bplist00Ò+_WebSubresources_WebMainResource§!&Ô	
_WebResourceData_WebResourceMIMEType^WebResourceURL_WebResourceResponseO)/* GENERAL STYLE ELEMENTS USED BY DEFAULT */
@import "sep.css";

/* ADD ENTRY SPECIFIC STUFF HERE */

div#foot {
/*  width: 600px;  */
  border-top: 1px solid #663300;
  border-bottom: 4px solid #663300;
/*  text-align: center; */
  background: #ccbbaa; /* yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px; 
  margin-bottom: 5px; 
  margin-top: 10px; 
  text-align: center;
  color: black;
  font-size: 12pt; 
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px 15px;
}

h1 {
 margin-bottom: 2px;
}
Xtext/css_*http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sepentry.cssO—bplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _*http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sepentry.cssÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+h€„ÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveXtext/css_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:32 GMT_Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:45:27 GMTS553_"21483-229-45dc9c7b23fc0"_timeout=15, max=100SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionary)Ò*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á'-06?HJQYdfqsuwy{}ƒ…’”–˜šœž ¢¤«¹ÄÑÖäóølr}†¦ÆÊæü ,/4HL`n€ƒ™             n              ›ÔO£/* GENERAL STYLE ELEMENTS USED BY DEFAULT */

body {
  background: #eeddcc; 
  margin: 0px;
  height:100%;
}

.center {text-align: center}
.indent { margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 10px; }

h1 { font-size: 16pt; }
h2 { font-size: 14pt; }
h3 { font-size: 12pt; }
h4 { font-size: 11pt; }
h5 { font-size: 10pt; }
.small {font-size: 10pt}
.xsmall {font-size: 9pt}
.xxsmall {font-size: 8pt}

blockquote {
 position: relative;
 margin-left: 20px;
 margin-right: 20px;
 line-height: 140%;
}


img {
  border: 0px;
}

form {
  margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}

a:link {text-decoration: none; color: #883300; }
a:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #883300;}
a:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
a:link:hover {text-decoration: underline; color: #880000;}
a:visited:hover {text-decoration: underline; color: #880000;}

/* TABLE FORMATTING */

table.center {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto}

/* SEP CONTENT ITEMS */

div#aueditable {
   border: 0px dashed blue;
}

div#pubinfo {
   font-size: 9pt;
}

div.pagetitle {
   border: 0px dashed blue;
   font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
   font-size: 14pt;
   color: #663322;
   font-weight: bold;
   text-align: left;
   margin-left: -10px; /* hanging indent */
   margin-bottom: 10px;
}


div.title {
   border: 5px dashed green;
   text-align: left;
   font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
   font-size: 12pt;
   font-weight: bold;
}


/* LEFT MENU-NAVIGATION ELEMENTS */

div#pagetopleft {
  position: fixed;
  background: #eeddcc url("../symbols/image.jpg") no-repeat left top;
  border-bottom: 1px solid gray;
  border-right: 1px solid gray;
  top: 0px;
  left: 0px;
  right: 0px;
  padding: 5px;
  margin-left: 4px;
  margin-top: 4px; 
  height: 53px;
  width: 175px;
  text-align: center;
  font-family: "Lucida", Arial, sans-serif;
  font-size: 18pt;
}

div#navmenu {
  position: fixed;
  border-right: 1px solid gray; 
  width: 169px;
  left: 0px;
  top: 60px;
  padding: 13px 10px 10px 10px;
  color: #883300;
}

div.menuheading {
  text-align: left;
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; 
  /* font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;*/
  /* border-right: 1px solid gray; */
  font-size: 10pt;
  font-weight: bold;
}

div.menuitem {
  text-align: left;
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  /* font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;*/
  font-size: 8pt;
  padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;
}

A.menulink:link {text-decoration: none; color: #883300;}
A.menulink:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #883300;}
A.menulink:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
/*A.menulink:hover {text-decoration: underline; color: #ffffff; background: #ddbbaa;}*/
A.menulink:hover {text-decoration: underline; color: #880000;}

div.navpanel {
  font-size: small;
  /* font-family: Lucidatypewriter, monospace; */
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; 
  text-align: left;
  padding: 5px;
}

div.copyright {
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-style: italic;
  /*font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; */
  font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
}

A.navlink:link {text-decoration: none; color: #663300;}
A.navlink:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #663300;}
A.navlink:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
A.navlink:hover {text-decoration: none; color: #880000;}


/* MAIN CONTENT ELEMENTS ON RIGHT */

div#pagetopright {
  position: absolute;
  float: right;
  top: 0px;
  left: 190px;
  right: 0px;
  padding: 4px 10px 6px 5px;
  height: 57px;
  text-align: left;
  font-family: "Lucida", Arial, sans-serif;
  font-size: 18pt;
}

div#maintitle {
  position: absolute;
  float: right;
  border:  0px solid green;
/* background-color: #ffeedd; */
  background-color: #ffffff; 
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  top: 68px;
  left: 190px;
  height: 100px;
  padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px;
/*  text-align: center; */
  font-family: "Lucida", Arial, sans-serif;
  font-size: 18pt;
}

div#content {
  background-color: white;
  position: absolute;
  float: right;
  border-left: 1px solid gray;
  border-top: 1px solid gray;
  top: 67px;
  left: 189px;
  right: 0px;
  padding: 5px 30px 0px 20px; /* top right bottom left */
  line-height: 140%;
/*  font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; */
}

div#content SUB, div#content SUP { line-height: 0px; }

/* BRANDING BANNER ELEMENTS */

A.banner:link {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none; }
A.banner:visited {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none;}
A.banner:active {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none;}
A.banner:hover {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: underline;}

div#message {
/*  width: 600px;  */
  border-top: 4px solid #663300;
  border-bottom: 1px solid #663300;
/*  text-align: center; */
  background: #fafbbb; /* yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px;
  margin-bottom: 5px; 
/*  margin-top: -5px; */
  color: black;
  font-size: 11pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;
}

div#message2 {
/*  width: 500px;  */
  border-top: 4px solid #663300;
  border-bottom: 1px solid #663300;
/*  text-align: center; */
  background: #99bbff; /* blue */
  background: #fafbbb; /* yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px;
  margin-bottom: 5px; 
/*  margin-top: -5px; */
  color: black;
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sanserif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;
}

div#archivebanner {
/*  width: 500px;  */
  border-top: 4px solid #663300;
  border-bottom: 1px solid #663300;
/*  text-align: center; */
  background: #99bbff; /* blue */
/*  background: #fafbbb;  yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px;
  margin-bottom: 5px;
/*  margin-top: -5px; */
  color: black;
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sanserif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;
}

div#foot {
/*  width: 600px;  */
  border-top: 1px solid #663300;
  border-bottom: 4px solid #663300;
/*  text-align: center; */
  background: #ccbbaa; /* yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px; 
  margin-bottom: 5px; 
  margin-top: 10px; 
  text-align: center;
  color: black;
  font-size: 10pt; 
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px 15px;
}

/* MISCELLANEOUS STUFF */

a.authlink:link {text-decoration: none; color: #883300;}
a.authlink:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #883300;}
a.authlink:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
a.authlink:hover {text-decoration: underline; color: #880000;}

.scriptuc {
  font-family: cmsy10, Brush Script MT, cursive;
  line-height: 0px;
}

.ubar {
  padding-bottom: 0px;
  border-bottom: 1px solid black;
}

.overstrike{ position: relative; }
.overstrike span{ position: absolute; }
.overstrike .up{ top: -0.5ex; left: 0.2ex; }
.overstrike .hi{ bottom: 0.5ex; left: 0.5ex; }

.subsup{ position: absolute; }
.subsup sup{ position: absolute; left: 0.1ex; top: 0.5ex; font-size:75%;}
.subsup sub{ position: absolute; left: 0.1ex; top: 2.5ex; font-size:75%; }

.index {
  font-size:.8em; 
  line-height: 80%;
}

.index {
  font-size:.8em; 
  line-height: 140%;
}

html>body .index {
  font-size: .8em;
  line-height: 80%;
}

span.supsub { 
   margin: 0;
   padding: 0;
   width: -moz-min-content;
   width: min-content;
   vertical-align: text-bottom;
   display: inline-block;
   font-size: 75%;
   text-align: left;
   position: relative;
   bottom: -0.3ex;
   line-height: 80%;
}

span.lower { 
    margin: 0;
    display:block;
}

span.nw {
    white-space:nowrap;
}

ul.plain {
    list-style-type: none;
}   

ul.hanging {
     list-style-type: none;
     margin: 0;
     padding-left: 2em;
}

ul.hanging li {
    text-indent: -2em;
}

td.lbrak {
    border: 1px solid black;
    border-right: none;
}

span.oline {
    text-decoration:overline;   
}

span.sc {
    font-variant:small-caps;
}

table th {
    font-weight:normal;
}Xtext/css_%http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sep.cssO”bplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _%http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sep.cssÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+ˆ€•ÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveXtext/css_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:32 GMT_Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:42:33 GMTT7843_"139b58-1ea3-4830827875440"_timeout=15, max=99SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionary£Ò*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á	"(+1:CELT_alnprtvxz|~€‹‘“•—™›Ÿ¦´¿ÌÑßîóþgmx¡ÁÆäùý),1EI]k}€–             n              ˜ÔO#ÝÿØÿà JFIF   d d  ÿì Ducky     P  ÿî Adobe dÀ   ÿÛ „ 		

					ÿÀ  ; ´ ÿÄ «           	                 !1A"Q2aB#q¡R34ðb$‘±Áárc6’CD&       !1AaQq‘¡"2ÁÑð±áBb¢R#ñ‚3ÿÚ   ? RÜ.£ú’qöãÊRTÔhª:¹¢’]+E­‹N?B‡9ÓKð_ž[Éu1$·ŠýìãÆá³<vš%l¤´ÝE´ªÓQU>Î|Wa¥ËêQËA­Â¼.Œc»H‘eÕ6åŒQIMÐ‘
ˆªæN=ý†•½a{úÝcúJ4—‹ç1ms.óm÷+{Q °ãn€tU'Áüµó]\KW4ÒÎY_µhÙÉuñ±‹ËŽ×ÕC©"²¥$¦QÖlêœˆUVŠ”ûxpÕéI>hà¦=tcé’ûz¹å6'‹z¶ÜbÀGŽl*<ëo* 8Ú¢¨’ª"sçåÄ¶ó%gk¿Fåd9~¾ÇH¿z-°Øò,’,‹ŒGàÛ­ÖÀR¹Kpn6Ø…uÙ¹¸Zt®¥ZS³™é 1.xØr½lˆhå%k»9ÁmÈ&ÊÈ¢>¸ØGYq£ºò¸ðKEÙr2c¼Ù(î¦´çÏ‰?¸Ó’ÀåXå:ˆ‡,·Ã‰v¸¼ãv”~ìÓ0‚s·Šã`ê4®¸@ˆò¢¨xøðÚù¦žE‰!¹N®12pâdŒ$È°Éç‚LÚ¤DJ®¥DUT­’*×Âž|QüÝ9–\Ã¯r‹ø×çÊqÝ½½õËžë6èÆÃR›~d¶Seâ!iÁqLÐÔVŠ¾
¾\šý,f©>TÀ9X•ÎfUœºR¹åÑí¦ùÑèªÓî¾Ë J.H  ! R´RTæ‚©Ä’çuL	ðUC’\}SÅÆ°à×;E®éŒf÷¼þdõ—Žã¶ŠO€Â×[Ò›— tòJ­Vœù×‰eÏÛe`vª¡ôøždžæ”ù|·íÒcŒ[eëm†€å5}‘ÉR]pÑF˜ŠHb*%U —íNUAç–È`":‚|yyšYŸ¬}ÁæxQáŽ‘Üì‘£²íÚâ»Í5‰­ÃB'‘£pÇX¡ |«Î¼*?QÛåÇ‚;þ–ƒa›*¹3ŸK¸9—-Òln£¨3ŠCîšx£·ËW:×îâóÏnoLViä59ÆAwïYhòž‡Þ áõî>­¸ÀóASBTUÓ­+û¸š|úÙl xºlyAÞOàË;“,»m]'ÆÌ^²ÆŽr¯2ì,6à¶Ê(ä’jO›Å¯œ'›Údþæ=R®KF\¾ÑnœS‡·¶ì8¼ÞmÐdeQÎÑ^¸Éa©.%UM#qÈõÕ<«É|ŽË›êà3fr}|‡E`ÈCb‚³÷1ptcvÃ(¼ÊÏ!áÊ#ßŒ€IÆ‘:1VšÔÐª¨—2ôðºuÚ¢sJiWrÍ0òÆ,ØmKGoW&æ‚Ë–‘í£)´¸œiJË	ÜAE CU /Úœ6ûÀ LíñK³ADˆÏ³Y.4F­W;ÄlÔµÈqÖq·Ž2„ùrÇB$A`ô ªÔÍ	SJ¢§5§u¬‰lÅ¸„¹ý;¢”seît=×æ[=ÓK®½O¸m½§käÝ¦å6µzuiû+^)þïTÞ ¤ÿ ÏPþ‚É'7+zá|û’Æá¡tÈ€H%¡¨‰©iÈIUxÅ0rµœ£k3iÈRC-¶=x`„…çˆQ¹MóÐ#£TT¨¥5%|SŸ7M¬Å¼Ø¡ÛuÚÖãb“g[æ¡ á’Qu•Eµb•ªrDûxäµnI5:Í&ä²EÇ9÷`Ç7ö÷t¡s¢ >Ú%5"ª"s¯?lóIuÌùbŠz|rÓ·s–iz•&)k´²Á"B˜à¶Ñ¬€!tQy.”^\Å|iÁ¬Í€L:xÕ‰ÄÝ	¿?>ÃÂ;|™ªNE’Ê¸#wœt¥ÈèÅ-qD¢‚ð¨óOûó™#¡ZgXŒs&„ü—±YÄÃŒ·9–iÖk|—m÷4D€H/#Íµ²ˆ. ÓóÕá_&óË˜‡rª6iî—AWûµãe‰òì)S.°–<kl[“B®BÖDBª$£DåO:§QÒ³,q).‹°Ùï¶hb]ÍLÝ¶ÜËõˆØ’$Û®HFŒÛI£Š`Bš•Q+DåÄñ×óE24f¦Á‘üßÓ…ºôsÆ3'ï·!0¯Ë¤l*ú¤6“Dä®€øŠS•8!®=X$P½ƒ²ÓY¿Fnù=nØÝ Üi°¶ŠQÖi·¤Ñ5©-T>î'³›W«OMôÅöG>­só^Ïdñ.\°Ë§A
> „ÔåR–Ëf¤	¤FÈ]¢ª%iâ4àéæµXYôÆ¦ˆû€ƒÔ“˜ý§ ¸ÜIˆÙ‚–råÞzÁGZŽàƒŒ“‚€ã„JzP*¢«ãEâ£¨ƒ°`×§œŽ$W ¸-Ç¼b'u“pÅðœšäÉFÖgièÎHÜG$ªó0¡•_J§>3l´ÆGBßŒà€x!|þÏ*ÓƒLÆ$wmŒ…À²²<ôE™%t4vD§U§hM×˜ˆ ÓF:ˆ’<¬“e$Vcþ*²G>ìõâ%ß+Mþa8M”lì½CCŒŒ:ó@‚ª”Zx-hœ]Mdá'=ŠÀÈ¬ô¶vdTµÂ]€óª°Š®©j/!ÐªÒésJêN|ÊµD¬vX÷f–!+€©¸®MÊó"—1óºMqÛs ‘ä›®!mãªŽ¢
"™¦„J×üÅÏ ¹÷:Rí†_*pãýîÌ»Ø_;™6îÓbmüw”ÓSÙ¹¼{B€ŽZ&Ò†*µ"MTõxÙ`åŠl-“Ö6	ûÙLoÍ,!˜ewôÈ¥Þ'ìô7È²¨×Dšq¨Î¬¦‘ôpiâ+òÑ’¯»Q!ä
Í6ž2óLæuÅî£µ7nàÛ°ÆéðÖ¤ØãZ–;r%ŠjCYJI]cÌUyPhŸ7®Ûb½e4Y1Gcx©vG»CƒM·¹7(»ÜÆR •¨Ùp¶¥%2Dy¢ˆAAysðàýË'ŽŠ(šh9DR(Úìÿ Ô»Ý+­Ñ·^¥Þ‡cù»ÏÙÓ«ðÿ ûxÖšn}6~*œÜ;u&M½c¨Bfò«€HèŠ´édH[ÕN^+ZW—ËRLÜìB9 Š-›¶‹-ÂæÐƒˆ`ú*Pˆê":•<“í^Lž±ÉËÑ‡Z_ô7Ž„ì^Ýö’5Ø1Nçz½œej-îTpŽ/Š#ª¡¤‘Lµ'/JWŽÇYêtúùƒÔÉ8˜]Ã$£èŸhV„÷…uuæ‡¼)êU¢"!¨éçã^9©¶•Ô²åwiä\8]Œ+·Nä­»fò§A=×n+Rå‹/³È«Ñ‡˜›†ëŠ©Ph$¾KGæ†”ÕéDáJ´âíÜ/í„ë¹¸†âºÛî^‘`…(„é2/§¦…¤~+^M†ƒ%×£3‘Ð´HjÁí5»MºéÖpœ|&Ö:*».HžpySÁiÂæ-5‡(g§,6©NàÖØ7(RîÒ[¸{”	¬z6:

