Leo Strauss: The Early Writings, 1921-1932 (Suny Series in the Jewish Writings of Leo Strauss)

S U N Y series in the J e w i s h Writings o f L e o Strauss K e n n e t h Hart G r e e n , Editor

Leo Strauss The Early Writings (1921-1932)

translated and edited by

Michael Zank

State University of New York Press

Published by State University of N e w York Press © 2002 State University of N e w York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America N o part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. N o part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.

For information, address the State University of N e w York Press, 90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207

Marketing by Patrick Durocher • Production by Diane Ganeles

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Strauss, Leo. [Selections. 2002] Leo Strauss : the early writings, 1921-1932 / Leo Strauss ; translated and edited by Michael Zank. p. cm. — (SUNY series in the Jewish writings of Strauss) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7914-5329-4 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-7914-5330-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Philosophy, Jewish. 2. Zionism. 3. Spinoza, Benedictus de, 1632-1677—Views on Biblical interpretation. 4. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Zank, Michael. II. Title. III. Series BM755.S75 A25 2002 181'.06—dc21 2002017627

10

9 8 7

6

5 4 3 2 1

Sarah July

31,

Shenitzer

1929 - March 9, in

memoriam

2002

Contents

Preface

ix

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

xvii

xix

Parti Introduction

Ǥ>

—

A G e r m a n J e w i s h Y o u t h 3 • " C h a n g e in O r i e n t a t i o n " 12 • Political Existence a n d R e l i g i o n 18 • B e y o n d Atheism and O r t h o d o x y 2 3 • T h e Virtue of M o d e s t y 3 3 Part II L e o Strauss: Early Publications (1921-32)

I.

The Dissertation

(1921)

53

T h e P r o b l e m of K n o w l e d g e in t h e Philosophical D o c t r i n e of Friedrich H e i n r i c h Jacobi II.

Zionist

Writings

(1923-25)

53

63

R e s p o n s e to Frankfurt's " W o r d o f Principle" The Holy 75

64

A N o t e o n t h e Discussion o f " Z i o n i s m a n d A n t i - S e m i t i s m " T h e Z i o n i s m of N o r d a u 83 Paul d e Lagarde 90 vii

Contents

viii

Sociological Historiography?

101

R e v i e w o f Albert Levkowitz, Contemporary Religious Thinkers O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n Science C o m m e n t on Weinberg's Critique Ecclesia militans

107

118

124

Biblical History and Science I I I . Historical-Philological

130

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

C o h e n ' s Analysis of Spinoza's Bible Science

(1928-32)

139

140

O n t h e Bible Science of Spinoza and His Precursors I V . Reorientation

106

173

201

S i g m u n d Freud, The Future of an Illusion

202

Franz R o s e n z w e i g and t h e A c a d e m y for the Science o f J u d a i s m R e v i e w o f Julius Ebbinghaus, O n the Progress of Metaphysics T h e T e s t a m e n t of Spinoza Index of Sources General Index

225 227

216

214

212

Preface

T h e w r i t i n g s i n c l u d e d i n this v o l u m e a r e u n f a m i l i a r , if n o t c o m p l e t e l y u n ­ k n o w n , even to the g r o w i n g n u m b e r of American students of the w o r k of L e o Strauss, n o r is t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e s e early w r i t i n g s t o Strauss's later w o r k i m m e d i a t e l y e v i d e n t o r easily u n d e r s t o o d . T h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is t h e r e f o r e i n t e n d e d as a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e s t u d y o f t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o ­ p h y o f L e o Strauss. N o t o n l y are the writings themselves q u i t e foreign to m o s t readers o f Strauss, b u t w e a r e largely u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e i n t r i c a c i e s o f t h e i r o r i g i n a l setting in t h e intellectual a n d political climate of t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h c o m m u ­ nity of the 1920s. T h e purpose of the introduction and of the notes to the t r a n s l a t i o n s is t o p r o v i d e t h e early w r i t i n g s w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y b a c k g r o u n d and context. W i t h i n t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y o f his t i m e Strauss relates t o t w o s e e m i n g l y o p p o s i t e t r e n d s , n a m e l y , t o t h e a c a d e m i c i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e liberal E u r o p e a n W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t u m s a n d t o t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t c a l l i n g for a n e x o d u s f r o m E u r o p e . H i s affiliation w i t h t h e elite o f E u r o p e a n J e w i s h s c h o l a r s h i p is e v i d e n t f r o m t h e c o n t e x t o f his first s c h o l a r l y w o r k s . Strauss s u b m i t t e d his 1 9 2 1 d i s s e r t a t i o n t o E r n s t Cassirer, w h o , at t h e t i m e , w a s k n o w n as t h e f o r e m o s t s t u d e n t o f t h e J e w i s h n e o - K a n t i a n p h i l o s o p h e r H e r m a n n C o h e n ; i n t h e years 1 9 2 5 t o 1 9 2 8 Strauss p r o d u c e d a m o n o g r a p h o n S p i n o z a as a f e l l o w o f t h e A k a d e m i e für d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t u m s ; a n d i n 1 9 3 5 h e a p p l i e d for a p o s i t i o n i n J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n at t h e H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y o f J e r u s a l e m , t o w h i c h h e s u b m i t t e d a set o f studies o n m e d i e v a l J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y u n d e r t h e title Philosophy

and Law, p u b l i s h e d b y

S c h o c k e n i n B e r l i n . H o w e v e r , n e i t h e r t h e affiliation w i t h Cassirer, n o r t h e relation w i t h the director of the Berlin A k a d e m i e , Julius G u t t m a n n , n o r the ix

Preface

X

J e r u s a l e m c a n d i d a c y w a s easy a n d s i m p l e . C o n t r a r y t o C a s s i r e r ' s l e v e l h e a d e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e " p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e , " Strauss's d i s s e r t a t i o n

celebrated

Friedrich H e i n r i c h Jacobi's critique o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t rationalism; the m o n o ­ g r a p h o n S p i n o z a f o c u s e d o n his c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n i n s t e a d of, as t h e f e l l o w ­ s h i p m a n d a t e d , o n h i s biblical s c h o l a r s h i p ; a n d t h e c a n d i d a c y i n J e r u s a l e m w a s t o r p e d o e d b y t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophy

and Law, w h e r e Strauss d i s ­

p a r a g e s b o t h O r t h o d o x faith a n d t h e Z i o n i s t p r o j e c t a n d associates h i m s e l f w i t h t h e " h o n e s t a t h e i s m " o f Heidegger. W h i l e thus w o r k i n g in t h e midst o f t h e s y n t h e s i s o f J e w i s h a n d h u m a n i s t Bildung

that was typical of n i n e t e e n t h -

c e n t u r y liberal G e r m a n J e w i s h scholarship, the institutions o f w h i c h c o n t i n ­ u e d t o o p e r a t e u n t i l t h e 1 9 3 0 s , Strauss also d i s t a n c e d h i m s e l f f r o m t h i s t r a d i ­ t i o n a n d , a l o n g w i t h o t h e r s , c h a l l e n g e d its s y n t h e t i c a s s u m p t i o n o n t h e basis o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e s a n d c o n c e r n s o f a g e n e r a t i o n d i s e n c h a n t e d b y t h e failure o f social i n t e g r a t i o n a n d t r o u b l e d b y t h e u n i v e r s a l crisis o f v a l u e s p r e c i p i t a t e d b y t h e W o r l d W a r . T o b e s u r e , this u n e a s y b e d f e l l o w o f t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y a p o l o ­ g e t i c t r e n d o f G e r m a n J e w i s h s c h o l a r s h i p is n o t a n a i v e p r o p o n e n t o f t h e n e o r o m a n t i c "renaissance" o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m either. I n h i s e a r l y p o l i t i c a l w r i t i n g s Strauss c o n t r i b u t e s t o d e b a t e s a m o n g t h e y o u n g e s t g e n e r a t i o n o f G e r m a n Z i o n i s t s o n t h e spiritual o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r m o v e m e n t , w h i c h , t o t h e m , c o n c e r n s t h e f u t u r e o f J u d a i s m as a w h o l e . P u b ­ l i s h i n g i n m a j o r Z i o n i s t v e n u e s a n d s p e a k i n g t o federal assemblies o f m i d ­ s t r e a m y o u t h s a s s o c i a t e d s t r o n g l y n e i t h e r w i t h t h e Left n o r w i t h t h e R i g h t , Strauss c a r r i e d his t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e r n w i t h t h e p o s t - E n l i g h t e n m e n t fate o f r e l i g i o n o n t o t h e p l a t f o r m o f discussions o n t h e p o s t - B a l f o u r state o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m . H i s t h e o r e t i c a l insights c o m p e l l e d h i m t o r e j e c t t h e t w o m o s t a c ­ c e p t e d c o m b i n a t i o n s of the political secularism of Herzlian Z i o n i s m w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l J u d a i s m , n a m e l y t h e c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m associated w i t h A h a d H a ' a m a n d M a r t i n B u b e r a n d the religious Z i o n i s m o f Mizrahi. W h i l e the sophisti­ c a t i o n o f his essays initially a t t r a c t e d t h e a t t e n t i o n a n d s u p p o r t o f t h e l e a d e r ­ s h i p o f t h e m a i n s t r e a m Z i o n i s t s t u d e n t s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , his o u t s p o k e n l y n e g a ­ tive analysis o f b o t h c u l t u r a l a n d r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m w a s e v e n t u a l l y r e j e c t e d as p o l i t i c a l l y i n o p p o r t u n e w h e n t h e f o r g i n g o f p r a c t i c a l alliances b e g a n t o t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r the " h o n e s t y " of the intellectual stance. A s t u d y o f a m a j o r figure i n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w o r l d o f t h e

German

J e w i s h renaissance o f the 1920s w o u l d b e i n c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t a consider­ a t i o n o f t h e o u t s i d e forces at p l a y i n h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d p o l i t i c a l c h o i c e s . It g o e s w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t t h e s e o u t s i d e forces w e r e as c o m p l e x i n t h e m s e l v e s a n d as d r i v e n b y u n r e s o l v e d conflicts as t h o s e e x p e r i e n c e d b y t h e J e w i s h minority. T h e scholarship of early-twentieth-century cultural Protestantism (Kulturprotestantismus),

for e x a m p l e , w a s itself a n u n e a s y a m a l g a m a t i o n o f c l a s -

xi

Preface

sicist, h u m a n i s t , a n d T e u t o n i c s o u r c e s . T h e p e a k o f t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f this t r a d i t i o n i m p r e s s e d itself o n t h e m i n d o f t h e y o u n g Strauss i n t h e w o r k o f M a x W e b e r , Ernst Troeltsch, R u d o l f O t t o , a n d E d m u n d Husserl. B u t there w e r e also s u c h c u l t u r a l pessimists as F r i e d r i c h N i e t z s c h e , P a u l d e L a g a r d e , a n d O s w a l d Spengler w h o s e perspective o n politics, religion, a n d society w a s i n fact m u c h m o r e c o n g e n i a l t o t h e c u l t u r a l analysis o f Z i o n i s m t h a n t h e n e w social, r e l i g i o u s , a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l a p p r o a c h e s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e s c h o o l s o f Göttingen, Heidelberg, and Freiburg. F u r t h e r m o r e , the influence of the es­ t a b l i s h e d m a s t e r s w a s g r a d u a l l y e c l i p s e d b y M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r , t h e rising star o f t h e y o u n g e r g e n e r a t i o n w h o , all d r e s s e d i n b l a c k , w a s t o d e c l a r e t h e d e a t h o f W i l h e l m i n i a n b o u r g e o i s p h i l o s o p h y i n a single t h e a t r i c a l s t r o k e t a k e n u t ­ t e r l y s e r i o u s l y n o t o n l y b y h i m s e l f b u t b y his o t h e r w i s e p e r f e c t l y r e a s o n a b l e a d m i r e r s , a m o n g t h e m t h e circle o f Strauss's p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t i m a t e s : H a n s G e o r g G a d a m e r , Karl Löwith, Gerhard Krüger, and Jacob Klein. T o b e s u r e , it w o u l d b e o v e r l y simplistic if w e a s s u m e d t h a t H e i d e g g e r ' s g e s t u r e affected o n l y t h e o u t s i d e a n d n o t also t h e i n s i d e o f t h e G e r m a n J e w . T h e very dichotomization b e t w e e n such an " o u t s i d e " and an "inside" was p e r p e t u a l l y i n q u e s t i o n : i n fact, it w a s t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h q u e s t i o n . Strauss c e r t a i n l y p e r c e i v e d a n y d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a solidly J e w i s h a n d a solidly G e r m a n c o n t e x t — w h e r e b y if o n e l i v e d i n a l a n d b e t w e e n t w o rivers,

o n e c o u l d c h o o s e o n e ' s spiritual n o u r i s h m e n t f r o m e i t h e r a n d m i x it

a c c o r d i n g t o t a s t e — a s u n r e a l i s t i c , a n d a n y p r e m a t u r e c l a i m t o a u t h e n t i c i t y as i n a u t h e n t i c . H e w a s n o t a l o n e i n this p e r c e p t i o n . T h e c r e a t i v i t y o f t h e small elite o f G e r m a n - J e w i s h r e n a i s s a n c e i n t e l l e c t u a l s w a s d r i v e n b y t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e u t t e r l y h y b r i d n a t u r e o f e a c h a n d e v e r y a s p e c t o f t h e i r lives. P u t i n t h e t e r m s o f Z i o n i s m , t h e q u e s t i o n w a s this: H o w w a s a r e t u r n t o J u d a i s m p o s ­ sible if t h e w o r l d o f t h e g h e t t o w a s i r r e t r i e v a b l y lost, w h i l e m o d e r n J u d a i s m ( e v e n i f t r a n s p o r t e d t o P a l e s t i n e ) w a s i n e x t r i c a b l y E u r o p e a n ? T h i s q u e s t i o n is t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e for t h e early w r i t i n g s o f L e o Strauss.

* * * F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o r i e n t a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g b i b l i o g r a p h y lists t h e t e x t s i n ­ c l u d e d i n this v o l u m e

1

(indicated in boldface) in the c o n t e x t of the larger

b o d y o f Strauss's early w r i t i n g s . T h e titles a p p e a r i n t h e o r d e r o f t h e i r d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n , w h e n t h a t is k n o w n , o r else i n t h e o r d e r o f t h e i r d a t e o f p u b l i ­ 2

c a t i o n . T h e list i n c l u d e s all k n o w n p u b l i c a t i o n s a n d m a n u s c r i p t s ,

3

covering

t h e y e a r s 1 9 2 1 t o 1 9 3 2 , i n c l u d i n g t w o p r e v i o u s l y u n k n o w n essays, first p u b ­ lished, r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n 1 9 2 5 a n d 1 9 2 8 in Der jüdische

Student.

4

N o t listed, for

r e a s o n s o f s i m p l i f i c a t i o n a n d clarity, are e i g h t b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n s t o v o l u m e s

xii

Preface

2 a n d 3 , p t . 1, o f M e n d e l s s o h n ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d a e s t h e t i c w r i t i n g s , w h i c h Strauss p r o d u c e d i n 1 9 3 1 a n d 1 9 3 2 for t h e M e n d e l s s o h n Jubiläumsausgabe t h e A k a d e m i e für d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t d e s J u d e n t u m s .

5

I. Philosophical dissertation (1921) " T h e P r o b l e m of Knowledge in the Philosophical D o c t r i n e of Friedrich H e i n r i c h J a c o b i . " Inaugural dissertation. University of H a m b u r g , 1 9 2 1 . T h e P r o b l e m o f K n o w l e d g e in t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l D o c t r i n e o f F r i e d r i c h Heinrich Jacobi. Extract from the inaugural dissertation, originally published in 1 9 2 1 .

II. Zionist writings (1923-25) R e s p o n s e to Frankfurt's " W o r d of Principle" Originally in Jüdische Rundschau (Berlin) 28, n o . 9 (30 January 1923): 4 5 46. The Holy Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 7, n o . 4 (April 1923): 240-42. A N o t e o n t h e Discussion o n " Z i o n i s m a n d A n t i - S e m i t i s m " Originally in Jüdische Rundschau 28, nos. 8 3 / 8 4 (28 September 1923): 5 0 1 . T h e Zionism of Nordau Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift, vol. 7, n o . 1 0 / 1 1 ( O c t . / N o v . ) , Berlin: 1923, p p . 657-60. Paul de Lagarde Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift, vol. 8, n o . 1 (January), Berlin: 1924, p p . 8-15. Sociological H i s t o r i o g r a p h y ? Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift, vol. 1924, p p . 1 9 0 - 9 2 .

8, n o . 3 (March), Berlin:

R e v i e w o f Albert Levkowitz, Contemporary Religious Thinkers: On Changes in the Modem Views of Life Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift 8, n o . 7 (July 1924): 432. O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n Science Originally in DerJude. Eine Monatsschrift 8, n o . 10 (October 1924): 613—17.

of

Preface C o m m e n t o n Weinberg's Critique Originally i n Der jüdische Student 22, nos. 1 and 2 (February 1925): 1 5 - 1 8 Ecclesia militans Originally in Jüdische Rundschau 30, n o . 36 (8 M a y 1925): 334. Biblical H i s t o r y a n d Science Originally in Jüdische Rundschau 30, n o . 88 (10 N o v e m b e r 1925): 7 4 4 - 4 5 . III. H i s t o r i c a l - p h i l o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s o n S p i n o z a ( 1 9 2 4 , 1 9 2 5 - 2 8 ) C o h e n ' s Analysis o f S p i n o z a ' s Bible Science Originally in Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift, 8, nos. 5 and 6 ( M a y / J u n e 1924): 295-314. O n t h e Bible Science o f S p i n o z a a n d H i s P r e c u r s o r s Originally in Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins zur Gründung und Erhaltung einer Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 7 (1926): 1-22. Die Religionskritik Spinozas ab Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch Politischem Traktat. Series: Veröffentlichungen der A k a d e m i e für die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s , Philosophische Sektion, Z w e i t e r Band. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1930. IV. R e o r i e n t a t i o n ( 1 9 2 8 - 3 2 ) S i g m u n d F r e u d , The Future of an Illusion Originally i n Der jüdische Student 2 5 , n o . 4 (August 1928): 1 6 - 2 2 . " D e r Konspektivismus" (1929). First published by Heinrich M e i e r in GS, 2 : 3 6 5 - 7 5 . A review of Karl M a n n h e i m , Ideologie und Utopie. F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g a n d t h e A c a d e m y for t h e Science o f J u d a i s m Originally inJüdische Wochenzeitungfür Kassel, Hessen, und Waldeck 6, n o . 49 (13 D e c e m b e r 1929). "Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t " (1930). First published in GS, 2 : 3 7 7 - 9 1 . A "lecture, t o b e held o n D e c . 2 1 , 1930 at the federal camp of Kadimah i n Brieselang, near Berlin." " C o h e n u n d M a i m u n i " (1931). First published in GS, 2 : 3 9 3 - 4 3 6 . Draft of a lecture, 4 M a y 1931, at t h e Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s i n Berlin.

xiv

Preface " M a i m u n i s Lehre v o n der Prophétie u n d ihre Q u e l l e n " (1931) = " D i e philosophische B e g r ü n d u n g des Gesetzes," in Philosophie und Gesetz: Beiträge zum Verständnis Maimunis und seiner Vorläufer, 87—122. Berlin: Schocken, 1935. T h e manuscript for this essay was completed in July 1931 and was supposed to be published in the Korrespondenzblatt für die Akademie des Judentums, w h i c h was, however, discontinued in 1 9 3 1 . 6

R e v i e w o f J u l i u s E b b i n g h a u s , On the Progress of Metaphysics Originally in Deutsche Literaturzeitung 52 (27 D e c e m b e r 1931): 2 4 5 1 - 5 3 . " D i e geistige Lage der G e g e n w a r t " (1932). First published in GS, 2 : 4 4 1 64. T h e original is a twelve-page lecture manuscript, dated 6 February 1932. " A n m e r k u n g e n zu Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen." Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (Tübingen) 67, n o . 6 (August—September 1932): 7 3 2 - 4 9 . T h e Testament of Spinoza Originally in Bayerische Israelitische Gemeindezeitung 8, n o . 21 (1 N o v e m b e r 1932): 3 2 2 - 2 6 . T h e early writings m a y b e divided i n t o four phases c o i n c i d i n g w i t h four distinct b u t related preoccupations, namely, I. t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n o n F r i e d r i c h H e i n r i c h J a c o b i ( 1 9 2 1 ) , II. Z i o n i s t w r i t i n g s ( 1 9 2 3 - 2 5 ) , III. w o r k o n Spinoza's critique o f religion (1924, 1 9 2 5 - 2 8 ) , a n d IV. writings from a phase of reorientation (1928-32). T h i s d i v i s i o n s h o w s a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f s c h o l a r l y p r e o c c u p a t i o n s for t h e e n ­ tire d e c a d e (I a n d III; also I V , especially if o n e adds t h e M e n d e l s s o h n i n t r o ­ d u c t i o n s ) , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e years 1923—25 w h e n Strauss w r o t e m o s t l y o n p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m (II, aside f r o m t h e 1 9 2 4 essay o n C o h e n a n d S p i n o z a , w h i c h , for t h e m a t i c r e a s o n s , is h e r e listed u n d e r III). T h e years 1 9 2 8 - 3 2 (IV) a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y a m i x t u r e o f p u r s u i t s a n d v e n u e s , as w e l l as b y t h e fact t h a t m u c h o f w h a t Strauss w r o t e d u r i n g t h e s e years w a s n o t p u b l i s h e d i m m e ­ 7

d i a t e l y . S o m e o f t h e essays w r i t t e n d u r i n g this p e r i o d (IV) w e r e e v e n t u a l l y c o m b i n e d i n t o w h a t b e c a m e o n e o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n w o r k s o f Strauss, n a m e l y , Philosophie

und Gesetz:

Beiträge zum

Verständnis

Maimunis

und seiner

Vorläufer,

p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 5 , a w o r k w h o s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has b e e n n o t o r i o u s l y e l u s i v e . It is t h u s a f u r t h e r p u r p o s e o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o e x a m i n e w h a t w e c a n l e a r n

Preface

XV

f r o m t h e e a r l y w r i t i n g s a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f this c r u c i a l p h a s e i n t h e w o r k o f L e o Strauss. NOTES

1. T h e scope of this volume is limited to the shorter early publications from 1921 to 1932, excluding the full text of the dissertation and the Spinoza monograph, as well as manuscripts not published during this period. Also excluded is the 1932 review of Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, which has been available in Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Including Strauss's Notes on Schmitt's Concept of the Political and Three Letters from Strauss to Schmitt, trans. J. Harvey Lomax, foreword by Joseph Cropsey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). 2. T h e texts translated in this volume are given with English titles. For the origi­ nal tides and further bibliographic information see the unnumbered source notes to the translations at the beginning of the endnotes. 3. A n u m b e r of hitherto u n k n o w n manuscripts from the early period as well as the full text of the 1921 dissertation of Jacobi have been made available by Heinrich Meier, with the editorial assistance of Wiebke Meier, in Leo Strauss, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1: Die Religionskritik Spinozas und zugehörige Schriften (Stuttgart and Weimar, 1996), J. B. Metzler, and vol. 2: Philosophie und Gesetz: Frühe Schriften (Stuttgart and Weimar (J. B. Metzler, 1997). These important texts are extensively referenced below, and an English translation is in planning. 4. " C o m m e n t on Weinberg's Critique" (1925) and a 1928 review of Freud's The Future of an Illusion were brought to my attention by Professor Eugene Sheppard, w h o discovered copies of the original publications in the Scholem archive at the National and University Library Givat R a m , in Jerusalem. T h e texts were included among notes Scholem put together upon receiving notice of Strauss's death, presumably for an obituary. I am grateful to Professor Sheppard for sharing this material with me so generously. 5. For a complete listing of these introductions and Strauss's important later c o n ­ tributions to the Mendelssohn edition, see the notes below. 6. Cf. GS, 2:xiif. 7. T h e lectures are, of course, a form of public utterance. N o t unlike other politi­ cal movements of the time, however, the Zionist students' movement had a policy of secrecy and distinguished between publications restricted to its membership and publi­ cations open to the public. This policy of secrecy, first introduced during World W a r I, seems to have been suspended for most of the 1920s, but was reintroduced in the early 1930s, that is, exacdy at the time w h e n Strauss, the Zionist, spoke to Zionist audiences without publishing his lectures, and w h e n Strauss, the philosopher, rediscovered the principle of the exoteric! M o r e on this in the introduction, below.

Acknowledgments

W o r k i n g o n t r a n s l a t i n g , a n n o t a t i n g , a n d i n t r o d u c i n g t h e early w r i t i n g s o f L e o Strauss, I i n c u r r e d a d e b t o f g r a t i t u d e t o a n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s w h o m it is m y p l e a s u r e t o a c k n o w l e d g e . K e n n e t h H a r t G r e e n i n v i t e d m e t o c o n t r i b u t e this v o l u m e t o t h e S U N Y Series i n t h e J e w i s h T h o u g h t o f L e o Strauss o n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f P r o f e s s o r M a r v i n F o x , o f b l e s s e d m e m o r y , w h o w a s Doktorvater

t o b o t h o f us. K e n G r e e n a c c o m p a n i e d

t h e g r o w t h o f t h i s b o o k f r o m t h e first draft o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s t o t h e c o m p l e ­ tion of the manuscript w i t h u n w a v e r i n g dedication and sustained c o m m i t ­ m e n t t o t h e m a k i n g o f a first-rate e d i t i o n . If t h e w o r k c o m e s e v e n close t o s u c h a s t a n d a r d it is n o t i n small m e a s u r e d u e t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e series e d i t o r t o e a c h a s p e c t a n d e v e r y t u r n o f p h r a s e i n t h e o e u v r e o f L e o Strauss. T h e r e m a i n i n g s h o r t c o m i n g s are, o f course, m y o w n responsibility. As a n o n - n a t i v e speaker of English, I repeatedly relied o n the linguistic a d v i c e o f m y i n - l a w s , v e t e r a n translators A b e a n d S a r a h S h e n i t z e r . O t h e r s also h e l p e d w i t h p r o b l e m s o f l a n g u a g e , r e s e a r c h , o r c o n t e n t , a m o n g t h e m m o s t notably Laurence Berns, Aaron Garrett, Abigail Gillman, T o m a s Kalmar, D e e a n a Klepper, M i r i a m Shenitzer, H a r t w i g W i e d e b a c h , Matthias W i s m a n n , a n d M a r t i n Yaffe. M y sincerest t h a n k s t o all. T h a n k s also t o Professors R é m i B r a g u e a n d S t a n l e y R o s e n , w h o k i n d l y r e a d a n d c o m m e n t e d o n v a r i o u s drafts o f this v o l u m e . Special m e n t i o n m u s t be m a d e of E u g e n e Sheppard, w h o b r o u g h t t w o h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n p u b l i c a t i o n s b y Strauss t o m y a t t e n t i o n a n d p r o v i d e d m e w i t h initial c o p i e s o f t h e t e x t s . P r o f e s s o r S h e p p a r d has b e e n a w e l l s p r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n , a n a t t e n t i v e a n d critical r e a d e r , a n d a delightful c o l l e a g u e . I n 1 9 9 8 / 9 9 , t h e H u m a n i t i e s F o u n d a t i o n at B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y , d i r e c t e d by Katherine T . O ' C o n n o r , kindly p r o v i d e d m e w i t h a j u n i o r fellowship that xvii

Acknowledgments

xviii

a l l o w e d m e t o r e t u r n t o m y w o r k o n Strauss, w h i c h I h a d b e g u n i n 1 9 9 4 . T h a n k s t o t h e f e l l o w s w h o p r o v i d e d i m p o r t a n t s u g g e s t i o n s for i m p r o v i n g t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e , especially t o J o h n C l a y t o n , J a m e s S c h m i d t , a n d Steven Scully. I n t h e s u m m e r of 1999, w h e n I enjoyed t h e privileges of t h e M a r t i n B u b e r V i s i t i n g P r o f e s s o r s h i p i n J e w i s h P h i l o s o p h y o f R e l i g i o n at t h e J o h a n n W o l f g a n g G o e t h e Universität in Frankfurt a m M a i n , I discovered v o l u m e s 1 a n d 2 o f H e i n r i c h a n d W i e b k e M e i e r ' s e d i t i o n o f L e o Strauss's early w r i t i n g s , a l o n g w i t h H e i n r i c h M e i e r ' s o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e s t u d y o f L e o Strauss. W i t h o u t w h a t I l e a r n e d f r o m M e i e r , this w o r k w o u l d n o t b e w h a t it is. F o r h e l p w i t h r e s e a r c h I a m i n d e b t e d t o t h e staff at B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y ' s M u g a r L i b r a r y , t o F r a u R a c h e l H e u b e r g e r at t h e S t ä d t i s c h e u n d U n i v e r s i t ä t s ­ b i b l i o t h e k F r a n k f u r t , t o J i m R o s e n b l o o m a n d D r . C h a r l e s C u t t e r at B r a n d e i s U n i v e r s i t y , a n d t o t h e staff at t h e l i b r a r y o f t h e H o c h s c h u l e für J ü d i s c h e S t u d i e n in H e i d e l b e r g . Finally, t h a n k s t o J o s e p h C r o p s e y , t h e literary e x e c u t o r o f L e o Strauss, for t h e p e r m i s s i o n t o m a k e t h e s e early w r i t i n g s o f Strauss available i n this edition.

Abbreviations

EJ

C e c i l R o t h a n d G e o f f r e y W i g o d e r , e d s . Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Jeru­

s a l e m : K e t e r P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e , 1966—.

JS

Herman CohensJüdische

Schriften. M i t e i n e r E i n l e i t u n g v o n F r a n z R o s e n ­

z w e i g h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n B r u n o S t r a u ß . 3 v o l s . Series: V e r ö f f e n t l i c h ­ u n g e n d e r A k a d e m i e für die Wissenschaft d e r J u d e n t u m s . Berlin: C . A . Schwetschke & Sohn, 1924.

GS

L e o Strauss. Gesammelte

Schriften.

Edited by Heinrich Meier, with

t h e e d i t o r i a l assistance o f W i e b k e M e i e r . 2 vols. V o l . 1 : Die kritik

Spinozas

und zugehörige

Schriften.

Religions­

Stuttgart a n d W e i m a r : J. B .

M e t z l a r , 1 9 6 6 . V o l . 2 : Philosophie und Gesetz: Frühe Schriften.

Stuttgart

a n d W e i m a r : J. B . Metzlar, 1997.

RGG

Religion

in Geschichte und Gegenwart.

Edited by Kurt Galling. 3d, u n ­

abridged edition. T ü b i n g e n : C . B . M o h r (Paul Siebeck), 1986.

Editorial Note: E n d n o t e s are b y t h e editor, and are n u m b e r e d w i t h arable numerals. Strauss's o w n notes t o t h e treatises are given as p a g e - e n d footnotes w i t h lowercase r o m a n numerals. His marginal remarks are indicated b y asterisks.

xix

Parti

A G E R M A N JEWISH Y O U T H

W h e n L e o Strauss d i e d i n 1 9 7 3 , h e d i d n o t l e a v e a n a u t o b i o g r a p h y , a n d a s c h o l a r l y b i o g r a p h y o n this m a j o r p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r has as y e t t o b e w r i t ­ 1

t e n . B u t Strauss left us w i t h a n u m b e r o f a u t o b i o g r a p h i c f r a g m e n t s , a n d w h a t else w e n e e d t o k n o w i n o r d e r t o a p p r o a c h t h e w r i t i n g s a s s e m b l e d i n this v o l u m e is easy e n o u g h t o a s c e r t a i n .

2

Strauss w a s b o r n 2 0 S e p t e m b e r 1 8 9 9 , t o a n O r t h o d o x J e w i s h family l i v ­ i n g in the rural t o w n of Kirchhain (Hesse), just t e n kilometers northeast o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y t o w n o f M a r b u r g . H e s h a r e d this r u r a l r a t h e r t h a n u r b a n b a c k ­ g r o u n d w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f G e r m a n J e w r y ; i n fact, h e s h a r e d it w i t h m o s t G e r m a n s o f t h e t i m e . Strauss g r e w u p , as h e o n c e d e s c r i b e d it, i n a n a t m o ­ s p h e r e o f strict o b s e r v a n c e y e t w i t h " v e r y little J e w i s h k n o w l e d g e . " e n c e d b y t h e t y p i c a l h u m a n i s t i c Gymnasium

3

Influ­

e d u c a t i o n o f his d a y , h e " f o r m e d

t h e p l a n , o r t h e w i s h , t o s p e n d [his] life r e a d i n g P l a t o a n d b r e e d i n g r a b b i t s w h i l e e a r n i n g [his] l i v e l i h o o d as a r u r a l p o s t m a s t e r . " H e d e s c r i b e s t h e e s ­ t r a n g e m e n t f r o m his O r t h o d o x h o m e as a g r a d u a l a n d n o n r e b e l l i o u s m o v e ­ m e n t t h a t c u l m i n a t e d i n his " c o n v e r s i o n , " at t h e age o f s e v e n t e e n , " t o s i m p l e , straightforward political Z i o n i s m . " T h e g r o u p h e j o i n e d was the Jüdischer W a n d e r b u n d Blau-Weiss.

4

W h i l e t h e h i s t o r y o f B l a u - W e i s s as a n i n d e p e n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s r e l a ­ t i v e l y s h o r t - l i v e d , it e x e r t e d a significant i n f l u e n c e o n t h e G e r m a n Z i o n i s t 5

y o u t h m o v e m e n t as a w h o l e . A g r o u p b y this n a m e w a s first c o n s t i t u t e d i n B r e s l a u i n 1 9 0 7 , as a J e w i s h c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e i n f l u e n t i a l G e r m a n W a n d e r ­ vogel. T h e W a n d e r v o g e l m o v e m e n t h a d existed since the 1890s w h e n a g r o u p o f y o u n g s t e r s c a m e t o g e t h e r in S t e g l i t z u n d e r t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f K a r l

3

Introduction

4 6

F i s c h e r . W h a t u n i t e d t h e s e y o u t h s w a s t h e i r c o n t e m p t for m o d e r n i t y , for u r b a n civilization, a n d for t h e m a t e r i a l i s m o f a d u l t society. T h e

early

W a n d e r v o g e l was inspired by the T e u t o n i c mysticism of Friedrich L u d w i g Jahn,

7

8

Paul de Lagarde, and Julius L a n g b e h n ,

9

a n d its m a j o r i t y e s p o u s e d a

m o r e o r less d e - C h r i s t i a n i z e d L u t h e r a n spirituality. O n l y a m i n o r i t y

em­

b r a c e d t h e n e o p a g a n i s m o f t h e Far R i g h t o r t h e radical u t o p i a n i s m o f t h e F a r Left. C l a d i n s h o r t p a n t s a n d o p e n - n e c k shirts, s u c h b a n d s o f " p e r p e t u a l a d o ­ lescents"

1 0

w o u l d h i k e t h r o u g h t h e G e r m a n c o u n t r y s i d e , s i n g i n g folk s o n g s

a n d d e b a t i n g t h e i n s p i r e d p o e t r y a n d social c r i t i c i s m o f t h e d a y ( s u c h as t h e w r i t i n g s o f Stefan G e o r g e , R a i n e r M a r i a R i l k e , a n d H e r m a n n H e s s e ) . A l ­ t h o u g h the youngsters w e r e n o t c o m m i t t e d to any party or any ideology, they w e r e u n a n i m o u s in the assumption that J e w s c o u l d n o t well or sincerely b e part of their m o v e m e n t .

1 1

Lagarde a n d o t h e r favorite authors associated

t h e J e w s w i t h t h e u r b a n m a t e r i a l i s m so viscerally r e j e c t e d b y this n e w g e n e r a ­ t i o n , a n d it s e e m e d d o u b t f u l t o t h e m t h a t G e r m a n s a n d J e w s c o u l d s h a r e t h e real i n n e r c o m m u n i o n and feeling o f c o m m o n a l i t y that w a s the hallmark o f this m o v e m e n t . M o s t constituents o f the W a n d e r v o g e l considered

them­

selves " a - S e m i t i c " r a t h e r t h a n a n t i - S e m i t i c , r e g a r d i n g t h e alienness b e t w e e n t h e t w o n a t i o n a l i t i e s as a fact o f n a t u r e a n d life. T h e n o n c h a l a n c e b y w h i c h t h e y w e r e e x c l u d e d f r o m this G e r m a n völkisch r e n e w a l p r e c i p i t a t e d a q u e s t a m o n g y o u n g j e w s t o e x p e r i e n c e t h e irrational g r o u n d s o f c o m m o n a l i t y a m o n g t h e i r o w n . T o t h e m t h e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e a n d dignified a n s w e r t o this e x p e r i ­ e n c e o f e x c l u s i o n p r e s e n t e d itself in a G e r m a n - J e w i s h Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t .

1 2

B l a u - W e i s s e s t a b l i s h e d itself as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e G e r m a n y o u t h m o v e ­ m e n t , a n d it m o d e l e d itself o n its ideals a n d p r a c t i c e s .

13

Its r h e t o r i c w a s a f o r m

o f h e i g h t e n e d s p e e c h t h a t , i n h i n d s i g h t , m a y a p p e a r q u a i n t a n d m a k e s all analysis o f its c o n t e n t r a t h e r difficult.

14

T h e m e m b e r s h i p consisted o f h i g h -

s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n a n d u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s (i.e., ages fifteen t o t w e n t y ) w h o acted w i t h o u t adult supervision

16

1 5

a n d w h o rejected a n y t h i n g o n p r i n c i p l e

that s m a c k e d o f politics and political organization. C o u n t e r i n g the Protestant Germanism of the Wandervogel with a corresponding " G e r m a n Jewish" ori­ e n t a t i o n , B l a u - W e i s s p r o v i d e d a h a v e n for t h e assimilated a n d a l i e n a t e d J e w ­ ish y o u t h s w h o e n j o y e d t h e sense o f b e l o n g i n g p r o v i d e d b y t h e u n i f o r m s a n d p i n s a n d w h o t h r i v e d o n t h e ritual o f m a r c h i n g t h r o u g h t h e streets, r e t u r n i n g t h e G e r m a n " H e i l ! " w i t h a self-assured J e w i s h " S h a l o m ! "

1 7

H i k i n g across t h e

G e r m a n c o u n t r y s i d e w a s a n o v e l e x p r e s s i o n o f J e w i s h c o m m u n a l life, a n d it w a s p e r c e i v e d as s u c h . T h e W a n d e r b u n d p r o v i d e d " i n s t a n t m o v e m e n t a n d action . . . in the course of w h i c h they h o p e d to achieve their h u m a n and Jewish substance." middle-class

19

1 8

L i k e its G e r m a n c o u n t e r p a r t , B l a u - W e i s s w a s d e c i d e d l y

a n d h e n c e r e c r u i t e d m o r e successfully a m o n g t h o s e w h o w e r e

5

Introduction

l i k e t h e m s e l v e s , t h a t is, a m o n g assimilated W e s t e r n J e w s , a n d m u c h less s u c ­ cessfully a m o n g t h e E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n J e w i s h p r o l e t a r i a n s w h o w e r e m o r e s t r o n g l y a t t r a c t e d b y t h e socialist haiuts m o v e m e n t ( w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , also h a d its G e r m a n c o u n t e r p a r t i n t h e socialist A r b e i t e r j u g e n d ) . A s in t h e case o f t h e i r G e r m a n p e e r s w h o , at t h e 1 9 1 3 H o h e M e i s s n e r m e e t i n g , called for " i n n e r t r u t h f u l n e s s " as t h e h a l l m a r k o f t h e i r völkisch r e n e w a l ,

2 0

t h e enthusiastic r h e t o r i c

o f B l a u - W e i s s o f t e n c o v e r e d u p for a p e r v a s i v e lack o f c o n c r e t e c o n t e n t . I n t h e case o f B l a u - W e i s s w i t h its h i g h l y e d u c a t e d , liberal, a n d assimilated c o n ­ s t i t u e n c y , this m e a n t m o s t often a p e r v a s i v e lack o f J e w i s h k n o w l e d g e . Affili­ a t i o n w i t h a Z i o n i s t y o u t h o r g a n i z a t i o n m e a n t for m a n y t o find a p l a c e w h e r e t h e y c o u l d s t u d y J e w i s h h i s t o r y (from a Z i o n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e ) a n d H e b r e w for t h e first t i m e i n t h e i r lives. I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e haiuts m o v e m e n t a n d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f Z i o n i s t frater­ n i t i e s — t h e Kartell j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n , o r K . J . V . — t h e W a n d e r b u n d B l a u W e i s s w a s initially r a t h e r l u k e w a r m w h e n it c a m e t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f s e t t l i n g in Palestine.

21

This changed u n d e r the post—World W a r I leadership o f W a l t e r

M o s e s (1922—26), w h o c o m p l e t e l y r e o r g a n i z e d B l a u - W e i s s , briefly u n i t e d it w i t h K . J . V . , a n d m a n a g e d t o establish a G e r m a n - s p e a k i n g s e t t l e m e n t i n P a l ­ estine.

22

W h e n this e x p e r i m e n t c o l l a p s e d , h o w e v e r , t h e W a n d e r b u n d w a s

d i s s o l v e d ( 1 9 2 6 ) , a s e t b a c k t h a t affected t h e e n t i r e G e r m a n Z i o n i s t y o u t h movement.

2 3

L e o Strauss h a d first j o i n e d B l a u - W e i s s w i t h t h e e n t h u s i a s m o f a c o n v e r t t o a m o v e m e n t w h o s e v e r y p u r p o s e w a s t h e e n c o u n t e r (Erlebnis) o f a d e e p c o m m o n a l i t y b e t w e e n its m e m b e r s . Y e t this e n t h u s i a s m g a v e w a y t o a " s p i r i t o f s o b r i e t y . " I n his v e r y first Z i o n i s t essay, " R e s p o n s e t o F r a n k f u r t ' s ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e ' " ( 1 9 2 3 ) , Strauss a d m i t s t o his e a r l i e r " c o n f u s i o n " in a p h r a s e t h a t e c h o e s N i e t z s c h e ' s c o n f e s s i o n o f h a v i n g t e m p o r a r i l y b e e n afflicted w i t h t h e disease o f a n t i - S e m i t i s m .

2 4

It was t h o u g h t that by heaping u p o n us for years, to the point of nausea, "personal encounters" [Erlebnisse] and "confessions" [Bekenntnisse] one could make us forget that there is such a thing as critique. We ourselves were tempo­ rarily confused, but n o w w e unambiguously profess the spirit of sobriety as opposed to that of pathetic declamation. " B e l i e f may still be decisive, yet belief is n o oracle b u t is subject to the control of historical reasoning. (See b e l o w , p . 66. Emphasis added.) B y i n v o k i n g t h e " s p i r i t o f s o b r i e t y as o p p o s e d t o t h a t o f p a t h e t i c d e c l a ­ m a t i o n , " Strauss d i s t a n c e d h i m s e l f n o t o n l y f r o m his earlier self b u t also f r o m a n e w B l a u - W e i s s , w h o s e c o v e n a n t h a d b e e n issued in 1922 b y W a l t e r M o s e s

Introduction

6

in P r u n n . W h i l e h e was certainly n o t alone in criticizing Blau-Weiss, h e w a s n o t r e a d y t o a c c e p t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o p o s e d b y o t h e r , n o less v o c a l critics. I n s t e a d , h e p e r f o r m e d a careful d a n c e o f d i s t i n c t i o n s i n w h i c h h e d i s t a n c e d h i m s e l f f r o m v i r t u a l l y all c o n t e m p o r a r y t r e n d s . Strauss's v e r y first i n t e r v e n ­ t i o n w a s t h u s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a k e e n ear for false r h e t o r i c a n d b y a n i n s i s ­ t e n c e o n a r g u m e n t s t h a t c a n b e d e f e n d e d w i t h t h e force o f " i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o ­ bity."

2 5

Strauss, t h e Z i o n i s t , w a s after a l l — a p h i l o s o p h e r .

A s Strauss h o n e d his literary skills as a Z i o n i s t w r i t e r , h e also i n f o r m a l l y c o n t i n u e d t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l studies t h a t h e h a d formally c o n c l u d e d i n 1 9 2 1 w i t h his d i s s e r t a t i o n o n t h e p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e i n t h e w o r k o f F r i e d r i c h H e i n r i c h J a c o b i ( 1 7 4 3 - 1 8 1 9 ) . In the c u r r i c u l u m vitae that was part o f t h e " e x t r a c t " f r o m his d i s s e r t a t i o n , Strauss i n d i c a t e s t h a t , after h a v i n g c o m p l e t e d his s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n at t h e h u m a n i s t i c G y m n a s i u m P h i l i p p i n u m in M a r b u r g ( 1 9 1 2 - 1 7 ) , h e h a d s e r v e d in t h e G e r m a n a r m y for s e v e n t e e n m o n t h s b e f o r e r e t u r n i n g t o M a r b u r g as a s t u d e n t o f " p h i l o s o p h y , m a t h e m a t i c s , a n d t h e s c i ­ e n c e s . " I n t h e t y p i c a l fashion o f t h e t i m e , Strauss h a d t h e n a t t e n d e d f o u r u n i v e r s i t i e s i n o n l y f o u r years b e f o r e g r a d u a t i n g w i t h a d o c t o r a t e f r o m t h e n e w l y f o u n d e d University of H a m b u r g . Aside from the c o n v e n i e n t p r o x i m ­ ity t o his h o m e t o w n , w h a t h a d initially a t t r a c t e d Strauss t o M a r b u r g w a s t h e reputation of H e r m a n n C o h e n (1842-1918), founder of the Marburg school o f n e o - K a n t i a n i s m , spiritual l e a d e r o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m , a n d a p r o f o u n d i n s p i ­ r a t i o n t o a s p i r i n g J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r s . Strauss n e v e r p e r s o n a l l y m e t H e r m a n n C o h e n w h o , after m o v i n g t o B e r l i n in 1 9 1 2 , n o l o n g e r t a u g h t i n M a r b u r g o n a r e g u l a r basis. B y t h e t i m e Strauss r e t u r n e d f r o m t h e w a r , C o h e n h a d p a s s e d away.

2 6

T h e d e c i s i o n t o c o n t i n u e his s t u d i e s u n d e r E r n s t Cassirer, w h o w a s

t h e n still i n B e r l i n , m a y also h a v e b e e n i n s p i r e d b y Strauss's r e g a r d for t h e w o r k o f C o h e n . Cassirer ( 1 8 7 4 - 1 9 4 5 ) h a d b e e n C o h e n ' s master student, t h e stellar r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e y o u n g e r g e n e r a t i o n o f n e o - K a n t i a n s ; his a p p o i n t ­ m e n t t o a full p r o f e s s o r s h i p w a s d e l a y e d b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l p o l i c y o f d i s ­ c r i m i n a t i o n that, despite legal e m a n c i p a t i o n , p r e v a i l e d t h r o u g h o u t

the

W i l h e l m i n i a n era. J e w s w e r e p r e v e n t e d f r o m t a k i n g h i g h e r p o s i t i o n s i n t h e m i l i t a r y , i n t h e c o u r t s y s t e m , i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e state, a n d o t h e r k e y areas, s u c h as t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f p h i l o s o p h y p r o p e r (in c o n t r a s t t o d i s c i p l i n e s t h a t t h e n also fell u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f p h i l o s o p h y , s u c h as m a t h e m a t i c s a n d t h e s c i e n c e s ) . H e r m a n n C o h e n h a d b e e n t h e n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n t o this r u l e . A f t e r t h e d e m i s e o f t h e S e c o n d R e i c h , C a s s i r e r finally r e c e i v e d a call, a n d Strauss f o l l o w e d h i m f r o m B e r l i n t o H a m b u r g , Initially q u i t e l o y a l t o Cassirer, Strauss n e v e r t h e l e s s f o u n d n o c o n g e n i a l m i n d in the p h i l o s o p h e r of "symbolic forms." T h e c o n t e n t of the dissertation i n d i c a t e s t h a t his a g e n d a w a s s h a r p l y at o d d s w i t h t h a t o f his a d v i s o r . W h i l e

7

Introduction

t h e title a n d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n o f Strauss's d i s s e r t a t i o n superficially c o n f o r m to Cassirer's interest in t h e " p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e , "

2 7

the substance of the

w o r k d e s c r i b e s a n d , m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , d e f e n d s J a c o b i ' s p h i l o s o p h y as a counterposition to the methodological rationalism of the Kantian tradition m a i n t a i n e d b y Cassirer. W h e n h e w r o t e his d i s s e r t a t i o n , Strauss w a s i n f l u ­ e n c e d b y a different g r o u p o f t h i n k e r s . A m o n g t h e t h e o r i s t s o f r e l i g i o n a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s Strauss a c k n o w l e d g e s i n his d i s s e r t a t i o n a r e E r n s t T r o e l t s c h , M a x Weber,

2 8

M a x Scheler, and R u d o l f O t t o . T h e m e t h o d o l o g y of "description"

t h a t Strauss a p p l i e s t o J a c o b i ' s c o n c e p t o f " b e l i e f (Glaube)

is t h e m e t h o d o l ­

o g y o f t h e p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l s c h o o l o f E d m u n d H u s s e r l . Y e t this affiliation a l o n e w o u l d n o t h a v e p r e s s u r e d Strauss i n t o o p p o s i n g Cassirer. W h a t is m o s t s t r i k i n g a b o u t t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n is its c e l e b r a t i o n o f " b e l i e f ' at t h e e x p e n s e o f critical r e a s o n . I n l i g h t o f this fact, t h e a b o v e - c i t e d " c o n f u ­ s i o n " w i t h r e s p e c t t o " b e l i e f f r o m w h i c h Strauss h a d r e c o v e r e d b y 1 9 2 3 e m e r g e s as a p e r v a s i v e c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n v o l v e d n o t o n l y his p o l i t i c a l b u t also his p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w s . B e t h a t as it m a y , i n 1 9 2 3 w e see Strauss d e f e n d i n g t h e v a l u e s o f c r i t i q u e a n d a r g u m e n t against b e l i e f a n d e n t h u s i a s m . O n e m i g h t say t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l c a r e e r o f Strauss b e g a n o n l y after h e h a d c o m p l e t e d ( a n d r e j e c t e d ) his p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . H e n c e it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t o see Strauss, n o w a y o u n g d o c t o r o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d f r e e l a n c e Z i o n i s t w r i t e r , c o n ­ tinue

his s t u d i e s , first i n F r e i b u r g , a n d t h e n b a c k i n M a r b u r g . Strauss w e n t t o

Freiburg to hear E d m u n d Husserl, the founder of the

phenomenological

school, b u t instead h e came u n d e r the influence of Martin Heidegger, w h o m h e h e n c e f o r t h r e g a r d e d as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l v o i c e o f his t i m e .

2 9

H e followed Heidegger back to Marburg, w h e r e he befriended the n e w crop of students of philosophy, a m o n g t h e m most prominently Hans G a d a m e r and Karl L ö w i t h .

Georg

3 0

D e s p i t e his n e w f o u n d " s p i r i t o f s o b r i e t y , " Strauss's d i s t a n c e f r o m C a s s i r e r prevails u n a b a t e d l y a n d b e c o m e s explicit in " T h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 4 ) . Y e t his c r i t i q u e o f C a s s i r e r d o e s n o t e n t a i l a d i s t a n c i n g f r o m H e r m a n n C o h e n . R a t h e r , Strauss distinguishes b e t w e e n t h e t h o r o u g h l y idealist presuppositions o f Cassirer's w o r k o n religion, w h i c h h e c o n t i n u e s t o reject, a n d the presupposition in the philosophical w o r k o f H e r m a n n C o h e n o f a c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o n t h a t is r o o t e d i n t h e r e l i g i o n o f t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s . A c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, t h e flaw o f C a s s i r e r ' s c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o n d e r i v e s f r o m t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t w h a t w e call r e l i g i o n is l o c a t e d o n a d e v e l o p m e n t a l c o n ­ t i n u u m w i t h t h e mythological phase o f t h e cultural consciousness.

31

In c o n ­

trast, C o h e n ' s c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o n d e r i v e d f r o m t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r a n ­ s c e n d e n t G o d o f t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d o n t h e basis o f a c o n t i n u o u s d e v e l o p m e n t b u t o n l y o n t h e basis o f a radical r e j e c t i o n o f its

Introduction

8 mythological predecessors.

32

F o l l o w i n g C o h e n , Strauss asserts against R u d o l f

O t t o t h a t t h e r e l i g i o n o f t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s is n o less r a t i o n a l for b e i n g " u n c a n n y . " R a t h e r ( a n d this is w h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, C o h e n w a s after), t h e r a t i o n a l c o r e a n d t h e resistance t o m y t h o f t h e biblical p r o p h e t s c o u l d b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y if t h e y w e r e r e c o g n i z e d as m u t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t i v e a s p e c t s o f a p r o f o u n d l y r a t i o n a l r e l i g i o n . I n this w a y , C a s s i r e r is d i s t a n c e d f r o m C o h e n , w h o himself, as Strauss s a w it, h a d a l w a y s m a i n t a i n e d a critical d i s t a n c e f r o m m a n y of the views held by the other representatives of the M a r b u r g school.

