A truly satisfactory edition of Spinoza’s works ought:-first, to provide translations that are as accurate as possible, which show good judgment, when something more than accuracy is required, which is as clear and readable as fidelity to the text will allow, and which leave the interpretation to the commentators, so far as this is possible;-second, to base those translations on the best available critical editions of the original texts; -third, to make the edition as comprehensive as possible so that readers of Spinoza will have conveniently available all the primary data for the interpretation of his philosophy; -fourth, to offer translations which are all by the same hand, in hopes of achieving the kind of consistency in the treatment of important terms that makes it easier to appreciate their importance and meaning, to compare passages in different works treating the same topic, and to form judgments about the possible evolution of Spinoza’s thought; -fifth, to arrange the texts in chronological order, so far as this can reasonably be determined, to make it easier to grasp the development of Spinoza’s thought in those areas where it changed over the course of his philosophical career; and finally, to supply the texts with editorial aids to assist in the understanding of Spinoza’s work: prefaces, annotation, indices, and, in a limited way, commentary.
Dear Friend,71 Various problems have prevented my replying to your letter more quickly. Ive examined what you noted concerning Descartes Dioptric.72 He does not consider any other cause for larger or smaller images being formed at the base of the eye than the crossing of the rays which [IV/194b] come from different points on the object, that is, as they begin to cross each other nearer to or further from the eye, without attending to the size of the angle the rays make when they cross each other on the surface of the eye. And although this last cause is the chief one to be noted in telescopes, it seems, nevertheless, that he wanted to pass over it in silence, because (as it seems) he did not know any means of collecting those rays, which proceed in parallel from different points into so many other points, and for that reason he could not determine that angle mathematically.
id: c49e9a2416bd99ddbeab822400d5bc5a - page: 1152
Perhaps he kept silent so as not to ever prefer the circle to the other figures he introduced. For it is certain that in this [IV/195b] respect the circle is superior to all the other figures one can discover. Because the circle is the same everywhere, it has the same properties everywhere. For example, the circle ABCD has this property, that all the rays parallel to the axis, AB, coming from the side of A, are refracted at its surface in such a way that afterward they all come together in the point B. Similarly, all the rays parallel to the axis CD, coming from the side of C, are so refracted on its surface that they all meet in the point D.73 This cannot be said of any other figure although hyperbolas and ellipses have infinite diameters.
id: 7a1d928111561b484aa339d4a7806c55 - page: 1152
So the situation is as you write. If we attended only to the length of the eye or of the Telescope, we would be forced to make very long Telescopes before we could see things on the moon as distinctly as we do those on earth. But as I said, the chief thing is the size of the angle which rays proceeding from different points make on the surface of the eye when they cross there. And this angle is also larger or smaller as the foci of the lenses arranged in the Telescope differ more or less. If youd like to see a demonstration of this, Im ready to send it to you, when you please. Voorburg, 3 March 1667 LETTER 40 (NS) TO THE MOST WORTHY AND WISE MR. JARIG JELLES FROM B. D. S.
id: c2a057fd8577319ed66760f2c650f33c - page: 1153
[IV/196b] Dear Friend,74 I did receive your last letter, of the 14th of this month, but various obstacles have prevented me from being able to answer earlier. Concerning the Helvetius affair,75 I spoke about it with Mr. Vossius,76 whonot to relate in a letter everything we talked aboutlaughed heartily and was surprised that I would ask him about these trifles. However, not thinking this of any importance, I went to the Silversmith,77 a man named Brechtelt, who had tested the gold. He took quite a different view than Vossius had, saying that in the smelting and the separation the gold had increased and become heavier by an amount equal to the weight of the silver he had put into the crucible for separation. So [IV/197b] he firmly believed that the gold which transmuted his silver into gold had something special in it. And he was not the only one to think this: various other Gentlemen present at the time agreed.
id: 1425d872df32ba5bedc29333fc4fe73e - page: 1154