n<Tu@\D¢(ÑQ(KNV¨À&ËC‘¤NÐ˜}»Àãæ,È“u¾6ý­¢r#Ì„WI
ˆ%Ê»M"ª¢V´Zxq&«RkrÑå\žzÉ	N^Q¸b{•¤Çðì3~$ˆ±³Ú·Ú=›)ˆÎuŠ‘ˆd6d.¡i-IEñ_C]ª‘Ê¿ö“äš*¡Ÿ) týH"M›•veÌnÛ=»P(¼³‰ù+KaÍÒ„R ©­Qièªz¸¾º¬“Î_vÅó×êÆÈ÷,å
wŽó÷;ž=öS„ÜÇÙed¨8hM!¥}
¤*¨Šµ¥<ß§‘ƒBYI~…•˜Ê"@7ù¹P“ÄùoÄ¸’&FqÖÜˆár£…Qu²!":%W’­«ÆÜL .aJ°$"[¾–Q@¾Çœ-Ü•mÀ4«4w“‚©«^ª ¢§—Ç…Ù#!þ²äèÅ9!ãÒï'ÚX}ûg„2Hˆh1ÆŠã¢$NÑ9)éETªüxÏ”òScDçƒ`ƒòkEå™Ó ­ÉÄ¡s/n;ÎdD%4EEA%*’QSÇ‚¢Ø0ÄíJ•S‰#¡G¶°Õ¢‹êÜØŒ²¤2äŠ¡uØ*ŠÐh$ £Zùyp7[î"k‰+åñ}Ó'oK¤ya:dçÕç…QÀŠŒõ[Bh:”|Q*´Zpí<H†#rõ§Ü–­ö</6¿[ï7ŒkuØË%¸0ò	!·R
~R:âˆ’ óToR§ÃŽ›!T“´úK¯ÿ çÓ…Øœí–è®ävûY,‰Ã_5M›Z…I)Z§ËšC1,¶‡Ó—ˆ±˜÷®¥ë°¥âæÅÎëžE}£4E|™xžVšM!ÉSÅiæœø\y­`#sújÙMƒ¸©©ú|uN&böóÀ©9	µÔVÑTO=UU¯ý¨ÿ céi˜u)ÿ Ø«§µôTÆÑî}föÒêÛù¶5ÓU<µSU9pØCnP•ÿ ˜>œøu.E‹$¶ä&á@yMK~:ú^mI|	¾»—º¿h`´ôš¨ÞÀw#7ZRZismy#J)Rðø|8‘Ü:Ñ²c-"ÑiU?B!"$ó§?:yýüPéJ”;ÂòœrQ EÒu_JRŠ¿áxã®H±q.°JbxÚŒ-/\c{„g#¤‹t†Ì·]J6JI]lèTªÕ
«W×{a/Åfê9o¸s@1ð=ˆJÍÒX.Ã¸V[k—ÕA½ÈB¶É$¡Ó®ÔØŠÓÍ9µÉÕWÕMIÃî¦SY¿¹gSLá#|½0üÿ p‰àÄ†ñè–od­˜k-ÐP|j-ï£ÊÁ/È¨‚^F5­Q!´ŠMT'\€#½&Û¿»6Ó=›©ô“j9®<ã$ãŽ+«Þ%AUª%÷ñQÿ \
orSˆ‹l+Ð~×~’ñ+=´{’þfô³…!ÉÆmò©ÕÆyÇ¹ÐÐ¢ÐUµBòUTNKÄºËH«c•^„Æ»€Žœw-¹ljÿ ‚æwœVàR,6¬ºÛŽM}Çz—Ù³":§©\©>u©/
¦2Œc21Zwk#i5‚HRšå•wü:û6ž}®ëiHq"ÜU¥WÑ©n¸ª!2ØéDE#ªÓãË—FºýÐòÚ¢–ŽX18ÿ ÂÍ¼ªù?·¶(o¸y…ÊK³cä Óßž‡	ÀVpX4‰ÊIDsJ­8÷µrD7.S}’„LÍ¿à«ê•¾–U¶éHí\š-‚ÓqÐC£jáˆ‰)=KZròâ­å/‹¨¹¤Z{ÃªåeÓ­ñb<ôÔ)`á§æ8ZQuÔU‹ð¯dìÁgÖùƒ+»zïsØýÞÏ:-®Kº™Øå¾,#bŽ¶’6ªŠB´å^jœüxÆsp›¯©³™Š²0ðêL~Ù9Ü»åÍ©¦Ôxøû†8Y“'¦H¯&XBC#©'-)ÀÎŒKS´—Ümr<½	¯ÛþØæ=Ê¼÷-n¶f áv„‘2kÜ$[a7:³!Æz„x[ÓÏEjJœÒ•à2¶R	r1K÷Á6FC,pFûgÙ:æÝÂÁŒ³Ü<ªêDÊ®‘vm,¤H«.—Ö‹MFª?µ9p«uF¸åwTh¹(¶Yì:ûœ»ÑÑ—pqÙ²ÜQPDi¦ü6˜lA°EòDâÛ)œWÒÕLjH€<ÈÓkmUªˆ<ÑUy¥)åÀ8LS['N: ¶A¥I(¨•ñòNkN4B%Ö§QG1!åME¯šªÓ€(Ü/It;»e£wø”Ó¦•ýÿ »ƒÜ‡0uç4@½½h¸dÑº–¢ÄŸk‡¼7)-ž«º6Ÿ*-ià”øÓ­‘‰,Wæbë£Ç½H/&™e¹_š›7¦¶µlSlnÒÕÔ÷'‰¦ÕAU=<–Ÿ¶œ	˜w&GU¨|Ç%o³.Wx}˜ÄËŠ3cŠ_SºË-é¯B¥LB¾¶•j5^uð¢¯=ºø.V¥‰s†ÜV0çd²áår£Ü.DÎ)m™r¹8·)bˆ0$œgG˜Öš|*ªžTçÇŒ 6PÖ]”â{ÊšÔŒ¨q™y]n-Æ‹59K¬”Eñ¶Òyj^nŠUOÛãÇ2Ô%”íêF5šÝËu®EúfHÇoíùdÛÍÉûIƒj—ÝG×ÜaÆˆ‘iV×’¥|øfžUÆdDb•¨ºÿ l\ëºÞÇ˜Å­˜õ¿[ƒA´œÄ¦##ôE%D‘–®hIEóE¯ÈÊRe\¹¨ö#X‡ZÂ!Û§Ý]¶k|×Ï|Üô¹Vù¤&b.QÎbŸ>¥åãÅWÆ9[7he™¤ˆÍˆ![UºÎ³Y@}’ôÅ½äÿ Pè¸äøàzµ‰éTE^JhˆŸ1s‰’Òv_J#
ˆÏq¸¸ó³v¦ÚJÏ$—\qÝØ6ÓŠð²äÊ(6ã‰Û"*yýÜv¨HH.ê.¨Á¢1êd¼ºË¾Êµ%÷9ÈŽ°ßR(ûõŽøœâJ”¢)š*ªª êU§D&ˆr°å¶e€N~×µÛ»Ö;%±FrêÝÏX5{}×X}¸àeç’©šq9ª'ßÏŒëçnsZB©Ác|ígo2wd\_²]rÆíP¹E³¸¦Ä—bï 9$HœhžlÀE£Dk­9sàè¾Ø¸tË+¦ÆÎ1;¸aöf
¿V&êÖãÆz+è€Hhjò¹A$üJU_>÷Oóe^†\¸ö¢¿H9^Ia*ýceš%8·)•zKkU}_  )©©òðêªº"pà¤¶ziÆ<I5x.p;?ívëV:çŽØ-ÍÚqà¶#E)üÕ0wqÂ_f¦¿m9qÓ©Ü“Ü¯ÑÑ¨ˆl±<]ößÇ[í>u‡÷·2;«—;ÅÛÌÉàØ!¸É6èšˆi ×à¼ó*O>[©Œ³æ.ä: —[%æRÆ/f»Þd»*|8­0üëŠ(uÇ;M]BÛDlaø¯ÇÕJ§œd·‡ÉgÎVÆL${Ê/—uÈ-©è1v‘"RÎœ¢©jxY$Ô® ­H©éU¯á­†V – ÷.Ìc˜áÄüÔ,qŒß$¾B³1j»²›|ˆ–döÅ6 ÇšµqÃAOLNkö|È©ÁJ5Çkx|’†¢ùì2ï?5k3È.¶K{«»	}r8ƒ¥&àÐŠHˆì´%S4 µâ^DñTã“Ä‡‡ÉV^fÉúÏÍl8¹\mPÕsÝºO9S…ÔGß”Ø’êwÒŠ1•j¿µy(ñàkðù.ÊË‰õò¤t¾ž›ÛnÛýí}GQ:”êú=z·iM‹åóðã¿êË›ìù.g½Û1~³óLû?~ñ[m²áÉÇÊ°Ëjì|\ÔR%‘¨3¤ªˆ‚µÖ©^KË—8'¥œmƒ·lup•FÂ6n[°~øc9^‘äòl.YßÄÜ*ågdÅÂ˜”%ŒáŠ!6kéTÒ4TøqË4²ªb"NëµjcufLÍö
Fß\o<³fÒ.âã¯á‘
áv·GP5ËJé £šÔŠb¢ADæ©ÏšñË´’®QbK–C§ÕÂèÌÆ!Û¥ií~±náBqÅÆÂËkräm+êöô ©Šj©"è¢×UQxö«Emb-.$z]l-Ì†õ?µòÇû“ÍÅžÄ^±+¬-ÆÔê¸¯Œ¦sÔ® é@tP„¹V¨…Î£ÇµZ)Ó<Îv.iµq¾FxL¾â3ˆX!Ý/7Çc²§&Û56\duó:’éâ]8·3¤«-”+‹‘•UívQiîÄË¼([®(å­ðƒ>QKŽk£qž`TÔŠœ‘Qj¼ø×¼Ê¨u›EÆò|Ä¿Ásð~ác¹6xÎ0íæöPuó¶Nf^ÒÊH€N8˜â#:ÄI*¯ÛEà®¯,DÈJ¢Á9˜x«g;!±v¦Ã%ç-‘&MËzVÚ?¿%¦ÈDSTS@5Jú|UœøÁ Ý2`³¨ÔU§Œc2å(òôb²£:Í…ÇÛ—&Z¤56¹{±œu U­$¾<µÖž^\hè´Ó{ó*e ¦_k.Ö<ÒK²Y8üYW$(`½¬gxÛ%W#’¢3¤ÛJ"êUª¯..qFÂz–|µR•AÕ©É;oËŒ¡û5·’;ß.ÓK"²=fÅ4º¾¢DNj•â^fj¬nÔý¬Èå€pÛ’û0ïojñ{nAtÝ–Eö]ûU–e©Aébä‡˜pÛSª+b[u.iUÓ÷M+c7®1“¶ÝÈšc0eƒ*³zýHâ®0ÒñŽ±ÈÖ$ë‹Ž°ùÆÜ$DpPõ!sJ§**/Í„›¨sh“ˆÁÐ^1Œáyvo”Û¤Ë…gL†÷%m\©íB³AcuÇ÷Ì•Ä›+^T_™[d"8²ˆdœŒ›LKÖ6æ[±7¸ÿ UB¸²ÓÐdØnntªãï+(Ëæ€º|ù¢ñfmyN;Ò&!<P²ösKÖ™JÉlo¸°ná&dèÇ)¦Q²î‡€Õ“CD¢Õ<¸	˜€²y„LŠvZÎ‚\òœŠkWk]™Ó7[q&:Œºæ”O(™8@©JU+Íyq¹1 ·a)SÚ_Ô6=Ü±Ê¼âë³‹ZÊìâ¤ž¤%C1/RíQÁ!D ¢¢êJyñV«G*Ù¤î“N²6æpÅhí?ê
ÏÝ{ýöÀî.X|HöÉHwUœ®“ÑQämÔ'0Bª êNJˆ©ãÀß£4ÄK3—\ÓëÒ11`]­ýFÛ;Ÿž\ðæ±qûOFúX¯R^ëqÛ"2}LlÜÔ…QKM4øóãÚ	„3æëCV°Yc³bçá¨»WÝ—0±#‹g3-Ö¼†L•7Þzd:ß"9¥h¢J©T_íæ2åÈÊì‚ÿ èÜû™ô_ÑýgÝ>Ÿú³¨£sNÇW³M½­ÎuÕ_ÅöqÏàËÙÎø³²ïóò2¶ÉWn‹ÚÌzÅ`ðqŒ†DywH·yHºGm¿×i–Þ€M’—©(ª¾	Ãl³žl0PV'‘—…åä2q[Ué,wœÈ8Û¬¶ ‚Ã.š„
ªŸ¦ŠƒÉjœ6º½ÉD¡7Þ5ÆC¥”|7íûò¸“ì”œžÄqïOC”œA'…TÅN-Ô9Ò‡Só§.u3J'aK®ñ–Aƒ˜c¤³ËœÔbÿ &UúÞý”Y—z‚ -MD*¼PI4¦KNm·Opï^«4?(ÅDÂáö¿ÉØÉ¢Ù²‰oC…*Ôá-Î2#mÌ`Í£mÄUtÕQ+OÛ®c·¥+”Ns"–²K=®a?››­ˆ"Ltl“Hª†  ¢(Õ>Þ8gcl	r®Dìñ[Î†E¿ÚŠÊ­ÄVÛ‘*+ÂRS€f*•Ô Ÿ2¯ÀiÀ&b3eï\öåÐv;ÞaË—*6Ãà,½¶Ö·U’A!1]J¥AøSãÇ'l§û×j5ÄâUKÉfLVÐž'Âa¶ÌB7U\xQ±¢z¨EòÕJ­+Æ…p†\:TÓ&EÐu´æÞeJ`¦¤¸åléNíÃt]d^¥Ö‚‚DH¾tçÅQ‹lC•Á=Ð«7gû[ÜXîl}×n\‚å¦ßcŒÏú¨´C|š[‰)T…}kMIE¢p½<gF™©˜Ô1ee,Ø®.ÁŸßËóÑãH)å¥’Ô‡]:Ž>ì—©§•iáéàµ1þFEÂ]t 0I¾äþ”­7¶†çÛÞèF»Æ¶ÂÝ;]æ°üƒ‚Ãb-£ÑÔÛ% iJŠ(µô¢s¯Ùg·‡b}ZRC/0²`\a˜%ânHeÀiÉDÓN’9²D¨ª$ Š«UøªóU¶:žAŽ	›‹’Û‚Ym®ò™wËË¯d¶[Z {m¾0"EÝ$1W$®"BŠ­È¼œnNŒòÀƒ½Y®8šíojØÖZÕàW#.ËOê×X#m‹'¨RªU(œÇË‰eïÄG½zŒ1=éýþ¡àÆbá>é™G-gX`J—#!5èÅd˜Å…ÇÍ3Aªª""}‰Ä·Sd£—(fø«!ª1–n?I”wGÌqo /øÔé–kËoÈ}¸3ZfK”‡\ 7U¢ÑL‘J¨µøV”–˜NÌïOºùY¹GzZb¶¾ßá1rr‹ŠÜ‘Û°Ëmû–·[‹-Gu[F™Ziô¸£¥+òñDõ7L†
hTbä–'·¸,û…ÚË†Ü$È›m—m›ybËËKm
©é®ž\—Ë‚³QtÃ¨¡\«.:=±²öÃ¶÷èYf#ÛëÄÛ”4q¶_ºß·XD &×òvk éãJ¯ž¦Ó	Š
*”&øw©@í—nò8ùE···7ï»Ã6ò/ÊqŠBj¨„UÝUð¯íãÒÕ](‘ƒŠå‘%,}ã·ñÖû{‡[îÝ×ÿ «÷Î§wsnš7ymü9jóá¾ÝÙ6îIqÚêòO¦ìm_H|î×]iüµ¯Ëþ>|Ö­Iåý^+ÏŽðm{Êº¶u?£FçOJ¥4Óó6¿êç_>£–ìJ‹}#j¯8Mõ…¦›?×·§_S¦»œ´×Î¿-yWÇ•x²~‚§Šöi½Î¿ü›A][uðü^òãâ0ý^(~¯„í};Ú¾—Õ öö´R»kZiôÿ êû8õm”íñASqñR"ûŽÒjö}_æöúÓÓZéå_îàbß«Åt³¾+‘wð¿n}%òÂÕî?ÑRüÛ‹ösã°l=^.˜[õx¤¼¿bÔ¿ÚM|ÿ ‘ïŸùv½5âølüý©ríí\9ŸHo3Ôÿ n¾B®¯«~û}?ü8¶¿û'E›í‚‹fúS­…ÑiwtŸzú§ Ó¼µÕÖ~_ý5çª¼jé¶þdêÙ‹7ÅX¦úZ3³ý’Ñ´5è:¯—þ÷«þ\[sê@[‚:ÁöýÂ~ßÑÔØ_Knn1?™¯žŸÙçÀÏµt7ÖÉ}³p:ÏfÝÝM¿q÷.º¾[åÓá«•x†ïNîÝª½3î~Íž*œÉú7§^£ûk¿°Îÿ Eõ…k¥)¹ÓþU‹oïâS·ó)ïlÇÓâ¡Äú_ÚÝé~ˆ¦±§Kõ6Ö­¤¦®«ÊžåO|"[wö Oî],w§ú¶ßµôºŽ¾Ÿ¨÷l9N›wÓ_ŽžzuW„_éüÝ‰eŸc·babÝVì¯ür›ã«Ú:mZ¶®×žŸ…9|8ËÕämÿ ¹L[ìé”ï_Óú:ÿ êþ›¡Üþ`øêóâJòý³/yx~åÖî]~ï]KOè+åá£Ëá÷qË2pìÌºrðýËëyÓ¯ñ/—¢¥|«_>Ž6~õã—í™`}^…×îtçóôš|ø9ñXËöÌƒÉú?z¯=ï×Ñ[÷úÏ‘Ý=~¯³NÇî¯ßÅ¼¿.pßŠ¶–l±þ*~W»ÿ ðªÿ »Ó×oýßº¼}¦îÄµÿÙZimage/jpeg_+http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/image.jpgO›bplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _+http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/image.jpgÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+ˆ‰ôÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveZimage/jpeg_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:33 GMT_Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:29:59 GMTT9181_"22a62-23dd-41c0682f023c0"_timeout=15, max=98SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionary#ÝÒ*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á(.17@IKRZegrtvxz|~€‚„†‘“•—™›Ÿ¡£¥¬ºÅÒ×åôùms~‰©ÉÎë 	#038LPdr„‡             n              ŸÔOP/* GENERAL STYLE ELEMENTS USED BY DEFAULT */

body {
  background-color:  white;
}

.center {text-align: center}
.small {font-size: small}
.xsmall {font-size: x-small}

th { text-align: center }


h1 {
 margin-bottom: 2px;
 line-height: 110%;
}

#wrapper {
  text-align: left;
  margin: 0 auto;
  width: 750px;
}

img {
   border: 0px;
}

img.floatLeft {
    float: left; 
    margin: 4px; 
}

table.whitebox { background: white; color: black; margin: 10px; border: 1px; }
table.brownbox { border: 1px dotted black; width: 100% }

td.brownbox { background: #fafbdd; color: gray; font-size: x-small; text-align: center}

td.whitebox { background: #ffffff; color: black; font-size: small; text-align: center}
.note {color: gray; font-size:small}

.sepname {
 font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
 font-size: 14pt;
 padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;
}

div.pagetitle {
   border: 0px dashed blue;
   font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
   font-size: 14pt;
   color: #663322;
   font-weight: bold;
   text-align: center;
}

.title {
 background-color: #fafbdd;
 text-align: left;
 font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
 font-size: 12pt;
 font-weight: bold;
}

table.center {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto}

A:link {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
A:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
A:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}

A.plain:link {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
A.plain:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}
A.plain:active {text-decoration: none; color: #444444;}


/* LEFT MENU-NAVIGATION ELEMENTS */

#navtitle {
  background-color: white;
  font-size: 14pt;
  text-align: center;
/*  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; */
  line-height: 140%;
  margin-left: 40px; 
  margin-right: 40px;
}

#navmenu {
  visibility: hidden;
  position: absolute;
  top: 0;
  right: 0;
  height: 0;
  background-color: white;
  padding: 0px;
  margin-left: 40px;
  margin-top: 40px;
}

.menuheading {
  text-align: left;
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-size: 10pt;
  font-weight: bold;
  padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px;
}

.menuitem {
  text-align: left;
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; 
  font-size: 8pt;
  padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;
}

.navpanel {
  font-size: 10pt;
  font-family: Lucidatypewriter, monospace;
  text-align: center;
}
	
.copyright {
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-style: italic;
  /*font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; */
  font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
}

/* MAIN CONTENT ELEMENTS ON RIGHT */

div#rightcol {
  left: 0px;
}

div#pagetopright {
  top: 0px;
  left: 0px;
  right: 0px;
  padding: 5px;
  margin-left: 0px;
  margin-top: 0px;
  height: 57px;
  text-align: center;
  font-family: "Lucida", Arial, sans-serif;
  font-size: 18pt;
}

div#maintitle {
  background-color: white;
  font-size: 18pt;
  line-height: 140%;
  margin-left: 40px; 
  margin-right: 40px;
  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  text-align: center;
}

#content {
  background-color: white;
  font-size: 13pt; 
  line-height: 125%;
/*  font-family: Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; */
/*  line-height: 140%; */
  margin-left: 40px; 
  margin-right: 40px;
}

div#foot {
/*  width: 500px;  */
  border-top: 1px solid #663322;
  border-bottom: 4px solid #663322;
  text-align: center;
  background: #ccbbaa; /* yellow */
  margin-left: -15px;
  margin-right: -25px;
  margin-bottom: 5px; 
  margin-top: 10px; 
  color: black;
  font-size: 12pt;
/*  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif; */
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;
}

div#foot ul {
  list-style:none;
  margin: 0px 0px 0px 15px;
  padding: 0px;
}

#content SUB, #content SUP { line-height: 0px; }

/* BRANDING BANNER ELEMENTS */

A.banner:link {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none; }
A.banner:visited {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none;}
A.banner:active {color: #ee0000; text-decoration: none;}

#message {
/*  visibility: hidden; */
/*  height: 0;    */
  margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;
  text-align: center;
  color: black;
  font-size: 11pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;

}

#message2 {
/*  visibility: hidden; */
/*  height: 0;    */
  margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;
  text-align: center;
  color: black;
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;

}

#archivebanner {
  margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;
  text-align: center;
  color: black;
  font-size: 9pt;
  font-family: CopperPlate, Tahoma, Lucida, Arial, sans-serif;
  font-weight: normal;
  padding: 0px;
}

/* MISCELLANEOUS STUFF */

.yellowbox {
  background-color: #fafbdd;
}

Xtext/css_*http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sepprint.cssO™bplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _*http://plato.stanford.edu/css/sepprint.cssÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+†G$ÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveXtext/css_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:32 GMT_Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:02:19 GMTT4688_"8267e-1250-458150cca88c0"_timeout=15, max=100SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionaryPÒ*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á'-06?HJQYdfqsuwy{}ƒ…’”–˜šœž ¢¤«¹ÄÑÖäóølr}†¦ÆËèþ!.16JNbp‚…›             n              Ô O‰PNG

   IHDR   %   2   ÛM    gAMA  ÖØÔOX2   tEXtSoftware Adobe ImageReadyqÉe<  ¬IDATxÚ¼Y	t”å½óÏ?{2Ù ²É¾(ŠT”Å°(îRŠ¸k©¥©ËE±‚KU@=uAJ8¢HqAD¨‚ „@BB6Yúî›™Ÿ™„~ç3üëýÞ»ï¾û}±åíÙ¸@²|Nâ»Ý€×ãAIéq¤gdâh~üÑQhÒ¸Ü.Jå8‡Ífã—C>9¦ü+Ÿ¨Èëq£¨¸o}0ïÍY„­Ûw¢ªª
.—Ú¶ÂÃ÷Ãí·ôCEE¥ ª‚!À\™M"•+÷Ç×
y(\YY‰è(6lþ	#ÇŒÇÖ»‹¶­.FföaìÝÀºåþáƒñÌã£à0M8&ÃÈ3ë‹Ëé„ÓéÀñã'PTR‚¤„x|ñõjÜñàhcä=C1bÈ x<.âÓÏ¿Æ´™sqâÄ	‰àB4Nmˆ»ï€ÊªJy–æ¹Å¦é)¯¨ÀÖŸwâËUk±|Õ8xÃÝŠÍ_¬€&=5$E9‡s…?¥0%ÃÿÐ>ŸÏ¿:MŸµâÛu¸éº4ø£¢`÷ÛÏÁ”<‰—}…ïÏÃšï7ády¹u~Òäéú=è¶Ð¯O%8ÓÃ”ò^ÿºÞÝñÚ´÷´ bc¢Qp¬PR/EáõÔsÎT­\ý=&üãM¬ûá¿Ö¹¦$c÷Þt”òEûd"ÚçE” Š‹A¬?Z«ïÝ¨€ôÚ´nú;ÊçS>ž5¨(ypæ¡<óÒë˜³àc¹¹JÇÝv=úõî‰øØ,ýr%¦Ïœ‡ÒãÇ%k‘/zö‰QHˆEJb²rcìó¯	¨*ã‰ÍšÀ˜vÖ«Ïn’/–|¾£ÇMÒT„yðÇ»‡"1!»öìÃîßöK”*•£d>ZpL¯ëö»ËñçG`­¤yî¢%ÁË/i'þú R¦èuŒ^JR¢¤ÒŸW+¨*­*‡þxþµixåÍwu6	ñqxtä=Hë~¥òiá’Ï°mû.å™V£èPãF‘'B™w4?â¹m[µÀ=wÞŽ>=¯ÆI¹žÅÀªŒ•(ÇÅøáq»j–Ñ7	­¹GðÐ£OcÙòUÖ¹Ë:¶ÃX	9•zÜÄÉX½îë\bB*$Rœùž}é¸wØ@|±b5feëù‹›5ÆÔž’4ûUìv›r1Z¢Dn¹e2¢S0jEääOÿa## õëÝ/=û8rŽäâáÇ&X€(Šã…w¦LBÓÆ©Á‰U¡e³¦:‚åømß<óâë
Òé4%eÑzN#$Ui·ÛUjŒš*,_f:äþG°iË6ëøÍ×õÂhI95áå7Ç]C~Wÿ>VÒÑU*í ~Úþ‹§ &'% ™€œ8nŒ
*Ç†Í[ðÒëo£¸¤TËßãvÃ!4!wƒý/íè±±ñÇS€z^Õ÷$(ÇüÅÿAn^€'wŠHÞ%JLe®¾±òBUÉIÄH$xüÊÎ—`ò¤qÊEŽõ›¶`Æ¬P"À(!®††Q½ìg‹/øä3ëX“‹	 ÁÊ³¢âbü¸uG@@e–}¯é†üüBáE4ö¥gàkÑ/Žv­[HtE%=Ðépàz‘ŒF¶ž›ŸLÔ?Kx{T&U¦é‹èTÜŒÌC–+b	){’O °·UJK¡þ„®h‹¡/žõÁbkÆCÞ
·Û©)aë hVÈ½_­ú.Ô·Ñ±}k”¯(—„a:)æöÙ}hôéy.mßF_Æ‡7m’ŠÄ`
¨5¿Š6%‰ ®Z»A¤a£Oëv¥hP;UuVUœTš_"9þ…©Gûôì†Kä¹d)“³òËV”)<:x(s~ÑùYmä[?¬¬Þ44>±J©În·CÜ¤}Ðëñ¢QƒdòßÆ¿ˆwç®i+©½÷Îð‰š'HåQœò®É-Pn)GZôŒSQºüÒöh"D=ò«Žxü¨û‡[%þË®=xbÂËÒïöëÿo¿¹Zµh®í#E*o›ø¨þÃÿ„Îš¯ç;´m)Òñ°6åèh’%Ê1~¿r.,P0	9]òÙŠˆ
è|i‚„fCez+%ñœé”‰Oá¡1O«•Ý»?ÃrÍ›6–&½‡ÄÈmþi»TðVm;}¥érBœ$fB\œöMÞg¶ˆHÉäMM]bØAÕ^ì“4PØ¨_$.Ëÿ†¾×`æ/âÉç^±za©¼¦L¨"Uq:B´¬G×+T›xšÍ™ý’“5n3âÓ)·ïÚm‰a@ÑÝjÂLÌ>æt8-qã¨W=¯î‚yoOÆü–bÅêuÈÌÊQ.1¬¶6-/VÒw¹¬£LÈÂ¢"¸¤"©]qÒçü”
©hÃf;­£˜Ëí;wG¤­e³$ Fˆ–ÂNm~Û¼†8Îr´lnbÔ#4r;~ýR¹Ô^ÃûX<éK3¥ÙúÑF¸ÖIª’ü$p¦â îô™9ã%Ÿ¯ÔsN0TßiÐ™Y*”4s$8M£|¬°eee‡jZjõÎ@{ÜªE3­jû\u`&OÎÍ;í!ß¬]\9žšÚ@;ú¡œ#È>|ÄZ§ÕuÜßˆžÑuÌžþŠöBJÃ´ŸŠ‘ªmvÛ~ùU?õ9H•o¿û7JÊ)Ê†T·ÍY}‰Fãþÿ'$ÍyZ±l?Õ+Ö$ÂÖ’ãs4f4üQ"®ü&ÙøŠg~Ð‡¥¦Ø^:Î(¯÷4‡  N”D/éèlÔ‘ÚÖx<O±KIND£”$4HNBbb¼´ã	h™ér6´R)!Tûê hƒ(ÈôÙ”ÕP}ôÕíÚ´”Ç_0uÆ,iŽ†hI”®LøRÎŠí ^ÇÙß¨;V#¨[T~~³Âì6¶%V®Y¯‹‰ðqQ£èÖµs`?ÁxïAu¢ó¿,eªnZ®RqGq\´FIH[€@y±©ZejÕ4ÌÔ`~x¬JŒÞœŸTßfÀÀ[¯çjE[Å™©WQ®)}¡œ¨Â%ÄÆêŠ‹K´"	È4ì*†fP8ùÍ—ëï`„¬O°hqnj„¾iÝÑ¹S½‡JEI¨I@ÕäñaH¯šwCoàlµ­0%ššp ¶À¢Q#ƒM—V.ìa<ýýˆ—Ð§ÓAØ  ¿Ø:‰š4ÊêijàåBO¥[h( p*u¼×"f˜'³sÃslt®G„á¾ŒÔ ob10’tª.—³ö6^a”|’ö*0DŒZ«sÙòo0oÑ§Ç¹ÉAÏÎHs)E?Ï(±ÙÛjyžY½ôÏmÑ®öøYYz…+„CÜ]aµINj6Çlµ¾Ï¨…f”¸}¸eÛë£2lpå*­4E‹Ï'ïB‹ÎÚÆyïä‘G\ùNIî¡oQ‘%GCi#§´bÏ‘óŽ‰<Eª."4®îrº‹Óäº4Ö Äh2mgC‘óŠ”GÔ}½,ÃgÎ]dceî£JûaŒ¦Í§;8öZª­^AÙäÅS§ÏÒ®7^›†Ti'$rŒîÚù´5‰Gõ’>òã»›ðÑÒ/Ã¶‚âÑ»ÇU-kŠdt°üM³N•}î»Ãòykæ¼ëÑ©Cmä\¡pEM÷à¬CÚÎ+Rüó×uÕ×ŠL—Ý4à•†K{r6å_o XEs~bm'†ÆÎÝ{5†l!.µ%vœ‹×u†»3Üh­>~?¿|å‰’['ªÙÜJ¢´G–Wá»3áãíÙbÁâeºmÄH’sUugò‘‡žd1Õe©Ä?þôC˜$Î”¯£)ßøZ·ñGtêØN-=YˆègÉ­Ò:W_h¾«¨v‡v­qGvdd!#+[Tý°®Á¥û±¢â€%2Oß/8“$pÓy¶„älkÅr1‚•Ò>¼ºoÕ°A²F±¢²Âòî4Š^’Ç?BæÿO€ »[HîüÀ    IEND®B`‚Yimage/png_,http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/sepman.pngO›bplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _,http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/sepman.pngÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+ù™šÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveYimage/png_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:32 GMT_Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:49:44 GMTT3098_"22a4d-c1a-41c1863ae4200"_timeout=15, max=100SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionaryÒ*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á )/28AJLS[fhsuwy{}ƒ…‡’”–˜šœž ¢¤¦­»ÆÓØæõúnt‰©ÉÎê 	#038LPdr„‡             n              ŸÔ"#$%OJ;ÿØÿà JFIF   d d  ÿì Ducky     P  ÿâXICC_PROFILE   HLino  mntrRGB XYZ Î  	  1  acspMSFT    IEC sRGB              öÖ     Ó-HP                                                 cprt  P   3desc  „   lwtpt  ð   bkpt     rXYZ     gXYZ  ,   bXYZ  @   dmnd  T   pdmdd  Ä   ˆvued  L   †view  Ô   $lumi  ø   meas     $tech  0   rTRC  <  gTRC  <  bTRC  <  text    Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company  desc       sRGB IEC61966-2.1           sRGB IEC61966-2.1                                                  XYZ       óQ    ÌXYZ                 XYZ       o¢  8õ  XYZ       b™  ·…  ÚXYZ       $   „  ¶Ïdesc       IEC http://www.iec.ch           IEC http://www.iec.ch                                              desc       .IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB           .IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB                      desc       ,Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1           ,Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1                          view     ¤þ _. Ï íÌ  \ž   XYZ      L	V P   Wçmeas                            sig     CRT curv           
     # ( - 2 7 ; @ E J O T Y ^ c h m r w |  † ‹  • š Ÿ ¤ © ® ² · ¼ Á Æ Ë Ð Õ Û à å ë ð ö û%+28>ELRY`gnu|ƒ‹’š¡©±¹ÁÉÑÙáéòú&/8AKT]gqz„Ž˜¢¬¶ÁËÕàëõ !-8COZfr~Š–¢®ºÇÓàìù -;HUcq~Œš¨¶ÄÓáðþ+:IXgw†–¦µÅÕåö'7HYj{Œ¯ÀÑãõ+=Oat†™¬¿Òåø2FZn‚–ª¾Òçû		%	:	O	d	y		¤	º	Ï	å	û