3 3

It w a s this a s p i r i n g p h i l o s o p h e r w h o r a i s e d his v o i c e a m o n g o t h e r s o p h i s ­ t i c a t e d y o u n g Z i o n i s t s . W h a t k i n d o f a Z i o n i s t w a s this p h i l o s o p h e r ? W a s h e l u k e w a r m a b o u t m a k i n g c o n v e r t s for t h e m o v e m e n t , as o n e a n e c d o t e s e e m s to suggest,

34

o r w a s h e a n e n g a g e d a n d p r o d u c t i v e alter Herr (as p o s t g r a d u a t e

m e m b e r s o f s t u d e n t s ' c o r p o r a t i o n s w e r e called)? T h e l a t t e r is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e fact t h a t , i n 1 9 2 4 , Strauss w a s i n v i t e d b y t h e b o a r d o f t h e K . J . V . t o g i v e a k e y n o t e l e c t u r e at a r e t r e a t , w h i c h h e d e f e n d e d against a critic i n t h e 1 9 2 5 " C o m m e n t o n W e i n b e r g ' s C r i t i q u e . " H e r e Strauss also m e n t i o n s his r e p e a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r e c r u i t m e n t e v e n t s (in t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t u d e n t s : 35

fahrung).

Keiler­

F u r t h e r m o r e , the lecture manuscripts recently published by H e i n r i c h

and W i e b k e M e i e r s h o w that the Zionist student organization c o n t i n u e d to p r o v i d e h i m w i t h a n a u d i e n c e for his e v e r m o r e t h e o r e t i c a l r u m i n a t i o n s o n the m o d e r n predicament. Strauss's h i g h l y a c a d e m i c a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t Z i o n i s m is n o t u n r e p r e s e n t a ­ t i v e for t h e G e r m a n Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t o f t h e early 1 9 2 0 s , b u t it s e e m s s o m e w h a t o u t of step w i t h the general d e v e l o p m e n t s in the second half of the 1 9 2 0 s a n d t h e early 1 9 3 0 s .

36

T h i s m a y e x p l a i n w h y Strauss's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

t h e Z i o n i s t d e b a t e s d e c l i n e d after 1 9 2 5 . W h i l e h e m a d e a t r a n s i t i o n f r o m B l a u - W e i s s t o K . J . V . , t h e l a t t e r w a s n o t a n i d e a l v e n u e for t h e d i s c u s s i o n s o n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l m a t t e r s Strauss w a s m o s t i n t e r e s t e d i n , s u c h as t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n J u d a i s m a n d E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e , r e l i g i o n a n d Z i o n i s m , a n d so o n . W h i l e t h e s e t o p i c s c o u l d still b e d e b a t e d , t h e s t u d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s p r i m a ­ rily i n t e r e s t e d i n p r a c t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , s u c h as r e c r u i t m e n t , i d e o l o g i c a l e d u c a ­ tion,

a n d p r e p a r a t i o n for i m m i g r a t i o n t o P a l e s t i n e . G i v e n its v e r y m o d e r a t e

r e c r u i t m e n t successes, K . J . V . also s h o w e d i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e n e w " s c i ­ ence" of propaganda.

3 7

I n t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f t h e 1 9 2 0 s , t h e f e w a t t e m p t s at

theoretical debates w e r e eclipsed b y t h e practical concerns of the m o v e m e n t : G e r m a n Z i o n i s t s e t t l e m e n t s i n P a l e s t i n e , J e w i s h - A r a b r e l a t i o n s , a n d , last b u t n o t least, t h e d e t e r i o r a t i n g p o l i t i c a l , social, a n d e c o n o m i c s i t u a t i o n i n G e r ­ m a n y . T h e r e is n o t r a c e i n Strauss's l e c t u r e s a n d essays o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e s e practical questions. I n t e r m s o f its social a n d e c o n o m i c ideals, t h e Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t w a s a

9

Introduction

m i c r o c o s m o f t h e political w o r l d of t h e 1920s, w h i c h was divided b e t w e e n t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f socialist a n d capitalist b l u e p r i n t s for t h e f u t u r e o f s o c i e t y . I n a d d i t i o n , b e g i n n i n g in 1 9 2 9 , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r l i a m e n t a r y d e m o c r a t i c aspects o f t h e W e i m a r c o n s t i t u t i o n b e g a n t o lose o u t t o its m o r e p o p u l a r p r e s i d e n t i a l aspects. W h i l e Strauss d o e s n o t s p e a k t o t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c q u e s ­ t i o n o f t h e t i m e d i r e c d y , his affinity w i t h t h e r e v i s i o n i s m o f J a b o t i n s k y (see b e l o w ) m a y p u t h i m i n t h e c a m p o f t h e s u p p o r t e r s o f a capitalist e c o n o m y i n P a l e s t i n e , w h i l e his 1 9 3 2 r e v i e w o f C a r l S c h m i t t ' s essay " C o n c e p t o f t h e P o l i t i c a l " m a y p u t h i m i n t h e c a m p o f t h e foes o f p o l i t i c a l p l u r a l i s m .

38

Yet,

t r y i n g t o j u d g e t h e p o l i t i c s o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r , o n e m u s t k e e p i n m i n d t h a t his political Z i o n i s m was of a " f o r m a l " rather t h a n practical nature, a t e n d e n c y very m u c h in the tradition of the y o u t h m o v e m e n t that he h a d originally j o i n e d a n d t h a t , in a sense, h e n e v e r o u t g r e w . T h e intellectualist b e n t o f Strauss's Z i o n i s m is d o c u m e n t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a n e c d o t e i n w h i c h h e r e ­ calls a n e x c h a n g e h e h a d w i t h t h e Z i o n i s t l e a d e r , m a n o f letters, a n d f o u n d e r of the Jewish Legion, Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), several o c c a s i o n s .

3 9

w h o m he met on

40

I was m y s e l f . . . a political Zionist in m y y o u t h , and was a m e m b e r of a Zionist student organization. In this capacity, I occasionally met Jabotinsky, the leader of the Revisionists. H e asked m e , " W h a t are you doing?" I said, " W e l l , w e read the Bible, w e study Jewish history, Zionist theory, and of course, w e keep abreast of developments, and so o n . " H e replied, " A n d rifle practice?" A n d I had to say, " N o . " ' 4

I n s u m , t h e v e r y a b s e n c e i n t h e early essays o f a n y a c u t e p o l i t i c a l c o n t e n t a n d t h e i r u l t r a m o r a l i s t i c c o n c e r n for a t r u t h f u l s t a t e m e n t o f p r i n c i p l e s m a k e s these writings typical o f the middle-class intellectualism of the G e r m a n Z i o n ­ ist y o u t h m o v e m e n t o f early 1 9 2 0 s . T h e early p u b l i c a t i o n s a n d l e c t u r e s p l a c e Strauss s q u a r e l y i n t h e s o c i e t y o f t h e G e r m a n - J e w i s h c u l t u r a l r e n a i s s a n c e o f the 1920s,

4 2

w h i c h was widely sustained b y university students a n d graduates,

t h e i r i n f o r m a l circles, a n d t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s . W i t h i n this r e n a i s s a n c e c u l ­ t u r e , Strauss is m o s t closely associated w i t h t h e F r a n k f u r t circle o f y o u n g i n t e l l e c t u a l s against w h o m h e p o l e m i c i z e s i n his v e r y first e s s a y .

43

T h i s circle

included the future educator and cofounder of Brith Shalom, Ernst S i m o n , t h e s o c i o l o g i s t L e o L ö w e n t h a l ( w h o , l i k e S i m o n a n d his f r i e n d

Gerhard

S c h o l e m , c a m e f r o m a h i g h l y assimilated b a c k g r o u n d ) , a n d t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t a n d later T r o t s k y i t e E r i c h F r o m m .

4 4

F r o m m and Löwenthal were connected

w i t h t h e F r a n k f u r t I n s t i t u t e o f Social R e s e a r c h . T h e m e m b e r s o f this circle also h a d in c o m m o n t h a t t h e y w e r e a d m i r e r s o f t h e F r a n k f u r t r a b b i N e h e m i a

10

Introduction

N o b e l , h i m s e l f a n Alter Herr honoris causa o f K . J . V . , a n d t h a t t h e y all l e c t u r e d at v a r i o u s t i m e s at t h e Freies J ü d i s c h e s L e h r h a u s f o u n d e d b y F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g , as d i d L e o S t r a u s s .

45

Strauss's early w r i t i n g s a p p e a r e d i n s o m e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o r g a n s o f 46

t h e J e w i s h c u l t u r e o f r e n e w a l , n a m e l y in DerJude, a n d i n Der jüdische

i n Die jüdische

Student.™ As a Z i o n i s t a n d a Bundesbruder

47

Rundschau,

(member of the

b r o t h e r h o o d o f Z i o n i s t s t u d e n t s ) , h e a r t i c u l a t e d w h a t h e s a w as t h e s h o r t ­ c o m i n g s o f p o l i t i c a l , c u l t u r a l , a n d r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m . B y a r t i c u l a t i n g his c o n ­ c e r n s as forcefully a n d h o n e s t l y as h e d i d , Strauss f o l l o w e d t h e m a x i m o f t h e 1913 H o h e Meissner assembly of the G e r m a n W a n d e r v o g e l , t h e d e m a n d o f "inner truthfulness." Strauss r e t u r n e d t o his p h i l o s o p h i c a l p u r s u i t s m o r e f o r m a l l y i n F e b r u a r y 1 9 2 5 , w h e n h e a c c e p t e d a f e l l o w s h i p f r o m t h e A k a d e m i e für d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t u m s . Its a c a d e m i c d i r e c t o r , J u l i u s G u t t m a n n , h a d r e a d Strauss's essay " C o h e n ' s Analysis o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 4 ) a n d e n c o u r a g e d Strauss t o p u r s u e h i s r e s e a r c h o n S p i n o z a f u r t h e r . O v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s , Strauss w r o t e his first m o n o g r a p h , i n w h i c h h e e x a m i n e d n o t o n l y t h e " B i b l e s c i e n c e " (Bibelwissenschaft)

o f S p i n o z a a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r s , as

m a n d a t e d b y his f e l l o w s h i p , b u t S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , a shift i n t o p i c t h a t c a u s e d a rift b e t w e e n Strauss a n d G u t t m a n n . T h e A k a d e m i e für d i e W i s s e n ­ schaft d e s J u d e n t u m s h a d b e e n i n i t i a t e d i n 1 9 1 7 b y F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g a n d Hermann Cohen

4 9

w i t h the aim of stimulating a culture of study that was to

b r i d g e t h e g a p b e t w e e n t h e a c a d e m y a n d t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . F o r this p u r p o s e , t h e f e l l o w w a s t o c o m b i n e his o r h e r

5 0

research and w r i t i n g w i t h a

p e r i o d o f r e s i d e n c e a n d t e a c h i n g i n a p r o v i n c i a l J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . Strauss's a g r e e m e n t w i t h R o s e n z w e i g ' s innovative approach to Jewish adult educa­ tion

5 1

m a y b e e v i d e n t f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e n o t o n l y a c c e p t e d t h e A c a d e m i e ' s

f u n d i n g t h a t a l l o w e d h i m t o p u r s u e his r e s e a r c h b u t also t o o k o n t h e p e d a ­ gogical r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t c a m e w i t h t h e fellowship, s p e n d i n g time as a s c h o l a r a n d l e c t u r e r - i n - r e s i d e n c e i n Kassel. A s far as w e k n o w , h e w a s t h e o n l y fel­ low to do so.

5 2

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , Strauss's r a d i c a l i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o s i t y a n d

t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a l m i n d s e e m t o h a v e p u t h i m at o d d s w i t h a n a c a d e m y t h a t , at t h e t i m e , m a y h a v e b e e n g u i d e d m o r e b y a p o l o g e t i c than b y scholarly c o n c e r n s .

5 3

After c o m p l e t i n g Spinoza's

Critique

of

Religion,

w h o s e publication was delayed because of the previously m e n t i o n e d disagree­ m e n t w i t h G u t t m a n n , Strauss w e n t o n t o p r o d u c e a n u m b e r o f i n t r o d u c t i o n s t o v o l u m e s 2 a n d 3 , p t . 1, o f M e n d e l s s o h n ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d a e s t h e t i c w r i t ­ i n g s , p u b l i s h e d b y t h e A k a d e m i e i n 1 9 3 1 a n d 1 9 3 2 as p a r t o f its j u b i l e e e d i ­ tion of the collected writings of Moses Mendelssohn.

5 4

Strauss's a s s o c i a t i o n

w i t h t h e A k a d e m i e lasted u n t i l 1 9 3 1 , w h e n , after t w e l v e years o f o p e r a t i o n , it

11

Introduction

e n c o u n t e r e d financial difFiculties t h a t f o r c e d it t o dismiss its e m p l o y e e s . A m o n g those dismissed was L e o Strauss.

55

W h i l e w r i t i n g o n M e n d e l s s o h n , Strauss w a s w o r k i n g o n T h o m a s H o b b e s as w e l l as o n t h e p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e m e d i e v a l J e w i s h a n d M u s l i m t r a d i t i o n s . O n t h e s t r e n g t h o f his s t u d i e s o f H o b b e s , E r n s t Cassirer, C a r l Schmitt, and Julius G u t t m a n n

5 6

r e c o m m e n d e d Strauss t o t h e R o c k e f e l l e r F o u n ­

d a t i o n , w h i c h p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h a g r a n t a l l o w i n g h i m t o p u r s u e his s t u d i e s , first in Paris ( f r o m O c t o b e r 1 9 3 2 u n t i l D e c e m b e r 1 9 3 3 ) , a n d t h e n i n L o n d o n (1934).

57

U n e m p l o y e d a n d w i t h his f e l l o w s h i p d u e t o r u n o u t b y O c t o b e r

1 9 3 4 , S t r a u s s — b y n o w i n effect a n e x p a t r i a t e o n t h e m o v e — s e a r c h e d for academic e m p l o y m e n t outside of G e r m a n y . H e repeatedly turned to Carl S c h m i t t , a s k i n g h i m for letters o f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o c o n t a c t s i n F r a n c e a n d t h e U n i t e d States. S c h m i t t , h o w e v e r , w h o b y t h e n h a d t h r o w n i n his l o t w i t h t h e N a t i o n a l Socialists, n o l o n g e r a n s w e r e d Strauss's l e t t e r s .

58

At the same time,

Strauss p u r s u e d a p o s i t i o n i n J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y at t h e H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y i n J e r u s a l e m . I n o r d e r t o b o o s t his c a n d i d a c y , Strauss c o m b i n e d several essays o n Maimonides and medieval philosophy into o n e volume, published by Schocken V e r l a g i n B e r l i n u n d e r t h e t i d e Philosophie

9

und Gesetz.*

N o n e of these at­

t e m p t s c a m e t o f r u i t i o n , a n d it w a s n o t u n t i l 1 9 3 8 , w h e n h e r e l o c a t e d t o t h e U n i t e d States, t h a t Strauss w a s able t o p u t a n e n d t o this p e r i o d o f i t i n e r a n c y t h a t affected n o t o n l y h i m s e l f b u t also his i m m e d i a t e family. T h e c a r e e r o f t h e A m e r i c a n p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r b e g a n at t h e N e w S c h o o l for S o c i a l R e s e a r c h in N e w Y o r k .

6 0

I n t h e U n i t e d States, Strauss w e n t o n t o b e c o m e a w i d e l y r e a d , h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d , a n d d e e p l y influential a u t h o r a n d t e a c h e r . A m o n g t h e m a j o r w o r k s h e c a m e t o p r o d u c e are O n Tyranny: ( 1 9 4 8 ) , Persecution ( 1 9 5 3 ) , Thoughts The City and Man and Modern

An

and the Art of Writing on Machiavelli

Interpretation ( 1 9 5 2 ) , Natural

( 1 9 5 8 ) , What

( 1 9 7 2 ) , The Argument G i l d i n i n his Introduction

Socratic Discourse

and the Action

Platonic Political Philosophy

Right

and

is Political Philosophy?

( 1 9 6 4 ) , Socrates and Aristophanes

( 1 9 6 8 ) , Xenophon's

of Xenophon's

of Plato's

( 1 9 6 6 ) , Liberalism ( 1 9 7 0 ) , Xenophon's

Laws

Hiero History (1959), Ancient Socrates

( 1 9 7 5 ) , a n d Studies

in

(1983), to n a m e just those m e n t i o n e d b y Hilail to Political

6

Philosophy. *

Strauss's o w n r e m i n i s c e n c e s s u g g e s t t h a t his c a r e e r as a p o l i t i c a l scientist b e g a n a b o u t at t h e t i m e w h e n t h e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s t fell s i l e n t — a t a t i m e , t h a t is, w h e n Strauss r e t u r n e d , b y w a y o f M a i m o n i d e s , t o t h e l o v e o f his h i g h s c h o o l y e a r s , P l a t o . W h e t h e r this r e o r i e n t a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a c h a n g e o f m i n d o r m e r e l y a p r i v i l e g i n g o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l w o r k Strauss h a d b e e n p u r s u i n g all a l o n g , e v e n u n d e r t h e guise o f a r a t h e r " f o r m a l " p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m , c a n n o t b e d e c i d e d w i t h o u t a f u r t h e r l o o k at t h e early w r i t i n g s .

12

Introduction " C H A N G E IN O R I E N T A T I O N "

T h e earliest t e x t i n c l u d e d i n this v o l u m e is a n e x t r a c t f r o m t h e 1 9 2 1 p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l d i s s e r t a t i o n o n J a c o b i . T h e latest o n e is a p i e c e f r o m 1 9 3 2 , p u b l i s h e d o n t h e o c c a s i o n o f a S p i n o z a j u b i l e e , i n w h i c h Strauss b i d s a Z i o n i s t f a r e w e l l t o t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Theological-Political taking leave of the philosopher Spinoza.

Treatise w i t h o u t , as a p h i l o s o p h e r , 62

T h e e n t i r e c o l l e c t i o n o f early w r i t i n g s a l l o w s us t o t a k e a c l o s e r l o o k at t h e " y o u n g J e w b o r n a n d raised i n G e r m a n y " w h o m Strauss d e s c r i b e s i n t h e p r e f a c e t o t h e E n g l i s h e d i t i o n o f his Spinoza's

Critique of Religion,

a d d i n g that,

at t h e t i m e , h e f o u n d h i m s e l f " i n t h e grips o f t h e t h e o l o g i c o - p o l i t i c a l p r e ­ dicament."

6 3

T h e l a t e r texts i n c l u d e d i n this e d i t i o n p r o v i d e us w i t h m a t e r i a l

f r o m a t i m e w h e n Strauss b e g a n t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h t o e x t r i c a t e h i m s e l f f r o m this v e r y " t h e o l o g i c a l - p o l i t i c a l p r e d i c a m e n t . " A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e p r e d i c a m e n t in question was w i d e n e d into o n e that c o n c e r n e d n o t just the G e r m a n J e w b u t m o d e r n m a n i n g e n e r a l . Y e t it w a s also o n e t h a t n o o n e p e r c e i v e d as clearly a n d as u n s e t t l i n g l y as d i d t h e G e r m a n J e w . I n t h e p r e f a c e t o Spinoza's

Critique of Religion,

w h i c h " c o m e s as close t o

a n a u t o b i o g r a p h y as is p o s s i b l e w i t h i n t h e limits o f p r o p r i e t y , "

6 4

Strauss s p e a k s

o f a " c h a n g e i n o r i e n t a t i o n w h i c h f o u n d its first e x p r e s s i o n "

65

i n t h e critical

r e v i e w of a b o o k b y the G e r m a n political p h i l o s o p h e r Carl S c h m i t t entitled The Concept of the Political ( 1 9 3 2 ) .

66

T h e essay t o w h i c h Strauss refers as c o n t a i n i n g " t h e first e x p r e s s i o n " o f his " c h a n g e i n o r i e n t a t i o n , "

6 7

t h e n , is a r e v i e w o f t h e w o r k o f a n o t h e r a u t h o r .

T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w o u l d n o t b y itself m a k e t h e essay e x c e p t i o n a l a m o n g Strauss's w r i t i n g s . F r o m early o n a n d t h r o u g h o u t his c a r e e r , Strauss's w r i t i n g s a r e r e v i e w s o f t h e w r i t i n g s o f o t h e r s . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n p e r h a p s o f his d i s ­ s e r t a t i o n ( w h i c h h e later called " a disgraceful p e r f o r m a n c e " ) ,

6 8

e v e n his e a r l i ­

est essays s h o w h i m n o t o n l y as a n a t t e n t i v e r e a d e r w h o is i n t e r e s t e d i n t r a c i n g t h e t h o u g h t o f o t h e r s t o its (usually e i t h e r u n a d m i t t e d o r u n c o n s c i o u s ) u l t i ­ m a t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s b u t also as a t h i n k e r p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n b e ­ t w e e n reading a n d writing. O n e of the m a x i m s , formulated in 1 9 3 1 , in w h i c h Strauss a r t i c u l a t e s t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h w e are t o e x t r i c a t e o u r s e l v e s f r o m t h e crisis o f m o d e r n i t y , is " l e a r n i n g t h r o u g h r e a d i n g " (lesendes Lernen).

Strauss

r e c o m m e n d s a conscious and vigorous return to the "old t o m e , " or to the " o l d b o o k s , " t h a t m u s t a g a i n b e o p e n e d . T h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n is first e x ­ p r e s s e d i n — a b o o k r e v i e w ( " R e v i e w o f J u l i u s E b b i n g h a u s , On the Progress of Metaphysics").

Strauss t a u g h t o t h e r s h o w t o r e a d m o r e carefully b y e x a m i n i n g

t h e r e a d i n g h a b i t s o f t h e g r e a t a u t h o r s for c l u e s as t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e y constructed their o w n texts.

69

13

Introduction

Strauss's p r e d i l e c t i o n for t h e f o r m o f t h e r e v i e w is n o t a n i n d i c a t i o n o f m o d e s t y , if b y m o d e s t y o n e u n d e r s t a n d s a k i n d o f softness t h a t i n t h e w o r l d o f letters m a y arise f r o m t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t , g i v e n t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i v i t y o f all k n o w l e d g e , n o p o i n t of view can be superior to any other point of view. T h e v e r y o p p o s i t e is t h e case w i t h Strauss. T h e m o d e s t y h e praises is t h e r a t h e r i m m o d e s t m o d e s t y of Socrates w h o , w h e n e n t e r i n g the marketplace to i n ­ q u i r e i n t o t h e p u r s u i t s o f his f e l l o w A t h e n i a n s , d i d so w i t h t h e p e r p l e x i n g k n o w l e d g e o f a n i g n o r a n c e t h a t w a s surpassed o n l y b y t h e i g n o r a n c e o f t h o s e w h o failed t o realize t h e i r i g n o r a n c e . Strauss l e a r n e d f r o m S o c r a t e s a n d P l a t o a b o u t t h e " n a t u r a l difficulties" o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g t h a t t h e m o d e r n s m u s t first r e l e a r n , s i n c e m o d e r n i g n o r a n c e is m o r e p r o f o u n d t h a n t h e i g n o r a n c e a d ­ d r e s s e d b y S o c r a t e s a n d P l a t o . B u t it w a s f r o m M a i m o n i d e s t h a t Strauss l e a r n e d i n w h a t r e s p e c t a n d d u e t o w h a t e v e n t o u r m o d e r n , artificial i g n o r a n c e s u r ­ passes t h a t o f t h e P l a t o n i c c a v e d w e l l e r s . T h i s r e a l i z a t i o n is first e x p r e s s e d i n a n u n p u b l i s h e d l e c t u r e draft, w r i t t e n i n 1 9 3 0 .

7 0

I n o u r s e a r c h for i n d i c a t i o n s o f a " c h a n g e o f o r i e n t a t i o n " w e h a v e b e e n m o v i n g b a c k w a r d f r o m t h e d a t e g i v e n b y Strauss himself, 1 9 3 2 , t o 1 9 3 0 . T h i s s h o u l d n o t c o m e as a s u r p r i s e . Strauss m u s t e v i d e n d y n o t b e t a k e n t o o l i t e r ­ ally w h e n h e cites his r e v i e w o f C a r l S c h m i t t as t h e first e x p r e s s i o n o f a c h a n g e i n o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t l e d h i m b e y o n d t h e p o s i t i o n o f Spinoza's

Critique

of

Religion.

I n 1 9 6 2 , w h e n Strauss w r o t e t h e p r e f a c e t o Spinoza's

Critique

of

Religion,

it w a s m e r e l y t h e m o s t w i d e l y accessible p l a c e t o w h i c h Strauss c o u l d

p o i n t i n o r d e r t o m a k e s u r e his A m e r i c a n r e a d e r s w o u l d n o t t a k e it as a b i n d i n g o r v a l i d s t a t e m e n t o f his c u r r e n t v i e w s . It s e e m s m o r e a c c u r a t e t o s p e a k o f a series o f d i s c o v e r i e s t h a t p r e c i p i t a t e d , " c h a n g e s i n o r i e n t a t i o n " — p e r h a p s n o t j u s t o n e b u t s e v e r a l — o r p e r h a p s a c h a n g e in stages. B a s e d o n Strauss's o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w h i c h o f c o u r s e is e c h o e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n t h i s m a t t e r , t h e w r i t i n g s b e f o r e us m a y t h e r e f o r e b e d i v i d e d i n t o those w r i t t e n before t h e " c h a n g e in o r i e n t a t i o n " (up until the c o m p l e t i o n o f Spinoza's

Critique

of Religion

in 1 9 2 8 ) , a n d t h o s e t h a t p o i n t t o this c h a n g e i n

o r i e n t a t i o n . Y e t w h a t surfaces i n t h e p u b l i s h e d w r i t i n g s is insufficient t o e x ­ p l a i n t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h e r e o r i e n t a t i o n Strauss w a s u n d e r g o i n g in t h e late 1 9 2 0 s a n d early 1 9 3 0 s . T h e v e r y fact t h a t Strauss left several r a t h e r i m ­ p o r t a n t l e c t u r e s a n d m a n u s c r i p t s u n p u b l i s h e d at t h e t i m e m a y i n d i c a t e t h a t h e w a s n o l o n g e r c e r t a i n t h a t w h a t h e h a d t o say b e n e f i t e d t h e Z i o n i s t a u d i e n c e t o w h i c h h e h a d i m m e d i a t e access. Similarly, it is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t Strauss w o u l d h a v e p u b l i s h e d Philosophy

and Law i n t h e f o r m h e d i d h a d it n o t b e e n

for t h e p r e s s u r e o n h i m t o c o m e f o r w a r d w i t h a J u d a i c p u b l i c a t i o n t h a t w o u l d m a k e h i m a p l a u s i b l e c a n d i d a t e for a p o s i t i o n in m e d i e v a l J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y at t h e H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y i n J e r u s a l e m . I n fact, o n e d o e s n o t n e e d t o b e a

14

Introduction

t r a i n e d p s y c h o l o g i s t t o see h o w Strauss's a m b i v a l e n c e a b o u t his o w n c a n d i ­ d a c y m a y h a v e i n d u c e d h i m t o a d d a l a s t - m i n u t e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o his m o r e o r less t r a d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f M a i m o n i d e s i n w h i c h h e a d u m b r a t e s a p o s i ­ t i o n t h a t w a s i n e v i t a b l y m i s u n d e r s t o o d . W h e t h e r o n e m i s t o o k h i m for a hozer bit'shuvah

( s o m e o n e w h o reverts to O r t h o d o x y ) or an a t h e i s t — b o t h i n t e r p r e ­

t a t i o n s w e r e as l i k e l y as t h e y w e r e i n a c c u r a t e (as w i l l b e s h o w n m o r e b r o a d l y b e l o w ) — n e i t h e r of these readings w o u l d have endeared h i m to those m a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o n his c a n d i d a c y . If w e a r e n o t m i s t a k e n , t h e basic o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e early w r i t i n g s m a y b e d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s . Strauss identifies w i t h n e i t h e r o n e o f the e x t r e m e , absolute, and diametrically o p p o s e d positions that he diagnoses as t h e p r e v a i l i n g forces o f t h e t i m e . H e is n e i t h e r Left n o r R i g h t , b u t w i s h e s t o r e a c h b e y o n d — t h a t is, " b e f o r e " — t h e d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n Left a n d R i g h t . B y t h e s a m e t o k e n , h e is n e i t h e r O r t h o d o x n o r atheist, b u t seeks t o r e a c h b e y o n d — t h a t is, " b e f o r e " — t h e d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n O r t h o d o x y a n d a t h e i s m . H e pushes the prevailing positions to the extremes of their fundamental, irra­ t i o n a l m o t i v e s a n d a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d p o i n t s o u t t h e i r r a t i o n a l first a s s u m p t i o n s o f s e e m i n g l y r a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s (a m e t h o d a l r e a d y p r e s e n t i n his d i s s e r t a t i o n a n d e v e n m o r e so i n his early w o r k o n S p i n o z a ) . C o n v e r s e l y , h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e a r e r a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s t o t h e s e e m i n g l y i r r a t i o n a l mysterium

of the

transcendent G o d of prophetic religion that cannot be captured even using R u d o l f O t t o ' s assumptions a b o u t the historical d e v e l o p m e n t o f p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s a c r e d . T h e last w o r d o f t h e early w r i t i n g s i n v o k e s t h e m a x i m e n ­ g r a v e d o n S p i n o z a ' s s i g n e t r i n g , caute, w h i c h Strauss r e n d e r s as a call for " i n ­ dependence"

(Unabhängigkeit).

71

T h e s e c o n c e r n s a r e p r e s e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e early Z i o n i s t a n d p h i l o s o p h i ­ c a l - h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g s . W i t h t h e s e c o n c e r n s , Strauss finds h i m s e l f i n t h e c o m ­ p a n y n o t j u s t o f t h e f e l l o w Z i o n i s t s h e addresses, n o r j u s t o f J e w s , b u t also o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a l friends a n d c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . It is typical for t h e a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e t i m e t h a t w h a t s e e m s a p a r o c h i a l a n d l i m i t e d J e w i s h v e n u e (after all, w a s n o t Z i o n i s m all a b o u t o v e r c o m i n g t h e h u m a n i s m o f t h e r e f o r m g e n e r a ­ t i o n , a n d a b o u t a r e t u r n t o c u l t u r a l i n w a r d n e s s ? ) is in fact a h i g h l y p u b l i c a n d h y b r i d e n t e r p r i s e w h e r e all k i n d s o f y o u n g i n t e l l e c t u a l s f i n d o n e

another

t h r o u g h t h e d e e p e r , u l t i m a t e l y u n i v e r s a l issues, e v e n t h o u g h t h e s e issues m a y b e a r t i c u l a t e d i n t e r m s o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e differences. T h e s e e m i n g l y s t r a i g h t ­ f o r w a r d p o l i t i c a l m o v e m e n t o f Z i o n i s m s e r v e d Strauss a n d o t h e r s as a f o r u m for t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f p r o f o u n d m a t t e r s o f p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s , a n d p h i l o s o p h i ­ cal o r i e n t a t i o n . T h u s t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e a d e r s a n d f e l l o w a u t h o r s of Der Jude u n d e r s t o o d Strauss q u i t e w e l l w h e n h e w r o t e a b o u t t h e e n d ofgalut

(exile)

15

Introduction

and the inextricable indebtedness of m o d e r n Jews to E u r o p e a n "content"; a b o u t traditional religion, the E n l i g h t e n m e n t critique o f religion, a n d the p s e u d o r e l i g i o n o f a n atheistic t h e o l o g y ; a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e r a t i o n a l i t y of transcendence; about typologies of t h o u g h t (Max W e b e r ) ; about the a t h e ­ i s m o f m o d e r n b i b l i c a l t h e o l o g y ; a b o u t t h e i n v e r t e d affinities b e t w e e n Z i o n ­ ism a n d a n t i - S e m i t i s m (Paul de Lagarde); a n d always a b o u t Spinoza. T h e t h r e a d r u n n i n g t h r o u g h all t h e early w r i t i n g s is t h e a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e , f r o m h i s t o r y , o n e ' s p l a c e i n h i s t o r y . Y e t it b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y clear t o Strauss t h a t t h e effort o f d e r i v i n g a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y ("scientifically") s o u n d i m p e r a ­ t i v e f r o m h i s t o r i c a l e x i s t e n c e w a s ill c o n c e i v e d . A t a t i m e w h e n p o l i t i c a l t h e o l o g i e s b e g a n , n o t o n l y in t h e o r y b u t also i n c r e a s i n g l y i n p r a c t i c e , t o d i s ­ p l a c e t h e c u l t u r e o f a r g u m e n t a n d c r i t i q u e , Strauss t u r n e d a w a y f r o m t h e p r e s e n t a l t o g e t h e r . T h e g r e a t u r g e n c y w i t h w h i c h his later p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o ­ p h y is i n v e s t e d b e a r s t h e m a r k o f t h e h o u r o f its b i r t h . W h e n , i n 1 9 3 5 , Strauss d e s c r i b e d a " J e w w h o c a n n o t b e o r t h o d o x a n d w h o m u s t consider purely political Z i o n i s m , t h e o n l y 'solution to the J e w i s h q u e s t i o n ' p o s s i b l e o n t h e basis o f a t h e i s m , as a r e s o l u t i o n t h a t is i n d e e d h i g h l y h o n o r a b l e , b u t n o t in e a r n e s t a n d i n t h e l o n g r u n , a d e q u a t e , "

7 2

it s e e m e d t o

m a n y t h a t h e w a s d e s c r i b i n g himself. B u t s u r e l y o n e c o u l d n o t b e a n a t h e i s t a n d a n O r t h o d o x b e l i e v e r at t h e s a m e t i m e ! C o u l d t h e r e b e a synthesis o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n a n d m o d e r n h i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ? Strauss's a n s w e r is: N o . B u t t h e r e s h o u l d b e s u c h a synthesis! Strauss's a n s w e r is: s u c h a s y n t h e s i s c a n o n l y exist at t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o u s belief. It w o u l d b e a t h e i s m i n d i s g u i s e . C a n o n e n o t b e a J e w i n t h e full sense, j u s t b y v i r t u e o f s e e k i n g t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n ? Strauss: b u t is n o t n a t i o n a l i s m a m o d e r n E u r o p e a n r a t h e r t h a n a t r u l y J e w i s h v a l u e ? S o w h a t is a j e w t o d o ? I n t h e s t a t e m e n t c i t e d a b o v e , Strauss f o r m a l l y e n d s his association w i t h t h e Z i ­ o n i s t m o v e m e n t , a n d h e d o e s so at t h e v e r y m o m e n t w h e n t h e J e w i s h state h a d b e c o m e a matter o f greater urgency than ever before.

73

B u t h e also f o r ­

m a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t h e c a n n o l o n g e r b e O r t h o d o x . W h a t is left for h i m t o c h o o s e ? T h i s is t h e p o i n t at w h i c h Strauss t u r n s t o M a i m o n i d e s , t o h i s M u s l i m predecessors, a n d to Platonic political philosophy. I n o r d e r t o g e t a sense o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s f r o m t h e early p e r i o d a n d t h e o v e r a l l a g e n d a o f Strauss's t h o u g h t t h a t m a y h a v e b e e n i n t h e m a k i n g at t h e t i m e , w e n e e d t o r e t u r n , for a m o m e n t , t o t h e figure of a " c h a n g e in o r i e n t a t i o n , " m e n t i o n e d in the autobiographic preface t o Spinoza's

Critique

of Religion.

Strauss dates i t — n o t t o o p r e c i s e l y as w e s a w

a b o v e — a s t a k i n g p l a c e a r o u n d 1 9 3 2 . W h a t is h e r e f e r r i n g t o , a n d w h a t d o s t u d e n t s o f Strauss m e a n w h e n t h e y refer, i n this c o n t e x t , t o a " t u r n " ( M e i e r )

7 4

16

Introduction

or a "return" (Green)

7 5

t o M a i m o n i d e s t h a t is variably d a t e d as h a v i n g o c ­

c u r r e d a r o u n d 1 9 3 2 , o r b e t w e e n 1 9 2 8 a n d 1 9 3 2 , o r e v e n as b e g i n n i n g i n earnest only in 1936? S o m e c a u t i o n m a y b e a d v i s e d w h e n it c o m e s t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n n o t o n l y o f t h e d a t e b u t also o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l f i g u r e o f a " t u r n " itself. G e r m a n intellectual history of the interwar period and G e r m a n Jewish intellectual h i s t o r y o f t h e s a m e p e r i o d a r e all t o o r e p l e t e w i t h " t u r n s , " " r e t u r n s , " a n d o t h e r f o r m s o f c o n v e r s i o n t o b e c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h this c l u s t e r o f m e t a p h o r s w h e n used to describe the intellectual biographies of w h a t seems an entire g e n e r a t i o n o f c o n v e r t s . M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r , w h o m Strauss h e a r d first i n F r e i b u r g a n d later in M a r b u r g a n d w h o m h e greatly a d m i r e d (although only u p t o a p o i n t ) , is p e r h a p s t h e m o s t f a m o u s case o f a p h i l o s o p h e r w h o e n c o u n t e r e d a t u r n a r o u n d (Kehre).

T h e w o r d Kehre scarcely h i d e s t h e r e l i g i o u s u n d e r p i n ­

n i n g s o f this t r o p e : Kehre is s h o r t for Umkehr,

t h a t is, r e p e n t a n c e . O f c o u r s e ,

i n H e i d e g g e r ' s c o n t e x t t h e r e f e r e n c e is m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y t o m o v e m e n t s o f t h e s o r t P l a t o e x p e c t s t h e d w e l l e r s o f his c a v e t o u n d e r t a k e . Y e t a g a i n , t h e r e l i g i o u s u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h e m e t a p h o r are s u c h t h a t t h e w h o l e t h i n g m a y be suspected of an unclear mixture, an internalized "Jerusalem" encroaching o n a n " A t h e n s . " If s o , t o s p e a k of Kehre a c c o m p l i s h e s t h e v e r y o b f u s c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e t h a t Strauss sets o u t t o o v e r c o m e f r o m early o n . T h e r e a r e o t h e r p e r t i n e n t cases. T h e k e y d a t e i n t h e h a g i o g r a p h y o f F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g , w h o m Strauss k n e w a n d a d m i r e d n o less t h a n h e k n e w a n d admired Heidegger,

7 6

is a t u r n f r o m t h e b a p t i s m a l f o n t t h a t i n a u g u r a t e d a n d

d e t e r m i n e d t h e d i r e c t i o n o f his r e t u r n t o J u d a i s m . Similarly, H e r m a n n C o h e n was likewise credited (not accidentally by R o s e n z w e i g ) w i t h h a v i n g experi­ e n c e d a " r e t u r n t o J u d a i s m " t h a t is s u p p o s e d (by R o s e n z w e i g ) t o h a v e o c ­ c u r r e d i n h i s o l d a g e . T o b e s u r e , t h e s e a r e o n l y superficial r e m a r k s o n a single r h e t o r i c a l f i g u r e t h a t e n j o y e d a c e r t a i n c u r r e n c y i n Strauss's y o u t h , a n d t h a t h e s e e m s n o t t o h a v e b e e n b e y o n d a p p l y i n g t o himself. O f c o u r s e , t h e p h r a s e o f a " c h a n g e o f o r i e n t a t i o n " t h a t Strauss uses t o d e s c r i b e w h a t o c c u r r e d after t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f his b o o k o n S p i n o z a m a y s i m p l y m e a n t h a t Strauss t u r n e d " b a c k w a r d " in history, d o i n g w h a t was generally considered t h e impossible b y " r e t u r n i n g " to p r e - E n l i g h t e n m e n t t h o u g h t , m o r e precisely b y seeking in a r e n e w e d study of ancient Greek and medieval Jewish and M u s l i m sources a w a y o u t o f t h e m o d e r n p r e d i c a m e n t , t h a t is, o u t o f t h e " t h e o l o g i c o - p o l i t i c a l predicament." W h a t t h i s m e a n s for t h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is t h e f o l l o w i n g . A s m u c h as o n e m a y b e c o n v i n c e d o f t h e d e s c r i p t i v e v a l u e o f m e t a p h o r s s u c h as " t u r n i n g " a n d " r e t u r n i n g , " t h e s e m e t a p h o r s clearly p u t g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s o n w h a t is b e i n g t u r n e d t o t h a n o n w h a t p r e p a r e s t h e g r o u n d for s u c h t u r n i n g . T h e

17

Introduction

m e t a p h o r m a k e s t h e l a t t e r a p p e a r as a m e r e p r e c o n d i t i o n , usually a n e g a t i v e p r e c o n d i t i o n , a " n o - t h i n g , " as it w e r e , t h a t p r e c e d e s t h e real t h i n g . B u t w e s h o u l d n o t j u d g e b e f o r e t h e fact, a n d i n a n y case it is a g o o d t h i n g t o distrust o v e r u s e d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s s u c h as t h e m e t a p h o r o f a " t u r n . " T o b e s u r e , c o n v e n i e n t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a r e n o t easily d i s p o s e d of, n o r a r e t h e y w i t h o u t u t i l i t y . A s j u s t n o t e d , t h e f i g u r e o f a t u r n is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f e a r l y - t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y C o n t i n e n t a l d i s c o u r s e , a n d Strauss shares it w i t h m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n m a y n o t i n d i c a t e m u c h a b o u t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l m o v e s t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y it. Y e t it a r ­ ticulates a c o m m o n c o n c e r n o f t h e y o u n g e r g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e t i m e . T h i s generation consisted of those w h o had seen their peers perish in t h e merciless t r e n c h e s o f t h e First W o r l d W a r , a w a r t h a t h a d b e e n w a g e d i n t h e n a m e o f culture, civilization, a n d progress, a n d that h a d t u r n e d culture, civilization, and progress into doubtful propositions. W a r , revolution, e c o n o m i c h a r d ­ ships, a n d a f o u n d e r i n g d e m o c r a c y m a d e it i m p o s s i b l e for t h e y o u n g e r g e n ­ e r a t i o n t o n a i v e l y s u b s c r i b e t o t h e w i s d o m o f t h e i r elders, a w i s d o m t h a t h a d t u r n e d o u t t o b e folly. T h u s , at least, w e m a y a c c o u n t for t h e e a g e r n e s s o f t h a t g e n e r a t i o n t o a r t i c u l a t e radical s o l u t i o n s t o p r o b l e m s t h a t w e r e n o t o n l y o f a theoretical nature b u t w e r e e m i n e n t l y political. Suspicious of liberalism a n d h u m a n i s m , a n d n a u s e a t e d b y t h e s a n c t i m o n i o u s c u l t i v a t i o n o f vast t h e o r e t i c a l solutions to c o n c r e t e practical problems, they sought to break o u t of the i v o r y t o w e r a n d p a r t i c i p a t e i n life. S o m e o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f t h e t i m e , s u c h as M a r g a r e t e S u s s m a n n , s p o k e o f a n " e x o d u s o u t o f p h i l o s o p h y . "

7 7

A re­

s p o n s e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n g e n e r a t e d b y t h e First W o r l d W a r t h a t w a s c o m m e n ­ s u r a t e w i t h it h a d t o e n t a i l a clear " t u r n " a w a y f r o m t h e v a l u e s , ideas, n o t i o n s , s y s t e m s , a n d so o n , t h a t h a d s u s t a i n e d t h e i l l - c o n c e i v e d n o t i o n s t h a t h a d l e d t o t h e w a r itself. Strauss h i m s e l f w a s fully a w a r e o f this m o o d a n d d e e p l y s u s p i c i o u s o f its a l l u r e . W h i l e h e w a s s y m p a t h e t i c t o this k i n d o f analysis, h e felt t h a t s u c h shared sympathy does n o t prove the legitimacy of a standpoint.

78

A r o u n d 1 9 2 9 , Strauss r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e t r u e p r o b l e m consists i n t h e e x ­ p e c t a t i o n t h a t a n y a n s w e r d i r e c t e d o n l y at t h e p r e s e n t c o u l d c l a i m v a l i d i t y o r necessity.

79

Strauss's earliest Z i o n i s t w r i t i n g s still a s s u m e t h a t h i s t o r i c a l r e a ­

soning will provide the right answer to the problems of the time. In the w r i t i n g s d a t i n g f r o m 1 9 2 9 a n d o n w a r d , h o w e v e r , Strauss articulates t h e i n ­ s i g h t t h a t t h e proton pseudos resides p r e c i s e l y i n this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n . H e r e a l ­ izes t h a t t h e q u e s t for t h e r i g h t p o s i t i o n i n h i s t o r y raises m o r e q u e s t i o n s t h a n it a n s w e r s . W h a t b e g i n s as t h e J e w i s h q u e s t for h i s t o r i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n a n e w s i t u a t i o n ( " H o w are t h e p e o p l e t o live n o w ? " ) t u r n s i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e t o r e c o v e r t h e timeless p r o b l e m o f t h e r i g h t l i f e .

80

18

Introduction POLITICAL E X I S T E N C E A N D RELIGION

T h e early essays d o c u m e n t Strauss's g r a d u a l shift f r o m p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m t o t h e e t e r n a l p r o b l e m o f t h e p o l i t i c a l itself, f r o m t h e q u e s t i o n , " H o w a r e t h e p e o p l e t o live n o w ? "

8 1

t o t h e q u e s t i o n : " H o w is o n e t o l i v e ? "

8 2

This reorien­

t a t i o n d o e s n o t necessarily c o n s t i t u t e t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f o n e c a u s e b y a n ­ o t h e r , y e t it entails t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a r e s i g n a t i o n , o f a loss o f p o l i t i c a l faith. In the transition from o n e question to the other, however, concern w i t h p o l i t i c a l e x i s t e n c e p r e v a i l s , especially w i t h p o l i t i c a l e x i s t e n c e i n r e l a t i o n t o r e l i g i o n . T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n a n d p o l i t i c s — a c e n t r a l issue also i n Strauss's early s c h o l a r l y w o r k — i s n o m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l t o t h e Z i o n i s t w r i t e r t h a n to t h e genealogist of political p h i l o s o p h y . W h i l e t h e phase o f r e o r i e n t a ­ t i o n is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a w i t h d r a w a l f r o m p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n for t h e sake o f r e t r i e v i n g t h e classical p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e P l a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n , his earliest essays a r e p e r m e a t e d b y t h e n o less P l a t o n i c h o p e t h a t Z i o n i s m m i g h t afford o n e o f t h o s e r a r e m o m e n t s w h e n t h e p h i l o s o p h e r m i g h t b e k i n g . T o p u t it s o m e w h a t p a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h e n : If t h e r e is a t u r n i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f t h e early Strauss, i t is o n e f r o m P l a t o t o P l a t o . I n his 1 9 2 3 " R e s p o n s e t o F r a n k f u r t ' s ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e , ' " Strauss p o s i ­ t i o n s h i m s e l f f i r m l y b e t w e e n all e s t a b l i s h e d i d e o l o g i e s , a s t r a t e g y t h a t w a s t o r e m a i n o n e o f t h e h a l l m a r k s o f his a u t h o r s h i p . W h i l e h e d e f e n d s t h e v a l u e s o f l i b e r a l i s m against t h e a u t h o r i t a r i a n t r e n d s o f t h e n e w B l a u - W e i s s ,

8 3

h e also

rejects t h e F r a n k f u r t circle's d e m a n d for " J e w i s h c o n t e n t . " W h i l e " B r e s l a u " (i.e., t h e o r i g i n a l , r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s t , pre—Walter M o s e s B l a u - W e i s s ) m a y n o t y e t h a v e f o u n d its " w o r d o f p r i n c i p l e , " " F r a n k f u r t " ( t h e c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s t circle i n c l u d i n g E r n s t S i m o n , L e o L ö w e n t h a l , E r i c h F r o m m , Fritz G o i t h e i n , a n d E r i c h M i c h a e l i s ) w a s r e l y i n g o n s u r r o g a t e stuff: it m e r e l y c o u n t e r e d t h e n e w "pagan-fascist" rhetoric of Walter Moses w i t h the rhetoric of "mystical-hum a n i t a r i a n i s m . " Strauss d i a g n o s e s t h a t b o t h o f t h e s e a t t e m p t s at e x t r i c a t i n g o n e s e l f f r o m m o d e r n i t y / E u r o p e / C h r i s t e n d o m w e r e essentially i n d e b t e d t o m o d e r n i t y / E u r o p e / C h r i s t e n d o m in that they themselves w e r e n o t h i n g b u t e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e m o d e r n s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s . A n t i m o d e r n i s m , h e states, is itself p r o f o u n d l y m o d e r n a n d a n y t h i n g b u t a safe a n d c e r t a i n r e t u r n t o J e w i s h " c o n t e n t . " T h e essay is as s h a r p a critical analysis o f e a r l y - 1 9 2 0 s

German

Z i o n i s m as exists. Y e t , u n l i k e o t h e r critics o f B l a u - W e i s s (e.g., S c h o l e m ) , Strauss despairs o f p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n s t o a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b l e m , t h a t is, h e a v o i d s s u g g e s t i n g a c t i o n , p r a c t i c a l w o r k , a n d i m m i g r a t i o n t o P a l e s t i n e as s o ­ l u t i o n s t o w h a t h e r e g a r d s as a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b l e m .

8 4

Instead, h e holds u p the

s t a n d a r d o f " c r i t i q u e " a n d "historical r e a s o n i n g " a n d t h u s o p p o s e s t h e Z i o n i s t

19

Introduction

r h e t o r i c o f his t i m e t h a t p r i v i l e g e s b e l i e f a n d a f f i r m a t i o n o v e r d o u b t a n d argumentation. State a n d religion, a n d h e n c e Z i o n i s m a n d the p r o b l e m of J e w i s h " c o n ­ t e n t , " are t o Strauss t w o s e p a r a t e c o n c e r n s , a n d t h e c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s t a t t e m p t t o m i x t h e t w o s e e m s t o Strauss a n i l l - c o n c e i v e d u n d e r t a k i n g . W h a t is p a s s e d off as r e l i g i o n s e e m s t o Strauss t o d e n y t h e f u n d a m e n t a l d o c t r i n a l a s s u m p t i o n o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n — n a m e l y , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , u n d e r s t o o d as p r e c e d i n g all h u m a n c o n c e r n s . I n s t e a d , w h a t p r e v a i l s is t h e m o d e r n h u m a n i s t i c t h e o l ­ o g y o f M a r t i n B u b e r a n d o t h e r s t h a t , as h e w r i t e s , h a d a t t a i n e d " c a n o n i c a l " status a m o n g m a n y Z i o n i s t s , a n d t h a t Strauss d i a g n o s e s as i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h the dogmatic presuppositions of the Bible and of Jewish prayer. T a k e , for example, Buber's thoroughly immanentist interpretation of reli­ gion. If G o d is "later" than the religious experience [Erlebnis] of the i n d i ­ vidual or of the people (and this is Buber's doctrine), t h e n the trajectory toward absolutizing " t h e h u m a n " is already determined. (It is of lesser c o n ­ cern w h e t h e r one thinks of the h u m a n m o r e in terms of the heroic or of the Hasidic.) ("Response to Frankfurt's ' W o r d of Principle'," p. 67) Strauss asserts t h a t it is this d o g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f a h u m a n i s t i c a l l y r e i n ­ terpreted religion rather than the values of a r g u m e n t a t i o n a n d critique that h e a d v o c a t e d t h a t is t o b l a m e for t h e g e n e r a l " a n a r c h y o f s t a n d p o i n t s " l a ­ m e n t e d by the Zionist leadership. T h e Z i o n i s t p u r s u i t o f a state, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s e e m s t o Strauss a s o b e r a n d realistic expression o f t h e n o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , n o t — a s i n t h e p e r i o d o f assimilation—regarding individuals, b u t r e g a r d i n g t h e p e o p l e as a w h o l e . O v e r c o m i n g t h e d r e a m - o r ghostlike existence i n t h e exile (galut), Z i o n i s m has t h e m a n d a t e o f a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e J e w s ' r e t u r n t o reality. Strauss speaks h e r e , s o m e w h a t artificially, o f E i m v i r k l k h u n g , t h a t is, a k i n d o f a d a p t i v e p r o c e s s a i m ­ i n g at o v e r c o m i n g t h e status o f Entwirklichtheit

t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e galut.

I n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p t h e r e s o l v e t h a t w a s n e e d e d for t h e Z i o n i s t p u r s u i t o f t h e state, t h e basic p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of galut h a d t o b e o v e r c o m e . T h i s p r e s u p ­ p o s i t i o n is t h e O r t h o d o x r e l i g i o u s faith, a n d it w a s essentially o v e r c o m e i n t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t s t r u g g l e against all f u n d a m e n t a l i s m . A m o n g t h e J e w s o f t h e p e r i o d o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d e m a n c i p a t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h e space that w a s e m p t i e d o f t r a d i t i o n a l faith w a s filled n o t w i t h J e w i s h " c o n t e n t " b u t w i t h G e r m a n " c o n t e n t . " W h a t Strauss's i n t e r v e n t i o n a i m s t o p o i n t o u t a b o v e all is t h e futility o f d e n y i n g this. T h e atheistic faith t h a t is r o o t e d i n t h e E n l i g h t e n ­ m e n t c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n m u s t n o t b e passed off as r e l i g i o n , a n d c e r t a i n l y n o t as i d e n t i c a l w i t h biblical r e l i g i o n .

20

Introduction S e v e r a l f u r t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s c a n b e m a d e o n t h e basis o f Strauss's first

Z i o n i s t essay. W h i l e Strauss h i n t s , i n g o o d liberal fashion, at t h e d e e p c o n g r u ­ e n c e b e t w e e n biblical r e l i g i o n a n d t h e m o d e r n state (as m e d i a t e d b y S p i n o z a ) , h e clearly w i s h e s t o distinguish in n o u n c e r t a i n t e r m s b e t w e e n m o d e r n h u m a n ­ istic t h e o l o g i e s a n d r e l i g i o n i n a p r e - E n l i g h t e n m e n t sense. Strauss d e s c r i b e s as a k i n d o f a t h e i s m t h e m o d e r n t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n t h a t seeks a s y n t h e s i s b e ­ t w e e n b i b l i c a l faith a n d m o d e r n h u m a n i s m . T h u s h e w r i t e s i n 1 9 2 5 t h a t t h e atheism of present-day Bible science is evident. If it is not so evident that everyone can grasp it, this is due to the accidental fact that this science happens to be predominantly in the hands of professors of theology; that the inclination to react to " G o d , " implanted in the h u m a n heart from time i m m e m o r i a l , cannot be uprooted overnight; that n o atheist emerges u n ­ scathed from reading the Psalms and the prophets; mostly, h o w e v e r , that this science has its seat in Germany, the land of "reconciliations" [Versöhn­ ungen] and "sublations" [Aufhebungen]. ("Biblical History and Science," p. 133) Strauss c o n t i n u e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c o n c i l i n g t r a d i t i o n a l r e l i g i o n a n d t h e m o d e r n atheistic b e l i e f in t h e sufficiency o f h u m a n r e a s o n .

