Page:Philosophical Review Volume 24.djvu/127

No. 1.] pathetic study, even if over subtle, is always suggestive. On the other hand, this skilful defense succeeds partly by ignoring those questions which are now most vital, viz.—were Spinoza's assumptions and method sound. The book contains valuable summaries of the Spinozistic literature on particular points, e.g., that of the various interpretations of the mathematical method in the footnote on page 31. Thirty-one pages are occupied with a Spinozistic bibliography.

The gist of this book is the contention that in the Theologico-Political Treatise Spinoza misrepresents his real attitude toward revealed religion. Although Spinoza's task is merely the exegesis of a material which he takes as given, he nevertheless seems to accept the point of view of revelation as valid. But Spinoza's real opinion, the author asserts, was that supernaturalism is inconceivable. His least convincing argument is that this misrepresentation was due to timorousness and diplomacy on Spinoza's part. The key to the whole treatise is "accommodation at any price." Of course, any such assignment of motive must be in the last resort conjecture. But the interpretation of Spinoza as timid and artful, while made plausible by isolated instances and statements, seems more like an interesting reaction from the traditional extreme admiration for Spinoza's fearlessness than an appreciation of his utterances in the complete context of his life and writings. Moreover, this solution of the problem of the Theological Treatise only creates a new problem in regard to Spinoza's personality, for with his recognized courage and sincerity must be harmonized these opposing qualities. It is more probable that the inconsistency of his concessions to revealed religion sprang from an intellectual rather than a moral short-coming; that is, he did not always think out adequately the implications of his position.

The Appendix, on "Spinoza in England " (1670-1750), the most exhaustive study yet made of that subject, shows that English philosophers either ignored or wholly misunderstood Spinoza until the time of Coleridge.

The fourth edition of the classical History of Politics first published by Paul Janet in 1858 under the title, History of Moral and Political Philosophy, has been revised on the basis of the notes left by the author and contains a preface with extracts from Georges Picot's excellent account of Janet's life and works