Herder and Spinoza

Michael N. Forster
As is well known, a great flowering of Spinozism
1
occurred in German philosophy in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Lessing, erder,
2
and Goethe! the German
"omantics Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schlegel, and No#alis! the German $dealists
Schelling and egel % all of them su&scri&ed to one or another #ersion of Spinoza's
monistic, deterministic metaphysics.
(hat was the source of this great flowering) Much of the credit for it has tended to go
to *aco&i and Mendelssohn, who in +,-. &egan a famous pu&lic dispute concerning the
/uestion whether or not Lessing had &een a Spinozist, as *aco&i alleged Lessing had
admitted to him shortly &efore his death in +,-+. 0ut *aco&i and Mendelssohn were &oth
negati#ely disposed towards Spinoza. $n On the Doctrine of Spinoza in Letters to Mr.
Moses Mendelssohn 1+,-.2, *aco&i, a champion of 3hristian fideism, represented
Spinoza's philosophy as the #ery epitome of all that was most wrong with philosophy's
reliance on reason. According to *aco&i, Spinoza's philosophy showed e#en more clearly
1
4his article cites Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus from the following edition5
0. de Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise; A Political Treatise, tr. "..M. 6lwes.
4he article uses the following a&&re#iation for this work7edition5 Tractatus. 4he article
cites Spinoza's Ethics from the edition5 0. de Spinoza, On the Ipro!eent of the
"nderstanding; The Ethics; The #orrespondence, tr. "..M. 6lwes.
2
4his article cites erder's works from two German editions, using the first letter of the
main editor's surname as an a&&re#iation in each case5 G 8 $ohann %ottfried &erder
'er(e, ed. 9. Gaier et al. S 8 $ohann %ottfried &erder S)tliche 'er(e, ed. 0. Suphan
et al.
+
than other cases that such a reliance ine#ita&ly led to atheism and fatalism. Mendelssohn
had admittedly in an early work, his Philosophical #on!ersations 1+,..2, tried to sal#age
Spinoza's reputation to a certain e:tent &y representing Spinoza's philosophy as a
significant al&eit inade/uate precursor of the true Lei&nizian;(olffian philosophy. 0ut
&y the time Mendelssohn wrote his more famous and influential replies to *aco&i, the
Morgenstunden 1+,-.2 and To Lessing*s +riends 1+,-<2, he too was &asically hostile
towards Spinoza's philosophy, essentially agreeing with *aco&i's charge that it implied
atheism and fatalism 1al&eit while also making room for a =purified> #ersion of it that
would a#oid such #ices, i.e. a #ersion that radically re#ised it in the spirit of Lei&niz and
(olff2.
3
So, prima facie at least, it seems rather unlikely that *aco&i and Mendelssohn can
deser#e much of the credit for the massi#e wa#e of positi#e appropriations of Spinoza's
philosophy that $ recently mentioned.
4hat wa#e's more likely main source surely lies in its own earliest e:emplars, Lessing,
erder, and Goethe, who, in sharp contrast to *aco&i and Mendelssohn, were all great
enthusiasts for Spinoza's philosophy.
4
0ut once this fact is recognized, it is only a short
further step towards realizing that the central figure here must ha#e &een &erder. For
Lessing's alleged late pri#ate confession of Spinozism, despite its undenia&le ,clat when
*aco&i re#ealed it, was am&iguous and philosophically unde#eloped % in sharp contrast to
erder's statement of Spinozism in %od- Soe #on!ersations.
5
And Goethe's first
3
For a helpful treatment of the *aco&i;Mendelssohn contro#ersy and of the two
philosophers' attitudes towards Spinoza, see F.3. 0eiser, The +ate of .eason.
4
3f. . Lindner, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus i Schaffen %oethes und &erders, pp.
+.?, +,<.
5
4he am&iguity and lack of de#elopment in Lessing's position ha#e since &een
somewhat reduced &y manuscripts of his dating from the early +,<?'s onwards, &ut these
were not pu&lished until the end of the eighteenth century and so had no pu&lic influence
at the time 1see M. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe und Spinoza, pp. +@A ff.2.
B
enthusiasm for Spinoza, which pro&a&ly dates &ack to an engagement he had with the
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in StraC&urg in +,,+,
6
and then continued in a &etter
known intensi#e engagement he had with the Ethics in +,,D7A,
7
was in all likelihood
inspired &y erder, whom he first met in a life;changing encounter in StraC&urg in +,,+
at a time when erder was already deeply interested in the Tractatus,
8
and who was
likewise already taking a deep interest in the Ethics and its monistic metaphysics in
+,,D7A.
9
1Accordingly, Goethe would later continue to follow erder's lead in the
interpretation of Spinoza when they re;read Spinoza together in (eimar in the early
+,-?'s,
10
and he would enthusiastically endorse erder's interpretation of Spinoza in
%od- Soe #on!ersations of +,-,.
11
2 $n short, erder was the central figure here.
Ea#id 0ell, in his illuminating &ook Spinoza in %eran1 fro 2345 to the Age of
%oethe, arri#es at a similar conclusion 1al&eit #ia a somewhat different route2. erder's
%od- Soe #on!ersations from +,-,, with its defense of a re#ised form of Spinoza's
metaphysical;religious monism and determinism, o&#iously played a central role in
generating the great wa#e of Spinozism that followed, and accordingly recei#es close
6
See 0ollacher, i&id., pp. .? ff.
7
See i&id., p. --! also Lindner, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, pp. ,D ff.
8
3f. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, esp. pp. +A@, +<?! Lindner, Das Pro/le des
Spinozisus, p. ,B. At this time erder was himself hea#ily occupied with the main topic
of the Tractatus, namely interpretation of the Fld 4estament, and as we shall see later in
this article, he was already strongly influenced &y the Tractatus.
9
For e:ample, in Sha(espeare 1+,,D2 erder remarks on how Shakespeare's mind made
the whole world into its &ody and all the world's characters and manners of thought into
its traits, =and the whole can &e called that giant God of Spinoza, GHanI 9ni#erse'>
1GB5.+.2! in +,,A erder touts Spinoza's Ethics to his employer, Euke F.6.(. zu
Schaum&urg;Lippe and gi#es him a copy 1$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5+A?2! and in
early +,,. erder e:plicitly preaches a form of Spinozistic monism in a letter to Gleim
1i&id., D5+.+2.
10
See E. 0ell, Spinoza in %eran1 fro 2345 to the Age of %oethe, p. @,.
11
See Lindner, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, p. +,B.
D
attention from 0ell. 0ut, as 0ell shows 1following earlier German scholarship &y Jollrath
and Lindner2,
12
erder's interest in Spinoza also e:tends much further &ack in time than
that work5 at least as far &ack as +,<-7@, when he &egan to take an interest in the
metaphysical doctrines of Spinoza's Ethics 1al&eit an initially crude and then for a time
predominantly critical interest2.
13
$ agree with 0ell a&out all of this.
owe#er, whereas 0ell goes on to argue that Spinoza's earliest positi!e influence on
erder did not occur until the mid;+,,?'s and that it then lay mainly in the area of
Spinoza's ethical #alues, which according to 0ell the early erder found largely
consonant with 3hristian #alues,
14
$ want to suggest that it already &egan as early as
+,<-7@ and that it included in addition three more important and interesting areas of
strong influence5 first, a certain hermeneutics 1i.e. methodology of interpretation2,
12
(. Jollrath, Die Auseinandersetzung &erders it Spinoza, pp. ++;+@! Lindner, Das
Pro/le des Spinozisus, esp. pp. <-;@.
13
0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. A+ ff. As 0ell points out, erder's references to the
metaphysics of the Ethics in +,<- are still crude, as yet showing little understanding of it
1they occur in a re#iew of some poetry &y Giseke in which erder praises the latter's
crude poetic representation of Spinoza's God as a sort of giant person KSA5B,<L2, &ut in
+,<@ they &ecome a lot more accurate, presuma&ly reflecting a serious reading of the
work 1see especially erder's essay %runds)tze der Philosophie K+,<@L2. 1Afterechoes of
the cruder interpretation can still &e found in +,,? at S-5+.A and e#en in the essay
Sha(espeare from +,,D, though.2
14
0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. .. ff.! cf. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, pp. ,?, +AA;..
0ell's interpretation mainly focuses on two e:plicit remarks that erder makes in his
Erl)uterungen zu 7euen Testaent 1+,,.2 a&out Spinoza and his fundamental moral
agreement with 3hristianity 1S,5D,A, A<B2. As 0ell says, there are good grounds for
erder's perception of such a moral agreement, including Spinoza's disappro#al of
hatred, anger, contempt, and en#y, and his appro#al instead of lo#e, helpfulness to
neigh&ors, and generosity 1e#en in return for the former, hostile attitudes2! moreo#er,
e#en some of the 3hristian moral #alues that Spinoza officially reMects, in particular
humility and repentance, nonetheless recei#e 8ualified appro#al from him 1pity is another
matter, though2. A further point of moral agreement &etween Spinoza and 3hristianity
that 0ell omits to mention &ut which must ha#e &een important for erder is their shared
moral cosmopolitanism, or moral concern for all human &eings as such.
