Berkeley Newsletter

Number 4	December 1980
Second edition

Editors:

E. J. Furlong and David Berman
Philosophy Department, Trinity College, Dublin

Contents

G. N. Cantor: Two Letters Relating to Berkeley’s Social Circle 	   1
E. J. Furlong and D. Berman: George Berkeley and The Ladies Library	   4
David Berman: Berkeley’s Departure for America: A New Letter 	 14
Geneviève Brykman: Abstracts 	   15
Brian Torode: A Berkeleian Correction 	 15
Bertil Belfrage: Reviews 	 16
Recent Publications on Berkeley	 18
Bertil Belfrage: Corrigenda 	 19
The International Berkeley Society	 20

© Contributors 1980

The Berkeley Newsletter is sponsored by the Royal Irish Academy
and the Philosophy Department, Trinity College, Dublin

Two Letters Relating to Berkeley’s Social Circle
G. N. Cantor
University of Leeds

One aspect of Berkeley’s biography which has received insufficient attention is his connection with fashionable London society. Certainly Berkeley, along with Pope and his countryman Swift, were patronised by the politically powerful and became part of London society associating with the rich and influential. Two recently discovered letters, both dating from the 1750s, throw some further light on this important dimension of Berkeley’s life and also relate to other issues which may be of interest to readers of this Newsletter.
The first letter is a note from Berkeley to Lady (Dorothy) Burlington, whose husband the third Earl Burlington and fourth Earl of Cork was, for a long period, a patron — if not the leading patron — of Berkeley’s. He likewise patronised both Pope and Swift and it is said that Pope introduced Berkeley to Burlington. Not only does this letter indicate that the Burlington connection remained strong until 1750, but it also shows a considerable disinclination on Berkeley’s part to continue to reside in Cloyne and thus presages his subsequent departure for Oxford. The gift mentioned in this letter has not been identified. This letter (Ref. 364.0) forms part of the extensive Devonshire collection at Chatsworth (Bakewell, Derbyshire) and is printed here with the permission of the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement.
Our second letter concerns Berkeley’s death and contains, together with much interesting gossip, sketches of the characters of both Berkeley and his wife and also a judgment of his philosophy by a leading member of London society. The author, Elizabeth Montagu (1720-1800) was the original “blue-stocking” whose Mayfair residence became the locus for the fashionable intellectual elite. “Mrs” Anne Donnellan, who is mentioned in the letter was a close friend of Swift’s. Likewise her brother, Rev. Christopher Donnellan, who likewise formed part of the same Irish circle, owed his Church living to Berkeley. Parts of this letter were published in Emily J. Climenson, Elizabeth Montagu The Queen of the Blue-Stockings Her Correspondence from 1720 to 1761, 2 vols. (London 1906), ii, 25-6. Climenson, however, omits most of the fifth sentence — which graphically details Anne Berkeley’s attitude towards her husband — and ends her quotation with the word “Mankind” in the sixth sentence. This letter (HM MO 6697) is deposited in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California and is reproduced by permission of the Librarian.

1. George Berkeley to Lady Burlington

Cloyne 2 April 1750
Madam
Permit me to thank your Ladyship for a present very valuable in it self, and much more so on account of the giver, who is so good as to remember an humble servant in this remote corner; where, to my sorrow, I am haunted with a taste for good company and fine arts which I got at Burlington house, the worst preparative in the world for a retreat at Cloyne. But, wherever I am, your Ladyship and my good Lord Burlington may alwaies count upon the best respects and most sincere good wishes of
Madam
Yr. most obedient
and most obliged
Servant
G. Cloyne

2. Elizabeth Montagu [Robinson] to Gilbert West

Jan 28 [1753], Sandleford
My most honord Cousin
. . .
How happy was the Bishop of Cloynes exit or rather indeed one should call it his entrance into another, then departure out of this life, for it had none of the agonising pangs of a farewell. I pitty poor Mrs Berkeley, who had so little preparation for so heavy a stroke. I hope the constant conversation & example of a man so eminent in every christian virtue, may have given her an uncommon degree of fortitude & patience. I have hear her temper & understanding highly commended. She had a perfect adoration of the Bishop, to whose humors she had a submission that offended some o the Ladies, who thought her intire obedience a bad precedent, Mrs Berkeley said such a Man as Dr Berkeley deserved uncommon attentions, & she though it wd be strange presumption to oppose the designs & inclinations of one so much superior to her, thus she dignified her choice, recommended her obedience & preserved unprejudiced the rights & privileges of other Ladies whose Husbands had not the like plea for their submission. Dr. Berkeley

