Conclusion:
Although I have attempted to give
quite a comprehensive understanding of the TP from a feminist perspective, I
cannot claim to have left no stone unturned, covering every single passage of
potential feminist or political interest in the TP. Nevertheless, I have
attempted to put forward a method of feminist interpretation which can be
applied to any section of the TP with much the same result as the ones I have
selected for this volume, thus methodologically covering the whole TP. One such
example is in chapter 7 (section 25) Spinoza’s apparent claim that all monarchs
should be kings, the throne being handed down from father to son, seemingly
precluding daughters from becoming queens:
In Latin, this reads as:
“Imperii facies una eademque
servari, et consequenter rex unus et eiusdem sexus, et imperium indivisibile
esse debet.*) Quod autem dixerim, ut filius regis natu maior patri iure
succedat, vel (si nulli sint liberi) qui regi sanguine proximus est, patet tam
ex artic. 13. praeced. cap., quam quia regis electio, quae a multitudine fit,
aeterna, si fieri potest, esse debet. Alias necessario fiet, ut summa imperii
potestas saepe ad multitudinem transeat, quae mutatio summa est, et
consequenter periculosissima.”[i]
Elwes’s translation reads:
“The form of the dominion ought
to be kept one and the same, and, consequently, there should be but one king,
and that of the same sex, and the dominion should be indivisible. But as to my
saying that the king's eldest son should succeed his father by right, or (if
there be no issue) the nearest to him in blood, it is clear as well from Chap.
VI. Sec. 13, as because the election of the king made by the multitude should,
if possible, last for ever. Otherwise it will necessarily happen, that the
supreme authority of the dominion will frequently pass to the multitude, which
is an extreme and, therefore, exceedingly dangerous change.”[ii]
Shirley’s version goes further by
explicitly specifying a male king:
“The form of the state must be
preserved unchanged; and so there must be but one king, a male, and the
sovereignty must be indivisible. I have said that the king’s eldest son should
succeed his father by right; or else, if the king is without issue, his nearest
kinsman. This is evident not only from Section 13 of the previous Chapter but
also because the election of a king by the people should, if possible, be for
all time; otherwise it will necessarily come about that the sovereignty of the
state will frequently pass into the hands of the people, a drastic and
therefore a very dangerous development.”[iii]
Thus, while Elwes gives the
impression that the ruler would remain the same sex, which by implication would
be a male because he refers to kings, Shirley explicitly depicts Spinoza as
expressly stating “there must be but one king, a male”, thereby excluding women
becoming queens altogether.
But this is not what the Latin
text says. Spinoza never writes a man. The Latin words in question are:
“rex unus et eiusdem sexus”[iv]
None of these words mean man, so
Shirley has taken translator’s licence and inserted that understanding of this
passage himself. Therefore, I shall not interpret Spinoza as specifying men in
my analytic-Jewish-feminist interpretation because it is not in the original
text. Eiusdem literally means ‘the same’ and is in the genitive, which gives
the meaning ‘of the same’. Sexus means sex so Elwes is providing a literal,
accurate translation when he states “of the same sex”[v].
As for the word rex, it is not as simple as the one, commonly understood, meaning
of a king. The meaning of rex, regis can refer to a range of titles, from male
specific ones, such as king, prince, to gender neutral roles, such as “unconstitutional ruler, despot, absolute
monarch, tyrant” when attempting to rule certain Republics[vi].
It can be used positively to refer to the “head,
chief, leader”, and be used so generally, that it includes not just humans
but also animals or rivers, such as reference to a main river[vii].
It can also be used to depict, for instance, Roman gods, a wealthy patron, a
nation or merely refer to members of a royal family[viii].
It is considered acceptable to translate Livy as referring to both sexes when
translating “reges exitos” as “the king
and queen”[ix],
which clearly shows that rex can sometimes refer to queens as well. Hence, on
my interpretation, I leave an open mind as to whether Spinoza meant rex only to refer to kings. I suggest this passage is more gender neutral than it first
appears.
I support my interpretation of
this passage by showing that it also coheres with an earlier passage in the TP,
namely chapter 6, section 38. The latter
is highly relevant to the following chapter 7, section 25, as they both refer
to the blood relatives who can succeed the monarch/king. Spinoza’s chapter 6,
section 38 briefly states:
“Si rex liberis masculis orbus
obierit, ille, qui ipsi sanguine proximus, heres imperii habendus”[x]
Elwes renders this as:
“If the king die leaving no male
issue, let the next to him in blood be held the heir to the dominion”[xi]
Shirley translates this as:
“If the king dies without male
issue, the nearest to him by blood must be regarded as heir to the throne”[xii]
Once again, this passage may seem
clearly male-biased, but is it? I suggest it could be read in the following
way. When the convention of declaring the first male born to be the heir cannot
be followed (because the king/monarch has no sons) then the next closest blood
relative of the king/monarch is the heir to the throne (whether they are male
or female). I’m not sure why Shirley shifts from nearest blood relative to
kinsman between chapters 6 and 7, despite Spinoza using the same phrasing[xiii].
