Abstract
I begin by discussing the stature of More within the philosophical community of his own era, and his importance for historians of philosophy in ours, an importance that stems equally from his own original contributions to the field and from his interactions with other figures, notable in their own right, from Descartes to Newton. Then, in order to set the scene for what follows, I set out More’s goals, and briefly summarise the epistemological and methodological backdrop against which he worked to construct his metaphysical system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On More’s life, see Grosart’s ‘Memorial-introduction’ to The Complete Poems; the Conway Letters; Crocker 2003, and the shorter Crocker 1990a; Hall 1990b, particularly ch. 5; and also Brown 1969. Ward 2000 can be extremely useful on occasion, even if Ward has, with some justification, been accused of achieving ‘the difficult task of writing a Biography without giving any information respecting his hero’ (by Benjamin Street, as quoted by Grosart in The Complete Poems, p. ix, col. a). A similar assessment was made by John Tulloch in 1872: ‘Ward’s Life is interesting, but vague, uncritical, and digressive, after the manner of the time.’ (Tulloch 1874, vol. 2, p. 304 n. 1). At this distance, we can unfortunately say exactly the same thing about Tulloch’s own long discussion of More. More himself provided some autobiographical and bibliographical details in the epistle to the reader of the 1660 edition of An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, and again in the Praefatio generalissima to his Opera omnia (vol. 2.1, pp. i–xxiv). The Praefatio generalissima is especially useful for pinpointing the dates of composition of some of More’s works, as are the Conway Letters.
- 2.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. v (To the Reader, §1).
- 3.
Ward 2000, p. 55. Reported, with some discussion, in Laird 1937, p. 243; Lichtenstein 1962, pp. 169–170; Henry 1986a, p. 195. This slightly surprising claim, it must be acknowledged, is wholly unsubstantiated.
- 4.
Regarding these machinations, see Webster 1969, here at p. 364.
- 5.
Webster 1969, p. 375 and (here) p. 376, quoting More to Hartlib, 5 November 1649.
- 6.
See Conway Letters, pp. 98, 392, 394, 398, 400, 482. There are several biographical details to be gleaned from Turnor 1806, concerning More, and Newton, and the More family, and the Newton family, and (at p. 176) even the Clark brothers. Also see Newton 1959–1977, vol. 1, p. 306 n. 2; Hall 1990b, pp. 82, 102–103, 202–206; and Hall 1996, pp. 7–8.
- 7.
Conway Letters, p. 482 (The Will of Henry More). Dr Clark was also mentioned, and received some medical books.
- 8.
Conway Letters, p. 479 (More to Dr John Sharp, 16 August 1680). On More and Newton on prophecy, see Cajori 1926; and also Hutton 1994, Iliffe 1994, and the other papers in that volume.
- 9.
The other works were mostly on prophecy rather than metaphysics, but not exclusively so: Apocalypsis Apocalypseos (1680), Discourses on Several Texts of Scripture (1692), A Plain and Continued Exposition of the Several Prophecies of… Daniel (1681), Tetractys Anti-Astrologica (1681), Observations upon Anthroposophia Theomagica, and Anima Magica Abscondita (1650) (bound with those works by Thomas Vaughan), and Paralipomena Prophetica (1685). Newton also had An Answer to Several Remarks upon Dr Henry More his Expositions of the Apocalypse and Daniel by ‘S.E. Mennonite’ (1684), and the anonymous Remarks upon Dr. Henry More’s Expositions of the Apocalypse and Daniel (1690). See Harrison 1978, pp. 87, 195–196, 205, 210, 226. Hall 1990b, pp. 277–278, presents a table of precisely which of More’s works were found, and how many times, in the libraries of various different members of the Royal Society; and he identifies Newton, alongside John Ray, as having possessed the equal largest number, nine each.
- 10.
See Newton 1983, pp. 341, 383, 385, 393, together with the other references to More as listed in the index, both those within Newton’s text and those in the editors’ commentary.
