TheImpiousSpecterofSpinozism:SpinozainEngland17381854

JoeHughes

Imnotatalltiedtothedatesinmytitle,bothofwhichareclosetoarbitrary.
Thefirst,1738,istheyearWarburtonsDivineLegislationofMosescameout,awork
inwhichSpinozaappearsseveraltimesasthespecterofprofoundimpiety.
Warburtonrepeatsthroughouthisworktheclassicchargeofatheismthathad
beenleveledagainstSpinozasinceBaylesdictionaryandtheearlyreactionsofthe
CambridgePlatonists.Theseconddate,1854,markstheyearinwhichGeorgeEliot
beganworkingonthefirstEnglishtranslationofSpinozasEthics.Shehadalready
beguntranslatingtheTheologicoPoliticalTreatisein1849attherequestofher
friendCharlesBray,buttoothaches,headaches,andotherintrusionsfromdailylife
intervened.Eliotstranslationismyrealmotivationbehindaskingabouttheplaceof
SpinozainEngland:whatdiditmeanhistorically,politically,andreligiouslyforEliot
toturntoSpinozainthe1850s?
Thefirstandmostobviouswaytoanswerthisquestionwouldbetoturnto
EliotscontemporariesforwhomSpinozawas,inthewordsofRosalieColie,an
intellectualculturehero.1Inthemidnineteenthcenturytherewasarevivalof
SpinozasthoughtcenteredaroundJeremyBenthamandJamesMillsWestminster
Review,theperiodicalGeorgeElioteditedthroughouttheearly1850s.WilliamHale
White,amajorfigureinlatenineteenthcenturySpinozacriticismandtranslatorof
boththeEmendationandtheEthics,workedattheReviewfrom1852to1854;
GeorgeHenryLewespublishedaseriesofanonymousessaysonSpinozaforthe
Reviewandforotherperiodicalsthroughoutthe1840sand50s;andin1854Froude
publishedanarticleforEliotwhichFrederickPollockdescribedin1880asthethe
bestgeneralviewofSpinozainEnglish.2ForallofthesewritersSpinozaappears
notasanunrepentantatheist,butasafearlessthinkerwhointrepidlypursuedtruth

1Colie,SpinozainEngland:16651730pg.183n5.
2Pollock,Spinoza:HisLifeandPhilosophypg.xxxv.

eveninthefaceofassassinationattempts,excommunication,andperennialsocial
exclusion.3
Butthereisanoddsenseintheadmittedlyslimcriticalliteratureonthe
WestminstercrowdthatthediscoveryofSpinozainthe19thcenturywasa
discoveryandthattherewasnohistoryortheologicopolitcalcontexttospeakof
beyondthechargeofatheism.Thisistrue,inaway,ifwecompareSpinozas
receptiontothatofsomeonelikeDesCartes:theattentiongrantedtoSpinoza
certainlylookssmall,andespeciallyifwearehopingtofindsomethingbeyond
chargeofatheism.Butsmallisnotthesameasnothing,andthetheologicopolitical
tensionsofreadingandwritingaboutSpinozawerenotinsignificant,soIwantto
askwhathappenedbetweentheCambridgePlatonistsreviewandeventual
dismissalofSpinozaandhisrediscoveryinthe1850s.
Thereareatleasttwogeneralshiftsthattakeplacebetweentheinitial
demonizationofSpinozasthoughtbythePlatonistsandhisrefigurationasthe
greatintellectualcultureherooftheWestminstercrowd.
First,hisstatusasatheistbecomesconsiderablylesscontroversial.Itistrue
thatSpinozismwasstillinseparablefromatheisminthe19thcentury,andthatfor
somehewasstilldangerouslyheterodox,butthestakeswerenotnearlyashighas
theywereattheendofthe17thcentury.IfwetakeRosalieColiesclaimseriously
thatthestoryofSpinozasreceptionfrom1665to1732isalsothestoryofthe
gradualsecularizationofphilosophy,4thenWarburtonscharacterizationofSpinoza
astheimpiousphantasmofatheismin1738alreadybeginstotakeonthetintof
slightlyatavisticpartypolitics.Thisiscertainlythecasebytheendofthe18th
century,whenSpinozawashistoricallydistantenoughtobereadwithhistorical
interestorsotheCriticalReviewandtheEdinburghReviewwouldbothclaim.5In

3Froudesintroductionistypicalinthisrespect:Excommunicated,disinherited,andthrownupon

theworldwhenamereboytoseekhislivelihood,heresistedtheinducementswhichonallsides
wereurgeduponhimtocomeforwardintheworld.Spinozapg.275.Inhis1843SpinozasLife
andWorksLewespaintsSpinozaasayoung,playfulgeniustheyoungtruthseekerwhois
undeterredbythreats,bribery,andattemptedassassination.
4Colie210
5Forexample,in1802areviewofthePauluseditionofSpinozasworksinSmollettsCriticalReview
beginswiththeclaimthat,TheworksofSpinozaformimportantdocumentsinthehistoryof
metaphysicalphilosophyandarethusfarentitledtothecuriousinspectionofthosewholiketotrace

1792,inTheMonthlyReview,areviewerofHerdersGod,SomeConversationswent
sofarastosaythatthe

designof[Herdersbook]isbenevolent,andhighlyimportant.Itsobjectisto
vindicateSpinozafromthechargeofAtheism;andtoprovethathis
principles,rightlyunderstood,arecalculatedtoconveytousmorejust,
philosophical,andsublimeideasofGod,thanarecontainedinthesystemsof
otherphilosophers,whohaveescapedeveryimputation.

