its author was truly oppressed with the “weary weight of all this unintelligible world”; and if it be any one thing more than another, it is a poet’s pitiful meditation on the sorriness of life and the strange chances of death and misfortune—and to all +tha nrahlam nn Lay
The merits and defects of Prof. Genung's "Hebrew Literature of Wisdom" have been sufficiently illustrated. Minor defects, like the underestimation of the Wisdom of Solomon, may well be passed over in the larger value of the book. It is an earnest and sincere attempt by a well-informed and scholarly critic to apply without formality or pedantry modern standards of literature and life to the remarkable Hebrew books of wisdom. From the standpoint of the student of the Bible, of the student of ethics, and of the student of literature, Prof. Genung's book is alike interesting and significant.
SPINOZA AND RELIGION.*
The remarkable philosophical system of Spinoza has been held by some to be the very apotheosis of Jewisfi thought, inasmuch as it is supposed to contain the loftiest conception of a Creator—a God who pervades the universe in the most literal fashion; from. Spinoza have been garnered many phrases that are now the current coin of popular religious discussion, and around Spinoza has gathered a mist of tradition that culminates finally in the attribute “God-intoxicated!” Yet among professional students of metaphysics doubt has often arisen as to the validity of these notions, and, indeed, the chief moot point of Spinoza hermeneutical \ırerature has become: What is the nature of Spinoza’s conception of God? The book before us deals entirely with this point.
Professor Powell maintains throughout a well-considered thesis against the popular idea that Spinoza is essentially a religious philosopher. For, although Spinoza attrib-
*E. P. Powell: Spinoza and Religion. Open Court Pub. lishing Co., Chicago, Ill,
to his idea of Deity many of the customary attributes of orthodox theology, even the epithet of cogitans, yet three considerations make it doubtful that he was in reality anything but an atheist, using that term without any sense of opprobium. In the first place, it can easily be shown that Spinoza attached to the terms he employed interpretations to the various materials from the usual interpretations. Moreover, it may be questioned how far Spinoza was influenced in his choice of religious phraseology by his desire to avoid public controversy and accusation. Finally, philosophical students have long been divided into two camps on the possibility of reconciling Spinoza's general system of thought with the contradictory theistic terms employed at intervals throughout his works.
In his introduction, Professor Powell sketches briefly but forcefully Spinoza’s life; he shows that throughout his career he was imbued with the desire to avoid offending popular prejudices on religion and regarded the essence of his philosophy as but for a chosen few. “Cautious!” was the motto he inscribed on his seal-ring. After this consideration of Spinoza’s biography Professor Powell proceeds with a summary of the m&ny diverse opinions that have been held on Spinoza’s religious views, and then completes his introduction with an analysis of Spinoza’s doctrine of knowledge. Part One contains a technical and detailed investigation into Spinoza’s conception of God, beginning with his definition of Substance and ending with his ascribed content of the Attribute of Thought. In the course of this it is shown that Spinoza failed to attribute to Deity, as conceived by him, either cognition or volition, the word “God” signifying with him nothing more than biind causation. Having reached this conelusion as to Spinoza’s thought, Professor Powell compares it with the conception of religion as involving direct personal contact with higher powers, and makes it evident that Spinoza, “so far from being the religious philosopher pur excellence . . . represents the diametrically opposite spirit and world-view.” Finaily, in