had formerly made his addresses to Mrs Donnellan, what were her reasons for refusing him I know not; friends were consenting, circumstances equal, her opinion captivated, but perhaps an aversion to the cares of married life, & apprehensions from some Particularities in his temper hirder’d the match; however their friendship always continued, & I have always heard her give him for virtues & talents the preference to all Mankind, still his admirers say he excelled every one in the arts of conversation; as to his writings they are some of them too subtile to be even the object of most peoples consideration. He has the hard fate of not convincing any one, tho he cannot be confuted; a judgment of his metaphysical works must be pass’d by superior intelligences, it falls not within the measure of 5 senses. I have heard that his understanding was rather hurt by the absolute retirement in which he lived, and indeed he had an imagination too lively to be trusted to itself; the treasures of it were inexhaustible, but for want of commerce with mankind he made that rich oar [sic] into bright but useless medals which wd otherwise have been stamp’d into current coin, fit for the use & service of mankind. He had a noble benevolence of heart, but like most retired persons spoke with some bitterness against the vanities & follies of mankind: he considered them as pernicious to the public which is partly true, yet so happily have things been Contrived by the allwise artificer that not a vanity [?] is given in vain. Ambition, avarice & many passions that hurt the wearer serve the public weal. I do not mean that such persons should not be discouraged, but that we should not always be as much in wrath as others [?] appear in the wrong. Every honest & gratefull man would have hazarded even his life for such a Person as Dr Berkeley, & what can one say for Dr Frewin’s behaviour?1 I suppose he must excuse himself on the accounts representing the Bishop as already dead. I think it was happy for that good man he could not be recall’d; so to end the heart ache & the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, is a consumation devoutly to be wish’d, but when one considers this to be the Eve to an Eternal day how happy!

1 The Dr. Frewin referred to here is, presumably, Richard Frewin, M.D. (c. 1681-1761), the Camden professor of ancient history at Oxford. Perhaps a reader of this Newsletter can explain this reference to Frewin’s “behavior.”

[Facsimile of the Contract.]

George Berkeley and The Ladies Library
E. J. Furlong and D. Berman

During the Spring of 1979 one of us visited Mr. Stephen Parks, Keeper of the Osborn Collection, Yale University. On enquiry whether Mr. Parks had recently come on anything of Berkeleian interest, Mr. Parks produced a document, which he intended to publish in due course. He gave permission for us to reproduce the document in the Berkeley Newsletter after his own publication had appeared. We shall refer to this document in what follows as the Contract.
Mr. Parks has now published the Contract in the Scriblerian (Autumn 1980), together with some discussion. The main purpose of the present paper is to supplement Mr. Parks’ discussion, with which we in general agree.
The ladies library (London, 1714) — referred to for convenience as the LL in what follows — is one of several improving works published in England during the latter half of the 17th century and the early part of the 18th. They include The ladies calling (Oxford 6th impression 1693) (or LC), The Government the tongue (Oxford 1674) (or GT), The gentlemen’s calling and The gentlemen’s library.
That these works met a need is shown by the number of impressions called for: thus there was a pirated edition of the LL in 1714 and the seventh and an eighth impressions appeared in 1772. The work was translated into French and Dutch. (See the Bibliography in G. A. Aitken, The life of Richard Steele, London 1889.) Further evidence of its popularity is given in the “Preface to the reader” provided in The gentlemen’s library (second edition, London, 1722). The author remarks, a little acidly, on “the kind entertainment the town gave” to the LL and how it has “been read in most counties [countries?], though it was swell’d out into three volumes and sold at a pretty handsome price.”
Though, as we shall see, the preliminary portion of the LL requires further comment, it may be helpful if we list here a selection from the titles of the chapters of each of the three volumes.

Vol. 1
Employment
Wit and delicacy
Recreation
Dress
Chastity
. . . .
Vol. 2
The daughter
The wife
The mother
. . . .
Vol. 3
Prayer
Fasting
Repentance
. . . .