A
especially &i&lical hermeneutics!
15
second, the political ideals of democracy and
li&eralism! and third, a distincti#e faculty;unifying, anti;dualistic, anti;idealistic, and
deterministic, or in short naturalistic, philosophy of mind. $ also want to suggest that
erder already took o#er Spinoza's metaphysical;religious monism as early as +,,D;.
1around the same time as he took o#er the philosophy of mind Must mentioned2. $ndeed, $
hope to show that these positi#e influences e:ercised &y Spinoza on the young erder
constituted a sort of incremental se/uence that o#er time incorporated increasingly
fundamental le#els of Spinoza's thought5 &eginning with hermeneutics in the late +,<?'s,
proceeding thence to political philosophy in the early +,,?'s, then culminating with the
philosophy of mind and metaphysical;religious monism around the mid;+,,?'s.
$n what follows $ shall &racket the relati#ely dull part of this whole story that 0ell has
already told, namely erder's early disco#ery and endorsement of /uasi;3hristian ethical
#alues in Spinoza.
16
0ut $ shall try to say something a&out each of the further steps of
appropriation Must mentioned.
15
3f. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, pp. +A?;B, +<.;<. 0ollacher anticipates this first part
of my interpretation to a certain e:tent, &ut not the ne:t two parts.
16
See for this 0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. .. ff.
.
1. Herder and the Tractatus
$t is a fundamental component of my account here that Spinoza's Tractatus had a maMor
positi#e impact on erder's thought &efore Spinoza's Ethics did % erder drawing on the
former work for central principles of 1&i&lical2 interpretation and politics &efore he
&ecame seriously committed to #ersions of the latter work's philosophy of mind and
metaphysics. 4his is a fairly no#el and contro#ersial thesis. So $ would like to &egin &y
making a few preliminary o&ser#ations in its support.
A first point to note here is that it would &e #ery surprising if the young erder, as an
omni#orously well;read Lutheran clergyman o&sessi#ely concerned with /uestions of
&i&lical, and especially Fld 4estament, interpretation, had somehow managed to o#erlook
the Tractatus, gi#en that the work was seminally important for those /uestions, and had
&een a stock fi:ture of disputations on &i&lical hermeneutics in the Lutheran world since
the +<,?'s.
17
Moreo#er, it is #ery easy to see why, e#en if he was indeed reading and
&orrowing from the work, the young erder would ha#e maintained a #irtual silence
a&out it5 namely, &ecause in eighteenth;century Germany the work was widely regarded
as a #ery witch's cauldron of atheism and political radicalism,
18
and was therefore not a
work that he could afford to associate himself with.
0ut, fortunately, we do not need to rest content with this sort of circumstantial
e#idence in support of the thesis that the young erder read and was influenced &y the
17
3oncerning the work's prominent role in the Lutheran world since the +<,?'s, see *.$.
$srael, .adical Enlightenent- Philosoph1 and the Ma(ing of Modernit1 2395-2495, pp.
B+<;+,.
18
See i&id., ch. DA.
<
Tractatus. For there is also a &ody of more direct e#idence that at e:actly the same time
as he was &eginning to take an interest in Spinoza's Ethics in the way that 0ell has
already demonstrated, namely +,<-7@,
19
he was also reading and falling under the
influence of the Tractatus. For e:ample, in a letter to amann from April of +,<- erder
repeats two of Spinoza's main principles from the Tractatus concerning &i&lical
interpretation % a denial that the Hentateuch 1the first fi#e &ooks of the Fld 4estament2
was authored &y Moses,
20
and a reMection of allegorical interpretations of the Fld
4estament % and then goes on to add the following re#ealing comment a&out his own
approach to the Fld 4estament5 =$ read orientally, *ewishly, anciently, poetically! not
northernly, 3hristianly, modernly, and philosophically.>
21
A little later, in August of
+,<-, erder wrote to Nicolai asking him to o&tain manuscripts &y 6delmann % who was
the most notorious Spinozist in eighteenth;century Germany, and in particular a follower
of the radical principles of &i&lical interpretation, as well as the radical politics, of the
Tractatus. $n doing so erder claimed that he was asking for the manuscripts on &ehalf of
an unnamed scholar7neigh&or. 0ut this was surely Must a su&terfuge, and one which
moreo#er elo/uently re#eals erder's sense of the danger in#ol#ed in &ecoming
associated with Spinoza's work and its adherents.
22
Finally, in an essay from +,<@ on the
19
0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. A+ ff.
20
Admittedly, erder fails to follow Spinoza in attri&uting the Hentateuch to 6zra.
$ndeed, in a short piece on the Fld 4estament from +,<@, "e/er Moses, erder e:plicitly
distances himself from such a position, saying that the Hentateuch is not &y 6zra, or at
least was not :ritten &y him 1SDB5B?A2. owe#er, note that this piece there&y also
confirms the impression that erder was thinking a&out and engaging with the Tractatus
at the rele#ant period 1as, indeed e#en more e:plicitly, does a citation of the Tractatus in
erder's contemporaneous +ragents for an Archaeolog1 of the East K+,<@L, to &e
discussed shortly &elow2.
21
$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, +5@,;-. Note in this connection that erder often
associates Spinoza with the Frient 1see e.g. GA5,+-;B?2.
22
$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, +5+?<. 3f. 0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, p. A+. As 0ell
notes, erder at his death possessed no fewer than fi#e of 6delmann's works.
,
interpretation of the Fld 4estament, +ragents for an Archaeolog1 of the East, erder
e:plicitly cites the Tractatus at one point 1specifically, in support of a certain
interpretation of the Fld 4estament e:pression =sons of God>2, there&y cautiously
showing his knowledge of and respect for the work.
23
Some additional historical points are rele#ant here as well5 Shortly after this first surge
of interest not only in the Ethics &ut also in the Tractatus in +,<-7@, erder in *anuary;
Fe&ruary of +,,? #isited Spinoza's nati#e country, olland, including Spinoza's home
town, Amsterdam, with a #iew to working there on an essay concerned with political
philosophy.
24
$t seems reasona&le to suspect that this #isit was partly moti#ated &y an
interest in Spinoza generally and in the political side of the Tractatus in particular. 0e
that as it may, the #isit must surely ha#e &rought the work's democratic and li&eral ideals
to erder's attention e#en more forcefully than &efore, &oth in the specific form of actual
Spinozistic political literature and ideas circulating in olland and in the more generic
form of the country's repu&lican;li&eral political practice. Somewhat later in +,,?,
erder went to stay in StraC&urg, where on a famous, fateful Septem&er day he met and
&efriended the young Goethe at an inn named =Num Geist> 1I2. (hile they were &oth
li#ing in the city, erder continued his Tractatus;inspired studies on the Fld 4estament,
25
and Goethe wrote a Tractatus;inspired dissertation concerning the relation &etween
church and state %
26
in all likelihood under erder's influence.
27

23
S<5+?@. 3f. 0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, p. AD.
24
". aym, &erder nach seine Le/en und seinen 'er(en, +5D..;<.
25
$&id., +5A?+.
26
3f. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, pp. .? ff. 9nfortunately, this dissertation is now lost.
27
3f. Lindner, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, p. ,B! 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, pp.
+A@, +<?. 4he hypothesis that it was erder who first made Goethe interested in Spinoza
at this early period is Lindner's rather than 0ollacher's.
-
Much later, in the early +,-?'s, erder would write a summary of the Tractatus.
28
And
later still, in %od- Soe #on!ersations of +,-,, he would % re#ealingly, $ suggest % &egin
his positi#e appropriation of Spinoza's philosophy &y paying cautious tri&ute to &oth the
&i&lical hermeneutics and the political principles of the Tractatus.
29
$n short, there is pretty strong prima facie e#idence not only that erder &egan to take
an interest in Spinoza's Ethics in +,<-7@, &ut also that he read and fell under the influence
of Spinoza's Tractatus at that time, especially in connection with &i&lical interpretation
and political philosophy.
2. Hermeneutics
As has &een mentioned, Must that period erder was himself hea#ily occupied with
interpreting the 0i&le, especially the Fld 4estament, and with the methodology of &i&lical
interpretation. 4his can &e seen from se#eral of his works, including5 On the Di!init1 and
"se of the 6i/le 1+,<-2, On the +irst Docuents of the &uan .ace 1+,<-7@2, and
+ragents for an Archaeolog1 of the East 1+,<@2. e was also occupied with the
methodology of interpretation more generally % as can &e seen especially from On
Thoas A//t*s 'ritings 1+,<-2.
(e ha#e already noted some general e#idence that erder was reading and drawing on
the Tractatus in this connection. $n particular, recall his repetition of two of the work's
central principles concerning the interpretation of the Fld 4estament in a letter to
28
See S+A5<@@, n. D. 3f. 0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, p. @,.
29
GA5<-.;<. 1+,-, was also the year in which the Tractatus appeared in a German
translation for the first time, perhaps under erder's influence.2
@
amann from +,<-, together with his general remark there =$ read orientally, *ewishly,
anciently, poetically>! his search in +,<- for manuscripts &y 6delmann, Germany's most
notorious enthusiast for the Tractatus and its approach to interpreting the 0i&le! and his
e:plicit citation of the Tractatus in the +ragents for an Archaeolog1 from +,<@.