This adds to the emphasis on male language in chapter 7 unnecessarily. Referring
to blood relatives in no way excludes women becoming queen, and the passages
merely assume the common convention in royal society that first born males
become the heir, which is only realistic for Spinoza’s era. Therefore, in terms
of the possible feminist concern that Spinoza is assuming males would be first
in line to the throne, this would merely be factually accurate in his era. Such
assumptions are not of concern because it is symptomatic of society itself, not
Spinoza’s attitudes. Indeed, even until very recently in the UK, it was convention
that male children received priority in line of succession, up until the birth
of Prince George in 2013.
An analysis of the Latin in chapter
6, section 38, supports my argument. Ille is masculine singular but its meaning
is strictly speaking ‘that’, rather than ‘he’, so not clearly referring to a
male person. Even if it were, the masculine form is very often used to refer to
both sexes, due to linguistic convention. So one could translate it as ‘that
person’ which need not only refer to men despite the masculine gender being
used grammatically. The next relevant gender word is ipsi but that could be
masculine, feminine or neuter, thus, could refer to either men or women. As for
the mention of the nearest in blood (sanguine proximus), this is expressed generally,
not specifying men. Spinoza could have specified men, for instance by using the
word masculis as he has done previously. By not doing so, one could read this
gender inclusively, as referring to both heirs and heiresses. Thus, on my charitable
reading and interpretation, Spinoza’s reference to the next closest blood
relative who can be heir to the throne (in both sections 25 and 38 cited above)
includes both sexes as potential heirs.
In addition, keeping to the same
sex, conversely, also leaves open the possibility that all monarchs could be women.
So, on this additional layer of reading, Spinoza is certainly not excluding queens
outright. Perhaps queens would suffer less opposition because there would be no male eligible competition
or feeling of disappointment from men who were hoping for a king rather than a
queen. Mary Queen of Scots endured misogyny concerning her reign as a woman. The minister and theologian John Knox wrote ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of
Women’ (published 1558) to rouse men against women ruling as queens, employing
extreme, misogynistic, emotive language to ensure male-only rule. Although his
actions did not result in preventing all women becoming queens, it did cause
severe political disturbance and triggered a series of fatal problems for Mary
Queen of Scots and her mother. Knox even called for the execution of Mary Queen of Scots once she was dethroned.
Also, as I discussed in chapter 1,
Spinoza rightly does not think the opposite sexes gel with each other, which
could be what motivates Spinoza’s point about the problems with changing
between kings and queens ruling. Opposition to queens has caused political
instability in the past. How do we solve the problem? One finds oneself asking the controversial
question: Should all monarchs be queens or kings? Perhaps Spinoza
wishes to raise the intriguing question: Is the problem really which sex is
ruling or is the problem greater when switching the sex of the monarch between
reigns? In chapter 4, I discussed the role of convention in social acceptance and
gender when analysing the passage on eunuchs being less socially accepted than
women. This shows the gendered way even men are perceived when they are more effeminate
than other men. Thus, Spinoza may be, once again, showing the role of
perception and gendered expectation based on what people are accustomed to
seeing in positions of political power. Where people were used to seeing women
in political roles, before experiencing a switch of leadership to a group they were
not used to seeing in power (eunuchs), bias and prejudice crept in.
Indeed, even if Elwes’s and
Shirley’s translations were representative of Spinoza’s meaning, it could be
read charitably in the light of historical context. Spinoza could be merely
making the observation that states were nervous about switching between male
and female ruling monarchs in case it accidentally led to dissolution of the
monarchy through confusion over succession rights. This can be seen by the
situation in England around Henry VIII’s rule: “England had not so far had a
ruling queen, and the dynasty was not secure enough to run the risk of handing
the Crown on to a woman, risking disputed succession or domination of a foreign
power through marriage.”[xiv]
This was unnecessarily alarmist because both of his daughters became queens,
namely Mary I and Elizabeth I.