The title page in each of the three volumes informs us that the work was printed by Jacob Tonson, and that it was “published by Mr. R. Steele” and “written by a Lady.” Each volume contains a dedication by Steele. Volume 1 is dedicated to the Countess of Burlington, mainly in view of the “eminent example you have given the world” in the “important characters of a wife and a mother.” Volume 2 is dedicated to Mrs. Bovey, a lady whose beauty is matched only by her fortune, her charity, and her love of study. (See the D.N.B. for an account of her life.) Volume 3 is dedicated to Mrs. Steele — “the best of women.”
Steele had undertaken, as we can see from the Contract, to write a Preface to the LL. This he did, and it appears in Volume 1, with his signature. It somewhat complicates the issue as to the compiler, however, by informing us that “They [the papers] were referred to me as what were at first intended by the compiler for a guide to her own conduct.” Steele then tells us, as Mr. Parks notes, that he handed the papers “into the care of a Reverend Gentleman,” who, for reasons given, was well qualified to advise whether it was fitting for Steele, in view of “the levity of some of my writings,” to publish these improving papers. Steele was reassured by the Reverend Gentleman, and was advised by the latter to consent to be the publisher.
Now that we have the Contract we know that the compiler was not a “Lady,” but George Berkeley; and if there was an advisory Reverend Gentleman, he was very likely, using Occam’s razor, to have been Berkeley, whom we know to have been in close touch with Steele at this time, particularly in connection with the Guardian (1713).
It may seem odd that a brilliant young writer should have spent perhaps a considerable time making such a compilation. However, Berkeley may have needed the money. And the authors, as we can see from the following list taken from Aitken, are ones that he might already have read, particularly Jeremy Taylor, Locke, Tillotson, Fénelon.
Taylor, Holy living; LL i. 32-48, 156-77, 212-15, 232-9, 258-67, 314-25; iii. 53-113, 271-91, 307-11, 313-30.
The government of the tongue (GT); i. 358-405, 415-20.
The ladies’ calling (LC); i. 179-212, 240-58; ii. 38-57, 87-106, 184-205, 347-75, 377-85, iii. 22-53, 292-303, 332-42.
Fleetwood, Relative duties of parents and children, I. 81-145; ii. 9-38, 58-85, 134-55, 394-411.
Whole duty of man; i. 63-6, 67-70, 268-314, 525-34; ii. 1-9, 85-7; iii. 291-2,
Locke, Treatise on education; ii. 270-346.
Lucas, Practical Christianity; iii. 305-6, 311-12, 350-3.
Lucas, Enquiry after happiness; i. 7-16, iii. 12-22, 371-412.
Scott, Christian life; i. 326-50, iii. 129-38.
Tillotson, Sermons (No. 42, 50-2); i. 426-37; ii. 219-69, 421-35.
M. Astell, Serious Proposal to the ladies (2 parts); i. 438-524.
Halifax, (George Savile) Advice to a daughter; I. 59-63, 421-5, 534-46; ii. 111-33, 256-61
Fénelon, Education of a daughter (Hickes’s translation, 1713); i. 16-31, 55-8; ii. 106-10, 177-84, 385-93.
Mr. Parks’ suggestion that Berkeley compiled his collection during his two months’ stay at Oxford in 1713 is attractive. It is of interest that Berkeley wrote to his friend Percival that he was “on the point of going to Sicily” on 15 October 1713 — the day the Contract is dated. We may infer that he had done his part of the work by that date. He was still on the Continent when the LL was published.
It might be thought strange that Berkeley should use the nom de plume “written by a Lade.” In fact he seldom used his own name on a title-page. An interesting case is that of his Maxims concerning patriotism, which he included in A miscellany, containing several tracts on various subjects (London 1752) “By the Bishop of Cloyne.” However, the Maxims were originally published in 1750 as “By a Lady.”
Most of the LL is made up of long, unaltered quotations from “the best English authors.” In some cases quotations are revised and words added or subtracted. Occasionally, whole paragraphs are added, especially by way of introduction or transition. We have printed examples of these below. Aitken assumed that Steele was responsible for the changes. But there is no positive evidence for this supposition. “I am only her [the Lady’s] Gentleman-Usher” — writes Steele in the Preface. The Contract and the Preface plainly point to Berkeley as being entirely responsible for the body of the work. And as it may also be assumed that he wrote the Introduction in Volume 1 — which is supposed to have been written by the Lady — we have reproduced it below.

