Journal of the History of Philosophy

Spinoza and Luzzatto: Philosophy and Religion ARYEH LEO MOTZKIN|. PIERRE BAYI.EWAS NOT THE FIRSTtO attack Spinoza on account of his atheism; to be sure, Bayle's own thoughts on this subject are, to say the least, ambiguous.' However, since the Dictionnaire was published only thirty years after Spinoza's death, and since Bayle's importance and influence were far more considerable than those of the various historians, mostly Dutch, who are often cited, Bayle's judgment should not be lightly dismissed. Bayle, as we know, calls Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus a despicable book, containing all the seeds of the atheism so plainly seen later in his Opera Posthuma, that is to say, mainly in his Ethics. 2 Bayle's attacks on Spinoza are so sharp that we begin to suspect that he "doth protest too much." The thrust of his criticism is aimed at Spinoza's utility-centered ethics (so similar to the ethics of the Epicureans), which precludes providence as well as reward and punishment-both central pillars of religion. Bayle reproduces the views of the Epicureans fully, clearly, and faithfully. During the greater part of the eighteenth century, when knowledge of the art of reading of circumspect texts was still widespread, Bayle's judgment of Spinoza was not generally disputed,' and the philosophy of Spinoza, whether for this or for other reasons, did not enjoy a huge following. Those who did consider themselves followers of Spinoza usually did not admit it in the open, and the term "Spinozist" had a pejorative ring to it. When Jacobi related that Lessing described himself as a Spinozist,' not a few eyebrows were raised, and none other than Mendelssohn rose to defend his friend, vehemently denying that Lessing was guilty of Spinozism. ' See Zephyra Porat, "The Art of Deception: The Rhetoric of Hidden Writing in Pierre Bayle" [in Hebrew], in Prometheus Among the Cannibals (Tel Aviv:Am Oved, 1976),pp. 60-81. 2"Livre pernicieuxet d~testable,ol) ilfit glissertoutes lessemencesde l'ath~ismequi se voil~d~couvert dans ses Opera posthuma" (Dictionnaire Historique et Critique [Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969],13: 416-68; Historical and Critical Dictionary, ed. and trans. Richard H. Popkin [Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill,1965],p. 293). Accordingto Bayle,Spinoza holds a specialposition in the historyof atheism: he was the first to have reduced atheism to a system (Art. "Spinoza," Rein. A). It is the Epicureans who first declared God to be matter, and Forms to be imaginary accidents having no entity, according to Alexander of Aphrodisias (quoted by Albertus Magnus in 1 Phys., tract. 3, chap. 12). ' See Kant, Kritik der Urtheilskraft, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Gr~ttz,1797), 2, w87:189-90: "We can indeed imaginean honest man (such as, for example,Spinoza)who is totally convincedthat there is no God, and . . . that there is no afterlife." ' See F. H. Jacobi, Spinoza Biichlein (Breslau, 1785),1:481-82. See Fritz Mauthner, Jacobis "'Spinoza Bachlein "' nebst Replik und Duplik (Munich: Georg Mtiller Verlag, 1912),pp. 66ff. Lessing(speaking about Spinoza)said: "Und doch... WissenSie etwas Besseres?" Further: "Es gibt keineandre Philosophie , als die Philosophic des Spinoza." Mendelssohn, who refusedto credit Jacobi's account of his conversations with Lessing, or at least Jacobi's proper understanding of Lessing, neverthelesstook it for [43] 44 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Not long after the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was a volte-face in philosophy, and the perennial dispute between philosophy and theology was so artfully covered up that the gulf between them, which was common knowledge throughout the history of philosophy, ceased to be understood. Coeval with this revolution came also the extinction of the art of reading philosophic texts. If until that time it was self-evident that every philosopher writes in a circumspect way, and that every philosopher's statements cannot be understood literally but must be listened to, as it were, with one's inner ear, beginning with the early part of the nineteenth century philosophic texts were being interpreted in a manner that cannot be termed other than simplistic: a philosopher who paid lip service to the ruling religion or currents of thought of his time was (from that period onward) understood to...