Earlier in history, there had
been an opening for a woman to succeed the throne in the 12th
century, but she was never crowned queen because there was too much opposition. During confusion of succession rights, King Henry I of England conferred
the status of heiress to Empress Mathilda and made his court swear loyalty to
her and her descendants to ensure she would become queen. Despite this, the
court and barons broke their loyalty to Empress Mathilda after his death and
her male cousin, Stephen, (1135-1154) took the crown, with the support of the
English Church. She fought back and won the battle by capturing him but was again
unable to be coroneted at Westminster, this time due to opposition from mobs in
London. In the end, she was jumped over in the line of succession, as the crown
passed from her cousin to her son. She was clearly highly capable of being
queen, as can be seen by the fact that she was initially political advisor to
her son when he was king and provided assistance with the Becket controversy. Reserving
the throne exclusively for kings is not just a thing of the past. Even in
modern-day Japan, Princess Aiko is unable to become queen, despite being the
daughter of the emperor, because only men can rule and attend the ceremony. The
dowry system still exists and women have to marry a Japanese nobleman (although
there are none remaining). So she also has to stay single to keep her royal
title[xv].
Nevertheless, as I have demonstrated
above, there may be another explanation for this passage. Hence, I suggest,
Spinoza was not excluding women from becoming queens. Again, using the same
methodology as I have throughout this volume, a close examination of the Latin
reveals some alternative readings which may explain Spinoza’s true meaning, and
show he was not expounding sexism.
Concluding Remarks:
In this volume 3, I have extended
the topic of life and death into the political and social life and death of
women. I have analysed specific passages in Spinoza’s TP to bring out the extra
or alternative layers of meaning in his political philosophy and attempted to show
that Spinoza was not advocating the Masculine Philosophy that others in his era
were beginning to overtly support. I have, for the first time in this series,
expanded on and clarified the feminist strand of my analytic-Jewish-feminist
interpretation of Spinoza, and demonstrated how it tackles Spinoza’s
philosophy. By untangling the literal Latin meanings of Spinoza’s words from
their English translations of the TP, I respond to the interpretative need,
highlighted by Barbone and Rice, for Spinozian scholarship to map analyses of
Spinoza’s philosophical concepts and arguments onto his actual words and to
guard against misinterpretation and uncharitable criticisms of his political
philosophy. I have tried to give both an in-depth examination of his TP, and
his attitudes towards gender and women, as well as provide a broad overview of
how Spinoza views gender, women and patriarchal society in a variety of
passages across his TP. In this way, I hope to have provided readers with a
different perspective on the interplay between feminism, gender and political
philosophy to be found in Spinoza’s TP. I hold the view that feminism need not
take exception to Spinoza’s philosophy but, on the contrary, can draw
inspiration from his concepts of justice, power and rights. By bringing out
these philosophical concepts, I have highlighted the
distinctively philosophical tone of Spinoza’s TP.
[i] Benedict de Spinoza, Opera: DE
INTELLECTUS EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE., ed. C.H. Bruder,
EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (google e-book), vol.
II (Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1844), 95,
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadzEPDWXpqdc1w64BhFzajGArDBTQxm7-OplWX-YAvgSP9r0aWjRuX_tWKyc91-v3Gs_dl8Bj6OsIx-MXggSVv8YstyN_hv_92hGuIgl7pjaissVrP4yATRaHCCUioseMVU8P140b-vRAVXK3X2671uEoDyNHgJNglQzeqMHaWArZG409KntocN2v_33hMNHHIie-SfXal-O7pNaaJTNnYo5Vdp_tP0ZStSFL2ajcir8s3q1LHnTpfqUrXkIlOd7woTP-bA2LMP2J729nBFPsQz-WHMOw.
[ii] Benedict de Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS
of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, REVISED EDITION. London, UK,
vol. I, BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. (London: york street,
covent garden: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1891), 339,
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1710/1321.01_Bk.pdf.
[iii] Benedictus de Spinoza, Political
Treatise, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000), 88.
[iv] Spinoza, Opera: DE INTELLECTUS
EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE., II:95.
[v] Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT
DE SPINOZA, I:339.
[vi] D. P Simpson, Cassell’s Latin-English,
English-Latin Dictionary (London: Cassell, 1987), 522.
[vii] Simpson, 522.
[viii]
Simpson, 522.
[ix] Simpson, 522.
[x] Spinoza, Opera: DE INTELLECTUS
EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE., II:83.
[xi] Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT
DE SPINOZA, I:326.
[xii] Spinoza, Political Treatise, 74.
[xiii]
Spinoza, Political Treatise.
[xiv] website content writers for The Royal
Household, ‘Henry VIII (r.1509-1547)’, Royal, The Royal Household, No date
given, https://www.royal.uk/henry-viii.