- 11.
Newton 1959–1977, vol. 2, p. 415 (Newton to Aston, 23 February 1684/5); Hall 1990b, pp. 169–170.
- 12.
See Staudenbaur 1968, especially pp. 566–568, 576–578; Hall 1990a, pp. 38–40; Hall 1990b, pp. 275–276.
- 13.
See Shugg, Sherwin and Freyman 1972.
- 14.
See Stubbe 1671, p. 64.
- 15.
More to Glanvill, in an undated (but 1671) letter printed in Glanvill 1671, pp. 154–155. On More’s exchange with Stubbe concerning the Royal Society, see Hall 1990b, pp. 177–179; Crocker 2003, pp. 151–156; Hutton 2004, pp. 130–133.
- 16.
The Society did regard More’s work as having—despite appearances, as the reviewer (probably Henry Oldenburg) acknowledged—sufficient relevance to its own for it to be worth including a review of Enchiridion metaphysicum in its Philosophical Transactions: Oldenburg 1671. But few of its members had much sympathy with it. On More’s position within the Royal Society, see Hall 1990a, pp. 40–45; Hall 1990b, ch. 9, especially pp. 168–170, 174–175, together with appendix 3 (pp. 277–278). But Hall misinterprets—indeed, misquotes—Pepys’s diary as containing a record of More’s presence in person at the Society on the occasion of a visit by Margaret Cavendish. In the entry for 30 May 1667, Hall quotes Pepys as having written: ‘here was Mr. Moore of Cambridge, whom I had not seen before, and I was glad to see him’. (Hall 1990b, p. 169). But, quite aside from the fact that Pepys, had he been talking about our philosopher, would undoubtedly have called him ‘Dr. More’ rather than ‘Mr. Moore’, the fact is that he did not even write that much. The reference is instead to one ‘Mrs. Moore… and I was glad to see her’! (Pepys 1953, vol. 2, p. 473, emphasis added).
- 17.
More criticised both Boyle and Hooke in his Enchiridion metaphysicum of 1671 (and he criticised Boyle, at least, in many other places too). Boyle replied to More’s criticisms in An Hydrostatical Discourse occasion’d by some Objections of Dr. Henry More (1672); Hooke replied in Lampas: or, Descriptions of some Mechanical Improvements of Lamps and Waterpoises (1677). More responded to them both in the scholia that he added to the Enchridion in its 1679 edition. On the relations between More and Boyle (especially), see Greene 1962; Shapin and Schaffer 1985, pp. 207–224 and passim; Hall 1990b, pp. 181–198; Henry 1990; Jenkins 2000; Crocker 2003, pp. 157–162; Hutton, pp. 133–137.
- 18.
See Two Choice and Useful Treatises, second part, p. 27 (Annotations upon Lux Orientalis, on ch. 4, pag. 41), and Berg 1989.
- 19.
Katz 1990.
- 20.
See Coudert 1999, ch. 6; Crocker 2003, ch. 12; Hutton 2004, ch. 8.
- 21.
More had been aware, at least, of Spinoza’s book even earlier than this. In a letter to Robert Boyle, of 4 December 1671, he wrote: ‘it is not a week ago, since I saw a letter, that informed me, that Spinosa, a Jew first, after a Cartesian, and now an atheist, is supposed the author of Theologico-Politicus’. Boyle 2001, vol. 4, p. 232.
- 22.
Ward 2000, p. 101. Also see Nicolson 1925, p. 433; and Tulloch 1874, vol. 2, pp. 303 and 340–341.
- 23.
