a thing truly, must at the same time have an adequate idea or a true knowledge of his knowledge, that is to say (as is self- evident) he must be certain. — Q.E.D. Schol. — In the scholium to Prop. 21, pt. 2, I have explained what is the idea of an idea, but it is to be observed that the preceding proposition is evident by itself. For no one who has a true idea is ignorant THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 89 that a true idea involves the highest certitude ; to have a true idea signifying just this, to know a thing perfectly or as well as possible. Ho one, in fact, can doubt this, unless he supposes an idea to be something dumb, like a picture on a tablet, instead of being a mode of thought, that is to say, intelligence itself. Moreover, I ask who can know that he understands a thing unless he first of all understands that thing ? that is to say, who can know that he is certain of anything unless he is first of all certain of that thing? Then, again, what can be clearer or more certain than a true idea as the standard of truth ? Just as light reveals both itself and the dark ness, so truth is the standard of itself and of the false. I consider what has been said to be a sufficient answer to the objection that if a true idea is distinguished from a false idea only in so far as it is said to agree with that of which it is the idea, the true idea therefore has no reality nor perfection above the false idea (since they are dis tinguished by an external sign alone), and consequently the man who has true ideas will have no greater reality or perfection than he who has false ideas only. I con sider, too, that I have already replied to those who inquire why men have false ideas, and how a man can certainly know that he has ideas which agree with those things of which they are the ideas. For with regard to the dif ference between a true and a false idea, it is evident from Prop. 35, pt. 2, that the former is related to the latter as being is to non-being. The causes of falsity, too, I have most clearly shown in Props. 19-3 5, including the scholium to the last. From what has there been said, the nature of the difference between a man who has true ideas and one who has only false ideas is clear. With regard to the last-mentioned point — how a man can know that he has an idea which agrees with that of which it is the idea — I have shown almost more times than enough that he knows it simply because he has an idea which agrees with that of which it is the 9° ETHIC. idea, that is to say, because truth is its own standard. j We must remember, besides, that our mind, in so far as it truly perceives things, is a part of the infinite intellect f of God (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2), and therefore it must be that the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as true as those of God. Prop. XLIV. — It is not of the nature of reason to con sider things as contingent but as necessary. Demonst. — It is in the nature of reason to perceive things truly (Prop. 41, pt. 2), that is to say (Ax. 6, pt. 1), as they are in themselves, that is to say (Prop. 29, pt. 1), not as contingent but as necessary. — q.e.d. Corol. 1. — Hence it follows that it is through the imagination alone that we look upon things as contin gent both with reference to the past and the future. Schol. — How this happens I will explain in a few words. We have shown above (Prop. 17, pt. 2, with Corol.) that unless causes occur preventing the present existence of things, the mind always imagines them pre sent before it, even if they do not exist. Again (Prop. 1 8, pt. 2), we have shown that if the human body has once been simultaneously affected by two external bodies, whenever the mind afterwards imagines one it will imme diately remember the other ; that is to say, it will look upon both as present before it, unless causes occur which prevent the present existence of the things. No one doubts, too, that we imagine time because we imagine some bodies to move with a velocity less, or greater than, or equal to that of others. Let us therefore suppose a boy who yesterday, for the first time, in the morning saw Peter, at midday Paul, in the evening Simeon, and to-day in the morning again sees Peter. It is plain from Prop. 18, pt. 2, that as soon as he sees the morning light he will imagine the sun passing through the same part of the sky as on the day preceding ; that THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 91 is to say, he will imagine the whole day, and at the same time Peter will be connected in his imagination with the morning, Paul with midday, and Simeon with the evening. In the morning, therefore, the existence of Paul and Simeon will be imagined in relation to future time, while in the evening, if the boy should see Simeon, he will refer Peter and Paul to the past, since they will be connected with the past in his imagination. This process will be constant in proportion to the regularity with which he sees Peter, Paul, and Simeon in this order. If it should by some means happen that on some other evening, in the place of Simeon, he should see James, on the following morning he will connect in his imagina tion with the evening at ene time Simeon and at another James, but not both together. For he is supposed to have seen one and then the other in the evening, but not both together. His imagination will therefore°fluctuate, and he will connect with a future evening first one and then the other; that is to say, he will consider neither as certain, but both as a contingency in the future. This fluctuation of the imagination will take place in the same way if the imagination is dealing with things which we contemplate in the same way with reference to past or present time, and consequently we ima) no absolute faculty of willing or not willm" ' Only individual volitions exist, that is to say, this "mid that aftirmation and this and that negation. Let us conceive therefore, any individual volition, that is, any mode of thought, by which the mind affirms that the three aii'des 96 ETHIC. of a triangle are equal to two right angles. This affirmation involves the conception or idea of the triangle, that is to say, without it the affirmation cannot be con ceived. For to say that A must involve the conception B, is the same as saying that A cannot be conceived without B. Moreover, without the idea of the triangle this affirmation (Ax. 3, pt. 2) cannot be, and it can therefore neither be nor be conceived without that idea. But this idea of the triangle must involve this same affirmation that its three angles are equal to two right angles. Therefore also, vice versa, this idea of the triangle without this affirmation can neither be nor be conceived. Therefore (Def. 2, pt. 2) this affirmation per tains to the essence of the idea of the triangle, nor is it anything else besides this. Whatever too we have said of this volition (since it has been taken arbitrarily) applies to all other volitions, that is to say, they are nothing but ideas. — Q.E.D. Corol — The will and the intellect are one and the same. Demonst. — The will and the intellect are nothing but the individual volitions and ideas themselves (Prop. 48, pt. 2, and its Schol.) But the individual volition and idea (Prop. 49, pt. 2) are one and the same. Therefore the will and the intellect are one and the same. — Q.E.D. Schol. — I have thus removed what is commonly thought to be the cause of error. It has been proved above that falsity consists solely in the privation which mutilated and confused ideas involve. A false idea, therefore, in so far as it is false, does not involve certitude. Consequently, when we say that a man assents to what is false and does not doubt it, we do not say that he is certain, but merely that he does not doubt, that is to say, that he assents to what is false, because there are no causes sufficient to make his imagination waver (Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 2). Although, therefore, a man may be supposed to adhere to what is false, we shall never on that account say that he THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 97 is certain. For by certitude we understand something positive (Prop. 43, pt. 2, with the Schol.), and not the privation of doubt ; but by the privation of certitude we understand falsity. If the preceding proposition, how ever, is to be more clearly comprehended, a word or two must be added ; it yet remains also that I should answer the objections which may be brought against our doctrine, and finally, in order to remove all scruples, I have thought it worth while to indicate some of its advantages. I say some, as the principal advantages will be better understood when we come to the Fifth Part. I begin, therefore, with the first, and I warn my readers carefully to distinguish between an idea or conception of the mind and the images of things formed by our imagination. Secondly, it is necessary that we should distinguish between ideas and the words by which things are signified. For it is because these three things, images, words, and ideas, are by many people either altogether confounded or not dis tinguished with sufficient accuracy and care that such ignorance exists about this doctrine of the will, so neces sary to be known both for the purposes of speculation and for the wise government of life. Those who think that ideas consist of images, which are formed in us by meeting with external bodies, persuade themselves that those ideas of things of which we can form no similar image are not ideas, but mere fancies constructed by the free power of the will. They look upon ideas, therefore, as dumb pictures on a tablet, and being prepossessed with this prejudice, they do not see that an idea, in so far as it is an idea, involves affirmation or negation. Again, those who confound words with the idea, or with the affirmation itself which the idea involves, think that they can will contrary to their perception, because they affirm or deny something in words alone contrary to their perception. It will be easy for us, however, to divest ourselves of these prejudices if we attend to the nature of thought, which in no way involves the conception of G 9S ETHIC. extension, and by doing this we clearly see that an idea since it is a mode of thought, is not an image of any thing, nor does it consist of words. For the essence of words and images is formed of bodily motions alone which involve in no way whatever the conception of thought. Let thus much suffice under this head. I pass on now to the objections to which I have already alluded. The first is, that it is supposed to be certain that the will extends itself more widely than the intellect, and is therefore different from it. The reason why men suppose that the will extends itself more widely than the intellect is because they say they have discovered that they do not need a larger faculty of assent— that is to say of affirmation— and denial than that which they now have for the purpose of assenting to an infinite number of other things which we do not perceive, but that they do need a greater faculty for understanding them. The will, therefore, is distinguished from the intellect, the latter being finite, the former infinite. The second objection which can be made is that there is nothing which experi ence seems to teach more clearly than the possibility of suspending our judgment, so as not to assent to the things we perceive ; and we are strengthened in this opinion because no one is said to be deceived in so far as he per ceives a thing, but only in so far as he assents to it or dissents from it. For example, a man who imagines a winged horse does not therefore admit the existence of a winged horse ; that is to say, he is not necessarily de ceived, unless he grants at the same time that a winged horse exists. Experience, therefore, seems to show nothing more plainly than that the will or faculty of assent is free° and different from the faculty of the intellect. Thirdly, it may be objected that one affirmation does not seem to contain more reality than another ; that is to say, it does not appear that we need a greater power for affirming a thing to be true which is true than for THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 99 affirming a thing to be true which is false. Neverthe less, we observe that one idea contains more reality or perfection than another, for as some objects are nobler than others, in the same proportion are their ideas more perfect. It appears indisputable, therefore, that there is a difference between the will and the intellect. Fourthly, it may be objected that if a man does not act from freedom of the will, what would he do if he were in a state of equilibrium, like the ass of Buridanus ? Would he not perish from hunger and thirst ? and if this be granted, do we not seem to conceive him as a statue of a man or as an ass ? If I deny that he would thus perish, he will consequently determine himself and possess the power of going where he likes and doing what he likes. There may be other objections besides these, but as I am not bound to discuss what every one may dream, I shall therefore make it my business to answer as briefly as possible those only which I have mentioned. In reply to the first objection, I grant that the will extends itself more widely than the intellect, if by the intellect we understand only clear and distinct ideas ; but I deny that the wfll extends itself more widely than the percep tions or the faculty of conception ; nor, indeed, do I see why the faculty of will should be said to be infinite any more than the faculty of feeling ; for as by the same faculty of will we can affirm an infinite number of things (one after the other, for we cannot affirm an infinite number of things at once), so also by the same faculty of feeling we can feel or perceive (one after another) an infinite number of bodies. If it be said that there are an infinite number of things which wc cannot perceive, I reply that such things as these we can reach by no thought, and consequently by no faculty of will. But it is said that if God wished us to perceive those things, it would be necessary for Him to give us a larger faculty of perception, but not a larger faculty of will than ioo ETHIC. He has already given us, which is the same thing as say ing that if God wished us to understand an infinite number of other beings, it would be necessary for Him. to give us a greater intellect, but not a more universal idea of being (in order to embrace that infinite number' of beings), than He has given us. For we have shown that the will is a Universal, or the idea by which we explain all individual volitions, that is to say, that which is common to them all. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that those who believe this common or universal idea of all the volitions to be a faculty should say that it extends itself infinitely beyond the limits of the intellect. For the universal is predicated of one or of many, or of an infinite number of individuals. Tlie second objection I answer by denying that we have free power of suspending judgment. For when we say that a person suspends judgment, we only say iu other words that he sees that he does not perceive the- thing adequately. The suspension of the judgment, there fore, is in truth a perception and not free will. In order that this may be clearly understood, let us take the case of a boy who imagines a horse and perceives nothing. else. Since this imagination involves the existence of the horse (Corol. Prop. 17, pt. 2), and the boy does not perceive anything which negates its existence, he will necessarily contemplate it as present, nor will he be able to doubt its existence although he may not be certain of it. This is a thing which we daily experience in dreams, nor do I believe that there is any one who thinks that he has the free power during dreams of suspending his judg ment upon those things which he dreams, and of causing himself not to dream those things which he dreams that- he sees ; and yet in dreams it nevertheless happens that we suspend our judgment, for we dream that we dream. I grant, it is true, that no man is deceived in so far as he perceives ; that is to say, I grant that mental images considered in themselves involve no THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 101 error (Schol. Prop. 1 7, pt. 2) ; but I deny that a man in so far as he perceives affirms nothing. For what else is it to perceive a winged horse than to affirm of .the horse that it has wings? For if the mind per ceived nothing else but this winged horse, it would Tegard it as present, nor would it have any reason for doubting its existence, nor any power of refusing assent to it, unless the image of the winged horse be joined to an idea which negates its existence, or the mind perceives that the idea of the winged horse which it has is inadequate. In either of the two latter cases it will necessarily deny or doubt the existence of the .horse. With regard to the third objection, what has been said will perhaps be a sufficient answer, — namely, that the will is something universal, which is predicated of all ideas, and that it signifies that only which is common to them all, that is to say, affirmation. Its adequate essence, therefore, in so far as it is thus considered in the abstract, must be in every idea, and in this sense only must it be the same in all; but not in so far as it is -considered as constituting the essence of an idea, for so far, the individual affirmations differ just as the ideas differ. For example, the affirmation which the idea of a circle involves differs from that which the idea of a triangle involves, just as the idea of a circle differs from the idea of a triangle. Again, I absolutely deny that we need a power of thinking in order to affirm that to be true which is true, equal to that which we need in order to affirm that to be true which is false. For these two affirmations, if we look to the mind, are related to one another as being and non-being, for there is nothing positive in ideas which constitutes a form of falsity (Prop. 35, pt. 2, with its Schol., and Schol. to Prop. 47, pt. 2). Here therefore particularly is it to be observed how -easily we are deceived when we confuse universals with 102 ETHIC. "i- individuals, and the entities of reason and abstractions with realities. With regard to the fourth objection, I say that I entirely grant that if a man were placed in such a state of equilibrium he would perish of hunger and thirst, sup posing he perceived nothing but hunger and thirst, and the food and drink which were equidistant from him. If you ask me whether such a man would not be thought an ass rather than a man, I reply that I do not know; nor do I know what ought to be thought of a man who hangs himself, or of children, fools, and madmen. It remains for me now to show what service to our own lives a knowledge of this doctrine is. This we £ ¦. . V shall easily understand from the remarks which follow. Notice — I. It is of service in so far as it teaches us that we do everything by the will of God alone, and that wc are partakers of the divine nature in proportion as our actions become more and more perfect and we more and more understand God. This doctrine, therefore, besides giving repose in every way to the soul, has also this advantage, that it teaches us in what our highest happi ness or blessedness consists, namely, in the knowledge of God alone, by which we are drawn to do those things only which love and piety persuade. Hence we clearly see how greatly those stray from the true estimation of virtue who expect to be distinguished by God with tlie highest rewards for virtue and the noblest actions as if for the complctest servitude, just as if virtue itself and the service of God were not happiness itself and the highest liberty. 2. It is of service to us in so far as it teaches us Imw Ave ought to behave with regard to the things of fortune, or those which are not in our power, that is to say, which do not follow from our own nature; for it teaches us with equal mind to wait for and bear each form of fortune, because we know that all things follow from THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. 103 the eternal decree of God, according to that same necessity by which it follows from the essence of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles. 3. This doctrine contributes to the welfare of our social existence, since it teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one. It teaches every one, more over, to be content with his own, and to be helpful to his neighbour, not from any womanish pity, from par tiality, or superstition, but by the guidance of reason alone, according to the demand of time and circumstance, as I shall show in the Third Part. 4. This doctrine contributes not a little to the advan tage of common society, in so far as it teaches us by what means citizens are to be governed and led ; not in order that they may be slaves, but that they may freely do those things which are best. Thus I have discharged the obligation laid upon me in this scholium, and with it I make an end of the Second Part, in which I think that I have explained the nature of the human mind and its properties at sufficient length, and, considering the difficulties of the subject, with suffi cient clearness. I think, too, that certain truths have been established, from which much that is noble, most useful, and necessary to be known can be deduced, as we shall partly see from what follows. END OE THE SECOND PART. ( i°4 ) ETHIC. Efjuft part. ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. Most persons who have written about the affects and man's conduct of life seem to discuss, not the natunl things which follow the common laws of nature but things which are outside her. They seem indeed to consider man in nature as a kingdom within a king dom. For they believe that man disturbs rather tlian follows her order ; that he has an absolute power over his own actions; and that he is altogether self-deter mined. They then proceed to attribute the causo of human weakness and changeableness, not to the common power of nature, but to some vice of human nature which they therefore bewail, laugh at, mock, or, as is more generally the case, detest ; whilst he who knows how to revile most eloquently or subtilly the weakness of the mmd is looked upon as divine. It is true that very eminent men have not been wanting, to whose labour and industry we confess ourselves much indebted, who have written many excellent things about the right conduct of life, and who have given to mortals counsels full of prudence, but no one so far as I know has deter mined the nature and strength of the affects, and what tho mind is able to do towards controlling them. I remember ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 105 indeed, that the celebrated Descartes, although he believed that the mind is absolute master over its own actions, tried nevertheless to explain by their first causes human affects, and at the same time to show the way by which the mind could obtain absolute power over them; hut in my opinion he has shown nothing but the acute- ness of his great intellect, as I shall make evident in the proper place, for I wish to return to those who prefer to detest and scoff at human affects and actions than understand them. (To such as these it will doubt- , less seem a marvellous thing for me to endeavour to treat by a geometrical method the vices and follies of men, and to desire by a sure method to demonstrate those things which these people cry out against as being opposed to reason, or as being vanities, absurdities, and monstrosi- ties. The following is my reason for so doing. Nothing happens in nature which can be attributed to any vice «-f nature, for she is always the same and everywhere one. Her virtue is the same, and her power of acting; that is to say, her laws and rules, according to which all things are and are changed from form to form, are every where and always the same ; so that there must also be one and the same method of understanding the nature of all things whatsoever, that is to say, by the universal laws and rules of nature. The affects, therefore, of hatred, anger, envy, considered in themselves, follow from the same necessity and virtue of nature as other individual things ; they have therefore certain causes through which they are to be understood, and certain properties which arc just as worthy of being known as the properties of any other thing in the contemplation alone of which we ''flight. I shall, therefore, pursue the same method in couriering the nature and strength of the affects and the power of the mind over them which I pursued in our previous discussion of God and the mind, and I shall consider human actions and appetites just as if I wt-r.! considering lines, planes, or bodies. ) io6 ETHIC. Def. I. — I call that an adequate cause whose effect; can be clearly and distinctly perceived by means of the cause. I call that an inadequate or partial cause whose effect cannot be understood by means of the cause alone. Def. II. — I say that we act when anything is done, either within us or without us, of which we are the adequate cause, that is to say (by the preceding Def.), when from our nature anything follows, either within us or without us, which by that nature alone can be clearly and distinctly understood. On the other hand, I say that we suffer when anything is done within us, or when any thing follows from our nature, of which we are not the cause excepting partially. Def. III. — By affect I understand the affections of the body, by which the power of acting of the body itself is increased, diminished, helped, or hindered, toge- . ther with the ideas of these affections. If, therefore, we can be the adequate cause of any of these affections, I understand the affect to be an action, otherwise it is a passion. Postulate I. — The human body can be affected in many ways by which its power of acting is increased or diminished, and also in other ways which make its power of acting neither greater nor less. This postulate or axiom is based upon Post. I and Lems. S and 7, following Prop. 13, pt. 2. Postulate 2. — The human body is capable of suffering many changes, and, nevertheless, can retain the impres sions or traces of objects (Post 5, pt. 2), and consequently tho same images of things. (For the definition of images see Schol. Prop. 17, pt. 2.) Prop. I. — Our mind acts at times and at times suffers : in so far as it has adequate ideas, it necessarily acts ; and in so far as it has inadequate ideas, it necessarily suffers. Demonst. — In every human mind some ideas are ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. icy adequate, and others mutilated and confused (SchoL Prop. 40, pt. 2). But the ideas which in any mind are adequate are adequate in God in so far as He forms the essence of that mind (Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2), while those again which are inadequate in the mind are also adequate in God (by the same CoroL), not in so far as He contains the essence of that mind only, but in so far as He contains the ideas ** of other things at the same time in Himself. Again, from any given idea some effect must necessarily follow (Prop. 36, pt. 1), of which God is the adequate cause (Def. 1, pt. 3), not in so far as- ITe is infinite, but in so far as He is considered as affected with the given idea (Prop. 9, pt. 2). But of that effect of which God is the cause, in so far as He is affected by an idea which is adequate in any mind, that same mind is the adequate cause (Corol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 2). Our mind, therefore (Def. 2, pt. 3), in so far as it has adequate ideas, necessarily at times acts, which is the first thing we had to prove. Again, if there be any thing which necessarily follows from an idea which is adequate in God, not in so far as He contains within Himself the mind of one man only, but also, together with this, the ideas1 of other things, then the mind of that man (Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2) is not the adequate cause of that thing, but is only its partial cause, and therefore (Def. 2, pt. 3), in so far as the mind has inadequate ideas, it necessarily at times suffers. This was the second thing to be proved. Therefore our mind, &c. — Q.E.D. Corol. — Hence it follows that the mind is subject to passions in proportion to the number of inadequate ideas which it has, and that it acts in proportion to the number of adequate ideas which it has. 1 " Mentes," both in Paulus, Bru- 2, will show. Kirchmann's transla tor, ami Van Vloten and Land, but tion omits " mentes " in the first obviously a mistake for " ideas," as passage marked, and renders, "inso- a reference to Corol. Prop. II, pt. fernerandereDiugeinsiohenthiilt.'* joS ETHIC. Pbop. II. — The body cannot determine the mind to thought, neither can the mind determine the body to motion nor rest, nor to anything else, if there be anything else. Demonst— Ml modes of thought have God for a cause in so far as He is a thinking thing, and not in so far as He is manifested by any other attribute (Prop. 6, pt. 2). That which determines the mind to thought, therefore, is a mode of thought and not of extension that is to say (Def. r, pt. 2), it is not the body. This is the first thing which was to be proved. Again, the motion and rest of the body must be derived from some other body, which has also been determined to motion or rest by another, and, absolutely, whatever arises in the body must arise from God, in so far as He is considered as affected by some mode of extension, and not in so far as He is considered as affected by any mode of thought {Prop. 6, pt. 2), that is to say, whatever arises in the body cannot arise from the mind, which is a mode of thought (Prop. 11, pt. 2). This is the second thing which was to be proved. Therefore, the body cannot determine, &c — Q.E.D. Schol. — This proposition will be better understood from what has been said in the scholium of Prop. 7, pt. 2, that is to say, that the mind and the body are one and the same thing, conceived at one time under the attribute of thought, and at another under that of ex tension. For this reason, the order or concatenation of things is one, whether nature be conceived under this or under that attribute, and consequently the order of the actions and passions of our body is coincident in nature with the order of the actions and passions of the mind. This is also plain from the manner in which we have demonstrated Prop. 12, pt. 2. Although these things are so,and no ground for doubting remains, I scarcely believe, nevertheless, that, without a proof derived from experience, men will be induced calmly ORIGIN AND NATURE. OF THE AFFECTS. 109 to weigh what has been said, so firmly are they per suaded that, solely at the bidding of the mind^the body moves or rests, and does a number of things-which depend upon the will of the mind alone, and upon the" power of thought. For what the body,can do no one has hitherto determined, that is to say, experience has taught no one hitherto what the body, without being determined by the mind, can do and what it cannot do from the laws of nature alone, in so far as nature is considered merely as corporeal. For no one as yet has understood the structure of the body so accurately as to be able to explain all its functions, not to mention the fact that many things are observed in brutes which far surpass human sagacity, and that sleep-walkers in their sleep do very many tln'm's. which they dare not do when awake ; all this showing that the body itself can do many things from the laws of its own nature alone at which the mind belonging to that body is amazed. Again, nobody knows by what means or by what method the mind moves the body, nor how many degrees of motion it can communicate to the body, nor with what speed it can move the body. So that it follows that when men say that this or that action of the body springs from the mind which has com mand over the body, they do not know what they say, and they do nothing but confess with pretentious words that they know nothing about the cause of the action, and see nothing in it to wonder at. But they will say' that whether they know or do not know by what means' the mind moves the body, it is nevertheless in their ex perience that if the mind were not fit for thinking the body would be inert. They say, again, it is in their ex perience that the mind alone has power both to speak and be silent, and to do many other things which they therefore think to be dependent on a decree of the mind. But with regard to the lirst assertion, I ask them if experience does not also teach that if the body be sluggish the mind at the same time is not fit for no ETHIC. thinking ? When the body is asleep, the mind slum bers with it, and has not the power to think, as it has when the body is awake. Again, I believe that all have discovered that the mind is not always equally fitted for thinking about the same subject, but in pro portion to the fitness of the body for this or that image to be excited in it will the mind be better fitted to contemplate this or that object. But my opponents will say, that from the laws of nature alone, in so far as it is considered to be corporeal merely, it cannot be that the causes of architecture, painting, and things of this sort, which are the results of human art alone, could be deduced, and that the human body, unless it were determined and guided by the mind, would not be able to build a temple. I have already shown, however, that they do not know what the body can do, nor what can be deduced from the consideration of its nature alone, and that they find that many things are done merely by the laws of nature which they would never have believed to be possible without the direction of the mind, as, for example, those things which sleep-walkers do in their sleep, and at which they themselves are astonished when they wake. I adduce also here the structure itself of the human body, which so "reatly surpasses in workmanship all those things which are constructed by human art, not to mention what I have already proved, that an infinitude of things follows from nature under whatever attribute it may bo considered. With regard to the second point, I should say that human affairs would be much more happily conducted if it were equally in the power of men to be silent and to speak ; but experience shows over and over again that there is nothing which men have less power over than the tongue, and that there is nothing which they are less able to°do than to govern their appetites, so that many persons believe that we do those things only with freedom which we seek indifferently; as the desire for such things ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. m can easily be lessened by the recollection of another thing which we frequently call to mind ; it being impossible, on the other hand, to do those things with freedom which we seek with such ardour that the recollection of another thing is unable to mitigate it. But if, however, we had not found out that we do many things which we afterwards repent, and that when agitated by conflicting- affects we see that which is better and follow that which is worse, nothing would hinder us from believing that we do everything with freedom. Thus the infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast ; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance ; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight ; the drunkard believes that by a free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. Thus the madman, the chatterer, the boy, and others of the same kind, all believe that they speak by a free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak, so that experience itself, no less than reason, clearly teaches that men believe themselves to be free simply because they are conscious of their own actions, knowing nothing of the causes by which they are determined: it teaches, too, that the decrees of the mind are nothing but the appetites themselves, which differ, therefore, according to the different temper of the body. For every man determines all things from his affect ; those who are agi tated by contrary affects do not know what they want, whilst those who are agitated by no affect are easily driven hither and thither. All this plainly shows that the decree of the mind, the appetite, and determination of the body are coincident in nature, or rather that they are one and the same thing, which, when it is considered under the attribute of thought and manifested by that, is called a decree, and when it is considered under the attribute of extension and is deduced from the laws of motion and rest, is called a determination. This, how- "2 ETHIC. ever, will be better understood as we go on, for there is another thing which I wish to be observed here — that we cannot by a mental decree do a thing unless we recollect it. We cannot speak a word, for instance, unless we re collect it. But it is not in the free power of the mind either to recollect a thing or to forget it. It is believed, therefore, that the power of the mind extends only thus far — that from a mental decree we can speak or be silent about a thing only when we recollect it. But when we dream that we speak, we believe that we do so from a free decree of the mind; and yet we do not speak, or, if we do, it is the result of a spontaneous motion of the body. We dream, again, that we are concealing things, and that we do this by virtue of a decree ,of the mind like that by which, when awake, we are silent about things we know. We dream, again, that, from a decree of the mind, we do some things which we should not dare to do when awake. And I should like to know, therefore, whether there are two kinds of decrees in the mind — one belonging to dreams and the other free. If this be too great nonsense, we must necessarily grant that this decree of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing but the affirmation which the idea necessarily involves in so far as it is an idea (Prop. 49, pt. 2). These decrees of the mind, therefore, arise in the mind by tlie same necessity as the ideas of things actually existing. Consequently, those who be lieve that they speak, or arc silent, or do anything else from a free decree of the mind, dream with their eyes open. Prop III. — The actions of the mind arise from adequate ideas (done, but the passions depend upon those alone which arc inadequate. Demonst. — The first thing which constitutes the essence ORIGIN AND NATUREOF'THE AFFECTS. 113 of the mind is nothing but the idea of an actually existing body (Props, n and 13, pt. 2). This idea is composed of a number of others (Prop. 15, pt. 2), some of which are adequate and others inadequate (Corol. Prop. 38, pt. 2, and Corol. Prop. 29, pt 2). Everything, therefore, of which the mind is the proximate cause, and which follows from the nature of the mind, through which it must he understood, must necessarily follow from an adequate or from an inadequate idea. But in so far as the mind (Prop. 1, pt. 3) has inadequate ideas, so far it necessarily suffers ; therefore the actions of the mind follow from adequate ideas alone, and the mind therefore suffers only because it has inadequate ideas. Sclwl. — We see, therefore, that the passions are not related to the mind, unless in so far as it possesses something which involves negation; in other words, unless in so far as it is considered as a part of nature, which by itself and without the other parts cannot be clearly and distinctly perceived. In the same way I could show that passions are related to individual things, just as they are related to the mind, and that they cannot be perceived in any other way ; but my pur pose is to treat of the human mind alone. Prop. IV. — A thing cannot be destroyed except by an external cause. Demonst. — This proposition is self-evident, for the definition of any given thing affirms and does not deny the existence of the thing ; that is to say, it posits the essence of the thing and does not negate it. So lono-, therefore, as we attend only to the thing itself, and not to external causes, we shall discover nothing in it which can destroy it. — q.e.d. Prop. V.— In so far as one thing is able to destroy another H "4- ETHIC. are they of contrary natures ; that is to say, they can not exist in the same subject. Demonst.— Ii it were possible for them to come to gether, or to coexist in the same subject, there would then be something in that subject able to destroy it, which (Prop. 4, pt. 3) is absurd. Therefore, in so far' &C. Q.E.D. Prop. VI. — Each thing, in so far as it is in itself, endeavours to persevere in its being. Demonst — Individual things are modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a certain and deter minate manner (Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1) ; that is to say (Prop. 34, pt. 1), they are things which express in a certain and determinate manner the power of God, by which He is and acts. A thing, too, has nothing in itself through which it can be destroyed, or which can negate its existence (Prop. 4, pt. 3), but, on the contrary, it is opposed to everything which could negate its exist ence (Prop, s, pt. 3). Therefore, in so far as it can and is in itself, it endeavours to persevere in its own bein". Q.E.D. Prop. VII. — The effort by which each thing endeavours to persevere in its own being is nothing but the actual essence of the thing itself. Demonst. — From the given essence of anything certain things necessarily follow (Prop. 36, pt. 1); nor are things able to do anything else than what necessarily follows from their determinate nature (Prop. 29, pt. 1). There fore, the power of a thing, or the effort by means of which it does or endeavours to do anything, either by itself or with others — that is to say (Prop. 6, pt. 3), the power or effort by which it endeavours to persevere in its being — is nothing but the given or actual essence of the thing itself. — Q.E.D. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 115 Prop. VIII. — The effort by which each thing endeavours to persevere in its own being does not involve finite but indefinite time. Demonst. — If it involved a limited time, which would determine the duration of the thing, then from that power alone by which the thing exists it would follow that, after that limited time, it could not exist but must be destroyed. But this (Prop. 4, pt. 3) is absurd. The effort, therefore, by which a thing exists does not involve definite time, but, on the contrary (Prop. 4, pt. 3), if the thing be destroyed by no external cause, by the same power by which it now exists it will always continue to ¦exist, and this effort, therefore, by which it endeavours to persevere, &c. — Q.E.D. Prop. IX. — Tlie mind, both in so far as it lias clear and distinct ideas, and in so far as it has confused ideas, endeavours to persevere in its being for an indefinite time, and is conscious of this effort. Demonst. — The essence of the mind is composed of adequate and inadequate ideas (as we have shown in Prop. 3, pt. 3), and therefore (Prop. 7, pt. 3), both in so •far as it has the former and in so far as it has the latter, it endeavours to persevere in its being, and endeavours to persevere in it for an indefinite time (Prop. 8, pt 3). But since the mind (Prop. 23.pt. 2), through the ideas of the affections of the body, is necessarily conscious of itself, it is therefore conscious (Prop. 7, pt. 3) of its effort. Schol. — This effort, when it is related to the mind alone, is called will, but when it is related at the same time both to the mind and the body, is called appetite, ' which is therefore nothing but the very essence of lhan, from the nature of which necessarily follow those things which promote his preservation, and thus he is deter mined to do those things. Hence there is no difference n6 ETHIC. between appetite and desire, unless in this particular, that desire is generally related to men in so far as they are conscious of their appetites, and it may therefore be \ defined as appetite of which we are conscious. From what has been said it is plain, therefore, that we neither strive for, wish, seek, nor desire anything because we think it to be good, but, on the contrary, we adjudge a tiling to be good because we strive for, wish, seek, or desire it. pR0P< X. There can be no idee in the mind which ex- ' eludes the existence of the body, for such an idea is- contrary lo the mind. Demonst.— There can be nothing in our body which is< able to destroy it (Prop. 5, pt- 3). and there cannot be, therefore, in God an idea of any such thing in so far as He has the idea of the body (Corol. Prop. 9, P*- 2) * that is to say (Props. 1 1 and 1 3, pt. 2), no idea of any such thing can exist in our mind,* but, on the contrary, since (Props 1 1 and 1 3, pt. .*») the first thing which constitutes- the essence of the mind is the idea of a body actually existing the first and chief thing belonging to our mmd is the effort (Prop. 7, pt. 3) to affirm the existence of our body, and therefore the idea which denies the existence of our body is contrary to our mind. — Q.E.D. PROP. XI. If anything increases, diminishes, Mps, or limits our body's power of action, the idea of that thing increases, diminishes, helps, or limits our ¦mind's power of thought. Demonst.— This proposition is evident from Prop. 7. pt 2, and also from Prop. 14. pt- 2- &7t0~_We thus see that the mind can suffer great changes, and can pass now to a greater and now to a lesser perfection ; these passions explaining to us the ! affects of joy and sorrow. By joy, therefore, in what ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 117 follows, I shall understand the passion by which the mind passes to a greater perfection ; by sorrow, on the other hand, the passion by which it passes to a less perfection. The affect of joy, related at the same time both to the mind and the body, I call pleasurable excite ment (titillatio) or cheerfulness; that of sorrow I call pain or melancholy. It is, however, to be observed that pleasur able excitement and pain are related to a man when one of his parts is affected more than the others ; cheerful ness and melancholy, on the other hand, when all parts are equally affected. What the nature of desire is I have explained in the scholium of Prop. 9, pt. 3 ; and besides these three — joy, sorrow, and desire — I know of no other primary affect, the others springing from these, as I shall show in what follows. But before I advance any farther, I should like to explain more fully Prop. 10, pt. 3, so that we may more clearly understand in what manner one idea is contrary to another. In the scholium of Prop. 17, pt. 2, we have shown that the idea which forms the essence of the mind in volves the existence of the body so long as the body exists. Again, from Corol. Prop. 8, pt. 2, and its scholium, it follows that the present existence of our mind depends solely upon this — that the mind involves the actual existence of the body. Finally, we have shown that the power of the mind by which it imagines and remembers things also depends upon this — that it involves the actual existence of the body (Props. 1 7 and 1 8, pt. 2, with the Schol.) From these things it follows, that the present existence of the mind and its power of imagina tion are negated as soon as the mind ceases to affirm the present existence of the body. But the cause by which the mind ceases to affirm this existence of the body cannot be the mind itself (Prop. 4, pt. 2), nor can it be the body's ceasing to be ; for (Prop. 6, pt. 2) the mind does not affirm the existence of the body because the body began to exist, and therefore, by the same reason- nS ETHIC. ing, it does not cease to affirm the existence of the body because the body ceases to be, but (Prop. 1 7, pt. 2) because of another idea excluding the present existence of our body, and consequently of our mind, and contrary, there fore, to the idea which forms the essence of our mind. Prop. XII. — Tlie mind endeavours as much as possible to imagine those things which increase or assist the body's power of acting. Demonst. — The human mind will contemplate any external body as present so long as the human bod}' is affected in a way which involves the nature of that external body (Prop. 1 7, pt. 2), and consequently '(Prop. 7, pt. 2) as long as the human mind contemplates any external body as present, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 7, pt. 2), imagines it, so long is the human body affected in a way which involves the nature of that external body. Consequently as long as the mind imagines those things which increase or assist our body's power of action, so long is the body affected in a way which increases or assists that power (Post. 1, pt. 3), and con sequently (Prop. 11, pt. 3) so long the mind's power of thought is increased or assisted ; therefore (Props. 