§2. THE HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS When Codex B was discovered it was found that the handwriting was the same as that of the notes and " out line " in Boehmer's copy of Colerus' Life of Spinoza, and rs.
HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cix Dr. Antonius van der Linde had already shown that the handwriting in Boehmer's Colerus was precisely the same as that of various manuscripts which were known to have been copied by Johannes Monnikhoff, an Amsterdam doctor who was born in 1707 and died in 1787. Preceding the Short Treatise in codex B is a long introduction in which reference is made to the year 1743, so that this copy could not have been written before then. The same codex also contains, at the end, Notes to the Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, all of them in the same handwriting. The Intro duction seems to be the composition of Monnikhoff, while the Short Treatise and the Notes were evidently copied by him. That the handwriting is that of Monnikhoff is certain from the fact that several manuscripts, at the Hague Library, written in exactly the same hand have introductions which are signed by him. We reproduce from one of these manuscripts a facsimile of some verses signed by Johannes Monnikhoff, for comparison with the facsimiles of several pages from codex B. According to F. Miiller, the book seller who discovered it, codex B of the Short Treatise accompanied a Dutch manuscript translation of Spinoza's version of Descartes' Principia. But of this there is no sign in the parchment-bound quarto volume which contains simply an Introduction on the life and writings of Spinoza, the Short Treatise, and the Notes to the Tractatus Theologico- Politicus — no more. On the back of the volume, however, the title is obviously incomplete. It says Benedictus Posthumous and there is evidently missing a second volume having on its back the rest of the whole title, namely: Benedictus Posthumous De Spinoza Works.
ex INTRODUCTION This is highly probable, because in another two-volume manuscript copied also by Monnikhoff the title of the work is similarly spread over the backs of the two volumes. And it is possible that the missing volume may have contained the Principia, or perhaps some other work, since the Prin- cipia was already published, in Dutch as well as in Latin. The Introduction in codex B, it is interesting to note, gives also a summary of the Short Treatise which is practically identical with the " Outline " in Boehmer's copy of Colerus.
Codex A is a much thicker quarto volume, and contains the Short Treatise, the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, and the Notes to it, all in Dutch, but the Notes are not in the same handwriting as the rest of the volume. A is evidently older than B, as may be seen from the very handwriting, which belongs to the seventeenth century, and is much more faded. Moreover, even a cursory inspection reveals the fact that the writer who had copied B had also been busy with A, which contains numerous, though mostly unimportant, additions in the same handwriting as B. For instance, at the beginning of the whole volume there is the following title-page in Monnikhoff's writing — " The Writings of Benedict de Spinoza, comprising " I. A Treatise on God, Man and his Well-being. "II. A Theologico-Political Treatise.
" Both of them with the Notes of the Author, and translated from the Latin."
Separate title-pages in the same writing also precede the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and the Notes. Again, follow ing the Table of Contents, there is a portrait of Spinoza apparently inserted there by Monnikhoff, who may have taken it from a copy of the 1677 edition of the Opera Posthuma, and facing it (on the left) are some well-meaning k££iib£L3^ [PAGE 14 IN A] ejL*A-=^z.
lr^n^&Z.Q [PAGE 23 IN B] HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxv lines on the portrait,* and both the writing and the thought are extremely like those of the other verses signed by Monnikhoff, of which a facsimile has already been given. There are also numerous page-headings, chapter- headings, and cross-references in MonnikhorFs writing. Occasionally he also inserted a word in the text, or re- copied an illegible note, as may be seen from the accom panying facsimile, where the illegible marginal note in the original handwriting is seen crossed out and rewritten by Monnikhoff as a foot-note. The corresponding passage from B is also reproduced for comparison.
It is clear, therefore, that codex A is older than B, and that the copyist who wrote out B also knew and used A. But when and by whom was A written? The writing, as already remarked, belongs to the seventeenth century. But it was certainly not written out by Spinoza himself. This is obvious already from the title-page, where we are distinctly told (in the same writing as the bulk of the manuscript) that the Short Treatise was originally composed in Latin, and that it was translated for some of Spinoza's disciples; and the whole tone of this title-page (or preface, as it might be called) is very unlike what we should expect from Spinoza. Moreover, a reference to Spinoza's autograph t is quite conclusive on this point. It has been suggested that codex A was copied by William Deurhoff (? 1650-1717), a Dutch theologian and a Cartesian. This suggestion derived con siderable plausibility from the fact that the fairly numerous other manuscripts copied by Monnikhoff were all of them the works of Deurhoff — MonnikhofFs signed verses, already given above, actually occur in one such manuscript, and face a portrait of Deurhoff. It seems, therefore, not un natural to suppose that Monnikhoff copied codex B from * Reproductions of the portrait and the verses are given at the com mencement of the Translation (inserted between pp. 10 and n). f See p. Ix.