8 5

Y e t , i n 1 9 2 4 a n d 1 9 2 5 , t h e focus o f his c r i t i q u e shifts from t h e " L e f t " t o t h e " R i g h t , " a shift b y w h i c h h e a i m s t o b r i n g a b o u t w h a t h e b e l i e v e s is a l o n g o v e r d u e realignment within the entire G e r m a n Zionist m o v e m e n t . In order to make m y intention as clear as possible I shall proceed from its practical-political effect. I believe that the grouping of G e r m a n J e w r y into parties n o longer corresponds to the spiritual situation of o u r generation. T h e alliance of Zionism and O r t h o d o x y will have to be replaced by the alliance of Zionism and liberalism. Today, the enemy is o n the right! ( " C o m ­ m e n t o n W e i n b e r g ' s C r i t i q u e , " p. 118) W i t h g r e a t e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e Z i o n i s t s t u d e n t s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n K . J . V . , Strauss shifts his a t t e n t i o n t o a n e w e n e m y . H a v i n g s e t t l e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m t o his satisfaction, Strauss t u r n s t o a n issue t h a t h e r e g a r d s as a n e v e n g r e a t e r t h r e a t t o t h e p u r s u i t o f a J e w i s h state, n a m e l y , t h e a l i g n m e n t b e t w e e n Z i o n i s m a n d O r t h o d o x y ; Strauss a t t a c k s t h e r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n M i z r a h i . H i s thesis is t h a t state a n d r e l i g i o n — t h a t is, J e w i s h state a n d J e w i s h r e l i g i o n — c a n n o t b e a l i g n e d w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . T h i s is so b e c a u s e classical J e w i s h r e l i g i o n is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a p o l i t i c a l , w h e r e a s t h e m o d e r n state rests o n s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d t h e d i g n i t y o f m a n , v a l u e s alien t o t r a d i t i o n a l J u d a i s m . A g a i n , t h e r e f o r e , Strauss criticizes a c o n t e m p o r a r y m o v e m e n t , i n this case t h e O r t h o d o x r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m o f M i z r a h i , for sailing u n d e r a false flag. W h a t

Introduction

21

M i z r a h i aspires t o c a n n o t b e j u s t i f i e d o n t h e basis o f p r e - E n l i g h t e n m e n t r e l i ­ g i o n , a n d s i n c e , i n case o f a conflict o f i n t e r e s t , M i z r a h i is m o r e O r t h o d o x t h a n Z i o n i s t , t h e e n t i r e alliance c a n o n l y b e t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t o f a p o l i t i c a l m o v e m e n t b a s e d o n s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d d i g n i t y . Strauss m a d e this a r g u m e n t for t h e first t i m e i n a l e c t u r e t o t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e K a r t e l l j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n assembled in the walled t o w n of F o r c h t e n b e r g in H o h e n l o h e . T h e b o a r d of directors o f the K.J.V. h a d invited h i m t o address t h e " b u r n i n g i s s u e " o f Z i o n i s m a n d r e l i g i o n . O n this o c c a s i o n , Strauss w a s so m u c h t h e spiritual leader o f the entire assembly that h e w a s e v e n p u t in c h a r g e o f s p e a k i n g t h e c o m m e m o r a t i v e w o r d s at t h e H e r z l c e l e b r a t i o n c o n ­ cluding the retreat.

86

O d d l y e n o u g h , s o m e o f his c o m m e n t s , o f w h i c h w e h a v e o n l y a n i n d i ­ r e c t s u m m a r y , i n v i t e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Strauss w a s n o t o n l y n o t o n p r i n ­ c i p l e a v e r s e t o a r e t u r n t o O r t h o d o x faith, s h o u l d t h a t b e p o s s i b l e , b u t t h a t h e h i m s e l f e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y e m b r a c e d it. T h i s , at least, is w h a t his critic H a n s W e i n b e r g i n s i n u a t e s i n his r e s p o n s e t o Strauss's F o r c h t e n b e r g l e c t u r e . C o n c e r n i n g the content of the lecture, Strauß [51c] has only d o n e half the j o b . H e declares his intention to merely wish to s h o w t h e dualism [viz., of Z i o n ­ ism and religion] b u t to be incapable of resolving it; nevertheless he already makes a decision, and an emotional o n e at that, in favor of O r t h o d o x y . H e r e I simply d o n o t understand Strauß. Either one regards nationalism and religion in most perfect h a r m o n y with o n e another, as one used to see it until n o w , or o n e recognizes the dualism, in w h i c h case it is, at least, p r e ­ mature^—and it perhaps testifies to honest enthusiasm but certainly n o t to mental powers—if o n e daringly leaps across such concerns and lands very comfortably at the desired result. 87

Strauss, o f c o u r s e , s t r o n g l y rejects t h e i n s i n u a t i o n o f a t h o u g h t l e s s , e m o t i o n a l decision in favor o f O r t h o d o x y . I d o n o t k n o w h o w W e i n b e r g comes to i m p u t e to m e a decision in favor of orthodoxy, and to i m p u t e it to m e , outrageously, as a decision "from h o n ­ est enthusiasm." I trust that the Bundesbrüder w h o heard m y Forchtenberg presentation will agree w i t h m e w h e n I conclude that there was n o trace of "enthusiasm" to be found in it. As concerns m y "decision for O r t h o d o x y , " this anticritique will not leave any remaining d o u b t and thus may serve as an example [of m y true position]. H o w e v e r , if what I am being reproached for is m y understanding that there are things in the Jewish tradition that are essential and obligatory for us, then I am being reproached for not being a perfect horse. ( " C o m m e n t o n Weinberg's C r i t i q u e , " p. 120)

22

Introduction

T h e a m b i v a l e n c e t o w a r d r e l i g i o n i n Strauss's Z i o n i s t p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d w r i t ­ i n g s m a y d e r i v e f r o m his d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n biblical r e l i g i o n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d its m o d e r n d i s t o r t i o n s , o n t h e o t h e r , o f w h i c h t h e O r t h o d o x y o f M i z r a h i is n o less g u i l t y t h a n t h e B i b l e s c i e n c e o f m o d e m t h e o l o g i a n s . N e i ­ t h e r c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m n o r t h e r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m o f s o m e o n e like Isaac B r e u e r

8 8

(see " E c c l e s i a m i l i t a n s " ) m a y c l a i m t o b e i n g e n u i n e a g r e e m e n t w i t h biblical r e l i g i o n , o r w i t h r e l i g i o n i n t h e p r e - E n l i g h t e n m e n t sense (cf. " B i b l i c a l H i s ­ t o r y a n d S c i e n c e " ) . T h e e n t i r e p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c o f O r t h o d o x y against s e c u l a r Z i o n i s m is c r i t i c i z e d as largely d i s i n g e n u o u s , a n d t h e o n l y basis o n w h i c h Strauss ( r e f e r r i n g t o " Z i o n i s m , " b u t m e a n i n g himself) is r e a d y t o a r g u e w i t h O r t h o d o x y is t h e basis o f t h e E u r o p e a n c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n (see " O n

the

B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a a n d his P r e c u r s o r s " ) . W h i l e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m is d e f e n d e d against t h e d i s c o n t e n t s u t t e r e d b y t h e c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m o f t h e F r a n k ­ furt circle a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m o f M i z r a h i , Strauss d e n i e s t h a t t h e " d e e p e r spheres o f spiritual m a n "

8 9

c a n b e fully satisfied b y t h e p o l i t i c a l d i m e n s i o n o f

Z i o n i s m . Strauss is careful t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e spiritual t r a p p i n g s o f n a t i o n a l i s m , w h i c h h e b e l i e v e s are n o t t h e issue, a n d t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e p o l i t i c a l w i l l o f a p e o p l e , as a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m o f H e r z l . N a t i o n a l i s m , c u l t u r a l o r r e l i g i o u s , m a y w e l l fill t h e b a c k g r o u n d left v a c a n t b y s o b e r p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m , b u t it is h a r d l y a g e n u i n e l y J e w i s h s e n t i m e n t , o n e c o n g e n i a l w i t h t h e p r e - E n l i g h t e n m e n t sources o f j u d a i s m . R a t h e r , it is E u r o p e ' s p a r t i n g gift t o t h e J e w s . T h e p o l i t i c a l w i l l o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e leaves t h e " d e e p e r s p h e r e s o f spiritual m a n " e m p t y ; y e t Strauss is far f r o m r e a d y t o say h o w this v o i d m a y b e filled. W h e r e h e p r o p o s e s a s o l u t i o n , it i s — u n s u r p r i s ­ ingly—"rather negative."

9 0

W h i l e t h e 1 9 2 5 F o r c h t e n b e r g l e c t u r e g a i n e d Strauss t h e a c c u s a t i o n o f p e r f o r m i n g a l e a p o f faith i n t o O r t h o d o x y , his last Z i o n i s t p u b l i c a t i o n — t h e 1 9 2 8 r e v i e w o f F r e u d ' s Future of an Illusion—gained an atheist.

91

h i m the charge of being

T h e p r o m i n e n c e t h a t t h e r e f u t a t i o n o f Strauss's p o s i t i o n r e c e i v e d 92

i n v o l u m e 2 5 ( 1 9 2 8 ) of Der jüdische Student

m a y indicate a desire o n the part

o f t h e K a r t e l l j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n t o m e n d t h e fences w i t h t h e r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s t s . Strauss's h o n e s t y e t politically i n c o r r e c t a t t a c k o n an i m p o r t a n t ally i n t h e Z i o n i s t s t r u g g l e d o e s n o t s e e m t o h a v e c a u s e d a p e r m a n e n t rift b e ­ t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f K . J . V . ; at least, h e w a s i n v i t e d o n a f u r ­ t h e r o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s o n e o f its federal r e t r e a t s .

93

Yet the strong rejection

h e e x p e r i e n c e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e F r e u d r e v i e w m a y have triggered a n u m b e r o f i m p o r t a n t n e w c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . First o f all, it m a y n o t b e c o i n c i ­ d e n t a l t h a t Strauss h e n c e f o r t h c e a s e d t o p u b l i s h i n t h e Z i o n i s t p r e s s .

94

It m a y

i n d i c a t e a g r o w i n g s k e p t i c i s m o n his p a r t as t o w h e t h e r t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l w a s able t o e x e r t a d i r e c t a n d m e a n i n g f u l p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e .

95

A n d it m a y h a v e

23

Introduction

c o m p e l l e d h i m t o search for a clearer articulation o f t h e w a y o u t o f t h e i m p a s s e he h a d diagnosed, o n e that reached b e y o n d the flawed alternative b e t w e e n t h e spiritual v a c a n c y o f t h e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s t will, o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e c o m p r o m i s e d forms of m o d e r n religion (be t h e y cultural Zionist o r b e t h e y O r t h o d o x ) , o n the other. This w a y o u t of the impasse could n o t be the n e x t g r e a t synthesis; Strauss rejects s u c h a h i s t o r i c i s t s o l u t i o n i n o n e o f his m o s t b i t i n g texts o f t h e p e r i o d , a r e v i e w o f K a r l M a n n h e i m ' s Ideologie und w h i c h Strauss left u n p u b l i s h e d .

9 6

Utopie,

Extracting himself from the ideological c o n ­

t r o v e r s i e s o f Z i o n i s m , Strauss a t t e m p t s t o r e t u r n f r o m t h e e v e r m o r e f a n c y w o r d s of synthetic philosophical language to the fundamental things t h e m ­ selves, f r o m t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e past t o t h e e t e r n a l q u e s t i o n s , a n d f r o m a situation of hybridity a n d m u t u a l distortions t o the only o n e that afforded an u n o b s t r u c t e d v i e w o f t h e difference b e t w e e n p h i l o s o p h y a n d r e l i g i o n : t h a t is, t h e w o r l d as it w a s " b e f o r e t h e biblical c o n s c i o u s n e s s fell u p o n i t . "

9 7

T h u s , in

1 9 2 9 , Strauss b e g a n h i s r e t u r n t o t h e w o r l d o f P l a t o . B E Y O N D ATHEISM A N D O R T H O D O X Y

W h e r e e x a c t l y Strauss w a s h e a d i n g w a s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y visible in t h e l a t e 1 9 2 0 s t o early 1 9 3 0 s , n o r w e r e t h e h i n t s h e s c a t t e r e d across his p u b l i c a t i o n s easily c o m p r e h e n d e d for w h a t t h e y w e r e . E v e n his n e x t m o n o g r a p h , Philosophy

and

Law ( 1 9 3 5 ) , d i d little t o clarify his o r i e n t a t i o n . T h u s , for e x a m p l e , at t h e e n d o f t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r t o Philosophy

and Law,™ h e r e i t e r a t e s his u n d e r ­

standing of the m o d e r n Jewish impasse b y j u x t a p o s i n g O r t h o d o x y a n d (athe­ istic) p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m as i n e v i t a b l e y e t e q u a l l y u n a c c e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d h i n t s at t h e n e e d t o t u r n b a c k w a r d s t o a s i t u a t i o n p r e c e d i n g t h e m o d e r n i m p a s s e . T h i s passage m e t w i t h t h e s a m e c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t w e saw before.

9 9

K a r l L ö w i t h , for e x a m p l e , u n d e r s t o o d it as a n e n d o r s e m e n t o f

O r t h o d o x y , a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n Strauss a g a i n d e n i e s e m p h a t i c a l l y : " B y t h e w a y , I a m not a n O r t h o d o x J e w ! " scribes Philosophy

1 0 0

Gershom Scholem, o n the other hand, d e ­

and Law i n a l e t t e r t o W a l t e r B e n j a m i n as an " u n o b s c u r e d

t e s t i m o n i a l t o a t h e i s m as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t J e w i s h s o l u t i o n . "

1 0 1

In h i n d ­

sight, b o t h o f t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s s e e m as flawed as t h e y w e r e u n a v o i d a b l e . T h e a t h e i s m d e s c r i b e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophy

and Law consists i n

t h e h o n e s t a n d s i n c e r e (redlich) resistance t o all false r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s , t h e resis­ t a n c e t o t h e n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y o b f u s c a t i o n o f t h e difference b e t w e e n r e l i ­ g i o n a n d r e a s o n . T h i s h e r o i c a t h e i s m is e x p l i c i t l y associated w i t h t h e n a m e o f M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r . B u t Strauss d o e s n o t s i m p l y e n d o r s e o r i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e p o s i t i o n o f H e i d e g g e r . T o b e s u r e , as l o n g as this a t h e i s m o u t of c a n resist b e c o m i n g a d o g m a i t s e l f

102

Redlichkeit

it is t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a d e e p l y m o r a l

Introduction

24

r e s i s t a n c e t o all d o g m a t i s m . B u t , as Strauss p o i n t s o u t , i n t e l l e c t u a l Redlichkeit

1 0 3

the m o d e r n virtue of

( p r o b i t y , h o n e s t y , s i n c e r i t y , u p r i g h t n e s s ) is a far c r y

f r o m t h e a n c i e n t i d e a l o f t h e " l o v e o f t r u t h " (Wahrheitsliebe).

T h u s , as J a c o b

K l e i n n o t i c e d (see b e l o w ) , a w e d g e is i n s e r t e d b e t w e e n H e i d e g g e r i a n p r o b i t y a n d t h e classical p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t t i t u d e .

1 0 4

W h i l e it is easy t o see h o w S c h o l e m m a y h a v e b e e n t e m p t e d t o m i s t a k e Strauss's v e r y a t t r a c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f H e i d e g g e r i a n a t h e i s m for a n e n d o r s e ­ m e n t , it is s o m e w h a t m o r e difficult, y e t n o less p o s s i b l e , t o m i s t a k e Strauss's s u g g e s t i o n o f a r e t u r n t o t h e m e d i e v a l e n l i g h t e n m e n t o f M a i m o n i d e s for a n e n d o r s e m e n t o f O r t h o d o x y . F o r i n t h e essays t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e b u l k of

Phi­

losophy and Law ( a n d t h u s f o l l o w t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n in o r d e r , b u t n o t i n d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n h a v i n g b e e n w r i t t e n early i n 1 9 3 5 , w h e r e a s t h e essays r e a c h b a c k t o 1 9 3 1 , 1 9 3 3 , a n d 1 9 3 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) M a i m o n i d e s is still t a k e n as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n t h e n still i d e n t i f i e d b y Strauss w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f t h e insufficiency o f r e a s o n — t h a t is, h e is i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i n e w i t h t h e O r t h o d o x J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , j u s t as Strauss h a d r e p r e s e n t e d M a i m o n i d e s i n his b o o k o n S p i n o z a . W h e n Strauss c o m ­ pleted the introduction, h o w e v e r , h e was just o n the cusp o f realizing the t r u e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f his earlier d i s c o v e r y i n A v i c e n n a t h a t t h e m e d i e v a l t r a d i ­ t i o n r e g a r d e d P l a t o ' s Laws ( r a t h e r t h a n A r i s t o t l e ' s Politics) as t h e s o u r c e for its philosophical exposition of prophetology.

1 0 5

In other words, while L ö w i t h ,

j u s t i f i a b l y b a s i n g h i m s e l f o n t h e e n t i r e t y o f Philosophy

of Law, t o o k Strauss's

e n d o r s e m e n t o f " t h e i d e a o f L a w " as a n e n d o r s e m e n t o f t h e O r t h o d o x " i d e a o f L a w , " w h a t Strauss actually m e a n t t o say at t h e e n d o f his i n t r o d u c t i o n h a d little t o d o w i t h w h a t f o l l o w e d i n t h e c h a p t e r s o f t h e b o o k . T h e o n l y o n e w h o simply accepted w h a t was evident on the page—namely, that the i n t r o ­ d u c t i o n e n d e d i n a n u n r e s o l v e d t e n s i o n — a n d w h o g a v e clear e x p r e s s i o n t o this p u z z l i n g o d d i t y w a s Strauss's friend J a c o b K l e i n , w h o m Strauss c a l l e d his perscrutator cordis

m

mei.

[B]ut where is Maimuni's enlightenment to lead us? It is entirely clear to m e that an answer is here not immediately possible: it is the situation in w h i c h w e find ourselves to begin with: to anticipate an answer w o u l d n o longer m e a n to-want-to-understand-backward. Klein continues, anticipating some of the misunderstandings, that "at least o n e c o u l d , following y o u r p r e s e n t a t i o n , r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n : w h y t h e n n o t O r t h o d o x y after all?!" H e f u r t h e r reads Strauss's d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n m o d ­ e r n Redlichkeit a n d t h e a n c i e n t i d e a l o f " l o v e o f t r u t h " as a c r i t i q u e o f t h e m o d e r n v i r t u e , a n d h e c o r r e c d y fears t h a t t h e i n e v i t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n for Strauss's

25

Introduction

r e a d e r s t o d r a w w a s t o t a k e this for a f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t in favor o f t h e O r t h o ­ d o x tradition. It seems to m e that y o u yourself have said something very, very important w h e n y o u d o notidentify "probity" with "love of truth." H e n c e everything remains open. T o w h i c h I myself have n o objections. But it is clear that the people will raise this objection against y o u . 107

F r o m t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n o n J a c o b i t o t h e b o o k o n S p i n o z a , Strauss w a s g u i d e d b y t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e s p h e r e o f t h e i n t e l l e c t is h e d g e d i n o n b o t h e n d s o f t h e s p e c t r u m o f its activities b y i r r a t i o n a l first " g i v e n s , " a n d t h a t t h e s e " g i v e n s " are n o t t h e r e f o r e less real t h a n t h e h u m a n c o n s c i o u s n e s s . O n t h e e m p i r i ­ cal side, t h e d a t a o f sense p e r c e p t i o n a r e t h e m s e l v e s p r e r e q u i s i t e for all h u m a n k n o w l e d g e ; w i t h o u t their givenness, n o intellectual activity c o u l d begin. A c ­ tions

o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r t h e i n t e l l e c t (Verstand)

a r e t h u s passive a n d r e ­

c e p t i v e r a t h e r t h a n a c t i v e a n d g e n e r a t i v e . T h i s is similarly t h e c a s e — a c c o r d ­ i n g t o this r e a s o n i n g — w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e h i g h e s t o b j e c t s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y r e a s o n , t h a t is, G o d a n d t h e g o o d . H e r e , t o o , t h e a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t h u m a n i n t e l l e c t d o e s n o t g e n e r a t e its o b j e c t s (e.g., as p o s t u l a t e s o f p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n ) b u t r a t h e r r e c e i v e s t h e m f r o m g i v i n g (gebende) faculties t h a t are m o r e closely r e l a t e d t o t h e a c t u a l realities t h e y p e r c e i v e t h a n t h e i n t e l l e c t t h a t m e r e l y a n a ­ lyzes a n d c o n c e p t u a l i z e s t h e p r i m a r y e x p e r i e n c e . W h i l e J a c o b i calls t h e p r i ­ m a r y p e r c e p t i o n o f reality b e l i e f (Glaube),

h e d o e s n o t identify it w i t h t h e

d o g m a s o f a n y r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n . S u c h a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is a s e c o n d a r y s t e p , r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i m m e d i a t e e x p e r i e n c e , y e t it is n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e all e x p e ­ rience

calls for a r t i c u l a t i o n . It m u s t find its f o r m in l a n g u a g e . T h i s p o s i t i o n is

u s u a l l y n o l o n g e r i m m e d i a t e l y associated w i t h J a c o b i , b u t is n e v e r t h e l e s s w e l l k n o w n , as it e n t e r e d i n t o t h e n i n e t e e n t h - a n d t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y d i s c o u r s e o n religion t h r o u g h Friedrich Schleiermacher and R u d o l f O t t o .

1 0 8

Strauss t r a n s p o s e s this v i e w i n t o t h e l a n g u a g e o f C a s s i r e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n " t h e p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e " (das Erkenntnisproblem).

H e uses relatively u n s y s t e m a t i c

assertions, s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t J a c o b i ' s w r i t i n g s , t o e r e c t a d u a l i t y o f r a d i ­ cally o p p o s e d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e w o r l d . O n e a t t i t u d e is called " c o u r a g e o u s l y b e l i e v i n g , " a n d t h e o t h e r is called " t i m i d l y d o u b t i n g . " As Strauss later p e n c i l s i n t o his c o p y o f t h e e x t r a c t f r o m his d i s s e r t a t i o n , it is i r o n i c t h a t this a p p r o a c h t o J a c o b i is so far r e m o v e d f r o m J a c o b i ' s o w n a p p r o a c h . It also flies i n t h e face o f Cassirer, w h o s e i d e a l i s m , as w e s a w a b o v e , h e criticizes o p e n l y i n " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n Science," and w h o represents just that timidity a n d d o u b t i n g of the M a r b u r g school from w h i c h h e explicitly e x e m p t s Hermann Cohen.

26

Introduction Strauss w a s t o r e t a i n a n d d e v e l o p t h e r h e t o r i c o f radical o p p o s i t e s t h a t h e

a p p l i e d t o J a c o b i . B u t h e d i d n o t l e a r n it f r o m J a c o b i . T h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t i r r a t i o n a l g r o u n d s p r e c e d e d all r a t i o n a l i s m w a s r e a d i l y d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p o s t ­ w a r generation t h r o u g h the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. S c h o p e n h a u e r h a d t u r n e d Kant's p r i m a c y of practical reason into the all-encompassing p o w e r o f t h e w i l l . N i e t z s c h e finally i n v e r t e d t h e f o r m e r ' s p e s s i m i s m , h e r a l d i n g t h e a r i s t o c r a c y o f t h e a m o r a l . Strauss b e g i n s w i t h N i e t z s c h e ' s i n s i g h t , as c u l t i ­ vated in t h e g r o u n d b r e a k i n g sociological w o r k of M a x W e b e r . T h e opposite a t t i t u d e s o f t h e m i n d d e s c r i b e d b y Strauss a r e W e b e r i a n " t y p e s " o f a t t i t u d e s t h a t c o m p e t e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e y are g r o u n d e d i n i r r e c o n c i l a b l e v a l u e j u d g m e n t s . T h e y o u n g Strauss a d v o c a t e s t h e h e r o i c v a l u e s t h a t are i n l i n e w i t h N i e t z s c h e ' s r e j e c t i o n o f slave m o r a l i t y . I n this spirit, h e c o m m e n d s t h e m o r a l r a d i c a l i s m o f t h e a r c h - a n t i - S e m i t e P a u l d e L a g a r d e t o his Z i o n i s t r e a d e r s as a m o d e l o f " r e f l e c t i v e n e s s . " It o n l y d a w n s o n h i m v e r y g r a d u a l l y t h a t o p p o s i t e f o r m s o f m o r a l r a d i c a l i s m (such as t h a t o f t h e G e r m a n i n s p i r e d by Nietzsche a n d that of the Zionist writer inspired by entirely

different

i n f l u e n c e s ; see " P a u l d e L a g a r d e " ) are n o t o n l y b e y o n d r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , b u t that n o orientation w h a t s o e v e r can b e gained from their decisionist j u x t a p o ­ sition.

109

E q u i p p e d w i t h t h e N i e t z s c h e a n a p p a r a t u s , t h e n , Strauss steps i n t o t h e w o r l d o f Z i o n i s t d i s c o u r s e . O r , as h e d e s c r i b e s it i n an o b l i q u e l y a u t o b i o ­ g r a p h i c r e m i n i s c e n c e f r o m 1 9 2 3 i n w h i c h h e a l r e a d y establishes a n i r o n i c d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d his first f e w p u b l i c a t i o n s , It frequently happens in the Zionist y o u t h m o v e m e n t that o u r y o u n g stu­ dents, writing in o n e of o u r journals, immediately apply to o u r o w n p r o b ­ lems those philosophical, sociological, or historical theories w h i c h they have b e c o m e acquainted with in the universities, somewhat heedless of the p o s ­ sible dubiousness of such applications. W h i l e this p h e n o m e n o n at first a p ­ pears t o be merely amusing, springing as it does from a t o u c h i n g lack of reflectiveness [Unreflektiertheit], it nevertheless has a serious background: in t h e final analysis, it mirrors the spiritual situation of G e r m a n Judaism as a w h o l e . ("The H o l y , " p. 75) O f c o u r s e n o w g r e a t l y m a t u r e d , Strauss d o e s n o t miss t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x t r a p o l a t e f r o m his o w n e x p e r i e n c e a n d u s e it for his d i a g n o s i s o f t h e " s p i r i ­ t u a l s i t u a t i o n o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m as a w h o l e . " R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e p r a c t i c a l use t o w h i c h Strauss p u t s his i n s i g h t i n t o i r r a ­ t i o n a l first a s s u m p t i o n s , his a p p r o a c h is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e d e c i s i o n i s m t h a t is i m p l i e d i n t h e i r j u x t a p o s i t i o n . H e h i m s e l f is u n d e r t h e spell o f h i s t o r i c i s m ,

27

Introduction

l a b o r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e Z i o n i s t i m p e r a t i v e for his t i m e . Y e t h e d i a g n o s e s t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h Z i o n i s m is o p e r a t i n g w i t h a rare l e v e l o f clarity, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o b l e m a t i c n a t u r e o f s u c h an i m p e r a t i v e . I n fact, h e is d r i v e n b y the realization that w h a t e v e r the driving assumptions of Z i o n i s m are, t h e y l a c k sufficient self-reflection. T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f c e r t a i n i m p e r a t i v e s g u i d i n g t h e Z i o n i s t d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e t i m e w a s b a s e d o n false a s s u m p t i o n s . T h e f o r e ­ m o s t r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e h o u r w a s t h e r e f o r e o n e o f c r i t i q u e . It c o n s i s t e d i n f a c i n g u p t o t h e fact t h a t Z i o n i s m w a s n o t a c t u a l l y a c u l t u r a l l i b e r a t i o n f r o m E u r o p e a n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , since it d e p e n d e d o n t h o s e v e r y p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . J u l i u s G u t t m a n n w a s n o t so far off t h e m a r k w h e n h e classified t h e Strauss o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophy

and Law as an existentialist, for t h e s t a n c e t a k e n

b y Strauss c a n b e easily m i s t a k e n for a n existentialist o n e . H i s early w r i t i n g s a r e p e r m e a t e d b y t h e d i a g n o s i s o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e o p p o s i t e s (e.g., t h e o p p o s i ­ tion b e t w e e n O r t h o d o x y and atheism in the Zionist writings, a n d the o p p o ­ s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a sufficiency v e r s u s an insufficiency o f h u ­ m a n r e a s o n i n Spinoza's losophy and Law),

Critique of Religion

a n d e v e n i n t h e c h a p t e r s o f Phi­

o r b y t h e diagnosis o f d i s h o n e s t m i x t u r e s o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e

o p p o s i t e s (e.g., t h e m i x t u r e o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d r e l i g i o n t h a t leads t o m o d ­ e r n a t h e i s t t h e o l o g y ) . L i b e r a l s c i e n c e - o r i e n t e d b e l i e f i n p e r f e c t i b i l i t y is g r o u n d e d i n a n i r r a t i o n a l r e j e c t i o n o f t h e fear o f t h e g o d s (the r a b b i n i c t r o p e o f api'/eorswf/Epicureanism r e v e r b e r a t e s t h r o u g h Strauss's e s s a y s ) .

110

O n c e the

e x t r e m e o p p o s i t e s are s e e n as e q u a l l y g r o u n d e d i n i r r a t i o n a l a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d o n c e t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f s u c h a s s u m p t i o n s is e x c l u d e d , o n l y o n e a l t e r n a t i v e s e e m s t o r e m a i n : t h e p h i l o s o p h e r w h o a r t i c u l a t e s this i n s i g h t g l o a t i n g i n t h e h e r o i s m o f t h e ability t o stare b a c k at t h e G o r g o n ' s h e a d of—absolutely n o t h i n g . F o l l o w i n g o n e of the m a n y veiled autobiographical suggestions that w e f i n d s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t his early w r i t i n g s , it s e e m s as if at o n e p o i n t Strauss is l o o k i n g b a c k o n h i s o w n effort t o a r r i v e at a " s t a n d p o i n t . "

1 1 1

A n y standpoint that is at all to be taken seriously is the w o r k of a t r e m e n ­ dous effort m a d e b y a single person. After having b r o k e n through to his standpoint, K a n t — w h o had already scored achievements before that alone w o u l d have m a d e h i m immortal (the Kant-Laplace-theorem), w h o was n o t an inexperienced y o u n g m a n still in need of acquiring the necessary k n o w l ­ edge of facts—needed eleven years in order for the Critique of Pure Reason not even to be written, but to be thought. ('"Religiöse Lage der Gegenwatt,'" in GS, 2:382) If w h a t h e w r i t e s a b o u t K a n t c a n b e t a k e n as a r e f l e c t i o n o f Strauss's o w n efforts at a r r i v i n g at a clear n o t i o n o f w h a t h e w a s really after, it leads us t o t h e

28

Introduction

e x a c t d a t e at w h i c h t h e essay c o n t a i n i n g this q u o t a t i o n is w r i t t e n , n a m e l y t o t h e year 1930 ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t ' " ) . I n t h e s a m e essay, Strauss t u r n s a w a y f r o m m a n y q u e s t i o n s , r e d u c i n g t h e m t o o n e , t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n t h a t m a t t e r s , w h i c h is a timeless o n e : W h i c h is t h e r i g h t life? T h e q u e s t i o n has b e e n t h e s a m e t h r o u g h o u t t i m e , b u t t h e m o d e r n s u s p i c i o n is t h a t it o n l y s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n so. H i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s ­ ness forestalls t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r a i s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i v e l y a n d a n s w e r i n g it i n a n u n a m b i g u o u s m a n n e r . Strauss w a x e s p o e t i c w h e n d e s c r i b i n g t h e l u r e s of the present: If w e pose the question of the right life freely and candidly, convinced that w e can answer it if w e honestly try and if w e mind n o detour, t h e n the present blocks o u r way, clothed in the most luxurious garments and w i t h the raised eyebrows of a person superior in knowledge and high in rank, and calls o u t to us: Halt! Y o u innocent! D o n ' t you k n o w that, year by year, the inexhaustible earth brings forth n e w generations, all destined, having barely matured, to march with the w h o l e fire of y o u t h toward the truth, t o w a r d the truth? This has been going o n for millennia. T h e attempt has b e e n m a d e for millennia, and it has failed again and again. O n c e u p o n a time, the later ones w e r e n o t deterred by the failure of the earlier ones; blinded, they said to themselves: if those ones failed—perhaps they had set o u t the w r o n g way; let us simply begin anew; let us begin from scratch. A n d they began from scratch, and they t o o failed. T h e wretched ones did n o t k n o w — w h a t I, the present, the mighty goddess, k n o w — t h a t they had to fail. T h e y had t o fail, because they were looking for the truth. For the one eternal truth does n o t exist, b u t every age has its truth, and what you, t w e n t y years old, m a y reasonably pursue, is only y o u r truth, the truth of y o u r age, my, the present's, truth. In full possession of this knowledge, that is m y highest pride, I may smile at the past: at her naivete. . . . I grant p a r d o n to the earlier ones because, against their will, they did what I c o m m a n d m y children: to be sure, they searched for the truth, b u t they found t h e truth w i t h o u t time; they failed—measured by their standard; measured by my stan­ dard, they reached the goal. T h u s highly enthroned above all past, I call o u t t o y o u : it is right and proper for thinking beings to know w h a t they d o and w h a t they can reasonably want: k n o w therefore, and let it get t h r o u g h to you, that y o u can only find y o u r o w n truth, the truth of the present, and h e n c e y o u can reasonably search only for this truth. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " in GS, 2:380f.) 112

H o w is this call o f t h e p r e s e n t t o b e resisted? H a v i n g s p e n t a l m o s t t e n years w i t h analyses o f w h a t w a s t h e n ( 1 9 3 0 ) d i s c a r d e d as t h e " p o l y p h o n o u s n o i s e o f the public," having examined opinions and counteropinions that could n o t

Introduction be reconciled in any "synthesis,"

113

29

Strauss c o n c l u d e s t h a t it is b e t t e r t o " d e ­

spair i n t h e face o f t h e i r c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a n [to a r g u e i n s u p p o r t of] a d u l l a n d c o w a r d l y h o d g e p o d g e . " B u t w h a t if "all p r e s e n t s t a n d p o i n t s " w e r e t o " r e s t o n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f basic facts?" N o t t h a t h e b e l i e v e s it, b u t w h e n c e is such examination of present opinions to be accomplished? O n l y by stepping o u t of the present. If w e want to k n o w the present as it is, free of all ruling conceptions that w e must first examine, t h e n w e must be free of the present. This freedom does not fall right into o u r lap, but w e must c o n q u e r it. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 384) In a m o v e that resembles H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s critique o f the mythological state o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s , Strauss rejects d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e p r e s e n c e as a p r e j u ­ dice: Just because humanity always has a present, it does n o t immediately follow that o n e needs to m i n d it: our fate is not o u r task. This is the principal mistake to w h i c h the h u m a n being of today succumbs again and again: the a t t e m p t o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e task from t h e fate. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 384) Stepping away from dependence o n the opinions of the present means step­ p i n g a w a y f r o m o p i n i o n s a l t o g e t h e r . H e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, w e f i n d o u r s e l v e s i n a s i t u a t i o n t h a t , i n t h e W e s t e r n t r a d i t i o n , w a s first a d d r e s s e d b y Socrates. This question was posed for the first time by Socrates. W h e t h e r , and to w h a t extent he himself gave an answer to it, remains in the dark. In any case, his student Plato answered it: in the Politeia [i.e., in Plato's Republic]. In this w o r k , in order to illustrate the difficulty of truthful k n o w i n g , Plato compares t h e situation of the h u m a n being w i t h the situation of cave dwell­ ers: a cave w i t h a long entrance, extending upwards; the people caught in the cave since childhood, their legs and necks in chains; hence they always remain at the same spot, and they are prevented from turning their heads by the chain around their neck. From above, the glow of a fire shines from afar; a path runs above b e t w e e n the fire and the chained ones, along w h o s e length a l o w wall has b e e n erected. Passing along this wall, people carry all sorts of instruments, figures, etc. T h e chained ones can obviously see only the shadows of those instruments that are projected by the effect of the fire o n t o the opposite wall of the cave; hence, to t h e m the shadows are the true things. If o n e of t h e m were to be released and able to look up freely t o w a r d

30

Introduction the light, s o m e t h i n g that could only be d o n e by suffering great pain, he w o u l d b e blinded b y the radiance, and hence he w o u l d not be able to recognize the things whose shadow he had seen earlier. H e w o u l d not k n o w w h e r e t o turn, if he w e r e told that he n o w saw the things whose shadows he had hitherto seen; moreover, the view of the light itself w o u l d hurt h i m so m u c h that he w o u l d turn away and seek to return into the darkness of the cave; and it w o u l d need a long habituation and effort, even the use of force, until he was able to recognize the true things, and live in the light of truth. R e t u r n e d to the cave, he w o u l d keep the m e m o r y of his life in the light, b u t for this very reason, he w o u l d appear completely incomprehensible and ridiculous to his comrades. — T h u s , then, Plato presents the difficulties of doing philosophy, the natural difficulties. If they are so extraordinary, n o w o n d e r that there are so many contradictory opinions. Mindful of the Pla­ tonic parable, w e shall not be deterred by the anarchy of opinions, b u t w e will have t o try as hard as w e can to leave the cave. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 385f.) 114

Y e t t h e difficulties e n c o u n t e r e d a n d d e s c r i b e d b y P l a t o as t h e " n a t u r a l " difficulties o f d o i n g p h i l o s o p h y d o n o t sufficiently d e s c r i b e t h o s e e n c o u n ­ t e r e d b y t h e m o d e r n s . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e n a t u r a l difficulties o f d o i n g p h i l o s o ­ p h y , m o d e r n i t y s t r u g g l e s w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e l i g i o n t h a t p l a c e d itself b e ­ t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e m o d e r n s a n d a d d e d its o w n set o f p r o b l e m s t h a t n e e d t o b e c o m p r e h e n d e d b e f o r e o n e c a n successfully r e t u r n t o t h e l e v e l a c h i e v e d b y t h e ancients. R e l a t i v e t o t h e ancients, w e reside i n a " s e c o n d c a v e . " T o use t h e classical presentation of the natural difficulties of philosophizing, namely Plato's parable of the cave, o n e may say that today w e find ourselves in a second, m u c h deeper cave than the lucky ignorant ones Socrates dealt with; w e need history first of all in order to ascend to the cave from w h i c h Socrates can lead us to light; w e need a propaedeutic, w h i c h the Greeks did n o t need, namely, learning t h r o u g h reading. ( " R e v i e w of Ebbinghaus," p . 215) Strauss d i s c o v e r s t h e analysis o f w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e c a u s e for t h e m o d ­ e r n d e s c e n t i n t o a " s e c o n d c a v e " i n M a i m o n i d e s ' Guide of the

Perplexed.

W e said: Plato represented the natural difficulties of philosophizing. T h a t is, those difficulties that are natural to the h u m a n being as such, as a sensualspiritual being, those difficulties that, according to the Platonic conception, are given t h r o u g h the senses. W e say "natural," because there are difficul­ ties that are n o t "natural," b u t are effective only u n d e r certain p r e c o n d i ­ tions. In t h e Guide of the Perplexed, 1:31, R M b M adds to the Greeks' reasons

31

Introduction for disagreements in philosophy, and hence for the difficulty of doing p h i ­ losophy, a fourth reason; in this regard he says literally: "in our time, there is a fourth reason that he (sc. Alexander of Aphrodisias) did not m e n t i o n , because it did n o t exist there, namely habituation and education; for h u m a n beings love b y nature what they are habituated to, and they incline t o w a r d i t ; . . . so it goes w i t h the h u m a n being in regard to the opinions with w h i c h he was raised: he loves t h e m , and he holds o n to t h e m , and he avoids deviant opinions. For this additional reason, then, the h u m a n being is p r e ­ vented from k n o w i n g the truth. This is w h a t happens to the multitude w i t h regard t o t h e corporeality of G o d . . . o n grounds of their habituation to the Scriptures that they firmly believe in and that they are used t o , whose literal m e a n i n g seems to point to the corporeality of G o d . . . ." W e note: the difficulty of doing philosophy is fundamentally increased, and the freedom of doing philosophy is fundamentally reduced, by the fact that a revelationbased tradition has stepped into the w o r l d of philosophy. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " in G S , 2:386)

O n w h i c h Strauss c o m m e n t s f u r t h e r , In a m a n n e r of speaking, the struggle of the entire period of the last three centuries, t h e struggle of the Enlightenment, is sketched, drawn u p , in R M b M ' s c o m m e n t : in order to make philosophizing possible in its n a t u ­ rally difficult state, the artificial complication of philosophizing must be removed; o n e must fight against prejudices. H e r e i n lies a fundamental differ­ ence b e t w e e n m o d e r n and Greek philosophy: whereas the latter only fights against appearance and opinion, m o d e m philosophy begins by fighting against prejudices. H e n c e , in this respect, t h e Enlightenment wants to restore Greek freedom. W h a t does it achieve? It achieves the freedom of answering, b u t n o t t h e freedom of asking, only the freedom to say n o , instead of the traditional yes (mortality as opposed to immortality, accident as opposed to providence, atheism as opposed to theism, passion as opposed to intellect). This liberation from the yes of tradition comes about t h r o u g h an all t h e m o r e profound entanglement in tradition. T h u s , the Enlightenment c o n ­ ducts its fight against tradition in the n a m e of tolerance, i.e., ultimately in the n a m e o f the love of the neighbor [Nächstenliebe]; thus religion is n o w m a d e to rest entirely o n the love of the neighbor, but in a way that, along w i t h the d o u b t about the love of the neighbor (in its enlightened u n d e r ­ standing), religion as such becomes completely doubtful. O r , to take an example from the later stages of the Enlightenment: w h e n the E n l i g h t e n ­ m e n t turns openly atheistic and believes it has found G o d out as being constituted b y the h u m a n heart, it does so, of all things, by absorbing into h u m a n i t y w h a t had hitherto b e e n definitions of the deity: self-redemption of humanity, self-guaranteeing of i m m o r t a l i t y , taking o n of providence. 115

116

32

Introduction A n d w h e n at every stage of the Enlightenment there arise opponents o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , these opponents o n their part adopt the achievements of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t and reconstruct t h e m in accord w i t h their positions. (E.g.: revelation is understood as h u m a n production, as custom and as form, rather than as Law; creation n o t as the creation of the world, b u t as the mandate o f all humanity, issued before they came into existence.) Since t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , it has been generally the case that each generation reacted to t h e p r e c e d i n g generation w i t h o u t calling its foundations into question. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 387) It s e e m s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t , at this p o i n t , Strauss is i n d e e d y e a r n i n g for a

r e t r i e v a l o f g e n u i n e b e l i e f i n r e v e l a t i o n . Y e t t h e essay also uses l a n g u a g e t h a t suggests t h a t h e is n o t s p e a k i n g o f a " b a c k flip i n t o t h e w o r l d o f t h e S h u l k h a n A r u k h , " as R o s e n z w e i g o n c e p u t it. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , Strauss says t h a t t h e a n s w e r t o t h e m o d e r n c o n u n d r u m s h o u l d b e s o u g h t i n a c o u r a g e o u s step f o r w a r d : " W e m u s t a l w a y s l o o k forward,

s t r a i g h t a h e a d ; reflectiveness w i l l

never t e a c h us w h a t w e n e e d t o d o " ( ' " R e l i g i ö s e L a g e d e r G e g e n w a r t ' , " i n GS,

2 : 3 8 5 ) . I n this, h e i m p l i c i t l y dismisses o n e o f his earlier m a x i m s ( " T h e

J e w is i n n e e d o f a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y m e a s u r e o f r e f l e c t i v e n e s s . . . " i n " P a u l d e Lagarde," p . 90). T h e courageous m o v e forward must not be undertaken w i t h o u t h e e d i n g t h e w a r n i n g s of t h e " p r e s e n t , " yet the w a r n i n g s are n o t t o discourage o n e w h o wants t o leave the present b e h i n d . Strauss feels c o n f i d e n t t h a t a n e w , n a ï v e raising o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f " H o w a r e w e t o l i v e ? " is p o s s i b l e , a n d it is p o s s i b l e , at least a c c o r d i n g t o ' " R e l i g i ö s e L a g e d e r G e g e n w a r t , ' " p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e w e h a v e r e a c h e d t h e e n d o f all t r a d i t i o n . W e a r e at t h e e n d e v e n o f t h e s t r u g g l e against t r a d i t i o n . T h e o n e c r e d i t e d w i t h a c c o m p l i s h i n g this e n d is N i e t z s c h e . T h r o u g h Nietzsche, tradition has b e e n shaken to its roots. It has completely lost its self-evident truth. W e are left in this world w i t h o u t any authority, any direction. O n l y n o w has the question Trais ßicuTeov again received its full edge. W e can pose it again. W e have t h e possibility of posing it fully in earnest. W e can n o longer read Plato's dialogues superficially only to puzzle over h o w m u c h old Plato k n e w about such and such; w e can n o longer superficially polemicize against him. Similarly w i t h the Bible: w e n o longer self-evidently agree w i t h the prophets; w e ask ourselves seriously w h e t h e r perhaps t h e kings w e r e right. W e must really begin from the very beginning. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 389) B u t it w o u l d h a r d l y b e t h e Strauss o f 1 9 3 0 w e r e h e n o t t o t u r n a r o u n d o n himself, c a l l i n g i n t o q u e s t i o n his o w n a s s e r t i o n .

Introduction

33

W e can begin from the very beginning: w e are lacking all polemic affect toward tradition (having n o t h i n g wherefrom to be polemical against it); and at the same time, tradition is utterly alien to us, utterly questionable. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 389) H e n c e , i n t h e p e r i o d w i t h w h i c h w e e n d this v o l u m e , n o d e f i n i t e a n s w e r is g i v e n . W h a t r e m a i n s ? Q u i t e a lot, i n d e e d . F o r Strauss h i m s e l f c o n c l u d e s t h e essay f r o m w h i c h w e q u o t e d b y s e t t i n g t h e stage for his e n t i r e f u t u r e agenda. But w e cannot immediately answer o n o u r o w n , for w e k n o w that w e are deeply entangled in a tradition: w e are even m u c h lower d o w n than t h e cave dwellers of P l a t o . W e must rise to the origin of tradition, to t h e level of natural ignorance. ('"Religiöse Lage der G e g e n w a r t , ' " 389) 117

It s e e m s t h a t , after t e n years o f s t r u g g l i n g , Strauss h a d finally b e g u n t o f i n d his w a y o u t o f t h e u r b a n c o r r u p t i o n , a w a y t h a t t h e W a n d e r b u n d B l a u Weiss h a d b e e n unable to provide because of the pervasive p o w e r of preju­ d i c e . Y e t this n e w " r e t u r n t o n a t u r e " leads n o t i n t o t h e w o o d s b u t i n t o a n archaeological d i g .

1 1 8

It is a r e t u r n t o t h e n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e city, t h e

polis. T o u s e a different i m a g e ( o n e t h a t Strauss i n v o k e s in " E c c l e s i a m i l i t a n s " ) , t h e s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h m o d e r n m a n finds h i m s e l f r e s e m b l e s t h a t o f a b u i l d e r o n t o p o f t h e T o w e r o f B a b e l w h o is so far r e m o v e d f r o m t h e f o u n d a t i o n s t h a t n e i t h e r h e n o r a n y o n e else a r o u n d h i m has a n y t h i n g left b u t o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e static a n d m a t e r i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o n t o p o f w h i c h , h o w e v e r , h e is r e q u i r e d t o b u i l d f u r t h e r . Strauss d e c i d e s t h a t t h e o n l y w a y o f a c c o m p l i s h i n g this is t o d e s c e n d t o t h e f o u n d a t i o n s a n d r e e x a m i n e t h e s t r u c ­ ture. T H E V I R T U E OF M O D E S T Y

Strauss starts o u t s o m e w h e r e i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , t h e d i a l e c ­ tic t h e o l o g i a n s .

1 1 9

H e h i m s e l f later p o i n t s t o t h e p r e f a c e t o K a r l B a r t h ' s c o m ­

m e n t a r y o n t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e R o m a n s as a t e x t t h a t is o f i n t e r e s t n o t o n l y t o theologians;

1 2 0

a n d h e sends to Friedrich G o g a r t e n o n e of the decisive texts o f

his p h a s e o f r e o r i e n t a t i o n i n w h i c h h e analyzes t h e " n e w s o p h i s m " o f o u r age.

1 2 1

N o t u n l i k e R u d o l f B u l t m a n n ' s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a historisch a n d a ^ e schichtlich a p p r o a c h — o n e b e h o l d e n t o t h e fate o f t h e past, t h e o t h e r o n e a d a r i n g p r o j e c t i o n i n t o t h e f u t u r e — t h e early Strauss seeks t o u n d e r s t a n d t r u e

34

Introduction

r e l i g i o n as t h a t w h i c h h o l d s a d e e p l y n e c e s s a r y , d e e p l y r a t i o n a l , a n d b e n e f i c i a l b a l m t h a t c a n h e a l t h e m o d e r n illness. H i s early essays t e n d t o w a r d a j u x t a p o ­ sition o f t h e t w o attitudes h e derives from the tradition of Jacobi, Schleier­ macher, Kierkegaard, O t t o , Barth, and Rosenzweig, the either/or of intel­ l e c t a n d faith, w h i c h is m e d i a t e d o n l y t h r o u g h t h e w i l l . H i s t o r y a n d p o l i t i c s a r e c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e b a t t l e for d o m i n a n c e b e t w e e n u l t i m a t e l y i r r a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e e a c h a n d all a b s o l u t e s a n d totalities. A s is w e l l k n o w n , b y 1 9 3 6 Strauss a b a n d o n e d t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t r e l i ­ g i o n m a y c o n s t i t u t e t h e g r e a t " o t h e r " t h a t is j u x t a p o s e d t o r e a s o n .

1 2 2

His

d i s c o v e r y o f t h e " e x o t e r i c " as a stylistic d e v i c e t h a t is c o m m o n t o all g r e a t p h i l o s o p h e r s m a k e s h i m realize t h a t t h e o n l y o p p o s i t i o n w o r t h t a l k i n g a b o u t is t h a t b e t w e e n p h i l o s o p h y a n d n o n p h i l o s o p h y . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t Strauss abandons the n o t i o n of thé i n h e r e n d y rational core of revealed religion.

1 2 3

W h a t h e a b a n d o n s is t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t r e l i g i o n , as c o n c e i v e d i n t h e context of the writings of the medieval Enlightenment of Maimonides and h i s M u s l i m p r e d e c e s s o r s , rests o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f an insufficiency o f h u ­ m a n r e a s o n . Strauss calls this " T h o m i s t i c " s t a n c e a d e t o u r h e h a d t o g o t h r o u g h b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e e x o t e r i c a n d , b y m e a n s o f it, M a i m o n i d e s . T h e c o n c e p t o f t h e L a w is h e n c e f o r t h a p o l i t i c a l c o n c e p t . Y e t it is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t , after t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e p o l i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f all p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g , Strauss l a r g e l y abstains f r o m w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e T o r a h itself.

124

A s w e h a v e said, t h e v i r t u e at t h e c o r e o f Strauss's early w r i t i n g s is t h a t o f c o u r a g e . H e praises " c o u r a g e o u s l y b e l i e v i n g " i n his d i s s e r t a t i o n o n J a c o b i , a n d r e c o m m e n d s it o v e r w h a t t h e n s e e m e d t o Strauss c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e C a r t e s i a n a t t i t u d e , t h a t is, " t i m i d l y d o u b t i n g . " T h e early Strauss is a decisionist, a n d e v e n t h e late Strauss r e m a i n s m i n d f u l o f N i e t z s c h e ' s c r i t i q u e o f m o r a l i t y . M o r a l i t y , h e e m p h a s i z e s i n 1 9 7 0 i n " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s , " is t o h i m not t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e . Y e t , b e g i n n i n g i n t h e 1 9 3 0 s , m o d e r a t i o n r e p l a c e s c o u r a g e as t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e i n t h e r e a l m o f t h e spirit, as w e l l as i n t h e p u b l i c s p h e r e . M o d e r a t i o n is t h e p r a c t i c a l i d e a l o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r w h o a c c e p t s t h a t i n t h e p u b l i c r e a l m n o totalities o r a b s o l u t e s c a n b e r e a l i z e d , n o r m u s t s u c h a r e a l i z a ­ tion be attempted. W i t h the understanding of the fundamental tension b e ­ t w e e n p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e a s o n i n g a n d t h e p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , Strauss r e a c h e s t h e " s t a n d p o i n t " f r o m w h i c h t o a r g u e against t h e flaws o f t h e m o d e r n i d e a l i z a ­ t i o n s o f t h e s p h e r e o f h u m a n a g e n c y . A t t h e e n d , Strauss's e n t i r e w o r k t u r n s i n t o a n a r g u m e n t n o t o n l y o n b e h a l f o f t h e f r e e d o m t o p h i l o s o p h i z e b u t also o n b e h a l f o f t h e m o d e r a t e , y e t real, liberties o f t h e p o l i t i c a l b e i n g . T h e early Straussian a g e n d a c o u l d also b e d e s c r i b e d as r e a c h i n g for a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l as d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e m o r a l a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s . T h i s a w a r e n e s s for t h e p o l i t i c a l w a s c e r t a i n l y r o o t e d i n t h e d e b a t e s

35

Introduction

a m o n g the y o u n g G e r m a n J e w i s h intellectuals of the renaissance g e n e r a t i o n o n the future of the political Z i o n i s m that h a d b e e n inaugurated b y H e r z l a n d t h a t , t o Strauss, w a s m o s t v i v i d l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y J a b o t i n s k y . B u t t h e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m o f his d a y is n o t w h a t gives Strauss's w r i t i n g s t h e i r p e c u l i a r e d g e . W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s his early w o r k f r o m t h e start is t h e " d i a l e c t i c a l s t y l e , " t h e m e n t a l agility, a n d t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s u b t l e t y a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e t h a t h e a b ­ s o r b e d d u r i n g his earliest p h i l o s o p h i c a l s t u d i e s o n t h e Pantheismusstreit tween Jacobi and Mendelssohn concerning Lessing.