[xv] Matt Roper, ‘World’s Loneliest Royal
Princess Banned from Marriage and Ruling Her Country’, Mirror Online, 13
May 2019,
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/worlds-loneliest-royal-princess-banned-from-marriage-and-ruling-her-country/ar-AABirOt?ocid=spartandhp.
Aristotle, and E.S. Forster. Oeconomica. Oxford UK: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1920. https://archive.org/details/oeconomica01arisuoft/page/n7.
Barnett, Hilaire. Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence. 1st edition. London: Cavendish Publ, 1998.
Bondanella, Peter, Mark Musa, and Niccolò Machiavelli. ‘Introduction An Essay on Machiavelli’. In The Portable Machiavelli, 9–40. The Viking Portable Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Cicero, M. T. De Natura Deorum; Academica. Edited by E. H. Warmington. Translated by Harris Rackham. First. Vol. 19. 28 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London, UK: Heinemann, 1933. https://archive.org/details/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft/page/n7.
———. ‘M. TVLLI CICERONIS PRO MVRENA ORATIO’. Educational. http://thelatinlibrary.com/, No website date given. http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/murena.shtml.
Dio, Cassius. ‘Roman History’. Educational. penelope.uchicago.edu, updated 2011. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html.
Fawcett Society. ‘Fawcett Launches Commission as Research Reveals Widespread Concern about Gender Stereotypes in Product Marketing’. Society. https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk, 30 April 2019. https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/News/fawcett-research-reveals-widespread-concern-about-gender-stereotypes-in-product-marketing.
Frijhoff, Willem, Marijke Spies, Joost Kloek, Wijnand W Mijnhardt, Jan Bank, Maarten van Buuren, Kees Schuyt, Ed Taverne, Douwe Wessel Fokkema, and Frans Grijzenhout. Dutch Culture in a European Perspective. Assen; New York: Royal Van Gorcum ; Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Garrett, Don. ‘“Promising” Ideas: Hobbes and Contract in Spinoza’s Political Philosophy’. In Spinoza’s ‘Theological-Political Treatise’: a Critical Guide, edited by Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Michael A. Rosenthal, 192–209. Cambridge Critical Guides. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/garrett/papers/Promising%20Ideas_Hobbes%20and%20Contract%20in%20Spinoza’s%20Political%20Philosophy.pdf.
Gullan-Whur, Margaret. ‘Spinoza and the Equality of Women1’. Theoria 68, no. 2 (11 February 2008): 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2002.tb00123.x.
Hall, Kira. ‘Unnatural’ Gender in Hindi’. In Gender across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, edited by Marlis Hellinger, Hadumod Bussmann, and Heiko Motschenbacher. Impact, Studies in Language and Society, v. 9-<11, 36 >. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2001.
hooks, bell. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Nachdr. Pluto Classics. London: Pluto Press, 2001.
‘Is There a Flaw in Spinoza’s Argument about Gender Inequality?’ Q&A. Philosophy, 2 December 2015. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30155/is-there-a-flaw-in-spinozas-argument-about-gender-inequality.
Jordan, R. H., and Publius Vergilius Maro. Virgil, Aeneid II. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1999.
Kaucky, Liba. ‘Chapter 4: The Psychological Impact of Fear and Anxiety on Freedom, Living Wisely, Dying Well and Attaining Eternity in Spinoza’s Ethics’. In Research Thoughts On... Spinoza - Volume 2: Life, Death, Immortality and the Soul, 1st Edition. Vol. II. Research Thoughts On... 1. London, UK: blogger.com, 2018. http://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.com/2018/09/spinoza-vol-2-ebook-chapter-4.html.
———. ‘Chapter 6: Spinoza on the Personal and the Political (in the TP)’. In Research Thoughts On... Spinoza - Volume 3: A Feminist Approach to Spinoza’s Political Treatise, edited by Liba Kaucky, 1st edition., III:N/A. Research Thoughts On… Spinoza. London, UK: blogger.com, 2019. http://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.com/2019/06/spinoza-ebook-vol-3-chapter-6-spinoza.html.
Kekewich, Lucille Margaret, and Niccolò Machiavelli. ‘Introduction’. In The Prince., edited by Tom Griffith, translated by C. E Detmold, vii–xxiv. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 2013. https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11406095.
King, Peter. ‘Thomas Hobbes’s Children’. In The Philosopher’s Child: Critical Perspectives in the Western Tradition, edited by Susan M. Turner and Gareth B. Matthews, print book: 65-83; pdf version of chapter: 1-20. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1998. http://www.individual.utoronto.ca/pking/articles/Hobbes_on_Children.pdf.