0ut &eyond that, a detailed comparison of the Tractatus with erder's own te:ts from
the period re#eals such a striking and thorough agreement &etween their interpreti#e
principles that it &ecomes fairly clear that the Tractatus was e:ercising a strong, indeed
perhaps e#en decisi#e, influence on erder's interpreti#e methodology at the time. 4he
following are some of the specific points of agreement5
1+2 $n chapter , of the Tractatus Spinoza had reMected two common methods of
interpreting the 0i&le5 on the one hand, relying on di#ine inspiration! on the other hand,
reading the 0i&le as allegory 1or metaphor2 in order to find a rational meaning in it.
30

erder likewise criticizes and reMects these two methods, for e:ample in On the +irst
Docuents.
31
1B2 Spinoza had also in the Tractatus firmly reMected any reliance on authorit1 when
interpreting the 0i&le 1as in 3atholicism, for e:ample2.
32
erder likewise implies such a
reMection in all of his writings on the 0i&le from the rele#ant period 1as well as later2.
33
1D2 Spinoza had in the Tractatus instead ad#ocated a method of interpreting the 0i&le
in which the interpreter's inferences from rele#ant e#idence to the author's intentions
would &e similar to the natural scientist's inferences from rele#ant e#idence to definitions
30
Tractatus, pp. ++A;+-, +-?.
31
For his reMection of reliance on di#ine inspiration, see esp. G.5B,;D? 1cf. G@7+5D.2! for
his reMection of rationalizing allegorical readings, see esp. G.5@B;D 1cf. S<5,A ff.2.
32
Tractatus, pp. ++-;+@.
33
See e.g. S<5DD;-! G@7+5,D, -?;D.
+?
or a:ioms.
34
erder e:plicitly ad#ocates Must the same sort of assimilation of the method
of interpretation to that of natural science in On Thoas A//t*s 'ritings.
35
Moreo#er, in
works from the rele#ant period he applies such an approach to interpreting the 0i&le in
particular.
36

1A2 $n the Tractatus Spinoza had maintained that =words gain their meaning solely
from their usage,>
37
so that a primary task of the interpreter of ancient te:ts is to
determine what the rele#ant word;usages were.
38
erder from an early period holds
e:actly the same #iew.
39
1.2 Spinoza had also in the Tractatus emphasized the importance when interpreting an
ancient te:t such as the 0i&le of paying close attention to its distincti#e historical conte:t
1including the distincti#e condition of the language then in use2.
40
erder does Must the
same in works from the rele#ant period.
41
1<2 Spinoza had also in the Tractatus emphasized the importance in interpretation of
paying close heed to the distincti#e character of an author's ind.
42
erder likewise
makes this a central principle of the general methodology of interpretation that he
34
Tractatus, p. @@.
35
See esp. GB5.,+;B.
36
For e:ample, in +ragents for an Archaeolog1 and On the +irst Docuents erder
e:plains the Fld 4estament account of God's resting on the se#enth day of the 3reation
in terms of the ancient e&rews' wish to rationalize the human practice of taking a day of
rest 1S<5.-;<D! G.5DB;A2. Another good e:ample is erder's e:planation of the story of
the tower of 0a&el in On the +irst Docuents 1G.5+<D;.2.
37
Tractatus, p. +<,.
38
$&id., p. +?+.
39
See e.g. already the +ragents on .ecent %eran Literature 1+,<<;,2, G+5DBB, AB+;D!
then later On the Spirit of &e/re: Poetr1 1+,-B2, G.5+??,.
40
Tractatus, p. +?+.
41
See e.g. G@7+5D?;+! S<5A, DA;..
42
Tractatus, pp. +?D, +++;+B.
++
sketches in On Thoas A//t*s 'ritings.
43
$t also persists as one of the most striking and
important features of his methodology of interpretation in later works, such as On the
#ognition and Sensation of the &uan Soul 1+,,-2.
1,2 Spinoza had insisted in the Tractatus on the importance of sharply separating the
/uestion of the eaning of &i&lical te:ts from the /uestion of their truth.
44
Accordingly,
he was prepared to attri&ute false #iews to the prophets on many matters,
45
and e#en to
find numerous contradictions within the 0i&le 1&oth within the Fld 4estament and within
the New2.
46
4he early erder's approach to interpreting the 0i&le is strikingly similar5 he
too insists on distinguishing /uestions of meaning from /uestions of truth!
47
attri&utes
many false &eliefs to &i&lical authors!
48
and e#en ascri&es contradictions to them.
49
1-2 Spinoza had, though, in the Tractatus also drawn a sharp distinction &etween the
oral doctrines of the 0i&le 1i.e. doctrines that pertain to sal#ation and &lessedness2 %
which he considered to &e true, clear, and the sole proof of the 0i&le's di#ine origin % and
the 0i&le's theoretical conceptions % which, on the contrary, he considered unrelia&le and
43
GB5.,.;<, <?A;-. 3f. G@7+5DD;.! S<5DA.
44
Tractatus, pp. +?+, +?<, +,?;+.
45
$&id., pp. D. ff.
46
$&id., pp. D@;A?, +?<, +.D, +<D, +@D;A.
47
See e.g. GB5.,@;-?. 14his passage, from On Thoas A//t*s 'ritings, concerns
interpretation generally, &ut is of course therefore also meant to apply to &i&lical
interpretation in particular.2
48
See e.g. G@7+5BD;A and esp. S<5DB;D, ,<.
49
$n his earlier writings erder largely lea#es this last point implicit! it is implied, for
e:ample, &y his general claims there that the &i&lical authors often ha#e false &eliefs, that
the 0i&le is a haphazard collection of te:ts authored &y different human authors at
different periods, and so on. Fccasionally he comes close to making the point e:plicitly
as well5 =confused inMunctions> 1G@7+5BA2! representations that =contradict all our physics
. . . and all its pro&a&ility and certainty and consistency> 1S<5DD2. $n his later writings, he
makes the point e:plicitly. For e:ample, he o&ser#es in On the Spirit of &e/re: Poetr1
1+,-B2 that e&rew conceptions in the Fld 4estament concerning the mind7&ody
relationship, death, and an afterlife changed dramatically o#er time, and he also notes
inconsistencies in the New 4estament in the #hristian 'ritings 1from the +,@?'s2.
+B
unclear.
50
erder in early works such as On the Di!init1 and "se of the 6i/le draws Must
the same distinction.
51
1@2 Spinoza had in the Tractatus e:plained the false &eliefs and e#en contradictions
that occur among the prophets' theoretical con#ictions in terms of God's ha#ing chosen
to adapt re#elation to the low le#el of understanding which they and their audience
possessed.
52
erder in his early writings on the 0i&le gi#es e:actly the same e:planation.
53
1+?2 Spinoza had in the Tractatus emphasized the poetic character of the Fld
4estament.
54
erder in his early writings on the Fld 4estament, such as On the +irst
Docuents and the +ragents for an Archaeolog1, does the same.
55
4his emphasis
continued to &e a central feature of his approach to the Fld 4estament in later works as
well, such as the re#ealingly titled On the Spirit of &e/re: Poetr1 1+,-B2.
1++2 A further principle of Spinoza's in the Tractatus #ery closely connected to his
&i&lical hermeneutics was that miracles, in the sense of contra#entions of the natural
order, are not possi&le, and that God cannot &e known from miracles &ut only from the
natural order itself.
56
4he early erder holds e:actly the same position.
57
Now, it would certainly &e an e:aggeration to say that erder took o#er all of these
principles from Spinoza e;clusi!el1! other sources, including 3hristian 0i&le scholars
whom erder discusses more e:plicitly 1e.g. Lowth, 6rnesti, Semler, and Michaelis2,
50
Tractatus, pp. +??, ++D, +@A.
51
See e.g. G@7+5D<;-.
52
Tractatus, pp. A?, ,,, --;@, @?;B, +<D;A, +-?, +-B, +@D.
53
See e.g. G@7+5B.;<, B@! G.5B-;@, D.;<, +,?.
54
Tractatus, p. @B.
55
See esp. G.5B<;,, DA ff.! S<5D ff., B@ ff.
56
Tractatus, p. -B.
57
See e.g. Treatise on the Origin of Language 1+,,B2, where he applies this position to
the /uestion of whether language is a di#ine miracle or has a natural e:planation
1G+5-?-;@2.
+D
clearly played important roles as well. For e:ample, principle 1B2, the reMection of any
reliance on authority when interpreting the 0i&le, was a staple of Hrotestantism! principle
1A2, that words gain their meaning solely from their usage so that the interpreter needs to
focus on this, had &een strongly championed &y 6rnesti! #ersions of principles 1-2 and
1@2, concerning the 0i&le's moral 1or sal#ific2, rather than theoretical, purpose and its
condescension to the cultural le#el of its human authors and their audience, had already
&een championed &efore Spinoza &y Galileo! and principle 1++2, namely reMecting
miracles and seeing God as instead re#ealed in the natural order, was a fa#orite principle
of erder's own teacher, the pre;critical Oant.
