Williams
Spinoza and Galileo:
Destroyed from the convergence of God and politics
By,
Aaron Williams
Introduction:
Baruch Spinoza and Galileo lived in different countries, practiced different sciences, were separated by a generation, and practiced different religions. The two men though were similar in an important aspect; they were both punished by their respective religions for ideas and opinions they professed. While neither man was burned alive a la Bruno, their punishments were very harsh. In Galileo’s case it is clear why he was singled out and punished by the Church as he espoused theories that were contrary to the official stance of the Church. Spinoza however, had published nothing when he received his Cherem in 1656, and thus one must ask the question why was he dealt with in such a harsh way?[1]
While there is an extensive amount written on each subject, the stories and reasons differ greatly depending on the author. Where Galileo may be blamed in some circles for his own downfall, he the Church will fall as the villain in another story. The Spinoza story is just as if not more nuanced. One will find in many stories ranging from saying decisions to ban Spinoza were made for purely religious reasons to political reasons.
This paper seeks to explore the reasons for Spinoza’s Cherem and compare the treatment of Galileo and Spinoza based on their respective crimes. Further, one will explore the different versions of each man’s story to try and determine the reasons for the different stories, and which one is likely accurate. There are religious reasons for the punishments levied on each man, this paper seeks to show that the punishments were not religion based but instead purely political. While the Vatican and a Jewish community in Amsterdam were are still are different in almost every way in terms of ultimate power, their impact on the people within their dominion is powerful. Whether seeking to pacify discontent within ones own court (Galileo) or being careful to stay within the graces of new masters (Spinoza), the decisions to punish the thinkers were political maneuvers made to advance and maintain the Vatican and Amsterdam Jewish masters standing.
Discussion:
Background of Spinoza and Amsterdam Jews:
To fully understand and analyze what was occurring in Amsterdam during Spinoza’s era, one must begin with the Jew’s of the Iberian Peninsula during the Inquisition. “There were, in essence, no Jew[s] in Amsterdam before 1600. What there were were ‘Portuguese merchants’. “[2] The Jews of Amsterdam had arrived from Spain and Portugal following the events of 1492 and 1497.[3] These arrivals had gone through the inquisition and many had actually converted during the early days of forced conversion.[4]
By the time these “Jews” had arrived in Amsterdam in the late 16th and early 17th century, many of them had lost touch with their own traditions and were struggling with ascertaining their own identity. When the community in Amsterdam attempted to set up their first temple, the community “imported rabbis from Venice and elsewhere to educate their members in Jewish beliefs and traditions.”[5] While the community was unsettled and even unsure about what their faith was, things were going well for them in Amsterdam.
“In 1619 the Amsterdam city council officially granted its resident Jews the right to practice their religion.”[6] It was at this point that the Jews were officially allowed to practice their religion and live openly in Amsterdam. With this newly found freedom though, came great responsibility. The Dutch authorities demanded that the “Amsterdam Jews observe Orthodoxy, not deviating from the Mosaic Code nor from the belief that there is “an omnipotent God the creator, that Moses and the prophets revealed the truth under divine inspiration, and there here is another life after death in which good people will receive their recompense and wicked people their punishment.””[7] The Dutch were happy to allow the Jews to practice their religion but clearly wanted the Jews to stick to a certain orthodoxy and not be changing their religion. Clearly the Dutch did not want a Jewish Martin Luther nailing theses to the door of a Synagogue. While not the point of this paper, it is ironic that the Dutch are demanding orthodoxy from their Jewish subjects when they themselves had previously fled from Catholicism to their own brand of Christianity.
Into this world, Baruch Spinoza was born in 1632. As Galileo was being admonished in Rome and sent off to live in solitude, Baruch Spinoza was to given opportunities that his people had not had for generations. Spinoza was taught the Talmud when he was young and received an education that would have been impossible only a few years earlier when his family was stuck in an Iberian hell.[8]
Spinoza was said to have spent much of his time “studying the learned books of the Jews.”[9] While his studies focused on religion and the elders even predicted that he would later become a leader of his people, Spinoza later moved on to study sciences such as math, physics and astronomy.[10] The rabbi’s were considered him to be a brilliantstudent. [11]Though Spinoza did at one point study at Yeshiva, he left to take part in his fathers importation business at age 17 when his older brother died and he was needed to help in the family business.[12] Soon after his studies has concluded and Spinoza was working in his fathers business something changed and soon Spinoza’s light in the Jewish community would soon be extinguished.