T H E
Ladies Library.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

[1] Being by nature more inclined to such Enquiries as by general Custom my Sex is debarr’d from, I could not resist a strong Propensity to Reading; and having flattered my self that what I read dwelt with Improvement upon my Mind, I could not but conclude that a due regard being had to different Circumstances of Life, it is a great Injustice to shut Books of Knowledge from the Eyes of Women.
[2] Musing one Day in this Tract of Thought, I turned over some Books of French and English, written by the most polite Writers of the Age, and began to consider what Account they gave of our Composure, different from that of the other Sex. But indeed, when I dipped into those Writings, were it possible to conceive otherwise, I could not have believed from their general and undistinguished Aspersions that many of these Men had any such Relations as Mothers, Wives or Sisters; one of them makes a Lover say in Tragedy
Thou art Woman, a true Copy of the first,
In them the Race of all Mankind was curst:
Your Sex by Beauty was to Heaven ally’d,
But your great Lord, the Devil, taught you Pride.
He too, an Angel, till he durst rebel,
And you are, sure, the Stars that with him fell.
Weep on! a Stock of Tears like Vows you have,
And always ready when you would deceive.
                                             Otway’s Don Carlos
Another says,
—————Thy All is but a Shew,
Rather than solid Virtue; all but a Rib,
Crooked by Nature.    Oh! why did God,
Creator wise, that peopled highest Heaven
With Spirits masculine, create at last
This Novelty on Earth? This fair defect
[3] Of Nature, and not fill the World at once
With Men, as Angles, without Feminine,
Or find some other way to generate Mankind?
                                                             Milton.
And a third
Ah Traitress! Ah Ingrate! Ah faithless Mind!
Ah Sex, invented first to damn Mankind!
Nature took care to dress you up for Sin;
Adorn’d without, unfinish’d left within:
Hence by no Judgment you your Love direct;
Talk much, ne’er think, and still the Wrong affect.
So much self-love in your Composure’s mix’d,
That Love to others still remains unfix’d;
Greatness, and Noise, and Shew are your Delight,
Yet wise Men love you in their own despight:
And, finding in their native Wit no Ease,
Are forc’d to put your Folly on to please.
                                             Dryden’s Aurengzebe.
I shall conclude poetical Testimonies to our Disadvantage with one Quotation more,
Intolerable Vanity! Your Sex
Was never in the right: You’re always false,
Or silly; ev’n your Dresses are not more
Fantastick than your Appeties: You think
Of nothing twice: Opinion you have none:
[4] To Day you’re nice, to Morrow not so free;
Now smile, then frown, now sorrowful, then glad,
Now pleas’d, now not, and all you know not why.
Virtue you affect; Inconstancy you practise;
And when your loose Desires once get Dominion,
Nu hungry Churl feeds coarser at a Feast:
Every rank Fool goes down.
                                                     Otway’s Orphan.
It may be said for these Writings, that there is something perhaps in the Character of those who speak, which would circumstantiate the thing so as not to make it a Reproach upon Women as such. But to this it may be easily and justly answer’d, That if the Author had right Sentiments of Woman in general, he might more emphatically aggravate an ill Character, by Comparison of an ill to an innocent and vertuous one, than by general Calumnies without Exception,
But I leave Authors, who are so mean as to desire to please by falling in with corrupt Imaginations, rather than affect a just tho’ less extensive Esteem by labouring to rectifie our Affections by Reason; of which Number are the greater part of those who have succeeded in Poetry, either in Verse or Prose on the Stage.
[5] When I apply my self to my French reading, I find Women are still worse in proportion to the greater warmth of the Climate; and according to the Descriptions of us in the Whits of that Nation, tho’ they write in cool thought, and in Prose, by way of plain Opinion, we are made up of Affectation, Coquettry, Falshood, Disguise, Treachery, Wantonness and Perfidiousness. All our Merit is to be less guilty one than another under one of these Heads.
Dissertations for the Conduct of Life are as gravely composed upon these Topicks, as if they were as infallible as mathematical Truths. It cost me a great deal of Pain to study by what means I should refute such scandalous Intimations against my very Nature. But the more I reflect upon those Abuses, I grew less concerned to answer them, and finally resolved upon this.
They are perhaps in the right who speak of mere Women; and it is the business of ingenious debauch’d Men, who regard us only as such, to give us those Ideas of our selves, that we may become their more easy Prey.
I believed it therefore the safest and surest Method of gainsaying such light Accounts or our Sex to think them a truth, till I had arrived by the perusal of more solid Authors, to a Constancy of Mind and settled Opinion of Persons and Things, which should [6] place me above being pleased or dissatisfyed with Praise or Dispraise, upon account of Beauty or Deformity, or any other Advantages or Disadvantages, but what flowed from the Habits and Dispositions of my Soul.
I resolve therefore to confine my little Studies, which are to lead to the Conduct of my Life, to the Writings of the most eminent of our Divines, and from thence, as I have heard young Students do in the study of a Science, make for my own private Use a Common-Place, that may direct me in all the relations of Life, that do now, or possibly may, concern me as a Woman.

