Friend and Sir, --When your letter, dated 27th March,
was delivered to me, I was just starting for
Amsterdam. I, therefore, after reading half of it, left it
at home, to be answered on my return: for I thought it
dealt only with questions raised in our first
controversy. However, a second perusal showed me,
that it embraced a far wider subject, and not only
asked me for a proof of what, in my preface to
"Principles of Cartesian Philosophy," I wrote (with the
object of merely stating, without proving or urging my
opinion), but also requested me to impart a great
portion of my Ethics, which, as everyone knows, ought
to be based on physics and metaphysics. For this
reason, I have been unable to allow myself to satisfy
your demands. I wished to await an opportunity for
begging you, in a most friendly way, by word of mouth,
to withdraw your request, for giving you my reasons
for refusal, and for showing that your inquiries do not
promote the
solution of our first controversy, but, on the contrary, are
for the most part entirely dependent on its previous
settlement. So far are they not essential to the
understanding of my doctrine concerning necessity, that
they cannot be apprehended, unless the latter question
is understood first. However, before such an opportunity
offered, a second letter reached me this week,
appearing to convey a certain sense of displeasure at
my delay. Necessity, therefore, has compelled me to
write you these few words, to acquaint you more fully
with my proposal and decision. I hope that, when the
facts of the case are before you, you will, of your own
accord, desist from your request, and will still remain
kindly disposed towards me. I, for my part, will, in all
things, according to my power, prove myself your, &c.
[Note N1]: The true date of this letter is June 3rd, as appears from the
Dutch original printed in Van Vloten's Supplementum. The former
editors gave April.
|