NotonlydoesthereviewertakeahistoricalapproachtoSpinoza,butthereis
alreadyahintofthereversalwherebySpinozaisnolongerseenastheonlyreal
atheist,buttheopposite,inthewordsofNovalis,athoroughlyGodintoxicated
man.
BythetimewegettotheWestminsterreviewers,sixtyyearslater,this
neutralizationofatheismandeventhereversalimpliedintheHerderreviewiswell
established.6WemaydisagreewithSpinozasconclusionsandwemayconsiderhis
philosophypreposterousandevenpernicious,Froudesays,butwecannotavoid
thefactthathehasdeephistoricalinterest.7Leweswilldirectlyconfronthis
readersandaskifwecanreconcilethefactofthisbeingamostreligious
philosophy,withtheotherfactofititshavingbeenalmostuniversallybrandedwith
Atheism?Isthisintelligible?ForLewesitisonlyintelligibleifweadmitthe
influenceofpartyvisionandtherashnessofpartyjudgment.8
Itbecomesharder,fromthispointofviewtosaythatatheismsimplywas
notadeterrentfortheWestminstercrowd.Yes,GeorgeEliothadrecentlytranslated
StrausssLifeofJesusandFeuerbachsEssenceofChristianity,anditistruethatJ.A.
FroudeattractedtheattentionoftheReviewpreciselythroughthescandal
surroundinghisNemesisofFaith,abookwhichwasimmediatelydenounced,burned

theprogressoftheartofreasoningandtoappropriatethesuccessivediscoveriesinideologytotheir
respectiveinventors.
6FroudeclaimsintheintroductiontoSpinozathatSpinozasinfluenceoverEuropeanthoughtis
toogreattobedeniedorsetaside(276).
7Froude,Spinoza276.
8Lewes,SpinozasLifeandWorks,WestminsterReviewpg.39596.

andgotitsauthorfiredfrommultipleacademicpositions.Butthehistoricization
andsecularizationofSpinozasthoughthadalreadydoneitsworkbeforeLewesand
Froudewereabletopainthimasafearlesstruthseekerintheintroductionstotheir
essays.
Thesecondshiftthatseemstooccurisprobablycloselyrelated,butmuch
hardertotalkabout.AsSpinozabecomeslesstheologicallyandpolitically
threatening,hisproponentsbeginnotonlytoopenlydeclaretheirloveandrespect
forSpinozaasaperson,buttheybegintospeakofthephilosophyitselflessasa
rigorousmetaphysics,andmoreasageneraloutlookontheworld.Spinoza
representsanewwayofliving,oranewattitudetowardexistence(youcanseethat
Imtryingtoavoidusingthewordethics!).WilfredStone,forexample,claimed
thatSpinozadefinedforWilliamHaleWhite,amoodratherthanametaphysic,an
attituderatherthanasystem.9ThisishardlyspecifictoWhite.
HeinrichHeinewilltakeasimilarapproach:PlatoandAristotle!Theyare
notmerelytherepresentativesoftwodifferentsystems,theyarethetypesoftwo
differentspeciesofhumanity.Platonists,Heinesays,aredreamyandmystical.
Aristoteliansarepracticalandmethodical.Spinozists,however,takewhatwecan
onlyguessisthebestofbothworlds.WithSpinoza,

webecomeconsciousofafeelingsuchaspervadesusatthesightofgreat
Natureinhermostlifelikestateofrepose;webeholdaforestofheaven
reachingthoughtswhoseblossomingtopmostboughsaretossinglikewaves
ofthesea,whilsttheirimmovablestemsarerootedintheeternalearth.
Thereisapeculiar,indescribablefragranceaboutthewritingsofSpinoza.We
seemtobreathinthemtheairofthefuture.10

ForHeine,SpinozaisthegrandsynthesisofAristoteliansobriety(natureinher
mostlifelikerepose)andPlatonicmysticism(aforestofheavenreaching
thoughts),andthusitistheblueprintforanewspeciesofhumanity,onefirmly

9QuotedinBoucher,SpinozainEighteenthandNineteenthCenturyDiscussions,v.IIIpg.187
10Heine,ReligionandPhilosophyinGermany:AFragmentpg.68.