125

be­

T h u s , w h e n Strauss

raises his v o i c e i n d e f e n s e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e r e l i g i o u s a n d cultural Zionist attempts to create a "third w a y , " a Buberian nationalism "sui g e n e r i s , " h e d o e s so as s o m e o n e w h o is less i n t e r e s t e d in p r a c t i c a l p o l i t i c s t h a n in a " r a d i c a l i s m o f t h e o r y . "

1 2 6

L e a r n i n g f r o m S p i n o z a , Strauss s e p a r a t e s t h e

political from the question of religious truth, a n d in k e e p i n g w i t h Machiavelli a n d his R o m a n t u t o r s h e separates t h e p o l i t i c a l f r o m m o r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . H e n c e w h e n , after years o f p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p o l i t i c a l , Strauss e n c o u n t e r s t h e w r i t i n g s o f C a r l S c h m i t t , h e n o t o n l y finds a familiar p o s i t i o n b u t also o n e t h a t c a n b e b r o u g h t t o g r e a t e r clarity a b o u t itself a n d its principles. T h e r e is, o f c o u r s e , a d e e p i r o n y i n t h e alliance o f Strauss w i t h S c h m i t t . W h a t is i r o n i c is t h a t it reveals h o w u n p o l i t i c a l (in t h e S c h m i t t i a n sense o f political) Strauss's p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y really is. Strauss's alliance w i t h t h e u l ­ t r a - c o n s e r v a t i v e R i g h t b l o o m s at a t i m e w h e n this u l t r a c o n s e r v a t i v e R i g h t s h e d s its last liberal restraints a n d b e g i n s t o act o n its a n t i - S e m i t i c p r i n c i p l e s . Strauss's a g r e e m e n t o n p r i n c i p l e w i t h S c h m i t t ' s c o n c e p t o f t h e p o l i t i c a l d o e s n o t b l i n d h i m t o t h e fact t h a t t h e lines b e t w e e n f r i e n d a n d foe are b e i n g c o m p l e t e l y r e d r a w n . B u t Strauss, t h e p h i l o s o p h e r , insists o n a c h o i c e t h a t h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h S c h m i t t ' s c o n c e p t o f t h e p o l i t i c a l . In t h e years 1 9 3 2 - 3 5 , Strauss t h e J e w k n o w s h e m u s t l e a v e G e r m a n y , b u t as a p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r h e c a n n o t d e n y t h e r i g h t o f t h e G e r m a n " n a t i o n a l u p r i s i n g , " e v e n if it m e a n s r e n e w e d ghettoization or expulsion of the J e w s . T o b e sure, in 1933 n e i t h e r Strauss n o r m o s t o f his c o n s e r v a t i v e G e r m a n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e s p e a k i n g o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p h y s i c a l a n n i h i l a t i o n o f t h e J e w s . Strauss's assent o n p r i n c i p l e t o t h e right o f a n a t i o n t o e n a c t e v e n t h e m o s t radical c o n s e r v a t i v e n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s m u s t n o t b e m i s t a k e n for a n assent t o t h e p h y s i c a l e r a d i c a t i o n o f his o w n p e o p l e . I n his early w r i t i n g s , Strauss d i s c o v e r e d t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o b l e m o f t h e p o l i t i c a l t h a t a r o s e for h i m c o n c r e t e l y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m . T h e p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n " H o w are w e t o l i v e ? " b e c a m e t h e t o o l b y w h i c h h e e x a m i n e d m o d e r n philosophies of religion and by w h i c h he cut t h r o u g h m u c h of the confusion that characterized the cultural philosophies of the

36

Introduction

time. It u l t i m a t e l y forced h i m t o t u r n b a c k t o t h e m e d i e v a l a n d a n c i e n t s o u r c e s , w h e r e he discovered a kindred type of writing: the exoteric writing of the g r e a t p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t e r s o f t h e past. I n a n i n t e r e s t i n g parallel t o H e i d e g g e r ' s h e r m e n e u t i c t u r n , t h e m a t u r e Strauss w a s s o m e o n e w h o h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e a t t e m p t t o s p e a k t h e r e d e m p t i v e w o r d for t h e m o m e n t , o n e w h o n o l o n g e r h a d t h e desire to participate in a political m o v e m e n t , o n e to w h o m t h e future h a d n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e n e x t g r e a t synthesis. A t t h e e n d o f t h e early w r i t i n g s s t a n d s a c o n f e s s i o n o f i g n o r a n c e , o n e t h a t m o v e s b e y o n d t h e docta ignorantia o f C h r i s t i a n E u r o p e t h a t is d i a g n o s e d as a r e g r e s s i o n b e l o w , r a t h e r t h a n a n a d v a n c e b e y o n d , t h e S o c r a t i c c a v e . T h e m o d e r n c o n f u s i o n is t o b e o v e r c o m e o n l y b y w a y o f a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d effort t o r e t u r n t o t h e n a t u r a l p r o b l e m s originally addressed b y G r e e k philosophy: a return to the roots of W e s t e r n t h o u g h t . I r o n i c a l l y , as Strauss p o i n t s o u t m u c h later, t h e act o f " r e ­ t u r n i n g " t h a t is a p p l i e d t o t h e G r e e k s t r a n d o f W e s t e r n t h o u g h t d e r i v e s f r o m the H e b r e w concept of

ni

teshuvah.

A f u r t h e r i r o n y o f Strauss's t u r n t o m e d i e v a l a n d a n c i e n t s o u r c e s is its a l m o s t t o t a l eclipse o f biblical a n d r a b b i n i c s o u r c e s . A s m u c h else i n Strauss's o e u v r e , t h i s r e l a t i v e eclipse m u s t n o t b e t a k e n as a n e g a t i v e v e r d i c t . W h e n , i n 1 9 3 5 , Strauss t u r n e d h i s b a c k o n r e l i g i o u s O r t h o d o x y as u n a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e m o d e r n J e w a n d o n p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m as u l t i m a t e l y a n insufficient s o l u t i o n t o t h e J e w i s h p r o b l e m , h e d i d so w i t h o u t i s s u i n g a real v e r d i c t o f c o n d e m n a ­ t i o n . A s a J e w h e t u r n e d t o classical p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y , b u t n o t w i t h o u t l e a v i n g h i m s e l f o p e n t o r e e n g a g i n g j e w i s h s o u r c e s a n d J e w i s h p o l i t i c a l reality after h a v i n g w o r k e d h i m s e l f b a c k t o t h e c a v e o f n a t u r a l i g n o r a n c e . F o r only then c o u l d h e e n v i s a g e h i m s e l f b e g i n n i n g a g a i n t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h a t r e v e l a t i o n m e a n s t o n a t u r a l m a n , t o a m a n as y e t u n t a i n t e d b y t h e m a n y reconciliations, sublations, and mitigations of revelation that have led to the m o d e r n i g n o r a n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e f u n d a m e n t a l difference b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n and philosophy.

1 2 8

It m a y h a v e b e e n this k i n d o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a c o n s i d e r ­

ation of "intellectual p r o b i t y , "

1 2 9

t h a t p r o v i d e d Strauss w i t h t h e c o n f i d e n c e

t h a t h e w a s n o t i n fact a b a n d o n i n g J u d a i s m at its d a r k e s t h o u r . If s o , it m u s t also b e a d m i t t e d t h a t Strauss w a s u n a b l e t o m a k e g o o d o n s u c h a p r o m i s e , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e it w a s t o o a m b i t i o u s for a single l i f e t i m e . It m a y also e x p l a i n w h y , t o d a y , w e see a r e v i v a l o f Straussian t h o u g h t a m o n g c o n s e r v a t i v e a n d O r t h o d o x J e w s . T h e r e is a d e c i d e d f e e l i n g o f u n f i n i s h e d b u s i n e s s t h a t s u r ­ r o u n d s Strauss's s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t J e w s a n d J u d a i s m , b u s i n e s s o f a k i n d t h a t c o n c e r n s us t o d a y . It is t h e r e f o r e h a r d l y for r e a s o n s o f h i s t o r i c a l c u r i o s i t y a l o n e t h a t Strauss's e a r l y w r i t i n g s d e s e r v e t o b e p u t b e f o r e t h e E n g l i s h - s p e a k ­ ing reader.

Introduction

37

NOTES

1. T h e early years of Strauss are the subject of Eugene R . Sheppard, "Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile" (Ph.D. diss, U C L A , 2001), written under the supervision of David Myers. While the text of this dissertation was not available to m e at the time of the completion of this introduction, Dr. Sheppard was kind enough to read a draft of this volume and offer a number of helpful suggestions. 2. For the following, see Leo Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modem Jewish Thought, ed. Kenneth Hart Green (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1997), 3 - 6 ; Heinrich Meier, "Vorwort des Herausgebers," in GS, 2:ix-xxxiv; and Leo Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts," in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 457-66. 3. This and the following in Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts," 460. 4. O n the following cf. Glenn Richard Sharfman, " T h e Jewish Youth Movement in Germany, 1900-1936: A Study in Ideology and Organization" (Ph.D. diss., University of N o r t h Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1989), and see text and notes to Strauss, "Response to Frankfurt's ' W o r d of Principle'," below. O n the Wanderbünde cf. Michael Brenner, The Renaissance ofJewish Culture in Weimar Germany ( N e w Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 230 n. 39; Chanoch Rinott, "Major Trends in Jewish Y o u t h Movements in Germany," in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book XIX (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1974), 7 7 95; Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York and San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), 194fF., 484ff.; idem, " T h e German Jewish Y o u t h M o v e m e n t and the 'Jewish Question'," in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book VI (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1961), 193-205; W e r n e r Rosenstock, " T h e Jewish Y o u t h M o v e m e n t , " in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book XIX (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1974), 9 7 - 1 0 2 . Cf. also Avraham Barkai, " T h e Organized Jewish C o m m u n i t y , " in Germanjewish History in Modern Times, ed. Michael A. Meyer with the editorial assistance of Michael Brenner, vol. 4: Renewal and Destruction, 1918-1945, ed. Avraham Barkai and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 9 0 - 9 5 ; and Jehuda Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land: The Dilemma of the German Jew, 1893-1914 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975), 152f. O n the significance of the student corporations for early German Zionism, see also, anecdotally, Richard Lichtheim, Rückkehr: Lebenserinnerungen aus der Frühzeit des deutschen Zionismus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1970), 7 9 - 9 4 . Blau-Weiss was founded in 1907 in Breslau (the German city with the largest urban Jewish population) and merged with a Berlin chapter in 1912, constituting the Jüdischer W a n d e r b u n d Blau-Weiss. T h e orientation of the Breslau chapter was reli­ gious Zionist. T h e most famous debate on the orientation of Blau Weiss involved Die blau-weisse Brille, a set of pamphlets authored by the seventeen-year-old Gershom Scholem and distributed privately between summer 1915 and early 1916, then in DerJude 1, no. 12 (March 1917): 8 2 2 - 2 5 , then in Blau-Weiss Führerzeitung, August 1917, 2 6 - 3 0 under the title " J u g e n d b e w e g u n g , Jugendarbeit, u n d Blau W e i s s " (English by W a l t e r Dannhauser in On Jews and Judaism in Crisis [New York: Schocken, 1976], 49-53), as well as Scholem's critique of the Prunn covenant of 1922, reluctandy published by R o b e r t Weltsch in Jüdische Rundschau, no. 27 (8 December 1922), cited in Rinott, "Major Trends," 89).

38

Introduction

5. Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land, 151, calls Blau-Weiss one of the most active Jewish youth organizations in Germany. 6. O n this and the following cf. Laqueur, " T h e German Jewish Y o u t h M o v e ­ m e n t , " 193ff. 7. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn (1778—1852), better k n o w n as Turnvater Jahn, peda­ gogical reformer and politician, promoted physical exercise as part of educational re­ form and as patriotic preparation for the wars of liberation of Germany from French occupation. 8. Paul de Lagarde (née Bötticher): see below, p. 97n. 9. Julius Langbehn (1851-1907), pan-Germanist, published under the pen name " D e r Rembrandtdeutsche"; lyricist of poetic realism. 10. R i n o t t , "Major Trends," 90. T h e age of the regular members in the W a n d e r ­ vogel and its counterparts ranged from fifteen to twenty-two (high school and univer­ sity age). 11. See Laqueur, " T h e German Jewish Y o u t h M o v e m e n t , " 193. 12. Cf. ibid., 197-98. 13. In contrast to the highly organized Kartell jüdischer Verbindungen with which it merged in 1922 (see below), Blau-Weiss was always considered (from the perspective of the K.J.V.) as more of a youth movement, and the comparison between the majority German youth m o v e m e n t and its minority Jewish counterpart is a firmly established topos in the debates of the 1920s. Cf. "Ein prinzipielles W o r t zur Erziehungsfrage," Jüdische Rundschau 27, nos. 103/104 (29 December 1922): 675-76, a document coauthored by Erich Fromm, Fritz Goithein, Leo Löwenthal, Ernst Simon, and Erich Michae­ lis. H e r e w e read that "since one did not find the connection to the non-Jewish youth movement, one took up the Zionist idea . . ." (675), and " T h e national Jewish youth m o v e m e n t made the very same basic mistake. It proclaimed the autonomy of youth and set this y o u t h (or also the 'Bund') as its highest goal" (676). Also see Herbert Foerder, "Die Aufgaben des K.J.V.," Der jüdische Student 2, nos. 4 / 5 (June/July 1925): 109f. (p. 110: "Unsere Jugendbewegung ist sicherlich nicht knechtisch abhängig, aber verständ­ licherweise stark beeinflußt von der deutschen Jugendbewegung" [Our youth m o v e ­ ment is certainly not slavishly dependent but understandably strongly influenced by the German y o u t h movement]). Cf. Siegfried Kanowitz, " Z u m Kartelltag: Erweiterung unserer Grundlagen," Der jüdische Student 25, n o . 1 (March 1928): 2. These latter t w o sources are programmatic statements by members of the K.J.V. board of directors, and hence are highly representative of the mainstream of German Zionist students. 14. Cf. R i n o t t , "Major Trends," 78; and Brenner, Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimar Germany, 4 6 - 4 9 15. Cf. Kanowitz, " Z u m Kartelltag: Erweiterung unserer Grundlagen," 10. T h e Altherrenarbeit, that is, the work of recruiting postgraduates over the age of twenty for involvement with the youth organizations or with other Zionist institutions, was always a major concern of the K.J.V. Cf., e.g., Siegfried Kanowitz, " Z u m Kartelltag," Der jüdische Student 2, no. 3 (May 1925): 69. 16. Cf. R i n o t t , "Major Trends," 77, and cf. F r o m m et al., "Ein prinzipielles W o r t zur Erziehungsfrage."

Introduction

39

17. Cf. Sharfman, "Jewish Y o u t h M o v e m e n t in Germany," 74, 204, 206. 18. Ernst Simon, quoted in Rinott, "Major Trends," 84. 19. O n the predominandy middle-class afFdiation of Blau-Weiss, cf. R i n o t t , " M a ­ j o r Trends," 77. 20. Cf. Rosenstock, " T h e Jewish Y o u t h M o v e m e n t , " 9 7 - 1 0 2 , esp. 99. 2 1 . Cf. the intervention of the seventeen-year-old Gershom Scholem, "Die blau­ weiße Brille," 822-25, w h o criticized Blau-Weiss for its lack of an actual pursuit of immigration to Palestine, for espousing too m u c h desire and too litde action, and so on. See R i n o t t , "Major Trends," 88f. Scholem was not himself a m e m b e r of Blau-Weiss, but his position was widely debated and even published in the Blau-Weiss Führerzeitung, August 1917, 26-30. 22. Cf. R i n o t t , "Major Trends," 85. 23. Cf. Ibid., 9 3 . 24. Cf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, # 2 5 1 , in vol. 5 of Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, (München: D T B ; Berlin and N e w York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980, 192f.; and cf. Yirmeyahu Yovel, Dark Riddle: Hegel, Nietzsche, and the Jews (University Park: Pennsyl­ vania State University Press, 1998), 119f. 25. Cf. Kenneth Hart Green, Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1993), 166 n. 119, 178 n. 57. 26. Cf. Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts," 460. 27. Cf. Ernst Cassirer, Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaß der neueren Zeit (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, vols. 1-2: 1906-7, vol. 3: 1920, and vol. 4: 1950. English: The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History since Hegel, translated from the manuscript by W . H . W o g l o m and Charles W . Hendel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955-57). 28. Until he met Heidegger, Strauss considered M a x W e b e r "the incarnation of the spirit of science and scholarship." See Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts," 4 6 1 . 29. O n Strauss's conversations with Husserl and his first impressions of Heidegger, see ibid., 4 6 0 - 6 1 . 30. Gadamer et al. were still nominally students of Paul Natorp, after Hermann Cohen the surviving head of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism. Thus, for example, Gadamer was the editor of the 1924 Festschrift for Natorp. (See Festschrift für Paul Natorp zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage von Schülern und Freunden gewidmet [Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1924].) But even Natorp's own late philosophy, similar to that of the aging Rickert in Heidelberg, had turned toward the biologism and vitalism of the rhetoric of the youth movement. O n the rise and decline of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, see Ulrich Sieg, Aufstieg und Niedergang des Marburger Neukantianismus: Die Geschichte einer philosophischen Schulgemeinschaft (Würzburg: Königshausen und N e u m a n n , 1994). 3 1 . Cf. also Leo Strauss, What is Political Philosophy? (New York: T h e Free Press, 1959), 246, where he states that Cassirer "had transformed Cohen's philosophic system, the very center of which was ethics, into a philosophy of symbolic forms in which ethics had silently disappeared." I thank Ken Green for pointing m e to this source. 32. Strauss was not the only one, but certainly was one of the first ones, to pay

40

Introduction

attention to this important difference. Cf. Alfred Jospe, Die Unterscheidung von Mythos und Religion bei Hermann Cohen und Ernst Cassirer in ihrer Bedeutung für die jüdische Religionsphilosophie (Oppeln: R e u t h e r und Reichard, 1932). 33. See text of and notes to " O n the Argument with European Science." Strauss's radical understanding of H e r m a n n C o h e n was unique at the time. It surpassed even the claims made by R o s e n z w e i g in his introduction to Cohen's Jewish Writings (1924). While Rosenzweig, in a conscious act of hagiography, argues that C o h e n departed from his idealist system w h e n he moved to Berlin in 1912 and went on to write his later w o r k on religion, Strauss asserts that Cohen's entire system rested on religious presup­ positions. H o w he arrived at this conclusion is not clear to me. Perhaps it was, as he r e c o m m e n d e d to W o b b e r m i n , "nothing less than a reading of the entire w o r k " that persuaded h i m in this matter. C o h e n continued to exert a certain presence also in Strauss's later works. Cf. Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts," 460; idem, the preface to Spinoza's Critique of Religion, trans. Elsa Sinclair ( N e w York: Schocken, 1965); and the introductory essay to H e r m a n n C o h e n , Religion of Reason Out of the Sources ofJudaism N e w York: Frederick Ungar, 1972), reprinted in Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 2 6 7 - 8 2 . T h e essay concludes with the moving statement, "It is a blessing for us that H e r m a n n C o h e n lived and w r o t e " (Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Moder­ nity, 282). See Green, Jew and Philosopher, 185 n. 16, for a variety of views on Strauss's relation to C o h e n , none of which can be regarded as having probed the full depth of the matter. 34. In 1920, w h e n Strauss was presumably still zealous, he attempted to convert Jacob Klein to Zionism. H e failed in this mission, but Strauss and Klein subsequently became close lifelong friends. Cf. Strauss, "A Giving of Accounts." T h e entire piece is an homage to this friendship. 35. See Strauss, " C o m m e n t on Weinberg's Critique." 36. Cf. Hagit Lavsky, Before Catastrophe: The Distinctive Path of German Zionism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press; Jerusalem: T h e Magnes Press and Leo Baeck Institute, 1996), the first comprehensive study of the institutional and economic aspects of German Zionism from its beginnings until 1933. Dr. Lavsky documents that, in the W e i m a r yean, "Palestinocentrism" displaced the diasporatic orientation of German Z i ­ onism. Strauss seems to have remained unaffected by this general trend, or, put differ­ ently, Strauss lost touch with (or faith in) the general development of Zionism to the same degree that German Zionism outgrew the preoccupations of the youth m o v e ­ ment. 37. See, for example, "Propaganda," Der jüdische Student 28, no. 1 (January 1931): 6ff., w h e r e Hider's doctrine of propaganda from Mein Kampf "is referred to as something from which " w e may learn a few things for our own propaganda" (6). 38. Strauss's sympathy for Schmitt may be philosophically rather than politically motivated, but certainly means an affinity with the latter's political philosophy. It may also show the rather German Jewish (and wholly unpolitical) trait of privileging the theoretical over the political, principle over praxis, contradicting the very principle in praxis that is supported in theory. Strauss's critique of (philosophical) pluralism is first presented in " D e r Konspektivismus" (1929). 39. Cf. Derjüdische Student 18, no. 5 (September-October 1921): 234: "Jabotinsky

Introduction

41

m a c h t e a u c h a u f d i e i h m i n b e s t i m m t e n P u n k t e n sachlich n i c h t Z u s t i m m e n d e n d u r c h die Kraft seiner P e r s ö n l i c h k e i t u n d die W u c h t u n d bildhafte Klarheit seiner R e d e e i n e n starken E i n d r u c k " [ T h e strength o f his personality a n d t h e i m p a c t and i n t u i t i v e clarity o f his s p e e c h d e e p l y impressed e v e n t h o s e w h o disagreed w i t h h i m i n certain respects]. ( F r o m a report b y Arthur Stein.) 40.

It w o u l d b e helpful if w e k n e w w h e n Strauss m e t Jabotinsky, n a m e l y , w h e t h e r

these m e e t i n g s t o o k place i n t h e earliest p e r i o d ( 1 9 2 3 - 2 5 ) o r during Strauss's phase o f reorientation ( 1 9 2 8 - ) , w h e n h e w a s still active i n t h e Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t y e t b e g a n t o b e interested i n classical m o d e s o f political t h o u g h t . If the m e e t i n g s t o o k place d u r i n g t h e latter p e r i o d , it m i g h t suggest an i n f l u e n c e o f Jabotinsky and t h e revisionist m o v e m e n t o n Strauss's s y m p a t h y for Carl S c h m i t t and o t h e r posdiberals. If the m e e t i n g s t o o k place earlier, s u c h an i n f l u e n c e is still n o t t o b e ruled o u t . T h e w o r d i n g and t o n e o f t h e a n e c d o t e cited i n t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d suggest an earlier rather than a later m e e t i n g w i t h Jabotinsky. 41.

Strauss, " W h y W e R e m a i n J e w s , " in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Moder-

nity, 3 1 9 . 4 2 . Cf. Brenner, Renaissance ofJewish Culture in Weimar Germany. 43.

A s m e n t i o n e d i n n. 1 3 , supra, t h e declaration o f educational principles ("Ein

prinzipielles W o r t i n der Erziehungsfrage"), against w h i c h Strauss p o l e m i c i z e d i n " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f Principle'" and w h i c h appeared i n Die jüdische Rundschau 2 7 , nos. 1 0 3 - 4 ( 2 9 D e c e m b e r 1922): 6 7 5 - 7 6 , w a s signed b y Erich F r o m m , Fritz G o i t h e i n , Ernst S i m o n , L e o L ö w e n t h a l , and Erich M i c h a e l i s ( H a m b u r g ) .

44.

Cf. Brenner, Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimar Germany, 8 6 ; a n d s e e

G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Frankfurt: B i b l i o t h e k S u h r k a m p , 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 9 0 - 9 8 . O n F r o m m , cf. R a i n e r Funk, Erich Fromm mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten dargestellt ( R e i n b e c k b e i H a m b u r g : R o w o h l t T a s c h e n b u c h Verlag, 1 9 9 3 ) . 45.

S e e Franz R o s e n z w e i g ' s letter t o E m s t S i m o n o f 6 D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 4 , i n Briefe

und Tagebücher, v o l . 2: 1918-1929,

ed. R a c h e l R o s e n z w e i g u n d E d i t h R o s e n z w e i g -

S c h e i n m a n n , u n t e r M i t w i r k u n g v o n Bernhard Casper ( T h e H a g u e : Nijhoff,

1979),

1 0 0 7 ; a n d cf. N a h u m N . Glatzer, " T h e Frankfurt Lehrhaus," i n Essays in Jewish Thought (Tuscaloosa: U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama Press, 1 9 7 8 ) , 2 6 5 £ , q u o t e d i n G r e e n , J e w and Philosopher, 1 9 9 n. 1 0 . O n t h e Lehrhaus, cf. also B r e n n e r , Renaissance ofJewish Culture in Weimar Germany, 86f. A t t h e Lehrhaus, F r o m m l e c t u r e d o n Karaism, L ö w e n t h a l o n marginal figures i n J e w i s h history, and Strauss first o n C o h e n and later o n S p i n o z a . A c c o r d i n g t o Glatzer, Strauss "led an analytical reading o f H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s Religion of Reason" i n 1 9 2 3 - 2 4 and l e c t u r e d o n Spinoza i n 1 9 2 4 - 2 5 , that is, at a t i m e w h e n t h e Lehrhaus had already b e g u n t o disintegrate. In t h e letter t o S i m o n , R o s e n z w e i g associates Strauss w i t h " t h e really d u m b " k i n d o f Z i o n i s m , c o n c e d i n g that h e , at least, r e p r e s e n t e d it w i t h t h e "dehors o f the spirit." 46.

Der Jude, n a m e d b y its f o u n d e r and editor M a r t i n B u b e r after an earlier j o u r n a l

p u b l i s h e d b y Gabriel R i e s s e r ( 1 8 3 2 - 3 3 ) , appeared as a m o n t h l y f r o m 1 9 1 6 t o 1 9 2 4 . Its o r i e n t a t i o n w a s pluralistic. 47.

Die jüdische Rundschau replaced Herzl's Die Welt as t h e central o r g a n o f t h e

W o r l d Zionist O r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e G e r m a n language. It w a s published b y R o b e r t W e l t s c h in Berlin. A c c o r d i n g t o J e h u d a R e i n h a r z , Die jüdische Rundschau w a s influential far

42

Introduction

b e y o n d t h e circle o f its five thousand t o s e v e n thousand subscribers. Cf. R e i n h a r z , Fatherland or Promised Land, 1 0 3 . 48.

Der jüdische Student w a s f o u n d e d i n 1 9 0 2 i n Breslau b y t h e B u n d j ü d i s c h e r

C o r p o r a t i o n e n ( B . J . C . ) , w h i c h , a l o n g w i t h t h e Kartell zionistischer V e r b i n d u n g e n ( K . Z . V . , t h e Z i o n i s t alternative t o t h e G e r m a n - J e w i s h K a r t e l l - C o n v e n t der V e r b i n d u n g e n d e u t s c h e r S t u d e n t e n j ü d i s c h e n G l a u b e n s , abbr. K - C ) , later c o n s t i t u t e d t h e Kartell j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n , K.J.V. T h e first Der jüdische Student ran for o n l y o n e year before it w e n t under. It b e g a n its regular operations o n l y i n 1 9 0 7 , w h e n Kurt B l u m e n f e l d r e o r g a n i z e d t h e structure o f the B . J . C . After t h e m e r g e r o f B.J. C . and K . Z . V . i n 1 9 1 4 , the j o u r n a l ran first as t h e Monatsschrift, t h e n (from J u n e 1 9 1 8 ) as t h e Zeitschrift o f t h e K.J.V. U n t i l 1 9 2 0 , t h e p u b l i c a t i o n w a s strictly internal, its c o n t e n t restricted t o t h e m e m b e r s h i p ("streng vertraulich," " G e h e i m " ) . T h i s n e e d for secrecy returned i n t h e early 1 9 3 0 s , w h e n t h e political situation i n G e r m a n y b e g a n t o deteriorate. T h e j o u r n a l w a s d i s c o n t i n u e d i n 1 9 3 3 . B e f o r e Der jüdische Student d r o p p e d its secrecy clause a n d b e c a m e a p u b l i c j o u r n a l ( 1 9 2 0 ) , t h e Kartell briefly also p r o d u c e d a j o u r n a i for t h e g e n ­ eral p u b l i c (Der jüdische Wille, 1 9 1 8 - 2 0 ) , w h i c h w a s again r e v i v e d i n 1 9 3 3 (until 1 9 3 7 ) . S o u r c e : R o b e r t G i d i o n , " 2 5 Jahre J. S t . , " Der jüdische Student 2 6 , n o s . 1 / 2 (February 1929): 3 - 5 . 49.

S e e GS, 2 : x x x , and cf. t h e n o t e s t o "Franz R o s e n z w e i g a n d t h e A c a d e m y for

the S c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m , " i n this v o l u m e . Cf. also S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem, 1 8 9 . 50.

I n a letter relating t o this issue, Franz R o s e n z w e i g o n c e e x p l i c i d y referred t o

the possibility that a "Fräulein D o k t o r " c o u l d serve as a f e l l o w . 51.

Cf. Franz R o s e n z w e i g , " Z e i t ists . . . (Ps. 1 1 9 , 1 2 6 ) : G e d a n k e n ü b e r das

B i l d u n g s p r o b l e m des A u g e n b l i c k s , " reprinted i n Der Mensch und sein Werk: Gesammelte Schriften, v o l . 3 : Zweistromland: Kleinere Schriften zu Glauben und Denken, e d . R e i n h o l d M a y e r and A n n e m a r i e M a y e r ( D o r d r e c h t and B o s t o n : Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 4 ) , 461— 8 1 ; a n d R o s e n z w e i g , " B i l d u n g u n d k e i n E n d e (Pred. 1 2 , 1 2 ) : W ü n s c h e z u m j ü d i s c h e n Bildungsproblem des Augenblicks, insbesondere zur Volkshochschulfrage," in Zweistromland, 4 9 1 - 5 0 3 . 52.

S e e Franz R o s e n z w e i g , letter t o Gustav Bradt, 9 O c t o b e r 1 9 2 6 , i n Briefe und

Tagebücher, 2 : 1 1 0 7 . A m o n g t h e o t h e r f e l l o w s w e r e Fritz Jizchak Baer, H a r t w i g D a v i d B a n e t h , S e l m a Stern, a n d C h a n o c h A l b e c k , all " h i g h l y gifted scholars" w h o s e " n a m e s and a c h i e v e m e n t s , " a c c o r d i n g t o G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , "still e c h o i n t h e S c i e n c e o f j u d a ­ i s m t o d a y . " S e e S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem, 1 8 9 . 53.

Franz R o s e n z w e i g h i m s e l f w a s h i g h l y critical o f the direction o f the a c a d e m y

that h e had h e l p e d t o initiate. S e e R o s e n z w e i g , " B i l d u n g u n d k e i n E n d e (Pred. 1 2 , 1 2 ) , " 491-503. 54.

Cf. GS, 2 : x x x i . I n M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n , Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe,

v o l . 2: Schriften zur Philosophie und Ästhetik, e d . Fritz B a m b e r g e r and L e o Strauss (Berlin: A k a d e m i e v e r l a g , 1 9 3 1 ) , Strauss p u b l i s h e d i n t r o d u c t i o n s t o " P o p e e i n M e t a p h y s i k e r ! , " " S e n d s c h r e i b e n an d e n H e r r n Magister Lessing i n L e i p z i g , " " K o m m e n t a r z u d e n ' T e r ­ m i n i d e r L o g i k ' des M o s e s b e n M a i m o n , " and " A b h a n d l u n g über die E v i d e n z . " In M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n , Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, v o l . 3 , pt. 1: Schriften zur Philosophie und Ästhetik,, e d . Fritz B a m b e r g e r and L e o Strauss (Berlin: A k a d e m i e v e r l a g , 1 9 3 2 ) , Strauss p u b l i s h e d i n t r o d u c t i o n s t o " P h ä d o n , " " A b h a n d l u n g v o n der U n k ö r p e r -

Introduction

43

l i c h k e i t d e r m e n s c h l i c h e n S e e l e , " " Ü b e r e i n e n schrifdichen Aufsatz des H e r r n d e L u c , " and " D i e S e e l e . " A n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o " D i e S a c h e G o t t e s o d e r die gerettete V o r s e h u n g , " w r i t t e n i n 1 9 3 6 , w a s t o b e part o f v o l u m e 3 , pt. 2 , b u t c o u l d n o l o n g e r b e p u b l i s h e d at the time. It first appeared i n Einsichten: Gerhard Krüger zum 60. Geburtstag, e d . Klaus O e h l e r and R i c h a r d Schaeffler (Frankfurt a m M a i n : V i t t o r i o K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 9 6 2 ) , 3 6 1 7 5 , and w a s later i n c l u d e d also i n M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n , Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläums­ ausgabe, v o l . 3 , pt. 2: Schriften zur Philosophie und Ästhetik, e d . L e o Strauss (Stuttgart and B a d Cannstatt: Friedrich F r o m m a n n Verlag [ G ü n t h e r H o l z b o o g ] , 1 9 7 4 ) . I n t h e 1 9 3 0 s , the e d i t i o n w a s u n d e r t h e general editorship o f Julius G u t t m a n n , w h e r e a s its c o n t i n u a ­ t i o n after W o r l d W a r II w a s steered b y A l e x a n d e r A l t m a n n . Strauss's m o s t significant contribution b y far t o t h e M e n d e l s s o h n edition w a s his introduction t o " M o r g e n s t u n d e n " and " A n d i e F r e u n d e Lessings," w h i c h w a s first p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 7 4 . It is n o t o n l y t h e m o s t v o l u m i n o u s p i e c e (see GS, 2 : 5 2 8 - 6 0 5 ) , b u t also t h e m o s t elaborate a n d , i n terms o f Strauss's o w n d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e m o s t interesting o n e . It w a s w r i t t e n i n 1 9 3 7 , at a t i m e w h e n Strauss felt gready i n d e b t e d t o Lessing for his o w n rediscovery o f "the d i s ­ t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e x o t e r i c and esoteric s p e e c h and its g r o u n d s " ("A G i v i n g o f A c ­ c o u n t s , " 4 6 2 ) . After W o r l d W a r II, Strauss p l a n n e d t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f an entire m o n o ­ graph built a r o u n d this and a f e w o t h e r essays that had already b e e n w r i t t e n , a n d t o w h i c h h e g a v e t h e tentative title " P h i l o s o p h y and t h e Law: Historical Essays." Cf. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 4 6 7 - 7 0 ; and GS, 2 : x x x i - x x x i i i . 55.

Cf. GS, 2 : x x x - x x x i . T h e A k a d e m i e finally ceased its operations i n 1 9 3 4 . Its

first director w a s E . T a e u b l e r , w h o w a s s u c c e e d e d b y Julius G u t t m a n n . (Source: EJ). O n Strauss's relation t o t h e A k a d e m i e , see m y e n d n o t e s t o his e u l o g y e n t i d e d "Franz R o s e n z w e i g a n d t h e A c a d e m y for t h e S c i e n c e o f J u d a i s m , " i n this v o l u m e . 56.

Cf. Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 4 .

57.

Cf. GS, 2 : 1 2 .

58.

Cf. H e i n r i c h M e i e r , Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Including

Strauss's Notes on Schmitt's Concept of the Political and Three Letters from Strauss to Schmitt, trans. J. H a r v e y L o m a x , f o r e w o r d b y J o s e p h C r o p s e y ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 5 ) , esp. t h e letter f r o m Paris, 10 J u l y 1 9 3 3 , p p . 1 2 7 f , and editorial n o t e , p. 129. 59.

T h e v o l u m e appeared i n 1 9 3 5 , o n t h e o c c a s i o n o f t h e e i g h t - h u n d r e d t h b i r t h ­

day o f the m e d i e v a l p h i l o s o p h e r . T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the essays, and h e n c e their c o n ­ tent, as w e l l as t h e m u n d a n e p u r p o s e o f their c o m b i n e d p u b l i c a t i o n , had n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e anniversary. Strauss's attempt t o r e c e i v e a call t o H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y as a s p e ­ cialist i n m e d i e v a l J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y is w e l l d o c u m e n t e d and provides an i m p o r t a n t b a c k g r o u n d t o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f Philosophie und Gesetz ( 1 9 3 5 ) . Cf. G S , 2 : x i - x v , a n d see below. 60.

Cf. Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 5.

61.

Hilail G i l d i n , An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss

(Detroit: W a y n e State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 9 ) ; typographical error ("Liberalixm") c o r ­ rected. F o r a full bibliography, see H e i n r i c h M e i e r , " L e o Strauss, 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 7 3 : E i n e B i b l i o g r a p h i e , " i n Die Denkbewegung von Leo Strauss: Die Geschichte der Philosophie und die Intention des Philosophen (Stuttgart and W e i m a r : M e t z l e r , 1 9 9 6 ) , 4 5 - 6 3 . 62.

S e e GS, l : x i i i . N o t i n c l u d e d are w r i t i n g s that r e m a i n e d u n p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g

44

Introduction

Strauss's l i f e t i m e (see b e l o w ) and t h e t w o m o r e sizable m o n o g r a p h s p r o d u c e d d u r i n g the early p e r i o d , n a m e l y , t h e full v e r s i o n o f t h e dissertation o n Jacobi, first p u b l i s h e d i n

GS, 2 : 2 3 5 - 9 2 , a n d Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch Politischem Traktat, Series: V e r ö f f e n d i c h u n g e n der A k a d e m i e für d i e Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s . P h i l o s o p h i s c h e S e k t i o n , Z w e i t e r B a n d (Berlin: A k a d e m i e Verlag, 1 9 3 0 ) . T h e G e r m a n original o f the latter, as w e l l as a first G e r m a n translation o f t h e preface t o t h e E n g l i s h e d i t i o n , has r e c e n d y b e e n p u b ­ lished, a l o n g w i t h hitherto u n p u b l i s h e d h a n d w r i t t e n marginalia from Strauss's o w n c o p y , i n GS, 1 : 1 - 3 6 1 . T h e E n g l i s h translation ( 1 9 6 5 ) is still i n print ( w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press), a n d its preface is also i n c l u d e d i n Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of

Modernity. A l s o n o t i n c l u d e d i n this v o l u m e are a small n u m b e r o f highly significant m a n u ­ scripts f o u n d a m o n g t h e L e o Strauss Papers at t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Special C o l l e c t i o n s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Library, that h a v e o n l y recently b e e n p u b l i s h e d b y H e i n r i c h M e i e r i n GS, v o l . 2 . I n order n o t t o delay t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f the present v o l u m e a n y further, it s e e m e d p r u d e n t t o limit ourselves t o t h e original s c o p e , that is, t o t h e early p u b l i s h e d writings. It is h o p e d that a s u p p l e m e n t a r y p u b l i c a t i o n w i l l s o o n m a k e these p r e v i o u s l y u n p u b l i s h e d writings available i n English. T h e first o f these manuscripts is a r e v i e w o f Karl M a n n h e i m , Ideologie und Utopie ( 1 9 2 9 ) , e n t i d e d " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " (= GS, 2 : 3 6 5 - 7 5 ) . T h e s e c o n d text, t h e draft o f a lecture Strauss w a s t o g i v e o n D e c e m ­ ber 1 9 3 0 at t h e federal c a m p o f t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h organization K a d i m a h at a retreat o u t s i d e o f B e r l i n , builds o n ideas first elaborated i n " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s . " T h e third l e c t u r e draft that b e l o n g s t o this g r o u p is entitled " D i e geistige Lage der G e g e n w a r t " ( = GS, 2:441—64). T h e original is a t w e l v e - p a g e lecture manuscript f o u n d i n an e n v e l o p e dated 6 February 1 9 3 2 . I n these texts, Strauss presents t h e m o s t scathing critique y e t o f the m o d e r n infatuation w i t h t h e historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s and undertakes his first steps t o w a r d o v e r c o m i n g it. W e w i l l refer t o s o m e o f these texts i n this i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d i n the n o t e s t o t h e translations. In stylistic terms, " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " and ' " R e l i g i ö s e Lage d e r G e g e n w a r t ' " are replete w i t h i r o n y and playfulness, traits that, w i t h t h e e x c e p ­ t i o n o f "Ecclesia militans" ( 1 9 2 5 ) , s e e m rare i n t h e early p u b l i s h e d w r i t i n g s , at least at first glance. R e a d i n g these strongly e n g a g e d and less guarded texts allows o n e t o discern m o r e clearly t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h Strauss, w h o s e h i g h regard for H e i n r i c h H e i n e is e v i d e n t t h r o u g h o u t , w a s h i m s e l f an ironist, an i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t o k e e p i n m i n d as o n e w o r k s t h r o u g h his early writings. Finally, a m o n g t h e manuscripts first p u b l i s h e d b y M e i e r and n o t i n c l u d e d here are drafts for a lecture, entitled " C o h e n u n d M a i m u n i " ( = GS, 2:393—436). T h e actual lecture w a s g i v e n o n 4 M a y 1 9 3 1 at t h e H o c h s c h u l e für die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s i n Berlin. I n " C o h e n and M a i m u n i , " Strauss first articu­ lates his c h a n g i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f M a i m o n i d e s , based o n his d i s c o v e r y , in A v i c e n n a , o f t h e passage that, four decades later, h e w a s t o use as t h e m o t t o t o his b o o k The Argument and the Action of Plato's "Laws" ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 7 5 ) , 1, 3 . (Cf. GS, 2:xviii, t e x t and n o t e 13.) I n this passage, A v i c e n n a claims that t h e treat­ m e n t o f p r o p h e c y and o f the divine l a w w a s c o n t a i n e d i n Plato's Nomoi. (Cf. also Strauss, " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s , " 462f.) " C o h e n and M a i m u n i " is therefore an i m p o r t a n t p r e ­ decessor t o " M a i m u n i s Lehre v o n der P r o p h é t i e u n d ihre Q u e l l e n " [ = " D i e p h i l o s o p h i s c h e B e g r ü n d u n g des Gesetzes"], w h i c h w a s i n c l u d e d i n Philosophie und Gesetz:

Introduction

45

Beiträge zum Verständnis Maimunis und seiner Vorläufer (Berlin: S c h o c k e n , 1 9 3 5 ) , 8 7 - 1 2 2 . T h e manuscript o f t h e latter essay w a s c o m p l e t e d i n J u l y 1 9 3 1 , shortly after " C o h e n und Maimuni." 63.

T h u s i n t h e o p e n i n g paragraph o f "Preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion,"

reprinted in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1 3 7 . 64.

Letter t o A l e x a n d r e K o j è v e , 2 9 M a y 1 9 6 2 , cited i n GS, 1:10 n. 2 .

65.

S e e t h e preface t o t h e English translation o f t h e 1 9 6 5 Spinoza's Critique of

Religion. T h e current e d i t i o n o f Spinoza's Critique of Religion ( U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press) retains t h e reference t o this " c h a n g e o f o r i e n t a t i o n " as h a v i n g f o u n d "its first e x p r e s s i o n " i n an essay added at t h e e n d o f Spinoza's Critique of Religion. T h i s refers t o " A n m e r k u n g e n z u Carl S c h m i t t , Der Begriff des Politischen" (see t h e n e x t n o t e ) , w h o s e E n g l i s h translation h a d b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e 1 9 6 5 e d i t i o n of Spinoza's Critique of Religion b u t w h i c h is n o l o n g e r part o f the reprint b y t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press. 66.

Carl S c h m i t t , Der Begriff des Politischen, first p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Archiv für

Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik ( T ü b i n g e n ) 5 8 , n o . 1 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 2 7 ) : 1—33. T h i s v e r s i o n w a s reprinted i n 1 9 2 8 , w i t h o u t changes. T h e s e c o n d e d i t i o n , Der Begriff des Politischen: Mit einer Rede über das Zeitalter der Neutralisierungen und Entpolitisierungen ( M u n i c h and Leipzig: D u n c k e r & H u m b l o t , 1932) is the o n e r e v i e w e d b y Strauss i n " A n m e r k u n g e n z u Carl S c h m i t t , Der Begriff des Politischen," Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 6 7 , n o . 6 ( A u g u s t - S e p t e m b e r 1 9 3 2 ) : 7 3 2 - 4 9 . E n g l i s h (by E . M . Sinclair) i n t h e a p p e n dix t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 331—51; and i n Carl S c h m i t t , The Concept of the Political ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 7 6 ) , 8 1 - 1 0 5 . O n t h e details o f these p u b l i c a t i o n s , see M e i e r , Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, 6 - 7 n. 5, 1 2 0 . 67.

T h a t is, Strauss, " N o t e s t o Carl S c h m i t t , The Concept of the Political," i n M e i e r ,

Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss (see a b o v e , n. 5 8 ) . 68.

Strauss, " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s , " 4 6 0 .

69.

S e e , for e x a m p l e , Strauss, " H o w t o S t u d y Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise"

( 1 9 4 8 ) , in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1 8 1 - 2 3 3 . 70.

" R e l i g i ö s e Lage der G e g e n w a r t " ; see n o t e 6 2 , a b o v e .

71.

" T h e Testament o f Spinoza" (1932), below.

72.

L e o Strauss, Philosophy and Law, trans. E v e A d l e r (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1 9 9 5 ) ,

73.

If o n e cares a b o u t historical c o i n c i d e n c e s o f this sort: w h e n Strauss w r o t e his

38. i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophy and Law, t h e v e r y l a w s w e r e b e i n g drafted b y w h i c h N a z i G e r m a n y w a s t o p u t a legal e n d t o t h e era o f e m a n c i p a t i o n (i.e., t h e N u r e m b e r g L a w s , enacted in September 1935). 74.

T h u s t h e t e n o r o f H e i n r i c h M e i e r , " V o r w o r t d e s H e r a u s g e b e n , " i n GS, 2 : i x -

XXX.

75.

T h u s t h e tide and project o f G r e e n , Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides

in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss. 76.

F o r Strauss o n H e i d e g g e r and R o s e n z w e i g see, a m o n g others, Strauss, " A G i v -

i n g o f A c c o u n t s , " 460f. 77.

Q u o t e d i n G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , Walter Benjamin und sein Engel, e d . R o l f T i e d e -

m a n n (Frankfurt: S u h r k a m p , 1 9 8 3 ) , 16. Strauss m e n t i o n s Sussman i n " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s mus" (1929).

Introduction

46 78.

S e e b e l o w i n " R e s p o n s e t o t h e ' W o r d o f Principle'" ( 1 9 2 3 ) .

79.

Cf. " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " ( 1 9 2 9 ) and ' " D i e R e l i g i ö s e Lage der G e g e n w a r t ' "

( 1 9 3 0 ) , b o t h i n GS, 2 . 80.

T h e m o s t articulate Statement o f this p r o b l e m m a y b e f o u n d i n ' " R e l i g i ö s e

Lage der G e g e n w a r t ' . " 81.

T h u s i n " S i g m u n d Freud, The Future of an Illusion" ( 1 9 2 8 ) .

82.

T h u s i n ' " R e l i g i ö s e Lage der G e g e n w a r t ' " ( 1 9 3 0 ) .

83.

Cf. S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem, 1 9 2 . H e r e , i n 1 9 7 0 , S c h o l e m refers t o

B l a u - W e i s s as h a v i n g turned "semifascist," j u s t as, i n 1 9 2 3 , Strauss refers t o t h e m as "pagan-fascist" (see b e l o w ) . F o r Strauss, t h e t e r m "fascist" w a s i m m e d i a t e l y associated w i t h t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y Italian m o v e m e n t , w h e r e a s S c h o l e m likely presupposes t h e g e n ­ eralized m e a n i n g o f the term, w h i c h , since t h e 1 9 6 0 s debates o n t h e historical origins and s o c i o e c o n o m i c character o f the N a z i dictatorship i n G e r m a n y , has b e e n serving as a p o l e m i c a l c o u n t e r m o d e l t o an equally politicized c o n c e p t o f totalitarianism. T h e t h e o r y o f fascism i n t h e latter sense o f the w o r d regards t h e generalized c o n c e p t o f totalitarian­ i s m as an e x p r e s s i o n o f the "neofascism" o f the c o l d w a r a n d is thus itself an e x p r e s s i o n o f antifascism. Strauss's usage o f the t e r m is, thus, descriptive, w h i l e S c h o l e m ' s i n v o l v e s a n e g a t i v e political j u d g m e n t . Cf. Karl D i e t r i c h Bracher, Die Auflösung der Weimarer

Republik: Eine Studie zum Problem des Machtverfalb in der Demokratie, 5th ed. (Düsseldorf: D r o s t e Verlag, 1 9 7 8 ) , xixf. 84.

I n this respect, Strauss's stance is n o t untypical for t h e G e r m a n Z i o n i s m o f his

t i m e . A s G e r s h o m S c h o l e m recalls i n Von Berlin nach Jerusalem, " [ 0 ] n e m a y say that if, i n the early 1 9 2 0 s , s o m e o n e m a d e t h e m o v e [seil, t o Palestine] from G e r m a n y , it h a p ­ p e n e d o n l y i n t h e rarest o f cases o u t o f a political m o t i v a t i o n and m u c h m o r e frequently b e c a u s e o f a m o r a l d e c i s i o n . It w a s a d e c i s i o n against a c o n f u s i o n that w a s p e r c e i v e d as d i s h o n e s t a n d against an often u n d i g n i f i e d g a m e o f m a k e - b e l i e v e . It w a s a d e c i s i o n for a n e w b e g i n n i n g that, t o u s a n d t h e n , s e e m e d u n a m b i g u o u s , a d e c i s i o n t h a t — w h e t h e r justified b y religious o r secular c o n s i d e r a t i o n s — h a d m o r e t o d o w i t h social ethics than w i t h politics, as strange as this m a y s o u n d t o d a y " (191). 85.

T h i s o p p o s i t i o n is elaborated i n " O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a . "

86.

Cf. n o t e s t o " C o m m e n t s o n W e i n b e r g ' s C r i t i q u e " and s e e " D a s C a m p i n

F o r c h t e n b e r g , " Der jüdische Student 2 1 , n o s . 8 / 9 ( O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r 1 9 2 4 ) : 1 9 6 - 2 0 0 . 87.

H a n s W e i n b e r g , " Z i o n i s m u s u n d R e l i g i o n , " Der jüdische Student 22, n o s . 1 / 2

(February 1 9 2 5 ) : 9 . 88.

Isaac Breuer, Das jüdische Nationalheim (Frankfurt a m Main: J. Kauffmann Verlag,

1925). 89.

Strauss, " D a s C a m p i n F o r c h t e n b e r g , " 1 9 8 .

90.

Cf. ibid.: " O h n e hier e n d g ü l t i g e F o r m u l i e r u n g e n finden z u k ö n n e n , b e a n t ­

w o r t e t e er d i e Frage i n m e h r n e g a t i v e m S i n n e " [ W i t h o u t b e i n g able t o find definitive f o r m u l a t i o n s i n this matter, h e a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n m o r e i n a n e g a t i v e sense]. 91.

S e e M a x J o s e p h , " Z u r atheistischen I d e o l o g i e des Z i o n i s m u s , " Der jüdische

Student 2 5 , n o s . 6 / 7 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 2 8 ) : 8 - 1 8 . 92.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i m m e d i a t e critique i n t h e O c t o b e r issue, Der jüdische Student

p u b l i s h e d a c o n s t r u c t i v e counterarticle b y M a x J o s e p h i n its D e c e m b e r issue.

Introduction 93.

47

' " R e l i g i ö s e Lage d e r G e g e n w a r t ' " is t h e draft o f a lecture Strauss w a s t o g i v e

o n 21 D e c e m b e r 1 9 3 0 at t h e federal c a m p o f K a d i m a h i n Brieselang, near B e r l i n . 94.

It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that there is a parallel b e t w e e n t h e u p s and d o w n s o f t h e

Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t i n general a n d Strauss's phases o f e n g a g e m e n t and d i s e n g a g e m e n t . In 1 9 2 3 - 2 5 , t h e phase o f Strauss's m o s t dedicated Z i o n i s t activities, there flourished i m m i ­ gration t o Palestine and b u i l d i n g activity. T h i s trend w a s sharply reversed i n 1 9 2 5 , w h e n the Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t e n c o u n t e r e d a leadership conflict o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f i m m i g r a ­ t i o n quotas and w h e n Jabotinsky f o u n d e d his revisionist organization. W h i l e i m m i g r a ­ tion trends and e c o n o m i c factors b e g a n t o l o o k m o r e favorable i n 1 9 2 9 , t h e same year s a w t h e first w a v e o f large-scale Arab riots against J e w i s h i m m i g r a t i o n , as w e l l as a steady deterioration o f the social, e c o n o m i c , and political situation o f G e r m a n J e w r y . Strauss m u s t h a v e o b s e r v e d these historical trends and m a y h a v e r e s p o n d e d t o t h e m i n s o m e fashion. H o w e v e r , since there are n o direct reference t o this effect i n his w r i t i n g s , c l a i m i n g a direct i n f l u e n c e o f these d e v e l o p m e n t s o n his t h o u g h t and decisions remains entirely speculative. 95.