[Vol. 1, pp. 178-9 — pages 179f are from the Ladies calling (LC), pp. 5f; hence p. 178 is very probably by Berkeley.]

M O D E S T Y
[178] Will not the Ladies take themselves to be affronted, if we shou’d so much as question that they want Lessons on this Virtue? Will not Men despise us for thinking it becomes them? Is not the tashful Man in the Cavalier Phrase a Coward? Is it not a Term of Reproach? ’Tis very hard, that in a Country professing Christianity and Reformation, most of these Virtues are so out of Fashion, that it is a most uncourtly Business to endeavour to recommend them. Those that do it are forc’d to affect Ludicrous Turns, and to reform by Satyr, and not by Instruction. People who are not afraid of being damn’d, are afraid of being laugh’d at, and such as reprove with Gravity and Concern, may answer the Dictates of their own Consciences, but will have very little Effect on their Naighbours.

[Vol. A, p. 316 “... and putting children to honest Trade.” Taylor, Holy living, chap. IV, sect. VIII: the rest is by Berkeley.]

C H A R I T Y
[316] ... finding Employment for unbusy’d Persons, and putting Children to honest Trades. To which may be objected, That the Erection of Monasteries for Retirement, which the good Bishop calls Colleges of Religion, having by long Experience been found not to be free from Temptations, and besides, hindering People from discharging the social Duties of Life; such sort of Charities are with Reason exploded since the Reformation, and there is more Superstition than Religion in those that wou’d restore them. If such new Foundations were erected, might one not well demand, Why were the old ones destroy’d? Wou’d it not render the Alienation of vast Revenues, by the Laws of the Land, to be as bad as Sacrilege? And when Men are once convinced of the Wickedness of detaining them, it will not be long before they will be restor’d; which is plain enough aim’d at, in the Bishop’s admonishing all good Christians to erect such Colleges. As for us, if we have regard to those other Duties of Charity, we may very well leave the Care of those Religious Convents to the Publick: what more immediately concerns us, is to be mindful not to give in Alms that which is none of our own. How absurd, how unjust are those magnificent Charities, which are raised out of Extortion and Injustice?

[Vol. 1, p. 358: “And if there be...” is from Government of the tongue (GT) (Oxford 1674), sect. IV “of detraction,” p. 39. The preceding is most probably by Berkeley.]

D E T R A C T I O N.
[358] I Believe there is hardly a Man living, who is the least conversant with Men or Things past and present, either in Life or in History, but will acknowledge that Detraction was never carry’d to such an Extravagance as it has been lately with us in England. Some Hints have been given of it in the foregoing Pages. I shall now consider this Vice more fully, and expose the Guilt and the Mischief of it, which will doubtless be confirm’d by all our Experiences.
In doing this it will be necessary to discourse of Detraction in all the parts of it, as well that of the Tongue as that of the Pen. And if there be those that stretch their Mouths against Heaven, we are not to wonder if there be more that will shoot their Arrows, even bitter Words, against the best Men upon Earth...

[Vol. 1, p. 362: “their countries devoted themselves to certain Death.” and the passage beginning “To what danger, to what guilt...” to the end of the page, are from the GT p. 45. The rest is by Berkeley.]

[362] their Countries devoted themselves to certain Death.
The Love of Liberty and Glory has been always blest with Applause of Posterity, however it may be deprest in the Pursuits of it. Tyranny and the Creatures of Tyrants despise that good Name, whose Odor is richer than the richest Perfumes; they being black themselves, desire nothing but to blacken others; they confound Fame and Infamy, they indulge their Lust of Power, and look on every thing else as insipid or ridiculous; they are insensible of Shame, and do not care what any Tongue can say of them, as long as they can cut it out for it. But as these are Monsters in Morality, so nothing can be argu’d from their Practices against the common Opinion of all honest Men. Such will always be impatient when their Reputation is invaded. To what Danger, to what Guilt, does sometimes the very Fancy of a Reproach hurry Men? It makes them really forfeit that Virtue from whence all true Reputation springs, and like Æsop’s Dog, lose the Substance by too greedy catching at the Shadow.
Since Reason sets Fame at so high a Rate, and Passion at a higher, we may conclude the violating this Interest one of the greatest...