Still, gi#en the independent e#idence for erder's preoccupation with Spinoza's
Tractatus at the rele#ant period 1as descri&ed earlier2, the remarka&le e:tent of his
agreement with the work's principles of interpretation Must sketched a&o#e surely does
show that he was strongly influenced &y the work in this area.
Also, one should &ear in mind that in addition to direct influence &y the Tractatus,
there is also likely to ha#e &een indirect influence. For some of the other authors who
influenced erder 1e.g. the 3hristian 0i&le scholars recently mentioned2 were pro&a&ly
themsel#es ultimately inde&ted to the Tractatus.
3. Political Philosophy
(hen one reads through erder's writings from the period +,<-;,A, one notices that his
political thought underwent a remarka&le shift at this time.
58
$n his sermons from the late
58
3f. F.3. 0eiser, Enlightenent< .e!olution< and .oanticis, ch. -.
+A
+,<?'s and the $ournal that he wrote in +,<@ upon lea#ing "iga to tra#el to France, he
was still &asically a champion of the sort of enlightened a&solutism that 3atherine the
Great was e:ercising in "ussia at the time,
59
and was &y contrast /uite am&i#alent a&out
repu&licanism.
60
owe#er, &y the time he came to write four poetic works in the years
+,,?;D % =3harlemagne> 1+,,?2, =6agle and (orm> 1+,,+2, the first draft of the poetic
drama =0rutus> 1+,,B2, and =Frigin, 3ondition, Hurpose, and istory of Monarchy>
1+,,D2 %
61
his political stance had re#ersed itself. For in these works 1including e#en the
earliest of them from +,,?2, he now con#eyed a strongly anti;monarchical, le#eling,
freedom;lo#ing political message. 0y the time he pu&lished This Too a Philosoph1 of
&istor1 for the +oration of &uanit1 1+,,A2 this re#ersal of political stance &ecame
more official and pu&lic5 he now presented himself as a harsh critic of modern
monarchy,
62
and &y contrast an enthusiast for democratic repu&licanism and freedom.
63
e
su&se/uently continued to champion this political position e#er henceforth, for e:ample
in the Ideas for the Philosoph1 of &istor1 of &uanit1 1+,-A;@+2.
$n addition, at a&out the same time as his own political position changed erder &egan
to ascri&e his new political ideals to the early ancient e&rews. 4hus in On the +irst
Docuents 1+,<-7@2 he says that originally, &eginning with Moses, they had a theocratic
=repu&lic.>
64
And in the later, pu&lished #ersion of the same work, the Oldest Docuent
59
See among the sermons especially the sermon from +,<- at SD+5AD ff. See in the
$ournal esp. SA5D.A;<, D,+, A?A;., AB?;+, AD+;B, A<,;-, A,D;A.
60
See esp. SA5A?@;+?, A<,.
61
SB-5++;B,! SB@5D.;@, DD.;,, A??;+.
62
See esp. GA5,B;A, @D! cf. +.;+<, BB;D.
63
See esp. GA5B.;-, where he praises ancient Greek #ersions of these ideals 1though at
@,;+??, +?D;A he is more critical of their modern counterparts2.
Note that in +,,A erder also pu&lished the final #ersion of his anti;tyrannical,
repu&lican;spirited poetic drama =0rutus> 1SB-5.B ff.2.
64
G.5D@! cf. +B<.
+.
of the &uan .ace, which appeared contemporaneously with This Too a Philosoph1 of
&istor1 in +,,A, he argues more ela&orately that they had originally practiced
repu&licanism and freedom.
65
ow is this sudden re#ersal in erder's political philosophy to &e e:plained) e was
certainly e:posed to #arious early influences that might ha#e helped to make him
sympathetic to his new political ideal. Fne was his teacher Oant's commitment to
repu&licanism and li&erty. Another was his own positi#e e:perience of the limited form
of repu&licanism and li&erty that he had found practiced in "iga while li#ing there in
+,<A;@, as contrasted with his su&se/uent negati#e e:perience of the oppressi#e
a&solutism that he found practiced in 0Pcke&urg when he mo#ed there in +,,+. owe#er,
these influences do not seem sufficient to e:plain his switch to his new political stance.
For one thing, the timings are not /uite right5 when he made his switch, Oant's strongest
influence on him already lay se#eral years in the past! his latest writings in "iga show
him still warmly championing enlightened a&solutism! and he changed his political
position /efore arri#ing in 0Pcke&urg 1as the poem =3harlemagne> from +,,? shows2.
For another thing, the influences Must mentioned fail to account for the democratic,
le#eling tenor of his new political position 1neither Oant nor "iga could &y any stretch of
the imagination &e descri&ed as champions of democracy2. For yet another thing, these
influences fail to account for erder's adoption of the ancient e&rews as a model of his
new political ideal.
So wherein lies the more pro:imate e:planation) Hart of it pro&a&ly lies in erder's
focus on classical Greece during the period in /uestion in connection with his writing of
an early draft of his main treatise on sculpture, Plastic 1draft +,,?! pu&lished #ersion
65
G.5<.?;+.
+<
+,,-2. For, of course, classical Athens was the #ery model of democratic repu&licanism
and li&erty. And erder in the early draft of the Plastic from +,,? accordingly writes
with enthusiasm of =Greek freedom.>
66
0ut $ want to suggest that another part of the more pro:imate e:planation pro&a&ly lies
in the influence of Spinoza's Tractatus. For among the most striking positions that
Spinoza puts forward in the Tractatus are a strong defense of &oth democracy and li&erty
1especially li&erty of thought and speech2.
67
Moreo#er, Spinoza had made a case in the
work that a political constitution of Must this sort had already &een practiced &y the
ancient e&rews during Moses' lifetime and for a period after his death 1&efore
e#entually gi#ing way to #irtual monarchy2.
68
Gi#en that, as we ha#e already seen, erder
&egan to fall under the influence of the Tractatus during the period +,<-7@, the work fits
perfectly as one of the decisi#e factors &ehind his change of political position not only in
terms of these contents &ut also in terms of the timing.
$ also suggest that erder's #isit to olland in early +,,? with a #iew to working on a
political essay while there was pro&a&ly in part moti#ated &y an interest in the rele#ant
political ideals of the Tractatus, and that the #isit will ha#e &oth deepened his
ac/uaintance with them and reinforced their appeal for him &y e:posing him to the
#i&rant repu&lican;li&eral practice of olland.
4. Philosophy of Mind
66
S-5+D+, +D<. 3f. his similar enthusiasm for Greek democratic repu&licanism and
li&erty a few years later in This Too a Philosoph1 of &istor1 1+,,A2 1GA5B.;-2.
67
Tractatus, esp. pp. B?.;,, BA+, B.-;<A.
68
$&id., esp. pp. BB?;+.
+,
Let us now turn to the aspects and phases of erder's de#elopment that were influenced
&y Spinoza's Ethics 1rather than &y his Tractatus2.
$t is important to o&ser#e here at the outset that what erder found attracti#e in
Spinoza's Ethics was more its conclusions than its arguments. For from an early period of
his career erder had &een #ery skeptical a&out the #alue of a priori arguments in
philosophy. Accordingly, one already finds e#idence of his skepticism a&out Spinoza's
apriorism as early as +,<@.
69
And in &oth of erder's works that are most important for
the issues we are a&out to consider, On the #ognition and Sensation of the &uan Soul
1+,,-2 and %od- Soe #on!ersations 1+,-,2, he deli&erately reMects Spinoza's apriorist
approach in fa#or of an approach that takes prominently into account what erder sees as
ad#ances in empirical science. erder is especially clear a&out this change of method in
%od- Soe #on!ersations, where he in particular e:plicitly reMects the apriorism of
Spinoza's geometrical method, and instead champions an updating of Spinoza's theory in
the light of current empirical science.
70
0ut erder is already engaged in such a re#ision
of Spinoza's method in On the #ognition and Sensation, where, for e:ample, he stri#es to
reach Spinozist conclusions #ia aller's recent empirical theory of =irritation K.eizL.>
1More on this anon.2
4hat /ualification noted, let us now consider how Spinoza's theories in the Ethics
influenced erder's own thought. $t seems to me that they decisi#ely influenced &oth his
69
See on this Jollrath, Die Auseinandersetzung, pp. +-;+@.
70
See esp. GA5<@-, ,?-, ,+,. For this reason 1among others2 Ea#id 0ell's criticisms of
erder for seriously misrepresenting Spinoza's #iews in %od- Soe #on!ersations are
rather &eside the point. erder's purpose there is not straight interpretation &ut rather
philosophical reconstruction.
+-
metaphysical;religious position and his philosophy of mind, and that they did so at
around the same time in each case5 the mid;+,,?'s.
As Ea#id 0ell has shown, erder already &egan to take an interest in the metaphysical;
religious monism that Spinoza had propounded in the Ethics as early as +,<-7@, though
initially a rather uninformed, and then for some time a rather critical, interest.
