the commandments of the Prophet. At the same time we must try, as long as we can, to keep up appearances with the Ghiaours, promise anything, and boldly affirm the execution of the promises. Deception is lawful with the Ghiaours.

Mr. Wood, our Consul-General at Tunis, puts in a clear form the simple principles of Mohammedan government. He says :

It must always be borne in mind that the Koran is at the same time a religious and a political code. All Mussulmans admit it to be so, and it cannot be expected, therefore, that, since their religion is intimately connected with their national policy, they will not make use of the former to carry out the latter. Their policy may be briefly defined, namely, the maintenance of their faith in its purity by exclusiveness and isolation ; the emancipation of the countries which have fallen under Christian rule; and the extermination of the infidel nations and races who, by refusing to pay tribute for the redemption of their blood, are pronounced by the Prophet to be in a state of open rebellion against the law, and consequently deserving of death. Enlightened and tolerant Mohammedans will endeavour to palliate these precepts by quotations from the Koran and Hadis; but they are not the less the cherished creed, the conscientious belief, of upwards of 200,000,000 Mohammedans.

This is a warning to all Europe. The countries which have fallen under Christian rule, but which were once Moslem, comprise an enormous territory in Asia, the best part of which is now British territory, and flourishing European states, such as Hungary. Supposing for a moment that the dearest wish of the Philo-Turks was gratified, that the Ottoman arms were victorious in this war, and that the Russians were driven out of Turkish territory. They flatter themselves doubtless that things would go on precisely as before, minus the 'intrigues' of Russia. Turkey, the firm ally of England, would preserve the road to India clear by keeping herself weak, anarchical, and ready to be dictated to and to yield to pressure. On the contrary, feeling she had defeated a country which has always seemed to her eyes the most powerful in Europe, Turkey might be pardoned some elation. Would she then continue to submit to the “Capitulations,' to that international agreement which recognises the impossibility of Christians being treated with any degree of fairness before the law ? In all European countries it is a matter of course that aliens must submit themselves to the laws of the country, so that even an Englishman accused of murder in France would, after due inquiry before a magistrate, be given up to the French authorities, supposing he had crossed the Channel. But in Turkey the subject of any Christian State accused of any offence, even the murder of a Moslem, would at once be delivered up to his own authorities to be dealt with. And why? Because the judges of Turkey from time immemorial have always been recognised as corrupt and fanatical. According to a large party of Englishmen, these judges are good enough for native Christians, but it would be rank cruelty to allow them to judge even the criminal classes of Europe. Under the changed circumstances produced by Turkish victories, the Turks would not for a moment

a

submit to the humiliation of the Capitulations. And what then ? Mr. Consul Holmes says that the position of Europeans, a very numerous population, would become intolerable, and that they would quit the country to a man. He is right. There would be an outcry all over Europe ; we should as likely as not hear of an English consul being impaled ; certainly Englishmen would be rotting in horrible Turkish dungeons all over the country. Would Turkey submit to our holding Aden, a piece of genuine Moslem territory? If she found that fortress too hard a nut to crack, she certainly would no longer allow the Arabs to furnish the garrison with victuals. They have but a few years ago tried to cut off the supplies. Would the Turks patiently allow the Suez Canal to continue to be a high road for infidels through their dominions? If they durst not openly lay hands on it, we may be sure they would block it up accidentally, for nothing would be easier.

Our philo-Turks, most of whom are grossly ignorant of the country, seem not to be aware that Turkey is endurable to Europeans only as long as she can be bullied. The ambassadors of the Powers are incessantly bringing pressure to bear on the Government, which yields only to menaces. This was the secret of the enormous influence of the 'great Elchie.' He browbeat and bullied the pashas, and played on their fears; he would be about the last man in the world to treat a Turkish minister as a civilised being. All this would be over if Turkey should come out of the war triumphant. Englishmen would find that they had been favoured merely because they were supposed to be the enemies of Russia ; but after that country had been disposed of Englishmen would be classed with other Ghiaours, but worse, inasmuch as they hold in bondage some millions of true believers. The elation of the Turks would not be the only evil ; there would be a general Moslem war-cry all over the world. In the Crimean days we flattered ourselves that we were propitiating our Moslem subjects by fighting for the Kaliph. A few months after the termination of the war Moslems were cutting the throats of English women and children. Russia is incessantly accused of 'intriguing' in the Christian provinces of Turkey; the charge now would be that Turkey was intriguing amongst the Moslems of India. These would be incessantly reminded that they were under the yoke of the Ghiaour, and they would naturally look to Turkey as their champion. How long under such circumstances could we keep the peace with this Asiatic people, which has been for hundreds of years the unmitigated curse of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, and has cost us so much blood and treasure ?