T h u s e x p l i c i d y i n " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " ( 1 9 2 9 ) . First published b y H e i n r i c h

Meier in G S , 2:365-75. 96.

Ibid.

97.

Ibid.

98.

H e i n r i c h M e i e r (GS, 2:xxv) calls t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophie und Gesetz,

w r i t t e n i n o n l y a f e w days, o n e o f Strauss's m o s t brilliant p i e c e s . K e n n e t h Hart G r e e n (in Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 4 9 n. 4) similarly regards it as " u n d o u b t e d l y o n e o f the single m o s t important essays o f Strauss i n t h e field o f m o d e m Jewish thought." 99.

A d d i n g y e t a n o t h e r possible interpretation t o t h e alternatives described i n t h e

f o l l o w i n g , o n e m a y m e n t i o n Julius G u t t m a n n , w h o identified Strauss's p o s i t i o n w i t h " m o d e m existentialism." S e e GS, 2:xxvif. T o b e m o r e specific, G u t t m a n n ' s interpreta­ t i o n c h o o s e s t o i g n o r e that Strauss d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n O r t h o ­ d o x y a n d atheism as a necessarily i n s u r m o u n t a b l e o n e . A l l o f these misunderstandings really illustrate just h o w unusual Strauss's w a y o f t h i n k i n g w a s at t h e t i m e . 100.

Letter t o L ö w i t h , 2 3 J u n e 1 9 3 5 , i n GS, 2 : x x v i n. 3 2 . S e e there for a similar

statement i n a different c o n t e x t a b o u t G e r s h o m S c h o l e m . 101.

2 9 M a r c h 1 9 3 5 , cited i n GS, 2:xxvii.

102.

S e e Strauss, Philosophie und Gesetz, 26f. n. 1; English: Philosophy and Law, 137f.

n. 1 3 . 103.

See the previous note.

104.

T o this o n e m a y add, i n light o f later statements, that Strauss differs f r o m his

friend K l e i n b y refusing t o attribute t o morality a h i g h e r status than t o t h e " l o v e o f truth." ( S e e Strauss, " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s . " ) Generally, Strauss o n t h e hierarchy o f virtues is a t o p i c w o r t h e x p l o r i n g i n its o w n right. 105.

S e e GS, 2:xiiif.

106.

S e e letter t o Gerhard Krüger, 19 A u g u s t 1 9 3 2 , i n GS, 2:xxvii n. 3 4 .

107.

T h e passages f r o m t h e letter b y K l e i n are i n GS, 2:xxvii.

108.

A s e m i n a r b y Professor Peters o f H e i d e l b e r g o n t h e history o f n i n e t e e n t h -

48

Introduction

c e n t u r y t h e o l o g y , i n w h i c h I participated, utilized t h e first date o f p u b l i c a t i o n o f S c h l e i e r m a c h e r ' s Reden ( 1 7 9 9 ) and that o f its centennial e d i t i o n prepared b y O t t o ( 1 8 9 9 ) to d e l i m i t t h e range o f the n i n e t e e n t h century. 109.

Cf. " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " ( 1 9 2 9 ) and ' " R e l i g i ö s e Lage der G e g e n w a r t ' "

(1930). 110.

O n " E p i c u r e a n i s m , " see " O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a " a n d " O n t h e

Argument with European Science." 111.

T h e f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n s are, for t h e m o s t part, from m y w o r k i n g translation

o f ' " R e l i g i ö s e Lage d e r G e g e n w a r t ' . " It is h o p e d that a full translation o f this a n d t h e o t h e r relevant p i e c e s f r o m this p e r i o d m a d e available b y H e i n r i c h and W i e b k e M e i e r i n GS, 2, m a y s o o n b e p u b l i s h e d i n a full, a n n o t a t e d E n g l i s h edition. 112.

L e o Strauss w r i t e s "past, e v e n t h o u g h , " f o l l o w e d b y a lacuna p r o v i d i n g space

for t h e later i n s e r t i o n o f t h e qualification. A t t h e e n d o f t h e blank, t h e m a n u s c r i p t c o n t i n u e s : "I call o u t t o y o u . " (Source: GS, 2:381.) 113.

Cf. " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " (GS, 2 : 3 6 5 - 7 5 ) . T h e w o r d appears e l e v e n t i m e s .

114.

T h e parable o f the cave is similarly a d d u c e d , and interpreted i n t h e same w a y ,

i n t h e r e v i e w essay o n Julius E b b i n g h a u s , n a m e l y , as p o i n t i n g t o a f u n d a m e n t a l differ­ e n c e b e t w e e n t h e "natural" difficulty o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g and t h e o n e faced b y t h e m o d ­ e m p h i l o s o p h e r w h o first m u s t learn h o w t o retrieve t h e "natural" difficulty o f p h i l o s o ­ p h i z i n g . T h e difference b e t w e e n t h e ancient and t h e m o d e r n situation o f p h i l o s o p h y is the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f biblical revelation. S e e also t h e last paragraph o f " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s ­ m u s " (GS, 2 : 3 7 3 - 7 5 ) . 115.

Cf. Strauss, Spinozo's Critique of Religion, 1 8 1 .

116.

I n t h e m a n u s c r i p t o f this lecture draft, Strauss adds " ( m u s e u m , e t c . ) " t o illus­

trate w h a t h e m e a n s b y "self-guaranteeing o f i m m o r t a l i t y , " n a m e l y , cultural institutions that stand i n for earlier religious institutions. 117.

T h i s m o t i f o f a s e c o n d , d e e p e r cave is here m e n t i o n e d for t h e first t i m e . T h e

first published text w h e r e it appears, albeit w i t h almost enigmatic brevity, is t h e Ebbinghaus r e v i e w , i n c l u d e d i n this v o l u m e . 118.

O n R o u s s e a u and t h e m o t i f o f a "returning t o " (Rückgang auf), cf. " D i e geistige

Lage der G e g e n w a r t " ( 1 9 3 2 ) i n GS, 2 : 4 5 4 . 119.

Cf. "Biblical H i s t o r y and S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 5 ) , w h e r e Strauss explicitly refers t o t h e

j o u r n a l Zwischen den Zeiten. 120.

S e e Strauss, " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s , " 4 6 0 .

121.

Cf. GS, 2 : x x i x n . 4 1 .

122.

Cf. GS, 2:xxiiiff.

123.

I a p o l o g i z e for b e i n g s o m e w h a t e n i g m a t i c here. T h e r e are i m p o r t a n t aspects o f

the early w o r k o f Strauss that this i n t r o d u c t i o n c o u l d n o t e v e n b e g i n t o address. In t h e early essays, H e r m a n n C o h e n appears as o n e o f the last individuals (if n o t t h e last; b u t Strauss's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f R o s e n z w e i g is an i m p o r t a n t u n e x p l o r e d t o p i c i n its o w n right) w h o w e r e still able t o i n v o k e G o d w i t h o u t embarrassment or h i d d e n atheism. Y e t a p r o p e r e x p l o r a t i o n o f this t o p i c d e m a n d s an e x a m i n a t i o n o f h o w Strauss's v i e w o f C o h e n w a s affected b y Strauss's d i s c o v e r y o f the e x o t e r i c . In t h e late thirties, Strauss still b e l i e v e d that C o h e n h a d had t h e right i n t u i t i o n a b o u t M a i m o n i d e s b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d b y P l a t o , b u t h e also thinks that t h e r e a s o n i n g b y w h i c h C o h e n s u p p o r t e d this h u n c h w a s

Introduction flawed.

49

S e e GS, 2 : x x x n. 4 3 , referring t o t h e lecture e n t i d e d " C o h e n and M a i m u n i , "

and m u c h m o r e strongly i n O c t o b e r 1 9 3 5 ( w h e n Strauss w r o t e " Q u e l q u e s remarques sur la s c i e n c e p o l i t i q u e d e M a ï m o n i d e et d e Fârâbî"); cf. GS, 2:xxiif. n. 2 5 . 124.

T h i s is n o t t o say that Strauss h e n c e f o r t h c o m p l e t e l y refrained f r o m w r i t i n g

a b o u t t h e H e b r e w B i b l e o r that h e left us w i t h o u t valuable clues as t o h o w h e b e l i e v e d the biblical part o f t h e W e s t e r n heritage s h o u l d b e approached. A m o n g t h e n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s t o his silence o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f the T o r a h and o n t h e B i b l e are t h e essays "Jerusalem and A t h e n s : S o m e Preliminary R e f l e c t i o n s , " i n Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 3 5 9 - 7 6 , a n d " O n t h e Interpretation o f G e n e s i s , " in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 377—405, w h e r e Strauss adumbrates w h a t h e calls a "postcritical" interpretation o f t h e B i b l e . Cf. K e n n e t h Hart G r e e n , preface t o Strauss, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, x i v - x v n. 4 . 125.

Cf. G r e e n , J e w and Philosopher, 2 4 - 2 7 .

126.

Ibid., 2 4 .

127.

Cf. Strauss, "Progress o r R e t u r n ? " ( 1 9 5 2 ) , in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of

Modernity, 8 7 - 1 3 6 . 128.

T h i s is, i n d e e d , t h e agenda o f the f e w texts a d u m b r a t i n g Strauss's "postcritical"

e x e g e s i s that w e h a v e , s u c h as "Jerusalem a n d A t h e n s : S o m e Preliminary R e f l e c t i o n s " and " O n t h e Interpretation o f G e n e s i s . " S e e n. 3 4 , a b o v e . 129.

Cf. G r e e n , Jew and Philosopher, 1 6 6 n. 1 1 9 , 1 7 8 n. 5 7 .

Part II Leo Strauss: Early Publications (1921-32)

I «g>

The Dissertation (1921) T h e full t e x t o f Strauss's 1 9 2 1 dissertation, " D a s E r k e n n t n i s p r o b l e m i n d e r p h i l o s o p h i s c h e n L e h r e Friedrich H e i n r i c h J a c o b i s , " was published b y H e i n r i c h a n d W i e b k e M e i e r in Philosophie und Gesetz: Frühe Schriften (= GS, 2 : 2 3 7 - 9 2 ) . T h e following is a translation o f t h e extract (Auszug) from t h e dissertation published b y Strauss himself. T h e original can also b e f o u n d in GS, 2 : 2 9 3 - 9 8 . O u r translation includes t h e h a n d w r i t t e n marginalia i n c l u d e d in Strauss's personal copy, w h i c h is a m o n g t h e Strauss papers at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o u n d e r t h e auspices o f Professor J o ­ seph C r o p s e y .

T h e Problem o f K n o w l e d g e in the Philosophical D o c t r i n e o f Friedrich H e i n r i c h J a c o b i (1921) E x t r a c t f r o m t h e I n a u g u r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n w r i t t e n a n d p r e s e n t e d b y L e o Strauss f r o m K i r c h h a i n (Hesse) t o t h e F a c u l t y o f P h i l o s o p h y at H a m b u r g U n i v e r s i t y for t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f d o c t o r a l h o n o r s . PRELIMINARY R E M A R K

T h i s w o r k seeks t o l i m i t its c o n s i d e r a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s u b ­ s t a n c e [Gedankengehalt]

elaborated by Jacobi, and to present only the i m m a ­

n e n t c o n n e c t i o n s o f t h e p r o b l e m s , j u s t as t h e y w e r e s e e n b y J a c o b i , w i t h o u t e n t e r i n g m o r e closely e i t h e r i n t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s d e a l t w i t h a d e q u a t e l y by others or into the thinker's o w n development.

53

1

54

Chapter

1

A) A N ANTITHESIS OF A T T I T U D E S A N D M E T H O D S

J a c o b i d i s t i n g u i s h e s t w o types o f g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s o f m i n d , t h e essential p r e d i ­ cates o f w h i c h are j u x t a p o s e d as " c o u r a g e o u s l y b e l i e v i n g " a n d " t i m i d l y d o u b t i n g " [furchtsam-zweifelnd].

[mutig-glaubend]

T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n attains p u r e l y

t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e b y v i r t u e o f t h e fact t h a t a d u a l i t y o f m e t h o d s is u n ­ equivocally related to the typological duality o f attitudes. T o b e m o r e p r e ­ cise, t h e m e t h o d o f " u n i v e r s a l d o u b t " c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e s e c o n d , d e v a l u e d t y p e o f a t t i t u d e . T h i s m e t h o d e x t e n d s far b e y o n d its m o s t f a m o u s r e p r e s e n t a ­ t i v e , D e s c a r t e s . J a c o b i tracks it d o w n e v e r y w h e r e : it is b y a n d large t h e c o m ­ m o n m e t h o d o f all his o p p o n e n t s . W e h a v e s o u g h t t o c h a r a c t e r i z e as " d e ­ s c r i p t i v e " t h e m e t h o d o f t h e affirmed t y p e , w h i c h h e h i m s e l f p o s t u l a t e s as t h e "natural" method. B ) T H E S U B S T A N C E OF JACOBI ' S D O C T R I N E S

1. The Doctrine of Knowledge a) T h e I n t e l l e c t [Der

[Erkenntnislehre] Verstand]

O n t h e o n e h a n d ( f o l l o w i n g K a n t ) , i n t e l l e c t is t h e a b s o l u t e p r i n c i p l e o f k n o w l ­ e d g e [Wissen],

a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is t h e faculty o f m e r e r e f l e c t i o n , o f

c o n c e p t s , a n d o f p r o o f . I n b o t h cases it is p u r e l y f o r m a l ; it claims its " m a t t e r " ["Stoff"]

f r o m g i v i n g faculties.

2

T h e o b j e c t s are b e y o n d t h e s p h e r e o f t h e

i n t e l l e c t . T h e h i g h e s t a n d u l t i m a t e c e r t a i n t y o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s itself, w h i c h is u n p r o v a b l e a n d y e t m o r e c e r t a i n t h a n all p r o o f s , a n d t h e m a t e r i a l o f k n o w l ­ e d g e [Erkenntnis]

t h a t t h e i n t e l l e c t c a n n o t g e n e r a t e o u t o f itself l e a d b o t h

b e y o n d t h e s p h e r e o f t h e intellect. Intellectual k n o w l e d g e [ t h e p r o v i n g o f t h i n g s [das Beweisen],

Verstandeserkenntnis],

c o n t i n u o u s l y refers t o [stetes

Ver-weisen]

s o m e t h i n g o t h e r , a n d f r o m e v e r y o t h e r t o s o m e t h i n g o t h e r a g a i n . It a l w a y s finds

its c o m p l e t i o n o n l y i n w h a t is g i v e n b y o t h e r k i n d s o f k n o w l e d g e

[Erkenntnisarten].

T h e relative spontaneity o f t h e intellect, w h i c h expresses

itself i n t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e g i v e n [Verbegrifflichung d e p r i v e s it o f k n o w l e d g e v a l u e [Erkenntniswert] c o r d i n g t o its e s s e n c e , k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis] t h e v e r y t e r m s Wahrnehmung, [Erkenntnis]

a n d Vernunft

des

Gegebenen],

in t h e p r o p e r sense. For, a c ­ is r e c e p t i v e (as is i m p l i e d b y 2,

f r o m Vernehmen).

Knowledge

is r e l a t e d t o s o m e t h i n g o u t s i d e o f it w h i c h p r o v i d e s it w i t h m e a n i n g

i n t h e first p l a c e , a n d t o w h i c h it c o n f o r m s . b) T h e G i v i n g K i n d s o f K n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnisarten] O u r k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis] o f t h e s e n s o r y w o r l d is " f o r c i b l y " ["mit Gewalt"] d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e m e a n i n g c o n t a i n e d in t h e object. W e gain experience of

The Dissertation

55

(1921)

this m e a n i n g p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n [ Wahrnehmung],

a n d it is f r o m this

t h a t w e d e r i v e all w e k n o w o f n a t u r e . J a c o b i p a y s p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h a t moment

4

i n t h e act o f p e r c e p t i o n w h i c h assures us o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t r e a l i t y

o f o b j e c t s o u t s i d e o u r s e l v e s . T h i s m o m e n t is " b e l i e f . " T h e p o s i t i v e , n o n p o l e m i c a l c o n t e n t o f J a c o b i ' s d o c t r i n e o f p e r c e p t i o n [Wahrnehmungslehre]

is

u n f o l d e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g theses; t h e y h a v e b e e n c o m p i l e d o n t h e basis o f his u t t e r a n c e s , w h i c h a r e u n f o r t u n a t e l y all t o o " r h a p s o d i c . " 1. O u r k n o w l e d g e [H^ksen] o f reality is a n u l t i m a t e , a n d is different i n p r i n c i p l e f r o m all o t h e r k i n d s o f k n o w l e d g e [Wissensarten]. t i o n s " [Vorstellungen]

leads f r o m b e i n g t o p u r e r e d u c t i o n s [Abschwächungen] [ Vorstellung]

O u r "representa­

o f real b e i n g are c o p i e s o f this real b e i n g . T h u s t h e w a y in the representation

a n d n o t from representation to being.

2 . P e r c e p t i o n is t h e o r i g i n a l grasp [Erfassung] o f reality as s u c h . O n l y o n t h e basis o f this grasp is it possible t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n reality a n d m e r e l y represented being, or rather b e t w e e n perception and representation. 3 . A n i m m e d i a t e e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n s u b j e c t a n d reality takes p l a c e i n t h e act o f p e r c e p t i o n , w h i c h is m e d i a t e d n e i t h e r b y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n n o r b y inference. 4. I n t h e act o f p e r c e p t i o n , c o n s c i o u s n e s s is e q u a l l y c o n s c i o u s o f b o t h t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f r e a l i t y o u t s i d e itself a n d o f t h e real i n itself. W e d o n o t r e a c h c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f o u r o w n reality b e f o r e r e a c h i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h e t r a n ­ s c e n d e n t reality. 5. W e o u r s e l v e s — t h e k n o w i n g subjects [die erkennenden " i n c l u d e d " ["mitbegriffen"]

Subjekte]—are

i n t h e reality g r a s p e d i n t h e act o f p e r c e p t i o n .

6. W e o b t a i n o u r k n o w l e d g e j W s s m ] a b o u t reality p r i m a r i l y b y h a v i n g a sensation of o u r b o d y . T h e s e s 4 t h r o u g h 6 are f o r m u l a t i o n s o f w h a t is specific a b o u t J a c o b i ' s d o c t r i n e o f b e l i e f t h a t a r e free o f t h e t e r m " b e l i e f . " If w e i n s e r t it i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n s , t h e n w e m a y say: " B e l i e f i n n a t u r a l reality is t h e i m m e d i a t e c e r t a i n t y o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f n a t u r a l reality, w h i c h is g r o u n d e d i n t h e n a t u r a l - r e a l [natürlich-real] n e c t i o n b e t w e e n k n o w i n g s u b j e c t [erkennendes

Subjekt]

con­

a n d reality, m e d i a t e d

b y t h e b o d y . O r , s t a t e d m o r e g e n e r a l l y : " B e l i e f i n a reality is t h e i m m e d i a t e c e r t a i n t y o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f reality t h a t bases itself o n t h e (specific) r e a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n k n o w i n g s u b j e c t a n d reality, m e d i a t e d b y its (specific) real structures. A f u r t h e r a t t e m p t is n o w m a d e t o s h o w h o w this g e n e r a l c o n c e p t o f " b e l i e f holds g o o d in the various spheres of k n o w l e d g e

[Erkenntnis-Sphären].

A s i d e f r o m sense p e r c e p t i o n , w e distinguish t h e k n o w l e d g e o f r e a s o n erkenntnis]

a n d t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e h e a r t [Erkenntnis

des Herzens].

[VernunfiT o be

56

Chapter

1

s u r e , t h e t w o l a t t e r k i n d s a r e n o t strictly d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y J a c o b i . B u t w h e r e , i n fact, t h e r e a r e d i s t i n c t i o n s , t h e a i m o f p r e s e n t i n g a h i s t o r y o f t h e p r o b l e m

5

justifies also t h e u s e o f t e r m i n o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s . W h a t is c o m m o n t o all t h r e e g i v i n g faculties o f k n o w l e d g e [gebende Erkenntnis-

Vermögen] is t h e f u n ­

damental formal structure: that they are located outside, a n d before, the i n ­ tellect, t h a t t h e y relate t o t h e i r o b j e c t i n a r e c e p t i v e m a n n e r , a n d t h a t t h e y grasp a t r a n s c e n d e n t reality ( n a t u r e t h r o u g h sense p e r c e p t i o n , G o d t h r o u g h reason, t h e system of ends t h r o u g h the heart). J u s t as p e r c e p t i o n as a k i n d o f k n o w l e d g e is m e d i a t e d b y t h e c o r p o r e a l i t y [Körperlichkeit]

o f t h e b o d y , so t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d is m e d i a t e d b y t h a t

[part] i n u s w h i c h is n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e m e c h a n i s m o f n a t u r e , b y t h e free a n d 6

i m m o r t a l p a r t o f o u r " e s s e n c e " ["Wesen"],

b y t h e divine in u s . H e n c e , c o r ­

r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e duality of realities is a duality of original ways of grasping, fore a duality

there­

of "belief, " a n d — a s is e v i d e n t f r o m t h e e s s e n c e o f b e l i e f — a

d u a l i t y o f " o u r e s s e n c e " ["unseres

Wesens"].

T h e t w o parts o f o u r e s s e n c e ,

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r specific s t r u c t u r e , a r e t h e real m e d i a t o r s i n r e g a r d t o t h e specific realities, n a t u r e a n d G o d . T h e parallelism b e t w e e n t h e s e essential p a r t s , i n spite o f t h e d u a l i t y e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n t h e m , is e x p r e s s e d i n t h e d o c ­ t r i n e t h a t b e l i e f i n G o d is a n " i n s t i n c t " a n d is as " n a t u r a l " t o t h e h u m a n b e i n g "as h i s u p r i g h t p o s i t i o n . " The meaning analogous

to the extension

of the meaning

of "instinct"

is extended

in a

manner

of "belief. " F o r J a c o b i , i n s t i n c t is n o

l o n g e r l i m i t e d t o t h e r e a l m o f n a t u r e . It refers t o t h e w h o l e o f h u m a n " n a ­ t u r e . " T h u s " h u m a n n a t u r e , " t h e " e s s e n c e " ["Wfoen"] a n d t h e f u n d a m e n t a l urges o f t h e e s s e n c e — " n a t u r a l " a n d religious instinct—are m o r e c o m p r e ­ h e n s i v e t h a n n a t u r e i n t h e strict sense. T h e y a r e t r u l y

2. The Doctrine of Being

metaphysical.

[Seinslehre]

a) K n o w l e d g e a n d Life T h e u l t i m a t e s o u r c e o f c e r t a i n t y is t h e f e e l i n g o f e x i s t e n c e . All f u r t h e r e v i ­ d e n c e is r o o t e d i n t h e f e e l i n g o f e x i s t e n c e . T h e h i g h e s t n o r m s o f t r u t h h a r ­ m o n i z e at t h e c o r e w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e of being [Wesen]

(instead o f w i t h , say,

m e r e c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) . T h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e m i n d [Geist] a r e r o o t e d i n t h e i n s t i n c t , i n t h e species i n s t i n c t o f h u m a n i t y t h a t , like e v e r y o t h e r i n s t i n c t , relates t o " t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e species, t o w a r d t h a t w h i c h b r i n g s it t o life a n d p r e s e r v e s i t . " T h u s t h e i n s t i n c t o f h u m a n i t y is m o s t d e e p l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h r e a s o n . R e l i g i o n is t h e r e f o r e t h e t r u l y h u m a n i n s t i n c t . I n s t i n c t a i m s at t h e s u b s t a n t i a l ; i n t e l l e c t aims at r e l a t i o n s . R e a l refers t o real; d e r i v e d refers t o d e r i v e d . T h e p h i l o s o p h y o f r e a s o n l i m i t s itself t o r e l a t i o n s t h a t a r e i m m a n e n t i n c o n s c i o u s n e s s . It d o e s n o t s e e k t o f o u n d t h e m o n g r o u n d s b e y o n d c o n ­ sciousness. I n l e a n i n g t o w a r d s u c h a f o u n d a t i o n [ b e y o n d c o n s c i o u s n e s s ] , J a c o b i

The Dissertation

57

(1921)

a g r e e s w i t h n a t u r a l i s t p h i l o s o p h y . B u t his p r o c e d u r e is essentially different f r o m a t t e m p t s at causal e x p l a n a t i o n : h e v e n t u r e s u p o n a m e t a p h y s i c a l s u b ­ s t r u c t u r e [Substruktion].

J a c o b i r e g a r d s i n s t i n c t as a m e t a p h y s i c a l p r i n c i p l e ,

a n d c a n t h e r e f o r e also a d v o c a t e t r a n s n a t u r a l m o d e s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h e r e l a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis-Beziehung] b e t w e e n t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e I [Ich-Substanz] b e i n g [Seins-Substanz],

is basically a r e l a t i o n

(essence) a n d t h e s u b s t a n c e o f

w h i c h , in turn, m u s t b e h o m o g e n e o u s . For the s u b ­

j e c t s are " i n c l u d e d " ["mitbegriffen"]

i n t h e real.

b) S u b s t a n c e , T i m e , C a u s a l i t y I n t h e o p i n i o n o f J a c o b i , t h e i r r a t i o n a l aspects o f b e i n g a r e chiefly c o n c e n ­ trated in these three principles. 3. On the Philosophy

of

Religion 7

I n o p p o s i t i o n t o literalism, J a c o b i defends t h e possibility o f an i m m e d i a t e e x p e ­ rience

o f G o d as w e l l as t h e possibility, based o n this e x p e r i e n c e , o f m e a s u r i n g all 8

historical religions i n t e r m s o f m e a n i n g a n d o f t r u t h itself. I n o p p o s i t i o n t o idealism a n d rationalism, he upholds the transcendence and the irrationality o f G o d . T h e n e c e s s i t y for p o s i t i v e r e l i g i o n is b a s e d o n t h e fact t h a t n o t r u t h c a n " r e a c h us w i t h o u t f o r m " [gestaltlos]. T h e e x p r e s s i o n , t h e " w o r d , "

9

the

i m a g e , is t h e n e c e s s a r y v e h i c l e for t h e h i d d e n , m e r e l y e x p r e s s i b l e , m e a n i n g .

1 0

C U R R I C U L U M VITAE

I, L e o Strauss, w a s b o r n o n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 1 8 9 9 , i n K i r c h h a i n / H e s s e . I a m o f t h e J e w i s h faith. After c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e V o l k s - u n d R e k t o r a t s s c h u l e o f m y h o m e t o w n , I e n t e r e d t h e G y m n a s i u m P h i l i p p i n u m i n M a r b u r g o n Easter 1 9 1 2 a n d g r a d u a t e d f r o m t h e r e at Easter, 1 9 1 7 . B e g i n n i n g in t h e s u m m e r s e m e s t e r o f 1 9 1 7 , I s t u d i e d at t h e universities o f M a r b u r g , Frankfurt a m M a i n , Berlin, a n d H a m b u r g , e x c e p t for t h e t i m e o f m y service in t h e a r m y (July 1 9 1 7 u n t i l D e ­ c e m b e r 1 9 1 8 ) . M y m a i n areas w e r e p h i l o s o p h y , m a t h e m a t i c s , a n d t h e sci­ e n c e s . I express m y sincere gratitude t o all m y teachers, a n d especially t o P r o f e s ­ sor E r n s t Cassirer, w h o k i n d l y advised m e d u r i n g t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f m y thesis. A H A N D W R I T T E N ADDITION T O THE EXTRACT

[ O n p . 7 o f a c o p y o f t h e e x t r a c t f r o m Strauss's d i s s e r t a t i o n at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o L i b r a r y t h e r e are h a n d w r i t t e n a d d i t i o n s , a p p a r e n t l y b y Strauss h i m s e l f . T h e f o l l o w i n g is a t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e s e a d d i t i o n s . ] 11

12

58

Chapter

1

[First p a r a g r a p h : ] A non-Jacobian approach to the Jacobian problems.

[Second paragraph:] J a c o b i d o e s n o t h a v e a p r o p e r t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis-Theorie]. this h e w o u l d n e e d a

rigorous

For

c o n c e p t o f "consciousness," w h i c h h e hates

a n d r e j e c t s . T h u s i n o r d e r t o e x t r a c t f r o m J a c [ o b i ] t h a t w h i c h is related

to

k n o w l e d g e , o n e h a d to resort to m a n y deflections. T h u s , I did n o t present "Jacobi-in-himself,"

b u t r a t h e r o n l y i n s o f a r as I n e e d e d h i m . E s p e c i a l l y h i s

" i n t r o s p e c t i o n " [Innerlichkeit]

c a m e off b a d l y .

[Third paragraph:] H e g e l , " P r e f j a c e ] " t o Phenom[enology

of the Mind],

speaks o f an

"intensity

without substance," of the "hollow depth" of the philosophy of perception a n d of feeling.

NOTES S o u r c e : Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis: Auszug aus der Inaugural-Dissertation, verfaßt und zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Hamburgischen Universität vorgelegt von Leo Strauss aus Kirchhain (Hessen) ( H a m b u r g : Julius S c h r ö d e r , K i r c h h a i n , B e z i r k Cassel, 1 9 2 1 ) . R e f e r e e : Ernst Cassirer. D a t e o f oral e x a m i n a t i o n : 17 D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 1 . Friedrich H e i n r i c h Jacobi ( 1 7 4 3 - 1 8 1 9 ) . First m e r c h a n t i n D ü s s e l d o r f a n d E u t i n , t h e n director o f t h e Bavarian A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s ( 1 8 0 5 - 1 2 ) , Jacobi w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e great figures o f the moderate G e r m a n E n l i g h t e n m e n t ( H a m a n n , Herder, Lessing, M e n d e l s s o h n ) and w a s a critic o f Kant. H e d e v e l o p e d a philosophical defense o f b e l i e f as a s o u r c e o f g e n u i n e k n o w l e d g e o f reality that, i n t h e v e r s i o n g i v e n it b y S c h l e i e r m a c h e r , b e c a m e p o p u l a r i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n f o r m o f the n o d o n o f a "religious a priori." J a c o b i and M e n d e l s s o h n e x c h a n g e d letters o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r Lessing w a s a Spinozist (a devastating charge at t h e t i m e ) . T h i s e x c h a n g e b e c a m e f a m o u s i n t h e h i s ­ tory o f p h i l o s o p h y as t h e debate o n p a n t h e i s m (Pantheismusstreit). Cf. Fritz M a u t h n e r , ed., Jacobis Spinoza-Büchlein nebst Replik und Duplik ( M ü n c h e n : G. Müller, 1 9 1 2 . ) Strauss later d e s c r i b e d M e n d e l s s o h n ' s part i n this debate i n his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o M e n d e l s s o h n ' s " M o r g e n s t u n d e n " and " A n die F r e u n d e Lessings" ( 1 9 3 7 ) . S e e GS, 2:528—605. Strauss's c o n c e r n w i t h J a c o b i is thus visible at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g as w e l l as at t h e i m p o r t a n t j u n c t u r e o f his phase o f reorientation, i n t h e m i d t o late 1 9 3 0 s . T h e m o s t explicit cri­ tique o f the n o t i o n o f a religious a priori, h o w e v e r , appeared i n 1 9 2 4 , i n t h e essay " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e . " Similarly, Strauss d e f e n d e d t h e v a l u e o f cri­ tique, w h i c h is here c o n d e m n e d as an e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e primary attitude o f " t i m i d l y d o u b t i n g , " i n his first Z i o n i s t essay, " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e ' " ( 1 9 2 3 ) , a n d again i n " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e . " Strauss's interest i n S p i n o z a m a y also h a v e b e e n stirred b y his w o r k o n Jacobi, i n that it w a s J a c o b i ( w h o

The Dissertation

(1921)

59

rejected Spinoza) w h o w a s t h e first o f his g e n e r a t i o n t o argue that t h e o n l y consistently rational p h i l o s o p h y w a s that o f Spinoza.] 1.

Preliminary R e m a r k (Vorbemerkung): this paragraph is a s u m m a r y o f the " P r e ­

liminary R e m a r k " o f the dissertation (see GS, 2:241—43). I n addition t o t h e disclaimer to w h i c h t h e Vorbemerkung is r e d u c e d i n t h e extract, t h e m o r e e x t e n s i v e Vorbemerkung offers a f e w remarks o n t h e overlap and differences b e t w e e n Jacobi's and Kant's r e s p e c ­ tive c o n c e p t s o f reason (Vernunft) and o n difficulties i n J a c o b i that arise f r o m i n c o n s i s ­ t e n c i e s i n his t e r m i n o l o g y . 2.

I n this d i c h o t o m o u s t y p o l o g y o f faculties, t h e t e r m gebende Vermögen refers t o

the necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n o f the receptive faculty, n a m e l y , an active faculty that p r o ­ v i d e s t h e material reflected b y t h e r e c e i v i n g faculty, that is, t h e intellect. T h e translation o f t h e t e r m as " g i v i n g faculties" m a y n o t b e particularly suggestive, b u t its m e a n i n g s h o u l d b e clear f r o m t h e c o n t e x t . 3.

Wahrnehmung refers t o t h e act or process o f b e c o m i n g c o n s c i o u s o f s o m e t h i n g ,

i m p l y i n g that s o m e t h i n g that exists i n itself is grasped or, literally, "taken." It is t h e G e r m a n e q u i v a l e n t o f the Latin percipi (to p e r c e i v e ) . T h e same relation o f d e p e n d e n c e o n a " g i v e n " is i m p l i e d i n t h e s e c o n d " n a m e , " as Strauss puts it, n a m e l y Vernunft. Its c o m m o n E n g l i s h translation, "reason," is d e r i v e d f r o m t h e Latin ratio, w h i c h is based o n a different c o n n o t a t i o n than t h e G e r m a n Vernunft. T h e latter, as Strauss p o i n t s o u t , derives from vernehmen, w h i c h , w h i l e likewise a derivation o f the w o r d for taking (nehmen), m e a n s "to hear." T o t h e e x t e n t that this c o n n o t a t i o n is present i n t h e n o u n Vernunft, t h e latter is thus associated w i t h t h e aural sense. A s i n t h e case of wahrnehmen, Vernunft, as Strauss claims, appears as receptive rather than s p o n t a n e o u s . 4.

H e r e and elsewhere i n his writings, Strauss uses the w o r d Moment, w h o s e E n g l i s h

equivalent, " m o m e n t " (in t h e sense o f factor, e l e m e n t , etc.), is familiar t o readers o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l texts b u t m a y b e c o n f u s i n g t o others. T h e c o n n o t a t i o n o f " m o m e n t " i n this sense is n o t t e m p o r a l (as i n " o n e m o m e n t , please," o r einen Moment, bitte) b u t functional, d e n o t i n g a single e l e m e n t o r factor i n a c o m p l e x p r o c e s s — f o r e x a m p l e , that o f t h o u g h t or that o f p e r c e p t i o n . In s o m e cases, w e try t o a v o i d possible m i s u n d e r s t a n d ­ ings o f t h e t e r m b y r e n d e r i n g it as " e l e m e n t " rather than as its relatively unfamiliar E n g l i s h c o g n a t e . W h e r e v e r c o n f u s i o n is unlikely, h o w e v e r , w e render Moment as " m o ­ ment." 5.

Problemgeschichte: t h e history o f a p r o b l e m , p r o b l e m - h i s t o r y , o r t h e p r o b l e m -

historical m e t h o d (problemgeschichtliche Methode) is a m e t h o d o f s t u d y i n g t h e history o f p h i l o s o p h y o n t h e basis o f p r o b l e m s that are h a n d e d d o w n i n its significant texts a n d i n w h i c h t h e reader m u s t participate b o t h i n order t o understand t h e historical p o s i t i o n s and t o c o n t i n u e t h e history o f t h e p r o b l e m itself b y p u r s u i n g t h e goal o f its s o l u t i o n . T h i s m e t h o d is p r o m i n e n t i n t h e w o r k s o f t h e M a r b u r g s c h o o l o f n e o - K a n t i a n i s m ( C o h e n , N a t o r p , Cassirer) and b e y o n d (cf., e.g., t h e w o r k o f R i c h a r d H ö n i g s w a l d ) . I n the 1920s, t h e y o u n g e r generation o f Marburg philosophers (especially N i c o l a i H a r t m a n n and H a n s G e o r g Gadamer) criticized t h e p r o b l e m - h i s t o r i c a l m e t h o d . T o t h e m , t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f i m m e d i a t e access t o perennial p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o b l e m s o b s c u r e d t h e fact o f t h e distance b e t w e e n t h e m o d e r n reader and t h e ancient texts a n d their assumptions. F o r t h e y o u n g G a d a m e r s e e , for e x a m p l e , H a n s - G e o r g G a d a m e r , Festschrift für Paul

Natorp zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage von Schülern und Freunden gewidmet (Berlin and Leipzig:

Chapter

60

1

W a l t e r d e Gruyter, 1 9 2 4 ) , 56f., 74f. In Truth and Method, trans. J o e l W e i n s h e i m e r a n d D o n a l d G. Marshall, 2 d ed. ( N e w Y o r k : Crossroad, 1 9 8 9 ) , 376f., G a d a m e r c o n t i n u e s t o dismiss t h e n e o - K a n t i a n history o f p r o b l e m s as "a bastard-child o f historicism." (I thank K e n G r e e n for t h e latter reference.) E v e n t h e latter derisive characterization contains an indirect r e c o g n i t i o n o f the n e o - K a n t i a n effort t o o v e r c o m e t h e purely historical p e r ­ spective o n philosophy, w h i c h prevailed o n the C o n t i n e n t before the rise o f neo-Kantianism. In t h e preface t o his dissertation Strauss d o e s b o t h : h e r e c o g n i z e s t h e m i s g i v i n g s o n e m a y h a v e a b o u t t h e problem-historical approach and justifies its utility. In t h e case o f his study o f j a c o b i , t h e focus is o n the p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e , to w h i c h J a c o b i m a d e certain contributions that h e failed t o conceptualize i n a systematic and c o h e r e n t m a n n e r . H e n c e the focus is n o t as m u c h o n Jacobi as o n "the p r o b l e m s indicated i n t h e tide 'Jacobi'," etc. S e e GS, 2 : 2 4 3 . 6. Jacobi's p o s i t i o n is described here n o t as postulating h u m a n liberty b u t as s o m e ­ h o w " e x p e r i e n c i n g , " and therefore " k n o w i n g , " h u m a n liberty t o b e a "reality." T h i s is o b v i o u s l y t h e p u r p o s e o f identifying all forms or "spheres" o f k n o w l e d g e as "belief." If the certainty o f k n o w l e d g e is b u t a f o r m o f "belief," t h e n any kind o f b e l i e f is e q u i v a l e n t i n certainty t o all forms o f k n o w l e d g e . B e l i e f is a n a l o g o u s i n certainty t o d e m o n s t r a b l e truths b e c a u s e e v e n t h e latter b o r r o w their c o n v i n c i n g force from t h e o r i g i n o f o u r certainty, t h e w a y w e feel o u r b o d y t o b e "real." W h a t m a d e this p o s i t i o n attractive i n the early t w e n t i e t h century w i t h its various "vitalist" trends w a s that it reintegrated scientific a n d intellectual certainty w i t h a larger s c h e m e o f k n o w l e d g e , d e - e m p h a s i z i n g w h a t s e e m e d o v e r e m p h a s i z e d i n academic p h i l o s o p h y o n t h e basis o f an almost p r a g m a tist paradigm o f c o m m o n e x p e r i e n c e . It s e e m s that Strauss's philosophical c o n t e x t s i n ­ fluenced h i m m o r e strongly i n this e x p o s i t i o n o f Jacobi's t h o u g h t than h e cared t o admit. ( S e e , h o w e v e r , t h e later clarification o f Strauss's i n t e n t i o n i n t h e n o t e s h e a d d e d b y h a n d i n his c o p y o f the text.) In contrast t o t h e possible associations w i t h a vitalist agenda, t h e dissertation espouses the phrasing a n d research interest o f his teacher Ernst Cassirer b o t h b y s u b j e c t i n g j a c o b i ' s doctrine o f k n o w l e d g e t o an e x a m i n a t i o n (the later n o t e s p o i n t o u t that this w a s a rather n o n - J a c o b i a n w a y o f a p p r o a c h i n g Jacobi) a n d b y u n d e r t a k i n g this e x a m i n a t i o n under t h e h e a d i n g o f a history o f the p r o b l e m (Problem­

geschichte). 7. S e e Strauss, "Erkenntnislehre" (diss., U n i v e r s i t y o f H a m b u r g , 1 9 2 1 ) , reprinted i n GS, 2 : 2 8 9 . Literalismus is here defined as o n e o f t w o alternative positions, b o t h o f w h i c h J a c o b i seeks t o o v e r c o m e . M o r e precisely, "literalism" refers t o the p o s i t i o n that affirms t h e irrational quality o f G o d , and h e n c e an utter d e p e n d e n c e o f h u m a n reason o n p o s i t i v e , revealed religion. 8. Jacobi's t h e o l o g i c a l ideas w e r e perfected a n d presented i n their m o s t influential form b y Schleiermacher. 9. Cf. Strauss, " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's 'Word o f Principle'" (emphasis added). 10. A c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, t h e nur ausdrückbare Sinn—that is, t h e m e a n i n g that c a n m e r e l y b e e x p r e s s e d — c o r r e s p o n d s t o the positive or historical religions. In this sense it represents Jacobi's c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e rationalist insistence o n G o d as an absolute that c a n n e v e r b e adequately expressed b y a n y particular religion and t h e literalist insis­ t e n c e o n t h e irrationality o f G o d that e x e m p t s revelation from all critical e x a m i n a t i o n .

The Dissertation

61

(1921)

R e l i g i o n expresses the m e a n i n g o f G o d , but it m e r e l y expresses it, and h e n c e n e v e r contains it fully. Cf. " E r k e n n t n i s p r o b l e m " (the full text o f the dissertation) in GS, 2:288f. 11.

T h e G e r m a n original w a s first p u b l i s h e d i n GS,

12.

It s e e m s t o m e that the additions w e r e n o t m a d e all at o n c e . T h e w r i t i n g

2:297.

material o f the first c o u p l e o f lines is different f r o m that u s e d i n the s e c o n d and third paragraphs and left n o i m p r i n t o n the facing page. T h e i m p r i n t o f the third paragraphs o n t h e facing p a g e is w e a k e r than that m a d e b y the s e c o n d paragraph.

II «s> Zionist Writings (1923-25) T h e p u b l i c a t i o n s f r o m t h i s p e r i o d r e p r e s e n t L e o Strauss as a p o l i t i c a l Zionist. T h e y c o i n c i d e w i t h o n e o f t h e m o s t optimistic phases i n t h e history o f Z i o n i s m i n general, and o f the G e r m a n Zionist m o v e m e n t i n particular. ( O n t h e f o l l o w i n g cf. W a l t e r L a q u e u r , A History of Zionism [ N e w York: Schocken Books, 1972], 445, 450-55.) While German Jews n o l o n g e r e x p e r i e n c e d t h e systematic g o v e r n m e n t a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n that h a d b e e n t h e r u l e u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e First W o r l d W a r a n d w h i l e its e l i t e h a d g a i n e d a c c e s s t o p o s i t i o n s o f cultural, p o l i t i c a l , a n d e c o n o m i c i n f l u ­ e n c e , t h e Z i o n i s t m i n o r i t y p e r c e i v e d signs o f a g r o w i n g

anti-Semitic

s e n t i m e n t t h a t c o n f i r m e d w h a t t h e y h a d b e e n b e l i e v i n g all a l o n g , n a m e l y , that t h e future o f E u r o p e a n J e w r y d e p e n d e d o n t h e ability o f t h e J e w s t o extricate themselves f r o m E u r o p e . W i t h t h e Balfour Declaration o f 1 9 1 7 , i n w h i c h t h e B r i t i s h c r o w n r e c o g n i z e d its s u p p o r t o f t h e Z i o n i s t q u e s t for t h e establishment o f a "Jewish h o m e l a n d i n Palestine," t h e s o u g h t f o r e x t r i c a t i o n f r o m E u r o p e h a d b e c o m e a realistic p o l i t i c a l o p t i o n , b u t t h e p r o c e s s o f its r e a l i z a t i o n w a s still d e l a y e d . W h i l e t h e U n i t e d K i n g ­ d o m h a d supported J e w i s h immigration t o Palestine d e facto since 1 9 2 0 (the year o f the S a n R e m o c o n f e r e n c e a n d o f the p e a c e treaty w i t h T u r ­ k e y ) w h e n H e r b e r t S a m u e l b e c a m e t h e first H i g h C o m m i s s i o n e r f o r P a l e s t i n e , it t o o k u n t i l t h e s i g n i n g o f t h e 1 9 2 4 T r e a t y o f L a u s a n n e b e f o r e P a l e s t i n e w a s o f f i c i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d as a L e a g u e o f N a t i o n s m a n d a t e , m a k ­ i n g B r i t i s h c o n t r o l o f i m m i g r a t i o n a d e j u r e r e a l i t y as w e l l . T h e G e r m a n e c o n o m i c crisis e n d e d i n 1 9 2 3 , a l l o w i n g a flow o f capital i n t o Z i o n i s t projects a n d setdements, w h i c h triggered a veritable building b o o m i n P a l e s t i n e t h a t p r o v i d e d e m p l o y m e n t f o r t h e n e w settlers. T h i s d e v e l o p ­ m e n t r e a c h e d its p e a k i n 1 9 2 5 . W h i l e c e r t a i n l y f u l l y a w a r e o f t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s , Strauss s h o w s h i d e i m m e d i a t e interest i n t h e practical political side o f Z i o n i s m . R a t h e r , h e

63

64

Chapter

2

raises h i s v o i c e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e o n g o i n g d e b a t e s a m o n g

Zionist

y o u t h s o n t h e spiritual o r i e n t a t i o n o f Z i o n i s m a n d its r e l a t i o n t o E u r o ­ p e a n c u l t u r e . Strauss p o s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a spiritual e x t r i c a t i o n f r o m E u r o p e , b u t h e f i n d s t h e c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s t a n s w e r t o this q u e s t i o n d e f i c i e n t . T h e m o d e r n i z e d t h e o l o g y o f cultural Z i o n i s m t h a t r e j e c t s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l J e w i s h r e l i g i o n o f e x i l e a n d its b e l i e f i n t h e d i v i n e m o n o p o l y o n r e d e m p t i o n appears t o Strauss as a n u n a c k n o w l e d g e d a t h e ­ i s m , a v a r i a n t o n m o d e r n c u l t u r a l P r o t e s t a n t i s m w i t h its r o o t s i n t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t critique o f religion. W h i l e h e criticizes cultural Z i o n i s m , Strauss m a i n t a i n s w i t h H e r m a n n C o h e n t h a t t h e m o d e r n p o l i t i c a l i d e a l s o f l i b e r a l i s m a n d r e p u b l i c a n i s m are c o n g e n i a l t o t h e e t h i c a l m o n o t h e i s m o f t h e b i b l i c a l p r o p h e t s . Strauss t h u s a p p e a r s t o s o m e o f his r e a d e r s as a n enthusiastically religious Zionist w h o opposes the m o d e r n i s m o f religion w h i l e a d v o c a t i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l g o a l s o f H e r z l Z i o n i s m . Strauss, h o w e v e r , r e j e c t s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f his p o s i t i o n b y o p e n i n g a s e c o n d f r o n t a g a i n s t the religious Z i o n i s m o f Mizrahi. (See " C o m m e n t o n Weinberg's Cri­ tique"

a n d " E c c l e s i a m i l i t a n s . " ) I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e radical i n t e l l e c t u a l

h o n e s t y t o w h i c h h e s u b s c r i b e s , Strauss a d m i t s t h a t t h e o n l y a c c e p t a b l e a n s w e r t o t h e m o d e r n J e w i s h p r o b l e m , m e r e p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m , is l a c k i n g i n spiritual d e p t h . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e a d v o c a t e s p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m as t h e o n l y a t t i t u d e t h a t r e n o u n c e s all false r e l i a n c e o n e i t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l o r m o d e r n religious sources and thus constitutes a kind o f honest atheism. T h i s p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , p u s h e s Strauss b e y o n d t h e p a l e o f p o s i t i o n s a c ­ ceptable t o t h e Z i o n i s t mainstream. T h e a r g u m e n t i n favor o f an atheis­ tic f o u n d a t i o n t o Z i o n i s m ( m o s t e v i d e n t i n t h e 1 9 2 8 r e v i e w o f Freud's Future of an Illusion,

h e r e i n c h a p t e r 4 ) is r e j e c t e d as p o l i t i c a l l y a n d

propagandistically detrimental t o t h e centrist Z i o n i s t pursuit o f a c o a l i ­ tion

b e t w e e n r e l i g i o u s a n d s e c u l a r (liberal, a s s i m i l a t e d ) J e w s .

R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's " W o r d o f Principle" (1923) PREFATORY REMARK BY THE A U T H O R

I offer t h e f o l l o w i n g remarks for t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e reader: A t t h e special convention

1

o f t h e Kartell j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n (K.J.V.),

2

held in Berlin

at C h r i s t m a s [ o f 1 9 2 2 ] , t h e f u s i o n b e t w e e n K . J . V . a n d B l a u - W e i s s ,

3

w a s o n t h e a g e n d a , w a s opposed b y t h e F r a n k f u r t f a c t i o n [ o f K . J . V . ] .

which 4

The

m a i n r e a s o n for this o p p o s i t i o n w a s t h e a l l e g e d aversion, i n d e e d t h e spiritual [seelisch] i n c a p a c i t y , o f B l a u - W e i s s t o e n t e r t a i n t h e d e m a n d f o r " J e w i s h 5

con­

6

t e n t . " — T h e t e r m " B r e s l a u " refers t o t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h a n d p o w e r p o l i t i c s oriented w i n g o f Blau-Weiss, w h i c h , in recent m o n t h s , attained a leading

Zionist

Writings

position within Blau-Weiss. T h e

following

(1921-32)

r e j o i n d e r is b a s e d o n t h e s e facts,

as w e l l as o n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , p u b l i s h e d i n issue 1 0 3 / 1 0 4 o f t h e 7

Rundschau,

65

Jüdische

w h i c h is closely r e l a t e d t o t h e s e facts.