Kourany, Janet A. ‘Philosophy of Science: A New Program for Philosophy of Science, in Many Voices’. In Philosophy in a Feminist Voice: Critiques and Reconstructions, edited by Janet A. Kourany, 231–62. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Lane, M. S. Greek and Roman Political Ideas. A Pelican Introduction 5. London, England ; New York: Pelican, an imprint of Penguin Books, 2014.
Mahapatra, Dhananjay. ‘Supreme Court Recognnizes Transgender as “Third Gender”’. The Times of India. 15 April 2014. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms.
N/A. ‘Custody Rights and Domestic Violence’. Political. www.parliment.uk, no date given. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/custodyrights/.
———. ‘Men Rising’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/resources/men-rising/.
———. ‘Sisterhood’. In Cambridge Dictionary. UK: Cambridge University Press, N/A. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sisterhood.
———. ‘The 2019 Campaign RISING: FROM A CAMPAIGN, TO A WAY OF LIFE’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/about/campaign/.
———. ‘Youth Rising’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/resources/youth-rising/.
Oppenheim, Maya. ‘Online Hate Spurred on Our Father to Kill Our Mother and Sister, Say His Sons’. Independent. 25 May 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/luke-ryan-hart-father-murder-mother-sister-spalding-a8928471.html.
Pinfold, Corinne. ‘Pakistan: First Trans Woman in General Election Says the Community Is “more than Dancers and Beggars”’. 2013. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/26/pakistan-first-trans-woman-in-general-election-says-the-community-is-more-than-dancers-and-beggars/.
Plutarch, Lucius Mestrius. ‘Alexander’. Educational. Translated by John Dryden. The Internet Classics Archive. Accessed 16 May 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.
‘Queen Anne’. Royal. Historic Royal Palaces, no date given. https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/history-and-stories/queen-anne/#gs.clq80o.
Quintus, Curtius Rufus. Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt. Edited by Stangl Thomas. Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von G. Freytag, 1902. https://archive.org/details/qcurtirufihisto00stangoog/page/n9.
Roper, Matt. ‘World’s Loneliest Royal Princess Banned from Marriage and Ruling Her Country’. Mirror Online. 13 May 2019. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/worlds-loneliest-royal-princess-banned-from-marriage-and-ruling-her-country/ar-AABirOt?ocid=spartandhp.
Sallustius, Crispus. ‘Bellvm Catilinae’. Educational section of univerity website (online course materials). LATN2310 LATIN HISTORICAL TEXTS 1 (University of Queensland), 11 December 2001. https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/cl220.htm; https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/saltext6.htm; https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/trans52e.htm.
Scherman, Rabbi N., and Rabbi M. Zlotowitz, eds. Tanach (The Torah/Prophets/Writings, the Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated and Annotated). Stone edition. The Artscroll Series. Mesorah Publications Ltd., 2008.
Scruton, Roger. Spinoza. 1st edition (1. Nov. 1986). Past Masters Series. Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford University Press, 1986.
Simpson, D. P. Cassell’s Latin-English, English-Latin Dictionary. London: Cassell, 1987.
Spinoza, Benedict de. A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. Dover Philosophical Classics. Mineola, New York, USA: Dover Publications Inc, 2004.
———. Benedicti de Spinoza Opera quotquot reperta sunt. Edited by J. van Vloten and JPN Land. Editio Altera, Tomus Primus. Netherlands: Hagae comitum, M. Nijhoff, 1895. https://archive.org/details/Spinoza1895Opera2VlotenLand2ed/page/n7.
———. Ethics. Edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. England, UK: Penguin Books, 1996.
———. Opera: DE INTELLECTUS EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE. Edited by C.H. Bruder. EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (Google e-Book). Vol. II. III vols. Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1844. https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadzEPDWXpqdc1w64BhFzajGArDBTQxm7-OplWX-YAvgSP9r0aWjRuX_tWKyc91-v3Gs_dl8Bj6OsIx-MXggSVv8YstyN_hv_92hGuIgl7pjaissVrP4yATRaHCCUioseMVU8P140b-vRAVXK3X2671uEoDyNHgJNglQzeqMHaWArZG409KntocN2v_33hMNHHIie-SfXal-O7pNaaJTNnYo5Vdp_tP0ZStSFL2ajcir8s3q1LHnTpfqUrXkIlOd7woTP-bA2LMP2J729nBFPsQz-WHMOw.