6 and 9, pt. 3) the mind endeavours as much as possible to imagine those things. — Q.E.D. Prop. XIII. — Tfflicncvcr the mind imagines those things which lessen or limit the body's power of action, it endeavours as much as possible to recollect what ex cludes the existence of these things. Demonst. — So long as the mind imagines anything of this sort, the power of the body and of the mind is lessened or limited (as wo have shown in the preced ing proposition). Nevertheless the mind will continue to imagine these things until it imagines some other thing which will exclude their present existence (Prop. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 119 1 7, pt. 2) ; that is to say, as we have just shown, the power of the mind and of the body is diminished or limited until the mind imagines something which ex cludes the existence of these things. This, therefore • (Prop. 9, pt. 3), the mind will endeavour to imagine or recollect as much as possible. — Q.E.D. Corol. — Hence it follows that the mind is averse to imagine those things which lessen or hinder its power and that of the body. Schol — From what has been said we can clearly see what love is and what hatred is. Love is nothing but joy accompanied with the idea of an external cause, and hatred is nothing but sorrow with the accompanying idea of an external cause. We see too that he who loves a thing necessarily endeavours to keep it before him and to preserve it, and, on the other hand, he who hates a thing necessarily endeavours to remove and destroy it. But we shall speak at greater length upon these points in what follows. Prop. XIV. — If tlie mind at any time has been simul taneously affected by two affects, wlienever it is after wards affected by one of them, it will also be affected by the other. Demonst. — If the human body has at any time been simultaneously affected by two bodies, whenever the mind afterwards imagines one of them, it will imme diately remember the other (Prop. 18, pt. 2). But the imaginations of the mind indicate rather the affects of our body than the nature of external bodies (Corol. 2, Prop. 1 6, pt. 2), and therefore if the body, and consequently the mind (Def. 3, pt. 3), has been at any time, &c. — q.e.d. Prop. XV. — Anything may be accidentally the cause of joy, sorrow, or desire. Demonst. — Let the mind be supposed to be affected 120 ETHIC. at the same time by two affects, its power of action not being increased or diminished by one" while tTs in creased or diminished by the other (Post, i, pt. 3). prom he preceding proposition it is plain that when ihe mind is afterwards affected by the first affect through its true cause, which (by hypothesis) of itself neither increases nor diminishes the mind's power of thinking, it will at the same time be affected by the other affect, which does increase or diminish that power, that is to say (Schol. Prop ix, pt. 3) lt wiI1 be affected w.fch v and thus the thing itself will be the cause of joy sorrow, not of itself, but accidentally. I„ the sanm way it can easily be shown that the same thing may acciden tally be the cause of desire.— q.ed. Corol— -The fact that we have contemplated a thin" ¦with an affect of joy or sorrow, of which it is not the efficient cause, is a sufficient reason for being able to love or hate it. Demonst— Yot this fact alone is a sufficient reason (Prop. 1 4) pt. 3) for its coming to pass that the mind in imagining the thing afterwards is affected with the nPW-t of joy or sorrow, that is to say (Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), that tho power of the mind and of the body is increased or dimi nished, &c, and, consequently (Prop. 12, pt. 3), that tho mind desires to imagine the thing or (Corol. Trop. 13, pt. 3) is averse to doing so, that is to say (Schol. Prop.' J3» Pt. 3), that the mind loves the thing or hates it. Schol. — We now understand why wc love or hate certain things from nc cause which is known to us, hut merely from sympathy or antipathy, as they say. ' To this class, too, as we shall show in the following proposi tions, are to be referred those objects which affect us with joy or sorrow solely because they are somewhat like objects which usually affect us with those affects. I know indeed that the writers who first introduced the w.-ids " Sympathy " and " Antipathy " desired thereby to si»iiiiy certain hidden qualities of things, but nevertheless I ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 121 believe that we shall be permitted to understand by those names qualities which are plain and well known. Prop XVI. — If %ve imagine a certain thing to possess some thing which resembles an object which usually affects the mind with joy or sorrow, although the quality in which the thing resembles the object is not the efficient cause of these affects, we shall nevertheless, by virtue of the resemblance alone, love or hate the thing. Demonst.— The quality in which the thing resembles the ol.juct we have contemplated in the object itself (by hypothesis) with the affect of joy or sorrow, and since (Prop. 14, pt. 3), whenever the mind is affected by the •mage of this quality, it is also affected by the former or latter affect, the thing which is perceived by us to possess this quality will be (Prop. 15, pt. 3) accidentally the cause of joy or sorrow. Therefore (by the preceding Urol.), although the quality in which the thing resembles the object is not the efficient cause of these affects, we shall nevertheless love the thing or hate it. PROP. XVII.— If we imagine that a thing that usually affects us with tlie affect of sorrow has any resem blance to an object which usually affects us equally with a great affect of joy, we shall at the same time hate the thing and love it. Demonst.— This thing (by hypothesis) is of itself the cause of sorrow, and (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3) in so far as we imagine it with this affect we hate it ; but in so far as wc imagine it to resemble an object which usually affects us equally with a great affect of joy do we love it with :tl7Sy,Ttrff°^fJOy(Pl'0p- l6'pt- 3). and so we shall both hate it and love it at the same time.— qed M,ol.— This state of mind, which arises from two con trary affects, is called vacillation of the mind. It is related to affect as doubt is related to the imagination 122 E THIC. (Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 2). Hor do vacillation and doubt differ from one another except as greater and less. It is to be observed that in the preceding proposition I have deduced these vacillations of the mind from causes which occasion the one affect directly and the other contingently. This I have done because the affects could thus be more easily deduced from what preceded, and not because I deny that these vacillations often originate from the object itself which is the efficient cause of both affects. For the human body (Post. 1, pt. 2) is composed of a number of individuals of different natures, and therefore (Ax. 1, after Lem. 3, following Prop. 13, pt. 2) it can be affected by one and the same body in very many and in different ways. On the other hand, the same object can be affected in a number of different ways, and con sequently can affect the same part of the body in different ways. It is easy, therefore, to see how one and the same object may be the cause of many and contrary affects. Prop. XVIII. —A man is affected by the image of a past or future thing with the same affect of joy or sorrow as that with which he is affected by the image of a present thing. Demonst. — As long as a man is affected by the image of anything, he will contemplate the thing as present although it does not exist (Prop. 17, pt. 2, with Corol.), nor does he imagine it as past or future, unless in so far as its image is connected with that of past or future time (Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 2). Therefore the image of the thing considered in itself alone is the same whether it be related to future, past, or present time; that is to say (Corol. 2, Prop. 16, pt. 2), the state of the body or the affect is the same whether the image be that of a past, present, or future thing. The affect, therefore, of joy and sorrow is the same whether the image be that of a past, present, or future thing. — Q.E.D. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 123. Schol. 1. — I call a thing here past or future in so far as we have been or shall be affected by it; for example, in so far as we have seen a thing or are about to see it, in so far as it has strengthened us or will strengthen us ; has injured or will injure us. For in so far as we thus imagine it do we affirm its existence ; that is to say, the body is affected by no affect which excludes the existence of the thing, and therefore (Prop. 17, pt. 2) the body is affected by the image of the thing in the same way as if the thing itself were present But because it generally happens that those who possess much ex perience hesitate when they think of a thing as past or future, and doubt greatly concerning its issue (SchoL Prop. 44, pt. 2), therefore the affects which spring from such images of things are not so constant, but are generally disturbed by the images of other things, until men become more sure of the issue. Schol 2. — From what has now been said we understand the nature of Hope, Fear, Confidence, Despair, Gladness, Bemorse. Hope is nothing but unsteady joy, arising from the image of a future or past thing about whose issue we are in doubt. Fear, on the other hand, is an unsteady sorrow, arising from the image of a doubtful thing. If the doubt be removed from these affects, then hope and fear become Confidence and Despair, that is to say, joy or sorrow, arising from the image of a thing for which we have hoped or which we have feared. Glad ness, again, is joy arising from the image of a past thing whose issues we have doubted Bemorse is the sorrow which is opposed to gladness. PROP. XIX. — lie who imagines that what he loves is destroyed will sorrow, but if he imagines that it is preserved he will rejoice. Demonst. — The mind endeavours as much as it can to imagine those things which increase or assist the body's 124 ETHIC. power of action (Prop. 12, pt. 3), that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 3, pt. 3), to imagine those things which it loves. But the imagination is assisted by those things which posit the existence of the object and is restrained by those which exclude its existence (Prop. 17, pt. 2). Therefore the images of things which posit the existence of the beloved object assist the mind's effort to imagine it, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3), they affect the mind with joy ; whilst those, on the other hand, which exclude the existence of the beloved object restrain that same effort of the mind, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 r, pt. 3), they affect the mind with sorrow. He, therefore, who imagines that what he loves is destroyed, &c. — Q.ED. Prop. XX. — He who imagines that what he hates is destroyed will rejoice. Demonst — The mind (Prop. 13, pt. 3) endeavours to imagine those things which exclude the existence of whatever lessens or limits the body's power of action ; that is to say (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), it endeavours to imagine those things which exclude the existence of what it hates, and therefore the image of the thing which excludes the existence of what the mind hates assists this endeavour of the mind, that is to say (Schol. Prop. lI> Pt- 3). affects the mind with joy. He, therefore, who imagines that what he hates is destroyed will re joice. — Q.ED. PROP. XXI. — He who imagines that what lie loves is affected with joy or sorrow will also be affected with joy or sorrow, and these affects will be greater or less in the lover as they are greater or less in the thing loved. Demonst. — The images of things (Prop. 19, pt. 3) which ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 125 posit the existence of the beloved object assist the effort of the mind to imagine it ; but joy posits the existence of the thing which rejoices, and the greater the joy the more is existence posited, for (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3) joy is the transition to a greater perfection The image, there fore, in the lover of the joy of the beloved object assists the effort of his mind to imagine the object, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3), affects the lover with joy proportionate to the joy of the object he loves. This was the first thing to be proved. Again, in so far as anything is affected with sorrow, so far is it destroyed, and the destruction is greater as the sorrow with which it is affected is greater (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3). Therefore (Prop. 19, pt. 3) he who imagines that what he loves is affected with sorrow will also be affected with sorrow, and it will be greater as this affect shall have been greater in the object beloved. PROP. XXII. — If wc imagine that a person affects with joy a thing which we love, we shall be affected with love towards him. If, on the contrary, we imagine that he affects it with sorrow, we shall also be affected with hatred towards him. Demonst. — He who affects with joy or sorrow the- thing we love affects us also with joy or sorrow when ever we imagine the beloved object so affected (Prop. 21, pt. 3). But this joy or sorrow is supposed to exist in us accompanied with the idea of an external cause; therefore (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3) if we imagine that a person affects with joy or sorrow a thing which we love, we shall be affected with love or hatred towards him. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Prop. 21 explains to us what commiseration is, which we may define as sorrow which springs from another's loss. By what name the joy is to be called which springs from another's good I do not know. Love 126 ETHIC. toward the person who has done good to another we shall eall favour (favor), whilst hatred towards him who has done evil to another we shall call indignation (indignatio). It is to be observed, too, that we not only feel pity for the object which we have loved, as we showed in Prop. 2 1, but also for that to which we have been attached by no affect ; provided only we adjudge it to be like ourselves (as I shall show hereafter), and so we shall regard with favour him who has done any good to the object which is like us, and, on the contrary, be indignant with him who has done it any harm. Prop. XXIII. — He who imagines that what he hates is affected with sorrow will rejoice ; if, on the other hand, he imagines it to be affected with joy he will be, sad ; and these affects will be greater or less in him in proportion as their contraries are greater or less in the object he hates. Demonst. — In so far as the hated thing is affected with sorrow is it destroyed, and the destruction is greater as the sorrow is greater (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3). He, therefore (Prop. 20, pt. 3), who imagines that the thing which he hates is affected with sorrow will on the con trary be affected with joy, and the joy will be the greater in proportion as he imagines the hated thing to be affected with a greater sorrow. This was the first thing to be proved. Again, joy posits the existence of the thing which rejoices (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3), and it does so the more in proportion as the joy is conceived to be greater. If a person, therefore, imagines that he whom he hates is affected with joy, this idea (Prop. 13, pt. 3) will restrain the effort of the mind of him who hates, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), he will be affected with sorrow. — Q.E.D. Schol — This joy can hardly be solid and free from any mental conilict. For, as I shall show directly in Prop. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 127 27, in so far as we imagine that what is like ourselves is affected with sorrow, we must be sad ; and, on the con trary, if we imagine it to be affected with joy, we rejoice. Here, however, we are considering merely hatred. Prop. XXIV. — If we imagine that a person affects with joy a thing which we hate, we are therefore affected with hatred towards him. On the other hand, if we imagine that he affects it with sorrow, we are tliere- forc affected with love towards him. Demonst. — This proposition is proved in the same manner as Prop. 22, pt. 3, which see. Schol — These and the like affects of hatred are related to envy, which is therefore nothing but hatred in so far as it is considered to dispose a man so that he rejoices over the evil and is saddened by the good which befals another. PROP. XXV. — We endeavour to affirm everything, both con cerning ourselves and concerning the beloved object wfiich we imagine will affect us or the object with joy, and, on tlie contrary, we endeavour to deny everything that will affect either it or ourselves with sorrow. Demonst. — Everything which we imagine as affecting the beloved object with joy or sorrow affects us also with joy or sorrow (Prop. 2 1, pt. 3). But the mind (Prop. 1 2, pt. 3) endeavours as much as it can to imagine those things which affect us with joy, that is to say "(Prop. 17, pt. 2 and its CoroL), it endeavours to consider them as present. On the contrary (Prop. 13, pt. 3), it endea vours to exclude the existence of what affects us with sorrow : therefore we endeavour to affirm everything both concerning ourselves and concerning the beloved object which wc imagine will affect us or it with joy, &c. — q.'e.ti. I2S ETHIC. Pkop. XXVI. — If we hate a thing, we endeavour to affirm concerning it everything which we imagine will affect it with sorrow, and, on the other hand, to deny every thing concerning it which we imagine will affect it with joy. Demonst. — This proposition follows from Prop. 23, as the preceding proposition follows from Prop. 21. Schol. — We see from this how easily it may happen, that a man should think too much of himself or of the beloved object, and, on the contrary, should think too little of what he hates. When a man thinks too much of himself, this imagination is called pride, and is a kind of delirium, because he dreams with his eyes open, that he is able to do all those things to which he attains in imagination alone, regarding them therefore as realities, and rejoicing in them so long as he cannot imagine any thing to exclude their existence and limit his power of action. Pride, therefore, is that joy which arises from a man's thinking too much of himself. The joy which arises from thinking too much of another is called over- estimation, and that which arises from thinking too little of another is called contempt. Prop. XXVII. — Although we may not have been moved towards a thing by any affect, yet if it is like our selves, whenever v;e imagine it to be affected by any affect we are therefore affected by the same. Demonst. — The images of things are affections of the human body, and the ideas of these affections represent to us external bodies as if they were present (Schol. Prop. 1 7, pt. 2), that is to say (Prop. 16, pt. 2), these ideas involve both the nature of our own body and at the same time the present nature of the external body. If, therefore, the nature of the external body be like that of our body, theu the idea of the external body which we imagine ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 129 will involve an affection of our body like that of the external body. Therefore, if we imagine any one who is like ourselves to be affected with any affect, this imagination will express an affection of our body like that affect, and therefore we shall be affected with a similar affect ourselves, because we imagine something like us to be affected with the same. If, on the other hand, we hate a thing which is like ourselves, we shall so far (Prop. 23, pt. 3) be affected with an affect contrary and not similar to that with which it is affected — q.e.d. Schol. — This imitation of affects, when it is connected with sorrow, is called commiseration (see SchoL Prop. 22, pt. 3), and where it is connected with desire is called emulation, which is nothing else than the desire which is engendered in us for anything, because we imagine that other persons, who are like ourselves, possess the same desire. Corol. 1. — If we imagine that a person to whom we have been moved by no affect, affects with joy a thing which is like us, we shall therefore be affected with love towards him. If, on the other hand, we imagine that he affects it with sorrow, we shall be affected with hatred towards him. Demonst. — This Corol. follows from the preceding pro position, just as Prop. 22, pt. 3, follows from Prop. 21, Pt- 3- Corol. 2. — If we pity a thing, the fact that its misery affects us with sorrow will not make us hate it. Demonst — If we could hate the thing for this reason, we should then (Prop. 23, pt. 3) rejoice over its sorrow, which is contrary to the hypothesis. Corol 3. — If we pity a thing, we shall endeavour as much as possible to free it from its misery. Demonst. — That which affects with sorrow the thing that we pity, affects us likewise with the same sorrow (Prop. 27, pt. 3), and we shall, therefore, endeavour to devise every means by which we ma"' take away or destroy I 130 ETHIC. the existence of the cause of the sorrow (Prop. 1 3, pt. 3) ; that is to say (SchoL Prop. 9, pt. 3), we shall seek to destroy it, or shall be determined thereto, and therefore we shall endeavour to free from its misery the thing we pity. Schol. — This will or desire of doing good, arising from our pity for the object which we want to benefit, is called benevolence, which is, therefore, simply the desire which arises from commiseration. With regard to the love or hatred towards the person who has done good or evil to the thing we imagine to be like ourselves, see Schol. Prop. 22, pt. 3. Prop. XXVIII. — We endeavour to bring into existence everything which we imagine conduces to joy, and to remove or destroy everything opposed to it, or which we imagine conduces to sorrow. Demonst. — We endeavour to imagine as much as pos sible all those things which we think conduce to joy (Prop. 12, pt. 3), that is to say (Prop. 17, pt. 2), we strive as much as possible to perceive them as present or actually existing. But the mind's effort or power in thinking is equal to and correspondent with the body's effort or power in acting, as clearly follows from Corol. Prop. 7, pt. 2, and Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2, and therefore absolutely whatever conduces to joy we endeavour to make exist, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), we seek after it and aim at it. This is the first thing which was to be proved. Again, if we imagine that a thing which we believe causes us sorrow, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), which we hate is destroyed, we shall rejoice (Prop. 20, pt. 3), and therefore (by the first part of this demonstration) we shall endeavour to destroy it, or (Prop. 1 3, pt. 3) to remove it from us, so that we may not per ceive it as present. This is the second thing which was to he proved. We endeavour, therefore, to bring into existence, &c. — q.e.d. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 131 Prop. XXIX. — We shall endeavour to do everything which we imagine men1 will look upon with joy, and, on the contrary, we shall be averse to doing anything to which we imagine men are averse. Demonst. — If we imagine men to love or hate a thing, we shall therefore love or hate it (Prop. 27, pt. 3); that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 3, pt. 3), we shall therefore re joice or be sad at the presence of the thing, and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 3) everything which we imagine that men love or look upon with joy, we shall endeavour to do, &c. Q.E.D. Schol — This effort to do some things and omit doing others, solely because we wish to please men, is called ambition, especially if our desire to please the eommon people is so strong that our actions or omissions to act are accompanied with injury to ourselves or to others. Otherwise this endeavour is usually called humanity. Again, the joy with which we imagine another person's action, the purpose of which is to delight us, I call praise, and the sorrow with which we turn away from an action of a contrary kind I call ¦blame. Prop. XXX. — If a person has done anything which he imagines will affect others with joy, he also will be affected with joy, accompanied with an idea of himself as its cause ; that is to say, he will look upon himself with joy. If, on the other hand, he has done einy- thing which lie imagines will affect others with sorrow, lie will look upon himself with sorrow. Demonst. — He who imagines that he affects others with joy or sorrow will necessarily be affected with joy or sorrow (Prop. 27, pt. 3). But since man is conscious 1 lioth hero and in what follows to whom wo are moved by no alTuct I understand by tho word men, men (Sp.) 132 ETHIC. of himself (Props. 19 and 23, pt. 2) by means of the affections by which he is determined to act; therefore he who has done anything which he imagines will affect. others with joy will be affected with joy accompanied with a consciousness of himself as its cause ; that is to- say, he will look upon himself with joy, and, on the other hand, &c. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Since love (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3) is joy attended with the idea of an external cause, and hatred is sorrow attended with the idea of an external cause, the joy and sorrow spoken of in this proposition will be a kind of love and hatred. But because love and hatred are related to external objects, we will therefore give a different name to the affects which are the subject of this proposition, and we will call this kind of joy which is attended with the idea of an external cause self- exaltation, and the sorrow opposed to it we will call shame. The reader is to understand that this is the case in which joy or sorrow arises because the man. believes that he is praised or blamed, otherwise I shall call this joy accompanied with the idea of an external cause contentment with one's-self, and the sorrow opposed to it repentance. Again, since (Corol. Prop. 17, pt. 2) it may happen that the joy with which a person imagines that he affects other people is only imaginary, and° since (Prop. 25, pt. 3) every one endeavours to ima-dne concerning himself what he supposes will affect himself with joy, it may easily happen that the self- exalted man becomes proud, and imagines that he is pleasing everybody when he is offensive to every body. Prop. XXXI. — If we imagine that a person loves, desires,. or hates a thing which we ourselves love, desire, or hate, we shall on that account love, desire, or hale the thing more steadily. If, on the other hand, we imagine that he is averse to the thing we love or loves the thing ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 133 to which we are averse, we shall then suffer vacillation of mind. Demonst. — If we imagine that another person loves a thing, on that very account we shall love it (Prop. 27, pt. 3). But we suppose that we love it independently of this, and a new cause for our love is therefore added, by which it is strengthened, and consequently the object we love will be loved by us on this account the more steadily. Again, if we imagine that a person is averse to a thing, on that very account we shall be averse to it {Prop. 27, pt. 3); but if we suppose that we at the same time love it, we shall both love the thing and be averse to it, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 17, pt. 3), we shall suffer vacillation of mind. — q.e.d. Corol. — It follows from this proposition and from Prop. 28, pt. 3, that every one endeavours as much as possible to make others love what he loves, and to hate what he hates. Hence the poet says — " Speremus pariter, pariter metuamus amantes; Ferreus est, si quis, quod sinit alter, amat." This effort to make every one approve what we love or hate is in truth ambition (SchoL Prop. 29, pt. 3), and so we see that each person by nature desires that other persons should live according to his way of thinking; but if every one does this, then all are a hindrance to one another, and if every one wishes to be praised or beloved by the rest, then they all hate one another. PROP. XXXII. — If we imagine that a person delights in a thing which only one can possess, we do all we can to prevent his possessing it. Demonst. — If we imagine that a person delights in a -thing, that will be a sufficient reason (Prop. 27, pt. 3, with Corol. 1) for making us love the thing and desiring 134 ETHIC. to delight in it. But (by hypothesis) we imagine that his delighting in the thing is an obstacle to our joy, and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 3) we endeavour to prevent his- possessing it. — Q.E.D. Schol — We see, therefore, that the nature of man is generally constituted so as to pity those who are in ad versity and envy those who are in prosperity, and (Prop. 32, pt. 3) he envies with a hatred which is the greater in proportion as he loves what he imagines another possesses. We see also that from the same property of human nature from which it follows that men pity one another it also follows that they are envious and ambitious. If we will consult experience, we shall find that she teaches the same doctrine, especially if we consider the first years of our life. For we find that children, because their body is, as it were, continually in equilibrium, laugh and cry merely because they see others do the same; whatever else they see others do they immediately wish to imitate ; everything which they think is pleasing to other people they want. And the reason is, as we have said, that the images of things are the affections themselves of the human body, or the ways in which it is affected by external causes and disposed to this or that action. Prop. XXXIII. — If we love a thing which is like ourselves? we endeavour as much as possible to make it love us in return. Demonst. — We endeavour as much as possible to ima gine before everything else the thing wo love (Prop. 1 2, pt. 3). If, therefore, it be like ourselves, we shall en deavour to affect it with joy before everything else (Prop. 29, pt. 3) ; that is to say, we shall endeavour as much as possible to cause the beloved object to be affected with joy attended with the idea of ourselves, or, in other words (Schol. Prop. 1 3, pt. 3), we try to make it love us in return. — Q.E.D. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 135 Prop. XXXIV. — The greater the affect vnth which we imagine that a beloved object is affected towards us, the greater will be our self-exaltation. Demonst. — We endeavour as much as possible to make a beloved object love us in return (Prop. 33, pt. 3), that is to say (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), to cause it to be affected with joy attended with the idea of ourselves. In proportion, therefore, as we imagine the beloved object to be affected with a joy of which we arc the cause, will our endeavour be assisted, that is to say (Prop. 1 1, pt. 3 with SchoL), will be the greatness of the joy with which we are affected. But since we rejoice because we have affected with joy another person like ourselves, we shall look upon ourselves with joy (Prop. 30, pt. 3); and therefore the greater the affect with which we imagine that the beloved object is affected towards us, the greater will be the joy with which we shall look upon ourselves, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 30, pt. 3), the greater will be our self-exaltation. — q.e.d. Prop. XXXV — If I imagine that an object beloved by me is united to another person by the same, or by a closer bond of friendship than that by which I myself alone held tlie object, I shall be affected with hatred towards the beloved object itself, and shall envy that other person. Demonst. — The greater the love with which a person imagines a beloved object to be affected towards him, the greater will be his self-exaltation (Prop. 34, pt. 3), that is to say (Schol. Prop. 30, pt. 3), the more will he rejoice. Therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 3) he will endeavour as much as he can to imagine the beloved object united to him as closely as possible, and this effort or desire is strengthened if he imagines that another person "36 ETHIC. desires for himself the same object (Prop. 31, pt. 3). But this effort or desire is supposed to be checked by the image of the beloved object itself attended by the image of the person whom it connects with itself. There fore (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3) the lover on this account will be affected with sorrow attended with the idea of the beloved object as its cause together with the image of another person ; that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 3, pt. 3), he will be affected with hatred towards the beloved object and at the same time towards this other person (Corol. Prop. 1 5, pt. 3), whom he Will envy (Prop 23, pt. 3) as 'being delighted with it. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This hatred towards a beloved object when joined with envy is called Jealousy, which is there fore nothing but a vacdlation of the mind springing from the love and hatred both felt together, and attended with the idea of another person whom we envy. Moreover, this hatred towards the beloved object will be greater in proportion to the joy with which the jealous man has been usually affected from the mutual affection between him and his beloved, and also in proportion to the affect with which he had been affected towards the person who is imagined to unite to himself the beloved object. For if he has hated him, he will for that very reason hate the beloved object (Prop. 24, pt. 3), because he imagines it to affect with joy that which he hates, and also (Corol. Prop. 15, pt. 3) because be is compelled to connect the image of the beloved object with the image of him whom he hates. This feeling is generally excited when the love is love towards a woman. The man who imagines that the woman he loves prostitutes herself to another is not merely troubled because his appetite is restrained, but he turns away from her because he is obliged to con nect the image of a beloved object with the privy parts and with what is excremental in another man ; and in addition to this, the jealous person is not received with the same favour which the beloved object formerly be- ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 137 stowed on him, — a new cause of sorrow to the lover, as 1 shall show. Prop. XXXVI. — He who recollects a thing with which he has once been delighted, desires to possess it with every condition which existed when he was first delighted with it. Demonst. — Whatever a man has seen together with an object which has delighted him will be (Prop. 1 5, pt. 3) contingently a cause of joy, and therefore (Prop. 2S, pt. 3) lie will desire to possess it all, together with the object which has delighted him, that is to say, he will desire to possess the object with every condition which existed when he was first delighted with it. — q.e.d. Corol. — If, therefore, the lover discovers that one of these conditions be wanting, he will be sad. Demonst. — For in so far as he discovers that any one condition is wanting does he imagine something which excludes the existence of the object. But since (Prop. 36, pt. 3) he desires the object or condition from love, he will therefore be sad (Prop. 19, pt. 3) in so far as he imagines that condition to be wanting. — q.e.d. Schol — This sorrow, in so far as it is related to the absence of what we love, is called longing. Prop. XXXVII. — The desire which springs from sorrow or joy, from hatred or love, is greater in proportion as the affect is greater. Demonst. — Sorrow lessens or limits a man's power of action (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), it lessens or limits the effort by which a man endea vours to persevere in his own being, and therefore (Prop. 5, pt. 3) it is opposed to this effort ; consequently, if a man be affected with sorrow, the first thing he attempts is to remove that sorrow ; but (by the definition of sorrow) 138 ETHIC. the greater it is, the greater is the human power of action to which it must be opposed, and so much the greater, therefore, will be the power of action with which the man will endeavour to remove it ; that is to say (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), with the greater eagerness or desire will he struggle to remove it. Again, since joy (Schol. Prop. ii, pt. 3) increases or assists a man's power of action, it is easily demonstrated, by the same method, that there is nothing which a man who is affected with joy desires more than to preserve it, and his desire is in proportion to his joy. Again, since hatred and love are themselves affects either of joy or sorrow, it follows in the same manner that the effort, desire, or eagerness which arises from hatred or love will be greater in proportion to the hatred or love. — q.e.d. Prop. XXXVIII. — If a man has begun to hate a beloved thing, so that his love to it is altogether destroyed, he will for this very reason hate it more than he would have done if he had never loved it, and his hatred will be in greater proportion to his previous love. Demonst. — If a man begins to hate a thing which he loves, a constraint is put upon more appetites than if he had never loved it. For love is joy (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), which a man endeavours to preserve as much as possible (Prop. 28, pt. 5), both by looking on the beloved object as present (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), and by affect ing it with joy as much as possible (Prop. 21, pt. 3); this effort (Prop. 37, pt. 3) to preserve the joy of love being the greater in proportion as his love is greater, and so also is the effort to bring the beloved object to love him in return (Prop. 33, pt. 3). But these efforts are restrained by the hatred towards the beloved object (Corol. Prop. 1 3, and Prop. 23, pt. 3) ; therefore the lover (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3) for this reason also will be affected with sorrow, and that the more as the love had been ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 139 greater ; that is to say, in addition to the sorrow which was the cause of the hatred there is another produced by his having loved the object, and consequently he will con template with a greater affect of sorrow the beloved object ; that is to say (SchoL Prop. 1 3, pt. 3), he will hate it more than he would have done if he had not loved it, and his hatred will he in proportion to his previous love. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXIX. — If a man hates another, he will endeavour to do him evil, unless he fears a greater evil will there from arise to himself ; and, on the other hand, he who loves another will endeavour to do him good by the same rule. Demonst. — To hate a person (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3) is to imagine him as a cause of sorrow, and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 3) he who hates another will endea vour to remove or destroy him. But if he fears lest a greater grief, or, which is the same thing, a greater evil, should fall upon himself, and one which he thinks he can avoid by refraining from inflicting the evil he meditated, he will desire not to do it (Prop. 28, pt. 3) ; and this desire will be stronger than the former with which he was possessed of inflicting the evil, and will prevail over it (Prop. 37, pt. 3). This is the first part of the proposition. The second is demonstrated in the same way. Therefore if a man hates another, &c. Q.E.D. Schol — By good, I understand here every kind of joy and everything that conduces to it ; chiefly, however, anything that satisfies longing, whatever that thing may be. By evil, I understand every kind of sorrow, and chiefly whatever thwarts longing. For we have shown above (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3) that we do not desire a thing because we adjudge it to be good, but, on the con trary, we call it good because we desire it, and conse- T4° ETHIC. quently everything to which we are averse we call evil. Each person, therefore, according to his affect judges or estimates what is good and what is evil, what is better and what is worse, and what is the best and what, is the worst. Thus the covetous man thinks plenty of money to be the best thing and poverty the worst. The ambitious man desires nothing like glory, and on the other hand. dreads nothing like shame. To the envious person, again, nothing is more pleasant than the misfortune of another, and nothing more disagreeable than the prosperity of another. And so each person according to his affect judges a thing to be good or evil, useful or useless. We notice, moreover, that this affect, by which a man is so disposed as not to will the thing he wills, and to will that which he docs not will, is called fear, which may therefore be defined as that apprclicnsion which leads a man to avoid an evil in the future by incurring a lesser evil (Prop. 28, pt. 3). If the evil feared is shame, then the fear is called modesty. If the desire of avoiding the future is restrained by the fear of another evil, so that the man does not know what he most wishes, then this apprehension is called consternation, especially if both the evils feared are very great. Prop. XL. — If we imagine that we are hated by another without having given him any cause for it, we shall hate him in return. Demonst. — If we imagine that another person is affected with hatred, on that account we shall also be affected with it (Prop. 27, pt. 3) ; that is to say, we shall be affected with sorrow (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), accompanied with the idea of an external cause. But (by hypothesis) we imagine no cause for this sorrow excepting the person himself who hates us, and therefore, because we imagine ourselves hated by another, we shall be affected with sorrow accompanied with the idea of him who hates ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS, 141 us ; that is to say (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), we shall hate him. — Q.E.D. Schol. — If we imagine that we have given just cause for the hatred, we shall then (Prop. 30, pt. 3, with its Schol.) be affected with shame. This, however (Prop. 25, pt. 3), rarely happens. This reciprocity of hatred may also arise from the fact that hatred is followed by an attempt to bring evil upon him who is hated (Prop. 39, pt. 3). If, therefore, we ima gine that we are hated by any one else, we shall imagine them as the cause of some evil or sorrow, and thus we shall be affected with sorrow or apprehension accompanied with the idea of the persoii who hates us as a cause ; that is to say, we shall hate him in return, as we have said above. Corol. 1. — If we imagine that the person we love is affected with hatred towards us, we shall be agitated at the same time both with love and hatred. For in so far as we imagine that we are hated are we determined (Prop. 40, pt. 3) to hate him in return. But (by hypothesis) we love him notwithstanding, and therefore we shall be agi tated both by love and hatred. Corol. 2. — If we imagine that an evil has been brought upon us through the hatred of some person towards whom we have hitherto been moved by no affect, we shall immediately endeavour to return that evil upon him. Demonst. — If we imagine that another person is affected with hatred towards us, we shall hate him in return (Prop. 40, pt. 3), and (Prop. 26, pt. 3) we shall endeavour to devise and (Prop. 39, pt. 3) bring upon him everything which can affect him with sorrow. But (by hypothesis) the first thing of this kind we imagine is the evil brought upon ourselves, and therefore we shall immediately endeavour to bring that upon him. — q.e.d. Schul. — The attempt tc bring evil on those wc hate is called anger, and the attempt to return the evil in flicted on urselves is called vengeance. 142 ETHIC. Prop. XLL — If we imagine that we are beloved by a per son without having given any cause for the love (which may be the case by Corol. Prop. 1 5, pt. 3, a?id by Prop. 1 6, pt. 3), we shall love him in return. Demonst. — This proposition is demonstrated in the :same way as the preceding, to the scholium of which the reader is also referred. Schol. — If we imagine that we have given just cause for love, we shall pride ourselves upon it (Prop. 30, pt. 3, with its Schol.) This frequently occurs (Prop. 25, pt. 3), and we have said that the contrary takes place when we believe that we are hated by another person (Schol. Prop. 40, pt. 3). This reciprocal love, and conse quently (Prop. 39, pt. 3) this attempt to do good to the person who loves us, and who (by the same Prop. 39, pt. 3) endeavours to do good to us, is called thankful ness or gratitude, and from this we can see how much readier men are to revenge themselves than to return a benefit. Corol — If we imagine that we are loved by a person we hate, we shall at the same time be agitated both by love and hatred. This is demonstrated in the same way as the preceding proposition. Schol. — If the hatred prevail, we shall endeavour to bring evil upon the person by whom we are loved. This affect is called Cruelty, especially if it is believed that the person who loves has not given any ordinary reason for hatred. Prop. XLII. — If, moved by love or hope of self-exaltation, we have conferred a favour upon another person, we shall be sad if we see that the favour is received with ingratitude. Demonst. — If we love a thing which is of the same nature as ourselves, we endeavour as much as possible to ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 143 cause it to love us in return (Prop. 33, pt. 3). If we confer a favour, therefore, upon any one because of our love towards him, we do it with a desire by which we are possessed that we may be loved in return ; that is to say (Prop. 34, pt. 3), from the hope of self-exaltation or (SchoL Prop. 30, pt. 3) of joy, and we shall consequently (Prop. 12, pt. 3) endeavour as much as possible to ima gine this cause of self-exaltation, or to contemplate it as actually existing. But (by hypothesis) we imagine some thing else which excludes the existence of that cause and, therefore (Prop. 19, pt. 3), this will make us sad — Q.E.D. Prop. XLIII. — Hatred is increased through return of hatred, but may be destroyed by love. Demonst— li we imagine that the person we hate is affected with hatred towards us, a new hatred is thereby produced (Prop. 40, pt. 3), the old hatred still remaining (by hypothesis). If, on the other hand, we imagine him to be affected with love towards us, in so far as we imat ,\ , i-dded which springs from 2 fact-' ^til XtZ remove the sorrow which hatred involves (Prop 37 pt. 3) is so much assisted, there being also present £££•££ "¦"••- -»«" «-ys &/W.— Notwithstanding the truth of this proposition no one wdl try to hate a thing or will wish toVaff ted* vi h sorrow m order that he may rejoice the more; that to say, no one will desire to inflict loss on himself in the hope of recovering the loss, or to become ill in the hope of getting well, inasmuch as every one will always himself Pre5erVe,US bemg aDd t0 rem°Ve SOTr™ from himself as much as possible. Moreover, if it can be imagined that it is possible for us to desire to hate a per son in order that we may love him afterwards the more we must always desire to continue the hatred. For the love will be the greater as the hatred has been greater and therefore we shall always desire the hatred to be more and more increased. Upon the same principle we shall desire that our sickness may continue and increase in order that we may afterwards enjoy the greater plea sure when we get well, and therefore we shall always desire sickness, which (Prop. 6, pt. 3) is absurd. PROP. XLV— // we imagine that any one like ourselves is affected with hatred towards an object like ourselves which we love, we shall hate him. Demonst.— -The beloved object hates him who hates it. (L rop. 40, pt. 3), and therefore we who love it, who ima-ine that any one hates it, imagine also that it is affected with hatred; that is to say, with sorrow (Schol. Prop 13 ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS ,45 £Ji£-^E££ 24« 7LZ £** person, as the cause thereof who hate Tth TL 5 °l th& different from our own and if nZ "att0n »/W is „* mmKmfmU Jt'ZtZr™ Demons!.