71
owe#er,
there is compelling e#idence that &y the period +,,D;. erder had &ecome a true de#otee
of the Ethics, and in particular of its metaphysical;religious monism. For e:ample, in his
essay Sha(espeare 1+,,D2 he o&ser#es appro#ingly that Shakespeare's mind made the
whole world into its &ody and all the world's characters and manners of thought into its
traits, =and the whole can &e called that giant God of Spinoza, GHanI 9ni#erse.'>
72
4hen in
+,,A erder takes the &old step of touting Spinoza's Ethics to his employer in
0Pcke&urg, the ruler of the principality, Euke F.6.(. zu Schaum&urg;Lippe, and gi#ing
him a copy.
73
Finally 1and most importantly of all2, in a letter to the poet Gleim from
*anuary of +,,. erder urges Gleim to su&stitute into one of his poems the 1Spinoza;
spirited2 phrase =All in allI> or something similar, and then goes on to say5 =An idea from
which our (est is /uite distant, and which Gleim could e:press so uni/uely5 that hea#en
is e#erywhere, that space and time disappear &efore God, &ut that e can only li#e where
there is thought, and where there is the purest thought, effecti#e lo#eI 4hat this is God,
God in e#ery point or rather in no point. $t is, as it acts, in eternity, raised a&o#e space
und time, em&races e#erything, flows together with e#erything that thinks and lo#es, and
71
0ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. A+ ff.
72
GB5.+..
73
$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5+A?. Similarly, in March of +,,A Nimmermann
thanks erder for sending him the =Eutch Hlato,> which is almost certainly an allusion to
Spinoza's work, and incidentally one which again re#eals the sense of danger in
&ecoming associated with Spinoza that pre#ailed at the time 1cf. Lindner, Das Pro/le
des Spinozisus, p. <-2.
+@
so accomplishes all the works that occur in the world, is GodI % 4hese ideas sound
fanatical, &ut are the coldest, most factual metaphysics 1read Spinoza, the Ethics . . .2.>
74

$n short, erder had already &ecome an enthusiastic follower of Spinoza's Ethics, and in
particular of its central principle of metaphysical;religious monism, &y the mid;+,,?'s 1a
full decade &efore the famous Pantheisusstreit &etween *aco&i and Mendelssohn2.
$n terms of erder's pu/lic philosophical de#elopment, howe#er, it was actually
Spinoza's philosoph1 of ind in the Ethics rather than this metaphysical;religious
principle that first impacted erder's writings. So let us consider the impact of Spinoza's
philosophy of mind in detail first.
Shortly after his more general con#ersion to Spinozism in +,,D;., as Must descri&ed,
erder pu&lished On the #ognition and Sensation of the &uan Soul 1+,,-2, a work in
which he de#eloped a #ery distincti#e philosophy of mind. 4his philosophy of mind was
clearly influenced &y more than one predecessor 1including, for e:ample, Lei&niz and
aller2. 0ut &y no one more strongly than Spinoza. Let me focus on some of the work's
key doctrines in order to illustrate this fact.
4he work actually e:ists in three drafts5 a first from +,,A, a second from +,,., and the
third, pu&lished draft from +,,-. Fne central doctrine of the work % already present in the
earliest draft from +,,A % is that cognition and #olition are at &ottom one 1erder also
says the same a&out cognition and sensation2. $n another work from +,,A, To Preachers-
+ifteen Pro!incial Letters, erder e:presses this doctrine in terms of a unity of
=understanding and will.>
75
Now this doctrine almost certainly already represents a de&t
74
$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5+.+.
75
G@7+5@@;+??.
B?
to Spinoza.
76
For Spinoza had written in the Ethics in a strikingly similar #ein that =will
and understanding are one and the same.>
77
0ut Spinoza's influence on erder's work &ecomes e#en more striking in the final
draft from +,,-, where se#eral further doctrines reflect it as well. 4o &egin with the most
important of these5 Euring the +,<?'s and the early +,,?'s erder had usually espoused a
fairly con#entional philosophy of mind5 dualistic,
78
or sometimes idealistically reducti#e
of the &ody to the mind Q la Lei&niz!
79
and li&ertarian
80
% in a word, anti;naturalistic.
$ndeed, he occasionally still implies such a position e#en as late as +,,.5 =K4he soulL is a
/ueen and not a sla#e5 it has a place outside the world in itself, and it mo#es the whole
world.>
81
0y contrast, in the pu&lished #ersion of On the #ognition and Sensation from
+,,- he espouses a position that is anti;dualistic, insistent that the &ody is at least as
ontologically fundamental as the mind, and deterministic % in a word, naturalistic. $ want
to suggest that this whole shift was largely a result of the influence of Spinoza's Ethics.
Let us consider each of its two parts 1i.e. the physicalism and the determinism2 in turn.
$n the pu&lished #ersion of On the #ognition and Sensation from +,,- erder sharply
reMects dualism and any idealistic reduction of the &ody to the mind in fa#or of a sort of
mind;&ody identity theory that accords the &ody an ontological status that is at least as
fundamental as that of the mind5 he says that =&odies . . . are perhaps not in nature
separated from the soul 1ps1ch=2 &y such strong walls as the rooms of our metaphysics
76
3f. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, p. +A,.
77
Ethics, p. +B+! cf. pp. +B?;+. $t may also &e worth noting that the first draft of On the
#ognition and Sensation from +,,A already contains reflections on the limitations of self;
knowledge 1GA5+?@D2 that are reminiscent of similar reflections in the Ethics.
78
See e.g. SA5D<A, SD+5B+D.
79
See e.g. GA5BD<, S-5+.+;B.
80
See e.g. G,+<;+,.
81
S-5B@..
B+
separate them KsicL,> and he insists that =no ps1cholog1 is possi&le that is not in e#ery
step a determinate ph1siolog1.>
82
0ut Spinoza had already argued #ery similarly in the
Ethics that =mind and &ody . . . are one and the same indi#idual concei#ed now under the
attri&ute of thought, now under the attri&ute of e:tension.>
83
4o &e more e:act a&out the nature of Spinoza's influence on erder here, this seems in
fact to ha#e &een a two;phase process. First, although, as $ recently mentioned, erder
during the +,<?'s and early +,,?'s usuall1 implies either dualism or an idealistic
reduction of the &ody to the mind Q la Lei&niz, there is one striking e:ception to that rule.
4his is a passage from On the +irst Docuents 1+,<-7@2 in which erder champions an
anti;dualistic, physicalistic interpretation of the Fld 4estament's conception of the spirit,
and moreo#er himself endorses such a conception.
84
e concludes the passage in /uestion
with the following summation5 in contrast to later positions that ha#e per#ersely di#orced
the spirit from the &ody and imagined sal#ation as lying in the separation of the former
from the latter, =the Mosaic document remains more faithful to the sensuous, simple
truth5 the human &eing is a life;endowed animal of the earth! he enMoys the earth! he uses
the life that God ga#e him! he is, in his earthly, life;endowed e:istence, and in an
innocent manner, happy within the &ounds of nature. $n no way, moreo#er, let him
destroy his essence, since this was one of God's purposes! let him not wish to free
himself from his &ody and seek fantastic forms of &lessedness in &ecoming a pure spirit,
since God has so;to;speak em&odied him entirely. e created the human &eing, the dust,
from earth, and merely wafted into this dust a weak &reath of life. 4hat is the human
82
GA5DD-, DA?.
83
Ethics, p. +?B! cf. pp. +D+;A, BA,;-.
84
G.5<@;,B.
BB
&eing.>
85
Now it seems #irtually certain that the interpretation of the Fld 4estament's
conception of spirit that erder is offering and philosophically endorsing here is taken
directly from Spinoza's Tractatus. For erder &ases it on the following more specific
reading of the Fld 4estament's position that he gi#es a little earlier in the same passage5
=$s the human &eing dust alone, though) % NoI the earthen creature &lows7&reathes
KhauchtL, &reathes KatetL, li#es.>
86
0ut in the Tractatus Spinoza had gi#en precisely the
same analysis of the Fld 4estament concept of ruagh, or spirit5 =(e must determine the
e:act signification of the e&rew word ruagh, commonly translated spirit. 4he word
ruagh literally means wind, e.g. the south wind, &ut it is fre/uently employed in other
deri#ati#e significations. $t is used as e/ui#alent to, 1+2 0reath . . . 1B2 Life, or
&reathing . . .>
87

Second, concerning the period of On the #ognition and Sensation itself5 erder already
en#isaged a sort of intimate union &etween mind and &ody in the first draft from +,,A.
0ut at that time his idea was still &asically that it consisted in a reduction of &odies to
minds, or monads, Q la Lei&niz.
88
owe#er, in the second draft from +,,. erder added a
partly critical &ut partly positi#e e:plicit discussion of Spinoza. $n the course of it he
noted Spinoza's distinction &etween God's two known attri&utes, thought and e:tension
1or as erder calls the latter, =motion>2, made his well;known accusation that Spinoza
had failed to unite these 1an accusation he would later repeat in %od- Soe
#on!ersations2, &ut also 1less famously, and here most importantly2 hinted that Spinoza
had nonetheless somehow aspired to unite them, more specifically in a way that did not
85
G.5,B.
86
G.5<@.
87
Tractatus, p. +@.
88
See e.g. GA5+?@A. 3f. GA5BD<! S-5+.+;B, D??.