———. OPERA: TRACTATUS THEOLOGICO - POLITICUS. COMPENDIUM GRAMMATICES LINGUAE HEBRAEAE. EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (Google e-Book). Vol. III. III vols. Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1846. https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacE8SDsXSxDv_mlktJb68z9c6Kfxnn11M9rjyKJagSi-1h3konJKQNSvm_0MIhRTdihCHrOk849LY5fQU-P-M4UDeaUiCrLFz_NUTHk5MbSk-yI839tTy2_4bCeWVrmWCGj3RvJn4Ma9vyhhail9I4XPYFuBVkvDbRassb1ugmECEDF-1qr2mH1JRdIQj4KKzQmUjQnfdEVWI7o2dHXv7IQnI6N93NGrh36IYZDwjtfamtm5MJ5Uc0oPC5oBnD8VxUYaUi88X3iwbO9Jp7XAiStdVfwBg.
———. THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. REVISED EDITION. London, UK. Vol. I. II vols. BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. London: york street, covent garden: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1891. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1710/1321.01_Bk.pdf.
———. THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. REVISED EDITION. London, UK. Vol. II. II vols. BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. London: york street, covent garden new york: 66, fifth avenue, and bombay: 53, esplanade road cambridge: deighton, bell & co: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1901. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1711/1321.02_Bk.pdf.
Spinoza, Benedictus de. ‘Introduction’. In Political Treatise, translated by Samuel Shirley, 1–30. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
———. Political Treatise. Translated by Samuel Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, and Carl Gebhardt. Opera. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Heidelberg, Germany: C. Winter, 1925. http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=SOLO&docid=oxfaleph012466133&context=L.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, Samuel Shirley, Steven Barbone, and Lee Rice. Political Treatise. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
Starkey, David. The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics. London: G. Philip, 1985.
‘The Spending Habits of Queen Anne’. Royal. Blenheim Palace, no date given. https://www.blenheimpalace.com/visitus/sarah-marlborough/.
website content writers for The Royal Household. ‘Henry VIII (r.1509-1547)’. Royal. The Royal Household, No date given. https://www.royal.uk/henry-viii.
———. ‘Mary I (r.1553-1558)’. Royal. The Royal Household, No date given. https://www.royal.uk/mary-i.
‘Women and Children – Custody of Children Act 1839’. Educational. Intriguing History, 3 January 2012. https://www.intriguing-history.com/women-children-custody-of-children-act/.
Xenophon. Xenophon: in seven volumes. 4: Memorabilia. - Oeconomicus. - Symposium. - Apology. Reprinted. The Loeb classical library 168. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press [u.a.], 2002.
Bibliography
Aristotle, and E.S. Forster. Oeconomica. Oxford UK: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1920. https://archive.org/details/oeconomica01arisuoft/page/n7.
Barnett, Hilaire. Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence. 1st edition. London: Cavendish Publ, 1998.
Bondanella, Peter, Mark Musa, and Niccolò Machiavelli. ‘Introduction An Essay on Machiavelli’. In The Portable Machiavelli, 9–40. The Viking Portable Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Cicero, M. T. De Natura Deorum; Academica. Edited by E. H. Warmington. Translated by Harris Rackham. First. Vol. 19. 28 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London, UK: Heinemann, 1933. https://archive.org/details/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft/page/n7.
———. ‘M. TVLLI CICERONIS PRO MVRENA ORATIO’. Educational. http://thelatinlibrary.com/, No website date given. http://thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/murena.shtml.
Dio, Cassius. ‘Roman History’. Educational. penelope.uchicago.edu, updated 2011. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html.
Fawcett Society. ‘Fawcett Launches Commission as Research Reveals Widespread Concern about Gender Stereotypes in Product Marketing’. Society. https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk, 30 April 2019. https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/News/fawcett-research-reveals-widespread-concern-about-gender-stereotypes-in-product-marketing.
Frijhoff, Willem, Marijke Spies, Joost Kloek, Wijnand W Mijnhardt, Jan Bank, Maarten van Buuren, Kees Schuyt, Ed Taverne, Douwe Wessel Fokkema, and Frans Grijzenhout. Dutch Culture in a European Perspective. Assen; New York: Royal Van Gorcum ; Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Garrett, Don. ‘“Promising” Ideas: Hobbes and Contract in Spinoza’s Political Philosophy’. In Spinoza’s ‘Theological-Political Treatise’: a Critical Guide, edited by Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Michael A. Rosenthal, 192–209. Cambridge Critical Guides. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/garrett/papers/Promising%20Ideas_Hobbes%20and%20Contract%20in%20Spinoza’s%20Political%20Philosophy.pdf.
Gullan-Whur, Margaret. ‘Spinoza and the Equality of Women1’. Theoria 68, no. 2 (11 February 2008): 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2002.tb00123.x.