- This is evident from Prop „ „. , , m so far as we imagine an obi.,., i-i , P 3 ; for witli sorrow shall we be sad ' ° <""'*-1V"* "ffected tie object, althoV ifd es Z actfT " ™ ™°lha template it as nrnsent ,nT« , ] Uy exlst- ,re «»- -me way an ifTw 're ^t Ser ,""", " "» the memorye, the object^!, l^Z' SuZ" *? «- reeoiieotTen-oflhS &£ ^'^T < ¦* euce of the object hi, *¦ i. ««* u , exclude tlle exiat- oojecc, out is not altogether removed ru^ tore we reioice nnlv c~ * , il"1,'uveu- -tliere- -trained. ST h°en Pt- 3), that is to say (SchoL Prop. 13, pt 3), sorrow, or, in other words (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), an affection by which the effort of a man or his power of action is restrained. But (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3) a man neither endeavours to do nor desires anything excepting what can follow from his given nature, therefore a man will not desire to affirm of himself any power of action, or, which is the same thing, any virtue which is peculiar to another nature and foreign to his own. His desire, therefore, cannot be restrained, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3), he cannot feel any sorrow because he contem plates a virtue in another person altogether unlike himself, and conscqucntiy he cannot envy that person, but will only envy one who is his own equal, and who is supposed to possess the same nature. Schol. — Since, therefore, we have said in SchoL Prop. 52, pt. 3, that we venerate a man because we are astonished at his wisdom and bravery, &c, this happens because (as is evident from the proposition itself) we imagine that he specially possesses these virtues, and that they are not common to our nature. We therefore envy them no more than we envy trees their height or lions their bravery Prop. LVI. — Of joy, sorrow, and desire, and consequently of every affect which cither, like vacillation of mind, is compounded of these, or, like love, hatred, hope, and fear, is derived from them, there arc just as many kinds as there are kinds of objects by which we are affected. Demonst. — Joy and sorrow, and consequently the affects which are compounded of these or derived from them, are passions (Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3). But (Prop. 1, pt. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 15; 3) we necessarily suffer in so far as we have inadequate ideas, and (Prop. 3, pt. 3) only in so far as we have them; that is to say (see Schol. Prop. 40, pt. 2), we necessarily suffer only in so far as we imagine, or (see Prop. 17, pt. 2, with its Schol.) in so far as we are affected with an affect which involves the nature of our body and that of an external body. The nature, therefore, of each passion must necessarily be explained in such a manner, that the nature of the object by which we are affected is expressed. The joy, for example, which springs from an object A. involves the nature of that object A., and the joy which springs from B. involves the nature of that object B., and therefore these two affects of joy are of a different nature, because they arise from causes of a different nature. In like manner the affect of sorrow which arises from one object is of a different kind from that which arises from another cause, and the same thing is to be understood of love, hatred, hope, fear, vacillation of mind, &c. ; so that there are necessarily just as many kinds of joy, sorrow, love, hatred, &c, as there are kinds of objects by which we are affected. But desire is the essence itself or nature of a person in so far as this nature is conceived from its given constitution as determined towards any action (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), and therefore as a person is affected by external causes with this or that kind of joy, sorrow, love, hatred, &c, that is to say, as his nature is constituted in this or that way, so must his desire vary and the nature of one desire differ from that of another, just as the affects from which each desire arises differ. There are as many kinds of desires, therefore, as there are kinds of joy, sorrow, love, &c, and, consequently (as we have just shown), as there are kinds of objects by which we are affected. — q.ed. Schol. — Amongst the different kinds of affects, which (by the preceding Prop.) must be very great in number, the most remarkable are voluptuousness, drunkenness, lust, avarice, and ambition, which are nothing but notions i56 ETHIC. of love or desire, which explain the nature of this or that affect through the objects to which they are related ¦tor by voluptuousness, drunkenness, lust, avarice and ambition we understand nothing but an immoderate love or desire for good living, for drinking, for women, for nches, and for glory. It is to be observed that these af fects m so far as we distinguish them by the object alone to which they are related, have no contraries. For tem perance, sobriety, and chastity, which we are in the habit of opposing to voluptuousness, drunkenness, and lust arc not affects nor passions : but merely indicate the power of tlie mmd which restrains these affects. The remaining kinds of affects I cannot explain here (for they are as numerous as are the varieties of objects), nor, if I could explain them, is it necessary to do so. For it is sufficient for the purpose we have in view, the deter mination, namely, of the strength of the affects and tlie mind's power over them, to have a general definition of each kind of affect. It is sufficient for us, I say, to under stand the common properties of the mind and the affects, so that we may determine what and how great is the power of the mind to govern and constrain the affects. Although, therefore, there is a great difference between tins or that affect of love, of hatred, or of desire— for example, between the love towards children and the love towards a wife— it is not worth while for us to take cognisance of these differences, or to investigate the nature and origin of the affects any further. Prop. LVII.— The affect of one person differs from the cor responding affect of another as much as the essence of the one person differs from that of the other. Demonst. — This proposition is evident from Ax. i, following Lem. 3, after Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 2. Neverthe less, we will demonstrate it from the definitions of the three primitive affects. All affects are related to desire, ORIGIN AND NATURE OP THE AFFECTS. i$7 joy, or sorrow, as the definitions show which we have given of those affects. But desire is the very nature or essence of a person (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), and therefore the desire of one person differs from the desire of another as much as the nature or essence of the one differs from that of the other. Again, joy and sorrow are passions by which the power of a person or his effort to persevere in his own being is increased or diminished, helped, or limited (Prop. 11, pt. 3, with its Schol.) But by the effort to persevere in his own being, in so far as it is related at the same time to the mind and the body, we understand appetite and desire (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), and therefore joy and sorrow are desire or appetite in so far as the latter is increased, diminished, helped, or limited by external causes; that is to say (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), they are the nature itself of each person. The joy or sorrow of one person therefore differs from the joy or sorrow of another as much as the nature or essence of one person differs from that of the other, and consequently the affect of one person differs from the corresponding affect of another, &c. — q.e.d. Schol. — Hence it follows that the affects of animals which are called irrational (for after we have learnt the origin of the mind we can in no way doubt that brutes feel) differ from human affects as much as the nature of a brute differs from that of a man. Both the man and the horse, for example, are swayed by the lust to propa gate, but the horse is swayed by equine lust and the man by that which is human. The lusts and appetites of insects, fishes, and birds must vary in the same way ; and so, although each individual lives contented with its own nature and delights in it, nevertheless the life with which it is contented and its joy are nothing but the idea or soul of that individual, and so the joy of one differs in character from the joy of the other as much as the essence of the one differs from the essence of the other. Finally, it follows from the preceding proposition that the joy by which the i58 ETHIC. drunkard is enslaved is altogether different from the joy which is the portion of the philosopher, — a thing I wished just to hint in passing. So much, therefore, for the affects which are related to man in so far as he suffers. It remains that I should say a few words about those things which are related to him in so far as he acts. Prop. LVII I. — Besides the joys and sorrows which are passions, there are other affects of joy and sorrow which are related to us in so far as wc act. Demonst. — When the mind conceives itself and its own power of acting, it is rejoiced (Prop. 5 3, pt. 3). But the mind necessarily contemplates itself whenever it conceives a true or adequate idea (Prop. 43, pt. 2) ; and as (Schol. 2, Trop. 40, pt. 2) it does conceive some adequate ideas, it is rejoiced in so far as it conceives them, or, in other words (Prop. 1, pt. 3), in so far as it acts. Again, the mind, both in so far as it has clear and distinct ideas and in so far as it has confused ideas, en deavours to persevere in its own being (Prop. 9, pt. 3). But by this effort we understand desire (Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3), and therefore desire also is related to us in so far as we think ; that is to say (Prop. 1, pt. 3), in so far as we act. — q.E.d. Prop. LIX. — Amongst all the affects which are related to the mind in so far as it acts, there are none which are not related to joy or desire. Demonst — All the affects are related to desire, joy, or sorrow, as the definitions we have given of them show. By sorrow, however, we understand that the mind's power of acting is lessened or limited (Prop. 1 r, pt. 3, and its SchoL), and therefore, in so far as the mind suffers sorrow is its power of thinking, that is to say (Prop. 1, pt. 3), its power of acting, lessened or limited. Therc- ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 139 fore no affects of sorrow can be related to the mind in so far as it acts, but only affects of joy and desire, which (by the preceding Prop.) are also so far related to the mind. — Q.E.D. Schol — All the actions which follow from the affects which are related to the mind in so far as it thinks I ascribe to fortitude, which I divide into strength of mind (animositas) and generosity. By strength of mind, I mean the desire by which each person endeavours from the dictates of reason alone to preserve his own being. By generosity, I mean the desire by which from the dictates of reason alone each person endeavours to help other people and to join them to him in friendship. Those actions, therefore, which have for their aim tho advantage only of the doer I ascribe to strength of mind, whilst those which aim at the. advantage of others I ascribe to generosity. Temperance, therefore, sobriety, and presence of mind in danger, are a species of strength of mind, while moderation and mercy are a species of generosity. I have now, I think, explained the principal affects and vacillations of the mind which are compounded of the three primary affects, desire, joy, and sorrow, and have set them forth through their first causes. From what has been said it is plain that we are disturbed by external causes in a number of ways, and that, like the waves of the sea agitated by contrary winds, we fluctuate in our ignorance of our future and destiny. I have said, however, that I have only explained the prin cipal mental complications, and not all which may exist. For by the same method which we have pursued above it would be easy to show that love unites itself to re pentance, scorn, shame, &c. ; but I think it has already been made clear to all that the affects can he combined in so many ways, and that so many variations can arise, that no limits can be assigned to their number. It is sufficient for my purpose to have enumerated only those which are of consequence; the rest, of which I have i6o ETHIC. taken no notice, being more curious than important. There is one constantly recurring characteristic of love which I have yet to notice, and that is, that while we are enjoying the thing which we desired, the body acquires from that fruition a new disposition by which it is otherwise determined, aud the images of other things are excited in it, and the mind begins to imagine and to desire other things. For example, when we imagine anything which usually delights our taste, we desire to enjoy it by eating it. But whilst we enjoy it the stomach becomes full, and the constitution of the body becomes altered. If, therefore, the body being now other wise disposed, the image of the food, in consequence of its being present, and therefore also the effort or desire to eat it, become more intense, then this new disposition of the body will oppose this effort or desire, and consequently the presence of the food which we desired will become hateful to us, and this hatefulness is what we call loathing or disgust. As for the external affections of the body which are observed in the affects, such as trembling, pale ness, sobbing, laughter, and the like, I have neglected to notice them, because they belong to the body alone without any relationship to the mind. A few things remain to be said about the definitions of the affects, and I will therefore here repeat the definitions in order, ap pending to them what is necessary to be observed in each. The Affects. — Def. I. — Desire is the essence itself of man in so far as it is conceived as determined to any action by any one of his affections. Explanation. — We have said above, in the Schol. of Prop. 9, pt. 3, that desire is appetite which is self-con scious, and that appetite is the essence itself of man in so- far as it is determined to such acts as contribute to bis preservation. But in the same scholium I have taken care to remark that in truth I cannot recognise any difference between human appetite and desire. For whether a man be conscious of his appetite or not, it remains one and ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 161 the same appetite, and so, lest I might appear to be guilty of tautology, I have not explained desire by appetite, but have tried to give such a definition of desire as would include all the efforts of human nature to which we «ive the name of appetite, desire, will, or impulse. For I might have said that desire is the essence itself of man in so far as it is considered as determined to any action • but lrom this definition it would not follow (Prop 2% pt. 2) that the mind could be conscious of its desire or appetite, and therefore, in order that I might include the cause ot this consciousness, it was necessary (by the same proposition) to add the words, in so far as it is conceived as determined to any action by any one of his affections. For by an affection of the human essence we understand any constitution of that essence, whether it be innate whether it be conceived through the attribute of thought alone or of extension alone, or whether it be related to both. By the word "desire," therefore I understand all the efforts, impulses, appetites, and voli tions of a man, which vary according to his changing disposition, and not unfrequently are so opposed to one not wnL , 13,d:awn hitlier and thither* and *-™s not whither he ought to turn. focion.^ ^ man'S PaSSaSe fTOm & l6SS t0 a §reater Per" perfee'iot" " "^ ^^ ^ a *«*» t0 a *~ Explanation.-! say passage, for joy is not perfection tself. If a man were born with the perfection to which he passes, he would possess it without the affect of joy a truth which will appear the more clearly from the' affect of sorrow, which is the opposite to joy Por th* sorrow consists in the passage to a less perfection, bu not in the less perfection itself, no one can deny, since in so ar a3 a man shares any perfection he cannot be ad Nor can we say that sorrow consists in the privation of a greater perfection, for privation is nothing. But the L 162 ETHIC. affect of sorrow is a reality, and it therefore must be the reality of the passage to a lesser perfection, or the reality by which man's power of acting is diminished or limited (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3). As for the definitions of cheer fulness, pleasurable excitement, melancholy, and grief, I pass these by, because they are related rather to the body than to the mind, and are merely different kinds of joy or of sorrow. IV. Astonishment is the imagination of an object in which the mind remains fixed because this particular imagination has no connection with others. Explanation. — In the Schol. of Prop. 18, pt. 2, we have shown that that which causes the mind from the contemplation of one thing immediately to pass to the thought of another is that the images of these things are connected one with the other, and are so arranged that the one follows the other; a process which can not be conceived when the image of the thing is new, for the mind will be held in the contemplation of the same object until other causes determine it to think of other things. The imagination, therefore, considered in itself, of a new object is of the same character as other imaginations ; and for this reason I do not class astonish ment among the affects, nor do I see any reason why I should do ii, since this abstraction of the mind arises from no positive causa by which it is abstracted from other things, but merely from the absence of any cause by which from the contemplation of one thing the mind is determined to think other things. I acknowledge, therefore (as I have shown in Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3), only three primitive or primary affects, those of joy, sorrow, and desire ; and the only reason which has induced me to speak of astonishment is, that it has been the custom to give other names to certain affects derived from the three primitives whenever these affects are related to objects at which we are astonished. This same reason also induces me to add the definition of contempt. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 163 V. Contempt is the imagination of an object which so little touches the mind that the mind is moved by the presence of the object to imagine those qualities which are not in it rather than those which are in it. {See Schol. Prop. 52, pt. 3.) The definitions of veneration and scorn I pass by here, because they give a name, so far as I know, to none of the affects. VI. Love is joy with the accompanying idea of an external cause. Explanation. — This definition explains with sufficient elearness the essence of love; that which is given by some authors, who define love to be the will of the lover to unite himself to the beloved object, express in" not the essence of love but one of its properties, and in as much as these authors have not seen with sufficient clear ness what is the essence of love, they could not have a distinct conception of its properties, and consequently their definition has by everybody been thought very ob scure. I must observe, however, when I say that it is a property in a lover to will a union with the beloved object, that I do not understand by will a consent or deliberation or a free decree of the mind (for that this is a fiction we have demonstrated in Prop. 48, pt. 2), nor even a desire of the lover to unite himself with the beloved object when it is absent, nor a desire to continue in its presence when it is present, for love can be conceived without either one or the other of these desires ; but by will I understand the satisfaction that the beloved object produces in tho lover by its presence, by virtue of which the joy of the lover is strengthened, or at any rate supported. VII. Hatred is sorrow with the accompanying idea of an external cause. Explanation. — What is to be observed here will easily he seen from what has been said in the explanation of the preceding definition. (See, moreover, Schol. Prop 1 -; Pt- 30 l6.\ ETHIC. VIII. Inclination (propensio) is joy with the accom panying idea of some object as being accidentally the cause of the joy. IX Aversion is sorrow with the accompanying idea of some object which is accidentally the cause of the sorrow. (See Schol. Prop. 15, pt. 3.) _ X. Devotion is love towards an object which aston ishes us. Explanation.— That astonishment arises from the novelty of the object we have shown in Prop. 52, pt. 3. If, therefore, it should happen that we often imagine the' object at which we are astonished, we shall cease to be astonished at it, and hence we see that the affect of devotion easily degenerates into simple love. XL Derision is joy arising from the imagination that. something we despise is present in an object we hate. Explanation. — In so far as we despise a thing we hate do we deny its existence (Schol. Prop. 52, pt. 3°), and so far (Prop. 20, pt. 3) do we rejoice. But inasmuch as we suppose that a man hates what he ridicules, it follows that this joy is not solid. (See Schol. Prop 47 Pfc- 3-) ' " XII. Hope is a joy not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past, about the issue of which we sometimes doubt. XIII. Fear is a sorrow not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past, about the issue of which we sometimes doubt. (See SchoL 2, Prop. 18 pt 3-) Explanation. — From these definitions it follows that there is no hope without fear nor fear without hope, for the person who wavers in hope and doubts concerning the issue of anything is supposed to imagine something which may exclude its existence, and so far, therefore, to be sad (Prop. 19, pt. 3), and consequently while he wavers in hope, to fear lest his wishes should not be accomplished. So also the person who fears, that is- ORIGIN AND NATURE OF'THE AFFECTS. 165 to say, who doubts whether what he hates will not come to pass, imagines something which excludes the existence of what he hates, and therefore (Prop. 20, pt 3) is rejoiced, and consequently so far hopes that it will not happen. XIV. Confidence is joy arising from the idea of a past or future object from which cause for doubting is removed. XV. Despair is sorrow arising from the idea of a past or future object from which cause for doubting is removed. Explanation. — Confidence, therefore, springs from hope and despair from fear, whenever the reason for doubtin" the issue is taken away; a case which occurs either because we imagine a thing past or future to be present and con template it as present, or because we imagine other things which exclude the existence of those which made us to doubt. For although we can never be sure about the issue of individual objects (CoroL Prop. 31, pt. 2), it may never theless happen that we do not doubt it. For else where we have shown (Schol. Prop. 49, pt. 2) that it is one thing not to doubt and another to possess certitude, and so it may happen that from the image of an object either past or future we are affected with the same affect of joy or sorrow as that by which we should be affected from the image of an object present, as we have demon strated in Prop. 18, pt. 3, to which, together with the scholium, the reader is referred. XVI. Gladness (gaudium) is joy with the accompany ing idea of something past, which, unhoped for, has happened. XVII. Bemorse is sorrow with the accompanying idea of something past, which, unhoped for, has happened. XVIII. Commiseration is sorrow with the accompany ing idea of evil which has happened to some one whom we imagine like ourselves (SchoL Prop. 22, and Schol Prop. 27, pt. 3). 166 ETHIC. Explanation. — Between commiseration and compassion there seems to be no difference, excepting perhaps that commiseration refers rather to an individual affect and compassion to it as a habit. XIX. Favour is love towards those who have benefited others. XX. Indignation is hatred towards those who have injured others. Explanation. — I am aware that these names in common bear a different meaning. But my object is not to ex plain the meaning of words but the nature of things, and to indicate them by words whose customary meaning shall not be altogether opposed to the meaning which I desire to bestow upon them. I consider it sufficient to have said this once for all. As far as the cause of these affects is concerned, see Corol. i, Prop. 27, pt. 3, and Schol. Prop. 22, pt. 3. XXI. Over-estimation consists in thinking too highly of another person in consequence of our love for him. XXII. Contempt consists in thinking too little of another person in consequence of our hatred for him. Explanation. — Over-estimation and contempt are there fore respectively effects or properties of love or hatred, and so over-estimation may be defined as love in so far as it affects a man so that he thinks too much of the beloved object; and, on the contrary, contempt may be defined as hatred in so far as it affects a man so that he thinks too little of the object he hates. (See Schol. Prop. 26, pt. 3.) XXIII. Envy is hatred in so far as it affects a man so that he is sad at the good fortune of another person and is glad when any evil happens to him. Explanation. — To envy is generally opposed com passion (misericordia), which may therefore be defined as follows, notwithstanding the usual signification of the word : — XXIV. Compassion is love in so far as it affects a ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 167 man so that he is glad at the prosperity of another per son and is sad when any evil happens to him. Explanation. — With regard to the other properties of envy, see Schol. Prop. 24, and Schol. Prop. 32, pt. 3. These are affects of joy and sorrow which are attended by the idea of an external object as their cause, either of itself or accidentally. I pass now to consider other affects which are attended by the idea of something within us as the cause. XXV. Self-satisfaction is the joy which is produced by contemplating ourselves and our own power of action. XXVI. Humility is the sorrow which is produced by contemplating our impotence or helplessness. Self-satisfaction is opposed to humility in so far as we understand by the former the joy which arises from contemplating our power of action, but in so far as wc understand by it joy attended with the idea of something done, which we believe has been done by a free decree of our mind, it is opposed to repentance, which we may thus define: — XXVII. Bepentance is sorrow accompanied with the idea of something done which we believe has been done by a free decree of our mind. Explanation. — We have shown what are the causes of these affects in Schol. Prop. 51, pt. 3, Props. 53 and 54, pt. 3, and Prop. 55, pt. 3, together with its Schol. With regard to a free decree of the mind, see Schol. Prop. 35, pt. 2. Here, however, I must observe, that it is not to be wondered at that sorrow should always follow all those actions- which are from custom called wicked, and that joy should follow those which are called good. But that this is chiefly the effect of education will be evident from what we have before said. Parents, by reprobat ing what are called bad actions, and frequently blaming their children whenever they commit them, while they persuade them to what are called good actions, and praise 1 68 ETHIC. their children when they perform them, have caused the emotions of sorrow to connect themselves with the former, and those of joy with the latter. Experience proves this, for custom and religion are not the same every where ; but, on the contrary, things which are sacred to some are profane to others, and what are honourable with some are disgraceful with others. Education alone, there fore, will determine whether a man will repent of any deed or boast of it. XXVIII. Pride is thinking too much of ourselves, through self-love. Explanation. — -Pride differs, therefore, from over-esti mation, inasmuch as the latter is related to an external object, but pride to the man himself who thinks of himself too highly. As over-estimation, therefore, is an effect or property of love, so pride is an effect or pro perty of self-love, and it may therefore be defined as love of ourselves or self-satisfaction, in so far as it affects us so that we think too highly of ourselves. (See Schol. Prop. 26, pt. 3.) To this affect a contrary does not exist, for no one, through hatred of himself, thinks too little of himself; indeed, we may say that no one thinks too little of him self, in so far as he imagines himself unable to do this or that thing. For whatever he imagines that he cannot do, that thing he necessarily imagines, and by his imagina tion is so disposed that he is actually incapable of doing what he imagines he cannot do. So long, therefore, as he imagines himself unable to do this or that thing, so long is he not determined to do it, and consequently so long it is impossible for him to do it. If, however, we pay attention to what depends upon opinion alone, we shall be able to conceive it possible for a man to think too little of himself, for it may happen that while he sorrow fully contemplates his own weakness he will imagine himself despised by everybody, although nothing could be further from their thoughts than to despise him. A ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 169 man may also think too little of himself if in the pre sent he denies something of himself in relation to a future time of which he is not sure ; for example, when he denies that he can conceive of nothing with certitude, and that he can desire and do nothing which is not wicked and base. We may also say that a man thinks too little of himself when we see that, from an excess of fear or shame, he does not dare to do what others who are his equals dare to do. This affect, to which I will give the name of Despondency, may therefore be opposed to pride ; for as self-satisfaction springs from pride, so despondency springs from humility, and it may therefore be defined thus — XXIX. Despondency is thinking too little of ourselves through sorrow. Explanation. — We are, nevertheless, often in the habit ef opposing humility to pride, but only when we attend to their effects rather than to their nature. For we are accustomed to call a man proud who boasts too much (Schol. Prop. 30, pt. 3), who talks about nothing but his own virtues and other people's vices, who wishes to be preferred to everybody else, and who marches along with that stateliness and pomp which belong to others whose position is far above his. On the other band, we call a man humble who often blushes, who confesses his own faults and talks about the virtues of others, who yields to every one, who walks with bended head, and who neglects to adorn himself. These affects, humility and despondency, are very rare, for human nature, considered in itself, struggles against them as much as it can (Props. 13 and 54, pt. 3), and hence those who have the most credit for being abject and humble are generally the most ambitious and envious. XXX. Self-exaltation is joy with the accompanying idea of some action we have done, which we imagine people praise. 17 o ETHIC. XXXI. Shame is sorrow, with the accompanying idea of some action which we imagine people blame. Explanation. — With regard to these affects see Schol. Prop. 30, pt. 3. A difference, however, is here to be ob served between shame and modesty. Shame is sorrow which follows a deed of which we are ashamed. Modesty is the dread or fear of shame, which keeps a man from committing any disgraceful act. To modesty is usually opposed impudence, which indeed is not an affect, as I shall show in the proper place ; but the names of affects, as I have already said, are matters rather of custom than indications of the nature of the affects. I have thus discharged the task which I set myself of explaining the affects of joy and sorrow. I will advance now to those which I ascribe to desire. XXXII. Begret is the desire or longing to possess something, the affect being strengthened by the memory of the object itself, and at the same time being restrained by the memory of other things which exclude the exist ence of the desired object. Explancdion. — Whenever we recollect a thing, as we have often said, we are thereby necessarily disposed to contemplate it with the same affect as if it were present before us. But this disposition or effort, while we are awake, is generally restrained by the images of things which exclude the existence of the thing which we recollect. Whenever, therefore, we recollect a thing which affects us with any kind of joy, we thereby endeavour to contemplate it with the same affect of joy as if it were present, — an attempt which is, how ever, immediately restrained by the memory of that which excludes the existence of the thing. Begret, therefore, is really a sorrow which is opposed to the joy which arises from the absence of what we hate. (See Schol. Prop. 47, pt. 3.) But because the name regret seems to connect this affect with desire, I therefore ascribe it to desire. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 171 XXXIII. Emulation is the desire which is begotten in us of a thing because we imagine that other persons have the same desire. Explanation. — He who seeks flight because others seek it, he who fears because he sees others fear, or even he who withdraws his hand and moves his body as if his hand were burning because he sees that another person has burnt his hand, such as these, I say, although they may indeed imitate the affect of another, are not said to emulate it; not because we have recognised one cause for emulation and another for imitation, but because it has been the custom to oall that man only emulous who imitates what we think noble, useful, or pleasant. With regard to the cause of emulation, see also Prop. 27, pt. 3, with the Schol. For the reason why envy is generally connected with this affect, see Prop. 32, pt. 3, with its Schol. XXXIV. Thankfulness or gratitude is the desire or endeavour of love with which we strive to do good to others who, from a similar affect of love, have done good to us (Prop. 39, with Schol. Prop. 41, pt. 3). XXXV. Benevolence is the desire to do good to those whom we pity (Schol. Prop. 27, pt. 3). XXXVI. Anger is the desire by which we are impelled, through hatred, to injure those whom we hate (Prop. 39, pt 3)- XXXVII. Vengeance is the desire which, springing from mutual hatred, urges us to injure those who, from a similar affect, have injured us (Corol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 3, with SchoL) ~ ' ' ' XXXVIII. Cruelty or ferocity is the desire by which a man is impelled to injure any one whom we love or pity. Explanation. — To cruelty is opposed mercy, which is not a passion, but a power of the mind by which a man restrains anger and vengeance. XXXIX. Fear is the desire of avoiding the greater of two dreaded evils by the less (Schol. Prop. 39, pt. 3). 172 ETHIC. XL. Audacity is the desire by which we are impelled to do something which is accompanied with a danger which our equals fear to meet. XLI. A person is said to be pusillanimous whose desire is restrained by the fear of a danger which his equals dare to meet. Explanation. — Pusillanimity, therefore, is nothing but the dread of some evil which most persons do not usually fear, and therefore I do not ascribe it to the affects of desire. I wished, notwithstanding, to explain it here, because in so far as we attend to desire, pusillanimity is the true opposite of the affect of audacity. XLII. Consternation is affirmed of the man whose desire of avoiding evil is restrained by astonishment at the evil which he fears. Explanation. — Consternation is therefore a kind of pusillanimity. But because consternation springs from a double fear, it may be more aptly defined as that dread which holds a man stupefied or vacillating, so that he can not remove an evil. I say stupefied, in so far as we under stand his desire of removing the evil to be restrained by his astonishment. I say also vacillating, in so far as we conceive tho same desire to be restrained by the fear of another evil which equally tortures him, so that he does not know which of the two evils to avoid. See Schol. Prop. 39, and Schol. Prop. 52, pt. 3- With regard to pusillanimity and audacity, see Schol. Prop. 5 1, pt. 3. XLIII. Courtesy or moderation is the desire of doing those things which please men and omitting those which displease them. XLIV. Ambition is the immoderate desire of glory. ^Explanation.— Ambition is a desire which increases and strengthens all the affects (Props. 27 and 31, pt. 3). and that is the reason why it can hardly be kept under control. For so long as a man is possessed by any desire, be is necessarily at the same time possessed by this. Every neble man, says Cicero, is led by glory, and even ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFFECTS. 173 the philosophers who write books about despising glory place their names on the title-page. XLV. Luxuriousness is the immoderate desire or love of good living. XLVI. Drunkenness is the immoderate desire and love of drinking. XLVII. Avarice is the immoderate desire and love of riches. XLVIII. Lust is the immoderate desire and love of sexual intercourse. Explanation. — This desire of sexual intercourse is usually called lust, whether it be held within bounds or not. I may add that the five last-mentioned affects (as we have shown in Schol. Prop. 56, pt. 3) have no con traries, for moderation is a kind of ambition (see Schol. Prop. 29, pt. 3), and I have already observed that tem perance, sobriety, aud chastity show a power and not a passion of the mind. Even supposing that an avaricious, ambitious, or timid man refrains from an excess of eating, drinking, or sexual intercourse, avarice, ambition, and fear are not therefore the opposites of voluptuousness, drunkenness, or lust. For the avaricious man generally desires to swallow as much meat and drink as he can, provided only it belong to another person. The ambitious man, too, if he hopes he can keep it a secret, will restrain himself in nothing, and if he lives amongst drunkards and libertines, will be more inclined to their vices just because he is ambitious. The timid man, too, does what he does not will ; and although, in order to avoid death, he may throw his riches into the sea, he remains avaricious ; nor does the lascivious man cease to be lascivious because he is sorry that he cannot gratify his desire. Absolutely, therefore, these affects have reference not so much to the acts themselves of eating and drinking as to the appetite and love itself. Consequently nothing can be opposed to these affects but nobility of soul and strength of mind, as. we shall see afterwards. '74 ETHIC. The definitions of jealousy and the other vacillations of the mind I pass over in silence, both because they are compounded of the affects which we have already de fined, and also because many of them have no names, — a fact which shows that, for the purposes of life, it is suffi cient to know these combinations generally. Moreover, it follows from the definitions of the affects which we have explained that they all arise from desire, joy, or sorrow, or rather that there are none but these three, which pass under names varying as their relations and external signs vary. If, therefore, we attend to these primitive affects and to what has been said above about the nature ol the mind, we shall be able here to define the affects in so far as they are related to the mind alone. General, definition of the affects. — Affect, which is called animi pathema, is a confused idea by which the mind affirms of its body, or any part of it, a greater or less power of existence than before ; and this increase of power being given, the mind itself is determined to one particular thought rather than to another. Explanation. — I say, in the first place, that an affect or passion of the mind is a confused idea. For we have shown (Prop. 3, pt. 3) that the mind suffers only in so far as it has inadequate or confused ideas. I say again, by which the mind affirms of its body, or any part of it, a greater or less power of existence than before. For all ideas which we possess of bodies indicate the actual constitu tion of our body rather than the nature of the external body (Corol. 2, Prop. 16, pt. 2); but this idea, which constitutes the form of an affect, must indicate or express the constitution of the body, or of some part of it ; which constitution the body or any part of it possesses from the fact that its power of action or force of existence is increased or diminished, helped or limited. But it is to be observed, that when I say a greater or less power of existence than before, I do not mean that the mind com pares the present with the past constitution of the body, ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE AFPECTS. 175 but that the idea which constitutes the form of affect affirms something of the body which actually involves more or less reality than before. Moreover, since the essence of the mind (Props. 1 1 and 1 3, pt. 2) consists in its affirmation of the actual existence of its body, and since we understand by perfection the essence itself of the thing, it follows that the mind passes to a greater or less perfection when it is able to affirm of its body, or some part of it, something which involves a greater or less reality than before. When, therefore, I have said that the mind's power of thought is increased or diminished, I have wished to be understood as mean ing nothing else than that the mind has formed an idea of its body, or some part of its body, which expresses more or less reality than it had hitherto affirmed of the body. For the value of ideas and the actual power of thought are measured by value of the object. Finally, I added, which being given, the mind itself is determined to one particular thought rather than to another, that I might also express the nature of desire in addition to that of joy and sorrow, which is explained by the first part of the definition. END OF THE THIRD PART. ( 176 ) ETHIC. tfourti) fart. OF HUMAN BONDAGE OR OF THE STRENGTH OF THE AFFECTS. PREFACE. J The impotence of man to govern or restrain the affects I call bondage, for a man who is under their control is not his own master, but is mastered by fortune, in whose power he is, so that he is often forced to follow the worse, although he sees the better before him. I propose in this part to demonstrate why this is, and also 1 to show what of good and evil the affects possess. But before I begin I should like to say a few words about perfection and imperfection, and about good and evil * J!^1^ posed to do a thing and has accomplished it, he call it perfect, and not only he, but every one else who has Sally known or has believed that he has known he mind and intention of the author of that work will call it perfect too. For example, having seen some work (wh ch I suppose to be as yet not finished), if we know that the S of the autlr of that work is to build a house, we shall call the house imperfect; while, on the other ha ud we shall call it perfect as soon as we see the .work ha - been brought to the end which the author had determine for it But if we see any work such as we have uev i i c™.n and if wo do not know the mmd of the OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 177 work is perfect or imperfect.1 This seems to have been the first signification of these words; but afterwards men be--an to form universal ideas, to think out for themselves types of houses, buildings, castles, and to pre fer some types of things to others; and so it happened that each person called a thing perfect which seemed to acrree with the universal idea which he had formed of that thing, and, on the other hand, he called a thing imperfect which seemed to agree less with his typal con ception, although, according to the intention of the work man it had been entirely completed. This appears to be the only reason why the words perfect and imperfect are commonly applied to natural objects which are not made with human hands ; for men are in the habit of forming both of natural as well as of artificial objects, universal ideas which they regard as types of things, and which they think nature has in view, setting them before her self as types too; it being the common opinion that she does nothing except for the sake of some end. When, therefore, men see something done by nature which does not altogether answer to that typal conception which they have of the thing, they think that nature herself has failed or committed an error, and that she has left the thing imperfect. Thus we see that the custom of apply ing the words perfect and imperfect to natural objects has arisen rather from prejudice than from true knowledge of them. For we have shown in the Appendix to the First Part of this work that natoe does nothing_for tkgjakgjpf an end, for that etemaT~ana~mfinite Being whom we cldTGoa or Nature acts by the same necessity by which He exists; for we have shown that He acts by the same necessity of nature as that by which Ho exists (Prop. 16, pt. 1). The reason or cause, therefore, why 1 A translation cannot show tho however, to bear in mind that perfect etymology of the word perfect as it and accomplished arc express, ble by "shown in the 6riginal Latin, so the same word in Latin, and that tl.at this passage may perhaps seem accompli*, is the primary meaning ot rather obscure. It is only necessary, pcrficeri— Tkans. M i78 ETHIC. God or nature acts and the reason why He exists are one and the same. Since, therefore, He exists for no end He acts for no end ; and since He has no principle or end of existence, He has no principle or end of action. A final cause, as it is called, is nothing, therefore, but human desire, in so far as this is considered as the prin ciple or primary cause of anything. For example, when we say that the having a house to live in was the final cause of this or that house, we merely mean that a man because he imagined the advantages of a domestic life' desired to build a house. Therefore, having a house to live in, in so far as it is considered as a final cause, is merely this particular desire, which is really an efficient cause, and is considered as primary, because men are usually ignorant of the causes of their desires ; for, as I have often said, we are conscious of our actions and desires, but ignorant of the causes by which we are determined to desire anything. As for the vulgar opinion that nature sometimes fails or commits an error, or produces imperfect things, I class it amongst those fictions mentioned in the Appendix to the First Part. Perfection, therefore, and imperfection are really only modes of thought ; that is to say, notions which we are in the habit of forming from the comparison with one another of individuals of the same species or genus, and this is the reason why I have said, in Def. 6, pt. 2, that by reality and perfection I understand the same thing ; for we are in the habit of referring all individuals in nature to one genus, which is called the most general ; that is to say, to the notion of being, which embraces ab solutely all the individual objects in nature. In so far, therefore, as we refer the individual objects in nature to this genus, and compare them one with another, and discover that some possess more being or reality than others, in so far do we call some more perfect than others ; and in so far as we assign to the latter anything which, like limitation, termination, impotence, &c, involves OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 179 negation, shall we call them imperfect, because they do not affect our minds so strongly as those we call perfect, but not because anything which really belongs to them is wanting, or because nature has committed an error. For nothing belongs to the nature of anything excepting that which follows from the necessity of the nature of the effi cient cause, and whatever follows from the necessity of the nature of the efficient cause necessarily happens. With regard to good and evil, these terms indicate nothing positive in things considered in themselves, nor are they anything else than modes of thought, or notions which we form from the comparison of one thing with another. For one and the. same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent. Music, for ex ample, is good to a melancholy person, bad to one mourning, while to a deaf man it is neither good nor bad. But although things are so, we must retain these words. For since we desire to form for ourselves an idea of man upon which we may look as a model of human nature, it will be of service to us to retain these expressions in the sense I have mentioned. [By good, therefore, I understand in the following pages everything which we are certain is a means by which we may approach nearer and nearer to the model ¦of human nature we set before us. By evil, on the con trary, I understand everything which we are certain hin ders us from reaching that modeL ) Again, I_shall call men more or less perfect or imperfect in so far as 'they a^proa-ch-m-iT^^ same. model. For it is to be carefully observed, that when I say that an indi vidual passes from a less to a greater perfection and vice versa, I do not understand that from one essence or form he is changed into another (for a horse, for instance, would be as much destroyed if it were changed into a mau as if it were changed into an insect), but rather, we conceive that his power of action, in so far as it is understood L by his own nature, is increased or dimin ished. Finally, by perfection generally, I understand I So ETHIC. as I have said, reality ; that is to say, the essence of any object in so far as it exists and acts in a certain manner, no regard being paid to its duration. For no individual thing can be said to be more perfect because for a longer time it has persevered in existence; inas much as the duration of things cannot be determined by their essence, the essence of things involving no fixed or determined period of existence; any object, whether it be more or less perfect, always being able to persevere in existence with the same force as that with which it commenced existence. All things, therefore, are equal in this respect. Definitions. I— By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us. 1 1 By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good. .. With regard to these two definitions, see the close ot the preceding preface. _ III I call individual things contingent in so far as- we discover nothing, whilst we attend to their essence alone, which necessarily posits their existence or which necessarily excludes it. IV I call these individual things possible, in so tar as we are ignorant, whilst we attend to the causes from which thev must be produced, whether these causes are deter mined to the production of these things. In Schol. i Prop 3 3 pt i,I made no difference between possible and contingent, because there was no occasion there to dis tinguish them accurately. _ v By contraryaffectsjunderstand in thefollowmg pages those which, although they may be of the same kind, draw a innn in different directions ; such as voluptuousness and avarice, which are both a species of love, and are not con- trnrv to one another hy nature, but only hy accident. OP HUMAN BONDAGE. 