458 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



Spinozist or no philosopher at all." In like man- 

 ner Schelling said that no one could arrive at 

 philosophical truth who had not once at least 

 plunged into the depths of Spinozism. Novalis, 

 Schleiermacher, Heine, and many others have 

 spoken of Spinoza in words of enthusiastic praise. 

 There is in Germany a whole recent literature of 

 exposition and discussion about him, which is 

 fast increasing, and to give an account of which 

 would itself need a monograph. 



In France the prevailing tone of philosophy 

 has not been one that accords well with Spi- 

 noza ; but he has met there with keen and intel- 

 ligent criticism, which is the next best thing to 

 intelligent admiration ; and the beautiful address 

 lately delivered by M. Renan at the Hague (be- 

 sides the serious attention given to the subject 

 by M. Paul Janet and others) is a sufficient proof 

 that Spinoza has now at least found a response in 

 the highest thought of France. 



In England Coleridge, in this as in other 

 things the advanced guard of the peaceful inva- 

 sion of German culture and philosophy, spread 

 the name of Spinoza, and much of his ideas, 

 among the friends whom he delighted by his con- 

 versation. He used to say that the three great 

 works since the introduction of Christianity were 

 Bacon's "Novum Organum," Spinoza's " Ethics," 

 and Kant's "Kritik." Coleridge's own position 

 as to Spinoza was something like Jacobi's ; he 

 admired and honored him without accepting his 

 teaching. It may well be that some part of the 

 Nature-worship of Wordsworth's poetry, which 

 has been a most important element in our later 

 English literature, was derived through Coleridge 

 from Spinoza. But we must come down many 

 years later before we find any certain manifesta- 

 tion of this part of Coleridge's influence. Those 

 who have spoken of Spinoza to English readers as 



he deserves to be spoken of are still among us 

 and working for us. We have Mr. G. H. Lewes's 

 various articles and writings on Spinoza, to which 

 he has given a finished form in his " History of 

 Philosophy." We have Mr. Froude's essay on 

 Spinoza, perhaps the best general account of his 

 doctrine which has been given in our language for 

 those who do not make philosophy their special 

 study. There is Mr. Matthew Arnold's admirable 

 monograph on the " Tractatus Theologico-Politi- 

 cus," whose only fault is that he has not com- 

 pleted it by a companion-piece on the " Ethics." 

 There are Mr. Huxley's contributions to pure 

 philosophy, which do not treat of Spinoza direct- 

 ly, but have done much to put Spinoza's funda- 

 mental ideas into shapes adapted to the present 

 state of our knowledge. The same may be said 

 of Mr. G. H. Lewes's most recent work in " Prob- 

 lems of Life and Mind." Nor are other signs 

 wanting of an active and increasing interest in 

 Spinoza both at home and abroad. 



It has been said of Spinoza by an able and not 

 unfair critic (M. Saisset), that his theory was after 

 all but a system, which has passed away like all 

 other systems, never to come back. It is true 

 that Spinoza did not found a school, and had few 

 or no disciples in the proper sense. It would be 

 difficult to name any one who ever formally ac- 

 cepted his system as a whole. But the worth of 

 a philosopher to the world is measured not by the 

 number of people who accept his system, or by 

 the failure of criticism to detect logical flaws in 

 it, but by the life and strength of the ideas he 

 sets stirring in men's minds. Systems are the 

 perishable body of philosophy, ideas are the liv- 

 ing soul. Judged by this test, Spinoza stands on 

 a height of eminence such as very few other think- 

 ers have attained. 



— Nineteenth Century. 



SOME KEMAEKS ON THE LIBERTY OF SCIENCE. 1 



Bt FEIEDEICH VON HELLWALD. 



r)EPEATEDLY, during the last few years, 

 ^ have we made the curious observation 

 that the bitterest and most formidable opponents 

 of the monistic conception of the cosmos, as 

 based on the theory of evolution, are to be found 

 not at all in that camp which is commonly sup- 



J Translated from the German by J. Fitzgerald, 

 A.M. 



posed to be most hostile to progress and free 

 thought, and which in political life we are wont 

 to designate as orthodox and ultramontane ; but 

 rather in the camp of those whose boast it is that 

 they uphold the banner of political liberalism, of 

 progress, and of free thought. These "obscu- 

 rantists in the liberal camp," as I am wont to 

 call them, are far more dangerous foes of the 