'
=
T
j

˜
®
Å
Ü
ó"9Qi€˜°Èáù*C\uŽ§ÀÙó&@ZtŽ©ÃÞø.Id›¶Òî	%A^z–³Ïì	&Ca~›¹×õ1OmŒªÉè&Ed„£Ãã#Ccƒ¤Åå'Ij‹­Îð4Vx›½à&Il²ÖúAe‰®Ò÷@eŠ¯Õú Ek‘·Ý*QwžÅì;cŠ²Ú*R{£ÌõGp™Ãì@j”¾é>i”¿ê  A l ˜ Ä ð!!H!u!¡!Î!û"'"U"‚"¯"Ý#
#8#f#”#Â#ð$$M$|$«$Ú%	%8%h%—%Ç%÷&'&W&‡&·&è''I'z'«'Ü((?(q(¢(Ô))8)k))Ð**5*h*›*Ï++6+i++Ñ,,9,n,¢,×--A-v-«-á..L.‚.·.î/$/Z/‘/Ç/þ050l0¤0Û11J1‚1º1ò2*2c2›2Ô33F33¸3ñ4+4e4ž4Ø55M5‡5Â5ý676r6®6é7$7`7œ7×88P8Œ8È99B99¼9ù:6:t:²:ï;-;k;ª;è<'<e<¤<ã="=a=¡=à> >`> >à?!?a?¢?â@#@d@¦@çA)AjA¬AîB0BrBµB÷C:C}CÀDDGDŠDÎEEUEšEÞF"FgF«FðG5G{GÀHHKH‘H×IIcI©IðJ7J}JÄKKSKšKâL*LrLºMMJM“MÜN%NnN·O OIO“OÝP'PqP»QQPQ›QæR1R|RÇSS_SªSöTBTTÛU(UuUÂVV\V©V÷WDW’WàX/X}XËYYiY¸ZZVZ¦Zõ[E[•[å\5\†\Ö]']x]É^^l^½__a_³``W`ª`üaOa¢aõbIbœbðcCc—cëd@d”dée=e’eçf=f’fèg=g“géh?h–hìiCišiñjHjŸj÷kOk§kÿlWl¯mm`m¹nnknÄooxoÑp+p†pàq:q•qðrKr¦ss]s¸ttptÌu(u…uáv>v›vøwVw³xxnxÌy*y‰yçzFz¥{{c{Â|!||á}A}¡~~b~Â#„å€G€¨
kÍ‚0‚’‚ôƒWƒº„„€„ã…G…«††r†×‡;‡ŸˆˆiˆÎ‰3‰™‰þŠdŠÊ‹0‹–‹üŒcŒÊ1˜ÿŽfŽÎ6žnÖ‘?‘¨’’z’ã“M“¶” ”Š”ô•_•É–4–Ÿ—
—u—à˜L˜¸™$™™üšhšÕ›B›¯œœ‰œ÷dÒž@ž®ŸŸ‹Ÿú i Ø¡G¡¶¢&¢–££v£æ¤V¤Ç¥8¥©¦¦‹¦ý§n§à¨R¨Ä©7©©ªª««u«é¬\¬Ð­D­¸®-®¡¯¯‹° °u°ê±`±Ö²K²Â³8³®´%´œµµŠ¶¶y¶ð·h·à¸Y¸Ñ¹J¹Âº;ºµ».»§¼!¼›½½¾
¾„¾ÿ¿z¿õÀpÀìÁgÁãÂ_ÂÛÃXÃÔÄQÄÎÅKÅÈÆFÆÃÇAÇ¿È=È¼É:É¹Ê8Ê·Ë6Ë¶Ì5ÌµÍ5ÍµÎ6Î¶Ï7Ï¸Ð9ÐºÑ<Ñ¾Ò?ÒÁÓDÓÆÔIÔËÕNÕÑÖUÖØ×\×àØdØèÙlÙñÚvÚûÛ€ÜÜŠÝÝ–ÞÞ¢ß)ß¯à6à½áDáÌâSâÛãcãëäsäüå„ææ–çç©è2è¼éFéÐê[êåëpëûì†ííœî(î´ï@ïÌðXðåñrñÿòŒóó§ô4ôÂõPõÞömöû÷Šøø¨ù8ùÇúWúçûwüü˜ý)ýºþKþÜÿmÿÿÿî Adobe dÀ   ÿÛ „ 		