BD
in#ol#e a reduction in either direction5 =0oth are properties of one &eing, which Spinoza
forgot or despaired to &ring closer together since he had remo#ed them so far from
himself.>
89
erder's own /uasi;physiological account of the mind in the second and third
drafts of On the #ognition and Sensation in terms of aller's phenomenon of =irritation
K.eizL> can therefore &e seen as an attempt on erder's part to realize Spinoza*s goal of
esta/lishing an identit1 of ind and /od1 that does not sipl1 reduce one of the to the
other. For erder usually concei#es of =irritation> 1a phenomenon paradigmatically
e:emplified &y muscle fi&ers contracting in response to the application of a physical
stimulus &ut then rela:ing upon its remo#al2 as a phenomenon that com&ines physical
with primiti#e mental traits.
90
3oncerning ne:t erder's switch from li&ertarianism to determinism, in the pu&lished
#ersion of On the #ognition and Sensation from +,,- he strikingly reMects li&ertarianism
in fa#or of a form of determinism regarding the indi#idual human &eing5 =Fne is a serf of
mechanism . . . and imagines oneself free! a sla#e in chains and dreams that they are
wreaths of flowers . . . ere it is truly the first germ of freedom to feel that one is not free
and what &onds hold one.>
91
0ut now, Spinoza had argued #ery similarly in the Ethics
that =men are mistaken in thinking themsel#es free! their opinion is made up of
89
S-5B<<! emphasis added. 3f. later GA5,?,, ,?@.
90
$ actually think that erder's recently /uoted passage from +,<-7@ concerning the Fld
4estament's conception of spirit and certain passages in the second and third drafts of On
the #ognition and Sensation suggest the e#en more radical position of a sort of reduction
of mind to &ody. And in other work $ ha#e emphasized this more radical strand in his
thought &ecause of its intrinsic philosophical #alue 1see e.g. my After &erder- Philosoph1
of Language in the %eran Tradition, p. B-2. ere, howe#er, $ shall set it aside in order
to focus on his more official position, as descri&ed a&o#e.
91
GA5D<B.
BA
consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes &y which they are
conditioned.>
92
Moreo#er, in this case erder makes his de&t to Spinoza e:plicit, for immediately after
the passage Must /uoted in which he says that freedom is an illusion &ased on the reality of
a sort of sla#ery, and hints that recognizing this fact constitutes the first step towards a
truer sort of freedom 1=it is truly the first germ of freedom to feel that one is not free>2,
erder goes on to de#elop a more specific #ersion of such a line of thought which
Spinoza had already articulated in the Ethics, and to attri&ute it to Spinoza e:plicitly5
=(here the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 4he deeper, purer, and more di#ine our
cognition is, the purer, more di#ine, and more uni#ersal is our efficacy, and so the freer
our freedom . . . (e stand on higher ground, and with each thing on its ground, roam in
the great sensorium of God's creation, the flame of all thinking and feeling, lo!e. 4his is
the highest reason, and the purest, most di#ine #olition. $f we do not wish to &elie#e the
holy St. *ohn a&out this, then we may &elie#e the undou&tedly still more di#ine Spinoza,
whose philosophy and ethics re#ol#e entirely around this a:le.>
93
Finally, as can also &e seen from this passage, erder's philosophy of mind in On the
#ognition and Sensation owes an additional intellectual de&t to Spinoza's Ethics as well
1al&eit one that is likely to strike philosophers today as far less attracti#e than the others
discussed a&o#e25 namely, a doctrine that there is an ultimate unity of cognition and lo#e.
4his is, of course, a #ersion of Spinoza's famous doctrine, from near the end of the
Ethics, of an aor dei intellectualis.
94
92
Ethics, p. +?-.
93
GA5D<D. 3f. erder's later e:plicit commitment to Spinoza's determinism in %od-
Soe #on!ersations 1GA5,DA, ,A+;B, ,<<;,, ,-<;,2.
94
Ethics, pp. B<D;<. 3f. 0ollacher, Der 0unge %oethe, pp. +A,;-.
B.
$n short, se#eral of the most central and interesting doctrines in the philosophy of mind
that erder espouses in On the #ognition and Sensation from +,,- are largely due to
Spinoza's influence.
B<
5. Metaphysical-religious Monism and Global eterminism
erder's ne:t and final pu/lic step in his progressi#e appropriation of Spinoza's
philosophy concerns the e#en more philosophically fundamental le#el of etaph1sics
and religion, especially the doctrines of metaphysical;religious monism and glo&al 1i.e.
unrestricted2 determinism. 4his step is much &etter known than the preceding steps, at
least in general outline. So my discussion of it here can &e somewhat &riefer than would
otherwise &e warranted.
As we ha#e seen, erder already &egan to show an interest in this side of Spinoza's
thought in +,<-7@, and then &asically espoused it himself in +,,D;.. 4he passage $
recently /uoted from On the #ognition and Sensation of +,,- might perhaps already &e
interpreted as implying it pu&licly, &ut if so then only rather o&scurely. erder's
continuing and indeed growing identification with it is su&se/uently shown &y the fact
that he and Goethe &egan an intensi#e study of Spinoza's Ethics together in the early
+,-?'s. 4hen in +,-A erder's preface to his Ideas for the Philosoph1 of &istor1 of
&uanit1 1+,-A;@+2 clearly implies a neo;Spinozistic metaphysical;religious monism,
95

as well as a neo;Spinozistic glo&al determinism.
96
erder thus already em&raced the core
of Spinoza's metaphysical;religious position long &efore the *aco&i;Mendelssohn
contro#ersy concerning it e:ploded in +,-..
95
G<5+,.
96
G<5+A;+.. As the Ideas unfolds, erder adds a Spinozistic reMection of appeals to final
causes in order to e:plain either nature or history 1see e.g. in the 4hird Hart, pu&lished in
+,-,, G<5.<-;@, <BD, <B.2.
B,
4hat contro#ersy largely Must ga#e erder the courage to =come out> as a Spinozist
1especially &y re#ealing pu&licly that the highly respected and much mourned Lessing
had also &een a Spinozist2. Accordingly, in a letter to Gleim from +,-< erder roundly
declares, =$ch &in ein Spinozist,>
97
and then in +,-, he pu&lishes his most e:plicit,
detailed statement and defense of a neo;Spinozistic monism and determinism, the famous
%od- Soe #on!ersations.
4he contro#ersy also prompted erder to de#elop and defend his own #ersion of
Spinoza's metaphysical;religious position more fully than &efore, howe#er. So let us
consider the form that this de#elopment and defense took.
As $ ha#e already mentioned, erder pu&lished %od- Soe #on!ersations in the wake
of *aco&i's On the Doctrine of Spinoza in Letters to Mr. Moses Mendelssohn 1+,-.2 and
Mendelssohn's replies to it, Morgenstunden 1+,-.2 and To Lessing*s +riends 1+,-<2. $n
the Letters *aco&i had re#ealed that the highly respected philosopher, critic, and dramatist
Lessing 1who was greatly respected &y erder in particular2 had confessed to him shortly
&efore his death that he had a&andoned orthodo: religious conceptions in fa#or of
Spinozism. *aco&i had himself argued in the Letters, in a sharply contrary philosophical
spirit, that Spinozism, and indeed any fundamental reliance on reason, implies atheism
and fatalism, and should therefore &e reMected in fa#or of a leap of faith to a con#entional
3hristian theism. Mendelssohn had then responded &y /uestioning *aco&i's report a&out
Lessing in #arious ways 1Lessing was pro&a&ly Must playing de#il's ad#ocate, Lessing
was pro&a&ly Must ha#ing fun with *aco&i, etc. etc.2, and &y suggesting that while *aco&i's
charge that Spinozism implied atheism and fatalism was &asically correct, such a position
could &e rationally refuted, so that reason itself was innocent, and moreo#er it could &e
97
$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, .5+,B.
B-
re;cast in a =purified> form that a#oided the #ices in /uestion. *aco&i's work and
Mendelssohn's response caused a pu&lic furor. $n %od- Soe #on!ersations erder
inter#ened. 4here he &roadly supports Lessing's side of the de&ate against *aco&i, and to
some e:tent also against Mendelssohn, &y defending a #ersion of =Spinozism> %
98
&ut a
#ersion that modifies the original in some significant respects, largely with a #iew to
defusing their o&Mections.
A&o#e all5 1+2 erder champions Spinoza's &asic thesis of onis and, like Spinoza,
e/uates the single, all;encompassing principle in /uestion with God 1which of course
immediately challenges the *aco&i;Mendelssohn charge of atheism2. 0ut whereas
Spinoza had characterized this principle as su/stance, erder instead characterizes it as
force, or prial force.
99

4his fundamental re#ision is closely connected with se#eral further ones that erder
makes, including the following5 1B2 Spinoza might with at least some plausi&ility &e
accused of ha#ing concei#ed the principle in /uestion as an inacti!e thing 1his concept of
=su&stance> and his doctrine that time is somehow merely apparent &oth suggest this,
al&eit that other aspects of his position, e.g. his conception of su&stance as a causa sui
and as natura naturans, tend to contradict it2. 0y contrast, erder's fundamental re#ision
turns the principle more clearly into an acti!it1.