Hall, Kira. ‘Unnatural’ Gender in Hindi’. In Gender across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, edited by Marlis Hellinger, Hadumod Bussmann, and Heiko Motschenbacher. Impact, Studies in Language and Society, v. 9-<11, 36 >. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2001.
hooks, bell. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Nachdr. Pluto Classics. London: Pluto Press, 2001.
‘Is There a Flaw in Spinoza’s Argument about Gender Inequality?’ Q&A. Philosophy, 2 December 2015. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30155/is-there-a-flaw-in-spinozas-argument-about-gender-inequality.
Jordan, R. H., and Publius Vergilius Maro. Virgil, Aeneid II. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1999.
Kaucky, Liba. ‘Chapter 4: The Psychological Impact of Fear and Anxiety on Freedom, Living Wisely, Dying Well and Attaining Eternity in Spinoza’s Ethics’. In Research Thoughts On... Spinoza - Volume 2: Life, Death, Immortality and the Soul, 1st Edition. Vol. II. Research Thoughts On... 1. London, UK: blogger.com, 2018. http://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.com/2018/09/spinoza-vol-2-ebook-chapter-4.html.
———. ‘Chapter 6: Spinoza on the Personal and the Political (in the TP)’. In Research Thoughts On... Spinoza - Volume 3: A Feminist Approach to Spinoza’s Political Treatise, edited by Liba Kaucky, 1st edition., III:N/A. Research Thoughts On… Spinoza. London, UK: blogger.com, 2019. http://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.com/2019/06/spinoza-ebook-vol-3-chapter-6-spinoza.html.
Kekewich, Lucille Margaret, and Niccolò Machiavelli. ‘Introduction’. In The Prince., edited by Tom Griffith, translated by C. E Detmold, vii–xxiv. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 2013. https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11406095.
King, Peter. ‘Thomas Hobbes’s Children’. In The Philosopher’s Child: Critical Perspectives in the Western Tradition, edited by Susan M. Turner and Gareth B. Matthews, print book: 65-83; pdf version of chapter: 1-20. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1998. http://www.individual.utoronto.ca/pking/articles/Hobbes_on_Children.pdf.
Kourany, Janet A. ‘Philosophy of Science: A New Program for Philosophy of Science, in Many Voices’. In Philosophy in a Feminist Voice: Critiques and Reconstructions, edited by Janet A. Kourany, 231–62. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Lane, M. S. Greek and Roman Political Ideas. A Pelican Introduction 5. London, England ; New York: Pelican, an imprint of Penguin Books, 2014.
Mahapatra, Dhananjay. ‘Supreme Court Recognnizes Transgender as “Third Gender”’. The Times of India. 15 April 2014. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms.
N/A. ‘Custody Rights and Domestic Violence’. Political. www.parliment.uk, no date given. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/custodyrights/.
———. ‘Men Rising’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/resources/men-rising/.
———. ‘Sisterhood’. In Cambridge Dictionary. UK: Cambridge University Press, N/A. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sisterhood.
———. ‘The 2019 Campaign RISING: FROM A CAMPAIGN, TO A WAY OF LIFE’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/about/campaign/.
———. ‘Youth Rising’. Campaign; educational. One Billion Rising, 2019. https://www.onebillionrising.org/resources/youth-rising/.
Oppenheim, Maya. ‘Online Hate Spurred on Our Father to Kill Our Mother and Sister, Say His Sons’. Independent. 25 May 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/luke-ryan-hart-father-murder-mother-sister-spalding-a8928471.html.
Pinfold, Corinne. ‘Pakistan: First Trans Woman in General Election Says the Community Is “more than Dancers and Beggars”’. 2013. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/26/pakistan-first-trans-woman-in-general-election-says-the-community-is-more-than-dancers-and-beggars/.
Plutarch, Lucius Mestrius. ‘Alexander’. Educational. Translated by John Dryden. The Internet Classics Archive. Accessed 16 May 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.
‘Queen Anne’. Royal. Historic Royal Palaces, no date given. https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/history-and-stories/queen-anne/#gs.clq80o.
Quintus, Curtius Rufus. Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt. Edited by Stangl Thomas. Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von G. Freytag, 1902. https://archive.org/details/qcurtirufihisto00stangoog/page/n9.
Roper, Matt. ‘World’s Loneliest Royal Princess Banned from Marriage and Ruling Her Country’. Mirror Online. 13 May 2019. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/worlds-loneliest-royal-princess-banned-from-marriage-and-ruling-her-country/ar-AABirOt?ocid=spartandhp.