Taylor, Holy Living (15th ed. London 1690) chap. 1, sect. 1.:
He that is choice of his time, will also be choice of his company, and choice of his actions: lest the first engage him in vanity and loss; and the latter, by being criminal be a throwing his time and himself away, and a going back in the accounts of Eternity.
God hath given to men a short time upon Earth, and yet upon this short time Eternity depends: But so, that for every hour of our Life (after we are persons capable of Laws, and know Good from Evil) we must give account to the great Judge of Men and Angels.

LL Vol. 1, p. 32.

He that is choice of his Time, will also be Choice of his Company and his Actions, that there be nothing vain in the one nor criminal in the other. God has given us a short time upon Earth, and yet upon this short time depends Eternity. There’s not an Hour of our Lives (when we are of Years to distinguish Good from Evil) but we must account for to God who gave it to us.

Vol. 1, p. 360: from the GT, pp. 42-3 with the exception of the following:
In our Days we have seen the chief Reason for the most unjust and bloody Wars been wound up in the single Phrase of our Honour and our Glory,...
[Steele, a Whig and defender of Marlborough, would hardly have added this.]

Minor changes
LC  p. 6: “feminine beauty”
LC  11: “our female talkers”
LC  26: “exquisite and rich”
LC  30: “precious severed from vile”
LC 18: “a poor girl”
GT 46: “thus Epaminondas alacriously expired”
LL, vol i, p. 179: “beauty in woman”
LL i 183: “talkers of both sexes”
LL i 305: “shining and rich”
LL i 210: “good severed from bad”
LL i 195: “a silly girl”
LL i 361: “thus Epaminondas joyfully expired”

Berkeley’s Departure for America: A New Letter
David Berman
The letter printed below was on 10 May 1979 auctioned by Swann Galleries of New York City, who printed part of it in their catalogue, item 28, and kindly allowed me to make a transcript of the whole. The A.L.S., which has never been published in any work on Berkeley, outlines his plans and reasons for going to Rhode Island rather than to Bermuda. It was probably written to Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London and Visitor of Berkeley's projected College of St. Paul’s. We have two similar epistolary farewells to Percival and to Prior (Works viii, pp. 190-2) but neither of them is as informative. It confirms, for example, that Berkeley planned to use Rhode Island as his base on the American mainland; but it does not suggest that he thought of changing the location of his College from Bermuda to Rhode Island.

Gravesend, Sept: 5, 1728.
My Lord
The small time I have been in London since my return from Ireland was Spent in such hurry of business, that I could wait on none of my patrons or friends, which must be my apology for taking this method of paying my duty to your Lordship whom I beg leave to inform that to morrow with the blessing of God I shall set sail to Rhode Island near new England. It is a place abounding in provisions where I design to purchase a piece of land with my own mony in order to supply our college with such necessaries as are not the product of Bermuda, which will in good measure remove one principal objection to the success of our design. The mony contributed by Subscribers is left in Mr Hoare the Banker’s hands and made payable to Dr Clayton with whom I have also left the patent for receiving the 20,000£ from St. Christopher’s. I propose to continue at Rhode Island till such time as Dr Clayton hath received that mony and is come to Bermuda with the rest of my associates where I intend to join them. Going to Bermuda without either mony or associates I cou’d not think of. I shou’d have made a had figure and done no good. Staying here wou’d have been no less disagreeable and to as little purpose, since all I could do here was finished except receiving the mony which may be done by others. It shou’d seem therefore that the intermediate time may be passed with more advantage in America where I can see things with my own eyes and prepare matters for the rendering our college more useful. I humbly recommend the undertaking & my self to your Lordship’s protection & prayers and remain with all duty and respect,
My Lord
Yr. Lordship’s most obedient & most
devoted humble Servt
G. Berkeley.
Abstracts