181 VI What I understand by affect towards a thing future, present, and past, I have explained in Schol. I and 2, Prop. 1 8, pt. 3, to which the reader is referred. Here however, it is to be observed that it is the same with time as it is with place; for as beyond a certain limit we can form no distinct imagination of distance- that is to say, as we usually imagine all objects to be equally distant from us, and as if they were on the same plane, if their distance from us exceeds 200 feet, or if their distance from the position we occupy is greater than we -can distinctly imagine— so we imagine all objects to be equally distant from the present time, and refer them as if to one moment, if the period to which their existence belongs is separated from the present by a longer interval than we can usually imagine distinctly. VII. By end for the sake of which we do anything, 1 understand appetite. VIII By virtue and power, I understand the same thing ; that is to say (Prop. 7, pt- 3), ™tue> ^ s0 fart" l1: is related to man, is the essence itself or nature of the man in so far as it has the power of effecting certain things which can be understood through the laws of its nature alone. Axiom. There is no individual thing in nature which is not surpassed in strength and power by some other thing, but any individual thing being given, another and a stronger is also given, by which the former can be destroyed. pR0P> I. — Nothing positive contained in a false idea is removed by the presence of the true in so far as it is true. Demonst.— Falsity consists in nothing but the privation of knowledge which inadequate ideas involve (Prop. 3 5, pt 2) nor do they possess anything positive on account of which they arc called false (Prop. 33. pt- 2); on tlllJ IS2 ETHIC. contrary, in so far as they are related to God, they are true (Prop. 3 2, pt. 2). If, therefore, anything positive contained in a false idea were removed by the presence of the true in so far as it is true, a true idea would be removed by itself, which (Prop. 4, pt. 3) is absurd. No thing positive, therefore, &c. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This proposition can be understood more clearly from Corol. 2, Prop. 16, pt. 2. For an imagina tion is an idea which indicates the present constitution of the human body rather than the nature of an external body, not indeed distinctly but confusedly, so that the mind is said to err. For example, when we look at the sun, we imagine his distance from us to be about 200 feet, and in this we are deceived so long as we remain in ignorance of the true distance. When this is known, the error is removed, but not the imagination, that is to say, the idea of the sun which manifests his nature in so far only as the body is affected by him ; so that although we know his true distance, we nevertheless imagine him close to us. For, as we have shown in Schol. Prop. 35, pt. 2,, it is not because we are ignorant of the sun's true distance that we imagine him to be so close to us, but because the mind conceives the magnitude of the sun just in so far as the body is affected by him. So when the rays of the sun falling upon a surface of water are reflected to our eyes, we imagine him to be in the water, although his true place is known to us. So with the other imagina tions by which the mind is deceived ; whether they indi cate the natural constitution of the body or an increase or diminution in its power of action, they are not opposed to the truth, nor do they disappear with the presence of the truth. We know that when we groundlessly fear any evil, the fear vanishes when we hear correct intel ligence ; but we also know, on the other hand, that when we fear an evil which will actually come upon us, the- fear vanishes when we hear false intelligence, so that the imaginations do not disappear with the presence of OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 183 the truth, in so far as it is true, but because other imagina tions arise which are stronger, and which exclude the present existence of the objects we imagine, as we have shown in Prop. 17, pt. 2. Peop. II. — We suffer insofar as we are apart of nature, which part cannot be conceived by itself nor without the other parts. Demonst. — We are said to suffer when anything occurs in us of which we are only the partial cause (Def. 2, pt. 3), that is to say (Def. 1, pt. 3), anything which cannot be deduced from the laws of our own nature alone ; we suffer, therefore, in so far as we are a part of nature, which part cannot be conceived by itself nor without the other parts. — Q.E.D. Prop. III.— The force by which man perseveres in existence is limited, and infinitely surpassed by tlie power of external causes. Demonst. — This is evident from the Axiom, pt. 4. For any man being given, there is given something else — for example, A — more powerful than he is, and A being given, there is again given something, B, more powerful than A, and so on ad infinitum. Hence the power of man is limited by the power of some other object, and is infi nitely surpassed by the power of external causes. — q.e.d. Prop. IV. — It is impossible that a man should not be a part of nature, and that he should suffer no changes but those which can be understood through his own nature alone, and of which he is the adequate cause. Demonst — The power by which individual things and consequently man preserve their being is the actual power of God or nature (CoroL Prop. 24, pt. 1), not in so far as it is infinite, but in so far as it can be manifested by the actual essence of man (Prop. 7, pt. 3). The 1 84 ETHIC. power therefore of man, in so far as it is manifested by his actual essence, is part of the infinite power of God or nature, that is to say (Prop. 34, pt. 1), part of His essence. This was the first thing to be proved. Again, if it were possible that man could suffer no changes but those which can be understood through his nature alone, it would follow (Props. 4 and 6, pt. 3) that he could not perish, but that he would exist for ever necessarily ; and this necessary existence must result from a cause whose power is either finite or infinite, that is to say, either from the power of man alone, which would be able to place at a distance from himself all other changes which could take their origin from external causes, or it must result from the infinite power of nature by which aU individual things would be so directed that man could suffer no changes but those tending to his preservation. But the first case (by the preceding proposition, whose de monstration is universal and capable of application to all individual objects) is absurd ; therefore if it were possible for a man to suffer no changes but those which could be understood through his own nature alone, and conse quently (as we have shown) that he should always neces sarily exist, this must follow from the infinite power of God ; and therefore (Prop. 16, pt. 1) from the necessity of the divine nature, in so far as it is considered as affected by the idea of any one man, the whole order of nature, in so far as it is conceived under the attributes of thought and extension, would have to be deduced. From this it would follow (Prop. 2 1, pt. 1) that man would be infinite, which (by the first part of this demonstration) is an ab surdity. It is impossible, therefore, that a man can suffer no changes but those of which he is the adequate cause. — Q.E.D. Corol — Hence it follows that a man is necessarily always subject to passions, and that he follows and obeys the common order of nature, accommodating liimself to it as far as the nature of things requires. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 185 Prop. V. — Tlie force and increase of any passion and its perseverance in existence are not limited by the power by which we endeavour to persevere in existence, but by the power of an external cause compared with our own power. Demonst — The essence of a passion cannot be explained by our essence alone (Defs. 1 and 2, pt. 3) ; that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), the power of a passion cannot be limited by the power by which we endeavour to perse vere in our being, but (as has been shown in Prop. 16, pt. 2) must necessarily be limited by the power of an external cause compared with our own power. — q.e.d. Prop. VI. — The other actions or power of a man may be so far surpassed by force of some passion or affect, that the affect may obstinately cling to him. Demonst. — The force and increase of any passion and its perseverance in existence are limited by the power of an external cause compared with our own power (Prop. 5, pt. 4), and therefore (Prop. 3, pt. 4) may sur pass the power of man. — q.e.d. Prop. VII. — An affect cannot be restrained nor removed unless by an opposed and stronger affect. Demonst. — An affect, in so far as it is related to the mind, is an idea by which the mind affirms a greater or less power of existence for its body than the body pos sessed before (by the general definition of affects at the end of Third Part). Whenever, therefore, the mind is agitated by any affect, the body is at the same time •affected with an affection by which its power of action is increased or diminished. Again, this affection of the body (Prop. 5, pt. 4) receives from its own cause a power to persevere in its own being, a power, therefore, which cannot be restrained nor removed unless by a bodily i86 ETHIC. cause (Prop. 6, pt. 2) affecting the body with an affection contrary to the first (Prop. 5, pt. 3), and stronger than it (Ax. 1, pt. 4). Thus the mind (Prop. 1 2, pt. 2) is affected by the idea of an affection stronger than the former' and contrary to it ; that is to say (by the general defini tion of the affects), it will be affected with an affect stronger than the former and contrary to it, and this stronger affect will exclude the existence of the other or remove it. Thus an affect cannot be restrained nor removed unless by an opposed and stronger affect. — Q.E.D. Corol. — An affect, in so far as it is related to the mind, cannot be restrained nor removed unless by the idea of a bodily affection opposed to that which we suffer and stronger than it. For the affect which we suffer cannot be restrained nor removed unless by an opposed and stronger affect (Prop. 7, pt. 4) ; that is to say (by the general definition of the affects), it cannot be removed unless by the idea of a bodily affection stronger than that which affects us, and opposed to it. Prop. VIII. — Knowledge of good or evil is nothing but an affect of joy or sorrow in so far as we are con scious of it. Demonst — We call a thing good which contributes to- the preservation of our being, and we call a thing evil if it is an obstacle to the preservation of our being (Defs. 1 and 2, pt. 4) ; that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), a thing is- called by us good or evil as it increases or diminishes, helps or restrains, our power of action. In so far, there fore (Defs. of joy and sorrow in Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), as we perceive that any object affects us with joy or sorrow do we caU it good or evil, and therefore the know ledge of good or evil is nothing but an idea of joy or sorrow which necessarily follows from the affect itself of joy or sorrow (Prop. 22, pt. 2). But this idea is united OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 187- to the affect in the same way as the mind is united to the body (Prop. 2 1, pt. 2), or, in other words (as we have shown in the Schol. to Prop. 21, pt. 2), this idea is not actually distinguished from the affect itself; that is to say (by the general definition of the affects), it is not actually distinguished from the idea of the affection of the body, unless in conception alone. This knowledge, therefore, of good and evil is nothing but the affect itself of joy and sorrow in so far as we are conscious of it. — Q.E.D. Prop. IX. — If wc imagine the cause of an affect to be actually present with us, that affect will be stronger than if we imagined the cause not to be present. Demonst. — The imagination is an idea by which the mind contemplates an object as present (see the definition of the imagination in SchoL Prop. 17, pt. 2), an idea which nevertheless indicates the constitution of the human body rather than the nature of the external object (Corol. 2, Prop. 1 6, pt. 2). Imagination, therefore (by the general definition of the affects), is an affect in so far as it indi cates the constitution of the body. But the imagination (Prop. 1 7, pt. 2) increases in intensity in proportion as we imagine nothing which excludes the present existence of the external object. If, therefore, we imagine the cause of an affect to be actually present with us, that affect will be intenser or stronger than if we imagined the cause not to be present. — Q.E.D. Corol. — When I said (in Prop. 18, pt. 3) that we are affected by the image of an object in the future or the past with the same affect with which we should be affected, if the object we imagined were actually present, I was careful to warn the reader that this was true in so far only as we attend to the image alone of the object itself, for this is of the same nature whether we have imagined the object or not ; but I have not denied that the image becomes weaker when we contemplate as pre- iSS ETHIC. sent other objects which exclude the present existence of the future object. This exception I neglected to make, because I had determined to treat in this part of my work of the strength of the affects. Corol— The image of a past or future object, that is to say, of an object which we contemplate in relation to the past or future to the exclusion of the present, other things being equal, is weaker than the image of a pre sent object, and consequently the affect towards a future or past object, other things being equal, is weaker then than the affect towards a present object. Prop X — We are affected with regard to a future object which we imagine will soon be present more power- fully than if we imagine that the time at whwh it will exist is further removed from the present, and the memory of an object which we imagine has but just passed away also affects us more powerfully than if ive imagine the object to have passed away some time ago. Demonst— -In so far as we imagine that an object will quickly be present or has not long since passed away, do we imagine something which excludes he presence of the object less than if we imagine that the time of its existence is at a great distance from the present, either in the future or the past (as is self-evi dent), and therefore (Prop. 9, P*- 4) so far shall we be affected more strongly with regard to it— Q.E.D. Schol— From the observations which we made upon Def 6 pt 4 it follows that all objects which are separated from the present time by a longer interval than our ima gination has any power to determine affect us equally sli-ditly, although we know them to be separated from one another by a large space of time. Prop XI — The affect towards an object which wc ima- 'gine as necessary, other things being equal, is stronger OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 189- than that towards an object that is possible, contingent, or not necessary. Demonst. — In so far as we imagine any object to be necessary do we affirm its existence, and, on the other hand, we deny its existence in so far as we imagine it to be not necessary (Schol. I, Prop. 33, pt. 1), and therefore (Prop. 9, pt. 4) the affect towards a necessary object, other things being equal, is stronger than that which we feel towards one that is not necessary. Prop. XII. — The affect towards an object which we know docs not exist in the present, and which we imagine as possible, other things being equal, is stronger than the affect towards a contingent object. Demonst. — In so far as we imagine an object as con tingent, we are not affected by the image of any other object which posits the existence of the first (Def. 3, pt. 4), but, on the contrary (by hypothesis), we imagine some things which exclude its present existence. But in so far as we imagine any object in the future to be possible do we imagine some things which posit its existence (Def. 4, pt. 4), that is to say (Schol. 2, Prop. 1 8, pt. 3), things which foster hope or fear, and there fore the affect towards a possible object is stronger, &c. — Q.E.D. Corol — The affect towards an object which we know does not exist in the present, and which we imagine as contingent, is much weaker than if we imagined that the object M-ere present to us. Demonst. — The affect towards an object which we imagined to exist in the present is stronger than if we imagined it as future (Corol. Prop. 9, pt. 4), and is much stronger if we imagined the future to be at no great distance from the present time (Prop. 10, pt. 4). The affect, therefore, towards an object which we imagine will 190 ETHIC. not exist for a long time is so much feebler than if we imagined it as present, and nevertheless (Prop. 1 2, pt. 4) is stronger than if we imagined it as contingent ; and therefore the affect towards a contingent object is much feebler than if we imagined the object to be present to us. — Q.E.D. Prop. XIII. — Tha affect towards a contingent object which we know does not exist in the present, other things being equal, is much weaker than the affect towards a past object. Demonst. — In so far as we imagine an object as con tingent, we are affected with no image of any other object which posits the existence of the first (Def. 3, pt. 4). On the contrary, we imagine (by hypothesis) certain things which exclude its present existence. But in so far as we imagine it in relationship to past time are we sup posed to imagine something which brings it back to the memory or which excites its image (Prop. 1 8, pt. 2, with -the SchoL), and therefore so far causes us to contem plate it as present (CoroL Prop. 17, pt. 2). Therefore (Prop. 9, pt. 4), the affect towards a contingent object which we know does not exist in the present, other things being equal, will be weaker than the affect •towards a past object. — q.e.d. Prop. XIV. — JVb affect can be restrained by the true know ledge of good and evil in so far as it is true, but only in so far as it is considered as an affect. Demonst. — An affect is an idea by which the mind affirms a greater or less power of existence for the body than it possessed before (by the general definition of the affects); and therefore (Prop. 1, pt. 4) this idea has nothing positive which can be removed by the pre sence of the truth, and consequently the true knowledge OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 191 of good and evil, in so far as it is true, can restrain no affect. But in so far as it is an affect (see Prop. 8, pt. 4) will it restrain any other affect, provided that the latter be the weaker of the two (Prop. 7, pt. 4). — Q.E.D. Prop. XV. — Desire which arises from a true knowledge of good and evil can be extinguished or restrained by many other desires which take their origin from the affects by which we are agitcUed. Demonst. — From the true knowledge of good and evil, in so far as this (Prop. 8, pt. 4) is an affect, necessarily arises desire (Def. 1 of the affects, pt. 3), which is greater in proportion as the affect from which it springs is greater (Prop. 37, pt. 3). But this desire (by hypothesis), because it springs from our understanding something truly, follows therefore in us in so far as we act (Prop. 1 , pt. 3), and therefore must be understood through our essence alone (Def. 2, pt. 3), and consequently its strength and increase must be limited by human power alone (Prop. 7, pt. 3). But the desires which spring from the affects by which we are agitated are greater as the affects themselves are greater, and therefore their strength and increase (Prop. 5, pt. 4) must be limited by the power of external causes, a power which, if it be compared with our own, indefinitely surpasses it (Prop. 3, pt. 4). The desires, therefore, which take their origin from such affects as these may be much stronger than that which takes its origin from a true knowledge of good and evil, and the former (Prop. 7, pt. 4) may be able to restrain and extinguish the latter. — q.e.d. Prop. XVI. — Tlie desire which springs from a knowledge of good and evil can be easily extinguished or restrained, in so far as this knowledge is connected with the future, by the desire of things which in the present arc street. 192 ETHIC. Demonst — The affect towards an object which we imagine as future is weaker than towards that which we imagine as present (Corol. Prop. 9, pt. 4). But the desire which springs from a true knowledge of good and evil, even although the knowledge be of objects which are good at the present time, may be extinguished or restrained by any casual desire (Prop. 15, pt. 4, the demonstration of this proposition being universal), and therefore the desire which springs from a knowledge of good and evil, in so far as this knowledge is con nected with the future, can be easily restrained or extinguished. — q.e.d. Prop. XVII. — The desire which springs from a true know ledge of good and evil can T)t still more easily restrained, in so far as this knowledge is connected with objects which are contingent, by the desire of objects which are present. Demonst — This proposition is demonstrated in the same way as the preceding proposition from Corol. Prop. 12, pt. 4. Schol — In these propositions I consider that I have explained why men are more strongly influenced by an opinion than by true reason, and why the true knowledge of good and evil causes disturbance in the mind, and often gives way to every kind of lust, whence the saying of the poet, " Video meliora proboque, deteriora scquor." The same thought appears to have been in the mind of the Preacher when he said, " He that increaseth know ledge incrcascth sorrow." I say these things not because I would be understood to conclude, therefore, that it is better to be ignorant than to be wise, or that the wise man in governing his passions is nothing better than the fool, but I say them because it is- necessary for us to know both the strength and weakness of our nature, so that we may determine what reason can do and what it OP'HUMAN BONDAGE. i93 cannot do in governing our affects. j This, moreover, let it be remembered, is the Part in which I meant to treat of human weakness alone, all consideration of the power of reason over the passions being reserved for a future portion of. the book. Prop. XVIII. — The desire which springs from joy, other things being equal, is stronger tlmn tlmt which springs from sorrow. Demonst. — Desire is the very essence of man (Def. 1 of the Affects, pt 3), that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), the effort by which a man strives to persevere in his being. The desire, therefore, which springs from joy, by that very affect of joy (by the definition of joy in Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3) is assisted or increased/while that which springs from sorrow, by that very affect of sorrow (by the same Schol.) is lessened or restrained, and so the force of the desire which springs from joy must be limited by human power, together with the power of an external cause, while that which springs from sorrow must be limited by human power alone. The latter is, therefore, weaker than the former. — q.e.d. Schol. — I have thus briefly explained the causes of human impotence and want of stability, and why men do not obey the dictates of reason. It remains for me now to show what it is which reason prescribes to us, which affects agree with the rules of human reason, and which, on the contrary, are opposed to these rules. Be fore, however, I begin to demonstrate these things by our full geometrical method, I should like briefly to°set forth here these dictates of reason, in order that what I have in my mind about them may be easily comprehended by all. Since reason demands nothing which is opposed to \ nature, it demands, therefore, that every person should \ love himself, should seek his own profit, — what is truly * profitable to him, — should desire everything that really 194 ETHIC. leads man to greater perfection, and absolutely that every one should endeavour, as far as in him lies, to preserve his own being. \ This is all true as necessarily as that the whole is greater than its part (Prop. 6, pt. 3). Again, since virtue (Def. 8, pt. 4) means nothing but acting according to the laws of our own' nature", and since no one endeavours to preserve his being (Prop. 7, pt. 3) except in accordance with the laws of his own nature, it 'follows^: Firstly, That the foundation of virtue is that endeavour itself to preserve our own being, and that happiness consists in this — that a man can preserve his j own beiug. ' Secondly, It follows that virtue is to be desired for its own sake, nor is there anything more excellent or more useful to us than virtue, for the sake of which virtue ought to be desired. } Tldrdly, It fol lows that all persons who kill themselves are impotent in mind, and have been thoroughly overcome by external causes opposed to their nature. Again, from Post. 4, pt. 2, it follows that we can never free ourselves from the need of something outside us for the preservation of our being, and that we can never live in such a manner as to have no intercourse with objects which are outside us. Indeed, so far as the mind is concerned, our intellect would be less perfect if the mind were alone, and under stood nothing but itself. There are many, things,. there fore, outside us which are useful to us, and which, there fore, are to be sought. Of all these, none more excellent can be discovered than those which exactly agree with our nature. If, for example, two individuals of exactly the same nature are joined together, they make up a single individual, doubly stronger than each alone. Nothing, therefore, is more useful to man than man. Men can desire, I say, nothing more excellent for the preservation of their being than that all should so agree at every point that the minds and bodies of all should form, as it were, one mind and one body ; that all should together endeavour as much as possible to preserve their OF HUMAN BONDAGE. m being, and that aU should together seek the common good of all. From this it follows that men who are governed by reason, — that is to say, men who, under the guidance of reason, seek their own profit, — desire nothing for them-/ selves which they do not desire for other men, and that,: therefore, they are just, faithful, and honourable. These are those dictates of reason which I purposed briefly to set forth before commencing their demonstration by a fuller method, in order that, if possible, I might win the attention of those who believe that this principle" that every one is bound to seek his own profit, — is the founda tion of impiety, and not of virtue and piety. Having now briefly shown that this belief of theirs is the con° traiy of the truth, I proceed, by the same method as that which we have hitherto pursued, to demonstrate what I have said. PROP. XIX. — According to the laws of his own nature each person necessarily desires that which he considers to be good, and avoids that which he considers to be evil. Demonst. — The knowledge of good and evil (Prop. 8, pt. 4) is the affect itself of joy or sorrow, in so far as we are conscious of it, and, therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 3), each person necessardy desires that which he considers to be good, and avoids that which he considers to be evil. But this desire is nothing but the essence itself or nature of man (Def. of appetite in Schol. Prop. 9, pt. 3, and Def. 1 of the Affects, pt. 3). Therefore, according to the laws of his own nature alone, he necessarily desires or avoids, &c. — q.e.d. PROP. XX. — The more each person strives and is able to seek his oxen profit, that is to say, to preserve hi bcinq, the more virtue docs he possess; on the other hand, in so far as each person neglects his own profit, that is to say, neglects to preserve his own being] is he impotent. 196 ETHIC. Demonst. — Virtue is human power itself, which is liiiiitecl by the essence alone of man (Def. 8, pt. 4), that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), which is limited by the effort alone by which man endeavours to persevere in his being. The more, therefore, each person strives and is able to preserve his being, the more virtue does he possess, and consequently (Props. 4 and 6, pt. 3), in proportion as he neglects to preserve his being is he impotent. Schol. — No one, therefore, unless defeated by exter nal causes and those which are contrary to his nature, neglects to seek his own profit or preserve his being. No one, 1 say, refuses food or kills himself from a ne cessity of his nature, but only when forced by external causes. The compulsion may be exercised in many ways. A man kills himself under compulsion by another when that other turns the right hand, with which the man had by chance laid hold of a sword, and compels him to direct the sword against his own heart ; or the command of a tyrant may compel a man, as it did Seneca, to open his own veins, that is to say, he may desire to avoid a greater evil by a less. External and hidden causes also may so dispose his imagination and may so affect his body as to cause it to put on another nature contrary to that which it had at first, and one whose idea cannot exist in the mind (Prop. 10, pt. 3); but a very little reflection will show that it is as impossible that a man, from the necessity of his nature, should endeavour not to exist, or to be changed into some other form, as it is that something should be begotten from nothing. Prop. XXI. — No one can desire to be happy, to net will and live well, who does not at the same time desire to be, to act, and to live, that is to say, actually to cxUt. Demonst. — The demonstration of this proposition, it rather the proposition itself, is self-evident, and is ab» evident from the definition of desire. For desire (IVf. 1 OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 197 of the Affects, pt. 3), whether it bo desire of living or acting happily or well, is the very essence of man, that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), the endeavour by which every one strives to preserve his own being. No one, therefore, can desire, &c. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXII. — No virtue can be conceived prior to this (the endeavour, namely, after self-preservation). Demonst. — The endeavour after self-preservation is the essence itself of a thing (Prop. 7, pt. 3). If, there fore, any virtue could be conceived prior to this of self- preservation, the essence itself of the thing would bo conceived (Def. 8, pt. 4) as prior to itself, which (as is self-evident) is absurd. No virtue, therefore, &c. — q.e.d. Corol. — The endeavour after self-preservation is tho • primary and only foundation of virtue. For prior to this principle no other can be conceived (Prop. 22, pt. 4), and without it (Prop. 21, pt. 4) no virtue can be conceived. Prop. XXIII. — A man cannot be absolutely said to act in conformity with virtue, in so far as he is determined to any action because he has inadequate ideas, but only in so far as he is determined because he under stands. Demonst. — In so far as a man is determined to action because he has inadequate ideas (Prop. 1, pt. 3), he suffers, that is to say (Defs. 1 and 2, pt 3), he does something which through his essence alone cannot be perceived, that is to say (Def. 8, pt. 4), which does not follow from his virtue. But in so far as he is deter mined to any action because he understands, he acts (Prop. 1, pt. 3), that is to say (Def. 2, pt. 3), he does something which is perceived through his essence alone, or (Def. 8, pt. 4) which adequately follows from his virtue. — Q.E.D. I9S ETHIC. PROP. XXIV. — To act absolutely in conformity with virtue is, in us, nothing but acting, living, and preserving our being (these three things have the same meaning) as reason directs, from the ground of seeking our own- profit. Demonst. — To act absolutely in conformity with virtue is nothing (Def. 8, pt. 4) but acting according to the laws of our own proper nature. But only in so far as we understand do we act (Prop. 3, pt. 3). Therefore, to act in conformity with virtue is nothing but acting, living, and preserving our being as reason directs, and doing so (Corol. Prop. 22, pt. 4) from the ground of seeking our own profit. Prop. XXV. — No one endeavours to preserve his own being for the sake of another object. Demonst. — The effort by which any object strives to persevere in its own being is limited- solely by the essence of the object itself (Prop. 7, pt. 3), and from this given essence alone it necessarily foUows (and not from the essence of any other object) (Prop. 6, pt. 3) that each object strives to preserve its being. This pro position is also evident from Corol. Prop. 22, pt. 4. For if a man endeavoured to preserve his being for the sake of any other object, this object would then become the primary foundation of virtue (as is self-evident), which (by the Corol. just quoted) is an absurdity. No one, therefore, endeavours to preserve his being, &c. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXVI. — All efforts which we make through reason arc nothing but efforts to understand, and the mind, in so far as it uses reason, adjudges nothing as pro fitable to itself excepting that which conduces to under standing. Demonst. — The endeavour after self-preservation is. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. '99 nothing but the essence of the object itself (Prop. 7, pt. 3), which, in so far as it exists, is conceived to have power to persevere in existence (Prop. 6, pt. 3), and to do those things which necessarily follow from its given nature. (See the definition of desire in SchoL Prop. 9, pt. 3.) But the essence of reason is nothing but our mind, in so far as it clearly and distinctly understands. (See definition of clear and distinct understanding in Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2.) Therefore (Prop. 40, pt. 2), all efforts which we make through reason are nothing else than efforts to understand. Again, since this effort of the mind, by which the mind, in so far as it reasons, endeavours to preserve its being, is nothing but the effort to understand (by the first part of this demonstration), it follows (Corol. Prop. 22, pt. 4), that this effort to understand is the primary and sole foundation of virtue, and that (Prop. 25, pt. 4) we do not endeavour to understand things for the sake of any end, but, on the contrary, the mind, in so far as it reasons, can conceive nothing as being good for itself except that which conduces to understanding (Def. 1, pt. 4). Q.E.D. Prop. XXVII. — We do not know that anything is certainly good or evil excepting tliat which actually conduces to understanding, or which can prevent us from under- ' standing. Demonst. — The mind, in so far as it reasons, desires nothing but to understand, nor does it adjudge anything to be profitable to itself excepting what conduces to understanding (Prop. 26, pt. 4). But the mind (Props. 41 and 43, pt. 2, with the Schol.) possesses no certitude, unless in so far as it possesses adequate ideas, or (which by Schol. Prop. 40, pt. 2, is the same thing) in so far as it reasons. Wc do not know, therefore, that anything is certainly good, excepting that which actually conduces to understanding, and, on the other hand, we do not know 200 ETHIC. pEOT. xxviii. rie %fa( ^ fm(,rt-- The highest thing which the mi^ understand is God, tnat is to say (Def t! 1> ^ absolutely infinite, and without wnim (Prop i ) Tt nothing can be nor can be conceived, and therefo (P^ ¦4 J trkn^dt ttd *W S°°d °f *" only in so far n, T i . , AgaiU" the mind acfcs oniy in so tar as it understands (Props, i and i nt *\ and only in so far (Prop <>, nt \ * •* , ? 3)' said rr> o-t ", /- • ~3, P 4) -**•"- lfc be absolutely said to act in conformity with virtue. To understand therefore is the absolute virtue of the mind But wfhat hinS7hiCl1 th6 mInd C- -derstand is G 1 a we have already demonstrated), and therefore the hi~h virtue of the mind is to understand or know God.-Q E a PROP. XXIX^-Ab individual object whose nature is alto gether different from our own can either help or restrain our power of acting, and absolutely nothinq can be to us eitlicr good or evil unless it possesses something m common with ourselves. Demonst -The power of an individual object, and con sequently (Corol. Prop. 10, pt. 2) that of man, by wCli he exists and acts, is determined only by another indivi dual object (Prop. 28, pt. 1), whose" nature (Prop 6 pt, 2) must be understood through the same attribute as 'that hy means of which human nature is conceived Our power of acting, therefore, in whatever way it mnv he conceived, can be determined, and consequently helped or OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 20I restrained, by the power of another individual object pos sessing something in common with us, and cannot be thus determined by the power of an object whose nature is altogether different from ours. Inasmuch, therefore, as a tiling is called good or evil because it is the cause of joy or sorrow (Prop. 8, pt. 4), that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), because it increases or diminishes, helps or restrains, our power of action; an object, whose nature is altogether different from our own, cannot be either good or evd to us. — q.e.d. Prop. XXX— Nothing can be evil through that which it 2>osscsscs in common with our nature, but in so far as a thing is evil to us is it contrary to us. Demonst— We call that thing evil which is the cause of sorrow (Prop. 8, pt. 4), that is to say (by the definition of sorrow in SchoL Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), which lessens or restrains our power of action. If, therefore, any object were evil to us through that which it possesses in common with us it could lessen or restrain what it possesses in common with us, which (Prop. 4, pt. 3) is absurd. Nothing therefore, through that which it possesses in common with us can be evil to us, but, on the contrary, in so far as it is evil, that is to say (as we have already shown) in so far as it can lessen or restrain our power of action <*U-op. 5, pt. 3), 1S it contrary to us. — q.e.d. Pi:or. XXXI.— In so far as an object agrees with our nature is it necessarily good. Demonst.— In so far as any object agrees with our nature (Prop. 30, pt. 4) it cannot be evil. It must therereiv, necessarily be cither good or imliirerent If it he supposed as indifferent, that is to say, as neither good ""¦• evil, nothing (Ax. 3, pt. 1 ) will fellow from its nature winch conduces to the preservation of our nature that is 2oz ETHIC. to say (by hypothesis), which conduces to its own pre servation. But this (Prop. 6, pt. 3) is absurd, and, therefore, in so far as the object agrees with our nature, it will necessarily be good. — Q.E.D. Corol. — Hence it follows that the more an object agrees with our own nature, the more profitable it is to us, that is to say, the better it is for us, and, conversely, the more profitable au object is to us, the more does it agree with our own nature. For in so far as it does not agree with our nature it will necessarily be either diverse from our nature or contrary to it. If diverse, it can (Prop. 29, pt. 4) be neither good nor evil, but if con trary, it will therefore be contrary also to that which agrees with our own nature, that is to say (Prop. 31, pt. 4), contrary to the good, or, in other words, it will be evil. Nothing, therefore, can be good except in so far as it agrees with our nature, and therefore the more an object agrees with our nature the more profitable it will be, and vice versa. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXII. — In so far as men are subject to passions, they cannot be said to agree in nature. Demonst. — Things which are said to agree in nature are understood to agree in power (Prop. 7, pt. 3), and not in impotence or negation, and consequently (Schol. Prop. 3, pt. 3), not in passion; and therefore men, in so far as they are subject to passion, cannot be said to agree in nature. — Q.E.D. Schol — This proposition is self-evident, for he who says that black and white agree solely in the fact that neither of them is red, absolutely affirms that black and white agree in nothing. So also if we say that a stoue and a man agree solely in this, that they are both finite or impotent, or do not exist from the necessity of their nature, or are both to an indefinite extent dominated by external causes, we ailirin that a stone and a man OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 203 agree in nothing, for things which agree in negation only, or in that which they have not, really agree in nothing. Prop. XXXIII. — Men may differ in nature from one another in so far as they are agitated by affects which are passions, and in so far also as one and the same man is agitated by passions is he changeable and in constant. Demonst. — The nature or essence of the affects cannot be explained through our essence or nature alone (Defs. 1 and 2, pt. 3), but must be determined by the power, that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3), the nature of external causes compared with our own nature. Hence it fol lows that there are as many kinds of each affect as there are kinds of objects by which we are affected (Prop. 56, pt. 3) ; that men are affected in different ways by one and the same object (Prop. 51, pt. 3), and so far differ in nature ; and, finally, that one and the same man (Prop. 51, pt. 3) is affected in different ways towards the same object, and so far is changeable and inconstant. — q.e.d. Prop. XXXIV. — In so far as men are agitated by affects which are passions can they be contrary to one another. Demonst. — A man, Peter, for example, may be a cause of sorrow to Paul, because he possesses something re sembling that which Paul hates (Prop. 16, pt. 3), or because he alone possesses something which Paul him self also -loves (Prop. 32, pt. 3, with its SchoL), or for other reasons (the chief of which are mentioned in Schol. Prop. 55, pt. 3). Hence it will come to pass (Def. 7 of the affects) that Paul hates Peter, and, consequently, it will easily happen (Prop. 40, pt. 3, with its SchoL) that Peter in turn hates Paul, and that they endeavour (Prop. 39, pt. 3) to injure one another, or, in other words 204 ETHIC. (Prop. 30, pt. 4), that they are contrary to one another. But the affect of sorrow is always a passion (Prop. 59, pt. 3), and therefore men, in so far as they are agitated by affects which are passions, can be contrary to one another. — q.e.d. Schol. — I have said that Paul hates Peter because he imagines that Peter possesses something which he him self loves, from which at first sight it appears to follow, that because they both love the same thing, and consequently agree in nature with one another, they are, therefore, injur ious to one another ; and if this be true, Props. 30 and 3 1, pt. 4, would be false. But if we will examine the matter impartially, we shall see that all these things are quite in accord. For Peter and Paul are not injurious to one another in so far as they agree in nature, that is to say, in so far as they both love the same object, but in so far as they differ from one another. For in so far as they both love the same object is the love of each strengthened (Prop. 3 1, pt. 3), that is to say (Def. 6 of the Affects), so far is the joy of both increased. It is far from true, therefore, that in so far as they love the same object and agree in nature they are injurious to one another. They are in jurious to one another, on the contrary, as I have said, solely because they are supposed to differ in nature. For we suppose Peter to have an idea of a beloved object which he now possesses, and Paul, on the other hand, to have an idea of a beloved object which he has lost. The former, therefore, is affected with joy, and the latter, on the contrary, with sorrow, and so far they are contrary to one another. In this manner we can easily show that the other causes of hatred depend solely on the fact that men differ by nature and not on anything in which they agree. Prop. XXXV. — So far as men live in conformity with the guidance of reason, in so far only do they always neces sarily agree in nature. Demonst. — In so far as men are agitated by affects OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 20; which are passions can they differ in nature (Prop. 33, pt. 4) and be contrary to one another (Prop. 34, pt. 4)* But men are said to act only in so far as they live according to the guidance of reason (Prop. 3, pt. 3), and therefore, whatever follows from human nature, in so far- as it is determined by reason (Def. 2, pt. 3), must be understood through human nature alone as through its proximate cause. But because every one, according to the laws of his own nature, desires that which he adjudges to be good, and endeavours to remove that which he ad judges to be evil (Prop. 19, pt. 4), and because that which from the dictates of reason -we judge to bo good or evil is necessarily good or evil (Prop. 41, pt. 2), it follows that men, only in so far as they live according to the guidance of reason, necessarily do those things which are good to human nature, and consequently to each man, that is to say (CoroL Prop. 31, pt. 4), which agree with' the nature of each man, and therefore also men neces sarily always agree with one another in so far as they live according to the guidance of reason. q.e.d. Corol 1.— There is no single thing in nature which is- more profitable to man than a man who lives according to the guidance of reason. For that is most profitable to man which most agrees with his own nature (Corol. Prop. 31, pt. 4), that is to say, man (as is self-evident) But a man acts absolutely from the laws of his own nature when he lives according to the guidance of reason (Def. 2, pt. 3), and so far only does he always necessarily agree with the nature of another man (Prop. 35 pt 4) • therefore there is no single thing more profitable 'to a man than man, &c. — q.e.d. Corol. 2.