cxvi INTRODUCTION A, largely because this was in Deurhoff' s handwriting. A comparison with Deurhoff's authentic handwriting is, un fortunately, impossible. The only authentic autograph of Deurhoff that has been discovered so far consists of his signature, written in 1685, and this seems to be insufficient to go upon with certainty. Dr. W. Meyer, who has seen the signature, thinks that it rather tends to disprove the con jecture that A was copied by Deurhoff. And the tone of the Preface on the title-page of A is also unfavourable to it, because Deurhoff had no such admiration for Spinoza. On the other hand, it may be reasonably supposed that codex A was the property of Deurhoff, and that Monnikhoff obtained it from him.
Dr. W. Meyer has made the interesting suggestion that codex A was originally the property of Jarig Jelles — perhaps the very copy of the translations which he himself had obtained of the Short Treatise and the Tractatus Theologico- Politicus. Jarig Jelles was one of the oldest and warmest friends of Spinoza, and had defrayed the cost of publishing Spinoza's version of Descartes' Principia, both the Latin and the Dutch versions. Jelles, who was a spice merchant, did not know Latin, and it may have been he who persuaded Pieter Balling to translate Spinoza's Principia into Dutch for that reason. It would appear that he also had the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus translated into Dutch, and that he was about to have it published in 1671. For, in a letter addressed to Jelles in that year, Spinoza begs him to prevent the publication of the Dutch translation of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, as it might lead to the prohibition even of the Latin edition. Accordingly, no Dutch translation of this treatise appeared till 1693, and then another followed in 1694. Now the Dutch version of the Theologico-Political Treatise which is contained in codex A is not identical with either of these two other translations, and it is most probably earlier than 1694, because a new translation would hardly HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxvii be made after two others had already been published. Codex A, moreover, bears some evidence of intended publication. Dr. W. Meyer, therefore, suggests that the Dutch version which is contained in A is the very same which was about to be published in 1671, but was kept back at Spinoza's request. And since the Short Treatise is in the same handwriting, and to judge by the preface seems also to have been intended for publication, Dr. Meyer supposes that Jelles had this also translated into Dutch, and that he intended to publish it together with the Tractatm Theologico-Politicus. He even conjectures that the translations were made by Dr. Lodewijk Meyer; but there is no real evidence of this.
One is inclined to ask whether codex A may not be identical with the manuscript which Rieuwertsz is reported to have shown to Stolle and Hallmann in 1703. But the terms of the report make it uncertain whether that manu script purported to be in Spinoza's own handwriting or in that of the bookseller's father. And, in any case, the state ment, in the preface on the title-page, that the Short Treatise was originally written in Latin, could scarcely have escaped their eyes, and, since they undoubtedly report that the manuscript was in Dutch just as Spinoza had at first com posed it, the probability is that it was a different copy which they then saw. There is no doubt, however, that manu script copies of the Short Treatise were extant, among various friends and readers of Spinoza, at the end of the seventeenth century, and codex A is most likely one of these manuscripts.
Both A and B, however, purport to be only translations, or copies of a translation, from the Latin, and not copies of a Dutch original. This is also confirmed by an examination of the text of the manuscripts, which contains various mistakes that can only be explained on the supposition that they are mistranslations from the Latin. Some of these will be indicated in the notes.
cxviii INTRODUCTION cxviii INTRODUCTION Again, codex A cannot be the original copy even of a translation, because it contains several mistakes which can only be accounted for on the supposition that they are mis- readings of Dutch words, writing (for example) alderwijste (wisest) where the context requires aldervrijste (freest). And codex B has far too much in common with A to be regarded, with any plausibility, as giving an independent translation of the Short Treatise. Prima facie the most plausible sup position is that A is itself a copy of an older manuscript, and that B is more or less a copy of A, and this suggestion is in large measure also confirmed by more internal evidence.