					ÿÀ  ;X ÿÄ Õ             	            
	   !1AQaq‘±Ñá"2’S¡ÁBRbr#3s4T5²“	‚¢ÂÒcDtÔU–Wâ£³Óu•VC$%µ&v78     !1AQaq‘2¡±"RðÑB#Áñ’3br²Scá¢ÂÒs$4%5&6ÿÚ   ? åùÒýŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ«œƒ÷¬iÍ²/Jiš¬B(Bw³~°ïèþØ¨?%Lù)%T²¢„"šh¤’d¼vGöÕöªlZ!â™*År”b¾‘ú}áTÍéQ~JÔ¬Š¤P„P„P„P…OäŸ¾çþ:˜šÛ¤+›’c«Kæ¡
h;R±%¤„P’(M!$ŠM×?ÕÇã·RnjÈ³L55¡[<WùÛßâ1ï®³\ðTOÁ\#´{u‘g\Ñsýçrÿ J{þÑUÐnAt›ZTÓH{VDoÕ£þ‰Í¹ÎÌ¬ô”U/õ©?¥_¾jk{=!kÐ¤Š’„,*ùÆ¤¤šJ;hI5\8ßâŸ~¦Å&ú’Š(B(BÀù#n„ŽÞÊ“P°oWßv¥DÑ½_|}Ú(…•©µ»ºymëÛµDkQ \‹a¹³ƒ%Ý
’Þ|ô‹B©X´ÖT“EÓÿ aý×Ú©µYi©«BBBè€ñ êŽ½{OÁQÔu„¾¯ï‘îŸ‚A-ayT’•(”hIëæþJ5õ„ÙSIh½ùÅ'½S
c¡%•®ÓíPR[LþyŸÇO¾*'$+_¾G³XVÚ#¾G³îPŠ#¾G³îPŠ#¾G³îPŠ <‚@ëÖ„Qe¤’(B(B(B(B®rÞ²?Í²/Jiš¬B(Bw³~²ïèþØ¨?%Lù)T³%¡	·ÖÑ?Ê}Ž§ «:.IëhŸ‡ô~:4t\›n3“Ü÷[¾Fíw;t©5´VÆÂÜÓnáRVÑH±Y±wK‹×oràè5íª˜|)9¤…eúÒ/Gã¬”Pé”zÒ/Gã¢ˆé”zÒ/Gã¢ˆé”zÒ/Gã¢ˆé”zÒ/áýŽŠ#¦UU<‡oœF»T¤é¨ü["S3îbtFáB(¤‚íAóþÇUè+/EÈõ´O:þÇF‚Ž“‘ëhŸ‡ô~:4t\[Dü?£ñÑ £¢äzÚ'ùO£ñÑ £¢äzÞGã£AGEÈõ¼?:þÇF‚Ž‹–œÛ„gÙl¯pP=F´ÃHSddS_x>žÝJŠê+3Ž.ÖÛs—s:b#’Èh¯_•¡^½€ùë5ÃI¢¦VJ+LeXî£ÿ ‹3ý÷ÁY´;’§¤îKŸî2ã9pžâJ¹.©
õdƒ[šÓ@·µ¦iúC?X)é)Ð£ÒÓó‚%*tÅîÒ†J§6–Ò:ô b¡¤¬.…äœ_^Z?ooìüh)t_ÉDd:Û’q
BÜR¡åô5*-m °îOž…*/T’EXóIH/4&”vÐ’ÂìfŸ ¯v©”BDUbôÿ ‡îÓÔQ¤#Ð#þÒ£QKHG Gü?vEBÑ›–Ã{wu'´ÔØâ˜hMýÃ~Ï»VU=!Ã~Ï»EQ¤/Ia¾½¾í"ViþQlÆŒÒäÆB·h·›Jºù
€5pTj+¥Õ„X÷’{~·þszÎKR‡ex½ª ÷ïÊ÷›·9¯fÝ<žÍXÉ\´@5UD=MÌçÒøª}B´hõ4/3ŸKâ£¨Q #ÔÐ¼Î}/ŠŽ©F€Ù¡hz9ô¾*:¥³ÚÃ¬¥¦‰5(I?•óìU=W,D¯Á¶_4é~*]W%U‚^fDY+H‘¹­CW|¡$ù©‰]U&œBª}SÌçÒø«V²¦JŒÜ#6Ì·[F»S·MN§¨sMB+O»O³N©/m´T –Ò¥­]@ÔŸh
*…ºÌIaæ¿÷Gþzz÷jób¢\)šŽ†ÜuÄ4Òã®(!¶Ð	R”£  ¤“XÖòh*WhFðS’Û­–×ù•0.+¾^ZCÖ¼W"º¡™ªJÈ 8:$(Fˆ+ëÐõ×N Úœ Öö´ž¯&ï«b{ˆ‚%hÍÍmGÛ¾Š²äÿ œ‘Å·¬BÉrrÍ‘HÏå¢íŽr$ƒ®-´ 6‡CN Têå$'U•Yî,$…Í‡VT9®†ßõµëöêhŒUÚ…4ûÇÚ¢'yÌç]1Û‘÷£Õ£Ÿäw‘Z¿­Xÿ Ÿñ·ïPÌ‡Ê1Ò1ìžÃ6Å~SQŸ6i)¹IL¤%ÆBÙ?-*RTÕ ¡Ø@5T‘9‡K…
ÕÔS³\nn8Œ°Ïç“ažäFsFõ‰½=+\¯0$@SÉl€µ6$6‚ ’F¤vkJHŸ©¤wŠ([ÝÃp	‰í}3ÒC©äˆ8>is°MË-¸…îá‹[´\²XÖù/[ã©°•,;)–R’w(i¨óÐ!yn ÓAÆ˜y¡÷2AžÐó“IpÍa±bfR‹“¸Î1vÈ›³3é7w-Ÿ˜˜Œè£Þ>YBÃiÑ'ª´‰ï®M9æº†	Ö×ROesN×òeDÜ?Èr¸qî%K³ÚåÎi§v…lZã´°•m èNºSŽ	$kIî¨\_ÛÛ%‘­'æpòî|7ËV;]Æù}ã,¢Ãf´´¸Ýnv™p£´…--‚§$6„êT° Z›­eh$°€9‚Qî¶’<1’±Î9 àO°ª¾ÛÅ<›ÈWÏ`¼åÑ£”7&eªÝ&S/`;\y´)	:vkE´/{~J²çp¶¶ÂYÓÚ@>J’byNs]—.Æî˜µá´%ÅÚ®ñ… !_5]ÓèB´>C§Z“Øæ8P« ¹ŠvêÁÃ˜ bÆàv›<Ø|+žK‰-´=S8åÍÆÝiÀ…¡iŽB’ A¢¬ÒŸÂ|ŠÈíâÉ¦†xÁÛoÞ˜ÂóRü,9N'yÆï’AbÍtƒ"µ‡‚–BwƒAÖ©•ŽnU†ê)£×Úæóæ³ýAs¯üÏ?ÝËŸú½¤›äw‘\ÏêÖ_çGümûÕcq¶ÜmdÛnÐ$Zî0Ö[—o–ÒØ}¥öí[n©'Ø"©- Ð­Ì{^šAˆQÜGw/Ë1¼R<Æmò2k¬[Ti²ËM;1ä²…8
VÐ¥tÖ†7S€æµ\L!‰ÒPÐOªîKÏö~ÞñËƒ¶œ‡Ÿø²Ãt`%O[n7g"È@ZBTÓ¬¥@(F£¨®ƒ¶ÒÓBöå¢úÁ’·S-å#˜mG°®zæn‘ÄaÑ!gØï'ÌÌ–ÄdbƒM;QÒ†JÓÕN¸d¯gnî™g¶éSkÉv6ÍÜ^‡“£§¯ëp¦j¤Ê°l×—m‡ÞðéÓôˆp¯–ù6÷]kqOxÚ$¶Ú”À@ÓZ¥ñ¹˜8Þº6÷pÜb{^ÊC½ÉÙ¼/1Çb¼ä8æÃgÉ¢*N9v¸À‘5Á’„8ˆóÈJIJÒ­È$hAòŠªv9­‚ÉJ¨¥sšÇ´–æŽñÃÅ[8÷rÎYk¼g2{õI+féÕ)æ	×^éÄ6Ráv “U²ÚWŠµ¤Žâ³ÏºÚ@íJÆ»‘pÇ’h¶qÏ Þî²ìV\!»Þà7ßN³ÂµË‘)–÷lÞã-´¥¡;ºjGoJƒa‘Æ¤žâ­’þÞ6¾F†œ‰p øÕhÚ0Üºÿ {±b×‹ÖG¼%X A‘&kE…mx.;HS‰îÏEjž‡¶“b{¤O*b§-Ü13¨÷µ­<I c–9b½ÄÂs+†Bþ%¼ÍÊ£-mÉÆcÀåÁµµùÄ®*P]IO”ô Dòí ò¦(uÜ-ªç´0þ*>y'Œ§Šy3i2ü Æã8	D»…¾C«N¤T€@íÔä·’?SHðU[îV·&‘H×Â	òU†C€gPmC6›…ß¡á—PÜµût¦í­Z¤%©Šl2²J 
íÍW²7†PÓ0S:S{KÆm¨Õåš€éBÐ­<ƒ9Ÿ+³£ Æx£-¿XÞ@r-Öžcì>’HÕ…¡¢ê:ìÖ®m¼Ž$w.|Ûµœ/ÐùX×r. ŽüpP¦q|šF@ŒN>;s*rO¡77å\'];‘ ºW¯ÜíÖ¡ Ö”5ZŒñˆú…ÃE+ZŠSr¢±?åçŸÿ ào »7_õj³ôÒüŽò+õ›óãþ6ýêeãÜû$½OÆñÜ ¿äv¤-Ë¥‚Ýl•*ld¶´¶µ=–ÔâT ’T‘¡ TÜh'¹i–ò˜÷µ­9@¸œÅ~9Ý–&K—ÃY­º¾+ógÏŸbŸ;,FmO:ãHe¶Ò„Õ]{ZŸé¥ùO’Ì7‹"@0’@ 8S†@¦,sˆ¹c1¶7{ÄxÃ-ÊlÎ¸¶š»Ú,“çERÛ:-!èì­¤ô#^•Ã#ÅZÒGqWO¸ÚÀí2JÆ»‘pÈ”×•qß `ÞŒsl Ã„ÒD3|¶J·÷¤u!¿Ii½Ú5'ÄözáYo{ÅzOk©òïrÆÎÉÅßÎ#áwçð¨«(“—·n”»[j”®hl²’ 
»N´tÝ§U9ðA¼€IÒ/n¿–£W–kKÄr¼ÒälØv3uË.á•È6«4'çÉî@[Ìt-{RT5:h5¤Æ9æžÅ9îbº¥phæâ ö¦Ë­¦ée¸Í³ÞmÒmkcërµÍeqäGy³µm:Ó+B’F…* ƒH‚ÓB¦É#CšAF ÷,–Á¢Ÿö6ýºªN
jãÇx_—²ÛP¾âüa”äU¤©›¤L·Øt‡ºq”¸Fˆ$Óe´¯kIËû¥¤Ñ$¬k¹ |qÁVkÄò3~ß©fÿ =50ÇÌw}9RÝXB#ˆÛ;Ââ”BB6êIÓJ`ã¦†¼–ïÔG£©¨i¥k\)Î¹SµX¿òãÏÿ ðS;ÿ w.ŸêÕwB_‘ÞEaþ·aþ|Æß½Wù.”a×™XîWf“_`¡…Í³ÏmLIdIeïX
ASn%Z^µSêÃG
ÛÔS°>74Ö„b04÷«3‚¸÷Ï9“˜5"µã÷BvtE\Ó!M<–ïÃNí ~V€ûuu¬]wi…`Ý÷vm°õžÒæÖ˜Sy£Zð{—<Z sÿ Ì½¸éÐ‹Ã…õÈŽë»K*^íÃBIö+`ÛêhÚ÷®úÅn£o0o=8SÍR™†N_Å³yœs#7|ªaÔA³‡§™ÊÓ!€ËEJl§®»AB‚TÙb|r˜ô’îÁUØ·Þí'€\Ñ‡‹¨ÚF§5ÅY¬»º,mj‘}rI†‹+HurÌ€­…Â[++
mÓ]k8’®Ò¯*b¶:ò&³Y4m+\)NuÊŠD®	ä¶ïƒ]Ôd¥a¡)©võ$-)ôbÏy©I
ogZ–:´i:¹S%@ÜíÌ}MCGÍQ§Î´X®Éöûš±÷q‰g&ù!¬e1¤›‹ŠX
JQ¹¨”Àöu§GkÐZur¦>I³r·s:šÆš£Oh«ûÞ–c—IV\ŠÐý‚ó¤M´ÜYv,–JÐ—eä%iÜ•GPA¡ÎÐhàAí[!š9šƒšr Ô’Ï‡eYÆ5¢Áizùv˜­ívö“!ÕvèÛM!KQö…v³F‚JrÍM.{ƒZ8“AæT¿%àîcÃ &í–qåóµ«hõÂß*<t©5*um„¥GïIØ«d‰ñŠ¹®¹e·Üí.¦)ZãÈ8äš1N0ä\êcÐ0ÌV~U22’˜µFzQiPçt…F€«J„m20Ü—7–öÃT¯™gÊ¸›“ðgo2Ã.˜²žêÂ®äECƒÎÚÝm)W›ä“NF:?[Hï	[_[\ãwqeÄø{•s´¾æ„]²–c+d©6¸R$´Ò´Ô%Ç[l¡$ŽÀM8Øé='¸%s¸ZÛ6F¶¼È	Ÿ#ãüçŸê¬³™Œ\öEºëøoìWbÃo¡
Ú|‡M*ü³Gh¢¶˜nª'`‚=‰þw‡Î|[$3ÂùÄæ$'{.ÄÇn%HP*Õ1ôÐƒÐùkLvòŸÀï"±»z±i¡™ŸÆß½W<³äppû¾Ú²ëšÚE³—l”ÅÊBßVÆ’ÌGK«+WD„¤êz
f'By+™¸Û¾3#^dAãZ&›íŽÿ ‹Þdã¹5‚åŽä”ÚfX®q‰1•:„¸Ør;ÉC‰+BÒ¤êž ‚:Nai¡*È¯"•¡ìpsOB<Â‘ËãSƒ‘Û°éi”ÄË®ìV¬ZEšsw)L'y.±M\@î×ª’’>Ió‘…õÒA¯*,rn²3¨$n™Ô(;ÍhšÞÅ3›V_¹a÷‹~fäÈ¬3‰J·Éjæ§¤)†Óh8’€ªµvÔ]MyqI“Bèúà³æ¨Ó†xå‚¿²ólNä»FSÊÆ®ÈB]]®ë	ørnuBËOì^Šò:×-ð–8{Uðtgn¨ÜÞ`‚<Â…]®Ònžé)m=ÆíØ#çi®º“æ¡¢‹Tq†d™©«)A	RPIÕ	£×L}KŸb­éWT$7¦4?‘sì|4tŠ}P¬–óX)m¤˜R	J5Õ@=š§¢V2½ÿ @ýŠGº†Ž‰æ’Ã#3‚ìwÚL9 ºÚ	(Ð<ôtJmÌ(!èt«•‡5ºþ¾ÿ ÷?Í¡™(”ßRI:Ø¿|[ÿ Kþ	¨Ié(VÒIÜž§´V$“eªd»mÎßq€tKRa7~U¥…£äù~P*m$BÝ#ÚZìˆ¡_X9'•¸«!¼@gÄ×…,¥œí˜MÄ~áimn!öö…ƒCr ©Änpè7¨·®ÝÅ@×¢žâ'Ï„êìýá|ÖÃm»‰„í÷ŒéÖ´<;ÅOey*sÅoâœ_bá.Pâ¹™Üçæ9‡^Ÿ‘évrÊÅÅ§#5)Ky‚Ûî•8
Ô7©$½rî02Ç$uáÅu>›Ü%¼’âÞä5ôõ9 Qß„Ö˜†!ãîOä¹¾	ùç*™Èy4¼¢Ï“ZcÚ2G®Ó¸EiÉv¤­¶%)ÒëiPq`„¨¯9©Ãq!²‘ÅÆ Œjk˜T^íÖÍÞíã00±Õn‘¤àüÅ(rTç†NùÏ|ílÉyñ+ ´`ÑÚ¿fûÃÅò¶-¡)†Ì—ß'pZÒ­ä’ÚWæ5šÂ7\ÎóP1$ödº¿PÜÇ¶Xàhkžt´4Sf@³‰±<Fày_1ðfG~¿ËÇ/ƒÆËúÂ1ÉÍÏQÆd¬­q]îÒ«e­>äîîÔ©j®ô.ž]Bæ’E~·¹ymŠò-¾ù¬`xŠVµ§PÓùƒˆï>Z¹Vxmå5p÷„l§1rË#¶Z&Ý±É ¦M¾e¶ÜÔ–Ó»äî(=7“Ø A5žÆã¡h]JxŽÊÒß¶ï×îì‹QièÔÁÁÎ¢žcœ5‡âØ¯ˆ\â+ÛW®!äN ÉÑhŽVL›TàÇxäR³¼„€­»¾Rv”/¨J—k-XÆÉ$F¬sày,Sî³M-µ­Ói<s²¼œ+êjÇ!OxD¸Û­\âNáwË/X=º3ÖJÊ±â±s†®¤*7v¤+UtPù$ÖmµÁ°JI aˆÍu~§Ï¿µkX×“¯áw¤à3Tg3ò\iv«mç¾Jä{EÝ¹-æ6ì¶t´ÆÚ…°¸©DgZ	
$•+¨åÉu8 HçI]§o-y|ÖÑFáM%€WqW_ŒŒã”ø»à«ÞnØG;‡A•l¿ã/»L¹ºV·S"\U%[‹e·BJ¾Z–µÊ×oRñï‰Œš2ƒ%çþµ¶¼šá÷-ŸY;7°ÚŽÊ‚ò•Ï-Î|âù‡8!÷óËfdˆœc\Úç>ÐóHÜ·V½®).%.’²	p4ÚÕ»]ôL\ûPé3®è¬°dVûÛ£µþYe^¤;ÝË#±t?+Üq–ñÏV{ç‰ÜÃ€äÝð[+-¸êg¢Ðã1›ô‰R"Èe¦¶·s€„Ž§ ­3Ò0d-ÀeUÆÛÙ!’éÌµdÔ‘Øº•œ  “à¹ûC2WàÜø·†§&ù|ºñ¥¥Ù2¹ îŒ«ân‰ck¬¸×Ïm&:’¥	X)=PT¬››¨ZÃSA™ãUÝú: æËr4!ô7&i®}¸ùw©—îUå|;Ä=žÉƒò6UŒÛÆíO¦Éf»M‰ÉJ”’£‡R…){R©ë Zžç4Œ–qp+/Ò;}¬öt±±ÇS±-Òƒ‰	‹Æ»R¦aþrŒÂ2"òÎCˆ¾sÀ¦ÒÌ·Êb**å´‚…îuî…=¹?qY÷*–ÆçzÈÇØ¬ú`†Ësgòšñ§—ÓÙìæ¸G†ÿ üÁÅýãcÿ æVX?˜Þñï^»rÿ ÒKýÇ„¯¬ž(î^âseøg¾²îOÉÚnTÌÆÕ:èÔIôV‹HK1ä6ÏäÑ¢6õ#­vnÌBSª2ãÏóí…—Î³oFé‘·„†Ôbx‘\WÊ¼¦Ç6$*öÎ#tÅ1Lƒ,”æ"ÅÂ°[ôTLC©a¤­!²Óí%íÜŸ8×ŽöúÒ€œ¿·”:ßAxsÚÁª†¸Ó?zúõâýÅ|ÛËÙ_…ÎXT|Nÿ »|Îä”'EG¸\ ²ãÐd©J ‡œÓDàÑ:¥Ô´£Û¹tsHa~ð•óš›V_ÛÕÍ53˜ÑÃ¸yg•UÌœ~Þtð#Æü †#E²&M§1HZ]Žc¬$¼w‚v¶Î¤ö„tÔm¬W‘ôXü«Cækh¼3‹ùíó8·tšxÕix¶ä®{Ä¹ÒéŽÚr\“Ç ñí’Ã&L/B6”-–ã!âVT•j¡Õ¾€m¬Û”ó²rÐH À-?LØXOb$s÷ë.Äñ®_b¨Œ·‘yëæ[?$çR.žN‡Ýpˆ©Í%®ò±’iL·¢n´¢‡P !EiXK@d’yã˜=ø?%Ù¶°°¹²u¼41F5q5æ ò¥0¢ìþPä¬Žxå_‹=Žr—‰xNDõ‚Ô…5fTeiv~( hãÎí;¾é@8vR®¥ÄìŠ>¼b“ÙÏíâ¼¦ßa=ÝÏènªcZ|õôØÁVÜ53#ÆüòžeÄÝïõ–þTˆ™•îÝv‡f0 ¦
Ap$­ãæîu@êSE©s,ÞèýUÄñ§Ûö­û«#›y†+Ÿåh«Aô—ÔçÃÃ°+ž!ò‰<Çy
rl«-ãÆQNq.t‡g¡†ƒà!"D•-Ä%n(Úº¹ch&±	®dÂ¤·ÜuŽÛosÐÆKˆe mpä0Ë"|1Vöy‰ÙéÄ¼’¤YrWÐ‘ò»»Ðûu­î"Á”ù¾õÉµÿ ô3Òð.Wá7»òßDÊ¢qYYU¦%è<
ã-/HNÆ$nÑ!m)V§æn>JÅjýR´;*Š¯A»Èøí%1úÃG<c»ßE×~+¹?Ä=ƒŸnöh9NU‡Z­ò˜k¬6)RaÁ•!Ëˆf>ÔKS„ü°°½Tßbvû…ÕÃ'-ÂŸlW›úslÛ¦°kÜÆ=Ä|eÔ$9úiÃ,1Vˆ›3wFða–æ˜öÎ\¾Kœ€Ó)K/)LM·ú*ä6ºÞ§“×³BŽÄ€.¼sµÀ]ƒÍ5yö¬[Þú8‰0·V'VžÏdòŸ!q¾!â
÷qÈ|BòÅšU‚ë
]ÃŽ-J6!Ý0Ã‚2Zï‹%§F…c»ë¹^^µmÅÔqÎuHáCÉ`Û¶û›½¡–Ðà@y¦¼Î9V£†*ÀÙ–5ÉÞ3ùK”lpfÙmÙ%3¸JÊQ%EbÝ»±µ)	q}ÇyÑGB{OmUgt'»s† ƒßÁjÞl¤³Ù¢ä5ã»ãNìh¨®Aä,yüUÈœeÏÝ•äw9‚ÆÁ–Þ$½	ûD˜’Û˜uÖÜQQm:/°R5êœ“Þ—#É®G•WbËnx–·ð5 T]@Šc…8ä¤|s6í†xÎ¥á÷û¾)?úÓF—K<ùe„®¹+H~:Ð°• 5èjpÎöÙ9Í4:ÿ `T_Cûäm‘¡Ã£‘ S¸íÃ×¬Ã’|6x¢‡Ì7ÛÆa„Ú,bn#{Éd¿5m^ØD…°ÜY²J'¾C ¤,„’ƒz·[k4’ÛÊd5 `O?µ{­´›§éZ÷:Ž ø+P0ËWØ*Û¶ÄÙõŸÅ	Wr®Zedn:ëèÑÛü•KBãý¿ØéÇÿ `þ‰ÿ •¿à×‹¯x7gÏŒI±Yy5ãi¹,ÄÅ†ˆQä¶«‹åK
Ý½hÚ®æ¼‰Vµ§ncÛ¤\;þÝ‹™õEìSÝÇjðã>'é5#áo™V_ÚÄP-yž?ÌÖ(ñÕdåúdÛŸL˜m_b !ð‡›Ñ*ïuÐnZQë®•î±–¸HÜïZþŽÜáu«ëª3…p%‡,;=Ä.9áûF37•8êÛ””£¹dö˜ùtþLÃr[ix8I  ¤£äšçÂC¤hvUÔnO‘–²º/Xc©ßCEÛž1¹[Ä6%Ï3ñûVI’`øÅ±Qã‹E…éaJ‹Ü´¶Ób$¨¸JT»iÕ½ ù5ÐÜg“P
aû×•úcnÛç±sZ÷šë. jyúpîæ¤þ(š›>Gƒ|¯:·3kæl¨ã<`2†$¸Ó2`˜Ë”ÊtîÔãš„­:›E—Õ&;Ösö,ÿ OÑ{&°6º8ŒZ/g5bø™Ï°;1ç°.¾%yo¾Cb†?.=¢;ÊµG[	eÆ)J]Ü—!¿œ¥yzÕ×²±²¸!–KÃg<–q–ÚÂöšüN ¸üFµÃ†C|•È2;þYw•Ê/s²+äàÒfÞnO¹*SÁ†’Ë}ãÎ•-e-¡)žÀ+€÷¹æ®5+éÁ,¡­ (qË½voöwÿ û#lÿ À.¿öh®ŽÑüñÜW—úÛÿ Ž?ÞjÜ97Á>/È7áá,ÊvQ`¿?0>»¢½wÒT°çwéúmïS¸$§O!I*ó%£_] óãæ¸ífï,f–ÓÒ+JwrV?óÛüïã"Á”=bõZ®íPÁòÌXÐ)/b7)JR”t tòkE´†{Ñ!ÀPŠx,Û•“lv‡BMA'¶£‚L]ß
Gœ±ÔÛsŒÝìÓøê ·Ûž·°˜kºzÍÛKp4/h’u×oZ„vÖ¢pC«W…j§=æälœ×GŽ™Ô×Nžüè¢ndÃ^7¢YM½Å8y6ÉÒ;Á·UÍŠÛt×¦¾z¦X¿ï«_Æ=ái·þÌGúN÷½}ËWŽf,>‚àsúÄ·5é[ÆÝCÌ+]ºkäóÔýþªþ ¡”Ùiþ™÷Ëþ+exŠå´¶úæ§_òh¬÷ñVwšñ]ß§ï,!É«¤¼-»~Ç|=xŒËxÚÒ_æ‹C¡°”4¸Åµ8[[«a¥$¨½û€ò”Úz(¡"¶ØFèà³×ííUÄßîc¸¾·dÿ ÈÄÒ¸vŸ!ÜO4áà¯’¹›¹2é‹å×kÖyÆWMÁ¾Ao$õÂFÔÂû¯—+xmN8Ce° …,”º‰m¯™ò½ÅÍ Ö¸ûÕSEe¸|LÊÐ[F“e+†5àhµø/“±,#‹yw½Úsk7]óYÛ9‹RHm•5÷¾õ¤÷¥Z„­?”ROÎêZ9±ÄöA¥Þ¦æÝ’\ÝC+tZÁXß‹NxÞ{2oós¯®Ùø€Éù?ŠÃ|³æ»ë ûk	B›!¶\yqÖÔ¦‚
5HZH(P¢ê':Y!s+ø³óOj»Ž;ðÙ­™ºM=?Â* 8Ö¼8¬Þ(s^Bã;à{O\®¸¯LÄaÊk"ÇÜr
¥\ÞÜD©ˆR¤).íÞ7­n¸§£¾2GmˆÊf9ø(lbÚæâwÝ0>mgPÑ½€ùv ¦urÊóoð²ždmÉYe«,j?ä7Dér™ox4¢âÀZÂÒùGç¥´(ë´(Õ3Ÿ%–©søIÎŸjù-¶qÅo¾í0ae^¤;]Õ#±K¹‹/Âñž0ðÀÖUÏœ•Ã®Êãk2ã@Á!,ÍBaF
rOrûCzODêJÚçµ±ÇW¹¿ Ë¹rí-å–êèÇr~k±}*18
Œ•Èûƒso‰VìÛåædxÕ¢~e‘6ÛsîÏ.ë $¨þKz” Vµh:˜IpÙeŒ6¸‰ãˆ]Mªk³.^×-É¿	ÃÛä›Å7àÞo=ò4®IänA³fïLŒoöË=º3ÐšpBŽql©DÂIÔö“RºlS¨šªvI·FÙÆ!Ž2ÊMs=ª°þÐû”›ˆ¼2íŽÜ$Á•hÂl¬—F”ZÒØ~RØy*N…+I@ŽÃUn&’‚9·é&	,^×€A{2]fæ:É¸‚Ž<“ LÞvã•¯ÎÝˆ¶Ü/î5D»>Ò@*,±'p=
u[c]Œ­Í1õÈøÆ<×!ûtñÝLd”ÿ öƒ*jÑÞG¸ñp?;2,‚ñ•_.¹Apvë{½Ir]ÎàùÕnºáÕDù ò :Ðtåžò÷8Ô•ô¸ d°Q PÀïÜÔB¶ -WÝîZS€nÛ§OléRªEà&·.d¶àîGT‘Ûì{U1(§~tùŸf´QgÔ—¿?{E©=¦qÚ?&;–«Ò«KéÇêÇ»ñQ¥	ã§æÇ»ñQ¥0qYÍÅZŸÈŽß=-
d¦9m9&C©Ó@O˜æ«hV¿¡»çOº~
–¤'K$WSv€¢S s°kæ5	ÂP­46­éê;EcIWÑgÏ·Í>·âM„ú$C”ÊÔ•´ëjBÐ u$­ ÐÔ-f ZEA]MeñÃâ‚ÇoMµŽLzs5ÝGzão·MfCñ–ëŠö\R½šÜÝÎá¢š½yù~”Û¤v£;‹€òžJŒäSäNU¼"ýÈ9\üšäÊQœ¤¡¦£¸¡†Ji$õ!²Í;æ5y©]k-¾6h…£³yÌø¬öžYää|Ul¿ø[1¹ù‘Pâ:©S
Bý%ÆU!U² ÙÕZ¶Îö°ÆÂs%&Ý—¸s1¢€Ôà1áZq<¼c–sìKÊ0;é«v-œ”',‡è0zb B-Ö%)GR”¡À* ¥j2w±…€àsÀ"}º¥dÏi/g§‡…iìO¼wËy¿\®wl nÉ:ñvËšÜ‰koDZÐâšSS}½
:í×É®„Ò†wÂIa¥{¿j®÷mŠõ¡³4¸Q‰>!¾YÌÙÀ®übÍê3X5òéë«•‰ ¤*ä¿,‡ÃódPZS´mÓi ‚wh1×á&´ ÍnˆÎ.OP ÔåŽ­|BÝÂ¹¯øïÊ±LG(Üs6eQò{3ÑaÍbSkil,m–ËÛ7¶áJŠ6•5×jt”W/‰¥­8òPºÚ º‘’JÊ¹ž“RÆ¼ãÍkcœ©œb¸~UØnÌEÅ3€‘“Û\·Á’e„'Fõ}øî<¨Ø´íWÊNŠëI“½Œ,žJ{f™“<özMH§€4ï®j¾ªVÊ•ga¾*¹óˆã«Áù
T,u‚Å6<[Œf
µY&k/AZŠÈh¤u šßoy,M£N›w°Y^»\±‚î`O}¯Š­ù;šyG™n1.|—™LÊd[Ð¤[™u-18^Ð²ÌXÈi†Êö§qJVƒRt¥,ï”Õæ«eŽÙmbÒØ|Iï&§Úµóþ]äQ‹ŠCÎoÞcáñjÅÐˆ0¡˜°Â[JYÝ†Tâ@m:w…ZuÓ´ê¤ò¨å’v{t…æ&Ð¼ÕØ“SÏiàœs~qäÞHµblÞÿ !ƒ‚4Ô|[Ò-vÔ½–P†ÒÒ¤7<‚”'r]ZÂˆÕ@ž´ä¸|€Ó,…®Õmjçº&–—ú±v> ð¥ÚÏ+y¤+•õJ–¡ê+a?ø}^w›Ø>åË?Im€+ýçÿ Ì©ì×:Ëùý#'Íò	y%öJÛ—	‹
)mím´¤¶„êtJ RtêkŸ$®‘ÚœjVû[H­˜C[È*×¿Üq\†Ë“ZÒ.Øôö.6Çi6™\´¥4à)P
H:¡«XâÒÌ.ŒÐ¶hÜÇdáCÜW_ÿ ýñMÿ ­­ÿ ù-»þâ·RŸŸ°/9ÿ ‡m¿!þ'}êåœ³Í°ù¼y‡u™‚È“'}»|Vk”¨Êp8Úºb è´‘Ú éTMu$´Ôr]-¿dµ±´€ú‰á_™P.Cäìã•r§s|îô/YKí0Ë×vâÅ„¥&2BZÕÚa’ VÝt¯AUK+¤v§VË;lâéDÚ7•IÏ<ÉS<³œ9G˜ÆbrFR¬¥ŒG£X~$6¤4Û‰m+Ha†Ýx«ºI%Õ(’5×RIÕÃåhÖkEUŽÕmd\`nYâiäM|(¯\sÆˆœZÇµr<…Ûà6–­ÊŸ
ù%= D‰qÝtèŸ’”t”™¹Ü1ºC°îÞ°Ïô¾Ý;ËÝ©Î„´ @T¾cžf|…u7¼ß%¸åM¥¶¥\[ÝÓeE]Û)'khÔ“µ 'Ø¬’ÌùM^I+­ke«4BÀÑØ=üÏiNy(çNŠàWË«2ñL'ð½±!0¨½à!Ía„<½úê­ëVãò•ªºÔŸp÷°0œX\tÌù˜(÷úI¯4î Gò§ ñ=Ùëçäò±«„–»™je-ºËè”¥èï¡Æ\ÚI)Þƒ¡ìÒˆ.$„Õ†…Ûm½ó4NÀà=ÄP…`æþ)¹ïm¯Ùr.Dž›4¦ÖÌ»U±¨öÆ^iÔ8ÓÞ„Û*u…%Â¤{*ùw	ås°ìÃÜ±Z}9ajíqÄ5&®§hÔMhN˜'‹nnã\ZÙ†a×Û}«´8‚Õ	ÅjëŠuj[‹h©jR”I*:Ô¡Ü¦‰¡ ØwŸLØÞJe•¤¸çñ½GùOÄ,ó=žÝaää{­¶×0O„Ë0cE)|6¶·0Ú	VF„éP¸¾–à óP;ÛnÃi·¼¾H¡Äœ3âT¢Åã'ÄŽ;heÉRdDˆÚ[†ýÂ	ò[	?´KŒë«:tü¢•Ó²¦ÍÒá¢ÞÀ}ë<ßJí²¿[¢9Ð¹£È<•W3’ó«–k‘nÙ÷œÊ¦fD¼ÜÔÒ‡c¦tfBkkd”lÚ<‚²‰õ“Ws8®“vø­2 ¨Ï<F8ó­V¾Y›dÜ‡”Ü²ü¾z.¹Ø6n7F½-6†KQ[i½v Bu=§SJi+‹œjOÛ‚vÖqZD"ˆQ£!R{x’T§ŒùS2â;ìœ—›ßy•p–üVehÃ‹C‹JRòVIm=@Ö¥orø©™¬Û†Ûôb9-¹‘‚ºçx×ñr…2Ý7(‚ü+ƒÆ–Çªá§{N ¡crJ† ž ÖÃ»ÜBG\–}%·±ÁÁ† ×Ô~õ^q÷ˆ¾bâË
±œ-o².S“]ˆ‹e±õ.C¡)[‹vDW\Q)BSÕG@ g‚þh¥Ž îrÝ}±YÞÉÔ™šJzœ0îäŸ\ÑÊÖñbÏ3¹w«+/=TÛ`ÇZÛQ(S­Âe„¸Rzàè{*S^Í0£ÝQåîZl6++'k†0Î¤ŸDÓÁEbò¾uŽçqDk¬d`W)¾²›d6è
S“5AïÌ¥G2BÀm)
j6üÞ•X¸x§_‡:P~õ¥Ûd¹$ ®Ë•+¦˜òÏ,å,ç7ÇñW%¼7;Àã¹¶5
DDiÔ¶— 1XiNwIÔ¸TIë©:’\>F†¸àÜ²NÛm‚ÚGÉhçš¸Ôšù“Lø-Yü»È
ã†¸…W¶œãÄË7ì.@‚µ7+½ï{Öå©ƒ%
ÜHù.’J~i Í·éôëðò ýêl·ýOêtþe)Zœ²¥+§ÙÛš©êµ¹u5ã3Ä¦)faµòl—àAl7oUÊŒ†@è6È™çU¢~HR€ ­¬Üg` w¸¯??ÒûtÏ/tB§:4y¦¯œ™äÙ¤^BÉ2I9_
Ty‘n× Ü …Åp:ÊC!L÷hPÔ5³»ít$VwL÷?Y5+©„Â`¡¬ Š3Àâ1¯mkÚ°ò!åÜ¥“ÌÌ³››wœ–àÛ-Nº"$Xjy1Û4\D6YB””$'qNº 5Ð
RÌé]©Æ§íÉJÊÊ+8„PŠ4d*N}ä¨]Vµ+y[;âÛù'ÝØ±__Œ¨Š¹¹oƒ9Ä2²
’×¦°øovš€		Ò­†wÂu0Ð÷Ú±_mÐ_0G;u6µ¥Hÿ 	ñQÛÅÞ}þír¾]Ó—+¼—fOu–ŒÚžyEkRYa¶€TIÚ„€<‚¦\\jx®KclcKr>ÓŠ–q÷!åü_‘ÄÌ0k°²dPÙu˜·4¢„>‚Û€7)§›ùI$k·ZœRº'ji¡T]ZÇrÃ‚­<*Gº‹Rß™d6¬Â.{klåPî¢÷äcGZQ=/zB^ÖÚ™ù.| ›GTDŽÔ3­S}»ˆ„ŠR§,³Í?Jå<âo"§•å]˜=EÁ›ª/j`›$4ÿ ¢w¹; {¯œ7|îµ33Ëõ×âðU(„= >
R•9r­kí[.óxï$±ËÒ®1%ç±å·=7eÛá!µJiyQZe¶
À ë³]Ãqù]hë¿©Ô¯Ä°„AÐ è¥)S—}j¯Où÷ñ5ÿ ¬`äöÿ ûšÕýN~~À¹¿øÍÈ|ÏÞ¨«o6ò“/\¡aË%XóL†KÒ¯W8)m¦ä©÷®!ØÛK+l¬lR
u¥f25åàÐ•Ò~Ýá¹ °düTó2ñsâ=°ÊÆrE’l·K("B·*J
\K®Ãa—
\
!hÝ±Cµ5l—ÓH(]‡’Ío±Y@ðöGˆÊ¤šy’¢œmâ™8Ž*íüœL±ÚÜuO¹hSLKˆ\^kî%4ê¥€T³P†êX°i WÝív×f²°Ï|Åògˆ>^åèPíYæ\íÎËoXrŠ4xða6¤‚”(³¦’²HI^âÐ&º’QG³Úí­	tM¡<q'Ì§N8ñ7Î\ShF;…gRacÍ©JfÉ.<YñšÞT¥S-§K@©ED6R	êu§ä±
5Ø(Ýìö—N×#*î`}„WÅ7ò/,r-L‰;ò‰ù+„ClFcxHYj4t4Ê
‚Fâ”të\ùî¤œÕîªôvm­‹HµÏ‰=äÔûT›9;<ä;~2¸³>Ëf0Ã6è0Xa%,'Ðã°T„†’®Þ»tÔë¥——… {•pmöö…ÎˆP¼ÕØ—Tóø‰çâ©Ìk"¼áù‹+Ç¤ˆüj|{¥’r™iðÄ¸Ž%ÖîŸC¨¡i
I#Ø«ZâÒÌ+&…“1Ñ¿¸{Žy'Lç<Ë9+.»gy­Å7œ¦øãNÝn^‹2^[!„Äfšd|†ÒˆöI$¹$sÝ©Ù¨[ZÅmŠ1FŒ…IíÌÔ§nLå|û˜oòND¼¢ýz·ÛÚµÄšÜPvÄaK[MAa„+iqZ’|šè9et†®5*»+lØY &¹“‰+fßËœƒŽ%ðÜ[»-ñÕÞìÕÞá`õl-Éé[$HôÃÊÑ”'Pèù#gÍ$QÖpŒ²¸ Ø@nÁ˜©Ë•+N<»T˜ÇSùöýé®BëêÖ´†ÜFÍèR5×MÃJ›o ¦É¿«9üžø«j²£Ëù‹üSïUŠ)‹ÉV("„'!Ø=ªŠ‚ZHA¦˜YOi¤šJ’šiÎÏûÒé>Ñ¨?ÒPU”žŸn²¤¨ÍOž·-ˆ×Ù4!Ÿ9¡ëç4!Ÿ=^µ>sBKv¦@ÔŸšªƒòL'º¥I=·ù¶ÿ {Õ%”æ½Ð’ag\¹+|HKa` ’’{žz›_@¬kè(µ‡œý©?@ü4ú‰õü<çíIú'á§ÔGQÃÎ~Ô ~:ˆê'k&ýÒr#"àÛ
r\-•hB€ì×Ù¨>]#$-JÂ<Quëÿ Ô­tÿ  ¯ñª®¸ä³õÛòª°ã.(zj:È?Y×–ú$þsöä}ðÓëö"‰?†œýµ@ü4uû¢?†—ûj>øiuûE½n²ªú¤¥Ð¤ì	#·ùj/—P¥Dë7AABt"«na%ïõŠúGá­
	w¯ëôÃB½X¯¤~“¼_Ö+é†Š!âþ±_Hü4!.õýb¾‘øhB7¯ëô^»÷¾¹HÑD)%™÷u«½:÷„jN¾Açªd¦SÇ¤½õ¦«¢zB_IwëMFI{ëMKHZÄ$’H“©4)¤Úß˜P„mG˜P…'°Zí³™’¹q¦Ö”¶¥kÐ©EÎ#%žgEòËQî×l4ËO©-¶žÀUì5ZÃV„ÙRREEKBBðìÕ\Ÿ¨÷­´üÔûBšŠõBºW•üÅRMkSM-$%´!z¦„P„ÑB‚;µ\õØUß þfÕúG}äÖ«lÊ‹•eZ”BBhÿ ¬Fý+ÎŽH]{O·\Åjd¼›ÿ uöªÈÓ	¶¬MctéÞŸp¯xÓ*äý\ªGô¡
H6§ ìõT«^ºy¨Bò{J3[JSÓËB™I ó
HÐy¨R[¶Ý=>/O»ûF¢ìTÞ©Q\ÿ [Ö´´$’„ÑBBº[¶ÿ ÖâšƒòL'º¥I=·ù´~(÷ªK)Í{¡$P„”!-	¢„”¯ýôÑÿ †š®\”_’¼ê…hú¶Û¯îø¾ÏäQðQU=næQêËoû:/ô(ø(ª5»™X^³ZÞÛºÛ¯Ìm·ÏòhLHáÅ7Ê²[(ˆßRAÕÿ ‘*m•ÇŠÓõ]¿öF¾‚~
U*]GsMWÛlì×5¢+IRXQ! ±Ra5	‡º¹ª_¸kêÓî
ÕUn¢Žá¯«O¸(ª5w}Z}ÁEJ5w}Z}ÁEQ¨£¸kêÓî
*EÃ_VŸpQTj(îú´û‚Š£Q^»¦¾©DQTT«k¡Cz‚ìF!õèVÚU÷)óŠ¢CŠ¦WÅX~¬¶ÿ ³¢û]Ê?Å¨US­ÜÊ=Ymÿ gEþ…F·s(õe·ýú|UÝÌ¨ƒð¡‡ž# «@OŸÚ¨Õh4Ícô8Ÿ²3ý~
*ž£Í‡öF£OÁEQ¨óY[i¦4†:„„ëíéBDÕR9ï»§úBëS=!lg¤&Ššš(BJŠŠ·Ç`öªà¼ûýG½{(5ì¦¢½¨ê;|Ô!I=?Þ}“MgÖV	1™C))Ñ@t:Ÿ=%&¸’™t+‘ óP„i¥KBB;E$+vj°.Â®ùó6¿Ò;ï&µ[qQr¬¾ÍjPEEY£þ±ô­ÿ 8R9!taí>Ýs©Žñþoý×Ú«#L&Z±5ßÍ;øŠ÷BG’¯U#ÏBòd1µ:ºž€tÖ«¡UÑzô†>¹>í(¢OHdô¤“Ðh¡Là{O·II%$P¦·m¿¯Åü´j.É"¦ÕJŠçúÞµ%¡¡¡¡Õ	-Ûë#ñP~I„÷T©§¶ÿ 6ÅõIe9¯^JKå¡	KBy(MK0ÏßHýøIªåÉAù+ËËT,ˆ¡	i$Š´æéµ½tí=ºù½Š
›ÈÓî¾¨©¦|ƒo¨îŸ7õuvnö*LÌ&ÜÕ4ö>ÍjW£§±öhB:{f„#§±öhB:{f„#§±öhB:{f„#§±öhB¸8ëOWIì×Òç×æ£ù*™3TJ¬j­PŠG–šJÿ çÞý"½úŠÔ2XhM!!Q×ÿ ßw_ô…V¦zBÙ¤&zšš)!ÐŠŠH[ã°{Ux^}þ£Þ–šŠhöèB˜ÓYV¼ÏÕžö¾Ø ©35¤´#ÉBBBB;EVìÕs×aW¹öÞê×»OÎ;¦»¼ÉûÚÓoÅEÊµüž¿qýýkPGäÿ þ²’ù?Àÿ ¬¡4}ž‘æ~u÷Â‘É¡Ïiöëš­Lwóî¾ÕYa2Õ‰¬o~ißÄW½L ¨Hì«•I|”!!!zGçüdûô!KÚ}³U$RP€ŠJKvÛúü_ÇûF¢ìTÔvÕ*+ÿÙZimage/jpeg_,http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/septop.jpgOžbplist00ÔjkX$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † ¯ "()012LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`deU$nullÝ	
 !R$6S$10R$2R$7R$3S$11R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€ €€€€ €Ó#$%&[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _,http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/septop.jpgÒ*+,-Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢./UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+÷CRÈÓ3456AWNS.keysZNS.objects€ª789:;<=>?@€	€
€€€€€€€€ªBCDEFGHIJK€€€€€€€€€€VServer]Accept-RangesZConnection\Content-TypeTDate]Last-Modified^Content-LengthTEtagZKeep-Alive]Ms-Author-Via_XApache/2.2.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.14 OpenSSL/0.9.7l PHP/5.2.12 mod_perl/2.0.2 Perl/v5.8.8UbytesZKeep-AliveZimage/jpeg_Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:05:32 GMT_Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:01:17 GMTU19003_"c4580-4a3b-46599ec60a140"_timeout=15, max=100SDAVÒ*+ab_NSMutableDictionary£ac/\NSDictionaryJ;Ò*+fg_NSHTTPURLResponse£hi/_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑlm_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 Z ` { ~ ‚ … ˆ ‹  ’ ™ œ Ÿ ¢ ¥ ¨ ª ¬ ® ° ² ´ ¶ ¸ º ¼ ¾ À Ç Ó Û Ý ß á )/28AJLS[fhsuwy{}ƒ…‡’”–˜šœž ¢¤¦­»ÆÓØæõúntŠªÊÐí"&36;OSgu‡Š              n              ¢Ô'()*O8‰PNG