Shortly before the publication of the two philosophical volumes of More’s Opera omnia, a distinct Latin translation of The Immortality of the Soul was prepared by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, and published by Francis Mercury van Helmont as D. Heinrici Mori Tractatus de anima, ejusque facultatibus et naturali immortalitate (Rotterdam: Isaaci Naerani, 1677). This edition is now quite rare, but copies of it can still be tracked down. But it was pretty heavily abridged: most (though not all) of bk. 1 is present; but bk. 2 is rattled through rather swiftly; and, as for bk. 3, the final eight chapters there are dropped altogether. Robert Crocker reports (citing Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica of 1824, vol. 2, at 682 g) that there may have been an earlier edition of this in 1675. But there no longer seems to be any definite trace of that one and, for my part, I am somewhat sceptical over whether it ever really existed at all. Watt was not infallible. Also missing, presumed lost, is a French version of the same work, which was apparently done in manuscript by Pierre Briot at around the same time, and to which Leibniz seems to have had access. See Grua’s note in Leibniz 1948, vol. 2, p. 509 (and, while there, take a look at Leibniz’s own comments at pp. 509–511); together with Brown 1990, pp. 77, 91 n. 2; Crocker 1990c, pp. 226, 247 n. 3; and Crocker 2003, pp. 183, 195 n. 5, 211, 236 n. 9.
- 24.
Sturm examined More’s theory of the Hylarchic Principle (Spirit of Nature), as developed in 1671’s Enchiridion metaphysicum, in an appendix to his Collegium experimentale sive curiosum of 1676. More replied in the scholia he added to the 1679 edition of the Enchiridion. As for Leibniz, his discussions of More, scattered (as is so much in Leibniz’s work) across a diverse collection of papers and letters, also tend to focus primarily on his Hylarchic Principle. More seems to have been oblivious to these mostly private, posthumously published remarks, most of which postdated his own death anyway, and he made no reply to Leibniz.
- 25.
Fiering 1988, p. 91. See also the similar remark at Fiering 1981, p. 16.
- 26.
See the editor’s references to More, as listed in the index, in Edwards 1980.
- 27.
Ward 2000, p. 338. It is not at all clear who Ward’s informant was supposed to have been, or just how credible such testimony can be considered.
- 28.
Baillét 1691, vol. 2, p. 363 (bk. 7, ch. 15).
- 29.
Behn 1996, p. 160.
- 30.
See Coleman O. Parsons’ introduction to the 1966 reprint edition of Saducismus Triumphatus for an account of its publishing history, together with an assessment of the popularity of books of its kind in England at the time.
- 31.
Edwards 1967, vol. 2, p. 11a (article on ‘Cambridge Platonists’).
- 32.
Crocker 2003 surveys many of More’s debates with other figures, including some that have not been examined elsewhere. I am not going to be touching on every one of these in the present work: but, for those specific cases that I do examine, further suggestions for secondary literature will be given in their proper places below.
- 33.
See, for instance, Nadler 1989.
- 34.
The Complete Poems, p. 90b (Democritus Platonissans, To the Reader).
- 35.
A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings, The Preface General, p. iv (§2).
- 36.
See An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, pp. 361–370 (bk. 10, chs. 10–12). For a contemporary (1662) account of the ‘latitude-men’, see Patrick 1963. For more recent views, see Nicolson 1929; Dockrill and Lee 1994; Crocker 2003, ch. 6.
- 37.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. vi (To the Reader, §6).
- 38.
The principle study of More’s treatment of enthusiasm in general is Fouke 1997. See also Crocker 2003, ch. 4 and passim. On the controversy with Vaughan in particular, see also Burnham 1974; Brann 1980; Guinsberg 1980; Crocker 1990b, pp. 144–47. On More and Boehme, see Hutton 1990b.
- 39.
More produced long lists of such ‘infallible contradictions’, for instance in A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, pp. 464, 484–485 (bk. 2, ch. 4, §5; ch. 8, §§19–21).
- 40.
A Brief Discourse of the True Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in Points of Religion, p. 770.
- 41.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 9 (bk. 1, ch. 1, §1).
- 42.