§3. THE TWO MANUSCRIPTS COMPARED In the main, both manuscripts give practically the same translation of the Short Treatise, although there are numerous minor differences, most of which are indicated in the present translation. In neatness of appearance and smooth ness of expression B is very much superior to A. In A notes and additions to the text are found sometimes all round the page — top and bottom, and to the left and right of the text. Sometimes it is difficult to know which is meant to be text and which is meant to be the note. In B, on the other hand, the arrangement is perfectly clear and neat. Similar differences show themselves in the compo sition of the two manuscripts. In A the punctuation is sometimes absolutely barbarous — there are whole strings of colons and semi-colons, bringing together ideas which have no real connection, while at other times full-stops dis connect what should have been connected. Occasionally also the trouble of translating technical expressions seems to be shirked, and they are simply given in their Latin form. All or nearly all such barbarisms are absent from HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxix B — the punctuation is quite normal, and it generally trans lates into Dutch, and does not simply reproduce, such expressions as a priori, a posteriori, attributum, essentia, idea, &c. Again, in A the second part of the Short Treatise has numerous marginal summaries of the text, in addition to the explanatory notes; B omits nearly all these marginal summaries, and also some of the notes. Apart from these relatively external differences between the two codices, there are also more important differences between them. A often has a sentence or an expression which B omits; on the other hand, there are only a comparatively few cases in which B has any important sentence or expression which A has not. Again, A has numerous mistakes which are not found in B; on the other hand, there are extremely few instances in which a passage is given correctly in A and wrongly in B. Illustrations of all this will be found in the accompanying translation and notes, though the punctua tion had to be somewhat improved occasionally. But such, in general terms, is the relation between the two manu scripts of the Short Treatise.
What may reasonably be deduced from the above facts? Some (Schaarschmidt, for instance) are inclined to mini mise the differences between A and B, and suggest that the improvements on A in B were made more or less arbi trarily by Monnikhoff, who had no other manuscript before him except A, and that he was guided simply by his own common sense or fastidious taste, as the case may be, in making the numerous alterations in his own copy. A great many of the differences between A and B might certainly be accounted for in this way. Sigwart, however, maintains that it is scarcely possible to account for all the differences that way; and he inclines to the belief (rightly, we think) that Monnikhoff had some other manuscript,* besides A, which enabled him to make so many improve- * This hypothetical third MS. is generally called C.
cxx INTRODUCTION ments on A. It seems clear, however, that the suggested other manuscript (if Monnikhoff really had another to consult) could not have been the original Latin manuscript or a copy of it, because some of his mistakes would have been impossible in that case. Nor, in all probability, was it even an independent Dutch translation of the original, because in that case B would most likely not have had so very much in common with A as it actually has. That Monnikhoff might have consulted another Dutch manu script of the Short Treatise (besides A) seems likely from the fact that Rieuwertsz, for instance, had such another Dutch manuscript (as Hallmann reports), and there may have been also others in Amsterdam, where Monnikhoff lived. At the same time, it is just possible that Monnikhoff had only codex A before him, and that his own critical insight enabled him to make the various corrections and improvements.
§4. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE SHORT TREATISE Even a cursory examination of the Short Treatise shows that it is not a homogeneous whole, bat a complex of parts in which a closer scrutiny reveals different strata of thought representing different stages of development. Compara tively external differences suffice to enable us to distinguish four separate parts in the Short Treatise, namely: (i) the bulk of the text of the treatise (both parts); (ii) the so-called foot-notes or marginal additions; (Hi) the two dialogues at the end of Part I. chapter ii.; and (iv) the so-called Appendices at the end of the treatise.
It may be remarked at once that no one seriously doubts that the Short Treatise as a whole is the work of HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxxi Spinoza. The only portions the authenticity of which may be doubted are some of the notes. Many of the notes to Part II. in A are evidently mere marginal summaries which were not made by Spinoza, and nearly all of them were omitted by Monnikhoff, no doubt for this very reason. They have also been omitted from all the published editions and translations of the Short Treatise. Some of the remaining notes (or additions) are also probably from some other hand than Spinoza's, and so is the preface on the title-page of A. Most of the long notes, however, are certainly Spinoza's own, and Monnikhoff says so expressly on the extra title-page which he wrote in codex A (which has already been cited above), while the "Outline" in Boehmer's Colerus states explicitly that Spinoza had added notes in further explanation and elaboration of his views. And the rest of the Short Treatise is Spinoza's beyond a doubt. The above-mentioned traditions about his Dutch Ethics with a chapter on the Devil, and passages in his letters, to which we shall refer when we try to determine the date of its composition, sufficiently confirm the authorship of Spinoza which is claimed on the title-page of both the manuscripts.