   IHDR         (-S  PLTE   			"""$$$%%%'''(((...222666BBBCCCEEEFFFMMMPPPSSSTTTYYYZZZ[[[\\\]]]^^^aaaeeeiiikkkmmmnnnyyy{{{}}}„„„†††ˆˆˆŠŠŠ”””–––ššš›››œœœ¡¡¡©©©¬¬¬­­­®®®°°°µµµººº¼¼¼ÀÀÀÁÁÁÅÅÅÊÊÊËËËÎÎÎÑÑÑÒÒÒÔÔÔ×××ØØØÚÚÚÛÛÛßßßàààåååæææçççêêêëëëïïïòòòôôôõõõöööûûûüüüýýýþþþÿÿÿf>Y   ¹IDAT™MÌUÃ0P—™™™™¹)3slåþ×hãdÚî—ö$Ä}ƒ[Ù1$6ØTâÍ¾vCD¸Æ	]·í›c
05F\&‹"³¸	'kUÎ\&ëú%áx {¢¨™˜¾a)lQõR’y£ÎÞ(4Pçu,Ø]ù-æ(”Zƒø„ïÂÆ@¢uø3Å ÊŠ'ìn¶:\®+ó 0K *òú‘?hNÊôŠ…@Ê6z|úNÒÐžp04¨F˜ÞQDˆ__±L   tEXtComment by ToyViewer/ŽÍ¶    IEND®B`‚\image/x-icon_%http://plato.stanford.edu/favicon.icoObplist00Ô56X$versionX$objectsY$archiverT$top † «%&-./01U$nullÛ	
R$6R$2R$7R$3R$8V$classR$4R$9R$0R$5R$1€€€€€
€€	€ Ó !"#$[NS.relativeWNS.base€€€ _%http://plato.stanford.edu/favicon.icoÒ'()*Z$classnameX$classesUNSURL¢+,UNSURLXNSObject#A±À+ƒ±®’\image/x-iconP#ïÿÿÿÿÿÿÒ'(23]NSURLResponse¢4,]NSURLResponse_NSKeyedArchiverÑ78_WebResourceResponse€    # - 2 7 C I ` c f i l o v y |  ‚ … ‡ ‰ ‹   ‘ “ • — ™ › ¢ ® ¶ ¸ º ¼ ä é ô ý+,5:HKYkn„             9              †Õ,-./012_WebResourceTextEncodingName_WebResourceFrameNameO d­<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"><head>
<title>Spinoza's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="robots" content="noarchive, noodp">
<meta name="DC.title" content="Spinoza's Political Philosophy">
<meta name="DC.creator" content="Steinberg, Justin">
<meta name="DCTERMS.modified" content="2008-04-21">
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" href="http://plato.stanford.edu/rss/sep.xml">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="../../css/sepentry.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print, handheld" href="../../css/sepprint.css">

</head><body>

<div id="pagetopleft" onclick="location.href='../../'">&nbsp;</div>

<div id="navmenu">
  <div class="menuheading"><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi">Cite this entry</a></div>

<hr>

  <div class="menuheading"><a href="../../search/searcher.py" class="menulink">Search the SEP</a></div>
<form method="get" action="../../search/searcher.py">
    <div style="padding: 0px 0px 2px 5px"><input size="18" name="query" style="width: 140px; background-color: #eeeeee; color: #444444"></div>
    <div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../search/searcher.py" class="menulink">Advanced Search</a></div>
    <div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../tools/" class="menulink">Tools</a> â€¢ <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/rss/sep.xml" class="menulink" target="other">RSS Feed</a></div>
</form>

<hr>

<div class="menuheading"><a href="../../contents.html" class="menulink">Table of Contents</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../new.html" class="menulink">What's New</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../archives/" class="menulink">Archives</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../projected-contents.html" class="menulink">Projected Contents</a></div>

<hr>

<div class="menuheading"><a href="../../info.html" class="menulink">Editorial Information</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../about.html" class="menulink">About the SEP</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../board.html" class="menulink">Editorial Board</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../cite.html" class="menulink">How to Cite the SEP</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../special-characters.html" class="menulink">Special Characters</a></div>

<hr>

<div class="menuheading"><a href="../../support/" class="menulink">Support the SEP</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../support/friends.html" class="menulink">PDFs for SEP Friends</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../support/donate.html" class="menulink">Make a Donation</a></div>

<div class="menuitem">â€¢ <a href="../../support/sepia.html" class="menulink">SEPIA for Libraries</a></div>

<hr>

<div class="menuheading"><a href="mailto:webmaster%40plato%2estanford%2eedu" class="menulink">Contact the SEP</a></div>

<hr>

<div class="copyright">
<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/"><img src="../../symbols/sepman.png" height="50" align="left" alt="SEP logo" border="0"></a>
<a href="../../info.html#c">Â©</a>
<a href="http://mally.stanford.edu/" target="other">Metaphysics Research Lab</a>,
<a href="http://www-csli.stanford.edu/" target="other">CSLI</a>,
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/" target="other">Stanford University</a>
</div>


</div><!-- end #navmenu -->

<div id="pagetopright">
  <a href="../../" class="menulink"><img src="../../symbols/septop.jpg" alt="Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"></a>
</div>


<div id="content"> 

<!--FUNDING MESSAGE-->
<div id="message">
  <a href="../../fundraising/" class="banner">
  Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.<br>
  Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free</a>
</div>

<!--FUNDING MESSAGE-->

<div id="aueditable"><!--DO NOT MODIFY THIS LINE AND ABOVE-->

<h1>Spinoza's Political Philosophy</h1><div id="pubinfo"><em>First published Mon Apr 21, 2008</em></div>
<p>

At least in anglophone countries, Spinoza's reputation as a
political thinker is eclipsed by his reputation as a rationalist
metaphysician. Nevertheless, Spinoza was a penetrating political
theorist whose writings have enduring significance. In his two
political treatises, Spinoza advances a number of forceful and original
arguments in defense of democratic governance, freedom of thought and
expression, and the subordination of religion to the state. On the
basis of his naturalistic metaphysics, Spinoza also offers trenchant
criticisms of ordinary conceptions of right and duty. And his account
of civil organization, grounded in psychological realism, stands as an
important contribution to the development of constitutionalism and the
rule of law.</p>

<!--Entry Contents-->
<ul>
<li><a href="#HisBac">1. Historical Background</a>
   <ul>
   <li><a href="#ThePolBac">1.1 Theological and Political Background</a></li>
   <li><a href="#IntBac">1.2 Intellectual Background</a></li>
   </ul></li>
<li><a href="#BasFeaSpiPol">2. Basic Features of Spinoza's Political Philosophy</a>
   <ul>
   <li><a href="#HobSpiRigNat">2.1 Hobbes and Spinoza on the Right of Nature</a></li>
   <li><a href="#HobSpiObl">2.2 Hobbes and Spinoza on Obligation</a></li>
   <li><a href="#SpiNor">2.3 Spinoza and Normativity</a></li>
   </ul></li>
<li><a href="#TraThePol">3. The <em>Tractatus Theologico-Politicus</em></a>
   <ul>
   <li><a href="#CouSup">3.1 Countering Superstition</a></li>
   <li><a href="#SepThe">3.2 Separation Thesis</a></li>
   <li><a href="#SinAutThe">3.3 Single Authority Thesis</a></li>
   <li><a href="#PosFunRel">3.4 Positive Function of Religion</a></li>
   <li><a href="#SpiArgForTol">3.5 Spinoza's Argument for Toleration</a></li>
   <li><a href="#SocConTTP">3.6 Social Contract in the TTP</a></li>
   </ul></li>
<li><a href="#TraPol">4. The <em>Tractatus Politicus</em></a>
   <ul>
   <li><a href="#MetBac">4.1 Metaphysical Background</a></li>
   <li><a href="#GenAimSta">4.2 General Aim of the State</a></li>
   <li><a href="#ConModReg">4.3 Constitutionalism and Model Regimes</a>
      <ul>
      <li><a href="#Mon">4.3.1 Monarchy</a></li>
      <li><a href="#Ari">4.3.2 Aristocracy</a></li>
      <li><a href="#Dem">4.3.3 Democracy</a></li>
      </ul></li>
   </ul></li>
<li><a href="#PlaStaSpiOnt">5. The Place of the State in Spinoza's Ontology</a></li>
<li><a href="#Bib">Bibliography</a>
   <ul>
   <li><a href="#SpiWor">Spinoza's Works</a></li>
   <li><a href="#OthWorCit">Other Works Cited</a></li>
   </ul></li>
<li><a href="#Oth">Other Internet Resources</a></li>
<li><a href="#Rel">Related Entries</a></li>
</ul>
<!--Entry Contents-->

<hr>

<h2><a name="HisBac">1. Historical Background</a></h2>

<p>

In order to situate Spinoza's political writings, I will
provide a brief overview of the theologico-political context of the
United Provinces, followed by a sketch of intellectual background to
these works.</p>

<h3><a name="ThePolBac">1.1 Theological and Political Background</a></h3>

<p>

Despite being perhaps the most tolerant country in early-modern
Europeâ€”a sanctuary for free thinkers and members of religious
minoritiesâ€”the United Provinces were riven by religious conflict,
as the Dutch sought to establish their identity after gaining
independence from Spain. The confessional rifts of the seventeenth
century were certainly an important part of context in which Spinoza
composed his <em>Tractatus Theologico-Politicus</em> [hereafter:
TTP].</p>

<p>

The early part of the seventeenth century was marked by a religious
schism that rapidly took on political significance. In 1610,
forty-four followers of liberal theologian Jacobus
Arminiusâ€”referred to as Arminiansâ€”wrote a formal
â€œRemonstrance,â€ which articulated the ways in which they
deviated from orthodox Calvinist views, particularly with respect to
the issues of self-determination and grace. The Arminians, or
Remonstrants, defended religious toleration on the grounds that faith
is expressed in the conscience of the individual, not subject to the
coercive power of the state. The doctrinal and political views of the
Remonstrants were opposed by the conservative Gomarists (followers of
Franciscus Gomarus), or Counter-Remonstrants. For a little over a
decade (roughly 1607-1618), the dispute raged on, expanding outward
from Holland and Utrecht.  Finally, in 1618, a national synod convened
(the Synod of Dort) to define more clearly the public faith. The
fallout from the Synod of Dort was disastrous for the tolerant
Arminians. The Advocate of the States of Holland, Johan
Oldenbarnevelt, who staunchly defended the Remonstrants, was put to
death. And Arminians throughout the country were purged from town
councils and universities (Israel 1995, 452ff).</p>

<p>

The second half of the century witnessed its own major
theologico-political dispute in the United Provinces. At the center,
again, were two theologians: Johannes Cocceius, a liberal theology
professor at Leiden, and Gisbertus Voetius, Dean of the University of
Utrecht. Disputes between Cocceian and Voetians began over abstruse
theological matters, but developed into a larger political and cultural
matter. The Voetians led the assault on the Cartesian philosophy being
taught in the universities. They thought that the new science advocated
by Descartes, with its mechanistic view of the material world, posed a
threat to Christianity in a variety of ways (Nadler 1999, 151-2 and
308-310). Spinoza's philosophy was reviled not only by the
Voetians, but also by moderate Cocceian-Cartesians, who sought to
distance themselves from radicals.</p>

<p>

Spinoza was no stranger to religious persecution. As is well known,
he was himself excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam in
1656. While Spinoza apparently endured the excommunication with
characteristic equanimity, fellow Dutch apostate Jew, Uriel da Costa,
was unable to bear the indignity of excommunication from the Amsterdam
Jewish community. In 1640â€”when Spinoza was only eight years
oldâ€”da Costa, who had denied the immortality of the soul and
challenged the status of the Torah as divine revelation, took his own
life.</p>

<p>

Da Costa's suicide surely made a lasting impression on
Spinoza, but it did not affect him as personally as did the treatment
of his friend Adriaan Koerbagh at the hands of Dutch authorities in the
years leading up to the publication of the TTP. In 1668 Koerbagh
published two treatises that provoked the wrath of the Calvinist
clergy. In the more scandalous of the twoâ€”<em>Een Bloemhof van
allerley lieflijkheyd</em> (A Flower Garden of all Kinds of
Loveliness)â€”Koerbagh ridiculed a number of traditional religious
doctrines and practices, and, in the process, articulated his own
religious and metaphysical views. Among the shocking views that he
advanced were that Jesus is not divine, that God is identical with
nature, that everything is necessitated by the laws of nature (the laws
of God), and that miracles are impossible. These are all positions that
Spinoza consistently endorsed. However, while Spinoza was famously
cautious, Koerbagh was not, publishing the works in Dutch (thereby
making them accessible to the general literate public) under his own
name. Consequently, Koerbagh was tried and sentenced on charges of
blasphemy. During his subsequent imprisonment under squalid conditions
Koerbagh became ill, and he died soon thereafter (in 1669). It is
generally supposed that it was Koerbagh's imprisonment and death
above all else that precipitated the publication of the TTP (Nadler
1999, 170).</p>

<p>

Arminians and liberal republicans were dealt another major blow in
1672. In this so-called disaster year (<em>rampjaar</em>), French
troops, under the command of Louis XIV, invaded the United Provinces,
capturing a number of Dutch cities (Nadler 1999, 305). Grand
Pensionary (chief statesman and legal advisor) Johan de Witt
shouldered much of the blame for this military embarrassment. De Witt
was the leader of the States of Holland for much of the republican
period that followed the death of Stadholder (a quasi-monarchical
position held by the House of Orange) William II in 1650. After the
French invasion, the stadholdership was reinstituted in the person of
William III, and De Witt was forced to resign. Shortly afterward he
and his brother were brutally killed by a zealous mob. This incident
evoked uncommon anger in Spinoza, who was an admirer of de Witt and
the republican ideals for which he stood. According to one famous
account, Spinoza had to be restrained by his landlord from taking a
sign reading <em>ultimi barbarorum</em> [â€œultimate of
barbariansâ€] to the site of the massacre (Freudenthal 1899,
201). Spinoza's <em>Tractatus Politicus</em> was composed in the
aftermath of, and perhaps prompted by, the events of 1672.</p>

<h3><a name="IntBac">1.2 Intellectual Background</a></h3>

<p>

Spinoza's political thought draws from a number of sources,
both classical and modern. As one commentator puts it, â€œSpinoza
formed new conclusions from facts and concepts borrowed from
othersâ€ (Haitsma Mulier 1980, 170). It is worth briefly
considering some of the sources of the â€œfacts and conceptsâ€
that he inherits.</p>