rootedintheearth,butalsosimultaneouslyinconcertwiththemovementofthe
treetops.
Goethe,whoconfessedthathecouldhardlyrememberthedetailsof
Spinozasmetaphysics,tookasimilarpointofview:

whatespeciallyboundmeto[Spinoza]wasthegreatdisinterestednesswhich
shonefromeverysentence.ThatwonderfulexpressionWholovesGodtruly
mustnotdesireGodtolovehiminreturn[]filledmywholemind.Tobe
disinterestedineverythingbutthemostsoinloveandfriendshipwasmy
highestdesire,mymaxim,mypractice,andsothathastysayingofmine
afterwards,IfIlovetheewhatisthattothee?wasspokenrightoutofmy
heart.11

Ineachcase,forWhite,Goethe,orHeine,Spinozismislessametaphysicsthanitisa
wayoflife,acalminginfluence,orathoughtofthefuture.12
AndthusFroudesclaimsin1854seemfarlesssurprising.ForFroude,
Spinozaisnolongertheopprobriousobjectofrighteouscontempt,butasincere
andhonorablemanmotivatedbygenuineandthoroughloveforgoodand
goodness.13

Itisnotoftenthatanymaninthisworldlivesalifesowellworthwritingas
Spinozalived;notforstrikingincidentsorlargeeventsconnectedwithit,but

11Goethe,TheAutoBiographyofGoethe:TruthandPoetryv.IIpg.170.Laterintheautobiography

GoethewillturnthisSpinozismintoatheoryofpoeticinspiration.Ihadcometoregardmy
indwellingpoetictalentaltogetherasNature.Oftenatnight,thisdisinterestednaturewould
suddenlysurgeforthintheformoflittlesongswhichGoethewouldtrytoquicklywritedownbefore
theyvanishedbackintotheimpersonalanonymityfromwhichtheycame.Eventheslightestworldly
distractionwouldbeenoughtointerrupthisinspiration:InthismoodIwasmostpleasedtogethold
oftheleadpencil,becausethisgaveoutthemarksmostreadily;foritsometimeshappenedthatthe
scratchingandspirting[sic]ofthepenwokemefrommysomnambularpoetizing,confusedme,and
stifledalittleproductioninitsbirth.TheAutoBiographyofGoethev.IIIpg.5.
12ThedegreetowhichGoetheorHeineinfluencedtheEnglishreceptionofSpinozaingeneralisan
openquestion.GeorgeEliotandG.H.Lewes,however,werewellawareofbothGoetheandHeines
writingsonSpinoza.DuringtheirtimeinGermanyin1954EliottranslatedmuchofGoetheforLewes
sothathecouldcomposehisLifeandWorksofGoethe.In1856shereviewedHeineforthe
WestminsterReview.
13Froude,Spinoza275.

because(andnosympathywithhispeculiaropinionsdisposesusto
exaggeratehismerit)hewasoneoftheverybestmenwhomthesemodern
timeshaveseen.14

Howdoesonemovefromatheismtoheroworship?Ihavesuggestedhistorical
distance,secularization,andanincreasingtendencytoappreciatethepersonrather
thanthephilosophy(andnosympathywithhispeculiaropinionsdisposesusto
exaggeratehismerit)allcontributeinonewayoranother.
Butwhatelsehappenedbetweenthe1737and1854?Imcurrentlylookingin
twogeneraldirections.First,thereisthequestionoftheinfluenceofGerman
Idealism.ForColeridge,SpinozawasonestoponthewaytoSchelling.15And
conversely,formthepointofviewofSchellingandFichte,theSpinozanprojectand
itsrelentlesspursuitoftheinfinitemusthaveseemedfarlesssingulartoninteenth
centuryreadersthanithadtotheCambridgePlatonists.ThusLeweswillsuggest
thatSpinozawaslessproblematicifreadinthelightofFichteandespeciallyof
Schelling,whosephilosophyissaturatedwithSpinozism.16Thesecondpointof
viewwhichmightanimatetherevaluationofSpinozaistheattempttocreateanon
theologicalethicsthatwasntgroundedinscience.TheyoungGeorgeEliot,for
example,wasastonishedtoread,inBulwerLyttonsnovelDevereaux,ofanamiable
atheist.Andsheinstantlybegantopursuethepossibilityofanontheological
ethicsanditwaspreciselythispossibilitythatincensedreadersofFroudes
NemesisofFaithandwhichcausedGeorgeEliottowriteFroudeacomplimentary
letter.Ontheotherhad,GeorgeEliothadalsorejectedHerbertSpencersattemptto
giveethicsabiologicalfoundation(andnotjustbecauseSpencernotoriously
respondedtoaloveletterfromherbyexplainingthatasmuchasheappreciated
herintellectualbeauty,biologypreventedhimfromlovingherfully).DidSpinozalet
Eliot,Lewes,andFroudecutamiddlewaybetweennaturalismandChristian

14Froude,Spinozapg.27475.

15See,forexample,chapters9and10ofBiographiaLiteraria.
16Lewes,SpinozasLifeandWorkspg.404.

morality?Idontknowyet.ButIwouldgreatlyappreciateanycommentsonanyof
this.Thankyou!!