Britische Gassendi-Rezeption am Beispiel John Lockes (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 293 Bennett had minimized the significance of a very relevant passage in the Preface to Part IV of the Ethics:6 As [God or Nature] exists for the sake of no end, he also acts for the sake of no end. Rather, as he has no principle or end of existing, so he also has none of acting. What is called a final cause is nothing but a human appetite insofar as it is considered as a principle, or primary cause, of some thing. For example, when we say that habitation was the final cause of this or that house, surely we understand nothing but that a man, because he imagined the conveniences of domestic life, had an appetite to build a house. So habitation, insofar as it is considered as a final cause, is nothing more than this singular appetite. It is really an efficient cause, which is considered as a first cause, because men are commonly ignorant of the causes of their appetites. (II/2o6/ 27-2o7/12; quoted in "On Bennett's Spinoza," 47-48 ) In addition, Curley criticizes the arguments Bennett had used to support his position, indicating that one key argument betrays a lack of historical perspective, while another turns on ascribing a view to Spinoza without much textual warrant (44-46). In "Spinoza and Teleology: A Reply to Curley," Bennett responds to these objections, conceding that one of them isjust. Are the papers by Curley and Bennett atypically clear or interesting? Not for this volume. This is a wonderful collection, in which every article informs, and where the prevalent tone is that of excitement in discovery and analysis. Do I have any criticisms? Not of the book per se. With respect to the state of Spinoza scholarship it reflects, I would like to have seen more attention paid to the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, to the Short Treatise, and to the critique of religion in the Theological-Political Treatise, and more effort devoted to comparing Spinoza to figures other than Descartes on points of epistemology and philosophy of mind. AMY ROBINSON Hunter College, CUNY Rolf W. Puster. Britische Gassendi-Rezeption am Beispiel John Lockes. Quaestiones: Themen und Gestalten der Philosophie, Volume 3- Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991. Pp. 168. Cloth, DM 78. oo. Puster's book is very welcome as a contribution to the debate concerning the influence of Gassendi on Locke. The title is misleading, however. The book does not focus on the reception of Gassendi in Britain and the chapter dealing with this subject is perhaps the weakest in the book. This chapter, derived from a variety of secondary sources, sketches seventeenth-century Atomism, contains brief biographical sketches of some of the more prominent British supporters of Gassendist views, and gives a list of some of those who read Gassendi or who owned some of his books. But this is balanced by a 6For Curley's comment to the effect that Bennett had minimized the importance of II/9o6/ a7-~o7/1 ~, see note a4 to "On Bennett's Spinoza," 52. ~94 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 31:2 APRIL 1993 fascinating chapter surveying histories of philosophy over the years to show how Gassendi's reputation has fared over time and how the relation between L~ke and Gassendi has been seen. From this evidence it is clear that until the nineteenth century Gassendi was seen as a philosopher of major importance and the view that l.z~ke was deeply indebted to Gassendi was taken to be a matter of fact. Hegel and his followers, however, discounted Gassendi's philosophy and Locke's philosophy was discussed without any reference to Gassendist influence. In the early twentieth century, Gassendi's reputation recovered somewhat but with a new scepticism concerning his influence on Locke. Finally, in 1937, Richard L. Aaron in his book John Locke, revived the view that Locke owed an important debt to Gassendi and since that time the question of Gassendi's influence on Locke has been a matter of controversy. Puster's principal goal is to support the view that Gassendi had an important influence on Locke. He does this by a comparison of...