<p>

At some point in the mid-1650's (around the time of his
<em>cherem</em>, or excommunication) Spinoza began studying Latin with
Franciscus Van den Enden. Van den Enden was an ex-Jesuit and radical
egalitarian with revolutionary tendencies. He was put to death in 1674
after having been found guilty of conspiring to depose Louis XIV in
order to establish a free republic in Normandy. Van dan Enden was an
anti-clerical democrat who appears to have profoundly influenced
Spinoza. One commentator has gone so far as to call Van den Enden
â€œthe genius behind Spinoza,â€ claiming that Van den
Enden's writings â€œcontain a political theory which is in
fact the same as the one worked out by Spinozaâ€ (Klever 1996,
26). Whether or not this assessment is fair, it is clear that
Spinoza's thinking was nourished through his association with Van
den Enden and the larger radical Cartesian circle in Amsterdam.</p>

<p>

Hobbes' influence on Spinoza is unmistakable. We know that
Spinoza read <em>De Cive</em> carefully and that it was among his
possessions when he died in 1677. He might also have read
<em>Leviathan</em>, which appeared in Latin in 1668, as Spinoza was
completing the TTP, although we do not know this for sure (Sacksteder
1980). I will discuss Spinoza's work in relationship to
Hobbes' in some detail below (sections 2.1 and 2.2, below). Here
I want to mention the impact of Dutch Hobbesians on Spinoza. Hobbesian
thought was introduced into Dutch political discourse by Lambert van
Velthuysen, an anti-clerical, liberal physician (Tuck 1979; Blom1995).
Velthuysen's <em>Dissertatio</em> is an unabashed defense of
Hobbes' thought, in which the duty to preserve oneself is given
pride of place (esp. Sect. XIII). Spinoza read and admired Velthuysen
as a â€œman of exceptional sincerity of mind,â€ and was thus
disconcerted when Velthuysen denounced the TTP as the work of
a cunning atheist (Epistles 42 and 43).</p>

<p>

Aside from Velthuysen, the other primary Dutch conduits for
Hobbesian thought prior to Spinoza were the De la Court brothers (Petry
1984; Kossman 2000). Most of the De la Courts' writings were
published by Pieter De la Court after the death of his brother Johan in
1660. However, because it remains unclear how much Pieter added and how
much he profited off his studious younger brother, I will refer to
these authors of these writings simply as the De la Courts, so as to
avoid attribution problems. The De la Courts were ardent republicans
who maintained good relations with Johan De Witt. Indeed, De Witt is
thought to have written two chapters in the second edition of their
book <em>Interest van Holland</em> (see Petry 1984, 152). The De la
Courts adopted the basic features of Hobbesian anthropology, but
eschewed juridical concepts like â€œrightâ€ and
â€œcontractâ€ (see Malcolm 1991, 548), opting to analyze the
civil condition in terms of the competing interests of participants.
According to them, the aim of the state is to ensure that the interests
of rulers are tied to the interests of the ruled, which is possible
only if one adopts a series of institutional measures, such as the use
of blind balloting, the removal of hereditary posts, and the rotation
of offices. Republics, they argued, will be marked by greater checks
against self-interested legislation than monarchies (see Blom 1993).
Spinoza evidently studied these works carefully; his institutional
recommendations in the <em>Tractatus Politicus</em> [hereafter: TP]
reflect his debt to the De la Courts (Petry 1984; Haitsma Mulier
1980).</p>

<p>

It was likely the writings of the De la Courts that impressed upon
Spinoza the perspicacity of Niccolo Machiavelli. The notion of
balancing the interests of competing parties was ultimately derived
from Machiavelli (see Haitsma Mulier 1993, 254-255). Spinoza's
<em>Political Treatise</em> is shot through with Machiavellian insights
and recommendations. Right at the outset of the work, Spinoza parrots
Machiavelli's critique of utopian theorizing, elevating statesmen
over philosophers, since only the latter begin with a realistic
conception of human psychology (TP 1/1; cf. Machiavelli's
<em>Prince</em> I.15). Machiavellian realism pervades Spinoza's
political writings, playing a particularly large role in the
constitutional theorizing of the TP. Spinoza, like Machiavelli,
understood that prescriptions for improving the governance of a state
can be offered only after one has a proper diagnosis of the problems
and a proper grasp of human nature.</p>

<h2><a name="BasFeaSpiPol">2. Basic Features of Spinoza's Political Philosophy</a></h2>

<p>

Three of the most striking and important claims of Spinoza's
<em>Ethics</em> are that (1) all things come to exist and act
necessarily from the laws of God's nature (e.g., <em>E</em>IP29
and <em>E</em>IP33), (2) nature does not act on account of some end or
purpose (<em>E</em>I Appendix), and (3) nature is everywhere and always
the same (<em>E</em>III Preface). Collectively, these three claims
entail that human behavior, like the behavior of everything else, is
fully necessitated by, and explicable through, the immutableâ€”and
non-providentialâ€”laws of God or Nature. This forms a significant
part of the metaphysical backdrop against which Spinoza develops his
political theory. For the sake of simplicity, I will call the view that
is constituted by these three theses Spinoza's naturalism. This
naturalism led him to adopt radical views regarding the source and
status of rights, obligations, and laws. As we shall see, it is
precisely his thoroughgoing naturalism that separates Spinoza from
other seventeenth-century political theorists.</p>

<p>

Spinoza's naturalism excludes transcendental conceptions of
God. Those who believe in a transcendent God â€œimagine that there
are two powers quite distinct from each other, the power of God and the
power of Natureâ€¦. they imagine God's power to be like the
rule of some royal potentate, and Nature's power to be a kind of
force and energyâ€ (TTP 6/72). Of course, on Spinoza's
account, God is not a transcendent legislator, God is nature itself.
Spinoza's naturalistic account entails that all claims of
entitlement deriving from God's will are specious. This is a
direct rebuke not only of defenders of the divine right of kings, but
also of most accounts of natural rights as entitlements that were
embraced by many seventeenth-century theorists.</p>

<p>

Moreover, this naturalism also rules out dualistic views of nature
according to which there is a normative order of things, or a way that
things should be, that stands in contrast to the actual order of
things. This view undermines the teleological assumptions that form the
basis of natural law theory, whether Thomistic or Protestant. Even
those who wished to separate natural law from theology (e.g.,
Pufendorf), and those who de-emphasized the role of God's
willâ€”as Grotius does in his famous <em>etiam si daremus</em>
passageâ€”still supposed that there is a way that things ought to
be, a normative natural order that can be decoupled from the actual
order of things. According to this view, humans act contrary to nature
when they act contrary to the prescripts of right reason. Spinoza
attacks this view, according to which â€œthe ignorant violate the
order of nature rather than conform to it; they think of men in nature
as a state within a state [<em>imperium in imperio</em>]â€ (TP
2/6). The phrase â€œ<em>imperium in imperio</em>â€ famously
appears also in the preface to <em>Ethics</em> III, where Spinoza is
characterizing the non-naturalist view that he opposes. In both of
these passages, Spinoza criticizes the assumption that man is governed
by his own set of rational, normative laws, rather than the laws that
govern the rest of nature. It is precisely this position that Spinoza
undercuts when he writes in the <em>Ethics</em> that â€œthe laws
and rules of Natureâ€¦are always and everywhere the sameâ€
(<em>E</em>III preface) and in the TP that â€œwhether man
is led by reason or solely by desire, he does nothing that is not in
accordance with the laws and rules of natureâ€ (TP 2/5).</p>

<p>

In short, by adopting the view that nature is univocal and that man
is governed by the same laws as everything else in nature, Spinoza
rejects the whole natural law tradition (A. Garrett 2003). And even if
Spinoza's naturalism is viewed as part of a larger naturalistic
trend in Dutch political thought (Blom 1995), his disavowal of
normative conceptions of nature and rejection of teleology indicates a
clear break with tradition. To appreciate the depth and significance of
Spinoza's naturalism, it will be helpful to compare his views on
natural right and obligation to Hobbes'.</p>

<h3><a name="HobSpiRigNat">2.1 Hobbes and Spinoza on the Right of Nature</a></h3>

<p>

One of the most notorious features of Spinoza's political
thought is his account of natural right. He introduces this concept in
TTP 16, where he boldly writes:</p>

<blockquote>

By the right and established order of nature I mean simply the rules
governing the nature of every individual thing, according to which we
conceive it as naturally determined to exist and to act in a definite
way. For example, fish are determined by nature to swim, and the big
ones to eat the smaller ones. Thus it is by sovereign natural right
that fish inhabit water, and the big ones eat the smaller ones. For it
is certain that nature, taken in the absolute sense, has the sovereign
right to do all that she can do; that is, nature's right [<em>ius
naturae</em>] is co-extensive with her powerâ€¦.But since the
universal power of nature as a whole is nothing but the power of all
individual things taken together, it follows that each individual thing
has the sovereign right to do all that it can do; i.e., the right of
the individual is co-extensive with its determinate power. (TTP 16/179;
cf. TP 2/4)</blockquote>

<p>

In claiming that the right of nature is coextensive with the power
of nature and that the coextensivity of right and power applies
<em>mutatis mutandis</em> to the individuals in nature, Spinoza is just
rejecting the view of the non-naturalist, rather than making a positive
normative claim. So although Spinoza is often seen as subscribing to
the view that â€œmight makes rightâ€ (see Barbone and Rice
2000, 19; McShea 1968, 139), this is misleading in a sense, as it
implies that Spinoza is redefining right in terms of power. In fact, I
take it that the coextensivity thesis is not to be understood as
offering a new normative standard; rather, it is intended simply as a
denial of any transcendental standard of justice (see Curley 1996,
322). To say that something is done by right in Spinoza's sense
is to say that there is nothing in virtue of which that action can be
judged impermissible, which is different from judging the action to be
appropriate according to some new normative standard. So, even if
Spinoza's account implies that CortÃ©s conquered the Aztecs
by right, it does not follow that it was necessarily the right, or
proper, thing to do (see TP 5/1; see section 2.3).
</p>

<p>

Spinoza's brazen denial of natural proscriptions on what one
can do roused the ire of early readers (e.g., Pufendorf 1934, 159). Of
course, Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza's great predecessor, had made a
similar claim. Indeed, Spinoza's account of natural right is
often taken as evidence that he is a Hobbesian. Hobbes' account
of natural right has been the subject of much interpretative dispute,
in part because it seems to undergo a shift between his early political
writings and <em>Leviathan</em>. In <em>De Cive</em> Hobbes defines
right as â€œthe liberty each man has of using his natural faculties
in accordance with right reasonâ€ (1.7). In other words, natural
right is the liberty to do anything consistent with the natural law
(ibid. 2.1). This includes the right to do anything that one judges to
be necessary for one's preservation (1.8-1.9). Hobbes adds one
proviso here, which may be called the â€œsincerity clause,â€
namely that one violates the law of nature, or acts without right, when
one acts in a way that one does not sincerely believe contributes to
one's preservation (1.10n). And later Hobbes suggests that
because â€œdrunkenness and crueltyâ€ cannot sincerely be
thought to contribute to self-preservation, drunken and cruel actions
are not performed by right, even in the state of nature (ibid., 3.27).
In short, as A. G. Wernham puts it, on Hobbes' view, man's
natural right â€œcovers only some of his actionsâ€ (Wernham
1958, 14). Specifically, it covers those actions that are not contrary
to the law of nature.</p>

<p>

In <em>Leviathan</em>, however, Hobbes seems to advance an account
of natural right that is apparently not bound by such normative
constraints (Ch. 14). But while it may seem that in the later work
Hobbes strips the concept of natural right of all normative content,
even the view expressed in <em>Leviathan</em> may be seen to be at odds
with a thoroughgoing naturalism. To see this, consider Spinoza's
reply to his friend to Jarig Jelles, when asked what sets his views
apart from Hobbes':</p>

<blockquote>

With regard to political theory, the difference between Hobbes and
myself, which is the subject of your inquiry, consists in this, that I
always preserve the natural right in its entirety [<em>ego naturale jus
semper sartum tectum conservo</em>], and I hold that the sovereign
power in a State has right over a subject only in proportion to the
excess of its power over that of a subject. (Epistle 50)</blockquote>

<p>

What Spinoza is criticizing here is the Hobbesian view of contracts
(covenants) or the transference of one's natural right. The
transferability or alienability of one's natural right to judge
how to defend oneself serves as the foundation of Hobbes'
political theory; it allows him to explain the formation of the
commonwealth and the legitimacy of the sovereign. In Spinoza's
view, however, Hobbes violates naturalism here. By conceiving of
one's natural right as something like an entitlement that can be
transferred, which in turn leads him to drive a wedge between right and
power in the commonwealth, Hobbes never fully rids his account of the
vestiges of the juridical tradition that Spinoza sought to
overturn.</p>

<h3><a name="HobSpiObl">2.2 Hobbes and Spinoza on Obligation</a></h3>

<p>

The difference between Hobbes and Spinoza on right bears directly on
their distinct accounts of obligation. Hobbes thinks that we incur
binding obligations when we make pledges under the appropriate
conditions. By contrast, Spinoza maintains that â€œthe validity of
an agreement rests on its utility, without which the agreement
automatically becomes null and voidâ€ (TTP 16/182; cf. TP
2/12). To demand otherwise would be absurd, since men are bound by
nature to choose what appears to be the greater good or lesser
evil. We are bound by nature to act on our strongest interest and
cannot be obligated by previous agreements to break this inviolable
psychological law of nature. Spinoza effectively appears to embrace as
inescapable the position of Hobbes' â€œFoole,â€ who believes
that â€œevery man's conservation, and contentment, being committed
to his own care, there could be no reason, why every man might not do
what he thought conduced thereunto: and therefore also to make, or not
make; keep, or not keep Covenants, was not against Reason, when it
conduced to one's benefitâ€ (<em>Leviathan</em> Ch. 15, 101).</p>

<p>

By adhering to a strict naturalism about right and obligation and
maintaining that â€œthe sovereign power in a State has right over a
subject only in proportion to the excess of its power over that of a
subjectâ€ (Epistle 50), Spinoza, unlike Hobbes, places the burden
of political stability on the sovereign rather than the subject (see
Wernham 1958, 27). The commonwealth must be structured so as to promote
compliance; when there is excessive vice or non-compliance, the blame
must be â€œlaid at the door of the commonwealthâ€ (TP 5/3).
So, whereas Hobbes argues that the sovereign is always vested with
nearly absolute legislative authority, Spinoza claims that â€œsince
the right of a commonwealth is determined by the collective power of a
people, the greater the number of subjects who are given cause by a
commonwealth to join in conspiracy against it, the more must its power
and right be diminishedâ€ (TP 3/9). If a sovereign is to maintain
its right, it must legislate wisely, so as not to incite insurrection.
So while Spinoza does not accord to the people a proper right of
revolution, he proposes a naturalistic equivalent, since the right of
the state is essentially constituted, and limited, by the power of the
people (TP 2/17).</p>

<p>

Thus, when Spinoza points to the differences between his view of
natural right and Hobbes' in his letter to Jelles, differences
that might appear negligible to the casual reader, he is identifying a
significant distinction (see Wernham 1958, 35). Spinoza's
thoroughgoing naturalism leads him to reject the sharp distinction that
Hobbes draws between civil stateâ€”the product of
artificeâ€”and the state of nature, along with the concomitant
conception of obligation that arises with the inception of the
commonwealth. But given his naturalism and repudiation of rights and
obligations as traditionally understood, one might be left wondering
how or whether Spinoza could offer a normative political theory at
all.</p>

<h3><a name="SpiNor">2.3 Spinoza and Normativity</a></h3>

<p>

As Curley rightly points out, to deny that there is a transcendental
standard of justice is not to deny that there is any normative standard
by which we can evaluate action (Curley 1996). Even if one can act
irrationally without violating nature that does not mean that all of
one's actions have the same normative status. As Spinoza puts it,
â€œit is one thing, I say, to defend oneself, to preserve oneself,
to give judgment, etc., by right, another thing to defend and preserve
oneself in the best way and to give the best judgmentâ€ (TP 5/1).
The goodness of an action is to be judged in relation to whether the
action aids our striving to preserve and augment our power (see
<em>E</em>IVP18S; TP 2/8; TTP 16/181). The striving to preserve and
augment our power, which constitutes our very essence
(<em>E</em>IIIP7), grounds reason's prescriptions for action,
providing a standard by which we can make proper moral judgments
(Curley 1973). The dictates of reason are effectively rules of
prudence, which is why Spinoza writes that â€œif anyone sins, it is
against himself, and not against othersâ€ (TP 2/18). Since these
dictates are relative to the essential and ineliminable interest of the
agent, Spinoza is able to avoid charges that his normative claims
conflict with his naturalism. We <em>ought</em> to do only those things
that we either already most want to do or at least would want to do if
we were in a cognitively superior position. And just as the individual
ought to do those things that maximize his or her own power or welfare,
Spinoza takes it as axiomatic that the state ought to do those things
that maximize the welfare of the people as a whole (e.g., TTP
16/184).</p>

<h2><a name="TraThePol">3. The <em>Tractatus Theologico-Politicus</em></a></h2>

<p>

As indicated above, throughout the seventeenth century the United
Provinces were riven by disputes concerning, among other things, the
political authority of the church. Spinoza's <em>Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus</em> can be seen as an intervention in this broad
dispute. The stated goals of this work were to parry charges of atheism
(Spinoza was hilariously unsuccessful in this respect), to oppose the
prejudices of the theologians, and to defend the freedom to
philosophize (Epistle 30). My exposition of the political claims of the
TTP will focus on the last two goals. Specifically, I will look at the
political significance of Spinoza's critique of superstition and
consider his arguments for the freedom of philosophizing; this will be
followed by an analysis of the role of the social contract in the
TTP.</p>

<h3><a name="CouSup">3.1 Countering Superstition</a></h3>

<p>

The TTP contains a good deal of what has come to be known
as biblical criticism. Through careful linguistic and historical
exegesis Spinoza identifies numerous textual inconsistencies, which,
with some philosophical buttressing, lead Spinoza to deny the exalted
status of prophets, the objective reality of miracles, and the divine
origin of the Pentateuch. The broad features of his critique are vital
to our understanding of Spinoza's response to the
â€œtheologico-political problemâ€ (Smith 1997) that plagued
the Dutch Republic.</p>

<p>

Among the politically relevant claims that Spinoza makes in the
first fifteen chapters of the work is that Scripture does not compete
with philosophy as a source of knowledge; nor do the injunctions of
Scripture compete with the commands of civil authorities. By separating
faith from reason and making religion's role in the public realm
subordinate to that of the state, Spinoza tries to sanitize religion of
its pernicious aspects. We may call the claim that faith is distinct
from reason the <em>separation thesis</em> and the claim that religious
law is dependent on and determined by civil law the <em>single
authority thesis</em>.</p>

<h3><a name="SepThe">3.2 Separation Thesis</a></h3>

<p>

At one point Spinoza calls the task of establishing the separation
of faith from philosophy â€œthe main object of the whole
workâ€ (14/164). And a good deal of the biblical criticism in the
TTP can be understood as paving the way for the separation thesis,
since in the earlier chapters much of what Spinoza is doing is
undermining the claim of Scripture as a source of genuine knowledge.
The value of Scripture does not lie in its mysteries or its abstruse
metaphysical content, since to the extent that it is concerned with
these matters it isâ€”by Spinoza's lightsâ€”utterly
confused. Rather, it lies in the simple moral truths that Scripture
contains, which encourage obedience to the state (Ch. 13). The books of
Scripture are written for an unsophisticated, uneducated audience and
convey information in a way that is suited to such an audience, in the
form of fantastical accounts and parables that appeal to the
imagination rather than the intellect. And so, Spinoza argues, although
Scripture appears to reveal profound truths about God's nature
and his participation in our world, its salient message is not
metaphysical, but moral: â€œScripture demands nothing from men but
obedience, and condemns not ignorance, but only obstinacyâ€
(13/158). The ethical message of loving God and loving one's
neighbor is the backbone of all religion (12/155), the whole of divine
law (14/164).</p>

<p>

This ethical understanding of religion is reflected in the way that
Spinoza re-conceives of several crucial religious concepts. For
instance, he claims that a text is sacred to the extent that it fosters
devotion to God and charity to others (e.g., 12/151) and that a
person's piety is measured in terms of his or her commitment to
justice, charity, and obedience. Since the aim of religion is obedience
and good works, and the aim of philosophy is truth, religion and
philosophy ought not to be seen as rivals. By separating religion and
philosophy, faith and reason, Spinoza distances himself both from those
whoâ€”like Maimonides and Spinoza's friend Ludwig
Meyerâ€”contort Scripture to make it conform to reason and those
whoâ€”like Alpakhar (TTP Ch. 15)â€”claim that where Scripture
conflicts with reason it is reason that we must renounce. According to
Spinoza, because reason and faith have separate domains, neither is
subservient to the other. The separation thesis has profound political
import, since by claiming that religion is not, like philosophy, a
source of knowledge, Spinoza undercuts the grounds for the theological
disputes that were the source of considerable unrest in the Dutch
Republic. The dominant message of the separation thesis is that
Scripture is not the source of metaphysical knowledge and so we ought
not to treat it as an authority in these matters.</p>

<h3><a name="SinAutThe">3.3 Single Authority Thesis</a></h3>

<p>

However, recognizing that Scripture does have a positive moral or
political function in promoting justice and charity, one might wonder
how much authority the clergy has in public matters. Spinoza's
response is that â€œthe right over matters of religion is vested
entirely in the sovereign, andâ€¦the external forms of worship
should be such as accord with the peace of the commonwealthâ€ (Ch.
19, title). Like Hobbes, he embraces the Erastian position that
religious law is realized â€œthrough the medium of temporal
rulersâ€ (19/219; cf. 19/222). The crux of the single authority
thesis is this: the sovereign is the sole civil and religious
authority. Indeed, because piety consists in practicing justice and
obedience, and because there is no standard of justice other than the
will of the sovereign (19/220; <em>E</em>IVP37S2), Spinoza concludes
that â€œno one can practice piety aright nor obey God unless he
obeys the decrees of the sovereign in all thingsâ€ (19/223). The
obvious, yet important, implication of the single authority thesis is
that clerics are at best spiritual advisors with no real claim to
political power. The problem of dual allegiances (divine and civil) is
overcome, since the two authorities converge in the form of the
sovereign.</p>

<p>

The argument against ecclesiastical power here depends upon the
supposition that there is no transcendental standard of piety. Of
course, a sovereign could delegate authority to religious
functionaries, but Spinoza cautions against this, using the case of the
Hebrews to illustrate the dangers of priestly authority. The decisive
turn that precipitated the decline of the first Hebrew state came with
the ascendance of a priestly order. On Spinoza's account,
â€œthere was no difference whatsoever between civil law and
religionâ€ (17/196) under Moses, and the Jews lived peaceably.
However, when the priestsâ€”chiefly the Levitesâ€”were given
the right to interpret divine law, the state came unhinged. The same
priestly ambition that led to the downfall of the first state also led
to the downfall of the second. In the latter period, it was the
Pharisees who generated civil unrest. They â€œextended pontifical
authority to all areasâ€ (18/213), which resulted in sectarian
conflict, widespread persecution, and the debasement of religion into
â€œpernicious superstitionâ€ (18/213). This message that
Spinoza conveys in TTP 18 had clear application in the Dutch Republic,
where, as we've noted, Calvinist theocratsâ€”who formed a
menacing alliance with the house of Orangeâ€”were increasingly
wielding power to the detriment of peace and stability (see Nadler
1999, 283-4).</p>