— When each man seeks most that which is profitable to himself, then are men most profitable to one another; for the more each man seeks his own profit and endeavours to preserve himself, tlie more virtue does he possess (Prop. 20, pt. 4), or, in other words (Def. 8, pt. 4), the more power does he possess to act accord- 2o6 ETHIC. ing to the laws of his own nature, that is to say (Prop. 3> Pt- 3). to live according to the guidance of reason. But men most agree in nature when they live according to the guidance of reason (Prop. 35, pt. 4), therefore (by the previous Corol.) men will be most profitable to one another when each man seeks most what is profitable to himself. — Q.E.D. Schol — To what we have just demonstrated daily ex perience itself testifies by so many and such striking proofs, that it is in almost everybody's mouth that man is a God to man. It is very seldom indeed that men live according to the guidance of reason ; on the con trary, it so happens that they are generally envious and injurious to one another. But, nevertheless, they are scarcely ever able to lead a solitary life, so that to most men the definition of man that he is a social animal entirely commends itself, and indeed it is the ease that far more advantages than disadvantages arise from the common society of men. / Let satirists therefore scoff at human affairs as much as they please, let theologians de nounce them, and let the melancholy praise as much as they can a life rude and without refinement, despising men and admiring the brutes, men will nevertheless find out that by mutual help they can much more easily pro cure the things they need, and that it is only by their united strength they can avoid the dangers which every where threaten them, to say nothing about its being far nobler and worthier of our knowledge to meditate upon the doings of men than upon those of brutes. But more of this elsewhere. Prop. XXXVI. — The highest good of those who follow after virtue is common to all, and all may equally enjoy it. Demonst. — To act in conformity with virtue is to act according to the guidance of reason (Prop. 24, pt. 4), and every effort which we make through reason is an OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 207 effort to understand (Prop. 26, pt. 4), and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 4) the highest good of those who follow after virtue is to know God, that is to say (Prop. 47, pt. 2, with its SchoL), it is a good which is common to all men, and can be equally possessed by all men in so far as they are of the same nature. — Q.E.D. Schol — If anybody asks, What if the highest good of those who follow after virtue were not common to all ? would it not thence follow (as above, see Prop. 34, pt. 4) that men who live according to the guidance of reason, that is to say (Prop. 35, pt. 4), men in so far as they agree in nature, would be contrary to one another ? We reply that it arises from no accident, but from the nature itself of reason, that the highest good of man is com mon to all, inasmuch as it is deduced from the human essence itself, in so far as it is determined by reason, and also because man could not be nor be conceived if he had not the power of rejoicing in this highest good. For it pertains (Prop. 47, pt. 2) to the essence of the human mind to have an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. Prop. XXXVII. — The good which every one who follows after virtue seeks for himself lie will desire for other men ; and his desire on their behalf will be greater in proportion as he has a greater knowledge of God, Demonst. — Men are most profitable to man in so far as they live according to the guidance of reason (Corol. 1, Fi'°P- 3 5, pt, 4). and therefore (Prop. 19, pt. 4), accord ing to the guidance of reason, we necessarily endeavour to cause men to live according to the guidance of reason. But the good which each person seeks who lives accord ing to the dictates of reason, that is to say (Prop. 24, pt. 4), who follows after virtue, is to understand (Prop! 26, pt. 4), and therefore the good which each person seeks who follows after virtue he will also desire for 208 ETHIC. other men. Again, desire, in so far as it is related to the mind, is the essence itself of the mind (Def. I of the Affects). But the essence of the mind consists in know ledge (Prop, ii, pt. 2), which involves the knowledge of God (Prop. 47, pt. 2), and without this knowledge the essence of the mind can neither be nor be conceived (Prop. 15, pt. 1); and therefore the greater the know ledge of God which the essence of the mind involves, the°greater will be the desire with which he who follows after5 virtue will desire for another the good which he seeks for himself. — q.e.d. Another Demonstration. — The good which a man seeks- for himself and which he loves he will love more un changeably if he sees that others love it (Prop. 31, pt. 3). and therefore (Corol. Prop. 31, pt 3) he will endeavour to make others love it ; and because this good (Prop. 36, pt. 4) is common to all and all can rejoice in it, be will endeavour (by the same reasoning) to cause aU to rejoice in it, and (Prop. 37, P^ 3) he will do so the more the more he rejoices in this good himself. — Q.E.D. Schol i _He who strives from an affect alone to make others love what he himself loves, and to make others live according to his way of thinking, acts from mere impulse, and is therefore hateful, especially to those who have other tastes, and who therefore also desire, and by the same impulse strive to make others live according to their way of thinking. A"-ain, since the highest good which men seek from an affect is often such that only one person can possess it, it follows that persons who love are not consistent with themselves, and, whilst they delight to recount the praises of the beloved object, fear lest they should be believed. But he who endeavours to lead others by reason does not act from impulse, but with humanity and kindness, and is always consistent with himself. Everything which we desire and do, of which we aie the cause in so far as we possess an idea of God, or in OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 209 so far as we know God, I refer to Beligion. The desire of doing well which is bom in us, because we live accord ing to the guidance of reason, I call Puty The desire toSjoin othe°rs in friendship to himself, with which a man livL according to the guidance of reason is possessed, I 7l Honour. I call that thing Honourable which men who live according to the guidance of reason praise ; and That thing, on the contrary, I call Base which sets itself against the formation of friendship. Moreover, I have also shown what are the foundations of a State. The difference also between true virtue and impotence may, from what has already been said, be easdy seen to be this- that true virtue consists in living according to the guidance of reason alone : and that impotence there fore consists in this alone-that a man a lows himse to be led by things which are outside himself, and by them to be determined to such actions as the common ^consti tution of external things demands, and not to such as h s own nature considered in itself alone demands These are the things which I promised m Schol. Prop. 18, pt 4, I would demonstrate. From them we see that the law against killing animals is based upon an empty supersti tion and womanish tenderness, rather than upon sound reason. The law, indeed, of seeking ones own profit teaches us to unite in friendship with men, and not with brutes, nor with things whose nature is different from human nature. It teaches us, too, that the same right which they have over us we have over them. Indeed, since the right of any person is limited by his virtue or power, men possess a far greater right over brutes than brutes possess over men. I by no means deny that brutes feel, but I do deny that on this account it is unlawful for us to consult our own profit by using them for our own pleasure and treating them as is most con venient for us, inasmuch as they do not agree 111 nature with us, and their affects are different from our own (Schol. Prop. 57, Pfc- 3)- ETHIC. It now remains that I should explain what are Justice, Injustice, Crime, and, finally, Merit. With regard to these, see the following scholium. Schol. 2. — In the Appendix to the First Part I promised I would explain what are praise and blame, merit and crime, justice and injustice. I have already shown what is the meaning of praise and blame in Schol. Prop. 29, pt. 3, and this will be a fitting place for the explanation of the rest. A few words must, however, first be said about the natural and civil state of man. It is by the highest right of nature that each person exists, and consequently it is by the highest right of nature that eadi person does those things which follow from the necessity of his nature ; . and therefore it is by the highest right of nature that each person judges what is good and what is evil, consults his own advantage as he thinks best (Props. 19 and 20, pt. 4), avenges him self (Corol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 3), and endeavours to pre serve what he loves and to destroy what he hates (Prop. 28, pt. 3). If men lived according to the guidance of reason, every one would enjoy this right without injuring ; any one else (Corol. 1, Prop. 35, pt. 4). But because men are subject to affects (Corol. Prop. 4, pt. 4), which far surpass human power or virtue (Prop. 6, pt. 4), they are often drawn in different directions (Prop. 33, pt. 4), and are contrary to one another (Prop. 34, pt. 4), although they need one another's help (Schol. Prop. 35, pt. 4). In order, then, that men may be able to live in har mony and be a help to one another, it is necessary for them to cede their natural right, and beget confidence one in the other that they will do nothing by which one can injure the other. In what manner this can be done, so that men who are necessarily subject to affects (Corol. Prop. 4, pt. 4), and are uncertain and changeable (Prop. 33, pt. 4), can beget confidence one in the other and have faith in one another, is evident from Prop. 7,'pt 4, OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 211 and Prop. 39, pt. 3. It is there shown that no affect can be restrained unless by a stronger and contrary affect, and that every one abstains from doing an injury through fear of a greater injury. By this law, therefore, can society be strengthened, if only it claims for itself the right which every individual possesses of avengin<~- himself and deciding what is good and what is evil,°and provided, therefore, that it possess the power of prescrib- 1 ing a common rule of life, of promulgating laws and ! supporting them, not by reason, which cannot restrain/ the affects (SchoL Prop. 17, pt. 4), but by penalties. This society, firmly established by law and with a power of self-preservation, is called a State, and those who are protected by its right are called Citizens. We can now easily see that in the natural state there "is nothing which by universal consent is good or evil, since everyone in a natural state consults only his own profit; deciding-according to his own way of thinking what is good and what is evil with reference only to°his own profit, and is not bound by any law to obey any one but himself. Hence in a natural state sin cannot be con ceived, but only in a civil state, where it is decided by universal consent what is good and what is evil and where every one is bound to obey the State. Sin, there fore, is nothing but disobedience, which is punished "by the law of the State alone ; obedience, on the other hand being regarded as a merit in a citizen, because on account of it he is considered worthy to enjoy the privileges of the State. Again, in a natural state no one by common consent is the owner of anything, nor is there anything in nature which can be said to be the rightful property of this and not of that man, but all things belon- to all so that m a natural state it is impossible to conceive a desire of rendering to each man his own or takm" from another that which is his ; that is to say, in a natural state there is nothing which can be called just or unjust but only in a civil state, in which it is decided by uni- 212 ETHIC. venal consent what is one person's and what is another's. Justice and injustice, therefore, sin and merit, are exter nal notions, and not attributes, which manifest the nature of the mind. But enough of these matters. Prop. XXXVIII -TJiat which so disposes the human body that itcanbe affected in many ways, or which render, rt capable of affecting external bodies in many ways is profitable to man, and is more profitable in proportion m i by its means the body becomes better fitted to be affecteel in many ways, and to affect other bodies • on the other hand, tliat thing is injurious which renders the body less fitted to affect or be affected. Demonst— In proportion as the body is rendered more fitted for this is the mind rendered more capable of per ception (rrop. i4jpt 2), and, therefore, whatever dis poses the body in this way, and renders it fitted for this is necessartiy good or profitable (Props. 26 and 27, pt 4.) and is more profitable in proportion to its power of ren dering the body more fitted for this, while, on the con trary (by Prop. 14, pt. 2, conversely, and Props. 26 and 27, pt. 4), it is injurious if it renders the body less fitted for this. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXIX.— Whatever is effective to preserve tlie proportion of motion and rest which the parts of the human body bear to each other is good, and, on the contrary, that is evil which causes the parts of the human body to have a different proportion of motion and rest to each other. Demonst— The human body needs for its preservation very many other bodies (Post. 4, pt. 2). But what constitutes the form of the human body is this, that its parts communicate their motions to one another in a certain fixed proportion (Def. preceding Lem. 4, following Prop. 1 3,. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. **3 pt. 2). Whatever, therefore, is effective to preserve the proportion of motion and rest which the parts of the human body bear to each other, preserves the form of the human body, and, consequently (Posts. 3 and 6, pt. 2), is effec tive to enable the body to be affected in many ways, and to affect external bodies in many ways, and, therefore (Prop. 38, pt. 4), is good. Again, whatever causes the parts of the human body to get a different proportion of motion and rest (by the definition just quoted), causes the human body to assume another form, that is to say {as is self-evident, and as we observed at the end of the preface to this part), causes the human body to be de stroyed, rendering it consequently incapable of being affected in many ways, and is, therefore (Prop. 3 8, pt. 4,) bad. — q.e.d. Schol. — In what degree these things may injure or profit the mind will be explained in the Fifth Part. Here I observe merely that I understand the body to die when its parts are so disposed as to acquire a differ ent proportion of motion and rest to each other. For I dare not deny that the human body, though the circu lation of the blood and the other things by means of which it is thought to live be preserved, may, neverthe less, be changed into another nature altogether different from its own. No reason compels me to affirm that the body never dies unless it is changed into a corpse. Ex perience, indeed, seems to teach the contrary. It happens sometimes that a man undergoes such changes that he cannot very well be said to be the same man, as was the case with a certain Spanish poet of whom I have heard, who was seized with an illness, and although he recovered, remained, nevertheless, so oblivious of his past life that he did not believe the tales and tragedies he had composed were his own, and he might, indeed, have been taken for a grown-up child if he had also forgotten his native tongue. But if this seems incredible, what shall we say of children ? The man of mature years 214 ETHIC. believes the nature of children to be so different from his own, that it would be impossible to persuade him he had ever been a child, if he did not conjecture regarding himself from what he sees of others. But in order to avoid giving to the superstitious matter for new questions, I prefer to go no farther in the discussion of these matters. Prop. XL. — Whatever conduces to the universal fellowship of men, that is to say, whatever causes men to live in harmony with one another, is profitable, and, on tlie contrary, vjhatcvcr brings discmd into the State is evil. Demonst. — For whatever causes men to live in har mony with one another causes them to live according to the guidance of reason (Prop. 35, pt. 4), and, therefore (Props. 26 and 2 7, pt. 4), is good, and (by the same reason ing) those things are evil which excite discord. — Q.E.D. 1 Prop. XLI. — Joy is not directly evil, but good ; sorrow, on the other hand, is directly evil. Demonst. — Joy (Prop. 11, pt. 3, with its Schol.) is an affect by which the body's power of action is increased or assisted. Sorrow, on the other hand, is an affect by which the body's power of action is lessened or re strained, and, therefore (Prop. 38, pt. 4), joy is directly good. — Q.E.D. 1'noi'. XL11. — Cheerfulness can never be excessive, but is always good ; melancholy, on the contrary, is always evil. Demonst. — Cheerfulness (see its definition in Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3) is joy, which, in so far as it is related to the body, consists in this, that all the parts of the body nre equally affected, that is to say (Prop. 11, pt. 3), the body's power of action is increased or assisted, so that OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 215 all the parts acquire the same proportion of motion and rest to each other. Cheerfulness, therefore (Prop. 39, pt. 4), is always good, and can never be excessive. But melancholy (see its definition in Schol. Prop. 1 i,pt. 3) is sorrow, which, in so far as it is related to the body, consists iu this, that the body's power of action is abso lutely lessened or restrained, and melancholy, therefore (Prop. 38, pt. 4), is always evil. — q.e.d. Prop. XLIII. — Pleasurable excitement may be excessive and an evil, and pain may be good in so far as pleasurable excitement or joy is evil. Demonst — Pleasurable excitement is joy, which, in so far as it is related to the body, consists in this, that one or some of the parts of the body are affected more than others (see Def. in Schol. Prop. 11, pt. 3). The power of this affect may, therefore, be so great as to overcome the other actions of the body (Prop. 6, pt. 4) ; it may cling obstinately to the body ; it may impede the body in such a manner as to render it less capable of being affected in many ways, and therefore (Prop. 38, pt. 4) may be evil. Again, pain, which, on the contrary, is sorrow, considered in itself alone cannot be good (Prop. 41, pt, 4). But because its power and increase is limited by the power of an external cause compared with our own power (Prop. 5, pt. 4), we can therefore conceive infinite degrees of strength of this affect, and infinite lands of it (Prop. 3, pt. 4), and wc can therefore con ceive it to be such that it can restrain an excess of pleasurable excitement, and so far (by the first part of this proposition) preventing the body from becoming less capable. So far, therefore, will pain be good. — q.e.d. Prop. XLIV. — Love and desire may be excessive. Demonst. — Love is joy (Def. 6 of the Affects) with the 2l6 ETHIC. accompanying idea of an external cause. Pleasurable excitement, therefore (SchoL Prop, ii, pt. 3), with the accompanying idea of an external cause, is love, and there fore love (Prop. 43, pt. 4) may be excessive. Again, desire is greater as the affect from which it springs is greater (Prop. 37, pt. 3). Inasmuch, therefore, as an affect (Prop. 6, pt. 4) may overpower the other actions of a man, so also the desire which springs from this affect may also overpower the other desires, and may therefore exist in the same excess which we have shown (in the preceding proposition) that pleasurable excitement pos sesses. — q.e.d. Schol — Cheerfulness, which I have affirmed to be good, is more easily imagined than observed; for the affects by which we are daily agitated are generally re lated to some part of the body which is affected more than the others, and therefore it is that the affects exist for the most part in excess, and so hold the mind down to the contemplation of one object alone, that it can think about nothing else ; and although men are subject to a number of affects, and therefore few are found who are always under the control of one and the same affect, there are not wanting those to whom one and the same affect obstinately clings. We see men sometimes so affected by one object, that although it is not present, they believe it to be before them ; and if this happens to a man who is not asleep, we say that he is delirious or mad. Nor are those believed to be less mad who are in flamed by love, dreaming about nothing but a mistress 01 harlot day and night, for they excite our laughter. But the avaricious man who thinks of nothing else but gain or money, and the ambitious man who thinks of nothing but glory, inasmuch as they do harm, and are, therefore, thought worthy of hatred, are not believed to be mad. In truth, however, avarice, ambition, lust, &a, arc a kind of madness, although they are not reckoned amongst dis eases. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 217 Prop. XLV. — Hatred can never be good. Demonst — The man whom we hate we endeavour to' destroy (Prop. 2>9> Pfc- 3)> tnat is to sav (Frop. 37> Pfc- 4)> we endeavour to do something which is evil. Therefore hatred, &c. — Q.E.D. Schol. — It is to be observed that here and in the following propositions I understand by hatred, hatred towards men only. Corol. 1. — Envy, mockery, contempt, anger, revenge, and the other affects which are related to hatred or arise from it, are evil. This is also evident from Prop. 39, pt. 3, and Prop. 37, pt. 4. Corol. 2. — Everything which we desire because we are affected by hatred is base and unjust in the State. This is also evident from Prop. 39, pt. 3, and from the defi nition in Schol. Prop. 37, pt. 4, of what is base and unjust. Schol — I make a great distinction between mockery (which I have said in Corol. 1 of this Prop, is bad) and laughter; for laughter and merriment are nothing but joy, and therefore, provided they are not excessive, are in themselves good (Prop. 41, pt. 4). Nothing but a gloomy and sad superstition forbids enjoyment. For why is it more seemly to extinguish hunger and thirst than to drive away melancholy ? My reasons and my con clusions are these : — No God and no human being, except an envious one, is delighted by my impotence or my trouble, or esteems as any virtue in us tears, sighs, fears, and other things of this kind, which are signs of mental impotence ; on the contrary, the greater the joy with which we are affected, the greater the perfection to which we pass thereby, that is to say, the more do we neces sarily partake of the divine nature. To make use of things, therefore, and to delight in them as much as pos sible (provided we do not disgust ourselves with them, which is not delighting in them), is the part of a wise 218 ETHIC. man. It is the part of a wise man, I say, to refresh and invigorate himself with moderate and pleasant eating and drinking, with sweet scents and the beauty of green plants, with ornament, with music, with sports, with the theatre, and with all things of this kind which one man can enjoy without hurting another. For the human body is com posed of a great number of parts of diverse nature, which constantly need new and varied nourishment, in order that the whole of tlie body may be equally fit for everything which can follow from its nature, and conse quently that the mind may be equally fit to understand many tilings at once. This mode of living best of all agrees both with our principles and with common practice ; therefore this mode of living is the best of all, and is to be universally commended. There is no need, therefore, to enter more at length into the subject. Prop. XLVI. — He who lives according to the guidance of reason strives as much as possible to repay the luitrcd, anger, or contempt of others towards himself with love or generosity. Demonst — All affects of hatred are evil (Corol. i, Prop. 45, pt. 4), and, therefore, the man who lives according to the guidance of reason will strive as much as possible to keep himself from being agitated by the affects of hatred (Prop. 19, pt. 4), and, consequently (Prop. 37, pt. 4), will strive to keep others from being subject to the same affects. But hatred is increased by reciprocal hatred, and, on the other hand, can be extinguished by love (Prop. 43, pt. 3), so that hatred passes into love (Prop. 44, pt. 3). Therefore he who lives according to the guidance of reason will strive to repay the hatred of another, &c, with love, that is to say, with generosity (see definition of generosity in Schol. Prop. 59, pt. 3). — q.e.d. Schol. — He who wishes to avenge injuries by hating in return does indeed live miserably. But he who, on OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 219 the contrary, strives to drive out hatred by love, fights joyfully and confidently, with equal ease resisting one man or a number of men, and needing scarcely any assis tance from fortune. Those whom he conquers yield gladly, not from defect of strength, but from an increase of it. These truths, however, all follow so plainly from the definitions alone of love and the intellect, that there is no need to demonstrate them singly. Prop. XL VII. — The affects of hope and fear cannot be good of themselves. Demonst. — The affects of hope and fear cannot exist without sorrow; for fear (Def. 13 of the Affects) is sorrow, and hope (see the explanation of Defs. 1 2 and 1 3 of the Affects) cannot exist without fear. Therefore (Prop. 41, pt. 4) these affects cannot be good of them selves, but only in so far as they are able to restrain the excesses of joy (Prop. 43, pt. 4). — q.e.d. Schol. — We may here add that these affects indicate want of knowledge and impotence of mind, and, for the same reason, confidence, despair, gladness, and remorse are signs of weakness of mind. For although confidence and gladness are affects of joy, they nevertheless suppose that sorrow has preceded them, namely, hope or fear. In proportion, therefore, as we endeavour to live according to the guidance of reason, shall we strive as much as possible to depend less on hope, to liberate ourselves from fear, to rule fortune, and to direct our actions by the sure counsels of reason. Prop. XLVIII. — The affects of over-estimation and contempt are always evil. Demonst. — These affects (Defs. 21 and 22 of the Affects) are opposed to reason, and therefore (Props. 26 and 27, pt. 4) are evil. — q.e.d. 220 ETHIC. PROP. XLIX. — Over-estimation easily renders the man who is over-estimated proud. Demonst— II we see that a person, through love, thinks too much of us, we shall easily glorify ourselves (SchoL 41, pt. 3), or, in other words, be affected with joy (Def. 30 of the Affects), and easily believe the good which we hear others affirm of us (Prop. 25, pt. 3), and consequently, through self-love, we shall think too much of ourselves that is to say (Def. 28 of the Affects), we shall easily grow proud. — q.e.d. PROr. L.— Pity in a man who lives according to the guidance of reason is in itself evil and unprofitable. Demonst.— Pity (Def. 18. of the Affects) is sorrow, and therefore (Prop. 41, pt. 4) is in itself evil. The good, however, which issues from pity, namely, that we endea vour to free from misery the man we pity (Corol. 3, Prop. 27, pt. 3), we desire to do from the dictate of reason alone (Prop. 37, pt. 4); nor can we do anything except by the dictate of reason alone, which we are sure is good (Prop. 27, pt. 4). Pity, therefore, in a man who lives according to the guidance of reason is in itself bad and unporfitable.- — q.e.d. Corol. — Hence it follows that a man who lives accord ing to the dictates of reason endeavours as much as possible to prevent himself from being touched by pity. Schol— The man who has properly understood that everything follows from the necessity of the divine nature, and comes to pass according to the eternal laws and rules of nature, will in truth discover nothing which is worthy of hatred, laughter, or contempt, nor will he pity any one, but, so far as human virtue is able, he will endeavour to do well, as we say, and to rejoice. We must add also, that a man who is easily OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 221 touched by the affect of pity, and is moved by the misery or tears of another, often does something of which he afterward repents, both because from an affect we do nothing which we. certainly know to be good, and also because we are so easily deceived by false tears. But this I say expressly of the man who lives according to the guidance of reason. For he who is moved neither by reason nor pity to be of any service to others is pro perly called inhuman ; for (Prop. 27, pt. 3) he seems to- be unlike a man. Prop. LI. — Favour is not opposed to reason, but agrees with it, and may arise from it. Demonst. — Favour is love towards him who does good to another (Def. 19 of the Affects), and therefore can be related to the mind in so far as it is said to act (Prop. 59, Pt- 3), that is to say (Prop. 3, pt. 3), in so far as it understands, and therefore favour agrees with reason. Q.E.D. Another Demonstration. — If we live according to the guidance of reason, we shall desire for others the good which we seek for ourselves (Prop. 37, pt. 4). There fore if we see one person do good to another, our endea vour to do good is assisted, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 1 1, pt. 3), we shall rejoice, and our joy (by hypothesis) will be accompanied with the idea of the person who does good to the other, that is to say (Def. 19 of the Affects), we shall favour him. — q.e.d. Sehol— Indignation, as it is defined by us (Del'. 20 of the Affects), is necessarily evil (Prop. 45, pt. 4); but it is to he observed that when the supreme authority, con strained by the desire of preserving peace, punishes a citizen who injures another, I do not say that it is indig nant with tlie citizen, since it is not excited by hatred to destroy him, but punishes him from motives of piety. 222 ETHIC. Prop. LII. — Self-satisfaction may arise from reason, and the self-satisfaction alone which arises from reason is the highest which can exist. Demonst. — Self-satisfaction is the joy which arises from a man's contemplating himself and his power of action (Def. 25 of the Affects). But man's true power of action or his virtue is reason itself (Prop. 3, pt. 3), which he contemplates clearly and distinctly (Props. 40 and 43, pt. 2). Self-satisfaction therefore arises from reason. Again, man, when he contemplates himself, per ceives nothing clearly and distinctly or adequately, ex cepting those things which follow from his power of action (Def. 2, pt. 3), that is to say (Prop. 3, pt. 3), those things which follow from his power of understand ing; and therefore from this contemplation alone the highest satisfaction which can exist arises. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Self-satisfaction is indeed the highest thing for ¦ which we can hope, for (as we have shown in Prop. 25, pt. 4) no one endeavours to preserve his being for tho sake of any end. Again, because this self-satisfaction is more and more nourished and strengthened by praise (Corol. Prop. 53, pt. 3), and, on the contrary (Corol. Prop. 55, pt. 3), more and more disturbed by blame, therefore we are principally led by glory, and can scarcely endure life with disgrace. Prop. LIIL — Humility is not a virtue, that is to say, it docs not spring from reason. Demonst. — Humility is sorrow, which springs from this, that a man contemplates his own weakness (Def. 26 of the Affects). But in so far as a man knows himself by true reason is he supposed to understand his essence, that is to say (Prop. 7, pt. 3 ), his power. If, therefore, while contemplating himself, he perceives any impotence of his, this is not due to his understanding himself, but, as we have shown (Prop. 55, pt. 3), to the fact that his OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 223 power of action is restrained. But if we suppose that he forms a conception of his own impotence because he understands something to be more powerful than him self, by the knowledge of which he limits his own power of action, in this case we simply conceive that he un derstands himself distinctly (Prop. 26, pt. 4), and his power of action is increased. Humility or sorrow, there fore, which arises because a man contemplates his own impotence, does not spring from true contemplation or reason, and is not a virtue, but a passion. — q.e.d. Prop. LIV. — Bcpentance is not a virtue, that is to say, it does not spring from reason ; on the contrary, the man who repents of what he has done is doubly wretched or impotent. Demonst. — The first part of this proposition is demon strated in the same manner as the preceding proposi tion. The second part follows from the definition alone of this affect (Def. 27 of the Affects). For, in the first place, we allow ourselves to be overcome by a depraved desire, and, in the second place, by sorrow. Schol. — Inasmuch as men seldom live as reason dic tates, therefore these two affects, humility and repent ance, together with hope and fear, are productive of more profit than disadvantage, and therefore, since men must sin, it is better that they should sin in this way. For if men impotent in mind were all equally proud, were ashamed of nothing, and feared nothing, by what bonds could they be united or constrained ? The mul titude becomes a thing to be feared if it has nothing to fear. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that "the prophets, thinking rather of the good of the community than of a few, should have commended so greatly humility, repentance, and reverence. Indeed, those who are subject to these affects can be led much more easily than others, so that, at last, they come to live accord- 224 ETHIC. ing to the guidance of reason, that is to say, become free men, and enjoy the life of the blessed. Prop. LV. — The greatest pride or tlie greatest despondency is the greatest ignorance of one's self. Demonst — This is evident from Defs. 28 and 29 of the Affects. Prop. LVI. — The greatest pride or despondency indicates the. greatest impotence of mind. Demonst. — The primary foundation of virtue is the preservation of our being (Corol. Prop. 22, pt. 4) accord ing to tho guidance of reason (Prop. 24, pt. 4). The man, therefore, who is ignorant of himself is ignorant of the foundation of all the virtues, and consequently is ignorant of all the virtues. Again, to act in conformity with virtue is nothing but acting according to the guid ance of reason (Prop. 24, pt. 4), and he who acts ac cording to the guidance of reason must necessarily know that he acts according to the guidance of reason (Prop. 43, pt. 2). He, therefore, who is ignorant of himself, and consequently (as we have just shown) altogether ignorant of all the virtues, cannot in any way act in conformity with virtue, that is to say (Def. 8, pt. 4), is altogether impotent in mind. Therefore (Prop. 55, pt. 4), the greatest pride or despondency indicates the greatest impotence of mind. — Q.E.D. Corol. — Hence follows, with the utmost clearness, that the proud and the desponding are above all others sub ject to affects. Schol. — Despondency, nevertheless, can be corrected more easily than pride, since the former is an affect of sorrow, while the latter is an affect of joy, and is, there fore (Prop. 18, pt. 4), stronger than the former. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 225 Prop. LVII. — The proud man loves the presence of parasites or flatterers, and hates that of the noble-minded. Demonst. — Pride is joy arising from a man's having too high an opinion of himself (Defs. 28 and 6 of the Affects). This opinion a proud man will endeavour, as much as he can, to cherish (Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 3), and, there fore, wdl love the presence of parasites or flatterers (the definitions of these people are omitted, because they are too well known), and will shun that of the noble-minded who think of him as is right. — Q.E.D. Schol. — It would take too much time to enumerate here all the evils of pride, for the proud are subject to all affects, but to none are they less subject than to those of love and pity. It is necessary, however, to observe here that a man is also called proud if he thinks too little of other people, and so, in this sense, pride is to be defined as joy which arises from the false opinion that we are superior to other people, while despondency, the contrary to this pride, would be defined as sorrow arising from the false opinion that we are inferior to other people. This being understood, it is easy to see that the proud man is necessarily envious (Schol. Prop. 5 5', pt. 3), and that he hates those above all others who are the most praised on account of their virtues. It follows, too, that his hatred of them is not easdy overcome by love or kindness (Schol. Prop. 41, pt. 3), and that he is delighted by the presence of those only who humour his weakness, and from a fool make him a madman. Although despondency is con trary to pride, the despondent man is closely akin to the proud man. For since the sorrow of the despondent man arises from his judging his own impotence by the power or virtue of others, his sorrow will be mitigated, that is to say, he will rejoice, if his imagination be occu pied in contemplating the vices of others. Hence the proverb — It is a consolation to the wretched to have had P 226 ETHIC. companions in their misfortunes. On the other hand, the more the despondent man believes himself to be below other people, the more will he sorrow ; and this is the reason why none are more prone to envy than the de spondent ; and why they, above all others, try to observe men's actions with a view to finding fault with them rather than correcting them, so that at last they praise nothing but despondency and glory in it ; but in such a manner, however, as always to seem despondent. These things follow from this affect as necessarily as it follows from the nature of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles. It is true, indeed, that I have said that I call these and the like affects evil, in so far as I attend to human profit alone ; but the laws of nature have regard to tho common order of nature of which man is a part — a remark I desired to make in passing, lest it should be thought that I talk about the vices and absurdities of men rather than attempt to demonstrate the nature and properties of things. As I said in the Preface to the Third Part, I consider human affects and their properties precisely as I consider other natural objects ; and, indeed, the affects of man, if they do not show his power, show, at least, the power and workman ship of nature, no less than many other things which we admire and delight to contemplate. I proceed, however, to notice those things connected with the affects which are productive either of profit or loss to man. Prop. LVIII. — Self-exaltation is not opposed to reason, but may spring from it. Demonst. — This is plain from Def. 30 of the Affects, and also from the definition of honour in SchoL 1, Prop. 37, Pt- 4- t . gcM. — What is called vainglory is self-satisfaction, nourished by nothing but the good opinion of the multi- OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 227 tude, so that when that is withdrawn, the satisfaction, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 5 2, pt. 4), the chief good which every one loves, ceases. For this reason those who glory in the good opinion of the multitude anxiously and with daily care strive, labour, and struggle to pre serve their fame. For the multitude is changeable and fickle, so that fame, if it be not preserved, soon passes away. As every one, moreover, is desirous to catch the praises of the people, one person will readily destroy the fame of another ; and, consequently, as the object of con tention is what is commonly thought to be the highest good, a great desire arises on the part of every one to keep down his fellows by every possible means, and he who at last comes off conqueror boasts more because he has injured another person than because he has profited himself. This glory of self-satisfaction, therefore, is in deed vain, for it is really no glory. What is worthy of notice with regard to shame may easdy be gathered from what has been said about compassion and repentance. I will only add that pity, like shame, although it is not a virtue, is nevertheless good, in so far as it shows that a desire of living uprightly is present in the man who is possessed with shame, just as pain is called good in so far as it shows that the injured part has not yet putrefied. A man, therefore, who is ashamed of what he has done, although he is sorrowful, is nevertheless more perfect than the shameless man who has no desire of living uprightly. These are the things which I undertook to establish with regard to the affects of joy and sorrow. With reference to the desires, these are good or evil as they spring from good or evil affects. All of them, how ever, in so far as they are begotten in us of affects which are passions, are blind (as may easily be inferred from what has been said in Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 4), nor would they be of any use if men could be easily persuaded to live according to the dictates of reason alone, as I shall show in a few words. 22S ETHIC. Prop. LIX. — To all actions to which we are determined by an affect which is a passion we may, without the affect, be determined by reason. Demonst. — To act according to reason is nothing (Prop.. 3, and Def. 2, pt. 3) but to do those things which follow from the necessity of our nature considered in itself alone. But sorrow is evil so far as it lessens or restrains this power of action (Prop. 41, pt. 4); therefore we can be determined by this affect to no action which we could not perform if we were led by reason. Again, joy is evil so far only as it hinders our fitness for action (Props. 41 and 43, pt. 4); and therefore also we can so far be de termined to no action which we could not do if we were led by reason. Finally, in so far as joy is good, so far it agrees with reason (for it consists in this, that a man's power of action is increased or assisted), and it is not a passion unless in so far as man's power of action is- not increased sufficiently for him to conceive adequately himself and his actions (Prop. 3, pt. 3, with its SchoL). If, therefore, a man affected with joy were led to such perfection as to conceive adequately himself and his- actions, he would be fitted — better even than before — for the performance of those actions to which he is now determined by the affects which are passions. But all the affects are related to joy, sorrow, or desire (see the- explanation of Def. 4 of the Affects), and desire (Def. 1 of the Affects) is nothing but the endeavour itself to act -. therefore to all actions to which we are determined by an affect which is a passion we may without the affect be determined by reason alone. — Q.E.D. Another Demonstration. — Any action is called evil in so far as it arises from our being affected with hatred or some evil affect (Corol. 1, Prop. 45, pt. 4). But no action considered in itself alone is either good or evil (as- we have already shown in the preface to this part), but one and the same action is sometimes good and sonie- OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 229 times evd. Therefore we may be led by reason (Prop. 1 9, pt. 4) to that same action which is sometimes evil, or which arises from some evil affect. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This can be explained more clearly by an ex ample. The action of striking, for instance, in so far as it is considered physically, and we attend only to the fact that a man raises his arm, closes his hand, and forcibly moves the whole arm downwards, is a virtue which is conceived from the structure of the human body. If, therefore, a man agitated by anger or hatred is led to close the fist or move the arm, this comes to pass, as we have shown in the Second Part, because one and the same action can be joined to different images of things, and therefore we may be led to one and the same action as well by the images of things which we conceive confusedly as by those which we conceive clearly and distinctly. It appears, therefore, that every desire which arises from an affect which is a passion would be of no use if men could be led by reason. We shall now see why a desire which arises from an affect which is a pas sion is called blind. Prop. LX. — The desire which arises from joy oi' sorrow, which is related to one or to some, but not to all, the parts of the body, has no regard to tlie profit of the whole man. Demonst. — Let it be supposed that a part of the body — A, for example — is so strengthened by the force of some external cause that it prevails over the others (Prop. 6, pt. 4). It will not endeavour, therefore, to lose its strength in order that the remaining parts of the body may perform their functions, for in that case it would have a force or power of losing its strength, which (Prop. 6, pt. 3) is absurd. It wdl endeavour, therefore, and consequently (Props. 7 and 12, pt. 3) the mind also will endeavour, to preserve this same state ; and so the 230 ETHIC. desire which arises from such an affect of joy has no- regard to the whole man. If, on the other hand, it be supposed that the part A is restrained so that the other parts prevail, it can be demonstrated in the same way that the desire which springs from sorrow has no regard to the whole man. Schol. — Since, therefore, joy is most frequently related to one part of the body (Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 4), we generally desire to preserve our being without reference to our health as a whole ; and, moreover, the desires by which we are chiefly controlled (Corol. Prop. 9, pt. 4) have regard to the present only, and not to the future. Prop. LXI. — A desire which springs from reason can never be in excess. Demonst. — Desire (Def. 1 of the Affects), absolutely considered, is the very essence of man, in so far as he is conceived as determined in any way whatever to any action, and therefore the desire which springs from reason, that is to say (Prop. 3, pt. 3), which is begotten in us in so far as we act, is the very essence or nature of man in so far as it is conceived as determined to actions which are adequately conceived by the essence of man alone (Def. 2, pt. 3). If, therefore, this desire could be in excess, it would be possible for human nature, considered in itself alone, to exceed itself, or, in other words, more would be possible to it than is possible, which is a mani fest contradiction, and therefore this desire can never be in excess. — Q.E.D. Prop. LXII. — In so far as the conception of an object is formed by the mind according to tlie dictate oj reason, the mind is equally affected, whether the idea be that of something future, past, or present. Demonst. — Everything which the mind, under tho guidance of reason, conceives, it conceives under tho OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 231 same form of eternity or necessity (Corol. 2, Prop. 44, pt. 2), and it is affected with the same certainty (Prop. 43, pt. 2, and its Schol.) Therefore, whether the idea be one of a future, past, or present object, the mind conceives the object with the same necessity, and is affected with the same certainty ; and whether the idea be that of a future, past, or present object, it will nevertheless be equally true (Prop. 41, pt. 2), that is to say (Def. 4, pt. 2), it will always have the same properties of an adequate idea. Therefore, in so far as the conception of an object is formed by the mind according to the dictates of reason, the mind will be affected in the same way whether the idea be that of something future, past, or present. — Q.E.D. Schol. — If it were possible for us to possess an ade quate knowledge concerning the duration of things, and to determine by reason the periods of their existence, we should contemplate with the same affect objects future and present, and the good which the mind conceived to be future, it would seek just as it would seek the present good. Consequently it would necessarily neglect the present good for the sake of a greater future good, and would, as we shall presently show, be very little disposed to seek a good which was present, but which would be a cause of any future evil. But it is not possible for us to have any other than a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of things (Prop. 3 1, pt, 2), and we determine (Schol. Prop. 44, pt. 2) the periods of the existence of objects by the imagina tion alone, which is not affected by the image of a present object in the same way as it is by that of a future object. Hence it comes to pass that the true knowledge of good and evil which we possess is only abstract or universal, and the judgment we pass upon the order of things and the connection of causes, so that we may determine what is good for us in the present and what is evil, is rather imaginary than real. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at if the desire which arises from a knowledge of good 232 ETHIC. and evil, in so far as this knowledge has regard to tho future, is capable of being easily restrained by the desire of objects which are sweet to us at the present moment. (See Prop. 16, pt. 4.) Prop. LXIII. — He who is led by fear, and docs what is good in order that he may avoid what is evil, is not led by reason. Demonst — All the affects which are related to the mind, in so far as it acts, that is to say (Prop. 3, pt. 3), which are related to reason, are no other than affects of joy and desire (Prop. 59, pt. 3) ; and therefore (Def. 13 of the Affects), he who is led by fear and does good through fear of evil is not led by reason. — q.e.d. Schol — The superstitious, who know better how to rail at vice than to teach virtue, and who study not to lead man by reason, but to hold him in through fear, in order that he may shun evil rather than love virtue, aim at nothing more than that others should be as miserable as themselves, and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at if they generally become annoying and hateful to men. Corol. — By the desire which springs from reason wo follow good directly and avoid evil indirectly. Demonst. — For the desire which springs from reason cannot spring from sorrow, but only from an affect of joy, which is not a passion (Prop. 59, pt. 3), that is to say, from joy which cannot be in excess (Prop. 6 1 , pt. 4). This desire springs, therefore (Prop. 8, pt. 4), from the know ledge of good, and not from the knowledge of evil, and therefore, according to the guidance of reason, we seek what is good directly, and so far only do we shun what is evil. — Q.E.D. Schol. — This corollary is explained by the example of a sick man and a healthy man. The sick man, through fear of death, eats what he dislikes ; the healthy man takes a pleasure in his food, and so enjoys life more than OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 233 if he feared death and directly desired to avoid it. So also the judge who condemns a guilty man to death, not from hatred or anger, but solely from love for the public welfare, is led by reason alone. Prop. LX1V. — Tlie knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge. Demonst. — The knowledge of evil (Prop. 8, pt. 4) is sorrow itself, in so far as we are conscious of it. But sorrow is the passage to a less perfection (Def. 3 of the A fleets), and it cannot, therefore, be understood through the essence itself of man (Props. 6 and 7, pt. 3). It is, therefore (Def. 2, pt. 3), a passion which (Prop. 3, pt. 3) depends upon inadequate ideas, and consequently (Prop. 29, pt. 2) the knowledge of sorrow, that is to say, the knowledge of evil, is inadequate. — Q.E.D. Corol — Hence it follows that if the human mind had none but adequate ideas, it would form no notion of evil. 1'kop. LXV. — According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, we shall follow the less. Demonst. — The good which hinders us from enjoying a greater good is really an evil, for good and evil (as we have shown in the preface to this part) are affirmed of things in so far as we compare them with one another. By the same reasoning a less evil is really a good, and therefore (Corol. Prop. 63, pt. 4), according to the guid ance of reason, we shall seek or follow the greater good only and the lesser evd. — Q.E.D. ' 'oral. — According to the guidance of reason, we shall follow a lesser evil for the sake of a greater good, and a lesser good which is the cause of a greater evil we shall neglect. For the evil which we here call less is really a good, and the good, on the other hand, is evil; and there- 234 ETHIC. fore (Corol. Prop. 63, pt. 4) we shall seek the former and neglect the latter. — q.e.d. Prop. LXVI. — According to the guidance of reason, we shall seek the greater future good before that which is less and present, and we shall seek also the less and present evil before that lohich is greater and future. Demonst. — If it were possible for the mind to have an adequate knowledge of a future object, it would be affected by the same affect towards the future object as towards a present object (Prop. 62, pt. 4). Therefore, in so far as we attend to reason itself, as we are supposing in this proposition that we do, it is the same thing whe ther the greater good or evil be supposed to be future or present, and therefore (Prop. 65, pt. 4) we shall seek the greater future good before that which is less and present, &c. — q.e.d. Corol. — According to the guidance of reason, we shall seek the lesser present evd wdiich is the cause of the greater future good, and the lesser present good which is the cause of a greater future evil we shall neglect. This corollary is connected with the foregoing proposition in the same way as Corol. Prop. 65 is connected with Prop. 65. Schol — If what has been said here be compared with what has been demonstrated about the strength of the passions in the first eighteen Props, pt. 4, and in Schol. Prop. 1 8, pt. 4, it will easily be seen in what consists the difference between a man who is led by affect or opinion alone and one who is led by reason. The former, whether he wills it or not, does those tilings of which he is entirely ignorant, but the latter does the will of no one but himself, and does those things only which he knows are of greatest importance in life, and which he therefore desires above all things. I call the former, therefore, a slave, and the latter free. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 23S I will add here a few words concerning the character of the free man and his manner of life. Prop. LXVII. — A free man thinlcs of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is not a meditation upon death but upon life. Demonst. — A free man, that is to say, a man who lives according to the dictates of reason alone, is not led by the fear of death (Prop. 63, pt. 4), but directly desires the good (Corol. Prop. 63, pt. 4); that is to say (Prop. 24, pt. 4), desires to act, to live, aud to preserve his being in accordance with the principle of seeking his own profit. He thinks, therefore, of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation upon life. — ¦ Q.E.D. Prop. LXVIII. — If men were born free, they would form no conception of good and evil so long as they were free. Demonst — I have said that that man is free who is led by reason alone. He, therefore, who is born free and remains free has no other than adequate ideas, and there fore has no conception of evd (Corol. Prop. 64, pt. 4), and consequently (as good and evd are correlative) no conception of good. — Q.E.D. Schol — It is clear from Prop. 4, pt. 4, that the hypo thesis of this proposition is false, and cannot be conceived unless in so far as we regard human nature alone, or rather God, not in so far as He is infinite, but in so far only as He is the cause of man's existence. This (to gether with the other things we have before demon strated) appears to have been what was meant by Moses in that history of the first man. In that history no other power of God is conceived excepting that by which He created man ; that is to say, the power with which He considered nothing but the advantage of man. There- 236 ETHIC. fore we are told that God forbad free man to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and warned him that as soon as he ate of it he would immediately dread death rather than desire to live. Afterwards we are told that when man found a wife who agreed entirely with his nature, he saw that there could be nothing in nature which could be more profitable to him than his wife. But when he came to believe that the brutes were like himself, he immediately began to imitate their affects (Prop. 27, pt. 3), and to lose his liberty, which the Patri archs afterwards recovered, being led by the spirit of Christ, that is to say, by the idea of God, which alone can make a man free, and cause him to desire for other men the good he desires for himself, as (Prop. 3 7, pt. 4) we have already demonstrated. Pro)'. LXIX.- — The virtue of a free man is seen to be as great in avoiding danger as in overcoming it. Demonst. — An affect cannot be restrained or removed unless a contrary and stronger affect restrains it (Prop. 7, pt. 4) ; but blind audacity and fear are affects which may be conceived as being equally great (Props. 5 and 3, pt. 4). The virtue or strength of mind, therefore (for the definition of this, see Schol. Prop. 59, pt. 3), which is required to restrain audacity must be equally great with that which is required to restrain fear ; that is to say (Defs. 40 and 4 1 of the Affects), a free man avoids danger by the same virtue of the mind as that by which he seeks to overcome it. — -Q.E.D. Corol — Flight at the proper time, just as well as fighting, is to be reckoned, therefore, as showing strength of mind in a man who is free ; that is to say. a free man chooses flight by the same strength or presence of mind as that by which he chooses battle. Sclwl. — What strength of mind is, or what I under- scand by it, I have explained in Schol. Prop. 59, pt. 3. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 237 By danger, I understand anything which may be the cause of sorrow, hatred, discord, or any other evil like them. LXX. — The free man wlw lives amongst those wlvo are igno rant strives as much as possible to avoid their favours. Demonst. — Every one, according to his own disposition, judges what is good (Schol. Prop. 39, pt. 3). The igno rant man, therefore, who has conferred a favour on another person, will value it according to his own way of think ing, and he will be sad if a less value seems to be placed upon it by the person who has received it (Prop. 42, pt. 3). But a free man strives to unite other men with himself by friendship (Prop. 37, pt. 4), and not to return to them favours winch they, according to their affects, may consider to be equal to those which they have bestowed. He desires rather to govern himself and others by the free decisions of reason, and to do those- things only which he has discovered to be of the first importance. A free man, therefore, in order that he may not be hated by the ignorant, nor yet yield to their appe tites, but only to reason, will endeavour as much as pos sible to avoid their favours. — q.e.d. Schol. — I say as mucli as possible. For although men are ignorant, they are nevertheless men, who, when we are in straits, are able to afford us human assistance — the best assistance which man can receive. It is often necessary, therefore, to receive a favour from tlie ignorant, and to thank them for it according to their taste ; and besides this, care must be used, even in declining favours, not to seem either to despise the givers or through avarice to dread a return, so that we may not, while striving to- escape their hatred, by that very act incur their displea sure. In avoiding favours, therefore, we must be guided by a consideration of what is profitable and honourable. 238 ETHIC. Prop. LXXI. — None but those who are free are very grate ful to one another. Demonst. — None but those who are free are very pro fitable to one another, or are united by the closest bond of friendship (Prop. 35, pt. 4, and Corol. 1), or with an equal zeal of love strive to do good to one another (Prop. 37, pt. 4), and therefore (Def. 34 of the Affects) none but those who are free are very grateful to one an other. Q.E.D. Schol. — The gratitude to one another of men who are led by blind desire is generally a matter of business or a snare rather than gratitude. Ingratitude, it is to be ob served, is not an affect. It is nevertheless base, because it is generally a sign that a man is too much affected by hatred, anger, pride, or avarice. For he who through stupidity does not know how to return a gift is not ungrateful ; and much less is he ungrateful who is not moved by the gifts of a harlot to serve her lust, nor by those of a thief to conceal his thefts, nor by any other gifts of a similar kind. On the contrary, a man shows that he possesses a steadfast mind if he does not suffer himself to be enticed by any gifts to his own or the common ruin. Prop. LXXII. — A free man never acts deceitfully, but always honourably. Demonst — If a free man did anything deceitfully, in so far as he is free, he would do it at the bidding of reason (for so far only do we call him free) ; and there fore to act deceitfully would be a virtue (Prop. 24, pt. 4), and consequently (by the same proposition) it would be more advantageous to every one, for the preservation of his being, to act deceitfully ; that is to say (as is self- evident), it would be more advantageous to men to agree only in words and to be opposed in reality, which (Corol. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 239 Prop. 3 1, pt. 4) is absurd. A free man, therefore, &c. — Q.E.D. Schol. — If it be asked whether, if a man by breaoh of faith could escape from the danger of instant death, reason does not counsel him, for the preservation of his being, to break faith ; I reply in the same way, that if reason gives such counsel, she gives it to aU men, and reason therefore generally counsels men to make no agreements for uniting their strength and possessing laws in common except deceitfully, that is to say, to have in reality no common laws, which is absurd Prop. LXXIII. — A man who is guided by reason is freer in a State where he lives according to the common laws than he is in solitude, where he obeys himself alone. Demonst. — A man who is guided by reason is not led to obey by fear (Prop. 63, pt. 4), but in so far as he endeavours to preserve his being in accordance with the bidding of reason, that is to say (Schol. Prop. 66, pt. 4), in so far as he endeavours to live in freedom, does he desire to have regard for the common life and the common profit (Prop. 37, pt. 4), and consequently (as we have shown in SchoL 2, Prop. 37, pt. 4) he desires to live according to the common laws of the State. A man, therefore, who is guided by reason desires, in order that he may live more freely, to maintain the common rights of the State. — Q.E.D. Schol. — These, and the like things which we have demonstrated concerning the true liberty of man, are re lated to fortitude, that is to say (SchoL Prop. 59, pt. 3), to strength of mind and generosity. Nor do I think it worth whde to demonstrate here, one by one, all the pro perties of fortitude, and still less to show how its pos sessor can hate no one, be angry with no one, can neither envy, be indignant with, nor despise anybody, and can least of all be proud. For all this, together with truths 240 ETHIC. of a like kind which have to do with the true life and religion, are easily deduced from Props. 37 and 46, pt. 4, which show that hatred is to be overcome by love, and that every one who is guided by reason desires for others the good which he seeks for himself. In addition, we must remember what we have already observed in Schol. Prop. 50, pt. 4, and in other places, that the brave man will consider above everything that all things follow from the necessity of the divine nature; and that, conse quently, whatever he thinks injurious and evil, and, more over, whatever seems to bo impious, dreadful, unjust, or wicked, arises from this, that he conceives things in a disturbed, mutilated, and confused fashion. For this rea son, his chief effort is to conceive things as they are in themselves, and to remove the hindrances to true know ledge, such as hatred, anger, envy, derision, pride, and others of this kind which we have before noticed ; and so he endeavours, as we have said, as much as possible to- do well and rejoice. How far human virtue reaches in the attainment of these things, and what it can do, I shall show in the following part. APPENDIX. My observations in this part concerning the true method of life have not been arranged so that they could be seen at a glance, but have been demonstrated here and there according as I could more easily deduce one from another. I have determined, therefore, here to col lect them, and reduce them under principal heads. All our efforts or desires follow from the necessity of our nature in such a manner that they can be understood either through it alone as their proximate cause, or in so far as we are a part of nature, which part cannot bo ade- OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 241 quately conceived through itself and without the other individuals. The desires which follow from our nature in such a manner that they can be understood through it alone, are those which are related to the mind, in so far as it is conceived to consist of adequate ideas. The remainin"- desires are not related to the mind, unless in so far as it conceives things inadequately, whose power and increase cannot be determined by human power, but by the power of objects which are without us. The first kind of de sires, therefore, are properly called actions, but the latter passions; for the first always indicate our power, and the latter, on the contrary, indicate our impotence and imper fect knowledge. in. Our actions, that is to say, those desires which are determined by man's power or reason, are always good ; the others may be good as well as evil rv. It is therefore most profitable to us in life to make perfect the intellect or reason as far as possible, and in this one thing consists the highest happiness or blessed ness of man ; for blessedness is nothing but the peace of mind which springs from the intuitive knowledge of God, and to perfect the intellect is nothing but to understand' God, together with the attributes and actions of God, which flow from the necessity of His nature. The final aim, therefore, of a man who is guided by reason, that is to say, the chief desire by which he strives to govern all his other desires, is that by which he is led adequately to conceive himself and all things which can be conceived by his intelligence. v. There is no rational life therefore, without intelligence, 242 ETHIC. and things are good only in so far as they assist man to enjoy that life of the mind which is determined by intel ligence. Those things alone, on the other hand, we call evil which hinder man from perfecting his reason and enjoying a rational life. vi. But because all those things of which man is the effi cient cause are necessarily good, it follows that no evil can happen to man except from external causes, that is to say, except in so far as he is a part of the whole of nature, whose laws human nature is compelled to obey — compelled also to accommodate himself to this whole of nature in almost an infinite number of ways. VII. It is impossible that a man should not be a part of nature and follow her common order ; but if he be placed amongst individuals who agree with his nature, his power of action wiU by that very fact be assisted and supported. But if, on the contrary, he be placed amongst individuals who do not in the least agree with his nature, he will scarcely be able without great change on his part to accommodate himself to them. VIII. Anything that exists in nature which we judge to be evil or able to hinder us from existing and enjoying a rational life, we are allowed to remove from us in that way which seems the safest ; and whatever, on the other hand, we judge to be good or to be profitable for the pre servation of our being or the enjoyment of a rational life, we are permitted to take for our use and use in any way we may think proper ; and absolutely, every one is allowed by tlie highest right of nature to do that which he be lieves contributes to his own profit. OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 243 IX. Nothing, therefore, can agree better with the nature of any object than other individuals of the same kind, and so (see § 7) there is nothing more profitable to man for the preservation of his being and the enjoyment of a rational life than a man who is guided by reason. Again, since there is no single thing we know which is more excellent than a man who is guided by reason, it follows that there is nothing by which a person can better show how much skill and talent he possesses than by so edu cating men that at last they wdl live under the direct authority of reason. x. In so far as men are carried away by envy or any affect of hatred towards one another, so far are they con trary to one another, and consequently so much the more are they to be feared, as they have more power than other individuals of nature. XL Minds, nevertheless, are not conquered by arms, but by love and generosity. XII. Above all things is it profitable to men to form com munities and to unite themselves to one another by bonds which may make all of them as one man ; and absolutely, it is profitable for them to do whatever may tend to strengthen their friendships. XIII. But to accomplish this skill and watchfulness are re quired; for men are changeable (those being very few who live according to the laws of reason), and neverthe less generally envious and more inclined to vengeance than pity. To bear with each, therefore, according to his disposition and to refrain from imitating his affects 244 ETHIC. requires a singular power of mind. But those, on the- contrary, who know how to revile men, to denounce vices rather than teach virtues, and not to strengthen men's- minds but to weaken them, are injurious both to them selves and others, so that many of them through an excess- of impatience and a false zeal for religion prefer living with brutes rather than amongst men; just as boys or youths, unable to endure with equanimity the rebukes of their parents, fly to the army, choosing the discomforts- of war and the rule of a tyrant rather than the comforts ot home and the admonitions of a father, suffering all kinds of burdens to be imposed upon them in ordeAhat they may revenge themselves upon their parents. XIV. Although, therefore, men generally determine every thing by their pleasure, many more advantages than dis advantages arise from their common union. It is better, therefore, to endure with equanimity the injuries inflicted by them, and to apply our minds to those things which subserve concord and the establishment of friendship. xv. The things which beget concord are those which are related to justice, integrity, and honour; for besides that which is unjust and injurious, men take ill also anything which is esteemed base, or that any one should despise the received customs of the State. But in order to win love, those things are chiefly necessary which have refer ence to religion and piety. (See Schols. I and 2, Prop. 37, Schol. Prop. 46, and Schol. Prop. 73, pt. 4.) xvi. Concord, moreover, is often produced by fear, but it is without good faith. It is to be observed, too, that fear arises from impotence of miDd, and therefore is of no OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 24S service to reason; nor is pity, although it seems to pre sent an appearance of piety. xvn. Men also are conquered by liberality, especially those who have not the means wherewith to procure what is necessary for the support of hfe. But to assist every one who is needy far surpasses the strength or profit of a private person, for the wealth of a private person is alto gether insufficient to supply such wants. Besides the power of any one man is too limited for him to be 'able to unite every one with himself in friendship The care therefore, of the poor is incumbent on the whole of ¦society and concerns only the general profit XVIII. In the receipt of benefits and in returning thanks, care altogether different must be taken-concerning which see Schol. Prop. 70, and Schol. Prop. 71, pt. 4. XIX. The love of a harlot, that is to say, the lust of sexual intercourse, which arises from mere external form, and absolutely all love which recognises any other cause than tlie freedom of the mind, easdy passes into hatred, unless which is worse it becomes a species of delirium, and thereby discord is cherished rather than concord (Corol Trop. 3 1, pt. 3). v u""OJ" XX With regard to marriage, it is plain that it is in accord ance with reason, if the desire of connection is engendered not merely by external form, but by a love of begetting children and wisely educating them ; and if, in addition the love both of the husband and wife has for its cause not external form merely, but chiefly liberty of mind 246 ETHIC. XXI. Flattery, too, produces concord, but only by means of the disgraceful crime of slavery or perfidy ; for there are none who are more taken by flattery than the proud, who wish to be first and are not so. XXII. There is a false appearance of piety and religion in dejection ; and although dejection is the opposite of pride, the humble dejected man is very near akin to the proud (Schol. Prop. 5 7, pt. 4). XXIII. Shame also contributes to concord, but only with re gard to those matters which cannot be concealed. Shame, too, inasmuch as it is a kind of sorrow, does not belong to the service of reason. xxiv. The remaining affects of sorrow which have man for their object are directly opposed to justice, integrity, honour, piety, and religion ; and although indignation may seem to present an appearance of equity, yet there is no law where it is allowed to every one to judge the deeds of another, and to vindicate his own or another's right. xxv. Affability, that is to say, the desire of pleasing men, which is determined by reason, is related to piety (SchoL Prop. 37, pt. 4). But if affability arise from an affect, it is ambition or desire, by which men, generally under a false pretence of piety, excite discords and seditions. For he who desires to assist other people, either by advice or by deed, in order that they may together enjoy the highest good, will strive, above all things, to win their love, and not to draw them into admiration, so that a doctrine may be named after him, nor absolutely to give OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 247 any occasion for envy. In common conversation, too, he will avoid referring to the vices of men, and wdl take care only sparingly to speak of human impotence, while lie will talk largely of human virtue or power, and of the way by which it may be made perfect, so that men being moved not by fear or aversion, but solely by the affect of joy, may endeavour as much as they can to live under the rule of reason. XXVI. Excepting man, we know no individual thing in nature in whose mind we can take pleasure, nor any thing which we can unite with ourselves by friendship or auy kind of intercourse, and therefore the law of our own profit does not demand that we should preserve anything which exists in nature excepting men, but teaches us to preserve it or destroy it in accordance with its varied uses, or to adapt it to our own service in any way whatever. XXVII. The profit which we derive from objects without us, over and above the experience and knowledge which we obtain because we observe them and change them from their existing forms into others, is chiefly the preserva tion of the body, and for this reason those objects are the most profitable to us which can feed and nourish the body, so that all its parts are able properly to perform their functions. For the more capable the body is of being affected in many ways, and affecting external bodies in many ways, the more capable of thinking is the mind (Props. 38 and 39, pt. 4). But there seem to be very few things in nature of this kind, and it is consequently necessary for the requisite nourishment of the body to use many different kinds of food ; for the human body is composed of a great number of parts of different nature, which need constant and varied food in order that the whole of the body may be equally adapted for all those things which can follow from its 248 ETHIC. nature, and consequently that the mind also may be equally adapted to conceive many things. XXVIII. The strength of one man would scarcely suffice to obtain these things if men did not mutually assist one another. As money has presented us with an abstract of everything, it has come to pass that its image above every other usually occupies the mind of the multitude, because they can imagine hardly any kind of joy without the accompanying idea of money as its cause. XXIX. This, however, is a vice only in those who seek money not from poverty or necessity, but because they have learnt the arts of gain, by which they keep up a grand appearance. As for the body itself, they feed it in ac cordance with custom, but sparingly, because they believe that they lose so much of their goods as they spend upon the preservation of their body. Those, however, who know the true use of money, and regulate the measure of wealth according to • ¦ eir needs, live contented with few things. XXX. Since, therefore, those things are good which help the parts of the body to perform their functions, and since joy consists in this, that the power of man, in so far as he is made up of mind and body, is helped or increased, it follows that all those things which bring joy are good. But inasmuch as things do not work to this end — that they may affect us with joy — nor is their power of action guided in accordance with our profit, and finally, since joy is generally related chiefly to some one part of tho body, it follows that generally the affects of joy (unless reason and watchfulness be present), and conscqucntiy the desires which arc begotten from them, are excessive. It is to be added, that an affect causes us to put that OF HUMAN BONDAGE. 249 tiling first which is sweet to us in the present, and that we are not able to judge the future with an equal affect of the mind (Schol. Prop. 44, and Schol. Prop. 60, pt. 4). XXXI. Superstition, on the contrary, seems to affirm that what brings sorrow is good, and, on the contrary, that what brings joy is evd. But, as we have already said (Schol. Prop° 45, pt. 4), no one excepting an envious man is delighted at my impotence or disadvantage, for the greater tlie joy with which we are affected, the greater the per fection to which we pass, and consequently the more do we participate in the divine nature ; nor can joy ever be evil which is controlled by a true consideration for our own profit. On the other hand, the man who is led by fear, and does what is good that he may avoid what is evil, is not guided by reason. XXXII. But human power is very limited, and is infinitely sur passed by the power of external causes, so that we do not possess an absolute power to adapt to our service the things which are without us. Nevertheless we shall bear with equanimity those things which happen to us con trary to what a consideration of our own profit demands, if wc are conscious that we have performed our duty, that the power we have could not reach so far as to enable us to avoid those things, and that we are a part of the whole of nature, whose order we follow. If we clearly and dis tinctly understand this, the part of us which is deter mined by intelligence, that is to say, the better part of us, will be entirely satisfied therewith, and in that satis faction will endeavour to persevere ; for, in so far as we understand, we cannot desire anything excepting what is necessary, nor absolutely, can we be satisfied with any thing but the truth. Therefore in so far as we under stand these things properly will the efforts of the better part of us agree with the order of the whole of nature. ( 250 ) ETHIC. JFtfth fart. OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT, OR OF HUMAN LIBERTY. PREFACE. I PASS at length to the other part of Ethic which con cerns the method or way which leads to liberty. In this part, therefore, I shall treat of the power of reason, show ing how much reason itself can control the affects, and then what is freedom of mind or blessedness. Thence we shall see how much stronger the wise man is than the ignorant. In what manner and in what way the intel lect should be rendered perfect, and with what art the body is to be cared for in order that it may properly per form its functions, I have nothing to do with here ; for the former belongs to logic, the latter to medicine. I shall occupy myself here, as I have said, solely with the power of the mind or of reason, first of all showing the extent and nature of the authority which it has over the affects in restraining them and governing them ; for that we have not absolute authority over them we have already demonstrated. The Stoics indeed thought that the affects depend absolutely on our will, and that we are absolutely masters over them ; but they were driven, by the contra diction of experience, though not by their own principles, to confess that not a little practice and study are required in order to restrain and govern the affects. This one of OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 251 them attempted to illustrate, if I remember rightly, by the example of two dogs, one of a domestic and the other of a hunting breed ; for he was able by habit to make the house-dog hunt, and the hunting dog, on the contrary, to desist from running after hares. To the Stoical opinion Descartes much inclines. He affirms that the soul or mind is united specially to a certain part of the brain called the pineal gland, which the mind by the mere exercise of the will is able to move in different ways, and by whose help the mind perceives all the movements which are excited in the body and external objects. This gland he affirms is suspended in the middle of the brain in such a manner that it can be moved by the least motion of the animal spirits. Again, he affirms that any varia tion in tlie manner in which the animal spirits impinge upon this gland is followed by a variation in the manner in which it is suspended in the middle of the brain, and moreover that the number of different impressions on the gland is the same as that of the different external objects which propel the animal spirits towards it. Hence it comes to pass that if the gland, by the wdl of the soul moving it in different directions, be afterwards suspended in this or that way in which it had once been suspended by the spirits agitated in this or that way, then the gland itself will propel and determine the animal spirits them selves in the same way as that in which they had before been repelled by a similar suspension of the gland. Moreover, he affirmed that each volition of the mind is united in nature to a certain motion of the gland. For example, if a person wishes to behold a remote object, this volition wid cause the pupd of the eye to dilate, but if he thinks merely of the dilation of the pupil, to have that volition will profit him nothing, because nature has not connected a motion of tlie gland which serves to im pel the animal spirits towards the optic nerve in a way suitable for dilation or contraction of the pupil with tlie volition of dilation or contraction, but only with the 252 ETHIC. volition of beholding objects afar off or close at hand. Finally, he maintained that although each motion of this gland appears to be connected by nature from the com mencement of our life with an individual thought, these motions can nevertheless be connected by habit with other thoughts, a proposition which he attempts to demonstrate in his "Passions of the Soul," art. 50, pt. 1. From this he concludes that there is no mind so feeble that it cannot, when properly directed, acquire absolute power over its passions ; for passions, as defined by him, are " perceptions, or sensations, or emotions of the soul which are related to it specially, and which are produced, preserved, and strengthened by some motion of the spirits." (See the " Passions of the Soul," art. 27, pt. 1.) But since it is possible to join to a certain volition any motion of the gland, and consequently of the spirits, and since the determination of the will depends solely on our power, we shall be able to acquire absolute mastery over our passions provided only we determine our will by fixed and firm decisions by which we desire to direct our actions and bind with these decisions the movements of the passions we wish to have. So far as I can gather from his own words, this is the opinion of that distinguished man, and I could scarcely have believed it possible for one so great to have put it for ward if it had been less subtle. I can hardly wonder enough that a philosopher who firmly resolved to make no deduction except from self-evident principles, and to affirm nothing but what he clearly and distinctly per ceived, and who blamed all the schoolmen because they desired to explain obscure matters by occult qualities, should accept a hypothesis more occult than any occult quality. What does he understand, I ask, by the union of the mind and body? What clear and distinct con ception has he of thought intimately connected with a certain small portion of matter? I wish that he had explained this union by its proximate cause. But he OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 253- conceived the mind to be so distinct from the body that he was able to assign no single cause of thi3 union, nor of the mind itself, but was obliged to have recourse to- the cause of the whole universe, that is to say, to God. Again, I should like to know how many degrees of motion the mind can give to that pineal gland, and with how great a power the mind can hold it suspended. For I do not understand whether this gland is acted on by the mind more slowly or more quickly than by the animal spirits, and whether the movements of the pas sions, which we have so closely bound with firm deci sions, might not be separated from them again by bodily causes, from which it would follow that although the mind had firmly determined to meet danger, and had joined to this decision the motion of boldness, the sight of the danger might cause the gland to be suspended in such a manner that the mind could think of nothing but flight. Indeed, since there is no relation between the will and motion, so there is no comparison between the power or strength of the body and that of the mind, and consequently the strength of the body can never be determined by the strength of the mind. It is to be- remembered also that this gland is not found to be so situated in the middle of the brain that it can be driven about so easily and in so many ways, and that aU the nerves are not extended to the cavities of the brain. Lastly, I omit aU that Descartes asserts concerning the will and the freedom of the will, since I have shown over and over again that it is false. Therefore, inasmuch as the power of the mind, as I have shown above, is determined by intelligence alone, we shall determine by tho knowledge of the mind alone tho remedies against the affects — remedies which every one, I behove, has ex perienced, although there may not have been any accurate observation or distinct perception of them, and from this knowledge of the mind alone shall we deduce every thing which relates to its blessedness. 254 ETHIC. Axioms. i. If two contrary actions be excited in the same subject, a change must necessarily take place in both, or in one alone, until they eease to be contrary. 2. The power of an affect is limited by the power of its cause, in so far as the essence of the affect is manifested or limited by the essence of the cause itself. This axiom is evident from Prop. 7, pt. 3. I'rop. I. — -As thoughts and the ideas of things arc arranged and connected in the mind, exactly so arc the affec tions of the body or the images of things arranged and connected in the body. -The order and connection of ideas is the 7, pt. 2) as the order and connection of Demonst- same (Prop. things, and vice versa, the order and connection of things is the same (Corol. Props. 6 and 7, pt. 2) as the order and connection of ideas. Therefore, as the order and connec tion of ideas in the mind is according to the order and connection of the affections of the body (Prop. 1 8, pt. 2), it follows, vice versa (Prop. 2, pt. 3), that the order and connection of the affections of the body is according to the order and connection in the mind of the thoughts and ideas of things. — Q.E.D. Prop. II. — If we detach an emotion of the mind or affect from the thought of an external cause and connect it with other thoughts, then the love or hatred towards the external cause and the fluctuations of tlie mind which arise from these affects will be destroyed. Demonst. — That which constitutes the form of love or hatred is joy or sorrow, accompanied with the idea of an external cause (Dels. 6 and 7 of the Affects). If this idea therefore be ta.lce.11 away, the form of love or hatred is also removed, and therefore these affects and any others which arise from them are destroyed. — Q.KJ~> OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 255 Prop. III. — An affect which is a passion ceases to be a passion as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea of it. Demonst. — An affect which is a passion is a confused idea (by the general definition of the Affects). If, there fore, we form a clear and distinct idea of this affect the idea wdl not be distinguished— except by reason from this affect, in so far as the affect is related to the mind alone (Prop. 21, pt. 2, with its SchoL), and there fore (Prop. 3, pt. 3) the affect will cease to be a passion. Q.E.D.Corol. — In proportion, then, as we know an affect better is it more within our control, and the less does the mind suffer from it. Prop. IV. — Tliere is no affection of the body of which we cannot form some clear and distinct conception. Demonst. — Those things which are common to all can not be otherwise than adequately conceived (Prop. 38, pt. 2), and therefore (Prop. 12, and Lem. 2, following Schol. Prop. 13, pt. 2) there is no affection of the body of which we cannot form some clear and distinct concep tion. Q.E.D. Corol — Hence it follows that there is no affect of which we cannot form some clear and distinct conception. For an affect is an idea of an affection of the body (by the general definition of the Affects), and this idea therefore (Prop. 4, pt. 5) must involve some clear and distinct con ception. Schol— Since nothing exists from which some effect does not follow (Prop. 36, pt. 1), and since we under stand clearly and distinctly everything which follows from an idea which is adequate in us (Prop. 40, pt, 2), it is a necessary consequence that every one has the power partly at least, if not absolutely, of umlerstamliii" clearly 256 ETHIC. and distinctly himself and his affects, and consequently of bringing it to pass that he suffers less from them. We have therefore mainly to strive to acquire a clear and distinct knowledge as far as possible of each affect, so that the mind may be led to pass from the affect to think those things which it perceives clearly and distinctly, and with which it is entirely satisfied, and to strive also that the affect may be separated from the thought of an external cause and connected with true thoughts. Thus not only love, hatred, &c, wdl be destroyed (Prop. 2, pt. 5), but also the appetites or desires to whioh the affect gives rise cannot be excessive (Prop. 6 1 , pt. 4). For it is above everything to be observed that the appetite by which a man is said to act is one and the same appetite as that by which he is said to suffer. For example, we have shown that human nature is so constituted that every one desires that other people should live according to his way of thinking (Schol. Prop. 31, pt. 3), a desire which in a man who is not guided by reason is a passion which is called ambition, and is not very different from pride ; while, on the other hand, in a man who lives according to the dictates of reason it is an action or virtue which is called piety (Schol. 1, Prop. 37, pt. 4, and Demonst. 2 of the same Prop.) In the same manner, all the appe tites or desires are passions only in so far as they arise from inadequate ideas, and are classed among the virtues whenever they are excited or begotten by adequate ideas; for all the desires by which we are determined to any action may arise either from adequate or inadequate ideas (Prop. 59, pt. 4). To return, therefore, to the point from which we set out : there is no remedy within our power which can be conceived more excellent for the affects than that which consists in a true knowledge of them, since the mind possesses no other power than that of thinking and forming adequate ideas, as we have shown above (Prop. 3, pt. 3). OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 257 Prop. V. — An affect towards an object which we do not imagine as necessary, possible, or contingent, but which wc simply imagine, is, other things being equal, the greatest of all Demons/. — The affect towards an object which we imagine to be free is greater than towards one which is nectary (Prop. 49, pt. 3), and consequently still greater than towards one which we imagine as possible or con tingent (Prop. 1 1, pt. 4). But to imagine an object as free can be nothing else than to imagine it simply, while we know not the causes by which it was determined to _aetjon:_(See SchoL Prop. 35, pt. 2.) An affect, there fore, towardslm object which we simply imagine is, other tilings being equal, greater than-towards one which we imagine as necessary, possible, or contingent, and conse quently greatest of all. — q.e.d. Pkoi\ VI. — In so far as the mind understands all things as necessary, so far has it greater power over the affects, or suffers less from them. Demonst. — The mind understands aU things to be necessary (Prop. 29, pt. 1), and determined by an infinite chain of causes to existence and action (Prop. 28, pt. 1) and therefore (Prop. 5, pt. 5) so far enables itself to' sufler less from the affects which arise from these things and (1'rup. 48, pt. 3) to be less affected towards them' — Q.ED. Srlwl. — The more this knowledge that things are iu-ces-ary is applied to individual things which we imagine more distinctly and more vividly, the greater is this power of tlie mind over the affects,— a fact to which experience also testifies. For we see that sorrow for the h'ss <>f anything good is diminished if the person who has lost it considers that it could not by any possibility nave been preserved. So also we see that nobody pities -53 ETHIC. an infant because it does not know how to speak, walk, ¦or reason, and lives so many years not conscious, as it were, of itself ; but if a number of human beings were born adult, and only a few here and there were born infant--, every one would pity the infants, because we should then consider infancy not as a thing natural and n 'ssary, but as a defect or fault of nature. Many ntlu-r facts of a similar kind we might observe. Piaip. VII. — Tlie affects which spring from reason or which arc e.erifed by it are, if time be taken into account, more powerful than those which are related to individual objects which we contemplate as absent. Demonst. — We do not contemplate an object as absent by reason of the affect by which we imagine it, but by reason of the fact that the body is affected with another affect, which excludes the existence of that object (Prop. 17, pt. 2). The affect, therefore, which is related to an object which we contemplate as absent, is not of such a nature ns to overcome the other actions and power of man (concerning these things see Prop. 6, pt. 4), but, on the contrary, is of such a nature that it can in some way be restrained by those affections which exclude the existence of its external cause (Prop. 9, pt. 4). But the affect which avisos from reason is necessardy related to the common properties of things (see the definition of reason in Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2), which we always con template as present (for nothing can exist which excludes their present existence), and which we always imagine in the. same way (Prop. 38, pt. 2). This affect, there fore, always remains the same, and consequently (Ax. 1, l't. 5), the affects which are contrary to it, and which are not maintained by their external cause, must more and more accommodate themselves to it until they are no lon-ev contrary to it. So far, therefore, the affect which ."-¦rings IVom reason is the stronger. — Q.E.D. OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 259 Prop. VIII. — The greater the number of the causes which simultaneously concur to excite any affect, the greater it will be. Demonst. — A number of simultaneous causes can do more than if they were fewer (Prop. 7, pt. 3), and there fore (Prop. 5, pt. 4) the greater the number of the simul taneous causes by which an affect is excited, the greater it is. Q.E.D. Schol. — This proposition is also evident from Ax. 2 pt 5. Prop. IX— If we are affected by an affect which is related to many and different causes, which the mind contem plates at the same time with the affect itself, we are less injured, suffer less from it, and are less affected therefore towards each cause than if we were affected by another affect equally great which is related lo one cause only or to fewer causes. Demonst. — An affect is bad or injurious only in so far as it hinders the mind from thinking (Props. 