Geneviève Brykman. “Le Cartesianisme dans le De Motu.” Revue Inter-nationale de Philosophie 3 (1979).
The dualism between “thinking things” and “extended things” (which is a typical Cartesian tenet) is much stressed in Berkeley’s De Motu. This tenet is virtually present before, in the Principles, with the weaker version of dualism as it is expressed with action and passion. Associated with this Cartesian aspect, there is something seemingly new in the De Motu: the criticism of abstraction is at first sight similar to the one of the published Introduction of the Principles. But a close examination brings out tnat the word “abstraction” is now taken in a very loose sense. Then abstraction is not so much an undue separation of qualities which cannot exist separately, but an undue mixing of what is radically different. Thus the main criticism is now focused on the sort-crossing that men abuse of when using words from spiritual realm to describe corporeal motions.

Genevieve Brykman, “Pouvoir d’abstraire et notions abstraites chez Berkeley.”  Recherches sur le XVIIème siecle 4.
There is a two fold criticism of abstraction in Berkeley: first, a critical intro-spective search for a power to abstract, which would make the difference between men and brutes; secondly, a logical consideration of the abstract notions as a result of this power. Besides this, three kinds of abstract notions are to be distinguished in the Introduction, as it is published in 1710: the two first are only the non-entities supposed from the psychological incapacity to “frame” them (6-8 for a single “abstract” quality; 9 for an “abstract collection” of qualities. The third kind of abstract notions is the only one considered on a pure logical level (13: a contradiction cannot exist).
As the critical inspection of “matter” shows a similar duality between a word as meaningless and a notion as contradictory, it would be useful to trace whether Berkeley made purposely a parallelism.
Geneviève Brykman

A Berkeleian Correction
In the Newsletter for 1978 (p. 3) my fellow-editor noted that in the first and all subsequent English editions of the Three dialogues there is a grammatical slip in the passage: “Whereas to say, there is no Matter, if by that Term be meant an unthinking Substance existing without the Mind:...” The main verb is lacking.
While in New York Dr. Brian Torode examined, at my suggestion, some books by Berkeley which had been in the possession of Samuel Johnson and are now in the Library of Columbia University. In a copy of the London 1734 edition of the Three dialogues (and Principles) he found, written in a contemporary hand, the following correction on page 353:
I am indeed content
Whereas to say, There is no Matter, if by that Term be meant an unthinking Substance existing without the Mind: But if. . .

Reviews

Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America. New Haven and London 1979: Yale University Press.

“When I had the privilege a few years of dining with the late A. A. Luce at Trinity College, Dublin,” Professor Gaustad says in the first sentence of his book, “he politely inquired how a (mere) historian could possibly be interested in George Berkeley. For Canon Luce, it was clear that Berkeley was firmly and wholly rooted in the philosopher’s turf” (Preface, p. ix). What Dr. Luce feared has happened. We have a book on Berkeley composed of statements on this level: “Berkeley found truth not in propositions and names but in living spirit” (p. 208); a book with this presentation of one of the great empiricists in the history of ideas: “Berkeley, the epistemological mystic, found tongues in trees, sermons in stones, and the language of God in everything” (p. 207). Dr. Luce would not, of course, deny Berkeley’s theological importance or his religious engagement. But even on purely religious issues, to which Professor Gaustad pays much attention, we are given a rather distorted picture: Berkeley’s importance in America was “chiefly his role as minister and preacher,” he says (p. 118); in his account of Berkeley’s teaching, however, “Berkeleian” and “Anglican” are almost synonymous terms.
In his summary of Berkeley’s philosophical importance, Professor Gaustad maintains that Berkeley “was throughout his life ... singing philosophical hymns of praise to” God (p. 212). What he means by this is reflected in his account of Alciphron (p. 142 ff): Alciphron — the first great contribution to philosophy written in America — is here presented as an ordinary sermon by an humble, anonymous, Anglican preacher. The strong-minded analysis in the seventh dialogue, for example, is presented as a sermon in nice words on certain other nice words such as “grace.”
There is no serious attempt to present Berkeley’s contribution to the history of ideas. Neither is there any answer to these questions: What role did Berkeley play, if any, as an introducer in America of contemporary science? of literature? of classical studies? of scientific method? etc. Instead, Gaustad emphasises what he refers to as “Berkeley’s philosophy of history” (pp. 73ff, 185ff, 203ff). Inspired by Berkeley’s verses on America (“... Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way ... Time’s noblest Offspring is the last”), Gaustad constructs his anachronistic view of Berkeley as a pathetic American nationalist; the alleged prophecy on “this nation’s place” is “Berkeley’s philosophy of history.”
When Professor Gaustad discusses the relation between Berkeley and (the American) Samuel Johnson, he is satisfied with speaking about some themes mentioned in their correspondence. And Berkeley’s important indirect influence in America, among other things by means of the books he sent to Johnson, to Harvard, and to Yale, is described in terms of “Berkeley’s bibliomania” (p. 82), on one hand, and his great benevolence and charity proved by his giving away these beloved books, on the other (p. 81ff).