But, though Spinoza wrote the whole of the Short Treatise (excepting the suspicious notes) as we now have it, he evidently did not write it all at the same time. What we have before us is a first draft together with successive attempts to correct, or supplement, or reconcile various parts of it. The bulk of the text represents that first draft. The chapters are strung together more or less loosely; inconsistencies of thought or of expression are not yet removed. Some of the so-called notes or marginal additions are really new versions of the corresponding text, which Spinoza apparently meant to rewrite. They often represent a distinct advance in thought, bridging over the gulf be tween the text of the Treatise and the Ethics. The Dialogues cxxii INTRODUCTION elaborate special points, while assuming what has already been explained in other parts of the Treatise. Like the first Appendix, they also represent an experiment in the form of exposition. Spinoza evidently realised very quickly that his was not the art of writing Platonic dialogues. The second Appendix is concerned with the elaboration of a special point. The first, as already stated, is an experiment in the geometric form of exposition, and is intimately related to the Ethics. The Treatise shows us Spinoza in his workshop gradually shaping the material for his great edifice. It is, of course, all the more interesting for that. But it is prac tically impossible to determine precisely the chronological sequence of its parts. At one time it was supposed that the Dialogues were the oldest parts of the Treatise. Freuden- thal, however, has shown that they must have been written after the main text of the Treatise because they assume a knowledge of various views already explained in other parts of the work. Thus all that may be asserted with confidence is that the notes, the Dialogues, and the Appendices are later than the rest of the Treatise. It is also possible to determine which parts of the work were the last additions. Detailed information relating to these questions will be found in the Commentary. But it is important to note immediately that we are dealing with a book which was never properly prepared for publication, Spinoza having finally determined to recast the exposition of his philosophy in the geometric form, as we have it in the Ethics. The present arrangement of the Treatise is probably due in part to one of his disciples, whose insight was not sufficient to guard him against misplacing some parts, omitting others, and retaining passages which were meant to be discarded. Occasionally also readers' comments seem to have found their way into the text through the copyist's lack of dis crimination.
HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxxiii §5. THE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE SHORT TREATISE It is difficult to determine with any precision when the Short Treatise was begun, but it is comparatively easy to determine when it was already completed. About the end of 1661 Spinoza wrote to Oldenburg, saying, "as regards your new question, namely, in what manner things began to exist, and what is the bond of dependence between them and the first cause, on this subject, and also on the improve ment of the understanding, I have written a complete little treatise, and am at present engaged in copying and improv ing it. Sometimes, however, I put the work aside, for I am not yet sure about publishing it. I fear lest the theologians of our day should take offence, and, with their usual rancour, attack me, who have an absolute horror of quarrels." It is clear from this that the Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding was already sufficiently advanced for Spinoza to think of its early publication. But this cannot be the only treatise to which Spinoza here refers, because it contains nothing about the origin of things and their dependence on the first cause, with which this little treatise, to which Spinoza refers, is primarily concerned, nor does it contain anything to warrant Spinoza's evident apprehension that it would provoke the rancour of the theologians. Spinoza can only be referring, in this letter, to our Short Treatise, the style and contents of which prove it to be an earlier work than the Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding. The Short Treatise must have been already finished when Spinoza wrote the above letter to Oldenburg, but owing to his recent occupation with Bacon and the question of philosophic method, which he had also discussed with Oldenburg, he seems to have begun the Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding with the cxxiv INTRODUCTION intention of using it as a general introduction to his whole philosophy as contained for the most part in the Short Treatise. The opening passages of the former treatise, already quoted above,* are hardly appropriate as an introduction to a mere theory of knowledge, they refer rather to philosophy as a whole. Spinoza's growing pre ference for the geometric method, and his successful experiment in applying it to Descartes' Principia, also the gradual modification of some of his views, soon led him to begin a new exposition of his philosophy, such as he even tually gave in the Ethica. And the Short Treatise thus fell into neglect. But there can be no doubt that it was already completed in 1661, possibly already the year before, if we allow for the Treatise on the Improvement of the Understand ing, which, though a fragment now and probably even more fragmentary then, must nevertheless have taken him some time to write.