While only in his early 20’s and having not yet published anything, Spinoza was gaining a reputation in the community for holding certain opinions (which will be explored later) that were not in keeping with the opinions and practices held in the community.[13] While we will seek to determine what was occurring at this time, it is certain that in 1656, Baruch Spinoza was expelled from the Amsterdam Jewish community.
Amsterdam’s Utilization of Cherem
The utilization of cherem is not something that is common in Judaism. Whereas Catholicism has its central government in the Vatican, there is no such central institution in Judaism and every congregation operates at their own accord. It is because of this operation where every congregation is afforded their own choice in how to discipline and organize their members that the Amsterdam Jewish community of the 17th century became one that liberally applied discipline.[14] The rational for their liberal application is logical enough; the rabbi’s were dealing with a disjointed, new community who was unsure about their own Jewish traditions. For example, Jews that had only recently broken away from their forced Catholic religion in Iberia were confusing “a feast for ‘St. Esther’ on the Purim holiday.”[15] The leaders in attempting to rid the community of their Catholic tendencies employed whatever discipline was necessary to keep the community in line. As Nadler noted, “The leaders of the Talmud Torah congregation had to work hard to maintain religious cohesion among a community of Jews whose faith and practice were still rather unstable and often tainted by unorthodox beliefs and practices.”[16]
Nadler detailed numerous Cherem’s or other punishments that were doled out but the Jewish community. Some of the lighter forms of punishment for minor offences were, being “denied admission to synagogue on Yom Kippur, … be forbidden from being called up to bless the Torah or read from the week’s portion, … being denied charity from the community’s treasury; or they could be prevented from holding some communal office.”[17] While these were some of the common punishments, Nadler also regales one with stories of much harsher instances. For example the synagogue’s cantor “was at one time under prolonged punishment by a sentence of flogging, which took place before every new moon for two years.”[18] Clearly this was not a community that was afraid in punishing its constituents. However while a monthly flogging may seem sever “the ultimate punishment was the ban”[19]
There were numerous reasons for which one could receive a cherem or other punishment from the congregation. A ban could be received for breaking any of the community rules, such as “buying meet from an Ashkenazic butcher…marrying in secret…failing to pay one’s taxes…showing disrespect to a member of the ma’amad.”[20] Of course there would also be such punishments for one making a “public expression (orally or in writing) of certain heretical or blasphemous opinions.”[21] Overall, it has been determined by historians that “between 1622 and 1683, … thirty-nine men and one woman were banned by Spinoza’s congregation, for periods ranging from one day to eleven years.”[22] While the ban did seem to be commonly used it was normally removed after a period of time.[23]
Spinoza’s Cherem:
On July 27, 1656, Baruch Spinoza was cast out of the Jewish community of Amsterdam. He was only 23 years old when the leaders of his synagogue read the following decree.
“The members of the council do you to wit that they have long known of the evil opinions and doings of Baruch de Espinoza, and have tried by divers methods and promises to make him turn from his evil ways. As they have not succeeded in effecting his improvement, but, on the contrary, have received every day more information about the horrible heresies which he practiced and taught, and other enormities which he has committed, and as they had many trustworthy witnesses of this, who have deposed and testified in the presence of the said Spinoza, and have convicted him; and as all this has been investigated in the presence of the Rabbis, it has been resolved with their consent that the said Espinoza should be anathematised and cut off from the people of Israel, and now he is anathematised with the following anathema:
"With the judgment of the angels and with that of the saints, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and of all this holy congregation, before these sacred Scrolls of the Law, and the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are proscribed therein, we anathematise, cut off, execrate, and curse Baruch de Espinoza with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematised Jericho, with the curse wherewith Elishah cursed the youths, and with all the curses which are written in the Law: cursed be he by day, and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lieth down, and cursed be he when he riseth up; cursed be he when he goeth out, and cursed be he when he cometh in; the Lord will not pardon him; the wrath and fury of the Lord will be kindled against this man, and bring down upon him all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law; and the Lord will destroy his name from under the heavens; and, to his undoing, the Lord will cut him off from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Book of the Law; but ye that cleave unto the Lord your God live all of you this day!"