Sometimes, one gets the impression that this book consists of a series of memoranda on just everything its author happened to come across about Berkeley. This is, perhaps, most striking in the evidence given in support of the view that “The name and the spirit of [Berkeley] persists at several levels, from the superficial to the profound” (p. 196). What follows (pp. 196-206) is mainly a list of odd curiosities, uncritical and unsystematically put together; a list that completes this caricature of a man who — in spite of the impression this book must give the reader — was a great philosopher with an important, and continuing influence on cultural life in America.
Bertil Belfrage
Lund University (Sweden)

George Berkeley, Drei Dialoge zwischen Hylas und Philonous. German translation of Berkeley’s Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous in “Philosophische Bibliotek,” volume 102 (Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 1980). Translated by Raoul Richter, revised by Erwin Pracht, and introduced with commentaries and index by Wolfgang Breidert.
The first translation of the Three dialogues in the Philosophische Bibliotek, by Raoul Richter, was published in 1901; a second in 1926; this is the third, revised by Erwin Pracht, published by Wolfgang Breidert. Though Berkeley had no numbered sections in these Dialogues, this edition includes references in accordance with the numbering introduced by C. M. Turbayne.
 This is an excellent translation. It is not a word-by-word translation, of course; the two languages do not permit such a procedure. Consequently, one would search in vain for any exact correspondence between technical terms in the original and the particular words used in the translation. The first impression could be, therefore, that the translator has failed to give a correct picture of Berkeley’s thought. A more careful reading shows, however, that everything is there, admirably clear, though, necessarily, expressed in a different way than Berkeley did in English. Only a trained philosopher with a deep knowledge of Berkeley could possibly produce such a translation!
Wolfgang Breidert, German expert on Berkeley, has contributed an Introduction in which he presents the general background, history, and importance of Berkeley’s philosophy (with special reference to a German auditory); helpful notes to the text; and a representative Index. Breidert’s detailed list of Contents is in fact a first class outline analysis of the Dialogues. German students are to be congratulated.
Bertil Belfrage
Lund University (Sweden)

Recent Articles on Berkeley

[Included in the Bibliography of Berkeley Newsletter No. 16.]

Corrigenda

[The corrigenda originally published here have been included in the text of “A Summary of Berkeley’s Metaphysics,” Berkeley Newsletter 3 (1979).]

The International Berkeley Society

The Society announces the annual commemoration of the arrival of Bishop Berkeley and his family in the New World. This popular event has become the focal point for friends and admirers of the Bishop. This year we are getting as close to the spirit of Berkeley as possible by having the banquet in Honyman Hall, international headquarters.
The program is as follows:
Place: Honyman Hall, Trinity Church, Newport, RI
Time: 6:30 p.m. — Friday 23 January 1981
Dress: Evening dress optional
Cost: $20.00 per person (includes dinner and wine before, during, and after dinner)
Entertainment: The Woythaler ensemble, the world’s smallest symphony orchestra, will play during the social hour from 6:30 - 7:30. Reviving again the fine old 18th century tradition of entertaining ourselves, witty toasts and dedications by the members and probably a reading of a bit of Berkeleyana by the president will be featured.

The Berkeley newsletter lists items of Berkeley interest which have not been included in Jessop’s Bibliography of George Berkeley (2nd ed. revised and enlarged, The Hague, 1973), or in “A bibliography of George Berkeley, 1963-1974” by Turbayne and Appelbaum (Journal of the History of Philosophy, January, 1977), or in previous numbers.
Authors wishing to have their books, articles or notes listed should send a copy of the requisite information to the editors, who would be grateful for any other information relating to Berkeley publications.
It also includes notes on Berkeley topics. Because of production costs a note should normally not exceed four pages. Contributions should be type-written.
The Berkeley newsletter appears once a year in late autumn.