26 and 2 7. Pfc- 4), and therefore that affect by winch the mind is determined to the contemplation of a number of objects at the same time is less injurious than another affect equally great which holds the mind in the con templation of one object alone or of a few objects, so that it cannot think of others. This is the first thing we had to prove. Again, since the essence of the mind, that is to say (Prop. 7, pt 3), its power, consists iii thought alone (Prop. 1 1, pt. 2), the mind suffers less through an affect by winch it is determined to the con templation of a number of objects at the same time than through an affect equally great which holds it occupied in the contemplation of one object alone or of a few objects. This is the second thing we had to prove. Finally, this affect (Prop. 48, pt. 3), in so far as it is related to a number of external causes, is therefore less towards each. — Q.E.D. 20O ETHIC. Prop. X. — So long as we are not agitated by affects which arc contrary to our nature do we possess the power of arranging and connecting the affections of the body according to the order of the intellect. Demonst. — The affects which are contrary to our nature, that is to say (Prop. 30, pt. 4), which are evil, are evil so far as they hinder the mind from understand ing (Prop. 27, pt. 4). So long, therefore, as we are not agitated by affects which are contrary to our nature, so long the power of the mind by which it endeavours to understand things (Prop. 26, pt. 4) is not hindered, and therefore so long does it possess the power of forming clear and distinct ideas, and of deducing them the one from the other (see Schol. 2, Prop. 40, and Schol. Prop. 47, Pt- 2). So long, consequently (Prop. 1, pt. 5), do we possess the power of arranging and connecting the affec tions of the body according to the order of the intellect. Q.E.D.Schol — Through this power of properly arranging and connecting the affections of the body we can prevent ourselves from being easdy affected by evd affects. For (Prop. 7, pt. 5) a greater power is required to restrain affects which are arranged and connected according to the order of the inteUect than is required to restrain those which are uncertain and unsettled. The best thing, therefore, wc can do, so long as we lack a perfect knowledge of our affects, is to conceive a right rule of life, or sure maxims (dogmata) of life, — to commit these latter to memory, and constantly to apply them to the particu lar cases which frequently meet us in life, so that our imagination may be widely affected by them, and they may always be ready to hand. For example, amongst the maxims of life we have placed this (see Prop. 46, pt. 4, with its SchoL), that hatred is to bo conquered by love or generosity, aucl is not to be met with hatred in return. But in order that wc may always have this prescript OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 261 of reason in readiness whenever it will be of service, we must think over and often meditate upon the common injuries inflicted by men, and consider how and in what way they may best be repelled by generosity ; for thus we shall connect the image of injury with the imagination of this maxim, and (Prop. 18, pt. 2) it wid be at hand whenever an injury is offered to us. If we also have at hand the law of our own true profit and good which follows from mutual friendship and common fellowship, and remember that the highest peace of mind arises from a right rule of hfe (Prop. 52, pt. 4), and also that man, like other things, acts according to the necessity of nature, then the injury or the hatred which usually arises from that necessity will occupy but the least part of the imagination, and will be easily overcome: or supposing that the anger which generally arises from the greatest injuries is not so easily overcome, it wdl nevertheless be overcome, although not without fluctuation of mind, in a far shorter space of time than would have been neces sary if we had not possessed those maxims on which we had thus meditated beforehand This is evident from Props. 6, 7, and 8, pt. 5. Concerning strength of mind, we must reflect in the same way for the purpose of getting rid of fear, that is to say, we must often enumerate and imagine the com mon dangers of life, and think upon the manner in which they can best be avoided and overcome by presence of mmd and courage. It is to be observed, however, that in the ordering of our thoughts and images we must always look (Corol. Prop. 63, pt. 4, and Prop. 59, pt. 3) to those qualities which in each thing are good, so that we may be determined to action always by an affect of joy. For example, if a man sees that he pursues glory too eagerly, let him think on its proper use, for what end it is to be followed, and by what means it can be obtained; but let him not think upon its abuse and ¦vanity, and on the inconstancy of men and things of this 262 ETHIC. sort, about which no one thinks unless through disease of mind ; for with such thoughts do those who are ambitious greatly torment themselves when they despair of obtaining the honours for which they are striving; and while they vomit forth rage, wish to be thought wise. Indeed it is certain that those covet glory the most who are loudest in declaiming against its abuse and the vanity of the world. Nor is this a peculiarity of the ambitious, but is common to aU to whom fortune is adverse and who are impotent in mind ; for we see that a poor and avaricious man is never weary of speak ing about the abuse of money and the vices of the rich,. thereby achieving nothing save to torment himself and show to others that he is unable to bear with equani mity not only his own poverty but also the wealth of others. So also a man who has not been well received by his mistress thinks of nothing but the fickleness of women, their faithlessness, and their other oft-proclaimed failings, — all of which he forgets as soon as he is taken into favour by his mistress again He, therefore, who desires to govern his affects and appetites from a love of liberty alone will strive as much as he can to know ¦".irtues and their causes, and to fill his mind with that joy which springs from a true knowledge of them. Least of all will he desire to contemplate the vices of men and disparage men, or to delight in a false show of liberty. He who will ddigently observe these things (and they are not difficult), and will continue to practise them, will assuredly in a short space of time be able for the most part to direct his actions in accordance with the com mand of reason. Prop. XL — The greater the number of objects to which an image is related, the more constant is it, or the more frequently docs it present itself, and the more docs it occupy the mind. Demonst. — The greater the number of objects to which OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 263 an image or affect is related, the greater is the number of causes by which it can be excited and cherished. All these causes the mind contemplates simultaneously by means of the affect (by hypothesis), and therefore the more constant is the affect, or the more frequently does it present itself, and the more does it occupy the mind (Prop. 8, pt. 5). — Q.E.D. Prop. XII. — The images of things are more easily con nected with those images which are related to things which we clearly and distinctly understand than with any others. Demonst. — Things which we clearly and distinctly understand are either the common properties of things or what are deduced from them (see the deiinition of reason in Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2), and consequently (Prop. 1 1, pt. 5 ) are more frequently excited in us ; and therefore it is easier for us to contemplate other things together with these which we clearly and distinctly understand than with any others, and consequently (Prop. 1 8, pt. 2), it is easier to connect things with these which we clearly and distinctly understand than with any others. Prop. XIII. — Tlie greater the number of other things with which any image is connected, the more frequently does it present itself. Demonst. — For the greater the number of other things with which an image is connected, the greater is the number of causes (Prop. 1 8, pt. 2) by which it may be excited. — q.e.d. Prop. XIV. — The mind can cause all the affections of the body or the images of things to be related to the idea of God (ideam Dei). 1 1 Sec note, p. 24.— Tn. 264 ETHIC. Demonst.— -There is no affection of the body of which the mind cannot form some clear and distinct conception (Prop. 4, pt. 5), and therefore (Prop. 15, pt. 1) it can cause all the affections of the body to be related to the idea of God. — Q.E.D. Prop. XV — He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his affects loves God, and loves Him better tlie better he understands himself and his affects. Demonst.— He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his affects rejoices (Prop. 53, pt 3). and his joy is attended with the idea of God (Prop. 14. pt- 5> therefore (Def. 6 of the Affects) he loves God, and (by the same reasoning) loves Him better the better he un derstands himself and his affects. — Q.E.D. Prop. XVI.— This love to God above everything else ought to occupy the mind. Demonst— For this love is connected with all the affec tions of the body (Prop. 14, pt 5), *>y all of which it is cherished (Prop. 1 5, pt 5), and therefore (Prop, ii.pt 5) above everything else ought to occupy the mmd. — Q.E.D. Prop. XVII.— God is free from passions, nor is He affected with any affect of joy or sorrow. Demonst— All ideas, in so far as they are related to God, are true (Prop. 32, 'pt 2); that is to say (Def. 4, pt 2), are adequate, and therefore (by the general defini tion of the Affects) God is free from passions. Again, God can neither pass to a greater nor to a less perfection (Corol. 2, Prop. 20, pt. 1), and therefore (Defs. 2 and 3 of the Affects) He cannot be affected with any affect of joy or sorrow. — Q.E.D. OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 265 ^.-Properly speaking, God loves no one and hates no one; for God (Prop. 17. pt 5) » no affected with any affect of joy or sorrow, and consequently (Defs. 6 and 7 of the Affects) He neither loves nor hates any one. Prop. XVIII. — No one can hate God. Demonst- The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect (Props. 46 and 47, pt 2), and therefore in so far as we contemplate God do we act (Prop. 3. pt- 3), and consequently (Prop. 59, pt 3) no sorrow can exist with the accompanying idea of God ; that is to say (Def. 7 of the Affects), no one can hate God.— Q.e.d. C0rol— Love to God cannot be turned into hatred. Schol— But some may object, that if we understand ¦God to be the cause of all things, we do for that very reason consider Him to be the cause of sorrow. But I reply, that in so far as we understand the causes 0 sorrow, it ceases to be a passion (Prop. 3, pt- 5), that is to say (Prop. 59, Pt- 3), it ceases to be sorrow; and therefore in so far as we understand God to be the cause of sorrow do we rejoice. Prop. XIX.— He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return. Demonst— Ii a man were to strive after this, he would desire (Corol. Prop. i7, pt S) that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently (Prop. 19, pt. 3) ne would desire to be sad, which (Prop. 28, pt. 3) « absurd. Therefore he who loves God, &c. — Q.E.D. Prop XX— This love to God cannot be defiled either by the affect of envy or jealousy, but is the more slraujlnencd the more people we imagine to be connected with God by the same bond of love. Demonst— This love to Cod is the highest good which 266 ETHIC. •we can seek according to the dictate of reason (Prop 28 I \ ' ;n1S,CTU°n t0 aU m6U (Pr°P* 36* Pfc* 4) ; aud we desire that all may enjoy it (Prop. 37, pt. 4). It cannot, therefore (Del. 23 of the Affects), be sullied by the affect ol envy nor (Prop. 18, pt. 5, and Def. of Jealousy in Schol. Iron. 35, pt 3) by that of jealousy, but, on the contrary (Prop. 31, pt. 3), it muat be the more sfcren„fch. onod the more people we imagine to rejoice in it.— SchoL— It is possible to show in the same manner that here is no affect directly contrary to this love ami able to destroy it, and so we may conclude that this love to God is the most constant of all the affects, and that, in so far as it is related to the body, it cannot be destroyed unless with the body itself. What its nature is, in so far as it is related to tlie mind alone, we shall see hereafter I have m what has preceded, included all the remedies for the affects, that is to say, everything which the mind, considered in itself alone, can do against them It appears therefrom that the power of the mind over the atlects consists — 1. In the knowledge itself of the affects. (See Schol " Prop. 4, pt. 5.) ' 2 In the separation by the mind of the affects from the thought of an external cause, which we imagine con fusedly. (See Prop. 2, pt. 5, and Schol. Prop. 4, pt 5 ) 3- Induration, in which the affections* which are re lated to objects we understand surpass those related to objects conceived in a mutilated or confused manner. (Prop. 7, pt. 5.) 4. In the multitude of causes by which the affections * winch are related to the common properties of things or to God are nourished. (Props. 9 and 1 1, pt. 5.) 5- In the order in which the mind 'can arrange its atlects and connect them one with the other. (Schol Prop 10 pt. 5, and see also Props. 12, 1 3, and 14, pt. 5 ) But that this power of the mind over the affects may • Affeethna. Probably a misprint, however, for Affectus (Tr.). OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 2b7 be better understood, it is to be carefully observed that we call the affects great when we compare the affect of one man with that of another, and see that one man is agitated more than another by the same affect, or when we compare the affects of one and the same man with one another, and discover that he is affected or moved more by one affect than by another. For (Prop. 5, pt. 4) the power of any affect is limited by the power of the external cause as compared with our own power. But the power of the mind is limited solely by knowledge, whilst impotence or passion is estimated solely by privation of knowledge, or, in other words, by that through which ideas are called inadequate ; and it therefore follows that that mind suffers the most whose largest part consists of inadequate ideas, so that it is distinguished rather by what it suffers than by what it does, wldle, on the contrary, that mind acts the most whose largest part consists of adequate ideas, so that although it may possess as many inadequate ideas as the first, it is nevertheless distinguished rather by those which belong to human virtue than by those which are a sign of human impotence. Again, it is to be observed that our sorrows and misfortunes mainly proceed from too much love towards an object which is subject to many changes, and which we can never possess. For no one is troubled or anxious about any object he does not love neither do wrongs, suspicions, hatreds, &c, arise except from love towards objects of which no one can be truly the possessor. From aU this we easily conceive what is the power which clear and distinct knowledge, and especially that third kind of knowledge (see Schol. Prop. 47, pt. 2) whose foundation is the knowledge itself of God, possesses over the affects ; the power, namely, by which it is able, m so far as they are passions, if not actually to destroy them (see Prop. 3, pt. 5, with the Schol. to Prop. 4, pt. 5), at least to make them constitute the smallest part of 26S ETHIC. the mind (see Prop. 14, pt. 5). Moreover, it begets a love towards an immutable and eternal object (see Prop. 1 5, pt. 5) of which we are really partakers (see Prop. 45, pt. 2) ; a love which therefore cannot be vitiated by the defects which are in common love, but which can always become greater and greater (Prop. 1 5, pt. 5), occupy the largest part of the mind (Prop. 16, pt. 5), and thoroughly affect it. I have now concluded all that I had to say relating to this present life. For any one who wid attend to what has been urged in this scholium, and to the definition of the mind and its affects, and to Props. 1 and 3, pt. 3, will easily be able to see the truth of what I said in the beginning of the scholium, that in these few words all the remedies for the affects are comprehended. It is time, therefore, that I should now pass to the considera tion of those matters which appertain to the duration of the mind without relation to the body. Prop. XXI. — The mind can imagine nothing, nor can it. recollect anything tliat is past, except while tlie body exists. Demonst. — The mind does not express the actual exist ence of its body, nor does it conceive as actual the affec tions of the body, except while the body exists (Corol. Prop. 8, pt. 2), and consequently (Prop. 26, pt. 2) it conceives no body as actually existing except while its own body exists. It can therefore imagine nothing (see the definition of Imagination in Schol. Prop. 17, pt. 2), nor can it recollect anything that is past, except while the body exists (see the definition of Memory in Schol. Prop. 1 8, pt. 2). — Q.E.D. J 'hop. XXII. — In God, nevertheless, there necessarily exists an idea which expresses the essence of this or that human body under the form of eternity. OF THE .POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 269- Demonst — God is not only the cause of the existence of this or that human body, but also of its essence (Prop.. 25, pt. 1), which therefore must necessarily be conceived through the essence of God itself (Ax. 4, pt. 1) and by a certain eternal necessity (Prop. 16, pt. 1). This con ception, moreover, must necessarily exist in God (Prop. 3, pt. 2).— Q.E.D. Prop. XXIII. — The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal Demonst. — In God there necessarily exists a concep tion or idea which expresses the essence of the human body (Prop. 22, pt. 5). This conception or idea is there fore nccessardy something which pertains to the essence of the human mind (Prop. 13, pt. 2). But we ascribe to- the human mind no duration which can be limited by time, unless in so far as it expresses the actual existence of the body, which is manifested through duration, and which can be limited by time, that is to say (Corol. Prop. 8, pt. 2), we cannot ascribe duration to the mind except while the body exists. But nevertheless, since this something is that which is conceived by a certain eternal necessity through the essence itself of God (Prop. 22, pt. 5), this something which pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal. — Q.E.D. Schol — This idea which expresses the essence of the body under the form of eternity is, as we have said, a certain mode of thought which pertains to the essence of the mind, and is necessarily eternal. It is impossible, nevertheless, that we should recollect that we existed before the body, because there are no traces of any such existence in the body, and also because eternity cannot be defined by time, or have any relationship to it. Never theless we feel and know by experience that we are -7° ETHIC. eternal. For the mind is no less sensible of those things which it conceives through inteUigence than of those which it remembers, for demonstrations are the eyes of the mind by which it, sees and observes things. Although, therefore, we do not recoUect that we existed before the body, 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 this existence of the mind cannot be limited by time nor manifested through duration. Only m so far, therefore, as it involves the actual existence of the body can the mind be said to possess duration, and its existence be limited by a fixed time, and so far only has it the power of determining the existence of thing3 in time, and of conceiving them under the form of dura tion.Prop. XXIV. — The more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God. Demonst. — This is evident from Corol. Prop. 25, pt. 1. . Prop. XXY.—The highest effort of the mind and its highest virtue is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge. Demonst. — The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the essence of things (see its definition in Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2) ; and the more we understand things in this manner (Prop. 24, pt. 5), the more we understand God; and therefore (Prop. 28, pt. 4) tho highest virtue of the mind, that is to say (Def. 8, pt. 4), the power or nature of the mind, or (Prop. 7, pt. 3) its highest effort, is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXVI. — The better the mind is adapted to undcr- OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 271 stand things by the third kind of knowledge, the more it desires to understand them by this kind of know ledge. Demonst. — This is evident ; for in so far asi we con ceive the mind to be adapted to understand things by this kind of knowledge, do we conceive it to be deter mined to understand things by this kind of knowledge, and consequently (Def. 1 of the Affects) the better the mind is adapted to this way of understanding things, the more it desires it. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXVII. — From this third kind of knoiuledge arises the highest possible peace of mind. Demonst. — The highest virtue of the mind is to know God (Prop. 2S, pt. 4), or to understand things by the third kind of knowledge (Prop. 25, pt. 5). This virtue is greater the more the mind knows things by this kind of knowledge (Prop. 24, pt. 5), and therefore he who knows things by this kind of knowledge passes to the highest human perfection, and consequently (Def. 2 of the Affects) is affected with the highest joy, which is accompanied with the idea of himself and his own virtue (Prop. 43, pt. 2); and therefore (Def. 25 of the Affects) from this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible peace of mind. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXVIII. — The effort or the desire to know things by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the first kind, but may arise from the second kind of knowledge. Demonst. — This proposition is self-evident ; for every thing that we clearly and distinctly understand, we understand either through itself or through something which is conceived through itself; or, in other words, ideas which are clear and distinct in us, or which are 272 ETHIC. related to the third kind of knowledge (Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2), cannot follow from mutdated and confused ideas, which (by the same scholium) are related to the first kind of knowledge, but from adequate ideas, that is to say (by the same scholium), from the second and third kinds of knowledge. Therefore (Def. I of the Affects) the desire of knowing things by the third kind of know ledge cannot arise from the first kind, but may arise from the second. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXIX. — Everything which the mind understands under the form of eternity, it understands not because it conceives the present actual existence of tlie body, but because it conceives the essence of the body under the form of eternity. Demonst. — In so far as the mind conceives the present existence of its body does it conceive duration which can be determined in time, and so far only has it -the power of conceiving things in relation to time (Prop. 21, pt. 5, and Prop. 26, pt. 2). But eternity cannot be mani fested through duration (Def. 8, pt. 1, and its explanation ; therefore the mind so far has not the power of conceiv ing things under the form of eternity : but because it is the nature of reason to conceive things under the form of eternity (Corol. 2, Prop. 44, pt. 2), and because it also pertains to the nature of the mind to conceive the essence of the body under the form of eternity (Prop. 23, pt. 5), and excepting these two things nothing else pertains to the nature of the mind (Prop. 13, pt. 2), therefore this power of conceiving things under the form of eternity does not pertain to the mind except in so far as it con ceives the essence of the body under the form of eternity. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Things are conceived by us as actual in two ways ; cither in so far as we conceive them to exist with relation to a lixed time and place, or in so far as wo OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 273 conceive them to be contained in God, and to follow from the necessity of the divine nature. But those things which are conceived 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 have shown in Prop. 45, pt. 2, to the scholium of which proposition the reader is also referred. Prop. XXX. — Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, necessarily has a, knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God and is conceived through Him. Demonst. — Eternity is the very essence of God, in so far as that essence involves necessary existence (Def. 8, pt. 1). To conceive tilings therefore under the form of eternity, is to conceive them in so far as they are con ceived through the essence of God as actually existing things, or in so far as through the essence of God they involve existence. Therefore our mind, in so far as it conceives itself and its body under the form of eternity, necessarily has a knowledge of God, and knows, &c. — Q.E.D. Prop. XXXI. — The third kind ofknovdedge depends upon the mind as its formal cause, in so far as ihe mind itself is eternal. Demonst. — The mind conceives nothing under the form of eternity, unless in so far as it conceives the essence of its body under the form of eternity (Prop. 29, pt. 5), that is to say (Props. 21 and 23, pt. 5), unless in so far as it is eternal. Therefore (Prop. 30, pt. 5) in so far as the mind is eternal it has a knowledge of Cod, which is necessarily adequate (Prop. 46, pt. 2), and there fore in so far as it is eternal it is litted to know all those 274 ETHIC. things which can follow from this knowledge of God (Prop. 40, pt. 2), that is to say, it is fitted to know things by the third kind of knowledge (see the definition of this kind of knowledge in Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2), of which (Def. 1, pt. 3), in so far as the mind is eternal, it is the adequate or formal cause. — q.e.d. Schol. — As each person therefore becomes stronger in this kind of knowledge, the more is he conscious of him self and of God ; that is to say, the more perfect and the happier he is, a truth which will still more clearly appear from what follows. Here, however, it is to be observed, that although we are now certain that the mind is eternal in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity, yet, m order that what we wish to prove may be more easily explained and better understood, we shall consider the mind, as we have hitherto done, as if it had just begun to be, and had just begun to understa^-UJnnas under the form of eternity. This we can- do witfimnT^ any risk of error, provided only we are carnal to conclude nothing except from clear premiss^**' Puop. XXXII.j^I^raxlight in whatever we understand by --^^Tard kind of knowledge, and our delight is accom panied with the idea of God as its cause. Demonst. — From this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible peace of mind, that is to say (Def. 25 of the Affects), the highest joy, attended moreover with the idea of one's self (Prop. 27, pt. 5), and consequently (Prop. 30, pt. 5) attended with the idea of God as its cause. — q.e.d. | Corol. — From the third kind of knowledge necessarily ) springs the intellectual love of God. For from this kind of knowledge arisesn(Tf&p7Tt 27 pt. 5) joy attended with the idea of God as its cause, that is to say (Def. 6 of the Affects), the love of God, not in so far as we imagine Him as present (Prop. 29, pt. 5), but in so far as we mider- OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 27 5 stand that He is eternal; and that is what I cad the intellectual love of God. Prop. XXXlll. — The intellectual love of God which arises from the third kind of knowledge is eternal. Demonst. — The third kind of knowledge (Prop. 31, pt. 5, and Ax. 3, pt. 1) is eternal, and therefore (by the same axiom) the love which springs from it is necessarily eternal. — Q.E.D. Schol. — Although this love to God has no beginning (Prop. 33, pt. 5), it nevertheless has all the perfections of love, just as if it had originated ; — as we supposed in the corollary of Prop. 32, pt. 5. Nor is there here any difference, excepting that the mind has eternally possessed these same perfections which we imagined as now accruing to it, and has possessed them with the accompanying idea of God as the eternal cause. And if joy consist in the passage to a greater perfection, blessedness must indeed consist in this, that the mind is endowed with perfection itself. Prop. XXXIV. — The mind is subject lo affects which are rcleitcd to p>assions only so long as the body exists. Demonst. — An imagination is an idea by which the mind contemplates any object as present (see its definition in Schol. Prop. 17, pt. 2). This idea nevertheless indicates the present constitution of the human body rather than the nature of the external object (Corol. 2, Trop. 1 6, pt. 2). An affect, therefore (by the general definition of the Affects), is an imagination in so far as it indicates the present constitution of the body, and therefore (Prop. 2 1, pt. 5) the mind, only so long as tlie body exists, is sub ject to affects which are related to passions. — q.e.d. Corol. — Hence it follows that no love except intel lectual love is eternal. 276 ETHIC. Schol. — If we look at the common opinion of men, we shall see that they are indeed conscious of the eternity of their minds, but they confound it with duration, and attribute it to imagination or memory, which they believe remain after death. Prop. XXXV.— God loves Himself with an infinite intellec tual love. God is absolutely infinite (Def. 6, pt. i), that is to say (Def. 6, pt. 2), the nature of God delights in inlinite perfection accompanied (Prop. 3, pt. 2) with the idea of Himself, that is to say (Prop. 1 1, and Def. 1, pt. 1), with the idea of Himself as cause, and this is what, in Corol. Prop. 32, pt. 5, we have called intellectual love. Prop. XXXVI.— The intellectual love of the mind towards God is the very love with which He loves Himself, not in so far as He is infinite, but in so far as He can be manifested through the essence of the human mind, con sidered under the form of eternity ,- that is to say, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part, of the infinite love with which God loves Himself. Demonst.— -This love of the mind must be related to the actions of the mind (Corol. Prop. 32, Pt- 5, and Prop 3 pt 3), and it is therefore an action by which the mind contemplates itself; and which is accompanied with the idea of God as cause (Prop. 32.pt. 5, "with the CoroL) ; that is to say (Corol. Prop. 25, pt I, and Corol. Prop. 11, pt. 2), it is an action by which God, m so far as He can be manifested through the human mind, con templates Himself, the action being accompanied with the idea of Himself; and therefore (Prop. 35.pt. 5). this love of the mind is part of the infinite love with which God loves Himself. — tJ.KD. CoroL — Hence it follows that God, in so far as lie OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 277 loves Himself, loves men, and consequently that the love of God towards men and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are one and the same thing. Schol — Hence we clearly understand that our salva tion, or blessedness, or liberty consists in a constant and eternal love towards God, or in the love of God to wards men. This love or blessedness is called Glory in the sacred writings, and not without reason. For whether it be related to God or to the mind, it may properly be called repose of mind, which (Defs. 25 and 30 of the Affects) is, in truth, not distinguished from glory. For in so far as it is related to God, it is (Prop. 35, pt. 5) joy (granting that it is aUowable to use this word), accompanied with the idea of Himself, and it is the same thing when it is related to the mind (Prop. 27, pt. 5). Again, since the essence of our mind consists in know ledge alone, whose beginning and foundation is God {Prop. 1 5, pt. 1, and Schol. Prop. 47, pt. 2), it is clear to us in what manner and by what method our mind, with regard both to essence and existence, fodows from the divine nature, and continually depends upon God I thought it worth whde for me to notice this here, in order that I might show, by this example, what that knowledge of individual objects which I have caded intuitive or of the third kind (Schol. 2, Prop. 40, pt. 2) is able to do, and how much more potent it is than the universal knowledge, which I have called knowledge of the second kind. For although I have shown generally in the First Part that all things, and consequently also the human mind, depend upon God both with regard to existence and essence, yet that demonstration, although legitimate, and placed beyond the possibility of a doubt, does not, nevertheless, so affect our mind as a proof from the essence itself of any individual object which we say depends upon God. 27S ETHIC. PRor. XXXVII. — Tliere is nothing in nature which is contrary to this intellectual love, or which can negate it. This intedectual love necessarily follows from the nature of the mind, in so far as it is considered, through the nature of God, as an eternal truth (Props. 33 and 29, pt. 5). If there were anything, therefore, contrary to this love, it would be contrary to the truth, and con sequently whatever might be able to negate this love would be able to make the true false, which (as is self- evident) is absurd. There exists, therefore, nothing in nature, &c. — q.e.d. Schol — The axiom of the Fourth Part refers only to individual objects, in so far as they are considered in relation to a fixed time and place. This, I believe, no one can doubt. Pfior. XXXVIII. — The more objects the mind understands by the second and third kinds of knowledge, the less it suffers from those affects which are evil, and tlie less it fears death. Demonst. — The essence of the mind consists in know ledge (Prop. 1 1, pt. 2). The more things, therefore, the mind knows by the second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater is that part which abides (Props. 29 and 23, pt. 5), and consequently (Prop. 37, pt. 5) the greater is that part which is not touched by affects which are contrary to our nature, that is to say (Prop. 30, pt. 4), which are evil. The more things, therefore, the mind understands by the second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater is that part which remains unharmed, and the less consequently does it suffer from the affects. Sehol. — We are thus enabled to understand that which I touched upon in SchoL Prop. 39, pt. 4, and which I promised to explain in this part, namely, that death is ly so much the less injurious to us as the clear and OF THE POWER OP THE INTELLECT. 2?9 distinct knowledge of the mind is greater, and consequently as the mmd loves God more. Again, since (Prop 27 pt. 5) from the third kind of knowledge there arises the highest possible peace, it follows that it is possible for the human mind to be of such a nature that that part of it which we have shown perishes with its body (Prop. 21, pt. 5), in comparison with the part of it which remains, is of no consequence. But more fully upon this subject presently. PROP. XXXIX.— He who possesses a body fit for many things possesses a mind of which the greater part is eternal. Demonst— -He who possesses a body fitted for doinrr many things is least of all agitated by those affects which are evil (Prop. 38, pt. 4), that is to say (Prop. 30 pt. 4), by affects which are contrary to our nature, and therefore (Prop. 10, pt. 5) he possesses the power of arranging and connecting the affections of the body according to the order of the intellect, and consequently (Irop. 14, pt. 5) of causing all the affections of the body to be related to the idea of God (Prop. 15 pt 5) • in consequence of which he is affected with a love to God which (Prop. 16, pt. 5) must occupy or form the greatest part of his mind, and therefore (Prop 33 pt. 5) he possesses a mind of which the greatest part is eternal Schol.— Inasmuch as human bodies are fit for many things, we cannot doubt the possibdity of their possessing such a nature that they may be related to minds which have a large knowledge of themselves and of God and Whose greatest or principal part is eternal, so that 'they scarcely fear death. To understand tins more clearly, it is to be here considered that we live in constant change, and that according as we change for the better or the worse we are called happy or unhappy. Tor he who passes from infancy or childhood to death is called unhappy, and, on the other hand, we consider ourselves 280 ETHIC. happy if we can pass through the whole period of life with a sound mind in a sound body. Moreover, he who, like an infant or child, possesses a body fit for very few things, and almost altogether dependent on external causes, has a mind which, considered in itself alone, is almost entirely unconscious of itself, of God, and of objects. On the other hand, he who possesses a body fit for many things possesses a mind which, considered in itself alone, is largely conscious of itself, of God, and of objects. In this life, therefore, it is our chief endeavour to change the body of infancy, so far as its nature permits and is conducive thereto, into another body which is fitted for many things, and which is related to a mind conscious as much as possible of itself, of God, and of objects ; so that everything which is related to its memory or imagina tion, in comparison with the inteUect is scarcely of any moment, as I have already said in the scholium of the preceding proposition. Prop. XL. — Hie more perfection a thing possesses, the more it acts and the less it suffers, and conversely the more it acts the more perfect it is. Demonst. — The more perfect a thing is, the more reality it possesses (Def. 6, pt. 2), and consequently (Prop. 3, , pt. 3, with the Schol.) the more it acts and the less it suffers. Inversely also it may be demonstrated in the same way that the more a thing acts the more perfect it is. — Q.E.D. Corol. — Hence it follows that that part of the mind which abides, whether great or smaU, is more perfect than the other part. For the part of the mind which is eternal (Props. 23 and 29, pt. 5) is the intellect, through which alone we are said to act (Prop. 3, pt. 3), but that part which, as we have shown, perishes, is the imagination itself (Prop. 21, pt. 5), through which alone we are said to suffer (Prop. 3, pt. 3, and the general definition of the OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. :8i affects). Therefore (Prop. 40, pt. 5) that part which abides, whether great or small, is more perfect than the latter. — Q.E.D. Schol. — These are the things I proposed to prove con cerning the mind, in so far as it is considered without relation to the existence of the body, and from these, taken together with Prop. 21, pt. 1, and other proposi tions, it is evident that our mind, in so far as it under stands, is an eternal mode of thought, which is determined by another eternal mode of thought, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum, so that all taken together form the eternal and infinite intellect of God. Prop. XLI. — Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we should still consider as of primary import ance Piety and Beligion, and absolutely everything which in the Fourth Part we have shown to be related to strength of mind and generosity. Demonst. — The primary and sole foundation of virtue or of the proper conduct of life (by Corol. Prop. 22, and Prop. 24, pt. 4) is to seek our own profit. But in order to determine what reason prescribes as profitable, we had no regard to the eternity of the mind, which we did not recognise tdl we came to the Fifth Part. Therefore, although we were at that time ignorant that the mind is eternal, we considered as of primary importance those things which we have shown are related to strength of mind and generosity ; and therefore, even if we were now ignorant of the eternity of the mind, we should consider those commands of reason as of primary importance. — Q.E.D. Schol — The creed of the multitude seems to be different from this; for most persons seem to believe that they are free in so far as it is allowed them to obey their lusts, and that they give up a portion of their rights, in so far as they are bound to live according to the commands of divine law. Piety, therefore, and 2S2 ETHIC. religion, and absolutely all those things that are related to greatness of soul, they believe to be burdens which they hope to be able to lay aside after death ; hoping also to receive some reward for their bondage, that is to say, for their piety aud religion. It is not merely this hope, however, but also and chiefly fear of dreadful punish ments after death, by which they are induced to live according to the commands of divine law, that is to say, as far as their feebleness and impotent mind will permit ; and if this hope and fear were not present to them, but if they, on the contrary, believed that minds perish with the body, and that there is no prolongation of life for miserable creatures exhausted with the burden of their piety, they would return to ways of their own liking ; they would prefer to let everything be controlled by their own passions, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. This seems to me as absurd as if a man, because be does not believe that he will be able to feed his body with good food to all eternity, should desire to satiate himself with poisonous and deadly drugs ; or as if, be cause he sees that the mind is not eternal or immortal, he should therefore prefer to be mad and to live without reason, — absurdities so great that they scarcely deserve to be repeated. Prop. XLI I. — Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but is virtue itself; nor do we delight in blessedness because we restrain our lusts; but, on the contrary, because we delight in it, therefore are we able to restrain them. Demonst — Blessedness consists in love towards God (Prop. 36, pt. 5, and its Schol.), which arises from the third kind of knowledge (Corol. Prop. 32, pt. 5), and this love, therefore (Props. 59 and 3, pt. 3), must be related to the mind in so far as it acts. Blessedness, therefore (Dei*. 8, pt. 4), is virtue itself, which was the first thing to be proved. Again, the more the mind delights in this OF THE POWER OF THE INTELLECT. 283 divine love or blessedness, the more it understands (Prop. 32, pt. 5), that is to say (Corol. Prop. 3, pt. 5), the greater is the power it has over its affects, and (Prop. 3 8, pt. 5) the less it suffers from affects which are evil. Therefore, it is because the mind delights in this divine love or blessedness that it possesses the power of restrain ing the lusts ; and because the power of man to restrain the affects is in the intellect alone, no one, therefore, delights in blessedness because he has restrained his affects, but, on the contrary, the power of restraining his lusts springs from blessedness itself. — q.e.d. Schol. — I have finished everything I wished to explain concerning the power of the mind over the affects and concerning its liberty. From what has been said we see what is the strength of the wise man, aud how much he surpasses the ignorant who is driven forward by lust alone. For the ignorant man is uot only agitated by external causes in many ways, and never enjoys true peace of soul, but lives also ignorant, as it were, both of God and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer ceases also to be. On the other hand, the wise man, in so far as he is considered as such, is scarcely ever moved in his mind, but, being conscious by a certain eternal necessity of himself, of God, and of things, never ceases to be, and always enjoys true peace of souL If the way which, as I ' have shown, leads hither seem very difficult, it can never- ¦ theless be found. It must indeed be difficult since it is so seldom discovered ; for if salvation lay ready to hand and could be discovered without great labour, how could it be possible that it should be neglected almost by every body ? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare. FINIS. INDEX. Absent, affects related to absent objects, 258. Action, power of, cause of joy, iji, 152, 15s. connection withadequate ideas, 106, 107, 112, 241, 256, 267. definition, 106, 241. determined by reason always good, 241. . increase or diminution of, 106. — is perfection, 280. not determined by reason may be good or evil, 241. Actions, contrary, in same subject, 254. or passions, order in mind and body the same, 108. Adequate cause, definition, 106. idea, definition, 48. Affability, its nature, 246. Affect able to surpass action, 185, active, relation to joy or de sire, 158. animal, 157. arrangement and connection of affects, 266. clear idea and knowledge of it, 255, 256, 264, 266. contrary, definition, 1S0. correspondence with object, 154. definition, I Ob, 174. detachment from thought of external cause, 254, 266. — — di Iters according to essence of person, 1 56. duration of, 25S, 266. excited by numbers of simul taneous causes, 259. guidance by, as compared with that by reason, 234. imagination of cause of, aa pre sent, 187. Affect, mind's power over, 257, 260, 262, 266, 267. necessity of cause, 105, 226. obstinate clinging of, 185, 216. power of it limited by its cause, 254. related to many causes, 259, 266. remedies for affects, 266. restraint or removal of, 185, 1S6, 190, 260. — — strength of, on what depen dent, 1S7. towards past, present, or future object, 181. Affections, bodily, arrangement ac cording to order of intellect, 260, 266. bodily, clear idea and know ledge of them, 255. bodily, correspondence of them with thoughts, 254. bodily, relation to idea of God, 263. Affirmation in the mind involved in the idea, 95. Agreement caused by conformity to reason, 204. prevented by passions, 202. with our nature is good, 201, 202, 204. Ambition, definition, 131, 133, 156, 172. Anger, definition, 141, 171. repayment of it by love, 21S. Antipathy, definition, 120. Appetite by which we act same as that by which we sillier, 256. definition, 1 15. governance of it, 262. same as end, 1S1. Astonishment, definition, 1 50, 102. Attribute, definition, 1. 286 INDEX. Attributes of substance, eaeh must be conceived through itself, 8. distinct do not constitute dif ferent substances, 8. Audacity, definition, 149, 172. Avarice, definition, 156, 173. Aversion, definition, 164. Baseness, definition, 209. Beauty, explanation, 43, 44. — — prejudice concerning, 39. Being, infinite thinking, 49. of things, mode in which it follows from God, 52. origin of the term, 85. Belief, connection with hope and fear, 147. Benevolence, definition, 130, 171. Blame, origin of notion, 43, 131. • prejudice concerning, 39. Blessedness, definition, 241, 275, 277. not reward of virtue, but vir tue itself, 2S2. Bodies, agreement, 61. determination, 61, 62. hard and soft, meaning of terms, 63. how distinguished, 61. in motion or at rest, 61. mode of motion, 61. union, 63. Body, affected in many ways, 48 212. composite, retention of nature, 64, 65. definition, 47. constitution, 67. idea of, involves essence of God, 92. imagination of it, 76. knowledge of it, 75, 76, 7S. modes of its affection, 62. perception of it, 4S, 67, 76. reflection of motion, 63. human, affections by external bodies, 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, 77, 212, 247, 279. human, capable of affection and suffering change, 106. human, capacity of affecting bodies, 212, 247, 279. human, changes of, 213. human, community with other bodies, 84. — human, death of it terminates passion, 275. Body, human, determination by external body, 66. human, determination by mind of body, and of body by mind, 108, 109, no, 111, 112. human, existence of, cannot be excluded by the mind, 116, 117. human, fitness for many things, 279. human, idea of it exists in God, 268. human, inadequate idea of its duration, 79. human, increase in its power of action, ro6, n 6, 118. human, individuals composing it, 66. human is composite, 65, 66. human, knowledge of it, 76. human, knowledge of its parts, 74- human, knowledge of its exis tence, 71. human, knowledge or concep tion of it under form of eternity, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 276. human, mind not absolutely destroyed with it, 269. human, moves external bodies, 66. human, object of the human mind, 59. human, order of actions, &c. same as in mind, 108. human, perception of it by the mind, 58, 59, 67, 73, 74, 78. human, preservation, 66, 247. human, simultaneous affec tions, 70. human, union with mind, 60, 72, 73. 