On the background to An Antidote Against Atheism, see Ward 2000, pp. 234–236, and Gabbey 1982, pp. 198–199.
- 43.
On More’s critique of Hobbes, see Mintz 1962, ch. 5.
- 44.
Hobbes 1994, p. 540 (Appendix, ch. 3, §§5–6). See Pasnau 2007, pp. 285–289.
- 45.
The most complete account of More’s relationship to Descartes is Gabbey 1982. In addition, Anderson 1933, ch. 4; Lamprecht 1935; Laird 1937, pp. 243–246; Bréhier 1937, pp. 21–27; Koyré 1957, chs. 5–6; Saveson 1960; Webster 1969; Rogers 1985, pp. 291–294; Hall 1990b, ch. 8; Gabbey 1995; and Crocker 2003, pp. 66–70 (and passim), all have something to offer.
- 46.
On the influence of Ficino’s Platonic Theology on More’s philosophical poems, see Staudenbaur 1968 and Jacob 1985.
- 47.
Letters on Several Subjects, p. 27 (More to Edmund Elys, 27 December 1673).
- 48.
See the individual title-page for Psychozoia in Psychodia Platonica (1642 edition); along with Opera omnia, vol. 2.1, p. viii (Praefatio generalissima, §11).
- 49.
The Complete Poems, p. 13a (Psychozoia, cant. 1, st. 2).
- 50.
The Complete Poems, p. 10b (To the Reader, upon the first Canto of Psychozoia).
- 51.
Also Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648). Democritus Platonissans is introduced by a pair of passages drawn from Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy (pt. 3, §§1–2) and Herbert’s De causis errorum. See p. 58 below.
- 52.
Ward 2000, p. 339.
- 53.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. IV–V (Preface to the Reader, §3). It seems likely that the ‘first argument’ for the existence of God, for which More here expresses approval, refers to the Ontological Argument. More himself endorsed this argument elsewhere in his works, whereas he never displayed any real approval for Descartes’ other main argument, from the presence in our minds of an idea with infinite objective reality. Although the reference in this passage is to the Meditations, where the Ontological Argument comes after that other one (in the Fifth and Third Meditations respectively), it does come first in the alternative presentation that Descartes provided in the Principles of Philosophy (pt. 1, §§14 and 18 respectively).
- 54.
Synopsis Prophetica, pp. 634–635 (bk. 2, ch. 6, §§1–5).
- 55.
Synopsis Prophetica, p. 713 (bk. 2, ch. 23, §5).
- 56.
The Apology of Dr. Henry More, p. 484, (ch. 1, §6). See also More’s comment to Baxter in Two Choice and Useful Treatises, second part, pp. 187–188 (Annotations upon the Discourse of Truth, The Digression).
- 57.
A Collection of Aphorisms, p. 8 (part 1, aphorism 27). The dating of these aphorisms is uncertain. Even at the time of their posthumous publication, the editor, in his (unpaginated) epistle to the reader, found himself unable to say on what occasion they had been written. But there is a large amount of internal evidence that they were probably written in the 1640s, or, at the latest, the early 1650s. The parallel here between aphorism 27 and More’s 1651 remarks to Vaughan (see the next note immediately below) provides just one example of resemblances between these remarks and More’s published works of this period. In my subsequent references to aphorisms from this little book, I shall have occasion to point out a couple of other such parallels: see p. 83 n. 33 and p. 164 n. 94. In addition, Gabbey 1992, pp. 115–121 (at 118–119), points out another one, comparing a metaphorical reference to ‘neurospasts’/puppets at p. 13 (part 2, aphorism 27) both with a discussion in More’s 1642 poems (cf. The Complete Poems, pp. 48b–49b: Psychathanasia, bk. 1, cant. 2, sts. 27–37, especially st. 34) and with Cudworth’s A Sermon Preached before the House of Commons of 31 March 1647 (cf. Cudworth 1743, separately paginated second part, p. 64).