The tragedy now being acted in European Turkey is such as the world has not witnessed for ages. The Turks have swarmed over the country, ravaging their own territories, and indulging in hideous orgies that none but Central Asiatics are capable of. The Bulgarians, when

armed by the invaders, have here and there brutally revenged them selves, as might have been expected; but the worst symptom to ourselves is that there exists amongst us a large body of decent Christians who, faintly deploring these deeds as far as they choose to believe them, nevertheless join in the Turkish war-cry and profess to believe Turkish lies, despite the contradictions of our officials on the spot.

Happily, there is now little fear that the arms of Turkey will triumph in the present struggle. Nor is there much doubt that Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, at least, will be delivered from the bondage of Turkish administration. It is in Armenia chiefly that the English admirers of the Turk and his ways will strain every nerve to impose again on the neck of a long-suffering population the galling yoke which the sword of Russia has broken. The writer, however, can hardly persuade himself that the most fanatical among the advocates of Ottoman rule would deliberately commit so great a crime if they knew what they were doing. They really do not know what Turkish rule means for the helpless populations who are subject to its tender mercies. The evidence recorded in the preceding pages -evidence which can hardly be gainsaid-may peradventure open

eyes of those who would commit their country to the hazard of one of the most calamitous and flagitious wars in history.

HUMPHRY SANDWITH.

BENEDICT DE SPINOZA.1

It is now two hundred years since there died, in an obscure lodging at the Hague, Benedict de Spinoza, a philosopher appreciated in his own time only by a very few. His name was indeed widely known, but it was for the most part known only to be execrated. For some time after his death Spinozist was current among the theologians of Holland as a term of opprobrium. Spinoza's thought, however, was of that vital kind which sooner or later cannot fail to make for itself a way into its due place. Some three-quarters of a century after his death came the great awakening of letters and philosophy in Germany, and the leaders of that movement, among whom the name of Lessing must be mentioned first, were not slow to perceive Spinoza's importance. Ever since that time his influence has been a widening and increasing one: not that I stop to maintain this in the strictest sense which can be put upon the words, for I do not think a philosopher's influence is properly measured by the number of persons who agree with his doctrines. Philosophical doctrines have been, and will doubtless continue to be, matter of controversy, but it is no matter of controversy that the life of a righteous man who gives up all else that he may seek the truth for its own sake is a sure and priceless possession for all the generations of men who come after him.

Baruch de Spinoza was born at Amsterdam on the 24th of November, 1632. His parents were members of the Portuguese synagogue, a community established towards the end of the sixteenth century by Jewish exiles from Spain and Portugal, who had turned to the United Provinces as a safe asylum. For at this critical time Holland, it should be remembered to her eternal honour, was the most tolerant commonwealth in Europe. Spinoza was brought up in the course of Hebrew learning then usual, and at the age of fifteen was already distinguished for his knowledge of the Talmud. He was also familiar from his youth up, as his writings bear witness, with the masterpieces of the golden age of modern Jewish literature. From the tenth to the twelfth centuries there flourished at the

· In the course of this paper I shall have to refer several times to Dr. A. van der Linde's Benedictus Spinoza : Bibliografie (The Hague, 1871), which gives a full account of the literature of the subject.

a

Mohammedan courts of Spain and Africa a series of Arab and Hebrew philosophers who held a position with regard to the societies in which they lived much like that of the Catholic schoolmen afterwards with regard to western Christendom. Like the schoolmen, they set themselves to effect a fusion of the Aristotelian philosophy with the accepted theology of their churches ; and the schoolmen were in fact acquainted with their work to a considerable extent, and referred to it quite openly, and in general with respect.2

The Jewish schoolmen, if we may so call them, cannot be said to have founded any distinct philosophical doctrine; in philosophy they were hardly distinguishable, if at all, from their Mohammedan compeers. But they gave a distinct philosophical cast to Jewish theology, and thereby to Jewish education. Two names stand out foremost among them. Ibn-Ezra (1088-1166 A.D.) was a traveller, astronomer, grammarian, and poet, in addition to the learning in theology and philosophy which made his commentaries on the Scriptures classical. But the chief of all is Moses ben Maimon (1135–1205 A.D.), who became known in Europe as Maimonides, the father of modern Jewish theology. He was regarded with such veneration as to be compared to the great Lawgiver himself, so that it passed into a proverb, From Moses until Moses there arose none like unto Moses.' The Jewish peripatetic school was also represented in Provence, where, in the fourteenth century, Levi ben Gerson, the most daring of all the Jewish philosophers, and Moses of Narbonne were its most conspicuous members. This philosophical treatment of theology was on the whole generally accepted, but did not pass without controversy : in particular R. Chasdai Creskas, of Barcelona (ilor. 1410 A.D.), whom Spinoza cites by name, combated the peripatetics with great zeal and ability from an independent point of view. A mind like Spinoza's could not well have found anything more apt to stir it to speculation and inquiry than the works of the men I have named. They handled their subjects with extreme ingenuity, and with a freedom and boldness of thought which were only verbally disguised by a sort of ostentatious reserve. Both Maimonides and Ibn-Ezra delighted to throw out hints of meanings which could not

6

a