1D2 Spinoza's theory had attri&uted thought to the principle in /uestion, &ut had
reMected conceptions that it had understanding, :ill, or intentions, or was a ind. 0y
98
See esp. GA5,A,;-.
99
$nterestingly enough, erder already prefigures this fundamental mo#e in a semi;
Spinozist, semi;Lei&nizian aphorism from +,<@ in which he says that all phenomena are
=the representation of a collection of #ery o&scurely thinking forces, and at &ottom all
oneI For life;forces, the forces of electricity and motion, the force of gra#ity must in the
end yet &e reduci&le to one Kauf EinesL> 1SDB5+@@! cf. GA5BD,2.
B@
contrast, erder claims that it does ha#e understanding, will, and intentions.
100
Moreo#er,
gi#en that his general philosophy of mind identifies the mind with force, his fundamental
identification of the principle in /uestion as primal force also carries an implication that it
is a mind. Accordingly, already in %od- Soe #on!ersations of +,-, he descri&es God as
=the primal force of all forces, the soul of all souls,>
101
and a few years later in On the
Spirit of #hristianit1 from +,@- he characterizes God as a %eist, a mind. $n these ways,
erder in effect re;mentalizes Spinoza's God 1there&y further undermining the *aco&i;
Mendelssohn charge of atheism2.
1A2 (hereas Spinoza had concei#ed nature mechanistically, in keeping with his
3artesian intellectual heritage 1and had there&y pro#oked the *aco&i;Mendelssohn charge
of fatalism2, erder 1though officially agnostic a&out what force is2 rather tends to
concei#e the forces that are at work in nature as li!ing, or organic 1a conception of them
that he mainly owes to Lei&niz2.
1.2 erder &elie#es that Spinoza's original theory contained an o&Mectiona&le residue
of dualism 1again inherited from Eescartes2, in its conception of the relation &etween
God's two known attri&utes, thought and e:tension, and similarly in its conception of the
relation &etween finite minds and their &odies 1while he also, as we already saw from the
second draft of On the #ognition and Sensation, recognizes that Spinoza aspired to
o#ercome such dualism2.
102
0y contrast, erder's own conception of God and is thought
as force, and of finite minds and their mental processes as likewise forces, is designed to
100
See esp. GA5,BA;-.
101
GA5,+?. 6mphasis added.
102
For this recognition in %od- Soe #on!ersations itself, see esp. GA5,?,, ,?@.
D?
o#ercome this alleged residual dualism, since erder understands forces to &e of their
#ery nature e:pressed in the &eha#ior of e:tended &odies.
103

1<2 erder also argues that Must as Spinoza concei#ed time to &e ultimately only an
appearance of God, a sort of image of a God who is really eternal,
104
so he should likewise
ha#e considered space to &e merely an appearance of God, not an outright reality.
105
$n
this way erder ad#ocates a #ersion of Spinozism that might &e descri&ed as a sort of
idealist acosis, rather than as a sort of pantheism. 0y doing so he further deflates the
*aco&i;Mendelssohn charge that Spinozism is atheism.
106
1,2 4owards the end of %od- Soe #on!ersations erder also sketches an account of
nature as a system of li#ing forces &ased in the primal force, God. is account ascri&es an
important role in this system to the sort of opposition &etween contrary forces that is
paradigmatically e:emplified in the magnet. And it characterizes this system as a
progressi#e self;de#elopment towards e#er higher forms of articulation.
107
103
See esp. GA5,?@;+?.
104
Spinoza does not classify time as one of God's attri&utes as he does space7e:tension.
$nstead, in Letter +B he characterizes time, along with measure and num&er, as =nothing
other than . . . modes of imagining>! implies that the attempt to understand su&stance,
eternity, etc. in such terms is hopeless! and adds that many people =KconfuseL these three
concepts with reality &ecause of their ignorance of the true nature of reality> 1Spinoza-
The Letters, tr. S. Shirley, p. +?A2.
105
See esp. GA5,+D. 3f. on this topic *. Nammito, =erder, Oant, Spinoza und die
9rsprPnge des deutschen $dealismus.>
106
$nterestingly enough, erder already prefigured this whole mo#e in his interpretation
of Spinoza in %runds)tze der Philosophie from +,<@5 =Spinoza &elie#ed that e#erything
e:ists in God. e therefore denied all radii, all planets! he only assumed a single center,
which he called God and world. Fne can therefore call him an idealist with as much right
as an atheist. 4he latter he was not> 1SDB5BB-! cf. GA5BD,2. For another, somewhat later
anticipation of this whole mo#e, see erder's +,,. letter to Gleim, as /uoted earlier in
this article 1$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5+.+2. Notice that there is a deep tension
&etween this mo#e and erder's Spinozistic philosophy of mind.
107
See GA5,,-;@A.
D+
!. "he #ormation of German $omanticism and German %dealism
4his article has focused on four sets of principles which, $ ha#e suggested, erder largely
took o#er from Spinoza in a sort of progressi#e appropriation of Spinoza's philosophy
that &egan in the late +,<?'s and then culminated in the mid;+,,?'s to +,-?'s5 a certain
hermeneutics 1or methodology of interpretation2, especially for the 0i&le! political ideals
of democracy and li&erty! a naturalistic philosophy of mind that denied any sharp
di#ision &etween cognition and #olition, reMected mind;&ody dualism and reductions of
the &ody to the mind Q la Lei&niz in fa#or of identifying the mind with the &ody in a way
that allowed the latter to &e at least as ontologically fundamental as the former, and
championed determinism regarding human &eings 1together with a more mystical
doctrine that the highest cognition is a form of lo#e2! and finally, a form of metaphysical;
religious monism, together with a closely associated glo&al determinism.
0etween them, these principles went on to form the #ery foundations of &oth German
"omanticism and at least the later phases of German $dealism % so that Spinozism really
lies at the heart of &oth these great German philosophical mo#ements. 4his is especially
true of the chronologically later, more philosophically fundamental principles in the list,
so let us now &egin with those and work &ackwards.
3oncerning metaphysical;religious monism5 As $ mentioned earlier, towards the end of
the eighteenth century and then well into the early nineteenth century a great wa#e of
neo;Spinozistic metaphysical;religious monism swept through German philosophy5 in
DB
addition to the three forerunners already discussed in this article, namely Lessing, erder,
and erder's follower Goethe, the founders of German "omanticism, Schleiermacher,
Friedrich Schlegel, and No#alis, all adopted it as well, as did the most important later
representati#es of German $dealism, Schelling and egel.
108
4his was all largely the result
of erder's espousal of neo;Spinozism, especially in %od- Soe #on!ersations, and
largely took o#er erder's modifications of Spinoza's position. For e:ample, when
Schleiermacher adopted Spinoza's metaphysical;religious monism in the +,@?'s he
incorporated into it erder's conception of the single principle in /uestion as a primal
force. Moreo#er, as $ ha#e argued in detail elsewhere, so too did egel at first, al&eit that
he e#entually arri#ed #ia an immanent criti/ue of such a conception at an e#en more
radical account of the single principle in /uestion 1as well as of the finite mind2 which
#irtually identified it with its manifestations in physical &eha#ior.
109
egel also took o#er
erder's re#ision of Spinoza's conception of the ontological status of space modeled on
Spinoza's conception of the ontological status of time, namely as a mere appearance of
an eternal God 1idealist acosmism2, as his own interpretation of Spinoza. $n addition,
egel took o#er erder's re;mentalizing of Spinoza's su&stance, like erder re;
concei#ing it as %eist, or mind 1al&eit while making it clearer than erder had that this
was not an interpretation of Spinoza &ut a re#ision2. 4o gi#e yet another e:ample,
Schelling's philosophy of nature % and in its train egel's as well % drew much of its
inspiration from erder's sketch of nature towards the end of %od- Soe #on!ersations
as a self;de#eloping hierarchical system of li#ing forces grounded in the primal force,
108
4he earlier German $dealists, Oant and Fichte, were also influenced &y Spinoza's
metaphysical position, al&eit in less o&#ious and straightforward ways. See on this
Linder, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, pp. +,<;-B.
109
See my =9rsprung und (esen des egelschen Geist&egriffs.>
DD
God, and as proceeding #ia the sort of opposition &etween forces that is paradigmatically
e:emplified in the magnet.
110
A similar picture emerges concerning the closely related Spinoza;erder doctrine of
glo&al determinism5 Schleiermacher's #ersion of Spinozism in the +,@?'s included this
feature. So too, somewhat later, did egel's mature philosophy, in which not only finite
spirits &ut also A&solute Spirit are concei#ed as su&Mect to necessity.
4urning to the philosophy of mind, Scheiermacher, &eginning in his most emphatically
Spinozistic period, the +,@?'s, &ut then continuing in his later lectures on psychology,
took o#er all three of the main Spinoza;erder naturalistic principles in the philosophy of
mind that ha#e &een discussed in this article in order to form the core of his own
philosophy of mind5 the denial of any sharp distinction &etween cognition and #olition!
the denial of dualism and of Lei&nizian reductions of the &ody to the mind, in fa#or of a
non;reducti#e mental;physical monism! and the espousal of a form of determinism. 4he
same is true, mutatis mutandis, of egel.