<p>

Spinoza punctuates his historical analysis of the Hebrew state by
drawing four lessons about the theologico-political problem, three of
which are relevant here. (1) Civil stability requires that
ecclesiastical power be limited; (2) it is disastrous for religious
leaders to get involved in speculative matters; and (3) the sovereign
must remain the sole legislator. These historical observations support
both the separation thesis and the single authority thesis; they also
support Spinoza's principle of toleration, which I discuss
below.</p>

<h3><a name="PosFunRel">3.4 Positive Function of Religion</a></h3>

<p>

Despite its potential for harm, Spinoza thinks that religion can
perform a positive social function. It can help to breed an obedient
spirit, making people pliable to civil lawâ€”in this way religion
plays a role in bolstering the state (e.g., 14/168; cf. Moses'
use of a state religion, 5/66). For instance, the ceremonial laws and
practices of the Jews helped to foster and preserve cohesion among an
ignorant, nomadic populace (Chapters 3 and 5). In exhorting love and
charity, the moral message of religion is perfectly consistent with the
dictates of reason (e.g. 15/176); the message is just presented in a
manner that is suited to the understanding of the masses (14/169; see
Strauss 1965, Ch. 9 and Smith 1997, Ch. 2). Religion also seems to play
a crucial role in promoting compliance with the law. For instance,
Michael Rosenthal has suggested that in Spinoza's scheme
â€œtranscendental beliefsâ€ play a crucial role in overcoming
free rider problems; defections from agreements and non-compliance with
the law would likely be widespread among human beings were it not for
religion (Rosenthal 1998).</p>

<p>

The salutary function of religion is undermined when sectarianism
emerges. When groups like the Pharisees begin to regard themselves as
special, disparaging and persecuting other groups, civil order is
disrupted. In order to prevent such fissures, Spinoza puts forth a
universal or civil religion that captures the moral core of a plurality
of faiths, to which all citizens can subscribe irrespective of what
other private beliefs they hold (14/167). Like Rousseau after him,
Spinoza thought that a universal public religion could bolster civic
solidarity, channeling religious passions into social benefits.</p>

<h3><a name="SpiArgForTol">3.5 Spinoza's Argument for Toleration</a></h3>

<p>

Spinoza is often remembered for his contribution to the liberal
tradition, due, in large part, to his defense of the freedoms of
thought and speech in TTP 20. However, the tolerationism expressed in
TTP 20 appears to stand in tension with the Erastian claim of TTP 19.
How can Spinoza be a liberal about religious practice while also
defending the view that â€œthe sovereign has full right to control
religionâ€ (19/title)? Three things must be noted in response to
this puzzle. First, unlike Locke's tolerationism, Spinoza's
defense of civil liberties in TTP 20 is not fundamentally a defense
freedom of worship (Israel 2001, 265-266). Rather, it is essentially a
defense of the freedom to philosophize; freedom of worship is at best
an incidental byproduct of this primary aim. Second, Spinoza sharply
distinguishes between one's outward expressions of faith and
one's inward worship of God. Sovereign authority over religious
expression concerns only the former, leaving the latter the domain of
the individual, for reasons that we will examine in a moment. Both of
these positions can be understood as lending support to the Arminian
cause against Calvinist Theocrats (Nadler 1999, 12). Finally, it should
be mentioned that Spinoza's denial that freedoms concerning
outward religious expression must be protected points to the limited
nature of his brand of toleration; this is not the freedom of religious
practice intimated in first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The
sovereign retains full discretion to determine which actions are
acceptable and what forms of speech are seditious (16/189). As Lewis
Feuer ruefully notes, Spinoza does not offer anything resembling Oliver
Wendell Holmes's standard of â€œclear and present
dangerâ€ to constrain sovereign intervention (1987, 114).</p>

<p>

What are Spinoza's arguments for his, albeit limited, defense
freedoms of thought and speech? The first argument is that it is
strictly impossible to control another's beliefs completely
(20/227; cf. 17/149 and 7/106). Since right is coextensive with power,
lacking the power to control beliefs entails lacking the right to do
so. However, since Spinoza admits that beliefs can be influenced in
myriad ways, even if not fully controlled, this argument amounts to a
rather restricted defense of freedom of conscience.</p>

<p>

Next, the argument shifts from considering what the sovereign
<em>can</em> do to what it would be <em>practical</em> or
<em>prudent</em> for a sovereign to do. Spinoza offers a battery of
pragmatic reasons in defense of non-interference. For instance, he
argues that â€œutter failure will attend any attempt in a
commonwealth to speak only as prescribed by the sovereignâ€
(20/231). Men are naturally inclined to express what they believe
(ibid.), and so just as attempts to regulate beliefs fail, so do
attempts to regulate the expressions of these beliefs. Moreover, even
if a state were to regulate speech, this would only result in the
erosion of good faith [<em>fides</em>] on which civil associations
depend, since men would â€œbe thinking one thing and saying
anotherâ€ (20/234). It is thus foolish to seek to regulate all
speech, even if it is also â€œmost disastrousâ€ to grant
unlimited freedom of speech (20/231).</p>

<p>

Spinoza also argues that in general the more
oppressively a sovereign governs, the more rebellious the citizens will
be, since â€œmen in general are so constituted that their
resentment is most aroused when beliefs which they think to be true are
treated as criminalâ€ (20/234). The source of oppression and the
resistance to it have a common root on Spinoza's account, namely,
the desire for others to approve of the same things that we do (see
<em>E</em>IIIP29; cf. Rosenthal 2001 and 2003). Men being constituted
as they are, when differences of opinion ariseâ€”as they inevitably
doâ€”they are inclined to foist their standard on others and to
resist others' attempts to do the same. So, however natural
attempts to regulate the beliefs, speech, and behavior of others may
be, it is politically unstable to do so. Moreover, Spinoza argues that
it is often the least wise and the most obnoxious who initiate moral
crusades, and just as it is often the wisest and most peace-loving who
are the targets of such campaigns (20/235; 20/237).</p>

<p>

It is worth noting that these arguments in defense of civil liberties
are thoroughly pragmatic; they rely on psychological principles and
empirical observations to illustrate the instability and imprudence of
oppressive governance. They are not principled arguments that depend
on notions of rights or the intrinsic value of liberty, much to the
frustration of some commentators (Feuer 1987; Curley 1996).</p>

<h3><a name="SocConTTP">3.6 Social Contract in the TTP</a></h3>

<p>

A good deal of scholarly attention has been placed on
Spinoza's account of the social contract in the TTP. Spinoza
introduces the contract in Chapter 16, when considering how people
escape the pre-civil condition (16/181). Here he claims that
â€œ[men] had to bind themselves by the most stringent pledges to be
guided in all matters only by the dictates of reasonâ€ (16/181),
which requires, as he later makes clear, that each â€œnecessarily
surrenders his rightâ€ to determine how to live and defend himself
to the sovereign (16/183; cf. <em>E</em>IVP37S2). He also cites the
establishment of the Hebrew state, with Moses as the absolute
sovereign, as an historical example of a social contract (19/221). The
social contract seems to confer nearly boundless authority on the
sovereign. So long as we are rational, â€œit is our duty to carry
out all the commands of the sovereign without exceptionâ€
(16/183); and, as we have seen, this legitimacy extends to matters of
outward religious practice (16/189â€”see quote below).</p>

<p>

However, if Spinoza really relies upon the social contract as a
source of legitimacy, several problems arise. First of all, it seems
unlikely that such a contract could ever have been formed, since the
legitimating strength of a social contract depends on the farsighted
rationality of humans (19/221), and yet Spinoza clearly thinks that the
majority of men are not generally rational (see Den Uyl
1983).</p>

<p>

But even if such a contract were possible, a much greater problem
remains for Spinoza. How can we take seriously a legitimacy-conferring
contract without violating the naturalism that is at the core of
Spinoza's metaphysics? What is this right that is surrendered or
transferred? And how can one really transfer one's right, given
the coextensivity of right and power? Moreover, Spinoza's
naturalistic, utility-based account of obligation (see 2.2, above)
seems to preclude the possibility of a binding social contract.</p>

<p>

Some commentators take these problems with Spinoza's social
contract to be insurmountable, and for this reason they regard him as
coming to his senses when be abandons the contract in the TP (Wernham
1958, 25-27). Others have tried to reinterpret the contract in a way
that is makes it consistent with his naturalism. For instance, Barbone
and Rice distinguish between two concepts that have been rendered in
English as â€œpower.â€ On the one hand there is
<em>potentia</em>, which is the power that is essential to the
individual (Barbone and Rice 2000, 17). This power in inalienable. What
is transferable is one's <em>potestas</em>, i.e. one's
authority (Barbone and Rice 2000, 17) or coercive power (Blom 1995,
211).</p>

<p>

While this interpretation has the virtue of cohering with
Spinoza's claim that he â€œalways preserve[s] the natural
right in its entiretyâ€ (Epistle 50), since one's right, or
<em>potentia</em>, always remains intact, it leaves unexplained how
<em>potestas</em>, which Barbone and Rice describe as a
â€œsuper-addedâ€ capacity, fits into the natural order. What
can it mean to possess, transfer, or renounce one's
<em>potestas</em>? And how can transferring or revoking it result in an
obligation, given Spinoza's utility-based account of
obligation?</p>

<p>

The best way to understand what it means to possess or give up one
<em>potestas</em> is in psychological terms. Curley suggests this when
he looks to Hobbes' claim in <em>Behemoth</em> that the
â€œthe power of the mighty hath no foundation but in the opinion
and belief of the peopleâ€ (EW VI, 184, 237â€”cited in Curley
1996, 326) as a way of understanding Spinoza's conception of
sovereign formation. One could also cite Hobbes' famous claim in
<em>Leviathan</em> that â€œreputation of power is powerâ€ (Ch.
10) as an expression of the same point. These passages can be
understood as supporting the view that power is not transferred by way
of a speech act, but rather by standing in the psychological thrall of
the sovereign. Sovereignty is the product of psychological deference
rather than the formal transference of rights or titles. We may call
this the psychological interpretation of the social contract.</p>

<p>

Some evidence in support of the psychological interpretation comes
in TTP 17, where Spinoza claims that sovereign power or authority
derives from the will of its subjects to obey (17/192; cf. TP
2/9-2/10). There are places in the text, however, when Spinoza seems to
imply that we have obligations to the sovereign irrespective of our
psychological or motivational state. In some of these instances, a
careful reading reveals that nothing of the sort is implied. For
instance, his claim that â€œit is our duty to carry out all the
commands of the sovereign without exceptionâ€ (16/183) is
contingent on our behaving rationally and wanting to avoid being
regarded as enemies of the state. Still, there are other places when he
does imply that <em>de facto</em> obedience is neither necessary nor
sufficient for establishing the legitimacy of a civil body. For
instance, he claims that the sovereign alone has right over religious
matters such as interpreting Scripture, excommunicating heretics, and
making provisions for the poor (19/219-220), despite the fact that the
church had, in fact, been exercising power in these matters. If, in
fact, Spinoza's claims, here or elsewhere, depend upon an account
of legitimacy that is not grounded in <em>de facto</em> obedience, I
see no way to reconcile them with his form of naturalism. But with the
possible exception of his argument for the illegitimacy of religious
authority, the substantive claims of the TTP do not depend on a
non-psychological understanding of legitimacy.</p>

<h2><a name="TraPol">4. The <em>Tractatus Politicus</em></a></h2>

<p>

One might wonder why Spinoza, having published the TTP in
1670, spent the last years of his life (until his death in 1677)
working on a second political treatise that covers some of the same
ground as the first. It is tempting to suppose that he must have come
to reject many of his earlier views. However, with the possible
exception of his view of the social contract (see 4.1), there is little
evidence that Spinoza came to reject any of the central claims of his
earlier treatise. Rather, the TPis distinguished from the earlier
treatise chiefly by its aims and rhetorical style. Whereas the TTP was
an occasional piece, written for an audience of liberal Christian
theologians to address the problems posed by officious Calvinist
theocrats, the TP is concerned with the general organization of the
state and was written for philosophers. In the later treatise, Spinoza
abandons what has been described as the â€œtheological idiom of
popular persuasionâ€ (Feuer 1987, 151) in favor of the
dispassionate style of a political scientist.</p>

<p>

The TP is a fitting sequel to the <em>Ethics</em> (Blom 1993, 315).
Whereas the <em>Ethics</em> reveals the path to individual freedom, the
<em>TP</em> reveals the extent to which individual freedom is aided by
civil institutions. Despite his Stoic bent and somewhat withdrawn
lifestyle, we should not be surprised to find Spinoza to be
civic-minded. From his earliest writings, he claims that he is
concerned not just to perfect his own nature but also â€œto form a
society of the kind that is desirable, so that as many as possible may
attain [a flourishing life] as easily and surely as possibleâ€
(<em>TdIE</em>, Â§14). The TP may be seen as Spinoza's
attempt to articulate the conditions for the possibility of such a
society.</p>

<p>

The work can be divided into three sections. In the first section
(roughly through Chapter 4), Spinoza discusses the metaphysical basis
of the state and the natural limits of state power. In the second
section (Chapter 5), Spinoza lays out the general aims of the state.
And in the third section (Chapter 6 to the end), Spinoza gives specific
recommendations for how various regime formsâ€”monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracyâ€”are to be constituted so as to satisfy
the aims of the state as set out in section two.</p>

<h3><a name="MetBac">4.1 Metaphysical Background</a></h3>

<p>

In the early chapters of the TP, Spinoza puts forth his naturalistic
program, beginning with the premise that the state, like everything
else, is a natural thing (<em>res naturalis</em>), governed by the laws
of nature (see Bartuschat 1984, 30). It is in this light that we can
appreciate Spinoza's claim that â€œthe causes and natural
foundations of the state are not to be sought in the precepts of
reason, but must be deduced from the common nature or constitution of
menâ€ (1/7). It has seemed to some (e.g., Wernham 1958, 265n) that
this statement indicates a sharp break with the contractarian
conception of the state formation advanced in the TTP. This view is
supported by the fact that virtually no mention of a social contract is
made in the later treatise (Wernham 1958, 25; Matheron 1990). This
would also fit with Lewis Feuer's suggestion that the later
treatise betrays a dimmer view of the masses, brought on by the events
of 1672 (1987, ch. 5). At the very least, this passage illustrates a
break with the ultra-rational conception of the social contract that
appears to lie behind some of the claims of the TTP.</p>

<p>

Spinoza's account of the state as the spontaneous product of
natural passions is perfectly consistent with the psychological
interpretation of the contract (Â§3.6, above). Indeed, he seems to
support such a view in his work when he claims that individuals are
under the right of the commonwealth (3/5), regardless of whether they
obey its laws from fear or love of civic order (2/10; 3/8). They stand
under the right or power [<em>sub potestate</em>] of the sovereign,
because they are held (psychologically) in its sway.</p>

<p>

But what exactly does it mean to deduce the foundations of the state
from the nature of men? In the TP Spinoza tells us that men, who are
individually weak and effectively powerless compared to the cumulative
powers of others (2/15; Cf. <em>E</em>IVP5dem.), come together as a
result of â€œsome common passion; common hope, or common fear, or
a common desire to avenge some common injuryâ€ (6/1). The state
is thus an unintended, but salutary, outcome of the natural interplay
of human passions. (In this sense, the civil condition is a natural
condition).  Because, on this view, stable patterns of behavior emerge
from blind interplay of the passions, thereby overcoming coordination
problems, some have regarded Spinoza's account as
â€œevolutionary,â€ anticipating the theory of unintended
consequences found in Mandeville, Smith, and Hayek (Den Uyl 1985 and
1983). However, Spinoza says precious little about the process of
civil formation itself in the TP, making such an interpretation deeply
underdetermined, at best. While one can, like Den Uyl (ibid.) or
Matheron (1969), construct a genetic story on the basis of Spinozistic
psychology, the account that Spinoza himself offers is quite
meager.</p>

<h3><a name="GenAimSta">4.2 General Aim of the State</a></h3>

<p>

Having established in the preceding chapters that anything that can
be done is done by right, Spinoza turns directly the question of how
the sovereign <em>should</em> exercise its power in Chapter Five,
noting that there is an important distinction between doing something
by right and doing it in the best way (5/1). Here his concern is just
to delineate the general aim of the state on the basis of which he can
give more fine-grained recommendations relative to regime forms (see
4.3). The fundamental aim of the state, according to Spinoza, is
â€œpeace and security of lifeâ€ [<em>pax vitaeque
securitas</em>] (5/2). To grasp what Spinoza means here we must try to
understand what he means by peace. Spinoza rejects Hobbes'
definition of peace as the â€œabsence of warâ€ (<em>De
Cive</em> 1, 12), calling it instead â€œa virtue based on strength
of mindâ€ (5/4), or â€œa union or agreement of mindsâ€
(6/4). It is one thing for a state to persist or to avoid the ravages
of war, it is quite another for the state to flourish. Spinoza makes
this point by way of an organic metaphor:</p>

<blockquote>

Thus when I say that the best state is one in which men live in
harmony, I am speaking of a truly human existence, which is
characterized, not by the mere circulation of blood and other vital
processes common to all animals, but primarily by reason, the true
virtue and life of the mind. (5/5)</blockquote>

<p>

But if the aim of the state is peace and peace consists in the
â€œagreement of mindsâ€ or the rational activity one might
wonder how it is that the state could hope to achieve its end in light
of Spinoza's skepticism concerning human rationality (1/5; 2/5;
6/1). How is it that the state can promote the civic virtue or
â€œstrength of mindâ€ [<em>fortitudo</em>] on which peace
depends (5/2, 5/3)? This is perhaps the central normative question of
the TP (see Steinberg 2009). Spinoza addresses this
question by way of offering institutional recommendations for each
regime type.</p>

<h3><a name="ConModReg">4.3 Constitutionalism and Model Regimes</a></h3>

<p>

To see how Spinoza provides a general response to the question of
how peace or civic agreement is promoted, we must bear in mind that the
relation of agreement comes in degrees (see Blom 1993; Steinberg
2009). Total agreement, what Blom calls â€œmaximal
agreement,â€ is possible only to the extent that men are fully
rational (EIVP31-EIVP35). A society of free men would be a perfect
union (EIVP67-73). However, the free man exists only as an ideal; all
actual men are imperfectly rational. The concern of the state is to
bring it about that the actual relationships between people most
closely approximate the ideal society of free men; that is, the aim of
the state is to make irrational, selfish men as rational and virtuous
as possible.</p>

<p>

Spinoza's solution, in broad form, is to adopt constitutional
measures and institutional procedures that channel the natural passions
of men towards the common good. The vision here is one of mechanizing
reason in much the same way the Venetian Republic is said to have
mechanized <em>virtÃ¹</em> (Pocock 1975, 284), a vision much
indebted to the works of the De la Courts. Civil rationality is the
product of a republican set of institutions that encourage broad
participation, public deliberation, and the adoption of a variety of
accountability-promoting mechanisms. A rationally organized state will
not only promote the common good, in so doing it will also strengthen
the civic commitment of its citizens; this is one key way in which the
state contributes to the reorientation of the affects of its citizens
and increases the level of agreement between citizens, the product of
which is harmony or peace (Steinberg 2009)</p>

<h4><a name="Mon">4.3.1 Monarchy</a></h4>

<p>

Given that the fundamental aim of the state is peace, the question
that Spinoza seeks to address in chapters 6 and 7 of the
<em>Political</em> <em>Treatise</em> is how a monarchy is to be
organized so as to be maximally peaceful. He begins by repeating the
claim that men are largely irrational and selfish. And since the
passions of common men must be regulated, it is tempting to suppose, as
Hobbes does, that heavy-handed governance is required. But Spinoza
claims that even if a despot is able to minimize violence and dissent,
as the Turkish Sultans were (6/4), this produces only â€œslavery,
barbarism, and desolation,â€ not the sort of peace or agreement
among men that is the true end of the state. Indeed, Spinoza claims
that the more completely authority is vested in one man the worse off
everyone is, including the despot himself (6/8). This is because the
King is likely to look after his advantage alone, neglecting the
general welfare, which will ultimately result in the weakening of the
<em>civitas</em>. In order to overcome this condition, it is essential
for there to be constitutional checks on the behavior of the monarch.
These constitutional checks are to be understood as the king's
â€œpermanent decreesâ€ [<em>aeterna decreta</em>], expressing
his real interests, which are not to be contravened. Spinoza likens
these â€œdecreesâ€ to Ulysses' order that his oarsmen
keep him bound to the mast of his ship even when he is beckoned by the
Sirens' song (7/1). One of the central constitutional checks is
that the King deliberate with, and in some sense answer to, a large
council composed of citizens (6/15-6/30). Moreover, since the council
members too are likely to be selfish and venal, it is important that
their â€œinterests and advantage are bound up with the general
welfare and the maintenance of peaceâ€ (7/4; cf. 7/27-29). As
McShea puts it, a properly constituted state will be like a
â€œhomeostatic mechanismâ€ (1968, 109), correcting divisive or
destructive tendencies by ensuring that an individual's interests
is always tied to the interests of others. For instance, Spinoza writes
that in a properly constituted state:</p>

<blockquote>

The kingâ€¦whether his motive for promoting the public interest
is the fear of the people, or desire to win over the bulk of the armed
populace, or nobility of soul, will always do one of two things. Either
he will ratify the opinion which has received most votes in the
council, and is thus (by Section 5 of this Chapter) most advantageous
to the majority; or he will try, if possible, to reconcile the
different opinions submitted to him, in order to win everyone's
support. (7/11)</blockquote>

<p>

Ultimately, a model monarchy will be a constitutional monarchy;
moreover, it will strongly resemble a democracy. This fits with
Matheron's suggestion that, because state power is fundamentally
based in the power of the people, those states that deviate least from
a democracy will be most powerful (Matheron 1997). Nevertheless, the
fact that Spinoza countenanced the possibility that â€œa people can
maintain a fair amount of freedom under a kingâ€ (7/31), can be
seen as a resignation to the reality of Orangism after the events of
1672 (Blom 2007).</p>

<h4><a name="Ari">4.3.2 Aristocracy</a></h4>

<p>

Spinoza discusses two types of aristocracy and the ideal forms of
each. The first is a centralized aristocracy that appears to have been
modeled on the Venetian Republic (McShea 1968, 117; Haitsma Mulier
1980). The second is a decentralized aristocracy, in which
â€œsovereignty is vested in several citiesâ€ (9/1). This type
of aristocracy, which Spinoza takes to be the superior variety (9/15),
is quite clearly modeled on the United Provinces. While Spinoza's
recommendations vary between these two types of aristocracy, many of
the general features remain the same. Anticipating Madison's
arguments in the <em>Federalist Papers</em>, Spinoza argues that the
council of patricians must be sizable so as to reduce the potential for
factionalism (e.g., 8/1; 8/38). He also claims that a large council
will protect against selfish or irrational governance (8/6; 9/14). As
is the case in Spinoza's discussion of monarchy, the emphasis
here is on finding mechanisms that balance the interests of
participants and encourage cohesion (e.g., 8/19-8/24). One important
way in which cohesion is encouraged is through the promulgation of the
â€œuniversal faithâ€ or civil religion set out in TTP 16
(8/46).</p>

<p>

Given that there will generally be more checks on authority and a
greater dispersal of political power in aristocracies than in
monarchies, we should not find it surprising that Spinoza claims that
aristocracies are likely to be more absolute than monarchies (8/7). For
Spinoza, â€œabsoluteâ€ is a technical term. A state is
absolute to the extent that it incorporates the rights of all it
members and minimizes the basis for dissent (8/3, 8/4, 8/7).
Absoluteness thus indicates a norm very much like peace, the cardinal
civil norm; so to say that one regime form is more absolute than
another is tantamount to declaring its superiority.</p>