251, 252, 253, 268, 269. human, ways in which it can be disposed, 66. Bondage, definition, 176. Bravery, definition, 149. Brutes, man's rights over, 209. Cause, adequate, definition, 106. determinate, effect follows, 2. determination by other causes, 28. external alone can destroy a thing, 113. inadequate, definition, 106. — — ¦ knowledge of, 2. Cause of itself, definition, 1. Causes, connection of, 54, 55. INDEX. 2S7 Causes, external limit perseverance in being, 183. Certitude something positive, 97. Change necessary to man, 183, 280. Changeableness caused by passions, 203. Chastity not an affect, 156. Cheerfulness always good, 214. definition, 117. rarity of, 216. Cicero quoted, 172. Citizens, definition, 211. Class, love of a class or nation, 145. Cold, explanation of action, 43. Commiseration, definition, 125, 129, 165. Common, things having nothing in common, 2-3. what is common is not essence, S2. what is common, adequate con ception of it, 82, 83. what is common, dependence of perception on it, 84. Community of nature as it affects our good or evil, 200, 201.' profitable to man, 243, 244. Compassion, definition, 166. Conception, activity of it, 47. Concord, things which beget it, 244, 246. Confidence, definition, 123, 165. sign of weakness, 219. Confusion, explanation of it, 43, 44, Consternation, definition, 140, 150, 17":. Contempt always evil, 219. definition, 151, 163, 166. nothing worthy of it, 220. repayment of it by love, 218. Contentment with one's self, defini tion, 132. Contingency dependent on imagina tion, 90. does not exist, 29. imagination of it influences affects, 1 88, 1S9, 1 go, 192, 257. meaning of it, 33, 1S0. reason does not recognise it, , 9°- Contrary, actions contrary in same subject, 254. evil is contrary to us, 201. nun contrary to one another through passion, 203. things contrary alone can de stroy each other, 113. Courtesy, definition, 172. Cruelty, definition, 142, 171. Dangeii, free man avoids it, 236, Death, definition, 213. fear of it, 278. less injurious as knowledge is greater, 278, 279. not thought of by a man who is free, 235. not to be avoided by breach of faith, 239. Deceit, never practised by a man who is free, 238. Deformity, explanation of it, 43, 44. prejudice concerning, 39. Dejection, false piety in it, 246. Derision, definition, 151, 164. Descartes, his doctrine as to affects, 105. _ his doctrine as to union of mind and body, 251, 252, 253. Desire, accidental cause of, 1 19. connection with desire of others, 132. definition, 116, 160, 161. extinguishment or restraint of it, 191, 192. follows from adequate and in adequate ideas, 241. may be excessive, 215. relation to active affects, 158. springing from reason, 230. springing from sorrow or joy, &c, 137, 193, 229. understood through man alone, or as a part of nature, 240. Despair, definition, 123, 165. sign of weakness, 219. Despondency, definition, 169, 225. ignorance of one's self and im potence, 224. more easily corrected than pride, 224. Determination by causes, 2S. Devotion, definition, 150, 164. Difference of affections in different men and the same man, 14S. of nature as it affects our good or evil, 200, 201, 204. of nature caused by passion, 203. Discord evil to man, 214. Disorder, prejudice concerning it, 39; Distinct things, how distinguished, 3- 288 INDEX. Doubt, same as vacillation of mind, 122. Drunkenness, definition, 156, 173. Duration, definition, 48. Ecolesiastes quoted, 192. Education, effect of it, 167, 168. Effect follows a cause, 2. follows from something which exists, 37. knowledge of it, 2. Emotion, detachment from thought of external cause, 254. Emulation, definition, 129, 171. End, definition, 1S1. Envy, cause of it, 135. definition, 166. natural to man, 134, 153. not excited by those who are not our equals, 154. Error, cause of it, 93, 96, 182. definition, 69, Si. Essence, definition, 47, 56, 57, 82. of God, human mind has know ledge of it, 93. of God, knowledge of it in volved in idea of body, 92. of God, knowledge of it ade quate and perfect, 92. of man, what it involves, 48. of things not existing, 2. of things produced by God, 26, Eternity, definition, 2. not duration, 276. things considered under form of it, 91, 272, 273. Evil avoided by all, 195. ¦ conception of it as connected with freedom, 235. contrary to us, 201. due to external causes, 242. explanation of it, 43, 139, 179, 1S0. ¦ fear of it as a motive, 232. — — knowledge of, desiro arising from it, 191, 192. — ¦ — knowledge of it an effect of sorrow, I So. knowledge of it inadequate, 233- knowledge of : restraint of af fects, 190. necessity of it, 240. - — nothing certainly evil but ab sence of understanding, 199. prejudice concerning it, 39. Evil produced by hatred, 139, 141, 142. reason follows the lesser evil, 233. 234- removal of it, 242. Existence, desire of, 196. Experience, vague, definition, S6. vague, cause of falsity, S7. Extension, attribute or affection of attribute of God, 13, 49. relation to thought, 52, 53. Faculties absolute, their nature, 94,. 95- Faith, never to be broken, 239. False idea, removal of what is posi tive in it, 181. Falsity, cause of it, S7, 96. definition, So. Favour, agreement with reason, 221. definition, 126, 166. Fear as a motive, 232. cause of it, 147, 244. causes disbelief, 147. definition, 123, 140, 164, 171. hope accompanies it, 164. how to get rid of it, 261. not good of itself, 219. Fellowship profitable to man, 214. Ferocity, definition, 171. Final causes, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 17S. Finite in its own kind, definition, I. Finiteness is negation, 5. Flattery as a means of promoting concord, 246. Flight from danger sometimes neces- sary, 236. Food, varied kinds necessary, 247. Fortitude, definition, 159. properties of it, 239. Free, man born free could not form conception of good and evil, 235. man who is free avoids danger, 236. man who is free avoids favours of the ignorant, 237. man who is free docs not think of death, 235. mau who is free is the only grateful man, 238. man who is free never deceives, 238. Freedom, connection with love and hatred, 146, 147. definition, 2. not an attribute of will, 32, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103. INDEX. 289 Freedom, reasons why men attribute it to themselves, 39, 81. Friendship of beloved object with another is a cause of hatred, 135. profitable to man, 243. Future objects, affect towards them, 122, 123, 187, 188, 191, 230, 231, 234- Generosity, definition, 159. importance of it, 281. repayment of anger, &c, by generosity, 21S, 243. Gladness, definition, 123, 165. sign of weakness, 219. Gland pineal, opinion of Descartes with regard to it, 25 1, 252, 253. Glory, definition, 277. how wc are to think of it, 261. ¦God acts from no freedom of will, 32. adequacy and perfection of knowledge of His essence, 92. amplitude of His laws, 46. can be hated by nobody, 265. — — cause of existence and essence of things, 27. cause of formal being of ideas, Si- cause of modes of attributes, 5*- cause through Himself, 19. compelled by no one, 19. comprehension of non-existent things in His idea, 53. connection of causes in Him, 54, 55- definition, 1. determination of things by Him, 27, 28. does not act for the sake of the good, 37. efficient cause, 1 9. essence of things produced by Him, 26. essence of, involved by idea of body, 92. eternal, 23. everything in Ilim, 14. existence and essence the same, 23. existence and essence eternal truths, 24. exists for no end, 178. extension attribute of Him, 49. first cause, 19. . — r- formal being of things, how it follows from Him, 52. God free, 19, 20. free from passions or affects, 264. human mind exists in Him, and is conceived through Him, 273, 281. human mind has knowledge of Him, 93, 273._ idea of His essence exists in Him, 49. idea of human body under form pf eternity exists in Him, 268. idea of human mind exists in Him, 72. idea of, its unity, 50. — — idea of, relation of affections to it, 263. identity with substance, *3- immanent cause, 22. immutable cause, 24. individual things affections of His attributes, 27. infinite things follow from His nature, iS. intellect does not pertain to, 21, 32. love of cannot be defiled by envy, &c, 265. love of, connection of it with understanding, 264. love of, constancy of it, 266 love of demands not love in return, 265. love of, intellectual, 274, 275, 276, 277, 27S, 279. love of, no affect contrary to it, 266. love of ought to occupy the mmd, 264. — love of strengthened by love to Him of other people, 265. knowledge of causes desire for good of others, 207. knowledge of is blessedness, 241. knowledge of is highest good and virtue, 200. knowledge of, objects as exist ing in Him, 55. modes follow from Him, 26. necessary existence, o. necessary existence of. what is in His power, 37. necessity of order in which He has produced things, 33, 34, 35, 36,37- T 290 INDEX. God, nothing can be conceived with out Him, 14. omnipotence actual from eter nity, 21. perfection of His nature excites His action, 19. perfection of things produced by Him, 34, 35, 36, 37. power of is His essence, 37. power of, meaning of term, 49, 50. power of acting equal to His power of thinking, 52. proximate cause, 29. relationship to essence of man, remote cause, meaning of the term, 29. substance with infinite attri butes, 9. things which follow from abso lute nature of His attributes, 24. . things which follow from modi fied attributes, 25. thought an attribute of Him, 48. understanding of Him, 270. unity of, 13. why knowledge of Him is not distinct, 93. will does not pertain to Him, 21, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37- works for no end, 3b, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 45- 46- Good, agreement with our nature, 201, 202. conception of, as connected with freedom, 235. - desired by all, 1 93. desired for others, 207. explanation of, 43, II6' I39> 179, 1S0. highest, common to all, 20t>. highest is knowledge of God, 2°°- rr ,. C ¦ knowledge of, an affect ot joy, 186. knowledge of, desire arising from it, 191I I92- . . , . knowledge of, restraint ot at- fects by it, 190. nothing known to be good but understanding. 199, 242-. prejudice concerning it, 39- produced by love, 139- reason follows greater good, 233- -34- Good, reason why joy follows it, 167- Gratitude, definition, 142, 171. dependence on freedom, 238. Happiness, in what it consists, 194. Hardness, definition, 63. Hatred by beloved object, 141. can never be good, 217. co-existence with love, 141, 142. connection -with desire, 137. connection with freedom and necessity, 146, 147. connection with hatred of others, 132, 133, '4°, H*» '43- connection with joy, 124, 126,. 127, 128. connection with sorrow, 120, 121, 125, 126, 12S, 129, 145, 146. definition, 119, 163. dependence on difference of nature, 204. desire to remove it, 144. destruction of it, 143, 254. destruction of object of it, 145.- natural to man, 153. _- — nothing worthy of it, 220. of beloved object, 135, 138, 144. of object dependent on its- causation of sorrow, 146. overcome by love, 143, 260. productive of evil to others- 139, 141, 142, 243. repayment with love, 2 lb. Health of whole man, 230. Heat, explanation of notion, 43. Honour, definition, 209. Hope, cause of, 147. causes belief, 147. definition, 123, 164. fear accompanies it, 164. not good of itself, 219. Horror, definition, 150. Humanity, definition, 131. Humility, definition, 153, "07. . not a virtue, 222. Idea adequate, definition, 48. clear idea of a passion, 255. definition, 47. distinguished from images and words, 97. . , in the mind alone involves volition, &c, 95. true, agreement cum suo %acator INDEX. 291 Idea, true, he who has it knows he has it, 88. Ideas, adequate, whioh follow from adequate ideas, 84. adequate, connection with ac tion, 106, 107, 112, 241, 256,267. common, S3. falsity in them, nothing posi tive, 80. formal being of, 51. inadequate and confused, 82. inadequate, connection with suffering or passion, 106, 107, H2, 241, 255, 256, 267. inadequate, connection with virtue, 197. mutilated, Si. order and connection of, 52, 254. relation to God, 80. true, So. universal, 86. Ignorant, avoidance of favours of ignorant men, 237. man, his weakness, 2S3. Images of things, connection of them, 254, 263. of things, constancy of them, 262. of things, definition, 69. of things, distinguished from ideas, 97. of things, frequency of them, 263. of tilings, past, present, or future, 122, 123, 1S7, iSS. of things, relation to a number of objects, 262, 263. of things, relation to idea of God, 263. of things, relation to things we understand, 263. Imagination, cause of contingency, 90. cause of falsity, S7, 1S2. entities of, 45. knowledge of the first kind, 86. Imperfection, definition, 176, 177, 17S, 179, I So. prevents existence, 12. Impossibility, moaning of, 33. Impotence, cause of, 193. difference between it and vir tue, 2C0. neglect to preserve our being, *95- Impulse, acting from, 208. Inadequate cause, definition, 106. Inclination, definition, 164. Inconstancy, caused by passions, 203. Indignation, definition, 126, 166. evil of, 221, 246. Individual things, definition, 48. things, duration, 79. Infinite in its own kind, 2 Infinitude is affirmation, 5. not composed of finite parts, 16. Ingratitude not an affect, 238. sadness caused by, 142. Injustice in natural State, 211. Intellect actual, distinguished from potential, 32. actual, referred to natura natu rata, 3 1. actual, what it comprehends, 31- „ . arrangement of affections ac cording to its order, 260. does not pertain to God, 21, 22. perfection of, is our sole profit, 241-242. same as will, 96, 97, 98, '99, 100, ioi, 102, 103. Intellectual love of God, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278. Intuitive science, definition, 86. science depends on the mind so far as it is eternal, 273. science distinguishes truth from falsity, 87. science increases perfection and happiness, 274. science, intellectual love of God arises from it, 274, 275. science is necessarily true, 87. science, its excellency and power, 267, 270, 271. science may arise from second kind of knowledge, 271. science, our delight in it, 274. Jealousy, definition, 136. Joy, accidental cause of, 1 19. connection with hate, 124, 126, 127, 128. connection with joy of others, *3*- - — — connection with love, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129. definition, 116, 161. desire springing from it, 1 37, *93- 292 INDEX. Joy, desire to produce what con duces to it, 130, directly good, 2 14. may be accompanied with sor row, 145. may be excessive, 24S. mind's power of action is the cause of it, 151. praise is the cause of it, 152. reasons why it follows good actions, 167. relation to action as well as passion, 158. relation to active affects, 158. relation to parts of the body, 229. resemblance is the causo of it, 121. sameness of it whether object ho imagined as past, present, or future, 122, 123, 1S7. Judgment, suspension of it, 100. Justice, in natural State, 211. Knowledge, different kinds of it, 86, 87. of good and evil, 1 86, 190, 191, 192. of second and third kind dimi nishes fear of death. and subjec tion to passion, 27S. - — - third kind of it depends on the mind, so far as it is eternal, 273. third kind of it increases per fection and happiness, 274. third kind of it, intellectual love of God arises from it, 274, 275. third kind of it, its excellence and power, 267, 270, 271. third kind of it may arise from second kind, 271. third kind of it, our delight in it, 274. Laughter distinguished from mock ery, 217. nothing worthy of it, 220. Law, impossible with absolute exer cise of rights, 246. ¦ reason counsels life under it, 239- , , . Liberality, men conquered by it, 24v Liberty, in what it consists, 277. Life, subject of thoughts of man who is free, 235. Likeness of an object to ourselves, affects produced in us thereby, 128, 134, I44._ Longing, definition, 137. Love by hated object, 142. ¦ coexistence with hatred, 141, 142. connection with freedom and necessity, 146, 147. connection with joy, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 146. connection with love of others, 132, 133, H2. connection with sorrow, 123, 124, 125, 127. definition, 119, 163. — — desire springing from it, 137. ¦ destroys hatred, 143, 260. ¦ destruction of it, 254. fruition of, causes new disposi tion of body, 160. lustful, passes into hatred, 24 5. may be excessive, 215. of class or nation, 145. of God cannot be defiled by envy, &c, 263. of God cannot be turned into hatred, 265. of God, constancy of it, 266. of God demands not love in return, 265. of God, dependence of it on understanding, 264. of God, intellectual, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278. of God, no affect contrary to it, 266. of God ought to occupy tha mind, 264. of God strengthened by love to Him of other people, 265. of object dependent on its causa tion of joy, 146. preservation of object of it causes joy, 123. production of good thereby, '39- repayment of hatred, &c, by it, 218, 243, 260. Lust, definition, 156, 173. restraint of it, 282. Luxuriousness, definition, 173. Madness, in what it really consists 216. Man, consequences of agreemont or disagreement of man with man, 242. index: 293 Man, his essence, what it involves, 48. his final aim, 241. in what he consists, 56, 60. Mosaic account of first man, 235- necessary to man, 194, 243. substance is not his form, 55- thought affirmed of him, 48. Marriage in accordance with reason, 24S- Maxims of life, 260. Melancholy always evil, 214. definition, 117. Memory, definition, 70. . influence on affects, 188. Mercy is generosity, 159. not a passion but a power, 171. Merit, definition, 211. origin of, 43. prejudice concerning, 39. Mind, human, actions arise from adequate ideas, 112. human, acts mid suffers, 106. human, adequate ideas exist in it, 83. human, aptitude for percep tion, 66. . human, body its object, 59. human, cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, 269. human, confused ideas of affec tions, 77. human, contemplation of things absent, 68, 69. human, determination by causes, 94. human, determination of body and of mind by body, 108, 109, no, in, 112. human, endeavours to imagine increase in action of body, 11S. human, endeavours to imagine its own action, 152. human, endeavours to perse vere in its being, 115. ¦ human, eternity of it, 269, 272, 276, 27S, 279, 2S0, 2S1. human, excludes things which lessen body's action, 118, 119. human, follows from God, 277- human, formal being of its idea, 66. human, has no absolute freo will, 32. 94, 95- 96, 97, 9S, 99, 100, 101, 102. Mind, human, has no absolute fa culty, 94. human, idea exists in God, 72. human, idea not clear, 77. human, knowledge of human body, 71, 74, 76, 78, 83, 273. human, knowledge of itself, 74, 77, 273- human, knowledge of the third kind depends on the mind so far as it is eternal, 273. human, order of actions, &a, same as in body, 108, 254. human, part of God's intellect, 58, 2S1. human, perceptions of it, 58, 59, 67, 73, 74, 7", S4. human, possesses adequate knowledge of God's essence, 93. human, possesses no idea which excludes existence of the body, Il6, 117. human, power of action, endea vours to imagine, 152. human, power of action, joy over, 151. human, power of thought, in crease of it, 116. human, power over the affects, 257, 260, 262, 266, 267. human, power over the body, 108, 109, no, 111, 112. human, simultaneous affection by two affects, 119. human, sorrows at its weakness, 152. human, subjection to passions, 107, 275, 27S. human, understandingof things under form of eternity, 272, 273. human, union with body, 60, 72, 73, 25", 252, 253, 26S, 269. human, volition in it is involved by the idea, 95. — human, what forms it, 57. Mockery distinguished from laugh ter, 217. Mode, definition, I. Moderation, definition, 172. is generosity, 159. Modes follow from God, 26. of attributes, how caused by God, 51. of thought, dependence on ideas of objects, 4S. Modesty, definition, I40. differs from shame, 170. 294 INDEX. Money, uses of it, 248. Moses quoted, 235. Motion and rost, preservation of proportions, 212. Nation, love of a, 145. Natura naturans and naturata, 30. Nature, man as part of, 183, 240, 241, 242. order of, man follows, 184. Necessity, all things determined by it, 29, 240. definition, 2. • — — connection with love and hatred, 146. imagination of it influences, affects, 188, 257. meaning of, 33. recognition of it by reason, 90. Negation in the mind involved in the idea, 95. Non-existent things, comprehension in God's idea, 53. things, their objective being, 53, 54- Notions, common, their origin, S4. second, their origin, S4. universal, their origin, 85. Omens, definition, 147. Opinion, cause of falsity, 87. definition, 86. Order, explanation of it, 43. — — prejudice concerning it, 39. Over-estimation always evil, 219. definition, 166. makes men proud, 220. Ovid quoted, 133, 192. Bain, definition, 117. may be good, 215. Passion able to surpass action, 185. connection with inadequate ideas, 106, 107, 112, 255. definition, 106, 2^1. definition according to Des cartes, 252. limitation by external cause, 185. man necessarily subject to it, 'R4- reason can determine to actions to which passion determines us, Q28. — terminated by death of body, -75- Passions and actions, order in mind and body the same, 108. cause of contrariety, 203. cause of difference and change, 203. involve negation, 113. ¦ prevent agreement, 202, Past objects, affect towards them, 122, 123, 187, 188, 190, 230, 231. Peace of mind, how it arises, 271. Peculiarity of an object induces con. templation, 159. Perception, passivity of it, 47. Perfection, definition, 176, 177, 178, 179, 1S0. establishes existence, 12. identical with reality, 48. is increase of action, 280. Perseverance in being, actual essence of the thing, 114. in being, each thing strives after it, 114. — — in being force causing it is limited, I S3. in being involves indefinite time, 115. in being, mind strives after it, 115. in being not a limit to passion, 185. Piety, definition, 209. importance of it, 2S1. what it is commonly thought to be, 282. Pity, evil and unprofitable in itself, 220, 245. may be good, 227. misery of the object of it, 129. natural to man, 134. nothing worthy of it, 220. Pleasurable excitement, definition, 117. may be evil, 215. Poor, care of them, 245. Positive, removal of what is positive in a false idea, 1 8 1 . Possession of au object by one per son, 133. Possibility, definition, 180. imagination of it influences the affects, 1S8, 1S9, 257. Power, degrees of, in nature, 1S1. same as virtue, 1 Si. Praise, cause of joy, 152. origin of, 43, 131. prejudice concerning it, 39. INDEX. 295 Trcscnce of mind is strength of mind, *59- Present objects, affect towards them, 122, 123, 187, iSS, 189, 190, 191, 192, 230, 231, 234. Preservation of being foundation of virtue, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198. of being, no object superior to it, 198. of being, no one neglects it, 196. of being, sameas happiness, 194. of being with reference to health as a whole, 230. Pride, definition, 168, 225. encourages flattery, 223, 246. ignorance of one's self and im potence, 224. Profit, agreement with our nature, 202. capacity of body for affecting and being affected is true profit, 212, 247. everybody has the right to seek his own, 242. man under guidance of reason is chief profit to man, 205, 243. no one neglects to seek his own, 196. of the whole man, partial joy or sorrow has no regard to it, 229. seeking our own profit is the foundation of virtue, 195, 198. what is the profit of one's self is that of others, 205. what the law of our own profit demands, 247. Property, rights of it, 211. Punishment by supreme authority, 221. Pusillanimity, definition, 149, 1 72. ¦Quantity, existence in imagination distinguished from existence in intellect, 17. Rkality, connection between it and attributes, 8. identical with perfection, 48, 179, I So. Reason, affects which spring from it, 25S, 266. conception of objects by it, 230. conformity of men to it is agreement of nature, 204. considers things as necessary, 90. Reason counsels life under common laws, 239. definition, S6. desire springing from it, 230. directs repayment of hatred, "fcc, with love, 218. distinguishes truth from falsity, 87. follows greater good and lesser evil, 233. guidance by it as compared with that by affects, 234. knowledge from it is neces sarily true, 87. man under guidanco of it pro fitable to man, 205. may determine to actions to which passion determines us, 228. perceives things under form of eternity, 91. perfection of it is our sole pro fit, 241. seeks greater future good, 234 teaches direct pursuit of good and indirect avoidance of evil, 232. Recollection, cause of desire, 137. [".egret, definition, 170. , Religion, definition, 209. importance of it, 2S1. what it is generally thought to be, 282. Remorse, definition, 123, 165. sign of weakness, 219. Repentance, definition, 132, 149, 167. not a virtue, 223. Repose of mind, definition, 277. Resemblance, connection with love and hatred, 121. Rest, preservation of proportion of motion and rest, 212. Right, natural, 210. Salvation, in what it consists, 277, Science, intuitive. See " Intuitive science." Scorn, definition, 151. Self-approval, definition, 149, 133. Self-exaltation, definition, 132, 169. how caused, 135, 226. Self-love, definition, 133. Self-preservation. See " Preserva tion of Being." Self-satisfaction arising from reason, 222, 249. definition, 167. 296 ¦INDEX. Self-satisfaction our highest hope, 222. Shame, definition, 132, 170. difference between it and mo desty, 170. how caused, 141. may be good, 227. — — may produce concord, 246. Sin, definition, 211. origin of it, 43. prejudice concerning it, 39. Sobriety is strength of mind, 159. not an affect, 156. Social, man necessarily social, 206. Society, its rights, 211. Softness, definition, 63. Solitude, reason does not counsel it, 239, 244. Something, origin of the term, 85. Sorrow, accidental cause of it, 119. connection with hate, 120, 121, 123, 126, 128, 129. connection with love, 123, 124, 127. definition, 117, 161. • desire springing from it, 137, 193- desire to destroy what con duces to it, 130. — — desire to remove it, 144. directly evil, 214. may be accompanied with joy, 145- reason why it follows wicked ness, 167. related to action as well as passion, 15s. related to parts of the body, 229. sameness of it, whether object bo past, present, or future, 122, 123, 187. Stability, want of it, 1 93. State, definition, 211. . reason counsels life in one, 239. Stoics' opinion quoted, 250. Strength, degrees of it in nature, 1S1. of mind, definition, 159. of mind, importance of'it, 281. Substance, attributes of it, con ceived through themselves, 8. cannot be produced by another substance, 4, 14. cannot be produced by any thing, 4. _ definition, 1. Substance, division impossible, 12, *3- existence pertains to it, 5. extended, not unworthy of Godr 18. is infinite, 5. no other than God, 13. not the form of man, 35. prior to affections, 3. thinking and extended, are the same, 32. Substances of the same nature, 4-8. with different attributes, 3. Suffering, connection with inade quate ideas, 106, 107, 112, 241, 256, 267. consequent on our being part of nature, 1 83. definition, 106. increase or diminution of it. 106. Suicide, 194. Superstition affirms sorrow to be good, 249. aim of it, 232. cause of it, 147. Sympathy, definition, 120. Temperance is strength of mind, 159- not an affect, 156. Thankfulness, definition, 142, 171. Thing, origin of the term, 85. Thought, attribute or affection of attributo of God, 13, 48. correspondence with affections of the body, 254. perception of it, 48. relation to extension, 52, 53. Timidity, definition, 149. Tolerance of men, 243. Transcendental terms, their origin, 83. Truth, standard of it, 89. Understanding, connection of it with love of God, 264. evil is the prevention of it, 199. necessary to virtue, 197. nothing else certainly good, 199. solo effort of reason, and solo profit of the mind, 19S. Universal ideas, ideas of perfection and imperfection depend on them, 177. INDEX. 297 Vacillation of mind, cause of it, «33- definition, 121. same as doubt, 122. Vainglory, definition, 226. Veneration, definition, 150. - — origin of it, 133, 134. Vengeance, definition, 141, 171. misery of it, 218. Vice, treatment by geometrical method, 105. Virtue, connection with inadequate ideas, 197. desirable for its own sake, 194. difference between it and im potence, 209. foundation of it, 194, 193, 197, 198. of the mind is knowledge of God, 200 Virtue same as power, 181. understanding necessary to it, 197- Volition involved by the idea in the mind, 93. Voluptuousness, definition, 156. Weakness, cause of sorrow, 152. Wickedness, reason why sorrow fol lows it, 167. Will, definition, 1 13. Joes not pertain to God, 21, 32. not free but necessary, 32, 94, 93, 9°, 97> 9S, 99, 'oo, ioi, 102, 103. same as intellect, 96, 98, 99, loo, 101, 102, 103. Wise man, in what his strength con sists, 2S3. Words distinguished from ideas, 97. THE END. "WORKS BY MABK BUTHEBFOBD. In Two Vols., cloth, price 12a. CilLTKLZLE-iXWES FURZE: A NOYEL. Westminster Gazette: — "A simple and touching story, told with rare skill and power." Daily Telegraph : — A readable and amusing novel." Fifth Edition, corrected, and with Additions, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARK RUTHERFORD. Edited by His Fbiend, REUBEN SHAPCOTT. Post 8vo, cloth, 3s, Gd. The Scotsman : — " For a book dealing more especially with the mental Bide of life, it is one of the most wholesomo ever written." Echo : — " It is a tragical story, poworf ully, beoauso so simply told." NEW EDITION. MARK RUTHERFORD'S DELIVERANCE. Edited by His Friend, EEUBEN SHAPCOTT. Post 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. World : — A strong, plain, thoughtful, contemplative, profoundly human narrative." SECOND EDITION. MIRIAM'S SCHOOLING, AND OTHER PAPERS. Edited by EEUBEN SHAPCOTT. Frontispiece by Walter Crane. Post 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6c*. Daily Chronicle : — " In insight, in subtlety, and delicacy of delineation ; in truth of dialogue, in dramatio presentation, in charm of style, this hook is equal to its predecessors from the same pen." THE REVOLUTION IN TANNER'S LANE. Edited by EEUBEN SHAPCOTT. Post Svo, cloth, 3s. 6c". Speaker: — "It is distinctly clever. . . . Thoroughly interesting. , Tho dry humour is delightfully spontaneous." London: T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By HENEY ADAMS. Large crown Svo, cloth, 7s. 6d. Athen&um : — " Mr. Adams writes with knowledge and judgment." ^Scotsman :—" The work of a serious student, and written with con siderable literary ability. . . . Will be eagerly read by many." ESSAYS ON GERMAN LITERATURE. By HJALMAE HJOBTH BOYESEN. Large crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. Daily Chronicle : — The whole volume is fresh and suggestive. ... It deserves to be well known by all who are interested in the literature of Germany." Glasgow Herald : — " The book is a sound piece of work, and as suggestive as it is thorough." NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT ; OB, LECTURES ON VABIOUS NATIONS OF THE WORLD. Delivered at South Place Institute by Professor Thorodd Eogers, J. S. Cotton Minchin, W. E. Morfill, E. H. Groome, J. Theodore Bent, Professor A. Pulszky, Eirike Magntjsson, and other Specialists. Demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. Gd. Academy : — " This volume can be highly recommended. It is a book not only to read but to keep." Spectator : — " It is a remarkably interesting volume." National Observer : — " More than any other work of the kind with whioh we are acquainted, it is stuffed with interesting matter." London : T. FISHEE TJNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.G. DESCARTES AND HIS SCHOOL. By KUNO EISCHEE. Translated from the Third and Bevised German Edition by J. P. GOEDY, Ph.D. Edited by NOAH POETEE, D.D. LL.D. Demy 8vo, cloth, 16s. Spectator: — " We give a hearty welcome to this translation. ... It gives us pleasure to see this work within the reach of English students of philo sophy, and we are glad to find that the rendering into English is in every way competent and adequate. It is eminently readable, and readers need not be troubled with the suspicion that they have not a true representation of the work of Prof cssor Fischer before them. They may use it with the most perfect confidence in its accuracy." INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY: AN INQUIEY AFTEB A BATIONAL SYSTEM OF SCIENTIFIC PEINCIPLES IN THEIB RELATION TO ULTIMATE EEALITY. By Prop. GEOEGE TEUMBALL LADD, D.D. Demy 8vo, cloth, 12s. British Weekly: — "An interesting and important book. . . . SomeohapterS are of unusual excellence and importance. . . . We do not know any book so likely to be helpful to the student, or to the layman, who desires to make an acquaintance with, or to increase his knowledge of, philosophy." Glasgow Herald : " Eeally ably and excellently written." THE ETHICS OF FREETHOUGHT: A SELECTION OF ESSAYS AND LECTURES. By Prop. EABL PEAESON, M.A. Demy 12mo, cloth, 12s. Athenseum : — " We have here a book which will attract curiosity, and in a certain sense repay perusal. It is a manifesto by an able, straightforward, and cultivated man, on behalf of ' Freethought,' which, as developed in these essays, includes atheism, socialism, and free lovo. . . . Mr. Pearson is an earnest, bold, and public-spirited writer ; he is williug to work hard and able to work effectively ; he is a man who may not impossibly become a power in the land, and who will assuredly wield whatever influence he •may gain for the furtherance, as ho conceives it, of tho common weal." London: T. FISHEE TJNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.G. THE STORY OF THE NATIONS. SOME PRESS OPINIONS. TIMES: " That most admirable and deservedly popular serios." THE GUARDIAN: " Thoro is, perhaps, no surer sign of the increased interest that Is now being taken in his torical matte™ thai the favourable reception whioh, wo believe, both here and in America, is bein" accorded to tho various volumes of ' The Story of the Nations' as they issue m quick succession from tho press. More than one volume has reached its third edition in inglana •done Each volumo is written by one of the foremost English authorities on the subject with which it deals. ... It is almost impossible to over-estimate the value of a scries of care- fntly-pnparcd volumes, such as are tho majority of those comprising this library. ¦ . . ine illustrations make ono of the most attractive features of the series." THE DAILY CHRONICLE : " Such a universal history as the scries will present us with in its completion will bo a pos session suoh as no country but our own can boast of. . . . Its succoia on tho wholo has boon v,ry remarkable. " ^ pALI ^j. G4ZETTE " An cxcoller.t scries. in every school library.' the r all r.i a i ,1, uaan'iTja : , A capital idoa, and tho series is likely to bo found indispensablo JOURNAL DES DEBATS : _ | " L'intercssante s6ric l'llistoire des Nations formera . . . un cours d'histoire universello j d'uno tres grande valeur." SPECTATOR: " An admirablo scries." ECHO : "Admirable scricsof historical monographs." TIMES OE "JI0R0CC0 : " An excellent scries." LITERARY "W0K1D : " The excellent series." YORKSHIRE POST : " We feel sure that every volume is of dis tinct value to all students of ancient and modern history, who cannot for themselves pursue historical invcsti«atious in original authorities." PRACTICAL TEACHER: "Wo bclievo this series will bo a most valuable addition to tho popular historical literature of the day." TABLET : " A valuable acquisition to any library." MANCHESTER "EXAMINER : . "An exceedingly useful and interesting scries." CHRISTIAN WORLD: "Tho 'Story of tho Nations' oannot be studied in a more interesting way than in Mr. Eishor Unwin's monthly volumos." SCHOOLMASTER: " The series is emiuontly readable," SCOTSMAN: " Tho very useful series of tho ' Story of the Nations.' " MANCHESTER GUARDIAN: n This valuable library of historical woris." MORNING POST: " That admirablo series of popular his tories." LIVERPOOL DALLY POST: " That excellent scries of historical volumes." METHODIST TIMES : "A flno series of books. . . . When com pleted Will form a useful library." H0TES AND QUERIES : " It will now be our fault if we have not a vivid picture in our minds of tho great Powers which have from time to time attracted tho eyes of men." „i,„„f inn toi«ps each, and contain respectively, besides an Index and C^lfT^l^Iottm^^n^o sue is large crown 8vo, and the books may be obtained in tho following bindings:— 5/- ORDINARY EDITION. Fancy Cloth, Uold Lettered LIBRARY EDITION. Cloth Extra, Gold Lettered on back, burnished red top D'" IN BOXES. Sets of Seven of either two Editions may bo had in Elegant Cloth Box, Gold Lettered 36'° Sots of Ten. 51/6 Tho Series is a,o kcPt in toS&TSS? PoSSher Back, Cloth Sides, Gilt Top. Price on application. London os-ITo* X.isit, see next P"*"*6' T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.O. THE STORY OF THE NATIONS. l.2. 3. 4. 5. 6.7. 8.9. 10.11. 12.13. 14.15. 16. 17. 18.19. A LIST OF THK BOMB. By A. Gilman, M.A. THE JEWS. By Professor J. E. HOSMEB, OUBMANT. ByEeV.S.BAEINQ- GOULD. cauthaqe. By Prof. Alfred J, Cittjncn. ALEXANDER'S EUCriRE. By J. P. Mahajey. THE MOORS IN SPAIN. By Stanley Lane-Poole. ANCIENT EGYPT. By Prof. Geo. Rawlinson. HUNGARY. By Prof. Abmi- NIUB VAtmEBT. By A. THE SARACENS. Gilman, M.A. Ireland. By the Hon. Emily Lawless. CHALDEA. By Zenaide A. Raqozin. By Henry By Zenaide A THE GOTHS, BilADLKY. ASSYRIA. Raoozin. TURKEY. By STANLEY IiANE- POOLE. HOLLAND. By Prof. J. E. TnonoLD Rogers. MEDIEVAL FRANCE. By GUSTAVE MASSON. PERSIA. By S. G. W. Ben jamin. PI-icenicia. By Prof. Georoe Rawlinson. media. By Zenaide Baqozin. 20. 21.22. 23.24. 25. 26. 29.30.31.32.33. 34.35. 36.37.38. VOLUMES.THE HANSA TOWNS. By Helen Zeqieen. EARLY BRITAIN. By Prof. A. J. Ohceoh. THE BARBARY CORSAIRS. By Stanley Lake-Poole. RUSSIA. By W. B. Mohfill, M.A. THE JEWS UNDER THE ROMANS. By W. Douglas Mohbi- EON, M.A. SCOTLAND. By JoUN Mackin tosh, LL.D. SWITZERLAND. By LlNA Huo and R. Stead, B± MESKICO. By Susan Hale. POF.tt/gal. By H. Mouse Stephens. THE NORMANS. By Saeah Oene Jewett. THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE. By C. W. 0. Oman. SICILY. By tho late Professor FllEEMAN. THE TUSCAN REPU3LICS. By 13 ELLA DOFFY. POLAND. By W. B. Morfim,. PARTHIA. By Prof. G. Kaw- LINSON. THE AUSTRALIAN COM MONWEALTH. By Gkeville The- GAT.1UEN. SPAIN. By H. E. Watts. JAPAN. By David Mobhay. SOUTH AFRICA. By Geo. M. Sec provides page for Prices and Styles of Blading. London: T. FISHER "UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. Works b^ ?, % foissetanb, PIERS PLOWMffl, 1363-1399: A Contribution to the History of English Mysticism. Photogravure Frontis piece and 23 other Illustrations. Demy Svo, cloth, 12s. THE ENGLISH NOVEL IN THE TIME OF SHAKESPEARE. Translated by Elizabeth Lee, revised and enlarged by the Author. 27 full-page Blustrations (6 being heliogravures) and many smaller Illustra tions in the text. Demy Svo, cloth, gilt top, 21s. Standard (Leader) : — " All lovers of Elizabethan literature -will welcome M. Jusserand's book. ... No Englishman who has written on the period has shown himself more completely in touch with his subject, or more fully and widely read in the authors with whom he deals. Want of acouracy or of literary insight is never apparent, and it is very rarely that even the smallest feature is missed because of a foreigner's standpoint. . . . M. Jusse rand's book and its exquisite engravings form a most valuable contribution to the study of English literature." . . Daily Telegraph: — " His agreeable style in recounting the origin of the modern literary ' three decker' makes his book, though historically valuable, very plcasaut reading." A FRENCH AMBASSADOR AT THE COURT OF CHARLES II. JLE COMTE DE COUINGES. Prom his Unpublished Correspondence. Ten Illustrations. Demy Svo, cloth, 12s. Times -.—There is not a dull page in the book." Speaker •— " Is sure to interest any one who takes it up. Spectator :— " The whole book is delightful reading." ENGLISH WAYFARING LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES (XIYth CENTURY). Third and Revised Edition. Illustrated. large crown Svo, cloth, 7s. Sd. •utnrdav Review:— "He has treated his subject so pleasantly that his book! when once oVened, will not readily be laid aside until the last page has been reached. . . - We can heartily recommend his book." icademy -'' A handsome volume, which may be warmly ) recommended to all who wish to obtain a picture of one aspect of English hfe in the fourteenth century." ,__._ - THE MEMOIRS OP CHANCELLOR PASQUIER. THE REVOLUTION AND THE EMPIRE. Translated by Charles E. Roche. "With Portraits. Three vols. Vol. I. T>omy Svo, cloth, 16*. per volume. _ Dally Chronicle :—" These important, well-informed, and judicial and judicious ' Memoirs.' " London: T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. Books bv Charles <5oofre$ Xelanb ("HANS BREITMANN"). ETRUSCAN ROMAN REMAINS IN POPULAR TRADITION. With many Illustrations. Small 4to, cloth, 21s. Also, an Edition de Luxe, limited to 100 copies, with an Original Drawing by Mr. Leland, numbered and signed, price £1 lis. 6d. nett. Daily Telegraph : — " A production which must attraot soholars and archiBologists as woll as the general reador." GIPSY SORCERY AND FORTUNE-TELLING. Profusely Illustrated. Small Mo, cloth, 16s. Limited Edition of 160 copies, numbered and signed, price £1 lis. 6d. net. National Observer : — " It is full of interesting material." THE BOOK OF THE HUNDRED RIDDLES OF THE FAIRY BELLARIA. Profusely Illustrated. Demy 16mo, paper, Is. ; cloth, 2s. Also a Fine Edition, limited to 100 copies, with an Original Illustration to each, bound in oloth, price 7s. Gd. net. Times : — " The verses bubble and flow with a melodious murmur. pages are very freely and fantastically illustrated." The Books *)£ professor ^borolo IRocjers. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. LECTURES DELIVERED TO THE UNIVERSITY OP OXFORD. Edited by Abthub G. L. Rogeks. Demy Svo, cloth, 16s. Llvorpool Dally Post : — " Full of information of a very valuable kind which is not to bo found elsewhere." THE ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY. Lectures on Political Economy and Its History, delivered at Oxford, 1887-88. New and Cheaper Edition. Demy Svo, cloth, 7s. 6d. Dally News (Leader) : — " Most interesting and welcome." London : T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.O. X3 The Best Plays of the Old Dramatists. Old Text. Post Svo, 500 pp., containing Etched, Frontispiece, bound in cloth, price 3s. 6c~. each. With full-lenprth Portrait of Alleyn, tho Actor. (From tho Picture at Dulmch Collera \ 1. THE BEST. PLAYS OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE?E5ftodf^th Critical Memoir and Notes, by Havklook Ellis; arid containing a Genoral Introduction to tho bcrictj by John Addinoton Symonds. „ „„„ With a Portrait o( Otwat. (From a Picturo by Biley.) 2. THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS OTWAY. Introduotion and Notes by tho Hon. Rodun Noel. .3Yitb "¦ Yiew °{ 014 London, showinpt the Banksido and its Theatres. 3. THE BEST PLAYS OF JOHN FORD. Edited by Haveiooh Ellis. IN TWO VOLUMES. With Portraits of MAssrsonn, and Low™ the Actor. 4 & 5. THE BEST PLAYS OF PHILIP MASSINGER. With Oritieal ana Uiographiaal Jwsay and Notes by Am-nun Symons. With a View of the Red Bull Theatro. 6. THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS HEYWOOD. Edited by A. W. Verity. With an Introduction by J. A. Symonds. With Portrait of William Wyohkhlry. (From tho Picture by Sir Poter Lely.) 7. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF WILLIAM WYCHERLEY. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by W. 0. Wahd. With a Portrait of Nathaniel Field. (From the Picturo at Dulwieh College.) 8. NERO, AND OTHER PLAYS. Edited, with Introductory Essays and Notes, by H. P. House, Aktuuu Symons, a. W. Vemty, and H. Ellis. IN TWO VOLUMES. With Portraits of Beaumont and Fletcher. 9 & 10. THE BEST PLAYS OF BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER. With Introduction and Notes by J, St. Loe Stbachey. With a Portrait of Conqheve. (From the Pioturo by Sir Godfrey Kneller.) 11. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF WILLIAM CONGREVE. Edited and Annotated by Alex. C. Ewald. With a View of the Old Globo Theatre. 12. THE BEST PLAYS OF WEBSTER AND TOTJRNEUR. With an Introduction and Notes by John Addinoton Symonds. IN TWO VOLUMES. With a Portrait of Middleton. 13 & 14. THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS MIDDLETON. With an Introduction by Algernon Charles Swinburne. With Portrait of James Stiirley. (From the Picture in the Bodleian Library.) 15. THE BEST PLAYS OF JAMES SHIRLEY. With Introduction by ¦ Edmund Gosse. With a View o( tbo Old Fortune Theatre. 16. THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS DEKKER. Introductory Essay and Notes by liliNEST IUiyh. 17. THE BEST PLAYS OF BEN JONSON. Edited, with Introduction and NotcB, by 13hinslhy Nicholson and 0. H. IIeufohd. (Vol. I.) 18. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF RICHARD STEELE. Editod, with Introduction and Notes, by G. A. Aitken. V The Publisher is issuing an Edition de Luxe of this Series in Library Stylo. The Edition is limited to 250 Sets, and will be printed on hand-made paper, with Titles, &c, in red and black. The binding will be in buckram (leather labelled), with gilt top and untrimmed edges, price per vol., 10s. 6d. net. The following -Volumes will he issued in the Spring: — THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS MIDDLETON. Vol. I. THE BEST PLAYS OF THOMAS DEKKER. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF RICHARD STEELE. London : T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. GREEK ART AND MYTHOLOGY. tSSSEEK VASE PAINTINGS: A Selection of Examples, with Preface, Introduction and Descriptions! By J. E. HAEEISON and D. S. MacCOLL. Size of the Book, 18 by 14 inches, bound in strong cloth, price 31s. Gd. Previous to the epoch of the Parthenon marbles, Greek vaso painting was the most exquisite of tho arts. Tho human passions were portrayed in this manner with unexampled grace and realism. Tho precious relics of tins phase of art are, however, scattered over the museums of England and the Continent, and the knowledge of thorn is practically inaccessible to art- students. This difficulty will be obviated by the work described above. It has been undertaken by ripe scholars — Miss Jane Harrison, the well-known lecturer, and Mr. D. S. MacColl, tho artist and art-critic — and they have secured reproductions of over 50 of the finest specimens of Vaso Painting. .THIRD EDITION. INTRODUCTORY STUS3IES BN GREEK ART. Lectures delivered in the British Museum. By JANE E. HAEEISON. Mcvp and Illustrations. Cloth, 7s. Gd. ACADEMY: — "If we have not succeeded in conveying the impression that throughout Miss Harrison's book the reader will constantly encounter serious and earnest thought, wide knowledge, and a vivid exposition, we ¦would here beg to make that statement in so many words." TOE ©©IBS ©F SBLYR1F0S-* MYTHOLOGY OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. Translated and Edited from the 20tli Edition of A. H. Petiscus, by KATHEEINE E. EALEIGH. Preface by JANE E. HAEEISON. SPEAKER : — " Although it is specially intended for tho elementary learner, it would be difficult to provide a better guide-book for the advanced student of classical art and literature." MAGAZINE OF ART :— " An excellent translation. ... A better intro duction to the study of mythology could scarce bo found." London: T. FISHER UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. Professor PJLSQUilLE VH.LARL Tbansiated by. LINDA VILLABI. THE LIFE AND TIMES OP GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA. Third and Cheaper Edition. Portraits and Illustrations. Two Vols. Large crown Svo cloth 21s of ^^^^^^^^ Mograpl; ttt letow THE LIFE AND~TIMES OF NIOCOLO MAOHIAVELLI New, Eevised, and Complete Edition, containing New Preface and Two New Chapters. In Two volumes. Four coppcr-pUtc and 29 other Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth 32* voluS*5"™ L°ND0N ^WS:-» Learned and deeply interesting writSTndnTs'Sne^"5^10 4° *he Sel'*0US Studeut of Machiavelli, his THE GREAT FRENCH WRITERS, Studies of the Lives, the Works, and the Influence of the Principal Authors of French Literature. Edited by J. J. JUSSEBAND, Author of '< English Wayfaring Life," &c. With Heliogravure Frontispieces, Crown Svo, cloth, price 3s. Gd. each. Also, an Edition on large paper, numbered, and limited to 30 copies half parchment, price 10s. 6d. each. VOLUMES NOW HEADY. 1. MADAME DE STAEL. By Albeet Soeel. 2. A. THIERS. By P. de Kemusat. BERNARD1N DE ST. PIERRE (Author of "Paul undYirgmia ). By Akvede Baiune. With Proface by Auous-xine Bireell. THEOPH1LE GAUTIER. By Maxime du Camp. Trans lated by J. E. Gordon. Profaco by Andiiew Lano. 3. London : T. EISHES UNWIN, Paternoster Square, E.C. 3 9002 00972 7570