* ** T h e f o l l o w i n g r e s p o n s e is g o v e r n e d b y a t e n d e n c y t h a t r e g a r d s itself i n m a n y r e s p e c t s a k i n t o w h a t , u n t i l n o w , has b e e n t h e t e n d e n c y o f B l a u - W e i s s . T h i s k i n s h i p d o e s n o t r u l e o u t a c e r t a i n h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n p r i n c i p l e . It especially does n o t rule o u t that, o n a level c o n c e r n e d entirely w i t h principles, o u r t e n d e n c y finds itself o p p o s e d t o a u n i t e d f r o n t o f B l a u - W e i s s a n d F r a n k f u r t , n a m e l y , because o f an affirmation [on o u r part] of the values of " a r g u m e n t a ­ t i o n " and "formal politicism" that have b e e n d e n o u n c e d by b o t h groups. In this r e s p e c t , t h e special c o n v e n t i o n o f t h e K . J . V . r e v e a l e d a r e m a r k a b l e u n a ­ n i m i t y o f t h e m o s t s t r i d e n t o p p o n e n t s a n d t h e m o s t e n e r g e t i c friends o f t h e fusion, d u e t o t h e confident c o n v i c t i o n that the t i m e of sovereign science a n d s o v e r e i g n p o l i t i c s is at a n e n d . O n e s h o u l d n o t let o n e s e l f b e d e c e i v e d b y t h e 8

p o l i t i c a l d e m a n d s o f W a l t e r M o s e s . W h a t h e calls " p o l i t i c a l " is p o l i t i c a l i n t h e a n c i e n t sense o f t h e w o r d , r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e m o d e r n sense t h a t is r e l e v a n t 9

for u s . W h a t is h i d d e n b e h i n d this a b s o l u t e n e g a t i o n o f t h e s p h e r e o f t h e " p r i v a t e " is n o t a m o d e r n L e v i a t h a n , b u t r a t h e r t h e pagan-fascist c o u n t e r p a r t o f t h a t , w h i c h , i n t h e case o f t h e F r a n k f u r t f a c t i o n , b e a r s a m y s t i c a l - h u m a n i ­ tarian stamp. ( T o b e sure, b o t h of these attitudes are m o d e r n , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y are a n t i m o d e r n , w h i c h is p r e c i s e l y w h a t r e n d e r s t h e m i n n e r - m o d e r n . ) T h e s a m e a p p l i e s t o " b e l i e f , " w h i c h b o t h a r e w i l l i n g t o establish as a n u l t i ­ m a t e c e r t a i n t y i m p e r v i o u s t o " a r g u m e n t a t i o n . " I n this t h e y u n d o u b t e d l y c o n ­ cur w i t h the tendency of our entire generation. This s o m e h o w makes t h e m a g r e e a b l e t o u s , b u t it d o e s n o t at all p r o v e t h e i r l e g i t i m a c y . F o r t h e m o m e n t , l e t us c o m p l e t e l y set aside t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r " s c i e n c e " a n d " s t a t e " — t h o s e fruits o f t h e a n t i - C a t h o l i c s p i r i t — a r e p e r h a p s m o r e closely r e l a t e d t o t h e i n n e r m o s t J e w i s h t e n d e n c y t h a n is t h e d e c i d e d l y m o r e familiar i d e a l o f 10

o u r o r g a n o l o g i s t s — a " p e r h a p s " at w h i c h o n e m a y v e r y w e l l a r r i v e if o n e t h i n k s o f t h e b i b l i c a l o r i g i n s o f m o d e r n s c i e n c e , o f t h e e q u a l l y uncanny

char­

acter of the biblical w o r l d and of the w o r l d v i e w of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , o f t h e r o l e S p i n o z a plays i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e m o d e r n v i e w o f t h e w o r l d a n d t h e m o d e r n v i e w o f t h e state, as w e l l as o f several o t h e r t h i n g s . ( T h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l l y utilitarian c h a r a c t e r o f m o d e r n s c i e n c e is a s e n t i m e n t a l d e f a m a t i o n . ) T h e r e f o r e , e v e n if w e c o m p l e t e l y set aside t h e q u e s ­ t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e m o d e r n spirit c a n b e j u s t i f i e d at all, it is still s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e t o e x t r i c a t e o n e s e l f f r o m m o d e r n life

66

Chapter

2

w i t h o u t e m p l o y i n g m o d e r n means. T h u s w e have n o need whatever to enter i n t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e u s u a l insults, b y n o w q u i t e h a c k n e y e d , h u r l e d at t h e "bourgeois" attitude. In the conflict b e t w e e n Breslau a n d Frankfurt ( b e t w e e n Frankfurt a n d B l a u - W e i s s ) , I a m c o m p e l l e d — o n g r o u n d s t h a t o b v i o u s l y lie o n a different p l a n e t h a n t h o s e j u s t m e n t i o n e d — t o side w i t h B r e s l a u ( B l a u - W e i s s ) . D e s p i t e t h e e x t e r n a l failure o f t h e F r a n k f u r t spirit (as d e s c r i b e d b y E r n s t S i m o n ) ,

1 1

the

c o n v e n t i o n o f t h e K . J . V . i n t r u t h signifies a v i c t o r y o f this spirit. O u r i n f e r i ­ o r i t y i n a r g u m e n t , t h a t is, o u r e m p t i n e s s i n s u b s t a n c e , w a s b r o u g h t t o l i g h t i n t h e m o s t r e g r e t t a b l e w a y . I n a n y case, o n e t h i n g is c e r t a i n : w e h a v e as y e t t o find o u r " w o r d "

1 2

of principle, n o r have w e yet m a t u r e d to an elucidation of

o u r s e l v e s i n p r i n c i p l e . W h a t p o s e d d u r i n g t h e c o n f e r e n c e as s u c h a w o r d , s u c h a n e l u c i d a t i o n , w a s s h a l l o w a n d e m p t y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it m u s t b e said e x p l i c i t l y t h a t this s h o r t c o m i n g is a real s h o r t c o m i n g . W e m u s t a v o i d b y all p o s s i b l e m e a n s t h e a d o l e s c e n t s e n t i m e n t a l i t y t h a t , t r u s t i n g in t h e i n n e r s i n c e r ­ ity o f its o w n t e n d e n c y , d i s p e n s e s w i t h t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a " w o r d , " a r e a s o n , a j u s t i f i c a t i o n — i n o u r case: a Z i o n i s t j u s t i f i c a t i o n . It w a s t h o u g h t t h a t b y h e a p i n g u p o n us for years, t o t h e p o i n t o f n a u s e a , " p e r s o n a l e n c o u n t e r s " ["Erlebnisse"]

a n d " c o n f e s s i o n s " ["Bekenntnisse"],

t h a t t h e r e is s u c h a t h i n g as c r i t i q u e . fused,

14

13

o n e c o u l d m a k e us

forget

W e ourselves w e r e temporarily c o n ­

b u t n o w w e u n a m b i g u o u s l y profess t h e spirit o f s o b r i e t y as o p p o s e d

t o t h a t o f p a t h e t i c d e c l a m a t i o n . " B e l i e f " m a y still b e d e c i s i v e , y e t b e l i e f is n o o r a c l e b u t is s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n t r o l o f h i s t o r i c a l r e a s o n i n g . H e n c e , w h a t m a t t e r s t o us is n o t t o o p p o s e t o t h e F r a n k f u r t t h e s e s o t h e r 1 5

t h e s e s — b e t h e y o f Breslau or of K i r c h h a i n — b u t to subject to critique t h e t h e s e s t h a t w e r e p u t b e f o r e us. F o r t h e s e theses c l a i m t o b e t h e e x p r e s s i o n n o t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r w i l l o f r a n d o m J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s - this s o r t o f t h i n g w o u l d n o t p r o v o k e o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n — b u t o f t h e general a n d necessary will o f the spirit o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e at t h e stage o f its d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t is called " Z i o n ­ i s m . " Insofar as Z i o n i s t r e a s o n is alive a m o n g t h e rest o f u s , w e h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o criticize these d e m a n d s a n d t o e x a m i n e the presuppositions o f e a c h o n e o f t h e m s e p a r a t e l y . E v e n t h o u g h , at this h o u r , w e a r e n o t y e t a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e o u r " w o r d , " w e s h o u l d ask o u r s e l v e s e v e n t o d a y w h e t h e r t h e w o r d o f t h e o t h e r s is valid. E v e n t h e " W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e " is first o f all a w o r d o f c r i t i c i s m ; it a d ­ dresses u s , t h a t is, it addresses t h o s e w h o a r e " G e r m a n J e w s " n o t s i m p l y b y b e i n g s u c h b u t also b y c o n s c i o u s l y a f f i r m i n g it, in an e x a m i n i n g , j u d g i n g , a n d c o n v i c t i n g m a n n e r . T h e o b j e c t i o n s t o b e raised b e g i n w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y thesis o f t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n t h a t asserts t h a t t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h y o u t h m o v e ­ m e n t is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a n a n a r c h y o f s t a n d p o i n t s a n d p o s i t i o n s . T h i s thesis

Zionist

Writings

67

(1921-32)

c a n b e easily a n d c o n v e n i e n d y p r o v e d if o n e sticks t o t h e s h a d o w y s c h e m a t i s m s o f " s o c i a l i s m vs. c a p i t a l i s m , " " B u b e r i s m vs. i r r e l i g i o s i t y , " " P a n - J u d a i s m v s . G e r m a n J e w i s h particularism," w i t h o u t considering the u n d e r l y i n g reality that these n a m e s s e e m e d temporarily apt to express in ideological terms. N o d o u b t the u n p r e c e d e n t e d intellectualism o f the y o u t h m o v e m e n t warrants t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t it is p u r e arbitrariness o f s u b j e c t i v i t y t h a t g o v e r n s t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e v i e w s o f B l a u - W e i s s . H o w e v e r , this is n o t t h e case. If w e p r o c e e d f r o m t h e g e n e r a l p o s i t i o n t h a t is associated w i t h t h e n a m e s o f L a n d a u e r

16

and Buber

1 7

a n d t h a t , right after t h e w a r , e n j o y e d , i n a m a n n e r o f s p e a k i n g , c a n o n i c a l status i n B l a u - W e i s s , t h e n w e n o t i c e t h a t a m e a n i n g f u l d e v e l o p m e n t leads f r o m this g e n e r a l p o s i t i o n t o t h e o n e p r e v a i l i n g t o d a y . T a k e , for e x a m p l e , B u b e r ' s t h o r o u g h l y i m m a n e n t i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n . If G o d is " l a t e r " t h a n t h e r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e [Erlebnis] o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l o r o f t h e p e o p l e ( a n d this is B u b e r ' s d o c t r i n e ) , t h e n t h e t r a j e c t o r y t o w a r d a b s o l u t i z i n g " t h e h u ­ m a n " is a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d . (It is o f lesser c o n c e r n w h e t h e r o n e t h i n k s o f t h e h u m a n m o r e i n t e r m s o f t h e h e r o i c o r o f t h e H a s i d i c . ) Furthermore,

Landauer's

1 8

affirmation—oriented towards the G e r m a n Middle A g e s — o f an organic c o m m u n i t y as o p p o s e d t o a r a t i o n a l s o c i e t y , w i t h [its] c h a r a c t e r i s t i c y e t c o m ­ p l e t e l y a r b i t r a r y r e s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t i n g t o power, leads, if o n e follows t h e i n n e r d y n a m i c o f w h a t is affirmed a n d n o t L a n d a u e r ' s wishfulnesses [Wiinschbarkeiten],

t o a d e c i s i v e affirmation o f t h e p o w e r p r i n c i p l e . It is o n l y

t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e p o w e r p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h is i m m a n e n t l y r e q u i r e d b y his a f f i r m a t i o n , t h a t separates L a n d a u e r ' s " s o c i a l i s m " f r o m t h e p o l i t i c i s m o f B l a u W e i s s as it h a s b e e n u p t o n o w (a p o l i t i c i s m t h a t is n o t i n t h e least " f o r m a l " ) . N o w t h a t J e w i s h n a t i o n a l i s m has passed i n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y c o n s c i o u s ­ ness, o n e is finally a l l o w e d t o e m p h a s i z e t h e specifically G e r m a n J e w i s h v a l ­ ues, precisely in the interest of Z i o n i s m . — A decisive general circumstance h e l p i n g this d e v e l o p m e n t a l o n g consists i n t h e fact t h a t j u s t as t h e G e r m a n y o u t h has b e g u n t o l i b e r a t e itself f r o m t h e h y s t e r i a o f w a r - w e a r i n e s s , o f d e ­ feat, a n d o f r e v o l u t i o n , so t o o has t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h y o u t h . If, i n s t e a d o f l a t c h i n g o n t o s e n s a t i o n a l c h a n g e s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s , o n e l o o k s at t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e w h o l e , t h e n o n e c a n n o t fail t o n o t i c e a m e a n i n g f u l , e v e n u n a m b i g u o u s , d i r e c t i o n o f this d e v e l o p m e n t . If, h o w e v e r , o n e d e c e i v e s o n e s e l f a b o u t this i m m a n e n t t e n d e n c y o f m e a n i n g , w h i c h i n a c e r t a i n w a y p o i n t s t o w a r d t h e f u t u r e a n d t h e r e b y p r o v i d e s a genuine

standard

for j u d g m e n t , t h e n a n d o n l y t h e n is o n e f o r c e d t o a d o p t a s o - c a l l e d o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d , t h a t is, a s t a n d a r d t h a t is alien t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . It is o u r o p i n i o n t h a t n o t o n l y is t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h y o u t h m o v e m e n t n o t l a c k i n g a m e a n i n g ­ ful d i r e c t i o n o f its o w n b u t t h a t this m e a n i n g f u l d i r e c t i o n is essentially i d e n ­ tical w i t h t h a t o f t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h d e v e l o p m e n t i n g e n e r a l . I n o r d e r t o

Chapter

68

2

h a v e a c o n v e n i e n t n a m e for this d i r e c t i o n , w e p r o p o s e t o s p e a k o f a n ing into reality"

19

["Einwirklichung"],

"enter­

t h a t is, o f t h e t e n d e n c y t o g a i n access t o

n o r m a l h i s t o r i c a l " r e a l i t y " (land a n d soil, p o w e r a n d a r m s , p e a s a n t r y a n d a r i s ­ t o c r a c y ) . W e s e e t h e d e c i s i v e difference b e t w e e n Z i o n i s m a n d a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t h a t t h e l a t t e r a i m e d at a n e n t e r i n g i n t o reality o f i n d i v i d u a l s o n l y a n d n o t o f t h e p e o p l e . H e n c e i n t h e final analysis Z i o n i s m d o e s n o t m e a n a " r e t u r n t o t h e p e o p l e " — t h i s is its m e a n i n g o n l y i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e " i n d i v i d u a l i s m " o f a s s i m i l a t i o n — b u t r a t h e r a r e t u r n t o reality, t o n o r m a l p o l i t i c a l e x i s t e n c e ; a n d for this r e a s o n Z i o n i s m and assimilation i n d e e d f o r m a single f r o n t against t h e galut.

If o n e w a n t e d t o c o m e b a c k t o s i m p l e reality, t h e n t h e w o r l d o f t h e

galut,

t h e w o r l d o f a " g h o s t - p e o p l e " ["Volksgespenst"]

[Entwirklichtheit],

e m p t i e d o f reality

h a d t o b e f o r c e d o p e n f r o m w i t h i n . T h i s f o r c i n g w a s ef­

fected b y liberalism t h r o u g h a separation o f the religious a n d t h e profane, a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h the former was elevated to the distant sphere o f the ser­ m o n a n d t h e divine service—in short, o f c e r e m o n i e s — w h i l e the sphere of the latter w a s

flooded

b y G e r m a n c u r r e n t s . If w e d i s r e g a r d t h e i n n e r p r e ­

paredness for o n e a n o t h e r of b o t h G e r m a n s and J e w s that existed in the e i g h ­ t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d if w e also d i s r e g a r d t h e d e f l e c t i o n [Umbiegung]

experi­

e n c e d b y t h e G e r m a n m i n d d u e t o t h e i n f l u x o f J e w i s h forces, w h a t r e m a i n s as t h e significant e l e m e n t in t h e G e r m a n J e w i s h d e v e l o p m e n t is an e v e r s t r o n g e r G e r m a n i z a t i o n , especially i n t h e p r o f a n e r e a l m . W h e n G e r m a n J u d a i s m w a s ready to absorb e v e r y t h i n g c o n n e c t e d w i t h the "historical sense," t h e d y ­ n a m i c s o f G e r m a n i z a t i o n l e d t o t h e specific f o r m o f G e r m a n J e w i s h Z i o n i s m ( w h i c h is s o m e t h i n g e n t i r e l y different f r o m t h e " l o v e o f Z i o n "

2 0

o f past g e n ­

erations). I n this d e v e l o p m e n t , the J e w i s h religion h a d only t h e negative function o f b e i n g a steady source of a certain tension a n d of a feeling of f o r e i g n n e s s . T h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n itself d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e forces t h a t h a v e b e e n d e t e r m i n i n g o u r Z i o n i s m f r o m w i t h i n . T h i s is p r e c i s e l y w h a t c o n s t i ­ t u t e s o u r p r e s e n t - d a y d i l e m m a , n a m e l y , t h a t Germanization have just

the formal

into reality,

while,

significance of a fortuitous in fact,

was supposed

to

path to the necessary goal of entering

this path has deviated,

and has had to deviate, from

content that alone could fill this reality; for t h e a t t i t u d e [Gesinnung]

the

t h a t h e l d this

c o n t e n t t o g e t h e r l i k e an i r o n ring, t h e spirit t h a t w a s alive i n t h e m , w a s t h e spirit of

galut.

A f u r t h e r m a t t e r is t o b e c o n s i d e r e d . G e r m a n i z a t i o n i n t h e p r o f a n e s p h e r e g a v e rise t o t e n d e n c i e s t h a t t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e r e l i g i o s i t y o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m . F r o m this religiosity t h e " c o n t e n t " r e c e i v e d a n e n t i r e l y different " c o n c e p t i o n , " t h a t is, t h e " c o n t e n t " c h a n g e d c o m p l e t e l y its c h a r a c ­ t e r . ( T h u s , e.g., t h e c o n c e p t i o n r e g n a n t a m o n g t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e F r a n k f u r t g r o u p is i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t o f late r o m a n t i c i s m , w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d e f l e c -

Zionist

Writings

69

(1921-32)

t i o n s i n t h e spirit o f n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y " m e s s i a n i s m , " as w e l l as i n t h a t o f t h e c o m p l e x labeled w i t h the n a m e of Dostoevsky.) O n e simply c a n n o t absorb s o m e w h a t deeper G e r m a n things w i t h o u t absorbing along w i t h t h e m , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , a d o s e o f specifically C h r i s t i a n spirit. F u r t h e r , it s h o u l d b e k e p t i n m i n d t h a t t h e i n t e r n a l J e w i s h r e a c t i o n t o l i b e r a l i s m a v a i l e d itself, e n t i r e l y as a matter of course, of t h e w e a p o n s that Christian E u r o p e had forged, d u r i n g the period of restoration

21

a n d e v e n p r i o r t o it, against t h e spirit o f t h e E n ­

l i g h t e n m e n t . T h u s w e see o u r s e l v e s h e l d fast o n all sides i n t h e G e r m a n J e w ­ ish w o r l d i n w h i c h w e h a v e g r o w n u p s p i r i t u a l l y — a n d this is m o s t especially t h e case if w e w a n t t o h o l d o n t o o u r Z i o n i s m . It m u s t b e m o s t w i l l i n g l y c o n c e d e d t o F r a n k f u r t — a n d w e t o o h a v e t h o u g h t a b o u t this e v e r y n o w a n d t h e n — t h a t it is i m p e r a t i v e t o g e t o u t o f this w o r l d "somehow, " a n d t h a t t h e d e m a n d f o r " J e w i s h c o n t e n t " h a s its m o r a l l o c u s i n this i m p e r a t i v e . H o w ­ e v e r , t h e y s e e m t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c o n t e n t is j u s t l y i n g r e a d y t o b e i m m e d i ­ ately g r a s p e d a n d c o r r e c t l y c o n c e i v e d — o r h a v e t h e y n o fear o f t h e t e r r i b l e danger of infusing into t h e " c o n t e n t " their S c h e l e r

2 2

o r w h o m e v e r else t h e y

h a p p e n t o b e c a r r y i n g a r o u n d i n t h e i r h e a d ? A little r e f l e c t i o n o n this p r o b ­ l e m is s t r o n g l y u r g e d . T h u s w e m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e r e exists a G e r m a n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , o n e t h a t is n o t at all w i t h o u t m e r i t . M e a s u r e d b y h a n d e d - d o w n " c o n t e n t , " this t r a d i t i o n m a y w e l l signify a d i l u t i o n a n d c a s t r a t i o n o f s u c h c o n t e n t , b u t m e a s u r e d b y t h e t o t a l i t y o f n a t i o n a l n e e d s it h a s a d e c i d e d l y p o s i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e . This " c o n t e n t " c a n n o t simply be adopted, n o t only because the c o n t e n t is c o n d i t i o n e d b y , a n d s u p p o r t i v e of, galut a n d t h e r e f o r e e n d a n g e r s o u r Z i o n ­ i s m b u t also b e c a u s e i n h e r e n t in this c o n t e n t as r e l i g i o u s c o n t e n t is a d e f i n i t e c l a i m t o t r u t h t h a t is n o t satisfied b y t h e fulfillment o f n a t i o n a l d e m a n d s . T h e distinction w e m a k e here b e t w e e n "religious" and "national" u n d o u b t e d l y c o n t r a d i c t s a n c i e n t J e w i s h reality; it is t h e l e g a c y o f t h e liberal J u d a i s m o f t h e p r e v i o u s c e n t u r y . N o n e t h e l e s s , it is p r e s e n t l y u n a v o i d a b l e . F o r this a n c i e n t J e w i s h w o r l d , w h i c h w a s e n c l o s e d i n itself, h a s b e e n d e s t r o y e d , a n d t h e s p i r i ­ t u a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f life i n t h a t w o r l d h a v e b e e n c a n c e l e d b y t h e i n t r u s i o n o f m o d e r n s c i e n c e . It w a s t h o u g h t p o s s i b l e t o p r o t e c t o n e s e l f against t h e d a n g e r o f s c i e n c e b y p u t t i n g g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s o n t h e earlier efforts t o " i n t e r ­ n a l i z e " r e l i g i o n — i n d e e d , b y d e n y i n g , o n t h e g r o u n d o f t h e s e efforts, r e l i g i o n ' s e v e r y c l a i m t o t r u t h . H o w e v e r , if o n e tries t o dissolve t h e e n t i r e s u b s t a n c e i n t o s u b s t a n c e s u s c e p t i b l e t o interpretation,

doctrinal

t h e n o n e attacks t h e i n ­

n e r m o s t e s s e n c e o f r e l i g i o n . A m i n i m a l a m o u n t o f d o c t r i n a l s u b s t a n c e is c o m ­ p l e t e l y i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m t h e essence o f r e l i g i o n . T h i s m i n i m a l a m o u n t o f d o c t r i n a l s u b s t a n c e is t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , a n e x i s t e n c e t h a t is e n t i r e l y indif­ ferent to h u m a n existence a n d h u m a n need. A meaningful observance of the

70

Chapter

2

l a w s , especially o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o p r a y e r , is possible o n l y o n t h e basis o f a literal a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f this s u b s t a n c e t h a t r e n o u n c e s all subtilizing. It g o e s e n t i r e l y w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t n o o n e w h o d o e s n o t b e l i e v e , o r w h o d o e s n o t at least h a v e t h e w i l l t o b e l i e v e , c a n say t h e p r a y e r s " t r u t h f u l l y " ; c e r t a i n l y n o t s o m e o n e w h o , as is c o m m o n p r a c t i c e t o d a y , t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r ­ m i n e s t h e s p i r i t u a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f this b e l i e f b y s e e i n g i n " G o d " n o t h i n g b u t a n e x p r e s s i o n for n e e d s o f t h e s o u l (especially for t h e " s a n c t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e h u m a n b e i n g " ) . T h a t r e l i g i o n deals first w i t h " G o d " a n d not w i t h t h e h u m a n b e i n g , t h a t this c o n c e p t i o n is t h e g r e a t l e g a c y o f p r e c i s e l y t h e J e w i s h p a s t — t h i s o u r a n c e s t o r s h a v e h a n d e d d o w n t o u s , a n d this w e w i s h t o h o l d o n t o h o n e s t l y a n d clearly. It is this v e r y p r e c e d e n c e t h a t is i m p l i e d i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d is not "lived, " b u t r a t h e r t h a t it is "be­ lieved. " I n t h e e n c l o s e d w o r l d o f t h e past, t h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n " l i f e " a n d " b e l i e f " w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b s u r d . A p e o p l e t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o its t r a d i t i o n , b e c a m e a p e o p l e t h r o u g h G o d ' s o w n h a n d w a s u n a b l e t o s e p a r a t e its life f r o m b e a r i n g w i t n e s s t o its o r i g i n ; this p e o p l e v i r t u a l l y h a d n o life w i t h o u t k n o w l ­ e d g e o f G o d . If o n e ' s a i m is t o r e s t o r e this past life, t h e n o n e n e e d s this e l e m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e j u s t as m u c h — n o m o r e , b u t also n o less—as o n e n e e d s all t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s . T h i s m e a n s : t h e b e l i e f t h a t in earlier times w a s i m p l i c i t i n e v e r y m o v e m e n t o f e v e r y f i n g e r today m u s t b e e x p l i c i d y e n a c t e d . O u t o f t h e forces supplied by assimilation there g r o w s a will t o r e n e w a l . It is a p p a r e n t t h a t n e i t h e r this, n o r e v e n a n a d o p t i o n o f t h e f o r m e r r e l i g i o u s " l i f e , " m e a n s t h a t t h e a n c i e n t i d e n t i t y o f p e o p l e a n d b e l i e f has b e e n r e s t o r e d . R a t h e r , t o r e p e a t , for t h o s e w h o e n t e r this c o n t e x t f r o m t h e o u t s i d e , a n " e x p l i c i t " act o f faith m u s t t a k e t h e p l a c e o f t h e b e l i e f i n G o d , a b e l i e f t h a t w a s s e l f - e v i d e n t t o earlier g e n e r a t i o n s a n d t h a t w a s s i m p l y i n v e s t e d

("im­

p l i c i t " ) i n t h e i r w o r l d . T h i s act o f faith is n e c e s s a r y e v e n t h o u g h it m a y p o s e t h e d a n g e r o f d e m a n d i n g s o m e t h i n g " n o n - J e w i s h , " t h a t is, s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b s u r d i n t h e life o f the earlier times, b u t t h a t is u n a v o i d a b l e g i v e n t h e n e e d s o f t h e contemporary J e w i s h s i t u a t i o n . T h e p r i m o r d i a l r e l i g i o u s d e m a n d is n o t t o b e l i e v e i n "dogmas" b e l i e v e i n a being. W e p o s e t h e " G r e t c h e n q u e s t i o n , "

2 3

but to

a n d p o s e it n o t j u s t

g e n e r a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e first p r i n c i p l e b u t w i t h r e s p e c t t o all o f t h e details o f w h i c h o u r p r a y e r s speak. W e c o n t e s t t h e r i g h t , i n d e e d w e d e c l a r e it a form of counterfeiting w h e n the freedom of dealing with notions of belief t h a t p r o c e e d s o u t o f t h e w e a l t h o f an entire enclosed world is e x p l o i t e d from

the

outside as g r o u n d a n d l e g i t i m i z a t i o n for a n a r b i t r a r y c o n t r o l l i n g a n d a n a r r o ­ g a n t i n t e r p r e t i n g o f t h e s e n o t i o n s . L e t us n o t e v e n m e n t i o n t h e b a n a l n o n ­ sense t h a t b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e n a t i o n a l e n c o u n t e r [Erlebnis]—the r e v e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p e o p l e forces [Volkskräfte]

humble and

that t o w e r over us—is

Zionist

Writings

71

(1921-32)

religion. I simply d o n o t think that even t h e m e m b e r s of the Frankfurt g r o u p a r e c a p a b l e o f s u c h n o n s e n s e . B u t it is o f t e n difficult t o d r a w t h e U n e b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o n c e p t i o n s . It s e e m s t o u s t h a t w h a t " r e l i g i o n " is m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e biblical sense, rather t h a n b y t h e linguistic usage o f certain literati, a n d t h a t o n e m u s t say o n e ' s y e s o r o n e ' s n o t o w h a t h a s b e e n s o determined. A n y mixing

2 4

is sacrilege.

W h a t is t h e u s e o f t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s against a s t a n d p o i n t t h a t , i n t h e a g e o f t h e o l o g i c a l f e m i n i s m , is s o s e d u c t i v e a n d t h a t w i l l p r e v a i l i n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , k i l l i n g off t h e h i d d e n s t i n g o f a s e v e r e , m a n l y d o u b t ?

2 5

All that these

o b j e c t i o n s a r e m e a n t t o d o is t o e m p h a s i z e u r g e n t l y t h a t , c o n c e r n i n g t h i n g s r e l i g i o u s , d e m a n d s b a s e d o n t h e n e e d s o f n a t i o n a l life m u s t m e a n j u s t as little as d e m a n d s b a s e d o n t h e n e e d s o f t h e s a n c t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e h u m a n b e i n g . T h e s e o b j e c t i o n s a r e m e a n t t o b e a p r o t e s t against t h e a r r o g a n t a t t e m p t t o i m p o s e o n us b y diktat a definite, mystical attitude, rather than a religious o n e , w h i l e t r y i n g t o tell u s t h a t t h e a f f i r m a t i o n o f this a t t i t u d e r e q u i r e s n o " b e l i e f . " B u t j u s t s o , it u n w i t t i n g l y hits o n t h e t r u t h , f o r it s e e m s i n fact t o b e an unbelieving attitude. Finally, l e t m e c a u t i o n against a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g : it is n o t o u r i n t e n t i o n t o raise t h e slightest o b j e c t i o n against t h e c o n c r e t e d e m a n d o f t h e m e m b e r s o f the Frankfurt g r o u p relating t o the study o f the Bible a n d the central position o f t h e S a b b a t h . It h a r d l y n e e d s s a y i n g t h a t t h e s e d e m a n d s f o l l o w j u s t as i m m e d i a t e l y f r o m our c o n c e p t i o n .

NOTES S o u r c e : " A n t w o r t a u f das 'Prinzipielle W o r t ' d e r Frankfurter/'jMdùc/ie Rundschau ( B e r lin) 2 8 , n o . 9 ( 3 0 January 1 9 2 3 ) : 4 5 - 4 6 . Jüdische Rundschau, u n d e r the editorship o f R o b e r t W e l t s c h (from 1 9 1 9 until 1 9 3 8 ) , w a s t h e official j o u r n a l o f t h e Z i o n i s t i s c h e V e r e i n i g u n g für D e u t s c h l a n d ( Z V f D ) . 1.

T h e o c c a s i o n for this article w a s t h e D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 2 m e r g e r b e t w e e n t h e

Z i o n i s t students' o r g a n i z a t i o n K.J.V. (see n o t e b e l o w ) a n d t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t J ü d i s c h e r W a n d e r b u n d B l a u - W e i s s , w h i c h , at its earlier 1 9 2 2 P r u n n c o n v e n t i o n , h a d b e e n r e o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e leadership o f W a l t e r M o s e s . Cf. " V e r s c h m e l z u n g des KJ. V. u n d des B l a u - W e i ß , " Jüdische Rundschau 2 7 , n o s . 1 0 3 - 4 ( 2 9 D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 2 ) : 6 7 6 . T h e n e w B l a u - W e i s s w a s later described b y G e r s h o m S c h o l e m as "semifascist." S e e Von

Berlin nach Jerusalem: Jugenderinnerungen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1977), 1 9 2 . 2.

K.J.V. w a s t h e Z i o n i s t G e r m a n J e w i s h students' c o n f e d e r a t i o n . Cf. EJ, s.v.

"Kartell J ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n (K.J.V.)," b y O s k a r K. R a b i n o w i c z . M a i n m e m b e r g r o u p s w e r e B u n d j ü d i s c h e r C o r p o r a t i o n e n ( f o u n d e d i n 1 9 0 0 ) and Kartell zionistischer V e r b i n d u n g e n ( f o u n d e d i n 1 9 0 6 ) , w h i c h a m a l g a m a t e d i n 1 9 1 4 w i t h the i n t e n t i o n o f " e d u c a t i n g its m e m b e r s t o strive for t h e national u n i t y o f the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y and its

72

Chapter

2

r e n e w a l i n E r e z Israel." T h e m a i n alternative t o t h e Z i o n i s t students' m o v e m e n t w a s the G e r m a n J e w i s h K a r t e l l - C o n v e n t der V e r b i n d u n g e n deutscher S t u d e n t e n j ü d i s c h e n G l a u b e n s ( K - C ) , w h i c h w a s closely related t o t h e C e n t r a l - V e r e i n ( C - V ) . O n t h e history a n d i d e o l o g i e s o f t h e m a j o r G e r m a n J e w i s h organizations that w e r e f o u n d e d i n t h e s e c o n d G e r m a n R e i c h a n d d o m i n a t e d t h e institutional landscape o f J e w i s h life i n t h e W e i m a r R e p u b l i c , see J e h u d a R e i n h a r z , Fatherland or Promised Land: The Dilemma of the German Jew, 1893-1914

( A n n Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n Press, 1 9 7 5 ) ; a n d cf.

R e i n h a r z , " T h r e e G e n e r a t i o n s o f G e r m a n Z i o n i s m , " Jerusalem Quarterly, n o . 9 (Fall 1978): 9 5 - 1 1 0 . 3.

O n B l a u - W e i s s and the J e w i s h y o u t h m o v e m e n t i n t h e 1 9 2 0 s , s e e G l e n n R i ­

chard Sharfman, " T h e J e w i s h Y o u t h M o v e m e n t i n G e r m a n y , 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 3 6 : A S t u d y i n I d e o l o g y a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n " ( P h . D . diss., U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h Carolina at C h a p e l Hill, 1 9 8 9 ) , especially chapters 4 ( o n t h e p r e - W o r l d W a r O n e history o f B l a u - W e i s s ) a n d 8 ( B l a u - W e i s s as a "true m i n o r i t y " after t h e war). 4.

T h e Frankfurt faction (die Frankfurter) referred t o i n t h e text consisted o f t h e

five cosigners o f a declaration published in Jüdische Rundschau 2 7 , n o s . 103—4 ( 2 9 D e ­ c e m b e r 1 9 2 2 ) : 6 7 5 - 7 6 , n a m e l y , Erich F r o m m , Fritz G o t h e i n , L e o L ö w e n t h a l , and Ernst S i m o n , a n d Ernst M i c h a e l i s ( H a m b u r g ) , w h o w e r e m e m b e r s o f Saronia, a Z i o n i s t fra­ ternity associated w i t h t h e K.J.V. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that Strauss is later m e n t i o n e d as a m e m b e r o f the v e r y same fraternity. S e e t h e n o t e s t o " C o m m e n t o n W e i n b e r g ' s C r i ­ tique" (1925). 5.

Literally Inhalte (contents). S o also i n t h e f o l l o w i n g . O n t h e p r o g r a m m a t i c

ideals and t h e style o f the J e w i s h Wanderbund see t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e . B l a u W e i s s , w h i c h tried t o maintain its character as a y o u t h m o v e m e n t m o d e l e d o n t h e G e r m a n W a n d e r v o g e l , w a s criticized b y representatives o f the Z i o n i s t students' o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n K.J.V. and others because it resisted t h e adult supervision that K.J.V. s o u g h t a n d a c c e p t e d . (K.J.V. w a s t h e y o u t h w i n g o f t h e G e r m a n Z i o n i s t association [ Z . V . f . D . ] , w h i c h w a s a l e a d i n g m e m b e r o f the W o r l d Z i o n i s t Federation.) O n t h e further charge that B l a u - W e i s s w a s l a c k i n g i n J e w i s h c o n t e n t , see Sharfman, Jewish Youth Movement, 7 4 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 ( N a h u m G o l d m a n n criticizing t h e "anti-intellectualism" o f B l a u - W e i s s ) ; 2 2 3 (Kurt B l u m e n f e l d , 1 9 2 2 ) , and 2 2 6 ( G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ) . In t h e aftermath o f t h e b r e a k u p o f the s i x - w e e k fusion o f K.J.V. and B l a u - W e i s s , and i n response t o t h e s a m e charges t o w h i c h Strauss is r e s p o n d i n g here, s o m e m e m b e r s o f B l a u - W e i s s o p e n l y e m ­ phasized their r e j e c t i o n o f all J e w i s h tradition, a r e j e c t i o n c u l m i n a t i n g i n a declaration o f t h e "Bible as w o r t h l e s s . " S e e Sharfman, Jewish Youth Movement, 2 2 4 , w h o sees this k i n d o f e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n as n o t representative o f t h e majority o f B l a u - W e i s s . L e o Strauss's religious p o s i t i o n w i t h i n B l a u - W e i s s s e e m s that o f a m i n o r i t y w i t h i n a m i n o r i t y . 6.

T h e first chapter o f B l a u - W e i s s c o n s t i t u t e d itself i n Breslau i n 1 9 0 7 . In 1 9 1 2

this and t h e B e r l i n chapter m e r g e d i n t h e J ü d i s c h e r W a n d e r b u n d B l a u - W e i s s . T h e Breslau chapter, w h i c h r e m a i n e d t h e strongest g r o u p , w a s u n d e r religious J e w i s h l e a d ­ ership. Cf. Sharfman, Jewish Youth Movement, 76f. 7.

E r i c h F r o m m , Fritz G o t h e i n , L e o L ö w e n t h a l , Ernst S i m o n , and Ernst M i c h a e ­

lis, " E i n prinzipielles W o r t z u r Erziehungsfrage" Jüdische Rundschau 27, n o s . 103—4 ( 2 9 D e c e m b e r 1922): 6 7 5 - 7 6 . 8.

W a l t e r M o s e s w a s a m o n g t h e leaders w h o b e c a m e p r o m i n e n t after t h e First

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

73

W o r l d W a r . H e a d v o c a t e d a clearer public stance o n Z i o n i s t goals and criticized m a i n ­ stream Z i o n i s m for b e i n g l u k e w a r m o n t h e issue o f e m i g r a t i o n t o Palestine. W h i l e Z V f D argued for a gradual separation o f J e w s from G e r m a n culture b y s t r e n g t h e n i n g J e w i s h values, B l a u - W e i s s u n d e r M o s e s argued for t h e i m m e d i a t e establishment o f a c o l l e c t i v e s e t d e m e n t i n Palestine that w a s t o c o n t i n u e G e r m a n culture ( W a n d e r v o g e l ­ style). A B l a u - W e i s s s e t d e m e n t w a s actually established i n Palestine b u t s o o n collapsed, w h i c h l e d t o t h e dissolution o f B l a u - W e i s s i n 1 9 2 6 . Cf. Sharfman, Jewish Youth Move­ ment, 200ff. In contrast t o M o s e s ' Z i o n i s t agenda, t h e first generation o f t h e leadership o f B l a u - W e i s s ( g i v e n its character as a y o u t h m o v e m e n t , t h e m e m b e r s w e r e usually i n their late teens, w h i l e t h e leaders had t o relinquish their p o s i t i o n o n c e t h e y reached t h e age o f thirty) argued for a return t o Z i o n i n a rather v a g u e fashion that c o u l d b e i n t e r ­ preted as referring t o a c o l l e c t i v e "realization" (Buber) o f true p e r s o n h o o d that c o u l d take place s o m e w h e r e near Karlsruhe just as w e l l as i n Palestine. Cf. G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , " D i e b l a u - w e i ß e Brille," Der Jude 1, n o . 1 2 (March 1 9 1 7 ) : 8 2 2 - 2 5 , and e l s e w h e r e (English i n On Jews and Judaism in Crisis [ N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1 9 7 6 ] , 4 9 - 5 3 ) , a n d s e e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e . It is the p r e - M o s e s style o f B l a u - W e i s s that Strauss associates h i m s e l f l o o s e l y w i t h i n the first paragraph o f t h e essay. 9. In 1 9 2 2 , W a l t e r M o s e s authored a m a n i f e s t o that firmly established t h e goals a n d "political" principles o f B l a u - W e i s s ; it d e f i n e d its hierarchical structure as g r o u n d e d i n u n q u e s t i o n i n g o b e d i e n c e t o a Führer. Similar t o t h e later Betar i d e o l o g y , M o s e s ' v i s i o n o f B l a u - W e i s s as t h e spearhead o f J e w i s h e m i g r a t i o n w a s m o d e l e d o n t h e struc­ ture o f an army, an analogy appealing t o m a n y y o u n g s t e r s w h o had n o t t h e m s e l v e s e x p e r i e n c e d t h e w a r a n d w h o f o u n d the idea o f sacrifice t o b e uplifting and an a n t i d o t e t o t h e self-deprecating, skeptical, and (during t h e inflation years) e c o n o m i c a l l y threat­ e n e d culture o f the assimilated German middle class. Cf. Sharfman, Jewish Youth Movement. 10. Cf. Strauss's emphasis i n " T h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u " o n M a x N o r d a u ' s b i o s o p h i c leanings. M u c h o f t h e rhetoric o f t h e G e r m a n and t h e J e w i s h y o u t h m o v e m e n t s w a s characterized b y an appeal t o vitalist ideas that i n v o k e d an alternative t o t h e rational, civil, liberal, nihilist, urbanized culture that t h e y o u t h m o v e m e n t s w a n t e d t o o v e r c o m e . Cf., for e x a m p l e , M a r t i n B a n d m a n n ( 1 9 2 3 ) : " O u r Bund is based o n a p h i l o s o p h y o f vitality and presents itself as a revolt against t h e d o m i n a n c e o f i d e o l o g y . Its ideal is t h e real p e r s o n [der wirkliche Mensch] as o p p o s e d t o t h e i d e o l o g i c a l person. O u r m o t t o is Primum vivere deinde philosophari [sic]—first t o live, t h e n t o p h i l o s o p h i z e . R e a l p e o p l e w a n t life, i d e o l o g i c a l p e o p l e w a n t life o n l y w i t h c o n d i t i o n s . . . . " Q u o t e d i n Sharfman,

Jewish Youth Movement, 2 1 2 . 11.

A k i b a Ernst S i m o n , w h o w a s t h e same a g e as Strauss (born 1 8 9 9 ) , w a s a

reversionist J e w from an assimilated b a c k g r o u n d w h o b e l o n g e d t o the inner circle a r o u n d Franz R o s e n z w e i g and M a r t i n B u b e r . Like G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , S i m o n m o v e d t o P a l e s ­ tine i n the 1 9 2 0 s , w h e r e h e w a s active i n educational reform. S e e the autobiographical sketch i n H a n s J ü r g e n Schultz, Mein Judentum (Berlin and Stuttgart: K r e u z Verlag, 1 9 7 8 ) , 9 0 - 1 0 2 , and cf. Ernst S i m o n , Brücken: Gesammelte Ausfsätze ( H e i d e l b e r g : Lambert S c h n e i d e r , 1 9 6 5 ) . In a letter t o S i m o n , R o s e n z w e i g m e n t i o n s a lecture o n the " t h e o r y o f political Z i o n i s m " that L e o Strauss h a d g i v e n at t h e Frankfurt Lehrhaus, and asks S i m o n t o g i v e a lecture o f his o w n t o counterbalance t h e p o s i t i o n taken b y Strauss. R o s e n z w e i g regarded the latter as a "really silly Z i o n i s m " that w a s n o t often heard at

74

Chapter

2

t h e Lehrhaus. Cf. Franz R o s e n z w e i g , letter t o Ernst S i m o n , 6 D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 4 , i n v o l . 2 o f Briefe und Tagebücher, e d . R a c h e l R o s e n z w e i g and E d i t h R o s e n z w e i g - S c h e i n m a n n ( w i t h B e r n h a r d Casper) ( T h e H a g u e : Nijhoff, 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 0 0 7 . S e e also Strauss, "Biblical History and Science," below. 12.

T h e p o i n t e d l y r o m a n t i c i z i n g usage o f t h e t e r m " w o r d " i n t h e phrase " w o r d o f

p r i n c i p l e " satirizes t h e Frankfurt group's prinzipielles Wort t o w h i c h Strauss responds i n this essay. B u t cf. also " E r k e n n t n i s p r o b l e m , " t h e last s e n t e n c e . 13.

T h i s defense o f c r i t i q u e / c r i t i c i s m that Strauss advances m o r e broadly i n " O n

t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e " c o m e s as a signal departure f r o m t h e attack o n c r i t i q u e / c r i t i c i s m i n t h e dissertation o n Jacobi. O n Kritik (critique/criticism) cf. b e l o w , " T h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a , 1 9 7 n. 5. 14.

T h i s phrase e c h o e s N i e t z s c h e ' s admission t o h a v e b e e n temporarily c o n f u s e d

b y t h e sickness o f a n t i - S e m i t i s m . S e e Friedrich N i e t z s c h e , Jenseits von Gut und Böse, # 2 5 1 , i n v o l . 5 of Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, e d . G i o r g i o C o l l i and M a z z i n o M o n t i n a r i ( M ü n c h e n : D T B ; B e r l i n and N e w Y o r k : W a l t e r d e Gruyter, 1 9 8 0 ) , 192f.; and cf. Y i r m e y a h u Y o v e l , Dark Riddle: Hegel, Nietzsche, and the Jews ( U n i ­ versity Park: P e n n s y l v a n i a State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 8 ) , 119f. 15.

Kirchhain: Strauss's place o f birth.

16.

G u s t a v Landauer ( 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 1 9 ) , socialist Journalist and p h i l o s o p h e r .

17.

M a r t i n B u b e r ( 1 8 7 8 - 1 9 6 5 ) , Z i o n i s t Journalist, p h i l o s o p h e r , and t h e o l o g i a n .

18.

A m o n g Landauer's writings is a translation o f M e i s t e r Eckehart i n t o m o d e r n

G e r m a n . S e e Landauer, Macht und Mächte, 2 d e d . (Köln: M a r c a n - B l o c k - V e r l a g , 1 9 2 3 ) . 19.

T h i s a n d similar terms d e r i v e d from t h e w o r d "reality" (Wirklichkeit) are s o m e ­

w h a t artificial c o u n t e r t e r m s t o Buber's t e r m "realization" (Verwirklichung). T h u s , shortly later, Strauss i n t r o d u c e s t h e t e r m Entwirklichtheit, w h i c h h e w i l l use again i n " T h e Z i o n ­ i s m o f N o r d a u " a n d i n "Paul d e Lagarde." O n e m a y call it a diagnostic t e r m , expressing the lack o f c o n n e c t i o n w i t h reality that Strauss associates w i t h galut (exile). 20.

" L o v e o f Z i o n " : orig. Zionsliebe, G e r m a n for H e b r e w hibbat tsiyon, w h i c h is

also t h e n a m e o f the l a t e - n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Eastern E u r o p e a n Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t that p r e c e d e d H e r z l i a n political Z i o n i s m . 21.

Restaurationsepoche: period b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e C o n g r e s s o f V i e n n a (1814—; l e d

b y t h e Austrian c h a n c e l l o r M e t t e r n i c h ) , a i m i n g t o restore t h e p o w e r s r e m o v e d b y force i n the w a k e o f the N a p o l e o n i c Wars, along w i t h a reorganization o f the E u r o p e a n system o f states. T h e o r i s t s o f t h e r e s t o r a t i o n ( a m o n g o t h e r s , d e B o n a l d , d e Maistre, v . Haller, a n d Stahl) j u x t a p o s e d t h e natural, family-based social order, u n d e r t h e t i m e - h o n e r e d authority o f c h u r c h a n d aristocracy, t o t h e "chimera o f artificial-bourgeois" order. T o the liberal republican forces s e e k i n g t h e establishment o f national parliamentary systems (e.g., t h e V o r m ä r z and Paulskirchenparlament i n G e r m a n y ) , t h e p e r i o d o f restoration represented an a g e o f " r e a c t i o n " (Reaktion). W i t h t h e crisis o f liberalism a r o u n d t h e First W o r l d W a r , v i e w s o n this p e r i o d b e c o m e increasingly differentiated. S o u r c e :

RGG.

W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n J e w s h a d generally b e n e f i t e d f r o m t h e very forces o f liberalism that w e r e rolled back after t h e C o n g r e s s o f V i e n n a a n d h e n c e , i n J e w i s h historiography, restoration is associated w i t h "reaction" (outbursts o f anti-Jewish s e n t i m e n t s s u c h as t h e " H E P ! H E P ! " riots, t h e rescinding o f edicts o f e m a n c i p a t i o n , and t h e restoration o f

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

75

g h e t t o s , as i n Frankfurt; h e n c e also t h e v i g o r o u s alliance o f J e w s w i t h t h e forces o f republicanism i n t h e 1 8 4 8 revolutions). Cf. S i m o n D u b n o w , Die neueste Geschichte des

jüdischen Volkes: Das Zeitalter der ersten Reaktion und der zweiten Emanzipation

(1815-

1881), trans. A . S t e i n b e r g (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1 9 2 9 ) ; a n d S h m u e l Ettinger, Vom

17. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart: Die Neuzeit, v o l . 3 ofGeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, e d . H . H . Ben-Sasson (München: Beck, 1980), 103Œ 22. M a x Scheler ( 1 8 7 4 - 1 9 2 8 ) , physician and philosopher. Basing himself o n Husserl's p h e n o m e n o l o g y , Scheler c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e t u m from p s y c h o l o g i s m t o a r e n e w e d affirmation o f philosophical metaphysics g r o u n d e d i n a t h e o r y o f t h e i n t u i t i o n o f values. Strauss a c k n o w l e d g e s Scheler i n his dissertation. Cf. GS, 2 : 2 4 7 . 2 3 . Gretchenfrage: s e e , i n G o e t h e ' s Faust I, G r e t c h e n ' s q u e s t i o n t o Faust c o n c e r n i n g his v i e w o n religion: " H e i n r i c h , w i e hältst du's m i t der R e l i g i o n ? " 2 4 . Vermischung ( m i x i n g ) : that is, a n y m i x i n g o f w h a t is G o d w i t h w h a t is n o t G o d . Strauss alludes t o a technical term i n m e d i e v a l Islamic p h i l o s o p h y — a n d , f o l l o w i n g that, J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y (Hebr. shittuf)—for b e l i e f i n a m u l t i t u d e o f deities, w h i c h w a s also u s e d critically against t h e doctrine o f the Trinity. 2 5 . " m a n l y severe d o u b t " (orig. männlich herber Zweifel): T h e "manliness" a n d " s e verity" of this d o u b t is e m p h a s i z e d i n contrast t o Strauss's characterization o f d o u b t i n the dissertation o n Jacobi, w h e r e d o u b t indicates t h e despised "nonaristocratic" attitude t o w a r d t h e w o r l d . S e e " D a s E r k e n n t n i s p r o b l e m i n der p h i l o s o p h i s c h e n Lehre Fr. H . J a c o b i s " (GS, 2 : 2 4 6 ) , as w e l l as i n the extract from t h e dissertation, translated i n this volume.

T h e H o l y (1923) It frequently h a p p e n s in t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t that o u r y o u n g s t u dents, w r i t i n g in o n e of o u r journals, immediately apply to o u r o w n p r o b lems those philosophical, sociological, o r historical theories w h i c h t h e y h a v e b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h in t h e universities, s o m e w h a t heedless o f t h e p o s sible d u b i o u s n e s s o f s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n s . W h i l e this p h e n o m e n o n a p p e a r s at first t o b e m e r e l y a m u s i n g , s p r i n g i n g as it d o e s f r o m a t o u c h i n g l a c k o f r e f l e c 1

tiveness

[Unreflektiertheit],

it n e v e r t h e l e s s has a s e r i o u s b a c k g r o u n d : i n t h e

final analysis, it m i r r o r s t h e spiritual s i t u a t i o n o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m as a w h o l e . Is this n o t w h a t all t h e o l o g i a n s o f G e r m a n J u d a i s m d i d w h e n t h e y t r a n s f e r r e d the values a n d v i e w p o i n t s d o m i n a t i n g the G e r m a n e n v i r o n m e n t — a n d thus, by extension, themselves—to the evaluation and consideration of Jewish matters? W h a t e v e r , in principle, the fundamental legitimacy of such a trans2

3

f e r — a n d o n e m a y call this q u e s t i o n o f l e g i t i m a c y t h e c e n t r a l p r o b l e m o f o u r 4

s p i r i t u a l s i t u a t i o n — t w o cases [of s u c h transfer] s e e m t o b e b e y o n d t h e d o u b t o f e v e n t h e m o s t skeptical m i n d s .

76

Chapter

2

I n t h e first case, a n i d e o l o g u e o f J u d a i s m p a r t i c i p a t e d c r e a t i v e l y i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e G e r m a n w o r l d o f t h o u g h t , so t h a t J e w i s h forces e n t e r e d t h e G e r m a n w o r l d t h r o u g h h i m as f o r m a t i v e e l e m e n t s . H e n c e his transfer

[Hinein­

tragen] o f G e r m a n v i e w p o i n t s t o J e w i s h m a t t e r s w a s p r e c e d e d b y t h e assimila­ 5

t i o n o f t h e s p i r i t u a l i t y o f b o t h p e o p l e s , r e a l i z e d t h r o u g h his w o r k . O n l y h e w h o h i m s e l f has b u i l t t h e b r i d g e s c a n t r u l y j u d g e t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e b a n k s , t h e w i d t h a n d d e p t h o f t h e c h a s m , a n d t h e difficulty o f b r i d g i n g it; h e w h o h a s m e r e l y u s e d t h e b r i d g e c a n n o t . R e g a r d i n g this case, t h e w o r k o f H e r m a n n C o h e n is f o r u s t h e m o s t v e n e r a b l e e x a m p l e . T h e s e c o n d case is n o less i m p r e s s i v e . It o b t a i n s w h e n t h e G e r m a n spirit, t u r n i n g t o w a r d J e w i s h t e n d e n c i e s , b r i n g s t h e m t o life w i t h i n itself, especially w h e n t h e efficacy o f s u c h t e n d e n c i e s a m o n g t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e h a s b e e n l i m i t e d o r r e p r e s s e d d u e t o its h a r s h fate. It o b t a i n s , for e x a m p l e , i n t h e P r o t ­ e s t a n t s c h o l a r s h i p o n t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t t h a t e l u c i d a t e d for u s t h e real c o n ­ t e x t from w h i c h p r o p h e c y d e r i v e d . It o b t a i n s i n N i e t z s c h e ' s c r i t i q u e o f c u l ­ t u r e , w h i c h s t r o v e t o p l u m b t h e p r e - " C h r i s t i a n " d e p t h s o f t h e J e w i s h as w e l l as o f t h e H e l l e n i c - E u r o p e a n spirit. Finally, it also o b t a i n s i n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f R u d o l f O t t o , o n w h i c h w e w i l l c o m m e n t briefly.

1

W h a t is i m p o r t a n t is t h e v i e w p o i n t t h a t O t t o suggests for o r i e n t i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e o l o g y ( a n d t h u s for classifying h i s o w n t h e o l o g i c a l v e n t u r e ) i n t h e h i s t o r y o f ideas. W e m u s t ask i n w h a t w a y this v i e w p o i n t c a n b e a p p l i e d t o J e w i s h s c h o l a r s h i p . T h e a n s w e r w o u l d r u n as f o l l o w s . T h e earlier t h e o l ­ o g y — t h e m o s t essential f o r m o f w h i c h is, for u s , t h e d o c t r i n e o f a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e S p a n i s h e r a — h a d t h e task o f facilitating t h e v i c t o r y o f t h e " r a t i o n a l " m o m e n t s o f r e l i g i o n i n t h e i r s t r u g g l e against t h e p r i m i t i v e - i r r a t i o n a l o n e s . N o w t h a t this task h a s b e e n all t o o c o m p l e t e l y a c c o m p l i s h e d , t h e d u t y o f t h e o l o g y i n t h e p r e s e n t is t h e r e v e r s e . S t a r t i n g f r o m t h e r e a l m o f t h e r a t i o n a l , it m u s t a d v a n c e b y m e a n s o f a c o n s c i e n t i o u s a n d scientifically i r r e p r o a c h a b l e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s y s t e m t h a t is c o m m e n ­ s u r a t e w i t h its c o n c e r n . I n a n earlier d a y , i n a w o r l d filled b y t h e i r r a t i o n a l m o m e n t o f r e l i g i o n , it w a s n e c e s s a r y for t h e o l o g y t o a c h i e v e r e c o g n i t i o n f o r t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e r a t i o n a l . T o d a y , i n a s p i r i t u a l reality d o m i n a t e d b y ratio, it is t h e office [Ami] o f t h e o l o g y t o b r i n g t o life for o u r e r a " t h e i r r a t i o n a l i n t h e idea o f the D i v i n e " t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m o f the theoretical consciousness. W h i l e earlier t h e o l o g y speculated in a religiously closed vault, t h e n e w t h e o l -

' R u d o l f O t t o , Das Heilige. Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen [ T h e holy: O n t h e irrational i n t h e idea o f the d i v i n e a n d its relation t o t h e rational], 9 t h e d . , Breslau, 1 9 2 2 .