The main text of the Short Treatise, then, must have been written not later than 1661. It seems equally clear that it could not have been finished before 1660 — that is to say, before Spinoza's removal to Rijnsburg. The reason for this suggestion is to be found in the concluding paragraph of the Second Part of the Treatise^ It is really an epistle addressed to his friends, to whom he is sending the entire manuscript of the Short Treatise (before the Appendices were written). And its tone and contents strongly suggest that it was written to friends at a distance. Who these friends were it is not difficult to conjecture. They were Balling, Jelles, Meyer, and the other members of the philosophical coterie to whom Spinoza subsequently also sent the completed portions of the Ethica in manu script. His friends, then, were in Amsterdam. Had Spinoza still been living in or near Amsterdam, it would scarcely have been necessary for him to write that exhor- * See pp. liii. ff. f See pp. 149 /.
HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxxv tation. It must, therefore, have been written when Spinoza had already left Amsterdam and its neighbour hood, and had gone to Rijnsburg. And this happened early in 1660.
We would maintain, accordingly, that the Short Treatise was not finished before 1660. But, as already suggested, it was probably commenced very much earlier than that. Many or most of its chapters very likely contain the sub stance of the notes which Spinoza dictated to his disciples while teaching at Amsterdam. This seems to be borne out, to some extent, by a marginal summary at the side of the above-mentioned concluding paragraph of the Treatise.* This note seems to have been put there by a disciple of Spinoza, and speaks of the Treatise as having been dictated, while the text says that it was written. Very likely a good portion of the Treatise had actually been dictated to his friends while Spinoza was at Amsterdam, but the com pleted Treatise must have been sent to them in manuscript from Rijnsburg.
Avenarius has suggested that the Short Treatise was quite a youthful work; that the Dialogues were written about 1651, and the main text in 1654 or 1655. The suggestion was largely based on the assumption that the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was finished in 1661 or earlier. But it is known now that Spinoza did not complete it till 1669 or 1670. The comparative immaturity of the Short Treatise as compared with it does not therefore compel us to assume that the Treatise was written long before 1661. And the internal evidence is against such an early date as 1655. The tone of the concluding paragraph of Part II. shows that, when writing it, Spinoza had already acquired a certain authority in a circle of philosophical friends. He could not have written in that strain at the age of 22 or 23. Again, his reference to the " character of the age " seems to * See the first note on p. 149.
cxxvi INTRODUCTION point to his own excommunication as an event in the past. Moreover, the Treatise shows an interest in specific Christian doctrines and their reinterpretation (the son of God, Regeneration, Sin in relation to the Law, and Grace). Spinoza must have been moving for some time in a Christian environment to feel such an interest in problems of Christian theology. The characters he introduces as illustrations bear New Testament names, and he even devotes a chapter to Devils, in whom the Jews took very little interest. All this argues in favour of the supposition that the Short Treatise was not written till some years after Spinoza's severance from the Jewish community (1656). Freudenthal maintains, accordingly, that it must have been composed between 1658 and 1660. With this view we concur, allowing, however, that some of the additions may be later than 1660, while some parts of the Treatise or some of its views may date from before Spinoza's excom munication, because one of the charges already brought against him then was that he had asserted that extension was an attribute of God.
It is interesting to note, in conclusion, that when Spinoza made his literary debut he was already a pantheist. His pantheism was not in any sense a development of Carte- sianism; he started from it, and at once criticised the Car tesian dualism from that point of view. He probably owed his introduction to pantheistic views partly to Jewish mysticism, with which he must have been made acquainted by Rabbis Morteira and Ben Israel, who were both of them strongly inclined towards mysticism, and partly to Bruno, to whose writings, as already suggested, Van den Enden may have directed his attention. The Short Treatise shows also considerable familiarity with, and indebtedness to, the writings of Descartes, as will be shown in the Commentary. But Spinoza is never merely a follower of the Jewish Mystics, or of Bruno, or of Descartes. From the first he HISTORY OF THE SHORT TREATISE cxxvii has his own peculiar outlook. From the first he is, so to say, his own architect, though he obtains his bricks from many different quarters.
§6. LITERATURE ON THE SHORT TREATISE A. EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS W. Meyer: Korte Verhandeling (a modern Dutch version > also a new edition of Boehmer's Lineamenta). Amster