- 58.
The Second Lash of Alazonomastix, pp. 108–113, here at pp. 112 and 111 respectively (upon page 51, line 25, observation 12).
- 59.
See Yates 1991, passim: see ‘Prisca theologia’ in the index.
- 60.
Plato 1963, p. 520 (Phaedrus, 274d).
- 61.
On the identification with Enoch, see Baldwin 1967, pp. 47–49. On Joseph, see Gale 1671, pp. 12–14; and also More’s own discussion of this suggestion, in Tetractys Anti-Astrologica, pp. 22–23 (annotations upon ch. 14, §5). On Moses, see Ficino 2001–2006, vol. 6, p. 83 (bk. 18, ch. 1), together with p. 303 n. 16; though also compare Ficino’s preface to his edition of the Poemander, as quoted in Copenhaver 1992, p. xlviii; and see Hankins 1990, vol. 2, pp. 459–464 (appendix 17).
- 62.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 115 (bk. 2, ch. 12, §10).
- 63.
Cudworth 1743, pp. 319–334/Cudworth 1845, vol. 1, pp. 540–565. More generally, see Yates 1991, ch. 21. Also, on the position of Isaac Newton in relation to the Hermetica, see McGuire 1977; not to mention McGuire and Rattansi 1966, and Casini 1984.
- 64.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 72 (The Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, upon ch. 1, vers. 1); see also p. iii (Preface, §4).
- 65.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 73 (The Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, upon ch. 1, vers. 1).
- 66.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, pp. 5–7 (bk. 1, ch. 4, §§1–7).
- 67.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 73 (The Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, upon ch. 1, vers. 1). This was also an issue of great concern to Cudworth, who discussed it ad nauseam in the colossal fourth chapter of The True Intellectual System of the Universe. (The chapter itself drags on for 450 quarto pages, accounting for half of the book; and this topic takes up a considerable portion of it). See Cudworth 1743, pp. 546–632/Cudworth 1845, vol. 2, p. 311–486.
- 68.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, pp. 156–157 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 6, §§1–2).
- 69.
Aristotle 1984, vol. 1, pp. 482–483 (On the Heavens, bk. 2, ch. 13; 293a15–293b16).
- 70.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 157 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 6, §§2–3, here §2).
- 71.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, pp. 110–114 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §§3–8).
- 72.
Cudworth 1743, pp. 12–13/Cudworth 1845, vol. 1, pp. 20–21; Cudworth 1996, pp. 38–39. The latter, together with its editorial footnotes, identifies the various classical sources of this notion. More generally, see Sailor 1964.
- 73.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, pp. iii–iv, 37–39, 110–113, 156–157 (Preface, §4; Preface to The Defence of the Threefold Cabbala, §§2–4; Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §§2–8; ch. 6, §§1–4); Refutation of Spinoza, p. 107; The Complete Poems, p. 80a (Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 3, st. 43).
- 74.
More himself cites this line in Conjectura Cabbalistica, pp. iii, 112 (Preface, §4; Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §5).
- 75.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 117 (bk. 2, ch. 12, §15). Thomas Vaughan viewed More as an Aristotelian, probably largely on account of the fact that, in their exchange, More was keen to defend Aristotle from Vaughan’s criticisms: but this did not mean that More was positively committed to any form of Aristotelianism, but merely that he felt that Aristotle deserved vastly more respect than Vaughan was willing to give him—and, indeed, vastly more than Vaughan himself deserved.
- 76.
A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings, The Preface General, p. xii (§11). In place of the word ‘Goal’, the text here actually gives the word ‘Gaol’. But this is obviously a misprint, and the 1662 edition has ‘Goale’. More certainly did not regard the Bible as a gaol!
- 77.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 114 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §8). Gérauld de Cordemoy also believed that the Cartesian system was, to all intents and purposes, the same as the Mosaical, and he claimed that it seemed that Descartes had only become a philosopher by reading Moses. See Ablondi 2005, pp. 112–114.