Sallustius, Crispus. ‘Bellvm Catilinae’. Educational section of univerity website (online course materials). LATN2310 LATIN HISTORICAL TEXTS 1 (University of Queensland), 11 December 2001. https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/cl220.htm; https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/saltext6.htm; https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/trans52e.htm.
Scherman, Rabbi N., and Rabbi M. Zlotowitz, eds. Tanach (The Torah/Prophets/Writings, the Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated and Annotated). Stone edition. The Artscroll Series. Mesorah Publications Ltd., 2008.
Scruton, Roger. Spinoza. 1st edition (1. Nov. 1986). Past Masters Series. Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford University Press, 1986.
Simpson, D. P. Cassell’s Latin-English, English-Latin Dictionary. London: Cassell, 1987.
Spinoza, Benedict de. A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. Dover Philosophical Classics. Mineola, New York, USA: Dover Publications Inc, 2004.
———. Benedicti de Spinoza Opera quotquot reperta sunt. Edited by J. van Vloten and JPN Land. Editio Altera, Tomus Primus. Netherlands: Hagae comitum, M. Nijhoff, 1895. https://archive.org/details/Spinoza1895Opera2VlotenLand2ed/page/n7.
———. Ethics. Edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. England, UK: Penguin Books, 1996.
———. Opera: DE INTELLECTUS EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE. Edited by C.H. Bruder. EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (Google e-Book). Vol. II. III vols. Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1844. https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadzEPDWXpqdc1w64BhFzajGArDBTQxm7-OplWX-YAvgSP9r0aWjRuX_tWKyc91-v3Gs_dl8Bj6OsIx-MXggSVv8YstyN_hv_92hGuIgl7pjaissVrP4yATRaHCCUioseMVU8P140b-vRAVXK3X2671uEoDyNHgJNglQzeqMHaWArZG409KntocN2v_33hMNHHIie-SfXal-O7pNaaJTNnYo5Vdp_tP0ZStSFL2ajcir8s3q1LHnTpfqUrXkIlOd7woTP-bA2LMP2J729nBFPsQz-WHMOw.
———. OPERA: TRACTATUS THEOLOGICO - POLITICUS. COMPENDIUM GRAMMATICES LINGUAE HEBRAEAE. EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (Google e-Book). Vol. III. III vols. Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1846. https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacE8SDsXSxDv_mlktJb68z9c6Kfxnn11M9rjyKJagSi-1h3konJKQNSvm_0MIhRTdihCHrOk849LY5fQU-P-M4UDeaUiCrLFz_NUTHk5MbSk-yI839tTy2_4bCeWVrmWCGj3RvJn4Ma9vyhhail9I4XPYFuBVkvDbRassb1ugmECEDF-1qr2mH1JRdIQj4KKzQmUjQnfdEVWI7o2dHXv7IQnI6N93NGrh36IYZDwjtfamtm5MJ5Uc0oPC5oBnD8VxUYaUi88X3iwbO9Jp7XAiStdVfwBg.
———. THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. REVISED EDITION. London, UK. Vol. I. II vols. BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. London: york street, covent garden: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1891. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1710/1321.01_Bk.pdf.
———. THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. REVISED EDITION. London, UK. Vol. II. II vols. BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. London: york street, covent garden new york: 66, fifth avenue, and bombay: 53, esplanade road cambridge: deighton, bell & co: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1901. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1711/1321.02_Bk.pdf.
Spinoza, Benedictus de. ‘Introduction’. In Political Treatise, translated by Samuel Shirley, 1–30. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
———. Political Treatise. Translated by Samuel Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, and Carl Gebhardt. Opera. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Heidelberg, Germany: C. Winter, 1925. http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=SOLO&docid=oxfaleph012466133&context=L.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, Samuel Shirley, Steven Barbone, and Lee Rice. Political Treatise. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000.
Starkey, David. The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics. London: G. Philip, 1985.
‘The Spending Habits of Queen Anne’. Royal. Blenheim Palace, no date given. https://www.blenheimpalace.com/visitus/sarah-marlborough/.
website content writers for The Royal Household. ‘Henry VIII (r.1509-1547)’. Royal. The Royal Household, No date given. https://www.royal.uk/henry-viii.
———. ‘Mary I (r.1553-1558)’. Royal. The Royal Household, No date given. https://www.royal.uk/mary-i.
‘Women and Children – Custody of Children Act 1839’. Educational. Intriguing History, 3 January 2012. https://www.intriguing-history.com/women-children-custody-of-children-act/.
Xenophon. Xenophon: in seven volumes. 4: Memorabilia. - Oeconomicus. - Symposium. - Apology. Reprinted. The Loeb classical library 168. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press [u.a.], 2002.