Zionist

Writings

77

(1921-32)

o g y lives u n d e r t h e o p e n sky, a n d m u s t itself c o n t r i b u t e , a c c o r d i n g t o its ability, t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e v a u l t . T h e n , t h e p r i m a r y fact w a s G o d ; n o w , it is w o r l d , m a n , r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . If o n e sets t h e task in this w a y , o n e arrives at a r e c o g n i t i o n o f b o t h t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t g a v e rise t o t h e d o c t r i n e o f a t t r i b u t e s as w e l l as o f t h e results it o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t t h e n e e d t o r e g a r d this d o c t r i n e as h a v i n g a l r e a d y b e e n surpassed. O t t o o p e r a t e s w i t h c a t e g o r i e s t h a t p e r m i t t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e d o c t r i n e o f a t t r i b u t e s i n t o t h e larger c o n t e x t o f a n e w t h e o l o g y . W e c a n n o t h e l p b u t t h i n k t h a t t h e r e a s o n t h e d o c t r i n e o f a t t r i b u t e s has b e e n p o p u l a r l y d i s c r e d i t e d is n o t actually t h e i d e a o f t h e " a t t r i b u t e " as s u c h , b u t r a t h e r t h e fact t h a t a t t r i b u t e s s u c h as a l l - p o w e r f u l n e s s , a l l - g o o d n e s s , a n d so o n , h a v e b e c o m e h a c k n e y e d . N o w a d a y s , o n e usually i n v o k e s t h e " l i v i n g fullness o f e x p e r i e n c e , " w h i c h is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e e m p t i n e s s o f t h e " a t ­ tributes." O t t o ' s investigation shows that in order to c o m p r e h e n d t h e o r e t i ­ cally w h a t is o b j e c t i v e i n t h e r e l i g i o u s life, it is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o d e v i a t e f r o m t h e straight a n d d i r e c t v i e w o f t h e r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t . T h e r a t i o n a l a n d i r r a t i o n a l m o m e n t s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d w i t h i n t h e o b j e c t itself. W i t h i n t h e r e l i g i o u s o b ­ j e c t , t h e i r r a t i o n a l is t h e " b e a r e r , " t h e substance o f t h e r a t i o n a l p r e d i c a t e s , o f t h e "attributes. " T h e i r r a t i o n a l i t y r e l i g i o n has i n m i n d lies n o t in t h e d e p t h s o f the subject b u t precisely in the depths o f the object. H e n c e w e have n o n e e d o f t h e r o m a n t i c " p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n . " T h i s is w h e r e t h e c o n n e c t i o n is w a r r a n t e d w i t h o u r biblical a n d ritual t r a d i t i o n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d w i t h o u r t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n , o n t h e o t h e r . T h e l a t t e r t e a c h e s us t h e g e n e r a l a t t i ­ t u d e o f t h e J e w i s h t h e o l o g i a n a n d offers us t h e results o f analyses o f t h e r a t i o ­ n a l " a t t r i b u t e s . " T h e f o r m e r m a k e s available t o us t h e m o s t p e r f e c t e x p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t c o u l d p o s s i b l y find " i n h u m a n l a n ­ g u a g e . " H e n c e it is n o c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t O t t o d e r i v e s his substantial c a t e g o r i e s n o t least f r o m t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d f r o m J e w i s h l i t u r g y (cf. p r a y e r s o f Yom Kippur,

p . 37f., Melekh

Elyon,

translated b y O t t o , p p . 238fT.).

6

It s h o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t O t t o o c c a s i o n a l l y gives q u i t e v i v i d e m p h a s i s t o t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n a n d t h e o l o g y , a n d takes t h e side o f r e l i g i o n against t h e o l o g y . T h i s e m p h a s i s is l e g i t i m a t e w h e n it c o m e s t o establishing the secondary character of theology, from the p o i n t of v i e w o f r e l i g i o n . O t h e r t h a n t h a t , it is n o t b i n d i n g o n u s , b e c a u s e O t t o (as is e v i d e n t m a i n l y f r o m his q u o t a t i o n s ) is in this r e s p e c t v e r y s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y L u t h e r a n t e n d e n c i e s t h a t c a n n o t b e d e c i s i v e for us as J e w s , for w h o m t h e p e c u l i a r l y P r o t e s t a n t s u b j e c t i v i s m m u s t r e m a i n farfetched. It is still p o s s i b l e t o a p p r o a c h The Holy as a w o r k o f " p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i ­ g i o n . " H o w e v e r , w h a t sets O t t o ' s analysis a p a r t f r o m t h e c o m m o n v a r i e t y o f

78

Chapter

2

p h i l o s o p h y o f religion is t h a t h e i m m e d i a t e l y t u r n s t o t h e religious c o n s c i o u s n e s s itself, w i t h o u t v e n t u r i n g a naturalist e x p l a n a t i o n , o r e v e n a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l " c o n s t i t u t i o n , " o f this c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h e g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e o f O t t o ' s b o o k consists i n t h e fact t h a t it strives t o limit t h e rational e l e m e n t o f religion neither primarily n o r exclusively b y r e s o r t i n g t o t h e i r r a t i o n a l i t y o f t h e " e x p e r i e n c e " [Erlebnis]; r a t h e r , it t a k e s as t h e c o m p l e t e l y obvious p o i n t o f departure t h e transcendence o f the religious object. W h a t e v e r measure o f skepticism m a y b e justified w i t h respect t o t h e n o t i o n o f a d o c t r i n e o f a t t r i b u t e s , this t y p e o f t h e o l o g y is still able t o w i n o u r s y m p a t h y , if o n l y b e c a u s e it m a k e s a f u n d a m e n t a l s u b j e c t i v i s m i m p o s s i b l e b y t h e v e r y f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e task. O n e w o u l d h a v e t o demand a t h e o l o g y i n t h e f o r m o f a d o c t r i n e o f attributes, even t h o u g h it m a y b e absolutely unfeasible, simply in o r d e r t o c o m p e l from t h e b e g i n n i n g t h e retention o f the idea o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f G o d as a g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e . C e r t a i n l y , t h e result o f O t t o ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , e v e n if n o t its i n t e n t i o n , is a d e e p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e m e a n i n g o f " t r a n s c e n d e n c e " i n t h e r e l i g i o u s c o n t e x t . T r a n s c e n d e n c e attains t h e f o l ­ l o w i n g distinctions: 1. G o d as b e i n g b e y o n d experience [Erlebens-Jenseitigkeit

Gottes], t h a t is, t h e

p r i m a c y o f G o d o v e r r e l i g i o n . I f G o d is a b e i n g i n Himself, i n d e p e n d e n t o f H i s b e i n g e x p e r i e n c e d b y m a n , a n d if w e k n o w a b o u t this b e i n g f r o m w h a t is revealed in T o r a h a n d prophecy, then the theoretical exposition ofthat w h i c h is k n o w n is p o s s i b l e i n p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h m e a n s t h e o l o g y . T o this e x t e n t , t h e o l o g y is t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f s i m p l e a n d u n a m b i g u o u s p i e t y . 2 . G o d as b e i n g b e y o n d life [Lebens-Jenseitigkeit

Gottes].

T h i s is e x p e r i ­

e n c e d i n t h e "creaturely feeling" o f the h u m a n being, in t h e feeling o f o u r ­ selves as " e a r t h , ashes, a n d n o n - b e i n g , " e v e n a n d especially i n t h a t o f t h e 7

people, as f o l l o w s f r o m Isaiah 6 . It is i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e e n t i r e l y " n o t n a t u r e ­ l i k e " c h a r a c t e r o f t h e " w r a t h o f G o d , " a n d n o less s o w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r o f " h o l i n e s s " as a " n u m i n o u s v a l u e . " 3 . G o d as b e i n g b e y o n d t h e idea [Ideen-Jenseitigkeit

Gottes]. T h e final d e ­

termination in the previous paragraph could tempt o n e into the "idealiza­ t i o n " o f G o d . T h i s d a n g e r is e l i m i n a t e d b y a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f " e n e r g y , " t h a t is, t o t h e " v i t a l i t y " o f G o d . NOTES S o u r c e : " D a s H e i l i g e , " Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 7, n o . 4 (April 1 9 2 3 ) : 2 4 0 4 2 , reprinted i n GS, 2 : 3 0 7 - 1 0 . 1.

Unreflektiertheit: cf. Reflektiertheit i n t h e essay o n Paul d e Lagarde.

2.

Hineintrage: literally "carrying i n t o " f r o m o n e realm t o another.

Zionist

Writings

79

(1921-32)

3.

Rechtsfrage: G e r m a n for the philosophical quaestio iuris.

4.

geistige Situation: t h e G e r m a n geistig (from Geisf) refers either t o t h e m i n d o r t o

the spirit. 5.

"Assimilation": Strauss uses here a literal G e r m a n equivalent t o assimilation,

n a m e l y Anahnlichung, i n order t o a v o i d t h e n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m i n a c o n t e x t w h e r e h e describes t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f assimilation f r o m a v a l u e - n e u t r a l p e r ­ spective. 6.

F o r t h e relevant passages i n Das Heilige, s e e t h e English translation b y J o h n W .

Harvey: The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Nonrational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 5 0 ) , 7 0 , 1 9 0 . T h i s translation, like Strauss's c o m m e n t s , is based o n t h e n i n t h e d i t i o n o f 1 9 2 2 . 7.

Isaiah 6: T h e t h e o p h a n y at t h e t e m p l e leads t h e p r o p h e t t o r e c o g n i z e his o w n

i m p u r i t y as w e l l as that o f the p e o p l e . T h e e x p r e s s i o n eigene Erde-, Asche-, und Nichtsein is n o t a biblical q u o t a t i o n , b u t is based o n Genesis 3 : 1 9 , G e n e s i s 18:27, J o b 3 4 : 1 5 , J o b 4 2 : 6 , Ecclesiastes 3 : 2 0 , and similar passages.

A N o t e o n the Discussion o n " Z i o n i s m a n d A n t i - S e m i t i s m " (1923) Motto: Joshua 9:7' N o fact h a s b e e n m o r e d e c i s i v e for t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h spirit f r o m its .ga/wf-mentality [Galuth-Gesinnung]

t h a n t h a t disruption of Jewish solidarity w h i c h

f o u n d its m o s t p o p u l a r e x p r e s s i o n i n H e r z l ' s " M a u s c h e l . "

2

It m a y e v e n b e

said t h a t t h e d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n o f this social c o n d i t i o n o f o u r galut 1,

[Galuth-Dasein]

existence

is a s y m p t o m o f t h e d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e v e r y m e n t a l i t y

t h a t is s u p p o r t i v e o f the galut. B e t h a t as it m a y , it is o n l y w i t h t h e r e v o l u t i o n ­ ary c h a n g e t o w h i c h w e just alluded that t h e discussion o f anti-Semitism has b e g u n — a t least w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e W e s t e r n J e w s — t o b e c o m e "decent"

(in

H e r z l ' s sense o f t h e w o r d ) . Y e t this c o n d i t i o n w h i c h c o n c e r n s t h e m e n t a l i t y a l o n e is b y n o m e a n s sufficient. It is h a r d l y a n e x a g g e r a t i o n t o say t h a t t h e 4

l e v e l o f t h e a n t i - S e m i t i c a r g u m e n t a t i o n o f a m a n s u c h as P a u l d e L a g a r d e — h e t o o , o f course, entangles himself every n o w a n d then in expressions o f m a l i c e — h a s n o t e v e n b e e n reached in Z i o n i s m . T o b e sure, t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t arise h e r e a r e o f n o u s e t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f a p o l o g e t i c s , w h i c h is r a t h e r satisfied w i t h s i m p l e r a n d c o a r s e r t h i n g s , p r e f e r a b l y w i t h figures a n d c h a r t s . T h e b e s t i n f l u e n c e t h a t a n t i - S e m i t i s m c o u l d e x e r c i s e o n o u r n a t i o n a l life is, o f c o u r s e , lost as a r e s u l t o f this l i m i t a t i o n . W e t h e r e f o r e refrain f r o m e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e i n n e r j u s t i f i ­ c a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e - a s - c i t i z e n s [Staatsbürger-Dasein]

of the German Jews.

It w o u l d b e q u i t e difficult t o p r o v i d e s u c h a j u s t i f i c a t i o n , at least for s o m e o n e

80

Chapter

2

w h o d o e s n o t really b e l i e v e in t h e ideals o f 1 7 8 9 — t h e ideals t h a t , as is w e l l k n o w n , l a r g e l y g a v e rise t o e m a n c i p a t i o n ; b u t it suffices t h a t this e x i s t e n c e a s - c i t i z e n s rests o n c u r r e n t l a w , a n d t h a t t h e circle o f r i g h t s a n d d u t i e s d e t e r ­ m i n e d b y it has b e e n d r a w n i n an essentially u n a m b i g u o u s w a y . T o p u t it as a f o r m u l a : ' e x i s t e n c e - a s - c i t i z e n d e m a n d s l o y a l t y t o t h e G e r m a n state as w e l l as ( a l t h o u g h this m a y s o u n d h i g h - f l o w n a n d i m p o l i t i c ) l o v e o f t h e G e r m a n p e o p l e . W i t h o u t t h e l a t t e r it is s i m p l y i n c o n c e i v a b l e : l o v e a n d l o v e a l o n e c a n b r i d g e t h e n a t i o n a l g a p i n s u c h a w a y as t o m a k e p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n p o s s i b l e . E v e n i f G e r m a n J e w r y possessed sufficient m e a n s o f p o w e r , a n d h a d a t t a i n ­ a b l e i r r e d e n t i s t goals i n m i n d , it is n o t a m i n o r i t y i n t h e sense o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w , n o r a n a t i o n a l m i n o r i t y i n t h e p o l i t i c a l sense, a n d so c a n n o t insist o n n a t i o n a l m i n o r i t y r i g h t s at t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e state a n d t h e n a t i o n

[Staatsvolk].

T h e r i g h t s t h a t G e r m a n J e w r y possesses i n G e r m a n y are t h e individuals

rights

of

p o s s e s s i n g G e r m a n c i t i z e n s h i p , as w e l l as t h e r i g h t s c a r r i e d o v e r , i n

p a r t , u n d e r t h e t i d e o f a "confession"

["Konfession"]

into the administrative

p r a c t i c e o f t h e n e w state f r o m t h e o l d C h r i s t i a n state. B y c o n f e r r i n g o n us t h e rights o f c i t i z e n s , t h e G e r m a n p e o p l e has d e m ­ o n s t r a t e d its c o n f i d e n c e in u s . W e are able t o safeguard o u r p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c i n t e r e s t s as i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d t o l o o k after o u r g r o u p interests ( w h i c h , t o b e s u r e , a r e essentially l i m i t e d t o c o n c e r n s o f e d u c a t i o n ) as a m a t t e r o f religious (even t h o u g h private) freedom, a n d t h e r e b y to exert influence o n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f G e r m a n p o l i t i c s i n a w a y t h a t is c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h o u r s t r e n g t h . It w o u l d b e disloyal a n d c o n t r a r y t o t h e b e h e s t s o f c o n s c i e n c e if o n e w e r e t o b e l i e v e t h a t o n e m a y i n f l u e n c e a n d e x p l o i t G e r m a n p o l i t i c s for t h e s a k e o f J e w i s h i n t e r e s t s . W e G e r m a n J e w s r e c e i v e d t h e rights o f c i t i z e n s o n l y o n t h e basis o f r e p e a t e d express assurances g i v e n b y t h e p r o t a g o n i s t s o f o u r emancipation that w e maintain n o national connection other than to the G e r m a n nation. A n d even t h o u g h w e regard the denial o f the Jewish national c o n n e c t i o n as u n j u s t i f i e d a n d illicit, s u r e l y w e m u s t also f u r t h e r d r a w t h e practical conclusions from this denial, which was the conditio sine qua non for our civic emancipation.

T h i s m e a n s , h o w e v e r : i n o u r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y as G e r m a n c i t i ­

zens, w e m u s t n o t allow ourselves to b e diverted from the line of G e r m a n p o l i t i c s b y a n y n a t i o n a l J e w i s h interests ( w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h o s e u n d e r ­ s t o o d a n d g r a n t e d u n d e r t h e title o f a " c o n f e s s i o n " ) . A s f o r o u r c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s (as a " c o n f e s s i o n " ) , t h e s e c o n c e r n areas o f o u r national interest in w h i c h the G e r m a n s h a v e declared their disinterest.

Of

' E v e r y t h i n g that is said here o f the G e r m a n J e w relates, o f c o u r s e — a s the tide s t a t e s — o n l y t o t h e J e w w h o s e orientation is nationally J e w i s h . ( T h e A u t h o r ) .

Zionist

Writings

81

(1921-32)

c o u r s e , w e are free t o elaborate t h e m i n a n a t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n , i n w a r d l y l i b e r a t e d f r o m c o n f e s s i o n a l n a r r o w n e s s , as l o n g as o u r e l b o w r o o m is n o t e n l a r g e d at t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e h o s t p e o p l e . H e r e w e a r e o u r o w n m a s t e r s as w e h a v e a l w a y s b e e n , a n d as w e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e as l o n g as B o l s h e v i s m d o e s n o t overrun the West. All this m a k e s it a b u n d a n d y clear t h a t a n i n f i n i t e l y h i g h m e a s u r e o f r e f l e c t i o n is r e q u i r e d o f t h e n a t i o n a l J e w w h o w a n t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p o l i t i c a l life o f G e r m a n y . A n y n a i v e p o l i t i c i z i n g o n h i s p a r t d r i v e s h i m easily t o c o n f u s e t h e J e w i s h w i t h t h e G e r m a n i n t e r e s t , as w e l l as t h e J e w i s h — 5

specifically t h e galut-Jewhh—idea

o f p o l i t i c a l life w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g

G e r m a n o n e . (Consider, a m o n g o t h e r things, marriage laws, t h e d e a t h p e n ­ alty, p r o h i b i t i o n , e t c . ) . Specifically, it d r i v e s h i m t o fight t h o s e p o l i t i c a l circles t h a t h a d t a k e n a s k e p t i c a l s t a n c e t o w a r d t h e e m a n c i p a t i o n o f t h e J e w s e v e n w h e n it c o m e s t o p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s t h a t a r e e n t i r e l y u n r e l a t e d t o this issue. M a y I r e m i n d y o u o f t h e s t o r m against t h e " w a r p s y c h o s i s , " w h i c h a g r e a t m a n y G e r m a n s call t h e "spirit o f A u g u s t 1 9 1 4 , " a n d w h i c h u n f o r t u ­ n a t e l y f o u n d its w a y e v e n i n t o t h e editorials o f n a t i o n a l J e w i s h p a p e r s . T h e a d v o c a c y o f J e w i s h n a t i o n a l interests o n t h e basis o f o u r c o n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l rights as G e r m a n citizens is legally u n j u s t i f i e d . T o a d v o c a t e t h e s e i n t e r e s t s " s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y , " b y m e a n s o f p a r t i e s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s , is c o n t r a r y t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e Z i o n i s m t h a t d e r i v e s f r o m H e r z l . A n y o n e t o w h o m this s o l u t i o n s e e m s u n w o r t h y s h o u l d c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r it is n o t m o r e w o r t h y t o r e l i n q u i s h a c l a i m o p e n l y a n d h o n e s d y if o n e lacks t h e factual, legal, a n d m o r a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s for its v e r i f i c a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n t o m a i n t a i n it f o r r e a ­ s o n s o f p r e s t i g e o r e v e n o u t o f fear. A n y o n e t o w h o m this s o l u t i o n s e e m s 6

n a r r o w a n d imperfect should b e r e m i n d e d o f t h e saying of A h a d H a ' a m to t h e effect t h a t t h e p e r f e c t s o l u t i o n t o this q u e s t i o n , as t o all q u e s t i o n s o f t h e galut, h a s t o b e s o u g h t b e y o n d t h e limits o f t h e galut. NOTES S o u r c e : " A n m e r k u n g z u r D i s k u s s i o n über ' Z i o n i s m u s u n d A n t i s e m i t i s m u s ' , " Jüdische Rundschau 2 8 , n o s . 8 3 / 8 4 ( 2 8 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 2 3 ) : 5 0 1 . N o w also i n GS, 2 : 3 1 1 - 1 3 . I n the original, an editorial paragraph is added b y t h e editors o f Jüdische Rundschau e x ­ pressing a d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h Strauss: W e publish t h e f o l l o w i n g essay, w h i c h d o e s n o t aspire t o m o r e than b e i n g a "remark o n t h e discussion" o f the t o p i c . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that i n o u r v i e w t h e d e m a n d s that t h e G e r m a n people (not just t h e state) h a v e b e e n m a k i n g o n us and that a n y serious national-Jewish politician has t o deal w i t h

82

Chapter

2

s h o u l d b e d e r i v e d n o t j u s t f r o m an abstracdy c o n s t r u e d " p r o m i s e " m a d e at t h e t i m e o f e m a n c i p a t i o n , b u t f r o m reality.] 1. J o s h u a 9 : 7 (JPS v e r s i o n ) : " A n d t h e m e n o f Israel said u n t o t h e H i v i t e s : 'Peradventure y e d w e l l a m o n g us; and h o w shall w e m a k e a c o v e n a n t w i t h y o u ? ' " A n d cf. D e u t e r o n o m y 7 : 2 , "and w h e n t h e Lord t h y G o d shall deliver t h e m u p before t h e e , and t h o u shalt s m i t e t h e m [i.e., t h e H i v i t e s a m o n g t h e m ] ; t h e n t h o u shalt utterly destroy t h e m ; t h o u shalt m a k e n o c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e m , n o r s h o w m e r c y u n t o t h e m . " 2.

U n d e r this title, T h e o d o r H e r z l ( 1 8 6 0 - 1 9 0 4 ) , published a vitriolic essay i n t h e

n e w s p a p e r o f t h e W o r l d Z i o n i s t O r g a n i z a t i o n , Die Welt (vol. 2 0 , 15 O c t o b e r 1 8 9 7 ) , attacking t h e c l i e n t e l e o f w e a l t h y J e w s w h o refused t o back h i m financially. Mauschel (derived f r o m t h e W e s t e r n A s h k e n a z i c p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f t h e n a m e M o s e s , Mauscheh) w a s a d e r o g a t o r y t e r m for J e w s and their G e r m a n J e w i s h i d i o m (Judendeutsch), and, i n c o l l o q u i a l G e r m a n , t o d a y still refers t o indistinct s p e e c h (to m u m b l e ) , t o d i s h o n e s t y i n business (to cheat), or t o a specific card g a m e . B y u s i n g this a n t i - S e m i t i c t e r m , and b y b r i n g i n g this internal J e w i s h fight i n t o t h e p u b l i c arena, H e r z l b r o k e t w o m a j o r t a b o o s o f w h a t Strauss calls t h e m e n t a l i t y o f the e x i l e (galut). Strauss m a y b e i m p l y i n g here that, b y b r e a k i n g these t a b o o s a n d b y thus establishing an internal J e w i s h division b e t w e e n friend a n d f o e , H e r z l inadvertently a c h i e v e d a n e w level o f politicization o f J e w i s h affairs. O n Herzl's " M a u s c h e l " see T h e o d o r H e r z l , Zionist Writings: Essays and Ad­ dresses, e d . a n d trans. Harry Z o h n ( N e w Y o r k : H e r z l Press, 1 9 7 3 ) , 1:163—65; a n d cf. Ernst P a w e l , The Labyrinth of Exile: A Life of Theodor Herzl ( N e w Y o r k : Farrar, Straus, G i r o u x , 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 4 5 - 4 6 , and Jacques K o r n b e r g , Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zion­ ism ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , 1 6 4 , 2 1 9 n. 3 5 . (I thank K e n G r e e n for these references.) I n the j a r g o n o f the G e r m a n Z i o n i s t students, Mauschel referred t o the a n t i - Z i o n i s t faction a m o n g t h e G e r m a n J e w s , that is, t o those represented i n t h e C e n t r a l - V e r e i n . S o , for e x a m p l e , i n Paul Hirsch, " F e h l d i a g n o s e , w e i l F e r n d i a g n o s e , " Der jüdische Student 1 8 , n o . 5 ( S e p t e m b e r - O c t o b e r 1 9 2 1 ) : 2 4 2 . 3.

Parallel t o this c o n s t r u c t i o n is t h e e x p r e s s i o n Staatsbürger-Dasein, f o r m i n g t w o

distinct forms o f J e w i s h e x i s t e n c e , n a m e l y , that o f e x i s t i n g i n exile and e x i s t i n g as t h e ( e m a n c i p a t e d ) c i t i z e n o f a state. In t h e v i e w o f t h e Z i o n i s t , neither o n e is ultimately l e g i t i m a t e o r e v e n sustainable. T h e p o i n t o f the " R e m a r k " is t o e m p h a s i z e t h e i m p o r ­ tance o f r e c o g n i z i n g t h e unsustainability o f illegitimate strategies o f Z i o n i s t agitation that are r o o t e d i n a galut mentality, a fact that, if o n l y o n e w e r e able t o read it properly (as Strauss understands it), is revealed i n a n t i - S e m i t i c p o l e m i c . 4.

S e e t h e essay o n Paul de Lagarde i n this v o l u m e . It m u s t h a v e b e e n fairly

s h o c k i n g t o t h e readers o f Strauss, t h e n a n o v i c e author, w h e n h e praised t h e a n t i S e m i t e Lagarde as w e l l as Herzl at his w o r s t . 5.

In t h e original publication, t h e w o r d Militarismus appears b e t w e e n speziell and

galuth-jüdische. W i t h M e i e r (GS, 2 : 3 1 3 , 2: 6 1 8 ) , w e regard t h e w o r d Militarismus i n this s e n t e n c e as o u t o f place. 6.

A h a d H a ' a m , originally: A s h e r H i r s c h Ginsberg, 1 8 5 6 - 1 9 2 7 , H e b r e w essayist,

leader o f t h e H i b b a t T s i y y o n m o v e m e n t and m a i n v o i c e o f "cultural Z i o n i s m . "

Zionist

Writings

83

(1921-32)

T h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u (1923) It is t h e v i e w o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m t h a t t h e p l i g h t o f t h e J e w s \Judennot]

can

o n l y b e a l l e v i a t e d b y t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a J e w i s h state, b y t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f the p o w e r o f Jewish individuals into the p o w e r of the Jewish people. In p u r s u i t o f this e n d , H e r z l p l a y e d off t h e p o w e r o f t h e m o n e y e d J e w s ( n o t at all a J e w i s h p o w e r as s u c h ) against t h e p o l i t i c a l p o w e r s , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e p l a y e d off t h e p o l i t i c a l l e g i t i m i z a t i o n o f his p r o j e c t b y t h e G r e a t P o w e r s , w h o i n m a t t e r s o f political s i g n i f i c a n c e w e r e t h e o n l y d e c i s i v e e l e ­ m e n t , against t h e J e w s . N e i t h e r o f t h e s e factors w a s really u n d e r his c o n t r o l . B u t as h e p l a y e d t h e m off against o n e a n o t h e r , t h e politically a m o r p h o u s p o w e r o f J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s solidified i n t o a p o l i t i c a l w i l l , i n t o t h e p o l i t i c a l significance o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . W h i l e t h o r o u g h l y a p p r o v i n g o f this g o a l , N o r d a u rejects H e r z l ' s m e a n s as " u n d e r h a n d e d " ["hinterhältig"].

H e w a n t s t h e p o w e r , b u t h e rejects i n ­

t r i g u e as a m e a n s o f o b t a i n i n g p o w e r . H e w a n t s t h e p o w e r , b u t h e calls for t h e a d m i s s i o n t h a t , at this t i m e , w e h a v e n o c o n t r o l o v e r a n y p o w e r . Thus he brings about the transition from political to spiritual Zionism,^

which makes a prin­

c i p l e o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e ' s p o w e r l e s s n e s s — i n d e e d , o f its a v e r s i o n t o p o w e r . T h e m o t i v e for this falling a w a y f r o m H e r z l is itself a l r e a d y a s p i r i t u a l o n e : " h o n e s t y . " W e k n o w t h a t t h e Z i o n i s m o f H e r z l w a s itself essentially d e t e r m i n e d b y i m p u l s e s o f d e c e n c y a n d l o y a l t y . B u t H e r z l k n e w all t o o w e l l t h a t , i n p o l i t i c s , t o s p e a k o f t r u t h o r u n t r u t h is a m b i g u o u s . P o l i t i c s m u s t c r e a t e realities, a n d u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e m o s t effective a n d m o s t l i k e l y m e a n s t o s u c c e e d i n c r e a t i n g realities is t o pass off p r e c o n d i t i o n s as h a v i n g a l r e a d y b e e n fulfilled, a n d t h u s t o e v o k e t h e n e c e s s a r y efforts. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n t h e case o f p r e c o n d i t i o n s o f a m o r a l n a t u r e t h a t are b r o u g h t a b o u t o n l y b y g r e a t efforts t h a t t h e d u l l masses are r e l u c t a n t t o m a k e . T o d a y ' s u n t r u t h , p e r h a p s p r e c i s e l y b y b e i n g passed off as t r u t h t o d a y , m a y a c t u a l l y b e c o m e t o m o r r o w ' s t r u t h . T h e sky b l u e o f t h e Z i o n i s t o p t i m i s m o f H e r z l was, in g o o d part, c o n d i t i o n e d by the considerations of an agitator. N o r d a u p u t i n t o c i r c u l a t i o n t h e fairy tale o f H e r z l ' s e n t h u s i a s t i c t r u s t i n his p e o p l e , a fairy tale i n w h i c h h e h i m s e l f d i d n o t b e l i e v e , so t h a t i n this q u i t e drastic w a y h e c o u l d s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e b e t r a y a l b y t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e o f its l e a d e r : i n o t h e r w o r d s , h e d i d so for p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s . W e learn s o m e t h i n g about N o r d a u ' s j u d g m e n t of Herzl from Herzl's c o m m e n t s i n his diaries, i n a f o r m u n r e f r a c t e d b y t h e p u r p o s e s o f a g i t a t i o n . " N o r d a u finds m e i n s i n c e r e a n d u n d e r h a n d e d i n m y d e a l i n g s w i t h p r i n c e s a n d w i t h t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . I t h i n k t h a t o n e d a y h e w i l l m a k e p u b l i c this

84

Chapter

2

r e p r o a c h o f his, a n d t h e r e b y disgrace himself, m e , a n d all o f u s " (III 6 3 ) . T h e diaries s h o w t h a t this " u n d e r h a n d e d n e s s " c o n s t i t u t e s t h e e s s e n c e o f H e r z l i a n p o l i t i c s . N o r d a u r e c o g n i z e s this t e n d e n c y ; h e c o n d e m n s it, a n d calls for a p o l i t i c s o f trust. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , i n s t e a d o f t h e negotiorum

gestio o f t h e

d i c t a t o r H e r z l , N o r d a u calls for a d e m o c r a t i c a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e l e a d e r (Tagebücher

II, p . 2 5 1 f . ) . H e d o e s n o t m e r e l y call for t h e s e p o l i ­

tics, h e e n a c t s t h e m t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f Z i o n i s m a n d t o t h e g r e a t v e x a t i o n o f Herzl. O n t h e occasion o f a speech b y N o r d a u , Herzl notes:' " H e m a d e e n t i r e l y u n j u s t i f i e d a d v a n c e s t o socialism, e x p o s e d all o f o u r w e a k n e s s e s , r e ­ p o r t e d o n o u r helplessness, e t c . " (Tagebücher

I I , p . 2 5 8 ) . T h e s y m p a t h y for

s o c i a l i s m as w e l l as t h e a n t i p a t h y f o r s e c r e t d i p l o m a c y h a v e t h e s a m e r o o t , a n d lead i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f dissolving t h e major c o n t o u r s o f Herzlian politics, w h i c h h a s a t e n d e n c y t h a t is c o n s e r v a t i v e a n d t h o r o u g h l y " c o n d u c i v e t o t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e political o r d e r "

["staatserhaltend"].

I n t h e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t H e r z l i n N o r d a u ' s Zionist

Writings n o t r a c e c a n

be f o u n d o f t h e reproach that must have b e e n uttered m o r e than o n c e in p e r s o n . O n t h e c o n t r a r y ! " M y h e a r t a c h e s , w h e n I trace his n i n e - y e a r - l o n g p a t h o f suffering, t o s e e h i m g r o p e w i t h w o u n d e d h a n d s t h r o u g h t h e t h o r n s a n d thistles o f r e a l i t y , confused as in a fog by his beautiful (Zionistische

Schriften,

trust in the Jews"

p . 1 6 0 ) . P e r h a p s N o r d a u w r o t e this s e n t e n c e — w h i c h ,

i n c i d e n t a l l y , is t y p i c a l o f his f l o w e r y , o r r a t h e r w e e d y , s t y l e — f o r p o e t i c r e a ­ sons, a n d t h a t m a y a c c o u n t for t h e tastelessness o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n . O r h e m a y h a v e w r i t t e n it for r e a s o n s o f a g i t a t i o n , as a n a p p e a l t o t h e J e w i s h h e a r t , w h i c h is a l w a y s s u s c e p t i b l e t o a n a p p e a l t o i n n o c e n t suffering a n d d i s a p p o i n t e d i d e a l ­ i s m . O t h e r w i s e , t h i s s e n t e n c e is as i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e as it is, i n a n y case, a b s u r d . M u c h t h e s a m e c a n b e said a b o u t N o r d a u ' s c l a i m t h a t H e r z l w a s d o m i n a t e d b y t h e image of "twelve million n o b l e m e n standing b e h i n d h i m , " or about the utterance m a d e u n d e r the immediate impression of Herzl's death: H e r z l ' s " e x q u i s i t e sensitivity m a d e h i m t h e o r i g i n a t o r a n d l e a d e r o f Z i o n ­ i s m . " If t o d a y H e r z l a p p e a r s t o m a n y as a l o n g - s u f f e r i n g v i s i o n a r y i n Israel (cf. 2

t h e r e c e n t a p o t h e o s i s b y E m i l C o h n ) , it is l a r g e l y N o r d a u w h o is t o b l a m e for it. W h i l e p o s i n g as a n a d m i r e r , h e d i m i n i s h e d H e r z l . H e c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h t o t h e frustration o f Herzl's original impulses b y explaining t h e great­ ness o f H e r z l t o h i m s e l f a n d t o t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e i n s e n t i m e n t a l c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s w a s all t h e m o r e d e p l o r a b l e b e c a u s e , i n t e r m s o f its i d e o l o g y a n d h e n c e

' A s p r o o f s for t h e correctness o f Herzl's j u d g m e n t see especially N o r d a u ' s address t o t h e E i g h t h C o n g r e s s (Zionistische Schriften, p p . 174—87) and his s p e e c h i n A m s t e r d a m ( o p . cit., p p . 2 8 8 - 3 1 1 ) .

Zionist

Writings

85

(1921-32)

also i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s , Z i o n i s m failed f r o m t h e o u t s e t t o r e a c h t h e l e v e l i n ­ t e n d e d b y H e r z l . It is w i t h full i n t e n t i o n t h a t H e r z l l i m i t e d h i m s e l f t o a n a r g u m e n t a t i o n t h a t w a s b o t h m o r e accessible a n d m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y effec­ t i v e . N o r d a u r e m a i n e d o n this l o w e r l e v e l a n d , c o m p a r e d t o H e r z l , m a n a g e d t o m o v e o n it w i t h n o less skill a n d zeal, a n d w i t h g r e a t e r s u b t l e t y . " Z i o n i s m , l i k e a n y historical m o v e m e n t , e m e r g e d f r o m a s t r o n g l y felt a n d clearly r e c o g n i z e d n e e d , t h e n e e d for a n o r m a l e x i s t e n c e u n d e r n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s " (Zionistische

Schriften, p . 1 7 8 ) . For Nordau,

Zionism

is a product of

the newly acquired sense of reality, which had been lacking in the previous eras of g a l u t and

assimilation. I n t h e galut,

3

t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e l i v e d as a Luftvolk —it

lacks t h e g r o u n d

b e n e a t h its feet i n b o t h t h e literal a n d t h e f i g u r a t i v e senses, a n d it d e p e n d s o n all o f t h e c o n t i n g e n c i e s o f t h e b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r p e o p l e s . I n this c o n d i t i o n life is s u s t a i n e d b y a s t r o n g w i l l t o e x i s t e n c e . All ideas a n d all f o r m s o f J u d a i s m a r e u n c o n s c i o u s l y i n t h e s e r v i c e o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e n a t i o n a l e x i s t e n c e as w e l l as h e i g h t e n i n g t h e w i l l t o e x i s t e n c e . T h e ideas o f C h o s e n n e s s a n d o f t h e M e s ­ siah u p h o l d u n d e r all c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e faith i n t h e possibility a n d n e c e s s i t y o f h o l d i n g o u t t h e faith i n a n a t i o n a l f u t u r e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b y a i m i n g at w h a t is m i r a c u l o u s , at w h a t is u n a t t a i n a b l e b y h u m a n effort, t h e s e s a m e ideas p r e v e n t t h a t faith f r o m l e a d i n g t o a c t i o n . All J e w i s h c u s t o m s a n d w a y s s e r v e t h e p u r p o s e o f s e g r e g a t i o n f r o m t h e p e o p l e s , h e n c e t h e y are i n t h e s e r v i c e o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e n a t i o n a l e x i s t e n c e ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b y k e e p i n g [the p e o p l e ] a w a y f r o m t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f n o r m a l life o f a p e o p l e , t h e y p r e v e n t this v e r y life. T h e a b s e n c e o f a p o l i t i c a l c e n t e r has t h e s a m e effect: t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e c a n n o t b e a n n i h i l a t e d at a n y o n e s p o t — a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , j u s t for t h a t r e a s o n all c o m p r e h e n s i v e p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n is i m p o s s i b l e . T h i s , t h e r e f o r e , is the essence of galut: it provides by means of a minimum

the Jewish people with a maximal

of normality.

possibility

of existence

I n t h e l o n g r u n , t h e lack o f n a t u r a l c o n d i ­

tions of existence was b o u n d to ruin o u r people. Persecutions could have s u c h t e r r i b l e effects o n l y b e c a u s e t h e p e o p l e , l a c k i n g n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s o f e x i s t e n c e , also l a c k e d t h e possibilities for a real r e c o v e r y a n d a real uplift. I n t h e galut, Z i o n i s m a n d m e s s i a n i s m c o i n c i d e , i n a s m u c h as t h e r e t u r n t o P a l e s ­ t i n e is e x p e c t e d t o b e t h e w o r k o f t h e M e s s i a h , s o m e t h i n g m i r a c u l o u s a n d t o b e - p r a y e d - f o r , s o m e t h i n g n o t t o b e p r e p a r e d for r a t i o n a l l y . T h i s c o u p l i n g w i t h m e s s i a n i s m , w h i c h e m p t i e s Z i o n i s m o f its reality [entwirklichend],

4

was

r e m o v e d o n l y b y a s s i m i l a t i o n . N o r d a u d o e s n o t feel grateful. A s s i m i l a t i o n s e p a r a t e d t h e t w o ideas f r o m o n e a n o t h e r i n o r d e r t o facilitate t h e easy d e a t h o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e in E u r o p e b y a b a n d o n i n g Z i o n i s m and w a t e r i n g d o w n 5

m e s s i a n i s m i n t o m i s s i o n i s m . Assimilation

has basically no other motive than the

egoism of Western Jewish individuals. It worsens the illusionism of the galut, e x p r e s s e d

86

Chapter

2

i n t h e b e l i e f i n t h e " m y s t i c a l " r e d e m p t i o n b y t h e M e s s i a h , by secularizing

the

ideas of the galut t h a t , for all t h e i r m y s t i c i s m , h a d a v e r y s o b e r vital f u n c t i o n . A s s i m i l a t i o n takes a w a y f r o m t h e J e w s t h e self-assurance o f g h e t t o life, a n d gives t h e m i n s t e a d t h e illusionary s u r r o g a t e o f trust i n t h e h u m a n i t y o f c i v i l i ­ z a t i o n . Its p o l i t i c s , n o t u n l i k e t h a t o f t h e galut, is l i m i t e d t o t h e n e e d s o f t h e m o m e n t . B u t it is less useful i n a s m u c h as it c o m p l e t e l y d e l u d e s itself a b o u t the attitude of the host nations, believing that the Jewish question can be r e s o l v e d o n c e a n d for all b y s h u t t i n g o n e ' s e y e s t o it. It is n o t h i n g b u t a "sacrifice o f fidelity, o f d i g n i t y , o f h i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s . " T h i s w a s t h e sacrifice W e s t e r n J u d a i s m b r o u g h t t o its e m a n c i p a t i o n . T h e basis o f this e m a n c i p a t i o n w a s t h e d o c t r i n a i r i s m o f t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , w h i c h d e d u c e d t h e n e c e s s i t y for t h e e m a n c i p a t i o n o f t h e J e w s f r o m a s y l l o ­ gism. H o w e v e r , precisely as a result o f t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n a n d t h e s t r e n g t h ­ e n i n g o f t h e c i v i l i z i n g t e n d e n c i e s t h a t d e r i v e d f r o m it, n a t i o n a l a n t a g o n i s m s s h o w e d t h e m s e l v e s all t h e m o r e s h a r p l y — q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e o f t h e g o o d n a t u r e d h o p e s o f liberal J u d a i s m . T h e e m a n c i p a t i o n e m e r g e d f r o m a c h a n g e t h a t t o o k p l a c e solely i n t h e n o n - J e w i s h w o r l d . T h i s c h a n g e w a s a m o v e i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a b s o l u t e ideas ( h u m a n i t y , d e - c o n f e s s i o n a l i z e d religiosity), w h i c h w e r e intelligible t o all h u ­ m a n b e i n g s , a n d h e n c e also t o t h e J e w s . T h i s s e c u l a r i z a t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n ideas is, t o N o r d a u , as s e l f - e v i d e n t a n d r a t i o n a l l y n e c e s s a r y as t h e s e c u l a r i z a t i o n o f J e w i s h ideas i n m i s s i o n i s m is " f o o l i s h a n d p r e s u m p t u o u s . " A p p a r e n t l y t h e i d e a o f c h o s e n n e s s , e v e n i n a c a s t r a t e d state, possesses a significantly lesser d e g r e e o f r a t i o n a l i t y t h a n t h e i d e a o f u n i v e r s a l i s m i n t h e sense o f t h e C h r i s t i a n enlightenment. Zionism messianism,

retains the separation, between national,

effected by assimilation,

between

worldly ends and spiritual means—but

Zionism

and

it a b a n d o n s

m e s s i a n i s m . I n o p p o s i t i o n t o assimilation's w i l l t o p e r i s h , it g o e s b a c k t o t h e galut's

w i l l t o l i v e . N o r d a u r e b u k e s a s s i m i l a t i o n for its a b a n d o n m e n t

of

Z i o n i s m , " b u t h e d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t , i n a d e e p e r s e n s e , this p r e v i ­ o u s l y m e n t i o n e d s e p a r a t i o n p r e p a r e d t h e g r o u n d for Z i o n i s m . I n d e e d , j u s t as h e v i e w e d t h e a s s i m i l a t o r y - e m a n c i p a t o r y d e v e l o p m e n t as c o n d i t i o n e d o n l y b y t h e n o n - J e w i s h w o r l d , so h e is f o r c e d t o r e g a r d Z i o n i s m as t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e n o n - J e w i s h p h e n o m e n a o f n a t i o n a l i s m a n d a n t i - S e m i t i s m . F o r this r e a ­ s o n , h e fails t o a c h i e v e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i n t e r n a l l e g i t i m a c y , t h e J e w i s h

" T h e t e r m " Z i o n i s m " is u s e d b y N o r d a u i n t w o different senses that are i m p o s s i b l e t o confuse w i t h o n e another.

Zionist

Writings

87

(1921-32)

n e c e s s i t y , o f a J e w i s h d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t is i n f l u e n c e d b y a n d learns from E u ­ ropean nationalism and anti-Semitism. A t this p o i n t , w e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t w o t h i n g s . First, w e see h o w Z i o n i s m c o n t i n u e s a n d h e i g h t e n s t h e d e - J u d a i z i n g t e n d e n c y o f assimilation; it d o e s s o , m o r e p r e c i s e l y , for t h e sake o f its s t r u g g l e against t h e i l l u s i o n i s m , t h e lack o f 6

g r o u n d i n g i n r e a l i t y [Entwirklichtheit]

o£ the galut, w h i c h it r e c o g n i z e s i n t h e

m i s s i o n i s m o f t h e assimilation. Second, N o r d a u ' s c r i t i q u e o f e m a n c i p a t i o n d i s ­ plays s o m e t h i n g t y p i c a l o f c u r r e n t Z i o n i s m , n a m e l y , t h e c o e x i s t e n c e o f a n a i v e E n l i g h t e n m e n t faith i n t h e ideals o f 1 7 8 9 a n d a realistic s k e p t i c i s m c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r a c t u a l significance for t h e J e w i s h q u e s t i o n . I n N o r d a u , j u s t as m u c h as i n H e r z l , t h e s o b e r k e r n e l o f Z i o n i s m e m e r g e s o n c e t h e shell o f t h e lofty ideals o f t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , w h i c h a r e s e l f - e v i d e n t t o b o t h a s s i m i l a t i o n a n d Z i o n i s m , is p e e l e d a w a y . Z i o n i s m is a c h i l d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . I n s t e a d o f t h e " v o l c a n i c " c o n c e p t i o n o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y , w h i c h o r i e n t s itself b y t h e g r e a t n a t i o n a l c a t a s ­ t r o p h e s , N o r d a u d e m a n d s a " N e p t u n i a n , " less m e l o d r a m a t i c

conception,

w h i c h sees i n t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f m i n o r p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c facts

7

the

c a u s e o f large r e v o l u t i o n a r y c h a n g e s . B o t h t h e p l i g h t o f t h e J e w s a n d its a l l e v i a t i o n lose all s e m b l a n c e o f t h e m i r a c u l o u s . W e a r e n o t d e a l i n g a n y m o r e w i t h t h e c o m i n g o f t h e M e s s i a h b u t w i t h " a l o n g , difficult, c o m m o n effort" o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . I n Z i o n i s t m a t t e r s , t h e o l o g y h a s n o say; Z i o n i s m is p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l . T h e m o s t g e n e r a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s are s u p p l i e d b y a b i o l o g i c a l l y g r o u n d e d e t h i c s . T h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r it is l e g i t i m a t e t o a p p l y this s t a n d p o i n t t o t h e J e w i s h q u e s t i o n d o e s n o t arise: T h i s is t h e v o i c e o f a s c i e n c e t h a t is free o f p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s [voraussetzungslose

Wissenschaft]]

If

w e d i s r e g a r d t h e q u e s t i o n o f l e g i t i m a c y , it is t r u e t h a t , o n c e o n e has r e p l a c e d t e l e o l o g y w i t h causalism i n r e g a r d t o t h e o r g a n i c , o n e is also p r e d i s p o s e d t o replace missionism w i t h t h e d e m a n d s o f national n e e d s . W h a t w e are dealing w i t h is y e t a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t c h a n g e in t h e m o t i v e s o f G e r m a n J e w i s h (generally: W e s t e r n J e w i s h ) i n t e l l e c t u a l life is a f u n c t i o n o f c h a n g e i n t h e m o t i v e s o f E u r o p e a n i n t e l l e c t u a l life. T h e close r e l a t i o n t o b i o l o g y c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u j u s t as m u c h as t h e e n t h u s i a s m for t e c h n o l o g y c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e Z i o n i s m o f H e r z l . T o p u t it b l u n d y , H e r z l has t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e n o r t h e r n G e r m a n e n g i n e e r — " W i t h o u r technological achievements, we'll get the j o b N o r d a u has t h e a t t i t u d e o f H o m a i s t h e a p o t h e c a r y ,

8

done"—whereas

w h o p u t s his f a m o u s

scientific k n o w l e d g e i n t h e service o f t h e p u b l i c b y e n g a g i n g in t h e i m p r o v e ­ m e n t o f c i d e r m a k i n g , w h i l e c o n s t a n t l y e m p h a s i z i n g his v i r t u e . Assimilation denied the existence of the J e w i s h question while Z i o n i s m a c k n o w l e d g e s it. O n e m i g h t s u r m i s e t h a t this a c k n o w l e d g m e n t b e l o n g s t o

88

Chapter

2

t h a t series o f e n d e a v o r s o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h a t a d d r e s s e d all " q u e s t i o n s " r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e p r o b l e m a t i z a t i o n o f s e l f - e v i d e n t facts o f life (i.e., t h e death penalty question, the school question, the religious question, the sexual q u e s t i o n , e t c . ) . T h i s n u a n c e i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e J e w i s h q u e s t i o n is also p r e s e n t i n N o r d a u , w h i c h s h o u l d c o m e as n o surprise i n a s t u d e n t o f L o m b r o s o , a n d i n t h e a u t h o r o f a b o o k e n t i t l e d The Conventional ity.

10

Lies of Civilized

9

Human-

H o w e v e r , h e g o e s f u r t h e r . H e has t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y s y m p a t h y for t h e

h e l o t s a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n d i g n a t i o n at t h e S p a r t a n s . B u t it is s e l f - e v i d e n t for h i m t h a t o n e m u s t replace t h e h e l o t r y o f assimilation w i t h t h e Spartan spirit o f Z i o n i s m . T h i s , h o w e v e r , is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e c o n s e q u e n c e

that

f o l l o w s for e t h i c s , a n d h e n c e also for J e w i s h p o l i t i c s , f r o m t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t e l e o l o g i s m b y t h e m o r e m a n l y causalism.

NOTES S o u r c e : " D e r Z i o n i s m u s b e i N o r d a u , " Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 7, n o s . 1 0 11 ( O c t o b e r - N o v e m b e r 1 9 2 3 ) : 6 5 7 - 6 0 , reprinted i n GS, 2 : 3 1 5 - 2 1 . A s Strauss i n d i cates i n a f o o t n o t e , this relates t o M a x N o r d a u , Zionistische Schriften, 2 d enl. e d . (Berlin: J ü d i s c h e r Verlag, 1 9 2 3 ) . M a x N o r d a u (originally: S i m o n M a x i m i l i a n Südfeld), 1 8 4 9 - 1 9 2 3 , physician, j o u r nalist, a n d critical essayist. H e m e t his H u n g a r i a n c o m p a t r i o t T h e o d o r H e r z l i n Paris i n 1 8 9 2 , a n d e v e n t u a l l y a s s u m e d t h e responsibility o f v i c e president o f t h e Z i o n i s t c o n gresses. After Herzl's death i n 1 9 0 4 , N o r d a u b r o k e w i t h t h e "practical Z i o n i s t s " w h o t o o k o v e r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and w h o s e goal it w a s t o settle i n Palestine e v e n w i t h o u t first o b t a i n i n g t h e political guarantees o f t h e Great P o w e r s . After 1 9 1 1 , N o r d a u , w h o s e oratory o n t h e J e w i s h q u e s t i o n had fired u p t h e earliest congresses, n o l o n g e r particip a t e d i n these m e e t i n g s . T h e o c c a s i o n for Strauss's essay w a s N o r d a u ' s d e a t h o n 2 3 January 1 9 2 3 , i n Paris. Cf. M i c h a e l Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin de siècle: Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky (Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y o f California Press, 2001). 1. geistiger Zionismus: geistig m e a n s " m e n t a l " ( w h e r e Geist refers t o " m i n d " ) , " i n tellectual" ( w h e r e it refers t o t h e activity o f the m i n d ) , or "spiritual" ( w h e r e Geist refers t o t h e "spirit"). T o a v o i d t h e possible religious c o n n o t a t i o n s o f t h e latter, o n e m i g h t prefer "intellectual Z i o n i s m " t o "spiritual Z i o n i s m . " Y e t t h e reference t o " h o n e s t y " i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s h o w s that Strauss sees N o r d a u ' s intellectual h o m e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f " c u l tural Z i o n i s m , " w h i c h is n o t so m u c h an intellectual m o v e m e n t as it is a hybrid o f cultural/intellectual and religious traditions. O n e o f Strauss's intellectual projects (fueled b y an intellectual h o n e s t y all his o w n ) — that is, t h e project t o distinguish b e t w e e n t h e intellectual/cultural a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s — h a s its origin right here: i n their hybridization i n the c o n c r e t e case o f Z i o n i s m . Herzl's revolutionary a c h i e v e m e n t (at least as it is u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e s c h o o l o f V l a d i m i r Jabotinsky t o w h i c h t h e early Strauss b e l o n g e d ) c o n sisted i n t h e p o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f t h e J e w s , a cause that Strauss sees here as betrayed b y

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

89

N o r d a u . Strauss generalizes this insight w h e n h e insists that t h e political constitutes a sphere i n its o w n right t o w h i c h religious o r intellectual m o t i f s / m o t i v a t i o n s attach o n l y secondarily. In m e t h o d , his w o r k , here as e l s e w h e r e , is "archaeological" i n that it i d e n tifies "secondary u s e s " o f (intellectual and spiritual) materials and, based o n s u c h i d e n t i fication, reconstructs their original locus. 2.

E m i l C o h n , Judentum: Ein Aufruf an die Zeit ( M ü n c h e n : V e r l a g G e o r g M ü l l e r ,

1 9 2 3 . In t h e same issue o f Der Jude (vol. 7, April 1 9 2 3 ) , Franz R o s e n z w e i g p u b l i s h e d a review, entided "Ein Rabbinerbuch," o f Emil Cohn's book. See R o s e n z w e i g ,

Zwei-

stromland: Kleinere Schriften zu Glauben und Denken, e d . R e i n h o l d M a y e r and A n n e m a r i e M a y e r ( D o r d r e c h t and B o s t o n : Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 1 - 7 6 , 8 5 8 . 3.

Luftvolk: literally, a " p e o p l e l i v i n g o n / i n t h e air." D e r i v e d from t h e m o r e c o m -

m o n e x p r e s s i o n Luftmensch, that is, s o m e o n e l i v i n g o n air. 4.