We ordain that no one may communicate with him verbally or in writing, nor show him any favour, nor stay under the same roof with him, nor be within four cubits of him, nor read anything composed or written by him.”[24]
This was the writ that cast Spinoza out from the Jewish community of Amsterdam, unlike most cherem’s issued by the community; it was not rescinded and was unique in that it banned Spinoza for life.[25] While the document states that Spinoza has evil opinions and practices evil ways, it does not convey what those opinions are or what evil ways he has practiced. Thus this is where the mystery lies. Since the rational for the cherem cannot be found in the document one must look to the context of the time and what one knows about Spinoza and the community to determine the true reason.
Different Stories for the Cherem:
Depending on who one reads there are numerous different reasons given for why Spinoza received the Cherem. The stories range from being, political, religious, to even based on money. All of these will be discussed, but what must be remembered is that there is likely not one pure reason for Spinoza’s cherem.The truth of what led to his cherem can only be determined when looking at all aspects of the possible rationales in concert with the political and religious environment of Amsterdam.
Religious Rational:
The simplest way to describe and give meaning to the cherem of Spinoza is to determine that he was being a blasphemous heretic who rejected God and the teaching of the Torah and as such it was necessary to cast him out of the newly formed God-fearing community. This is clearly too simple of an answer to the question of why Spinoza was cast out, but in the religious stories there is likely a meter of truth as to what opinions or ideas led to his exclusion.
When first looking at two Jewish texts, “They are all Jews” and “Giants on the Earth”, the story of Spinoza takes on a miserably sad element. The stories regal one with the doom and gloom of the moment as the entire congregation shuddered as the black candles’ flame was shut out when the proclamation was read.[26] Commentary in the texts state about while the moment is horrible, Spinoza was repeatedly warned about his conduct and as such there is an unstated feeling that he could have prevented this from occurring.[27] The traditional Jewish perspective being this is not surprising since Spinoza is now one of the more famous and respected modern sons of Jerusalem. There is a need with him to not display anger when telling about his religious fall out, but instead sadness. He can be used as a teaching tool for children in Sunday school classes who may be allowed to fascinate about his fame and importance but fear his treatment as a lesson of this is what happens to you when you do not listen to the teachings of God and/or respect your elders.
The stories of Spinoza being a misbehaving Jew are not limited to only old Jewish texts, as Goldstein, Nadler, and Carroll explain that this was the common tale that she was thought as well.[28] But the real question is when it comes to the religious rational for Spinoza’s cherem is what exactly was he doing that warranted such a harsh punishment?
Nadler suggests and contributes some evidence as to what Spinoza was thinking and saying leading up to the cherem. Using the stories of three contemporaries, Lucas, Brother Tomas Solano y Robles, and David Franco Mendes; one can gain some insight into what “evil opinions” Spinoza was holding at the time of his cherem.
Nadler relates that according to Lucas, prior to receiving his cherem, “there was much talk in the congregation about Spinoza’s opinions; people, especially the rabbis were curious about what the young man, known for his intelligence was thinking.”[29] When pressed for his views about the soul and the body of God Spinoza allegedly gave the following opinion:
“I confess, said [Spinoza], that since nothing is to be found in the Bible about the non-material or incorporeal, there is nothing objectionable in believing that God is a body. All the more so since, as the Prophet says, God is great, and it is impossible to comprehend greatness without extension and, therefore, without a body. As for spirits, it is certain that scripture does not say that these are real and permanent substances, but mere phantoms, called angels because God makes use of them to declare his will; they are of such kind that the angels and all other kinds of spirits are invisible only because their matter is very fine and diaphanous, so that it can only be seen as one sees phantoms in a mirror, ina dream, or in the night.”[30]
Nadler further goes on to report that the to whom Spinoza stated these views would go on to report him to the Jewish authorities and as such this would be a catalyst for his cherem.[31]While this would certainly be enough for a condemnation form the Jewish authorities, the veracity of Lucas’s version must be questioned, as he is the only person to give with such detail what was occurring and where Spinoza’s views lay at the time. It would seem obvious that should Spinoza had stated in such detail these views, there would have been some other writer who took down his detailed opinions and committed them to historical record.
One such person that may have been there to take down this detailed account would have been David Franco Mendes. Mendes was a poet-historian and Nadler holds that his writings represent “a repository of communal record and memory.”[32] Nadler conveyed that Mendes “in his brief report on the case, that Spinoza not only violated the [S]abbath and the laws governing the festivals, but also was filled with ‘atheistic’ ideas, and was punished accordingly.”[33] While Mendes does not get into specifics of the ideas of Spinoza, when views in concert with the account of Lucas and Robles, a clearer picture of the situation comes into focus.