- 78.
Observations upon Anthroposophia Theomagica, and Anima Magica Abscondita, p. 88 (upon Anima Magica Abscondita, pag. 55, lin. 13). ‘Sure then Aristotel was before the Floud’, sniffed Vaughan in response. Vaughan 1650b, p. 37 (observation 3).
- 79.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 114 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §9). More did not presume to offer any explanation of why God would have chosen a Catholic to receive such an inspiration.
- 80.
An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. vi (To the Reader, §5). The reference is to Exodus 2:11–14.
- 81.
Divine Dialogues, p. 185 (dial. 3, §3). Although the remark is placed in the mouth of a character (namely, Philotheus) within a dialogue, it does seem to represent More’s mature attitude accurately enough.
- 82.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. V (Preface to the Reader, §4).
- 83.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. VII–VIII (Preface to the Reader, §6).
- 84.
Divine Dialogues, p. xxxii (cast of characters).
- 85.
Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, p. 38 (§54).
- 86.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 3–4 (bk. 1, ch. 2, axiome 3 and §4).
- 87.
The example is from Descartes’ Sixth Meditation, CSM 2:53/AT 7:76.
- 88.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 2–3 (bk. 1, ch. 2, §1).
- 89.
Popkin 1987, pp. 170–174; Popkin 1990, pp. 98–99, 101; Popkin 2003, pp. 176–180, and also see 210–211, 215, and 357 n. 8; also Coudert 1990, pp. 126–128.
- 90.
Popkin uses these expressions in Popkin 1990 p. 99.
- 91.
Gabbey 1993, pp. 81–90.
- 92.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 4 (bk. 1, ch. 2, axiome 5).
- 93.
CSM 1:304/AT 8B:359 (‘Comments on a Certain Broadsheet’, on article 13).
- 94.
Two Choice and Useful Treatises, second part, p. 19 (Annotations upon Lux Orientalis, upon ch. 3, pag. 17).
- 95.
See Antipsychopannychia, 109–111 (cant. 2, stanzas 22–44). On innate ideas among the Cambridge Platonists at large, see Lamprecht 1926, and also DeBoer 1931. On More’s treatment in particular, see Crocker 2003, pp. 70–74.
- 96.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 3–4 (bk. 1, ch. 2, §4).
- 97.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 17 (bk. 1, ch. 5, §3).
- 98.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 18 (bk. 1, ch. 6, §3).
- 99.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 19 (bk. 1, ch. 6, §6). See also The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 66–67 (bk. 2, ch. 2, §§9–12), where More sought to refute Hobbes’s nominalist account of these common notions.
- 100.
Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, pp. 38–39 (§54).
- 101.
Divine Dialogues, pp. 10–11, 495 (dial. 1, §4; dial. 5, §28).
- 102.
Divine Dialogues, p. 495 (dial. 5, §28). Crocker has examined More’s conception of a ‘new birth’, and his ‘illuminism’ in general, in Crocker 2003, passim; see also Crocker 1990b. Otherwise, it has been rather neglected in the secondary literature on More.
- 103.
Conjectura Cabbalistica, p. 114 (Appendix to the Defence of the Philosophick Cabbala, ch. 1, §9).
- 104.
See, for instance, Erdt 1980, chs. 1–2.
- 105.
The Complete Poems, p. 163b (The Interpretation Generall: ‘Psittaco’).
- 106.
See Coudert 1990; Hall 1990b, ch. 7; Crocker 2003, ch. 9; Jesseph 2005, especially pp. 212–215.
- 107.
After Acts 23:8: ‘For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.’
- 108.
Saducismus Triumphatus, pp. 23–25, here p. 25 (‘Dr H.M. his Letter’).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reid, J. (2012). Introduction. In: The Metaphysics of Henry More. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 207. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3987-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3988-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)