<p>

While Spinoza clearly indicates that aristocracies are, on the whole
and in most cases, superior to monarchies, a more interesting and
somewhat more vexed question is how aristocracies compare with
democracies. Raia Prokhovnik, for example, has claimed that aristocracy
is â€œthe form of government [Spinoza] on mature reflection
prefersâ€ (2004, 210; cf. Feuer 1987). I believe that there are
strong reasons for denying that aristocracy displaces democracy in the
TP as Spinoza's preferred regime. Spinoza does note that the
election of patricians as opposed to the birthright privileges of
participants in a democracy gives aristocracies an advantage in theory
(11/2). However, this advantage is offset by the biased, self-serving
practices of most patricians (ibid.). And since Spinoza claims quite
clearly that democracy is the most absolute form of regime (e.g.,
11/1), it would seem thatâ€”again, on the whole and in most
casesâ€”Spinoza favors democracy. Ultimately, though, Spinoza is
less interested in rank-ordering regimes than he is in determining how
each regime-type must be organized in order to maximize freedom and the
common good.</p>

<h4><a name="Dem">4.3.3 Democracy</a></h4>

<p>

Spinoza had barely begun writing the first of what would likely have
been two chapters on democracy when he died on February 21, 1677. His
conception of democracy includes any system of popular governance in
which the governing members acquire the right to participate by virtue
of one's civil status rather than by election. This conception of
democracy is broad enough to include even variants of timocracy.
Spinoza's own model democracy excludes all those who are not
<em>sui iuris</em>â€”e.g., women, servants (<em>servos</em>), and
foreignersâ€”as well those who do not lead a â€œdecent
lifeâ€ (11/3). But despite the elitist and exclusionary aspects of
Spinoza's democracy, it still may be seen as somewhat progressive
by the standards of his time; indeed, as McShea points out, the
evidence suggests that Spinoza's democracy was to be a direct
democracy rather than a representative democracy (1968, 128). And, as
was mentioned above, Spinoza seems to remain committed to the
superiority of democracy, even in the TP. But since he never got to
present fully his model democracy, much less defend it, we must
reconstruct Spinoza's defense on the basis of remarks that he
makes elsewhere in the treatise.</p>

<p>

The basic features of Spinoza's democracy are easy to infer
from his discussions of monarchy and aristocracy, both of which include
strong democratic elements. What is particularly interesting is how
Spinoza defends these democratic features, since this gives us insight
into how democracies are to be defended in general. In the TTP Spinoza
provides both principled and instrumental arguments in favor of
democracy. The principled reason is that democracies preserve
men's natural equality (16/185) and natural freedom (5/65). The
major instrumental defense of democracy is that â€œin a democracy
there is less danger of a government behaving unreasonablyâ€
(16/184). In the TP, Spinoza focuses exclusively on the instrumental
defense, highlighting what has recently been called the epistemic
advantage of democracy, i.e., the tendency of popular assemblies to
legislate more wisely than other legislative bodies (e.g., Cohen, 1986;
Estlund 1997; cf. entry on
 <a href="../democracy/">democracy</a>. 
 For instance, he repeats his claim that larger councils are more
likely to be rational because collective decisions force members to
â€œaim at ends which are honorable, or at any rate appear to be
soâ€ (8/6).  Also, he claims that the deliberative features of
large governing bodies improve competency, since â€œhuman wits are
too blunt to get to the heart of all problems immediately; but they
are sharpened by the give and take of discussion and debateâ€
(9/14). Spinoza also rebuffs those who claim that there is â€œno
truth or judgment in [the masses]â€ (7/27), claiming that
â€œall men have one and the same natureâ€ and that
differences in competency stem primarily from the fact that most
people â€œare kept in ignorance of the main affairs of the
state,â€ rather than from any natural defect (ibid.;
cf. 7/4). Contrary to Feuer's suggestion that events such as the
murders of the de Witts led to an anti-democratic turn in Spinoza's
thought, these passages reveal the depth of Spinoza's commitment to
democracy and his refusal to endorse the thesis that some men are
innately more fit to govern than others. So despite the fact that the
explicit discussion of democracy in the TP was largely preempted by
the author's death, this work remains a significant contribution to
democratic theory.</p>

<h2><a name="PlaStaSpiOnt">5. The Place of the State in Spinoza's Ontology</a></h2>

<p>

In recent years a lively discussion has emerged in the scholarly
literature concerning whether or not Spinoza's state is an
individual with its own conatus. At issue is whether Spinoza was more
of a collectivist or an individualist; the answer to this question is
thought to carry implications for how we conceive of Spinoza's
relationship to the liberal tradition. Some of the strongest evidence
in support of the conception of the state as an individual comes from
the so-called physical digression between IIP13 and IIP14, where
Spinoza directly discusses individuality. In this section, Spinoza
tells us that an individual is a composite body whose parts
â€œcommunicate their motion to each other in a certain fixed
mannerâ€ (II/100, A2''def, A3''). The
parts of an individual may be replaced, but the individual will
persist, provided that the â€œsame ratio of motion and restâ€
is retained (ibid., L5, L4). Moreover, individuals who come together to
act in a fixed way form larger individuals, terminating ultimately in
the supreme-individual: the whole of nature (II/101-102, L7). Elsewhere
in the <em>Ethics</em>, when remarking on the benefits of human
associations, Spinoza claims that â€œifâ€¦two individuals of
entirely the same nature are joined to one another, they compose an
individual twice as powerful as each oneâ€ (IVP18S). Here, once
again, Spinoza delineates a picture of composite, higher-order
individuals, opening up the possibility of viewing the state itself as
an individual.</p>

<p>

Alexandre Matheron's influential work, <em>Individu et
Communaute</em> <em>Chez Spinoza</em>, contains perhaps the most
influential interpretation of Spinoza's account of individuality
(1969, esp. Ch. 3). Matheron identifies political societies as
individuals, characterized by their own â€œformal element,â€
i.e., their own unique ratio of motion and rest (see e.g., p. 42, 58).
In viewing the state as a composite individual, Matheron is followed by
Etienne Balibar, who speaks of the state as an â€œ<em>individual of
individuals</em>, having a â€˜bodyâ€™ and a â€˜soulâ€™
or mindâ€ (1998, p. 64), a status that he calls elsewhere
â€œtransindividualityâ€ (1997). Others who have espoused this
view include Meinecke (1965) and Blom (2007).</p>

<p>

This interpretation has been challenged in a number of ways. One
argument against the view is that in the opening passages of TTP 17
Spinoza, in contrast to Hobbes, claims that individuals always retain a
â€œconsiderable partâ€ of their own natural right; in other
words, human beings are never fully integrated into the
super-individual, or state (Den Uyl 1983, 70). The problem with this
objection is that there is no reason to suppose that all individuals
are characterized by complete integration of parts. Matheron, for
instance, describes the state as complex individual whose parts are
only integrated to a limited degree (1969, 58). Balibar, too, claims
that the â€œautonomyâ€ of individuals is maintained even when
one is a part of a larger collective whole (1997, 21). It is perfectly
consistent to recognize the discrete individuality of humans while
allowing that, under certain conditions of association, individuals can
<em>simultaneously</em> be members of larger units. One can be at once
a collectivist and an individualist in this sense. The real
anti-individualists are the idealists, who read Spinoza as claiming
that â€œhuman individuality is illusory and untrueâ€ (Joachim
1901, 130).</p>

<p>

A second objection to the view that the state is an individual is
that, whereas singular things can only be destroyed by
external causes (IIIP4), â€œa commonwealth is always in greater
danger from its citizens than from its enemiesâ€ (e.g., TP 6/6).
If we assume that all individuals are singular things (for a helpful
discussion of the relationship between these concepts, see D. Garrett
1994), then the fact that states can ostensibly be destroyed by their
parts (i.e., citizens) would be a sufficient basis for denying that
they are individuals (Barbone and Rice 2000, 26-7). This is a forceful
objection. However, it seems that an analysis of the apparent
self-destruction of the commonwealth could be provided that parallels
Spinoza's attempt to explain how suicide is possible in light of
the conatus doctrine (EIVP20S). An apparently self-destructive state
could be regarded as one that is so affected by â€œhidden external
causes,â€ so overwhelmed by destructive passions, that it takes on
a new nature that is contrary to its original nature (ibid.).
Specifically, Spinoza could explain cases of apparent civil
self-destruction by maintaining that they occur only at the hands of
citizens who are not well integrated into the larger union, and who are
thus, at least to some degree, external to the body politic. While this
form of explanation is not without problems (see Bennett 1984,
Â§56), it is not obvious that these problems are peculiar to
collectivist interpretations of the state.</p>

<p>

A third challenge to the collectivist interpretation has been made
on textual grounds. Since, on Spinoza's view, individuals can be
conceived as having minds as well as bodies, if the state were an
individual, it should have a mind of its own. However, Steven Barbone
points out that almost all references to the mind of the state are
preceded by phrases like <em>veluti</em> (â€œas it wereâ€) and
<em>quasi</em> (â€œas ifâ€), indicating that the state has a
mind only in a metaphorical sort of way (Barbone 2001, pp. 104-105).
This objection might be mitigated by arguing that individuality is
itself a matter of degree (see Epistle 32) and that states are at best
â€œlooseâ€ individuals (Della Rocca 1996, Ch. 2), with limited
cohesion or regularity of action. This is consistent with the claim,
noted above, that integration into a larger union is itself a matter of
degree.</p>

<p>

Ultimately, it seems to me that far less hinges on the success or
failure of the collectivist interpretation than has been assumed by its
opponents. The primary concern expressed by critics like Den Uyl and
Barbone seems to be that Spinoza not be understood as treating the
state as an emergentindividual with its own interests that might
conflict with the interests of its constituents. Isaiah Berlin
condemned Spinoza along with other positive liberty theorists precisely
because he took Spinoza to be reifying the state and putting state
interests above individual interests (1969). But even if the state is
an individual, it does not follow that its interests would supersede,
or even be inconsistent with, the interests of its citizens. Certainly
from the perspective of a citizen, there is no reason why we would have
to put the interests of the state above our own interests if these two
were to conflict. In short, the collectivist can embrace the normative
primacy of the individual human being. If this is allowed, the matter
of whether the state is a literal or merely metaphorical individual
seems to matter far less than many scholars have supposed.</p>

<h2><a name="Bib">Bibliography</a></h2>

<h3><a name="SpiWor">Spinoza's Works</a></h3>

<p>

Note: All English quotations from the TTP are taken from Samuel
Shirley's translation. Citations refer to the chapter, followed
by page number (e.g., 20/232 refers to chapter 20, page 232). All
references to the TP are to Shirley's translation. Citations of
the TP refer to the chapters/sections (e.g., 5/4 refers to chapter 5,
section 4). All references to the <em>Ethics</em> and to the
<em>Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect</em> are to <em>The
Collected Works of Spinoza, vol. I.</em> ed. and trans. E.M. Curley
(1985). I adopt the following abbreviations for the <em>Ethics</em>:
Roman numerals refer to parts; â€œPâ€ denotes proposition;
â€œCâ€ denotes corollary; â€œDâ€ denotes definition;
â€œdem.â€ denotes demonstration; â€œSâ€ denotes
scholium (e.g., <em>E</em>IIIP59S refers to <em>Ethics</em>, part III,
proposition 59, scholium). All Latin passages refer to <em>Spinoza
Opera</em>, ed. Carl Gebhardt, 4 vols. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1925).</p>

<ul>

<li>Spinoza, Benedictus de. 1925. <em>Spinoza Opera</em>. Ed. Carl
Gebhart. 4 volumes. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Press.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1958. <em>The Political Works.</em> Ed. and
trans.  A.G. Wernham. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1985. <em>The Collected Works of Spinoza,
vol. I.</em> Ed. and trans. E.M. Curley. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
UP.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1994. <em>A Spinoza Reader</em>. Ed. and
trans. Edwin Curley. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1995. <em>The Letters</em>. Trans. Samuel
Shirley. Intro.  and notes Steven Barbone, Lee Rice, and Jacob
Adler. Indianapolis: Hackett.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1998. <em>Theological-Political
Treatise</em>. Trans.  Samuel Shirley. Intro. and notes Seymour
Feldman. Indianapolis: Hackett.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 2000. <em>Political
Treatise</em>. Trans. Samuel Shirley.  Intro. and notes Steven Barbone
and Lee Rice. Indianapolis: Hackett.</li>

</ul>

<h3><a name="OthWorCit">Other Works Cited</a></h3>

<ul>

<li>Barbone, Steven. 2001. â€œWhat Counts as an Individual for
Spinoza?â€ in <em>Spinoza : Metaphysical Themes.</em> Eds. Olli
I.  Koistinen and John I. Biro. New York: Oxford UP, pp. 89-112.</li>

<li>Barbone, Steven and Lee Rice. 2000. Introduction and Notes to
Spinoza's <em>Political Treatise</em>. Trans. by Samuel Shirley.
Indianapolis: Hackett.</li>

<li>Balibar, Etienne. 1997. â€œSpinoza: from Individuality to
Transindividuality,â€ <em>Mededelingen vanwege het
Spinozahuis</em>. Vol. 71. Delft: Eburon.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1998. <em>Spinoza and
Politics</em>. Trans. Peter Snowdon. London: Verso.</li>

<li>Bartuschat, Wolfgang. 1984. â€œThe Ontological Basis of
Spinoza's Theory of Politics,â€ <em>Spinoza's Political and
Theological Thought</em>, Ed. C. De Deugd. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing, pp. 30-36.</li>

<li>Bennett, Jonathan. 1984. <em>A Study of Spinoza's Ethics</em>.
Indianapolis: Hackett.</li>

<li>Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. â€œTwo Concepts of Liberty.â€
<em>Four Essays on Liberty</em>. London: Oxford UP, pp. 118-173.</li>

<li>Blom, Hans. 1993. â€œThe Moral and Political Philosophy of
Spinoza,â€ <em>The Renaissance and Seventeenth-century
Rationalism</em>. Ed. G.H.R. Parkinson. London: Routledge &amp; Kegan
Paul pp. 313-348.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1995. <em>Causality and Morality in
Politics: The Rise of Naturalism in Dutch Seventeenth-Century
Political Thought</em>.  Utrecht: University of Utrecht (Thesis).</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 2007. â€œSpinoza on <em>Res
Publica</em>, Republics and Monarchies,â€ <em>Monarchisms in the
Age of Enlightenment: Liberty, Patriotism, and the Public
Good</em>. Eds. Hans Blom, John Christian Laursen, and Luisa
Simonutti. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 19-44.</li>

<li>Cohen, Joshua. 1986. â€œAn Epistemic Basis of
Democracy,â€ <em>Ethics</em> 97. pp. 26-38.</li>

<li>Curley, Edwin. 1973 â€œSpinoza's Moral Philosophy,â€ in
<em>Spinoza, a collection of critical essays</em>, ed. Marjorie
Grene. Garden City, NY: Anchor, pp. 354-376.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1996. â€œKissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis
Khan.â€ <em>Cambridge Companion to Spinoza</em>. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, pp.  315-342.</li>

<li>Della Rocca, Michael. 1996. <em>Representation and the Mind-Body
Problem in Spinoza</em>. New York: Oxford UP.</li>

<li>Den Uyl, Douglas J. 1983. <em>Power, State and Freedom: An
interpretation of Spinoza's Political Philosophy.</em> Assen, The
Netherlands: Van Gorcum &amp; Company.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1985. â€œSociality and Social Contract:
A Spinozistic Perspective,â€ <em>Studia Spinozana</em>. Vol. 1,
pp.  19-51.</li>

<li>Estlund, David. 1997. â€œBeyond Fairness and Deliberation: The
Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority,â€ <em>Deliberative
Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics</em>. Eds. James Bohman and
William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</li>

<li>Feuer, Lewis. 1987. <em>Spinoza and the Rise of
Liberalism</em>. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.</li>

<li>Freudenthal, Jakob. 1899. <em>Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's in
Quellenschriften, Urkunden and Nichtamtlichen Nachrichten</em>.
Leipzig: Verlag Von Veit.</li>

<li>Garrett, Aaron. 2003. â€œWas Spinoza a Natural Lawyer?â€
<em>Cardozo Law Review</em> 25:2, pp. 627-41.</li>

<li>Garrett, Don. 1994. â€œSpinoza's Theory of Metaphysical
Individuation.â€ in <em>Individuation in Early Modern
Philosophy</em>, eds. Kenneth F. Barber and Jorge J.E. Gracia. Albany:
State University of New York Press, pp. 73-101.</li>

<li>Haitsma Mulier, Eco. 1980. <em>The Myth of Venice and Dutch
Republican Thought in the Seventeenth Century</em>. Trans. Gerard T.
Moran. Assen: Van Gorcum.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1993. â€œA Controversial Republican:
Dutch Views on Machiavelli in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries.â€ <em>Machiavelli and Republicanism</em>. Eds. Gisela
Bock, Quentin Skinner, Maurizio Viroli. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
pp. 247-263.</li>

<li>Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. <em>The Elements of Law</em>. Ed. J.C.A.
Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford UP</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1996. <em>Leviathan</em>. Ed. Richard
Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1998. <em>On the Citizen.</em> Eds. and
trans. Richard Tuck and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.</li>

<li>Israel, Jonathan I. 1995. <em>The Dutch Republic: its rise,
greatness, and fall, 1477-1806</em>. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 2001. <em>Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy
and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750</em>. Oxford: Oxford UP.</li>

<li>Joachim, H.H. 1901. <em>A Study of the Ethics of Spinoza</em>.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.</li>

<li>Klever, Wim. 1996. â€œSpinoza's Life and Works,â€
<em>Cambridge Companion to Spinoza</em>. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp.
13-60.</li>

<li>Kossmann, E.H. 2000. <em>Political Thought in the Dutch
Republic.</em> <em>Three Studies</em>. Amsterdam: Koninklijke
Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.</li>

<li>Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1988. <em>The Prince</em>. Trans. Russell
Price. Ed. Quentin Skinner. Cambridge: Cambridge, UP.</li>

<li>Malcolm, Noel. 1991. â€œHobbes and Spinoza,â€ <em>The
Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700</em>. Ed. J.H.
Burns. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 530-560.</li>

<li>Matheron, Alexandre. 1969. <em>Individu et CommunautÃ© chez
Spinoza</em>. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1990. â€œLe problÃ¨me de
l'Ã©volution de Spinoza du <em>TraitÃ©
thÃ©ologico-politique</em> au <em>TraitÃ©
politique</em>,â€ <em>Spinoza: Issues and Directions</em>. Eds.
Edwin Curley and P.F. Moreau. Leiden: Brill.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 1997. â€œThe Theoretical Function of
Democracy in Spinoza and Hobbes,â€ <em>The New
Spinoza</em>. Eds. Warren Montag and Ted Stolze. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.</li>

<li>McShea, Robert. 1968. <em>The Political Philosophy of
Spinoza</em>.  New York: Columbia UP.</li>

<li>Meinecke, Friedrich. 1965. <em>Machiavellism: The Doctrine of
Raison D'Etat and Its Place in Modern History</em>. New York: Westview
Press.</li>

<li>Nadler, Steven. 1999. <em>Spinoza: A Life</em>. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.</li>

<li>Negri, Antonio. 1991. <em>The Savage Anomaly</em>, ed. and trans.
Michael Hardt. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.</li>

<li>Petry, Michael. 1984. â€œHobbes and the Early Dutch
Spinozists,â€ <em>Spinoza's Political and Theological
Thought</em>, Ed. C. De Deugd. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing,
pp.  63-72.</li>

<li>Pocock, J.G.A. 1975. <em>The Machiavellian Moment.</em> Princeton:
Princeton UP.</li>

<li>Prokhovnik, Raia. 2004. <em>Spinoza and Republicanism</em>. London
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.</li>

<li>Pufendorf, Samuel. <em>De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo</em>.
Vol. 2. Tr. C.H. Oldfather and W.A. Oldfather, <em>Classics of
international law.</em> Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934.</li>

<li>Rosenthal, Michael. 1998. â€œTwo Collective Action Problems in
Spinoza's Social Contract Theory,â€ <em>History of Philosophy
Quarterly</em>. 15 (4), pp. 389-409.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 2001. â€œTolerance as a Virtue in
Spinoza's <em>Ethics</em>,â€ <em>Journal of the History of
Philosophy</em>.  39: 4, pp. 535-557.</li>

<li>â€“â€“â€“ 2003. â€œSpinoza's Republican Argument
for Toleration,â€ <em>The Journal of Political
Philosophy</em>. 11: 3, pp. 320-337.</li>

<li>Sacksteder, William. 1980. â€œHow Much Hobbes Might Spinoza
Have Read?â€ <em>Southwestern Journal of Philosophy</em> 11, pp.
25-40.</li>

<li>Smith, Steven B. 1997. <em>Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question
of Jewish Identity.</em> New Haven: Yale UP.</li>

<li>Steinberg, Justin. 2009. â€œSpinoza on Civil
Liberation,â€ <em>Journal of the History of Philosophy</em>. 47:1, pp. 35-58.</li>

<li>Strauss, Leo. 1965. <em>Spinoza's Critique of Religion</em>.
Trans. E.M. Sinclair. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</li>

<li>Tuck, Richard. 1979. <em>Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and
Development</em>. New York: Cambridge UP.</li>

<li>Velthuysen van, Lambert. 1706. <em>A Dissertation: Wherein the
Fundamentals of Natural or Moral Justice and Decorum are State,
according to the Principles of Mr. Hobbes. By a Learned Pen</em>.
Trans. anon. London.</li>

<li>Wernham, A. G. 1958. Notes and Introduction. <em>The Political
Works</em>. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</li>

</ul>

<h2><a name="Oth">Other Internet Resources</a></h2>

<p>

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]</p>

<h2><a name="Rel">Related Entries</a></h2>

<p>

 <a href="../authority/">authority</a> |
 <a href="../contractarianism/">contractarianism</a> |
 <a href="../democracy/">democracy</a> |
 <a href="../hobbes-moral/">Hobbes, Thomas: moral and political philosophy</a> |
 <a href="../liberalism/">liberalism</a> |
 <a href="../political-obligation/">political obligation</a> |
 <a href="../spinoza/">Spinoza, Baruch</a> |
 <a href="../toleration/">toleration</a>

</p>

<h3>Acknowledgements</h3>

<p>

I wish to thank Michael Rosenthal, Steven B. Smith, and an anonymous
reviewer for many helpful comments and suggestions. </p>

</div><!-- #aueditable --><!--DO NOT MODIFY THIS LINE AND BELOW-->

<div id="foot">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"> <a href="../../info.html#c">Copyright Â© 2008</a> by
</span>
<br>
Justin Steinberg
&lt;<a href="mailto:jsteinberg%40brooklyn%2ecuny%2eedu"><em>jsteinberg<abbr title=" at ">@</abbr>brooklyn<abbr title=" dot ">.</abbr>cuny<abbr title=" dot ">.</abbr>edu</em></a>&gt;
</div><!-- end #foot -->
</div><!-- end #content -->


</body></html>Ytext/htmlUUTF-8_4http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-political/_AnswersQueryWindow            1   9   B   T   j   y     ¼  Å  ò    –  &=  &F  &n  +  +  Nð  Nû  O)  SÈ  SÑ  f%  f.  f[  jø  k  w  w)  wX  {÷  |   Æ?  ÆJ  Æy  Ë  Ë$  Í`  Ím  Í•  Ï±  Ï¼  ÏÚ  Ïñ 4¤ 4® 4´ 4ë             3             5 