3oncerning the political ideals of democracy and li&erty, the continuity from Spinoza
and erder into German "omanticism and German $dealism is less consistent, &ut still
significant. For e:ample, Friedrich Schlegel was &oth a radical democrat and a li&eral
during the +,@?'s 1pu&lishing a short essay championing these political principles in
+,@<2. Schleiermacher was sympathetic with &oth democracy and li&eralism in the
+,@?'s as well, and continued to &e a li&eral throughout the rest of his career. And the
young Schelling and egel were also strongly attracted to these political ideals.
Finally, concerning Spinoza and erder's hermeneutics, or methodology of
interpretation, the following principles that they shared all went on to &ecome central
110
3oncerning this last point, cf. Lindner, Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, pp. +,A;..
DA
principles of Schleiermacher's hermeneutics as well5 that one must not interpret the 0i&le
on the &asis of an assumption of di#ine inspiration or in an unMustifia&ly allegorical way
or in deference to authority, &ut instead in the same scrupulously e#idence;&ased manner
as any other ancient te:t! that one must pay close attention when interpreting such te:ts to
their distincti#e historical conte:t! that one must keep /uestions a&out meaning sharply
separate from /uestions a&out truth, e#en when interpreting the 0i&le! that one must in
particular recognize falsehoods and inconsistencies in the 0i&le when they occur! that
meaning is determined &y word;usage, so that disco#ering rele#ant word;usages is a
central task of interpretation! and that one must also interpret in light of a knowledge of
the author's indi#idual psychology. 4hese Spinoza;erder principles also played an
important role in the closely;related, though less well known, early hermeneutic theory of
Schleiermacher's ally Friedrich Schlegel. 14heir influence on German $dealism was
significantly less strong, howe#er.2
D.
&. "he %ntrinsic 'alue of "hese Principles
4he influence that all these Spinozistic principles taken o#er &y erder e:erted on the
su&se/uent de#elopment of German philosophy is e:traordinary. 0ut their intrinsic #alue
is hardly less so.
4hat intrinsic #alue ought to &e fairly self;e#ident and uncontro#ersial where the
following principles are concerned5 the Spinozistic reMection of inspirational, allegorical,
and authority;&ased approaches to interpreting the 0i&le in fa#or of a more rigorous
approach! the rest of the Spinozistic methodology of interpretation! the Spinozistic
championing of democracy and li&erty o#er such contrary political principles as a&solute
monarchy! and the Spinozistic reMection of faculty;di#iding, dualistic or idealistic, and
li&ertarian models of the mind in fa#or of their naturalistic opposites. 14he relati#ely self;
e#ident intrinsic #alue of these principles has &een part of my reason for focusing on
them so hea#ily in the present article.2
0ut perhaps a case could e#en &e made for the intrinsic #alue of Spinozistic
metaphysical monism as well. For such a principle is suscepti&le to different #ersions and
#ariants. Spinoza himself identified the single principle in /uestion as God, and
concei#ed it in a way that accorded e/ual status to the attri&utes of thought and e:tension.
$n doing so, he was closely followed &y the early Schelling and the early egel with their
=philosophy of identity.> 0y contrast, the mature egel, while he likewise identified the
single principle in /uestion with God, ele#ated thought 1or mind2 o#er e:tension 1or
nature2 in his reworking of the principle. 4hen, finally, the tradition of Feuer&ach, Mar:,
D<
and su&se/uent naturalistic philosophy dropped the identification of the single principle
in /uestion with God, and recast it with an opposite inflection to egel's, maintaining a
priority of the material o#er the mental rather than con#ersely.
111
My own philosophical
intuitions, like those of many contemporary philosophers, sympathize most with the last
of these #ersions or #ariants5 atheistic materialism. (hile it would not &e correct to say
that this was Spinoza's own #ersion of his principle,
112
it does argua&ly still constitute a
descendant and #ariant of his principle. 4o this e:tent at least, his principle could perhaps
&e said to contain an insight that continues to hold philosophical promise today.
(oncluding (omment
Like Lessing &efore him, erder was committed to a profound cosmopolitanism. Again
like Lessing &efore him, he was there&y ena&led to repudiate the anti;semitism that
corrupted so many of his German contemporaries % including his famous teacher Oant
1himself officially a =cosmopolitan,> &ut one whose =cosmopolitanism> was more
hospita&le to some appalling anti;semitic, racist, and misogynist #iews than to all
people2. 0eyond that, he was also there&y ena&led to sympathize deeply with *udaism as
a religious and cultural tradition. "ecall in this connection his early remark concerning
his own approach to the Fld 4estament5 =$ read orientally, *ewishly, anciently,
111
For a helpful account of Feuer&ach and Mar:'s #ariants of Spinozism, see R. Ro#el,
Spinoza and Other &eretics, chs. D and A.
112
Ea#id 0ell is certainly right to reMect materialist interpretations of Spinoza % such as
Lindner's and Adler's % as interpretations.
D,
poetically.>
113
4his cosmopolitan open;mindedness towards *udaism also ena&led Lessing
and erder to take seriously, and e#entually to em&race, the thought of the greatest
*ewish philosopher of the modern period, Spinoza. 0y doing so, they not only redressed a
great cultural inMustice, turning Spinoza from &eing a pariah in Germany into one of the
most cele&rated philosophers of the age, &ut also, in the process, won for German
philosophy a &ody of #itally important ideas that would go on to enrich it for generations
to come.
114
)ibliography
0eiser, F.3. Enlightenent< .e!olution< and .oanticis, 3am&ridge, Mass.5 ar#ard
9ni#ersity Hress, +@@B
% The +ate of .eason, 3am&ridge, Mass.5 ar#ard 9ni#ersity Hress, +@-,
0ell, E. Spinoza in %eran1 fro 2345 to the Age of %oethe, London5 $nstitute of
Germanic Studies, 9ni#ersity of London, +@-A
0ollacher, M. Der 0unge %oethe und Spinoza, 4P&ingen5 Ma: Niemeyer, +@<@
Forster, M.N. After &erder- Philosoph1 of Language in the %eran Tradition, F:ford5
F:ford 9ni#ersity Hress, B?+?
% =9rsprung und (esen des egelschen Geist&egriffs,> &egel-$ahr/uch,
B?++
aym, ". &erder nach seine Le/en und seinen 'er(en, 0erlin5 Gaertner, +--?
erder, *.G. $ohann %ottfried &erder S)tliche 'er(e, ed. 0. Suphan et al., 0erlin5
(eidmann, +-,,%
> $ohann %ottfried &erder 'er(e, ed. 9. Gaier et al., Frankfurt am Main5
Eeutscher Olassiker Jerlag, +@-.%
% $ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, (eimar5 ermann 0Shlaus Nachfolger,
+@,,
113
4his approach e#entually reached its finest flowering in his On the Spirit of &e/re:
Poetr1 1+,-B2.
114
$ would like to thank the organizers and participants from two conferences at which
this article was originally presented for their hospitality, encouragement, /uestions, and
criticisms5 a conference on Spinoza and German philosophy that was organized at *ohns
opkins 9ni#ersity in the spring of B?+? &y 6ckart FSrster and Ritzhak Melamed, and a
conference on erder across the disciplines that was organized under the auspices of the
9ni#ersity of Fslo near 0ergen in the spring of B?+? &y Oristin GMesdal. $n addition to
the aforementioned organizers, $ would also especially like to thank the following
participants5 Fred 0eiser, 0rady 0owman, Michael Eella "occa, Haul Franks, Eon
Garrett, Haul Guyer, "o&ert Norton, Lina Steiner, Allen (oodT, and *ohn Nammito.
D-
$srael, *.$. .adical Enlightenent- Philosoph1 and the Ma(ing of Modernit1 2395-2495,
F:ford5 F:ford 9ni#ersity Hress, B??+
Lindner, . Das Pro/le des Spinozisus i Schaffen %oethes und &erders, (eimar5
Arion Jerlag, +@<?
Spinoza, 0. de A Theologico-Political Treatise; A Political Treatise, tr. "..M. 6lwes,
first pu&lished 1under a different title2 New Rork5 Eo#er, +@.+
% On the Ipro!eent of the "nderstanding; The Ethics; The
#orrespondence, tr. "..M. 6lwes, first pu&lished 1under a different title2 New Rork5
Eo#er, +@..
> Spinoza- The Letters, tr. S. Shirley, $ndianapolis5 ackett, +@@.
Jollrath, (. Die Auseinandersetzung &erders it Spinoza, Earmstadt5 3.F. (inter, +@++
Ro#el, R. Spinoza and Other &eretics, Hrinceton5 Hrinceton 9ni#ersity Hress, +@-@
Nammito, *. =erder, Oant, Spinoza und die 9rsprPnge des deutschen $dealismus,>
&erder und die Philosophie des deutschen Idealisus 8 +ichte-Studien-Suppleenta,
#ol. -, ed. M. einz, Amsterdam 7 Atlanta, Georgia5 6ditions "odopi 0.J., +@@,
D@