T h e t e r m Strauss uses here is entwirklichend. Cf. similarly Entwirklichtheit i n " R e -

s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f Principle'" and i n "Paul d e Lagarde." 5.

"Missionism" refers t o a c o m m o n ideological tenet o f n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y J e w i s h

t h e o l o g y , especially o f R e f o r m J u d a i s m — n a m e l y , t o t h e idea that it is t h e " m i s s i o n " o f Israel t o disseminate ethical m o n o t h e i s m . Cf. M i c h a e l A . M e y e r , Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism ( N e w Y o r k a n d O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 8 ) , 137f. 6.

Entwirklichtheit: see four paragraphs earlier: " e n t w i r k l i c h e n d e V e r k o p p l u n g des

Z i o n i s m u s m i t d e m M e s s i a n i s m u s , " and cf. i n t h e essay o n Paul d e Lagarde, w h e r e Strauss i n t r o d u c e s t h e n o u n Entwirklichtheit as "an almost i m p o s s i b l e " c o i n a g e o f his o w n , w h e r e a s h e r e (in an earlier publication) h e uses it w i t h o u t a p o l o g y . 7.

In Der Jude 1 ( 1 9 2 3 ) : 6 6 0 : " s u m m i e r e n d e n u n d p o l i t i s c h e n wirtschaftichen"

(sic). W e f o l l o w M e i e r ' s e m e n d a t i o n i n GS, 2 : 3 2 0 : " s u m m i e r e n d e n p o l i t i s c h e n u n d wirtschaftlichen." T h e major n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s o u r c e for a c o n c e p t i o n o f history that e m p h a s i z e d t h e significance o f the petits faits significatifs w a s H i p p o l y t e T a i n e . 8.

H o m a i s : a character i n Flaubert's Madame Bovary. I thank K e n G r e e n for p o i n t -

i n g m e t o this s o u r c e . 9.

Cesare L o m b r o s o ( 1 8 3 5 - 1 9 0 9 ) , Italian. B e g i n n i n g w i t h L'uomo delinquente

( 1 8 7 6 ) , L o m b r o s o interpreted data o f c r a n i o l o g y , p h y s i o g n o m y , and o t h e r n o w largely discredited forms o f p h r e n o l o g y i n e v o l u t i o n a r y terms and d e t e r m i n e d t h e nature o f criminal b e h a v i o r as a b i o l o g i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d atavism. B e c a u s e o f their direct i m p a c t o n t h e nature o f c r i m e , p r e v e n t i o n , and p u n i s h m e n t , his studies w e r e w i d e l y influential at his t i m e a m o n g criminologists and jurists a n d h e l p e d t o inaugurate t h e field o f c r i m i nal a n t h r o p o l o g y . N o r d a u and L o m b r o s o e x c h a n g e d s i g n e d presentation c o p i e s o f their w o r k s a n d e n j o y e d a close rapport. N o r d a u ' s m a i n w o r k , Die konventionellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit (Leipzig: Elischer, 1 8 8 3 ) , is d e d i c a t e d t o L o m b r o s o , w h i l e t h e latter d e d i c a t e d Le Crime: Causes et Remèdes (Paris: F. A l c a n , 1 9 0 7 ) t o N o r d a u w i t h t h e w o r d s : " q u e v o u s d é d i e , c o m m e le frère le plus aimé et le plus puissant." T h e friendship also e x t e n d e d t o L o m b r o s o ' s daughters, Paola and Gina. 10.

The Conventional Lies of Civilized Humanity is a translation of Die konventionellen

Lügen der Kulturmenschheit ( 1 8 8 3 ) . T h e published E n g l i s h translation renders t h e title s o m e w h a t inaccurately as The Conventional Lies of Our

Civilization.

Chapter

90

2

Paul d e Lagarde (1924) T h e J e w is i n n e e d o f an e x t r a o r d i n a r y m e a s u r e o f reflectiveness

[Reflektiertheit];

1

w h i l e for t h e p e o p l e s o f t h e w o r l d a d i s t a n c e is g i v e n f r o m t h e start, h e m u s t first a t t a i n it b y a g r e a t effort. T h i s reflectiveness is especially c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e Z i o n i s t . O u r " r e n a i s s a n c e " is n o t a b l o s s o m i n g o f n a i v e forces, b u t t h e effort a n d a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e J e w i s h m i n d [Geist] i n r e n d e r i n g itself p r o b ­ 2

l e m a t i c . It has its o r i g i n i n t h e w i l l ; it is a m o r a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d p h e n o m e n o n . If j u s t i c e is t h e c a p a c i t y t o b e able t o see oneself, if n e e d b e , t h r o u g h t h e e y e s of the other, then the Zionist's concern w i t h the ways and means by w h i c h t h e J e w i s h e s s e n c e [das jüdische

Wesen] is m i r r o r e d i n t h e m i n d o f o t h e r p e o p l e s

is an a c t o f n a t i o n a l j u s t i c e t h a t is likely t o b e m o r e t h a n its o w n r e w a r d . W e shall l o o k at P a u l d e L a g a r d e ' s p o s i t i o n o n t h e affairs o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n f r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w . T h e intellectual context in w h i c h Lagarde consciously positions himself 3

is t h a t o f t h e s t r u g g l e for a " G r e a t e r G e r m a n y " against P r u s s i a , o f t h e h i s t o r i ­ 4

cal s c h o o l against t h e H e g e l i a n s . B u t L a g a r d e is far f r o m b e i n g a r o m a n t i c . I n o r d e r t o a v o i d s u c h stale e x p r e s s i o n s as " r a t i o n a l i s m " o r " m e c h a n i s m , " w h i c h n o w n o l o n g e r c o n v e y a n y t h i n g i n t e l l i g i b l e , w e w o u l d l i k e t o start f r o m t h e d e c i s i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y as o n e o f p r o ­ 5

b i t y a n d s o m b e r n e s s [redlich-düster].

T h i s c h a r a c t e r b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t in t h e

s t r u g g l e against s o - c a l l e d e p i g o n i s m [Epigonentum]

that preoccupies the entire

m i d d l e o f t h e c e n t u r y . T h i s struggle b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r in c o n t e n t i o n

two

c a m p s that are separated by a great psychological distance. T h e m e m b e r s of o n e c o m e b y t h e i r s o m b e r n e s s a n d p r o b i t y naturally,

out of a powerful tradi­

t i o n , w h i l e t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e o t h e r g r o u p , y e a r n i n g for t h e " G r e a t L i f e " ["Großes

Leben"],

c o m e b y t h e i r s o m b e r n e s s a n d p r o b i t y out of resignation

in

t h e face o f t h e b o u r g e o i s - p r o l e t a r i a n - C o s s a c k f u t u r e o f E u r o p e . T h e f o r m e r , essentially a g r o u p o f " e n l i g h t e n e r s , " i n a n a d v a n c e d stage o f d e - r o m a n t i c i z a t i o n , a p p e a r as t h e " r o m a n t i c s " o n l y b e c a u s e t h e i r w o r k p r e s e r v e s a r o m a n t i c heritage. Lagarde belongs to the second group. I n L a g a r d e , t h e ideas o f " l i f e , " " d e v e l o p m e n t , " " i n d i v i d u a l i t y , " " f o r m a ­ tion"

["Gestaltung"],

a n d " p e o p l e h o o d " ["Volkheit"]

a p p e a r in a m o r a l i s t i c

c o l o r i n g . Life has its origin, its c e n t e r o f gravity, in t h e task o f life

[Lebensaufgabe].

T h i s life, this u n f o l d i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l forces o f life, is a duty, n o t at all i n t h e sense o f a d u t y t o t h e " G r e a t L i f e , " b u t i n t h e sense o f a d u t y d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y " h a r d w o r k , " b y h u m i l i t y a n d d e v o t i o n t o t h e c a u s e : t h e life o f t h e s c h o l a r , t h e officer, t h e p e a s a n t . T h i s is a H o h e n z o l l e r n c o n c e p t o f life, n o t a M e d i c i B o u r b o n - H a p s b u r g o n e . " W e [ G e r m a n s ] a r e n o t e q u i p p e d for h e r o w o r -

Zionist

Writings

91

(1921-32)

s h i p . " I n spite o f his l e a n i n g t o w a r d t h e G e r m a n i c - C h r i s t i a n M i d d l e A g e s , L a g a r d e is a m o d e r n . H e c o n t r a s t s t h e monasticism

o f C a t h o l i c i s m w i t h work as

t h e e v a n g e l i c a l s t a n c e : this is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n all t h e r o m a n t i c i z i n g s y m ­ p a t h y w i t h c e l i b a c y a n d t h e mass, w i t h t h e w o r s h i p o f t h e V i r g i n M a r y a n d o f t h e saints. M o d e r n s c i e n c e d e s t r o y e d t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e m e d i e v a l w o r l d , t o w h i c h b e l o n g s u c h t h i n g s as t h e P t o l e m a i c s y s t e m , a n d it w a s r i g h t t o d o this b e c a u s e t h e s e f o u n d a t i o n s d i d n o t s t a n d u p u n d e r scientific examination. is truthfulness

It

that demands the a b a n d o n m e n t of the O r t h o d o x doctrine about

t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e biblical b o o k s c a m e i n t o b e i n g . I n s h o r t , p r o b i t y , t h e w i l l t o w o r k , a n d frugality are t h e v i r t u e s t h a t L a g a r d e praises m o s t h i g h l y a n d m o s t frequently. T h e b a c k g r o u n d for this ideal o f life is an ascetic, spiritual r e l i g i o n . " R e ­ l i g i o n is n e v e r r e l a t e d t o n a t u r e ; it arises a n d d e v e l o p s w i t h i n t h e h u m a n c o m m u n i t y . " N a t u r a l r e l i g i o n is a s e c o n d a r y i n t e g r a t i o n o f n a t u r e i n t o t h e h u m a n context, t h e o n l y c o n t e x t o f religious relevance: n o m a n c o m e t h u n t o t h e F a t h e r , b u t b y t h e S o n . T h e d e e p - s e a t e d u n i o n b e t w e e n this a s c e t i c i s m w i t h t h e s t r o n g e s t e m p h a s i s o n , a n d a f f i r m a t i o n of, t h e s p i r i t u a l - c o r p o r e a l \geist-leiblich]

c h a r a c t e r o f e v e r y t h i n g h u m a n is s u r e l y t y p i c a l o f t h e e p o c h o f

Protestantism that p r e c e d e d cultural Protestantism

6

[Kulturprotestantismus].

F o r L a g a r d e , r e l i g i o n is t h e b e l i e f i n t h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d t h e b e t t e r t h a t is i n h e r e n t i n h u m a n life, allied w i t h t h e h u m b l e a n d s e r i o u s e n d e a v o r t o b e t t e r oneself. T h i s t e n d e n c y is n o t j u s t i d e n t i c a l w i t h " m o r a l i t y " : it is t h e w i l l t o m a s t e r y o f t h e i n n e r m o s t life, o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c e n t e r o f m e a n i n g , o f t h e " s p i r i t " o v e r t h e facts o f t h e " f l e s h . " A c o h e r e n t v e r s i o n o f this d o c t r i n e t u r n s u p for t h e first t i m e i n t h e g o s p e l . T h e c o n t e n t o f J e s u s ' p r e a c h i n g is " t h e e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e l a w s o f spiritual l i f e . " It c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g t h a t c o u l d n o t also h a v e b e e n g a t h e r e d f r o m life b y m e a n s o f i n d u c t i o n . D o g m a t i c s h a s t h e task o f p r e s e n t i n g s y s t e m ­ atically t h e l a w s t h a t w e r e f o u n d " b y m e a n s o f t h e r e l i g i o u s g e n i u s " b y t h e a u t h o r of Christianity. C o m p a r e d w i t h J e s u s ' t e a c h i n g , t h e c h u r c h is s o m e t h i n g essentially n e w , s o m e t h i n g essentially more. T h e p e r s o n o f J e s u s is t h e m o s t p e r f e c t fulfillment o f t h e d e m a n d s o f his t e a c h i n g . T h e h i s t o r i c a l i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e life a n d d e a t h o f J e s u s , o f t h e lives o f t h e apostles, m a r t y r s , a n d saints e n t e r s i n t o t h e c h u r c h as a real factor. T h u s h i s t o r y has a p l a c e a l o n g s i d e d o g m a t i c s , a n d r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n has a p l a c e a l o n g s i d e t h e r e l i g i o n o f r e a s o n . I n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , the truths of revelation are n o t a d d e d t o t h e truths o f r e a s o n , b u t r a t h e r t h e t r u t h s o f r e a s o n r e a c h t h e i r full m e a n i n g o n l y i n a c t u a l r e l i g i o n . T h e t r u t h s o f r e a s o n are i n n e e d o f a c o m p l e t i o n , n o t b y o t h e r t r u t h s

92

Chapter

2

of a n o t h e r value, b u t rather by the c o n t e x t w h o s e abbreviation and reflection they are. A h i s t o r y t h a t h a s as its s u b j e c t t h e C h r i s t i a n life m u s t b e critical h i s t o r y . If t h e C h r i s t i a n life w e r e t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d d i r e c t c o n t i n u a t i o n a n d u n f o l d ­ i n g o f t h e t e a c h i n g a n d life o f J e s u s , a n d t h u s if t h e g o s p e l w e r e t h e c e n t e r o f m e a n i n g for t h e e n t i r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c h u r c h , in t h e sense t h a t all s p i r i ­ t u a l p r o p e r t y w o u l d , so t o speak, a c q u i r e its e v a n g e l i c a l p l a c e i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n its r e c e p t i o n , t h e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t this s p i r i t u a l p r o p e r t y p r e v i o u s l y b e l o n g e d t o a h e t e r o g e n e o u s c o n t e x t , a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t it lost its o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g b y v i r t u e o f its e v a n g e l i z a t i o n , w o u l d r e m a i n p e r i p h e r a l . T h i s q u e s t i o n w o u l d , at m o s t , b e o f a n t i q u a r i a n interest, b u t d e f i n i t e l y n o t o f religious interest. G i v e n , h o w e v e r , that diverting and disturbing influences i m p e d e d t h e u n f o l d i n g o f t h e e v a n g e l i c a l t r u t h in t h e C h r i s t i a n life, it is n e c e s s a r y , i n o r d e r t o k n o w t h e p u r e t e a c h i n g o f t h e gospel, t h a t t h e s e i n f l u ­ e n c e s b e s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l : critical h i s t o r y is n e e d e d . Theology historical discipline becomes a desideratum

as a

of religion.

T h e P r o t e s t a n t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e a r g u m e n t is u n m i s t a k a b l e p r e c i s e l y b y r e a s o n o f its t u r n i n g p r i m a r i l y against P r o t e s t a n t i s m . F o r w h a t w a s it t h a t L u t h e r did? O r i g i n a l l y h e w a s solely c o n c e r n e d w i t h r e m e d y i n g c e r t a i n a b u s e s o f t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k a n d in t h e s e r v i c e o f this church.

7

T h e m e r e l y ad h o c formulations w e r e soon generalized in almost

a b s u r d w a y s a n d , w h e n it c a m e t o t h e b r e a k w i t h R o m e , t h e h a r d l y t o u c h e d structure of Catholic d o g m a was provisionally patched up w i t h the R e f o r m a 8

tional loci. T h u s , from the very beginning, the Protestant C h u r c h was n o t v i a b l e . P r o t e s t a n t G e r m a n y o w e s its r e l i g i o u s life n o t t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Protestant C h u r c h , b u t to the removal of certain impediments of the C a t h o ­ lic C h u r c h . F o r t h e r e t u r n t o t h e g o s p e l , t o w h i c h L u t h e r s a w h i m s e l f c o m ­ pelled, r e m a i n e d a half-measure because the gospel was identified w i t h the N e w T e s t a m e n t . T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t w a s itself a p r o d u c t o f t h e c h u r c h ; h e n c e it w a s itself, i n p a r t , d e t e r m i n e d b y all t h o s e defects a n d lapses i n u n ­ derstanding o f t h e actual m e a n i n g of the gospel that w e r e already characteris­ tic o f t h e e a r l y p e r i o d o f t h e c h u r c h . T h u s , it t o o m u s t b e a n a l y z e d critically. I n this p r o c e s s , o n e hits o n a w h o l e series o f s u c h f u n d a m e n t a l lapses i n u n ­ derstanding. First o f all, t h e r e is t h e d o g m a t i c h a r d e n i n g o f t h e " p o e t r y " o f t h e g o s p e l : t h e h a r d e n i n g o f t h e d i v i n e s o n s h i p o f all h u m a n b e i n g s i n t o t h e d o g m a o f t h e o n l y b e g o t t e n S o n , a n d t h e n t h e h a r d e n i n g o f t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e spirit over death into the d o g m a of the resurrection of the Lord. T h e m o s t far-reaching consequences resulted from Paulinism: in the p e r ­ s o n o f P a u l , J u d a i s m — o f w h i c h , as a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e a n d p r o n o u n c e m e n t ,

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

93

t h e g o s p e l is t h e a n t i t h e s i s ( b e c a u s e J u d a i s m is essentially P h a r i s a i s m ) — g a i n e d m a s t e r y o v e r t h e g o s p e l . It is J e w i s h " t o r e g a r d as t h e o b j e c t o f r e l i g i o u s feelings w h a t h a p p e n e d o n c e i n s t e a d o f w h a t a l w a y s h a p p e n s a n e w , w h a t is 9

past i n s t e a d o f p r e s e n t . " W h a t t h e fulfillment o f t h e L a w f r o m Sinai, i m m u ­ t a b l e a n d g i v e n o n c e a n d for all t i m e s , is t o J u d a i s m , t h e b e l i e f i n t h e u n i q u e e v e n t of the Crucifixion and in the u n i q u e e v e n t of t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n o f Jesus C h r i s t is t o P a u l i n e C h r i s t i a n i t y . I n b o t h cases r e l i g i o n is t h e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s o m e t h i n g f i n i s h e d , rigid, a n d o b j e c t i v e , w h i c h is t h e e x a c t o p p o s i t e o f e v a n ­ gelical p i e t y a n d G e r m a n i c i n w a r d n e s s

[Innerlichkeit].

T h i s s h o u l d suffice t o clarify t h e m o t i v e s a n d t h e p e r s p e c t i v e b y w h i c h L a g a r d e w o u l d h a v e b e e n l e d t o c o n c e r n h i m s e l f w i t h J u d a i s m e v e n if t h e r e w e r e n o "Jewish q u e s t i o n " in G e r m a n y . W h a t is essential in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is n o t m o n o t h e i s m , b u t r a t h e r " t h e g r e a t a c q u i s i t i o n s o f t h e p i o u s soul, w h i c h h a v e f o u n d t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n i n w o r d s s u c h as h o l y , r i g h t e o u s , h u m b l e , a n d t h e l i k e . " T h e v a l u e o f J u d a i s m consists n e i t h e r i n t h e v e n e r a t i o n o f t h e " E t e r n a l O n e , t h a t i d o l o f p a p i e r -

mache

t h a t serves as a r o o m d e c o r a t i o n , "

1 0

n o r in t h e ostensible representa­

tion of the principles of humanity, but rather in "that the Jews w a n t e d to fulfill G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s u n d e r all c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e i n c o n s i s t e d t h e i r s t r e n g t h " ; n o t i n t h e o s t e n s i b l y lofty social e t h i c s , b u t i n " t h e p o e t r y o f t h e Jewish cult."

11

T h e p r o p h e t s a p p l y t o t h e life o f t h e p e o p l e t h e s t a n d a r d o f t h e task G o d set for t h e m . T h u s t h e y c o m e i n t o conflict w i t h t h e n a t i o n a l - l i b e r a l p a t r i o t s a n d statesmen w h o , instead of w o r r y i n g a b o u t the h a r m d o n e to Joseph, are d r i v e n b y t h e i r v a n i t y i n t o w o r l d p o l i t i c s . T h e n a t i o n a l a r r o g a n c e o f Israel a n d j u d a h b r i n g s a b o u t t h e loss o f t h e state: t h e p e o p l e h a d r e j e c t e d its G o d a n d c h o s e n i d o l s . F r o m n o w o n , it is e l i m i n a t e d f r o m h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e w i l l t o life o f t h e p e o p l e p r e s e r v e s it after its p o l i t i c a l d e s t r u c t i o n . F r o m t h e h e t e r o g e n e o u s r e m n a n t s o f t h e p r e v i o u s era, E z r a c o n s t r u c t s t h e b u i l d i n g o f p o s t e x i l i c J u d a i s m . T h e t u r b i d mass o u t o f w h i c h h e b r e w s his t h e o c r a t i c s y s t e m a c q u i r e s its e x t e r n a l f o r m t h r o u g h its e x c l u s i v e n e s s , a n d a c h i e v e s its i n t e r n a l f i r m n e s s t h r o u g h t h e d e f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e assault o f A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s . B u t t h e p e o p l e p u r c h a s e s its c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o n l y at t h e p r i c e o f t h e r e n u n c i a t i o n o f g r e a t v a l u e s . W h a t it c a n n o l o n g e r d o itself, t h e d e e p l y d e s p i s e d G e n t i l e s m u s t d o for it: t h e L a w m a k e s life p o s s i b l e o n l y as a r e s u l t o f t h e " e v e r available G e n t i l e c o m p l e m e n t . " L a g a r d e j u d g e s n o d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s N i e t z s c h e , M o m m s e n , a n d W e l l hausen.

1 2

" [ T ] h e priests o f t h e T e m p l e i n J e r u s a l e m , c o n c e r n e d w i t h e s t a b ­

l i s h i n g Y H W H ' s k i n g d o m o n e a r t h , w e r e b u r d e n e d w i t h n o n e o f t h e diffi­ c u l t a n d s e r i o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a self-sufficient c o m m u n i t y " ( M o m m s e n ) .

94

Chapter

2

E v e r s i n c e , J u d a i s m h a s b e e n essentially p h a r i s a i c , e l i c i t i n g " m o c k e r y a n d disgust f r o m all w h o c a m e i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h i t . " A n c i e n t Israel n e v e r h a d t o suffer f r o m s u c h h a t r e d . A n d w h y n o t ? B e c a u s e it w a s n a ï v e . T h e " f a n a t i c a v e r s i o n " for J u d a i s m is d i r e c t e d against its artificiality, its h o m u n c u l u s - l i k e e x i s t e n c e . T h e p e o p l e s o f t h e w o r l d h a d t o p e r c e i v e it as s c a n d a l o u s w h e n " t h e i m p u d e n t p e o p l e , " r e l i e v e d as t h e y w e r e o f all real tasks b y t h e alien state, " n e v e r t h e l e s s a c t e d as if t h e y h a d n o n e e d o f i t " ( N i e t z s c h e ) . T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features o f J u d a i s m a r e its b e i n g d e v o i d o f r e a l i t y n

[EntuHrklichtheit]

a n d its " m a t e r i a l i s m . " W h a t L a g a r d e u n d e r s t a n d s as J e w i s h

m a t e r i a l i s m is t h e p u t t i n g o f t h e l a w b e f o r e t h e spirit, o f t h e f i n i s h e d m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e p r o c e s s , a n d o f c u l t u r e d n e s s [Gebildetheit] c u l t u r e [Bildung].

before the acquisition o f

I n t h e c o m m u n i t y t h a t is materialistic a n d d e v o i d o f reality,

a n d as its a n t i t h e s i s , t h e r e arises i n t h e Une o f t h e p r o p h e t s J e s u s ; h e c o n t r a s t s t h e e l e c t i o n o f Israel w i t h t h e d i v i n e s o n s h i p o f all h u m a n b e i n g s , t h e s y n a g o g u e - s t a t e w i t h t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d , descent from A b r a h a m w i t h spiritual r e b i r t h . T h e r e is n o r e c o n c i l i a t i o n b e t w e e n J u d a i s m a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y ; J u d a i s m is t h e a n t i - C h r i s t i a n p r i n c i p l e p u r e a n d s i m p l e . H o w w a s it p o s s i b l e for t h e J e w s t o b e c o m e e m a n c i p a t e d i n G e r m a n y ? T h e J e w s o w e t h e i r a d m i s s i o n t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t t h e J e w i s h spirit has g a i n e d m a s t e r y o v e r G e r m a n y ; for l i b e r a l i s m is n o t h i n g b u t s e c u l a r i z e d J u d a i s m . It t o o is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a s u p e r s t i t i o u s b e l i e f i n t h e

rigid,

objective,

u n i q u e , a n d i s o l a t e d fact. O n l y t h u s h a v e t h e J e w s b e e n able t o g a i n i n f l u e n c e o v e r t h e G e r m a n s , w i t h o u t r e b i r t h i n t h e G e r m a n spirit. G e r m a n i s m

[Deutsch-

tum] o n t h e basis o f t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n : this is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t e r m s . Indeed! T h u s , and only thus, m a y o n e p u t the question: h o w could the so-called assimilation

14

t a k e p l a c e i n spite o f t h e i n n e r alienness o f G e r m a n i s m

a n d J u d a i s m ? A n d t h e a n s w e r t o this q u e s t i o n c a n n o t b u t t a k e t h e g e n e r a l f o r m g i v e n t o it b y L a g a r d e : o n l y t h r o u g h a k i n d o f " J e w i f i c a t i o n "

["Verjud-

ung"] o f t h e G e r m a n spirit w a s this a s s i m i l a t i o n p o s s i b l e . W e d o n o t d e e m it n e c e s s a r y t o specify t o w h a t e x t e n t L a g a r d e i g n o r e d essentials w h e n h e c o n t e n t e d h i m s e l f w i t h p o i n t i n g t o t h e spirit o f c u l t u r e d n e s s . B u t m o s t c e r t a i n l y this spirit w a s a n i m p o r t a n t m o m e n t i n n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y G e r m a n J u d a i s m : Gumpelino!

15

A s s i m i l a t i o n p o s e s a t h r e a t t o t h e G e r m a n e s s e n c e [deutsches Wesen]

be-

c a u s e , d e s p i t e c e r t a i n d i m i n u t i o n s , it c o n t i n u e s in t h e m a i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l e x c l u s i v e n e s s o f J u d a i s m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d . A s l o n g as J e w s h o l d o n t o the religious Law, they c a n n o t b e c o m e G e r m a n s . For the m e a n i n g o f this L a w is t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t b e t w e e n J e w s a n d n o n J e w s . It a l i e n a t e s t h e J e w s f r o m t h e "fullness o f life" b y , for e x a m p l e , m a k i n g f a r m i n g a n d r a n c h i n g i m p o s s i b l e t h r o u g h its p r o h i b i t i o n against t h e g e l d i n g

Zionist

Writings

95

(1921-32)

o f a n i m a l s . A n d if, i n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e l i g i o u s L a w p e r m i t s t h e o t h e r w i s e p r o ­ h i b i t e d vital m e a s u r e s t o b e c a r r i e d o u t b y n o n - J e w s , it t h e r e b y s h o w s d i s ­ t i n c t l y t h a t it is n o t c o m m a n d e d " f o r t h e sake o f h u m a n i t y , " as its a p o l o g i s t s c l a i m , s i n c e " i t is i m m o r a l t o c a u s e t h e G e n t i l e t o d o s o m e t h i n g t h a t o n e r e g a r d s as p r o h i b i t e d t o oneself, y e t w h i c h o n e c a n n o t a n d d o e s n o t w a n t t o do without."

1 6

E x c l u s i v e n e s s is t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e L a w ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , as l o n g as t h e L a w is i n effect, n o a m a l g a m a t i o n w i t h t h e h o s t p e o p l e is p o s s i b l e . A n d w h a t if t h e h o s t p e o p l e c a n n o t t o l e r a t e an alien p e o p l e i n its m i d s t ? T h e J e w s a r e alien: o n e sees it in t h e style o f t h e i r s y n a g o g u e s , a n d o n e sees it i n t h e i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d h a t r e d w i t h w h i c h t h e y l o o k o n t h e h i g h ­ est G e r m a n t r a d i t i o n s , t h a t is, t h e M i d d l e A g e s , a n d o n t h e d e e p e s t feelings o f t h e G e r m a n s , t h a t is, t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o f r a n k , w h i c h t h e y c h i d e as " c o m m o n slavishness o f m i n d " ! ( H e r e L a g a r d e is t h i n k i n g o f G e i g e r a n d G r a e t z . ) A n d t h e n t h e r e is t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e s e p e o p l e t o w a r d t h e i r o w n h i s t o r y : w h a t t h e y d o n o t l i k e , t h e y d e n y . " M o d e r n J u d a i s m a l w a y s sails u n d e r false c o l o r s . " T h e y h a v e b u t o n e t e n d e n c y , w h i c h is t h e p o l i t i c a l - a p o l o g e t i c

tendency.

L i b e r a l J u d a i s m praises as t h e v i r t u e s o f J u d a i s m : 1. m o n o t h e i s m — b u t t h a t h a s as little t o d o w i t h r e l i g i o n as k n o w i n g t h e n u m b e r o f G e r m a n r e s i d e n t s h a s t o d o w i t h p a t r i o t i s m ; a n d it is b y n o m e a n s specifically J e w i s h ; 2 . a b s e n c e o f d o g m a s — b u t it is n o v i r t u e t o h a v e n o c o n s i s t e n t v i e w o f G o d a n d d i v i n e m a t t e r s ; it is a d o w n r i g h t m o r a l d e f i c i e n c y ; 3 . t o l e r a n c e — b u t t h a t is a sign o f a lack o f s e r i o u s n e s s ; e v e r y r e l i g i o n is e x c l u s i v e . After this e v a l u a t i o n o f J u d a i s m , it is easy t o guess at t h e Jewish

policy

a d v o c a t e d b y L a g a r d e . I n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d it fully, w e n e e d t o g l a n c e at his general attitude t o w a r d political matters. Life is real o n l y i n i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d its v a l u e is m e a s u r e d solely a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p o w e r it has i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l . F o r L a g a r d e , t h e i n d i v i d u a l is t h e p a r t i c u l a r s o u l c r e a t e d i m m e d i a t e l y b y G o d . T o b e s u r e , t h e souls d o n o t exist i n i s o l a t i o n b u t s t a n d i n a n a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . T h e n a t i o n is a c h a r a c t e r r a t h e r t h a n an i d e a l o f t h e souls, n a m e l y , a c h a r a c t e r t h a t , as it w e r e , c o l o r s t h e i d e a l o f t h e souls, t h a t is, G o d . T h e state resides i n a m u c h m o r e 1

superficial s t r a t u m . W h a t t h e e n t i r e t y {Allheit^

o f t h e m o n a d s o f a specific

n a t i o n c a n n o t a c h i e v e m o n a d i c a l l y , it d e l e g a t e s t o t h e state. H o w e v e r , s i n c e e v e r y t h i n g c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e i n n e r m o s t life m u s t b e a c q u i r e d b y e a c h m o n a d itself, it f o l l o w s t h a t t h e state c a n o n l y a s s u m e t e c h n i c a l tasks. If t h e i n n e r m o s t v a l u e o f t h e n a t i o n is i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e state, t h e n t h e state, i n c o n t r a s t , is necessarily n a t i o n a l . T h e state is o n l y a m e a n s o f n a t i o n a l e x i s t e n c e , a n d y e t a m e a n s necessarily o f n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r . T h e

garment

m u s t fit t h e b o d y o f t h e n a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , if it is f o r m a l l y s o v e r e i g n , it

Chapter

96

2

m u s t r u l e i n o r d e r t o b e able t o s e r v e . T h e d e e p e r c o n c e r n s o f t h e n a t i o n c o m e u n d e r its a u t h o r i t y o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r t e c h n i c a l side, " r e g a r d i n g t h e i r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . " H o w e v e r , i n t h e l e g i t i m a t e s p h e r e o f t h e state, it suffers n o p o w e r b e s i d e itself. T h e r e is n o " r i g h t " b y w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d justify a r e b e l l i o n against m e a s u r e s t h a t b e l o n g t o t h e d o m a i n o f tasks o f t h e state a n d a r e a d v e r s e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l .

18

T h e r e is n o c r i t e r i o n for t h e v a l u e o f a state o t h e r t h a n its usefulness for satisfying t h e n e e d s o f t h e n a t i o n . A n essential n a t i o n a l n e c e s s i t y is t h e s e c u ­ r i t y o f t h e n a t i o n v i s - à - v i s o t h e r n a t i o n s . If n e e d b e , t h e state p r o v i d e s this s e c u r i t y b y m e a n s o f w a r . W a r , as t h e f o r m o f t h e h i g h e s t r e a l i t y o f t h e state, is n o t i n t h e s e r v i c e o f ideas: w a n n e e d n o t b e d r e s s e d u p as c r u s a d e s

[Missions-

kriege]. O n e sees h e r e t h e a b s e n c e o f all i d e o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s for t h e e m a n ­ c i p a t i o n o f t h e J e w s . S i n c e t h e state is a f u n c t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n , i n t h a t t h e n a t i o n transfers, w i t h i n c e r t a i n limits, p o w e r s o v e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t o t h e state, o n e c a n n o t really s p e a k o f h u m a n

rights

as rights o f i n d i v i d u a l s . A n d t h e

e q u a l i t y o f all n a t i o n s ? L a g a r d e r e s o l u t e l y d e n i e s it. A c h a u v i n i s t i c J e w c o u l d n o m o r e resolutely rule o u t the equating of Yugoslavs or Magyars w i t h J e w s than could Lagarde the equating of Yugoslavs or Magyars with Germans. T h e state is a n a t i o n a l state, w h i c h m e a n s : 1. i n its t e r r i t o r y , t h e n e e d s o f its c o n s t i t u t i v e p e o p l e [Staatsvolk]

h a v e p r i o r i t y o v e r all o t h e r s ; if n e c e s s a r y ,

t h e state h a s t h e p o w e r a n d t h e d u t y t o p u t b e f o r e t h e aliens t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n e i t h e r c o m p l e t e assimilation o r e m i g r a t i o n ; 2 . if n e c e s s a r y , it m u s t e n l a r g e its t e r r i t o r y i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e n a t i o n a n d p u t b e f o r e t h e s u b j u g a t e d p e o p l e s t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n e i t h e r a s s i m i l a t i o n o r e x p u l s i o n . " T h i s p o l i t i c s is s o m e w h a t A s s y r i a n , b u t t h e r e is n o a l t e r n a t i v e t o i t , " says L a g a r d e . T h e above explain the following conception of the Jewish policy of the G e r m a n R e i c h i n s i s t e d o n b y L a g a r d e . S i n c e it is p o o r l y c o n s o l i d a t e d n a t i o n ­ ally, t h e G e r m a n p e o p l e c a n n o t t o l e r a t e a n alien p e o p l e i n its m i d s t , least o f all o n e t h a t is as n a t i o n a l l y c o h e r e n t a n d as spiritually d a n g e r o u s as t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h e state m u s t , t h e r e f o r e , e i t h e r assimilate t h e J e w s (or, r a t h e r , p r e ­ p a r e t h e g r o u n d f o r assimilation, w h i c h , itself, actually lies b e y o n d t h e p o s s i ­ bilities o f t h e state), o r e x p e l t h e m . " B u t , f o r G o d ' s sake, g e t t h e m e i t h e r entirely in or entirely o u t . "

1 9

Should the founding of a Central Europe be

a c h i e v e d , w i t h t h e G e r m a n s as its c o n s t i t u t i v e p e o p l e [Staatsvolk]

as t h e result,

say, o f a w a r o n t w o fronts against F r a n c e a n d R u s s i a , t h e n t h e s e c o n d p o s s i ­ bility is t h e o n l y s u i t a b l e o n e , especially w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e E a s t e r n J e w s . I n s u c h a n e v e n t u a l i t y , L a g a r d e leaves it o p e n w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l h a v e t o b e d e p o r t e d to Palestine or to Madagascar.

Zionist

Writings

97

(1921-32)

B u t t h i s is, so t o s p e a k , o n l y L a g a r d e ' s i d e a l . W h a t h e discusses c o n c r e t e l y is t h e

following.

1. R e s t r i c t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h i n f l u e n c e o n G e r m a n s t h r o u g h l e g a l m e a ­ s u r e s : (a) m o n o p o l y c o n t r o l o f t h e s t o c k e x c h a n g e s ; (b) b a n i s h m e n t f r o m t h e c o u n t r y i n cases o f e i t h e r p r o f i t e e r i n g , o r b u y i n g a n d s e l l i n g b y j o b l o t ; (c) l a w s r e g u l a t i n g t h e p r e s s . L a g a r d e finds t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n o f t h i s k i n d w o u l d s a v e the Jews from themselves. 2 . C a l l i n g a h a l t t o J e w i s h i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m : " N o r e l i g i o u s officials

who

r e c e i v e d their e d u c a t i o n a b r o a d are a l l o w e d t o b e e m p l o y e d in G e r m a n y . "

I n r e v i e w i n g t h e s e d e m a n d s , o n e d o e s w e l l t o b e c l e a r a b o u t t h e fact t h a t t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d b y a radical m o r a l i s m — b y t h e s a m e m o r a l i s m t h a t p r o m p t e d Lagarde's rejection of Paulinism. N o sooner do they almost t o u c h than they m o v e a p a r t — t h e radical moralism o f the G e r m a n hailing from Fichte, a n d t h e radical m o r a l i s m o f t h e Zionist writers a n d politicians w h o stand u n d e r entirely different influences.

NOTES S o u r c e : "Paul d e Lagarde," DerJude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 8, n o . 1 Qanuary 1 9 2 4 ) : 8—15. T h e figure Strauss c h o o s e s as a p o i n t o f o r i e n t a t i o n for his r u m i n a t i o n s o n Z i o n i s t "reflectiveness," Paul d e Lagarde ( 1 8 2 7 - 9 1 ) , w a s o n e o f t h e m o s t significant s o u r c e s o f — a s Lagarde h i m s e l f called it—"radical c o n s e r v a t i s m , " n a m e l y , o f t h e reactionary type o f m o d e r n i s m that w a s eventually absorbed, via t h e G e r m a n y o u t h m o v e m e n t , into the program o f national socialism. S o m e o f the major features o f the later program o f the N S D A P — u n i f i c a t i o n o f a Greater Germany, colonization o f the East, and t h e transfer o f the Eastern E u r o p e a n J e w i s h masses t o Palestine or Madagascar—are fully d e v e l o p e d a n d a d v o c a t e d as t h e necessary v o c a t i o n o f G e r m a n y e v e n i n t h e earliest o f t h e lectures i n c l u d e d b y Lagarde i n his vasdy popular Deutsche Schriften [ G e r m a n w r i t i n g s ] . S e e Paul d e L a g a r d e , Deutsche Schriften: Gesammtausgabe letzter Hand,

5th ed. (Göttingen:

D i e t e r i c h ' s c h e B u c h h a n d l u n g , 1 9 2 0 ) . A first s u c h c o l l e c t i o n of, as Lagarde called t h e m , " t h e o l o g i c a l - p o l i t i c a l treatises" w a s published i n 1 8 7 8 , t o w h i c h a s e c o n d v o l u m e w a s added i n 1 8 8 1 . I n 1 8 8 6 , b o t h v o l u m e s w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o o n e and n e w material w a s a d d e d (popular, i . e . , less e x p e n s i v e , edition: 1 8 9 1 ) . O t h e r e d i t i o n s f o l l o w e d . A l s o s e e Lagarde, Ausgewählte Schriften, e d . Paul Fischer, 2 d enl. e d . ( M u n i c h : L e h m a n n s , 1 9 3 4 ) . A s a student o f S e m i t i c languages at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Berlin, Lagarde (originally: B ö t t i c h e r ) h a d b e e n a protege o f Jacob G r i m m ( 1 7 8 5 - 1 8 6 3 ) , t h e author o f t h e German Mythology, a n d a close friend o f t h e p o e t and Orientalist Friedrich R ü c k e n

(1788-

1 8 6 6 ) . After s p e n d i n g a f e l l o w s h i p year traveling a n d s t u d y i n g i n Paris and L o n d o n , Lagarde returned t o H a l l e , w h e r e h e had b e e n t e a c h i n g oriental languages, t o g i v e his first political l e c t u r e , " U e b e r d i e g e g e n w ä r t i g e n A u f g a b e n der d e u t s c h e n P o l i t i k "

98

Chapter

2

( N o v e m b e r 1 8 5 3 ) . T h i s lecture w a s later p u b l i s h e d i n several editions, m o s t n o t a b l y a m o n g t h e German Writings. It w a s this text, a m o n g others, that Strauss d r e w o n as a source for his essay "Paul d e Lagarde." Lagarde's scholarly reputation w a s based m o s d y o n his studies o n t h e history o f the t e x t o f t h e H e b r e w B i b l e . H i s critical stance t o w a r d c o n v e n t i o n a l religion, h o w e v e r , p u t h i m at o d d s w i t h all major t h e o l o g i c a l trends, f r o m Protestant o r t h o d o x y t o t h e liberal s c h o o l o f R i t s c h l . U n f a v o r a b l e r e v i e w s o f his w o r k s p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m r e c e i v ­ i n g calls t o universities, until i n 1 8 6 9 , supported b y t h e Prussian k i n g Frederick W i l h e l m IV, h e t o o k a p o s i t i o n i n G ö t t i n g e n that p r e v i o u s l y h a d b e e n h e l d b y H e i n r i c h E w a l d , w h o s e f o r c e d r e t i r e m e n t w a s d u e t o political reasons. Lagarde c o n t i n u e d t o r e m a i n isolated, and his e x t r e m e political v i e w s , a l o n g w i t h his biting public diatribes o n t h e Protestant culture o f his t i m e , d i d little t o i m p r o v e his reputation a m o n g his c o l l e a g u e s . T o w a r d t h e e n d o f his life, Lagarde a c h i e v e d additional n o t o r i e t y b y l e n d i n g his still considerable scholarly prestige t o t h e cause o f the defense o f the M a r b u r g teacher a n d a n t i - S e m i t i c p o l i t i c i a n Ferdinand F e n n e r , w h o , i n 1 8 8 8 , w a s b r o u g h t t o c o u r t for m a k ­ i n g libelous statements a b o u t t h e ethics o f t h e T a l m u d . T h e expert w i t n e s s o n t h e plaintiffs side w a s H e r m a n n C o h e n . (Cf. U l r i c h Sieg, ' " D e r Wissenschaft u n d d e m L e b e n tut dasselbe n o t : Ehrfurcht v o r der W a h r h e i t ' : H e r m a n n C o h e n s G u t a c h t e n i m M a r b u r g e r A n t i s e m i t i s m u s p r o z e ß 1 8 8 8 , " i n Philosophisches Denken: Politisches Wirken: Hermann-Cohen-Kolloquium

Marburg 1992,

e d . R e i n h a r d t B r a n d t a n d Franz O r l i k

( H i l d e s h e i m , Z ü r i c h , and N e w Y o r k : O l m s , 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 2 2 - 4 9 ; and cf. Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, 2 4 6 - 4 9 . ) It speaks t o t h e i d e o l o g i c a l broadness o f the editorial p o l i c y o f Der Jude that an essay o n H e r m a n n C o h e n b y R o b e r t A r n o l d Fritzsche h a d appeared i n t h e s a m e c o l u m n as Strauss's essay o n Lagarde. S e e DerJude 7, n o s . 7 / 8 ( J u l y - A u g u s t 1 9 2 3 ) . Strauss credits t h e p r o m i n e n t n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y a n t i - S e m i t e w i t h h a v i n g set t h e h i g h e s t standard i n h o n e s t y a n d seriousness i n t h e political arena, a standard h e c o m ­ m e n d s for e m u l a t i o n b y t h e Zionists. T h e essay "Paul d e Lagarde" d e v e l o p s further w h a t , i n " A N o t e o n t h e D i s c u s s i o n o n ' Z i o n i s m and A n t i s e m i t i s m ' , " h a d b e e n s i m p l y a jarring statement, n a m e l y , that "it is hardly an e x a g g e r a t i o n t o say that t h e l e v e l o f t h e a n t i - S e m i t i c a r g u m e n t a t i o n o f a m a n s u c h as Paul d e L a g a r d e . . . has n o t e v e n b e e n reached in Z i o n i s m . " W h e r e i n lies t h e affinity b e t w e e n Strauss a n d Lagarde, b e t w e e n t h e " G e r m a n hail­ i n g f r o m F i c h t e , a n d t h e . . . Z i o n i s t writers and politicians w h o stand u n d e r entirely different influences"? A c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, t h e affinity lies i n t h e "radical m o r a l i s m " that is present i n b o t h , an attitude that reaches b e y o n d t h e c o n v e n t i o n s o f liberal or religious discourse a n d that is r o o t e d i n m o r a l or, m o r e precisely, i n political c o n v i c ­ tions. S o m e t h i n g else reverberates as t h e p o i n t at w h i c h t h e m i n d o f Strauss "almost t o u c h [ e s ] " t h e m i n d o f Lagarde. T h e latter w a s n o t a racialist, b u t a religious t h i n k e r a n d a t h i n k e r a b o u t religion. T o Lagarde, religion w a s t h e decisive factor i n establishing political differences b e t w e e n nations. T h i s idea clearly appealed t o Strauss, a n d it is certainly n o t accidental that b o t h Lagarde and Strauss (across t h e distance o f almost a century) speak o f their c o n c e r n as a " t h e o l o g i c a l - p o l i t i c a l " o n e . Cf. Lagarde, i n t r o d u c ­ t i o n t o Deutsche Schriften, 3 , and Strauss, "Preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion" ( 1 9 6 5 ) ,

reprinted i n Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modem Jewish Thought, e d . a n d trans. K e n n e t h Hart G r e e n (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 1 3 7 .

Zionist

Writings

99

(1921-32)

O f c o u r s e , t h e " Z i o n i s t w r i t e r and politician" Strauss also k n o w s o f the f u n d a m e n ­ tal difference b e t w e e n his o w n radical moralism and that o f the G e r m a n hailing f r o m Fichte: " n o s o o n e r d o t h e y almost t o u c h than t h e y m o v e apart." O r , c o u l d t h e J e w s find a m o r e radical e n e m y than t h e o n e w h o w r o t e , " M i t T r i c h i n e n u n d B a z i l l e n w i r d n i c h t verhandelt, T r i c h i n e n u n d Bazillen w e r d e n a u c h n i c h t e r z o g e n , sie w e r d e n s o rasch u n d so g r ü n d l i c h w i e m ö g l i c h v e r n i c h t e t " (Lagarde, Ausgewählte Schriften, 2 3 9 ) ? M o s t importantly, i n order t o understand w h a t Strauss is u p t o i n this essay o n e m u s t k e e p i n m i n d that t h e association h e b e l o n g e d t o (Blau-Weiss) w a s i n m a n y r e ­ spects t h e spitting i m a g e o f t h e G e r m a n W a n d e r v o g e l (see text and n o t e s t o " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f Principle'," as w e l l as t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e ) , w h i c h c o u n t e d Lagarde's Gemian Writings as o n e o f its sources o f inspiration. T h e political d o c t r i n e that finds its expression here is t o Strauss n o t essentially anti-Semitic, b u t m e r e l y incidentally s o , based o n a political stance that is i n itself consistent, and that is similar t o t h e o n e e m b r a c e d b y B l a u - W e i s s . Strauss w i s h e s t o l e g i t i m i z e t h e Z i o n i s t struggle n o t o n t h e basis o f liberal values b u t o n t h e basis o f the c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n values that is the l a w o f political e x i s t e n c e t o w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e y o u n g Strauss, Z i o n i s m is t o return the J e w s . 1.

Völker der Welt, a n d also, further d o w n , d(ie) Völker, is G e r m a n for t h e rabbinic

H e b r e w e x p r e s s i o n umot ha'olam. Strauss uses this expression as t h e correlate t o t h e n o t i o n o f the c h o s e n p e o p l e that, t o his m i n d , e v e n Z i o n i s m d o e s n o t necessarily d e n y or, at least, m u s t c o n f r o n t as an aspect o f traditional religious J e w i s h self-understanding that poses a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e "self-critical Z i o n i s t . " Cf. "Ecclesia militans" i n this v o l ­ u m e , and passim for similar expressions. A s consistently as possible, I translate Volk as " p e o p l e , " Völker as " p e o p l e s , " and Nation/en as " n a t i o n / s . " 2.

Cf. "Ecclesia militans" ( 1 9 2 5 ) : " N o t 'a p e o p l e like all o t h e r p e o p l e s ' is t h e

p r o g r a m o f self-critical Z i o n i s m , b u t b e i n g the c h o s e n p e o p l e d o e s n o t necessarily m e a n : t o b e a p e o p l e o f m e r c h a n t s a n d lawyers." 3.

"Greater G e r m a n y " (Großdeutschen) refers t o t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e " m i n o r

G e r m a n s o l u t i o n " (kleindeutsche Lösung) o f the G e r m a n q u e s t i o n , p r o m o t e d b y Prussia s i n c e 1 8 6 6 a n d realized u n d e r C h a n c e l l o r Bismarck, w h e n G e r m a n y w a s unified u n d e r the Protestant H o h e n z o l l e r n , e x c l u d i n g the states o f the A u s t r o - H u n g a r i a n E m p i r e t h e n ruled b y t h e C a t h o l i c h o u s e o f Hapsburg. 4.

T h e historical s c h o o l i n c l u d e d B u r k e ' s critique o f revolutionary rationalism,

Savigny's historical d o c t r i n e o f l a w , and R a n k e ' s critique o f general political t h e o r y . U s u a l l y associated w i t h r o m a n t i c i s m , it t o o k issue w i t h H e g e l ' s apriorism i n t h e c o n ­ struction o f history and e m p h a s i z e d t h e n e e d t o take i n t o a c c o u n t t h e irrational, t h e particular, m o r a l f r e e d o m , and t h e constellations o f forces and fate. S o u r c e : 5.

RGG.

O n redlich and Redlichkeit (probity), cf. t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philosophie und Gesetz

(Berlin: S c h o c k e n , 1 9 3 5 ) , 2 6 f , and see t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e present v o l u m e . 6. firmation

Kulturprotestantismus: a t e r m d e n o t i n g t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f a broad m u t u a l af­ o f the Protestant e m p i r e and Protestant a c a d e m i c t h e o l o g y that characterized

G e r m a n Protestantism i n t h e late n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y and until t h e First W o r l d W a r . 7.

F o r Lagarde's v i e w s o f the Protestant R e f o r m a t i o n , cf. " U e b e r das Verhältnis

des d e u t s c h e n Staates z u T h e o l o g i e , K i r c h e , u n d R e l i g i o n , " i n Deutsche Schriften, 42ff. 8.

loci: Scholastic technical t e r m for d o g m a t i c formulations o f the faith. T h e m o s t

100

Chapter

2

i m p o r t a n t Lutheran a u t h o r o f s u c h l o c i w a s P h i l i p p M e l a n c h t h o n . S e e his Loci theologici ( 1 5 2 1 ) as w e l l as his role i n t h e drafting o f t h e Confessio Augustana o f 1 5 3 0 . Cf. D i e Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, h g . v o m D e u t s c h e n E v a n g e l i s c h e n K i r c h e n a u s s c h u ß i m G e d e n k j a h r der A u g s b u r g i s c h e n K o n f e s s i o n 1 9 3 0 ( G ö t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930), xvi-xxi. 9. 10.

Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, 6 7 . Lagarde, " U e b e r d i e g e g e n w ä r t i g e n A u f g a b e n der d e u t s c h e n P o l i t i k , " i n i b i d . ,

25. 11.

Ibid.

12.

N i e t z s c h e , M o m m s e n , and W e l l h a u s e n : Friedrich N i e t z s c h e ( 1 8 4 4 — 1 9 0 0 ) ,

T h e o d o r M o m m s e n ( 1 8 1 7 - 1 9 0 3 ) , and Julius W e l l h a u s e n (1844—1918) w e r e k n o w n t o b e a n t i - a n t i - S e m i t i c , b u t i n their respective historiographie v i e w s o n J u d a i s m i n a n t i q u i t y t h e y largely a g r e e d w i t h Lagarde. In his Römische Geschichte, 2 d e d . (Berlin: W e i d m a n n , 1 8 5 6 ) , 3 : 5 5 0 , M o m m s e n had called J u d a i s m "an active i n g r e d i e n t o f c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m a n d o f national d e c o m p o s i t i o n , " a s e n t e n c e H e i n r i c h v. T r e i t s c h k e h u r l e d back at M o m m s e n d u r i n g t h e great debate o n a n t i - S e m i t i s m i n 1 8 8 0 , after M o m m s e n had signed a declaration distancing himself f r o m Treitschke's v i e w s . Cf. W a l t e r B o e h l i c h , Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit (Frankfurt: Insel, 1 9 6 5 ) , 209f. Similarly, W e l l h a u s e n r e garded the J e w i s h t h e o c r a c y established b y Ezra t h e Scribe after t h e B a b y l o n i a n e x i l e as a p h e n o m e n o n o f d e g e n e r a t i o n , a step d o w n f r o m t h e life-afFirming religion o f a n c i e n t Israel, a n d a p r o t o - C a t h o l i c C h u r c h . S e e his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 5 t h e d . (Berlin, 1 8 9 9 ) ; a n d cf. Lothar Perlitt, Vatke und Wellhausen: Geschichtsphilosophische

Voraussetzungen und historiographische Motive für die Darstellung der Religion und Geschichte Israels (Berlin: T ö p e l m a n n , 1 9 6 5 ) ; and R o l f Rendtorff, " T h e I m a g e o f P o s t e x i l i c Israel in G e r m a n B i b l e Scholarship from W e l l h a u s e n t o v o n R a d , " Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East, e d . M . Fishbane and E m a n u e l T o v ( W i n o n a Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1 9 9 2 ) , 1 6 5 - 7 3 . O n N i e t z s c h e and Judaism, see Y i r m i y a h u Y o v e l , Dark Riddle: Hegel, Nietzsche, and the Jews ( U n i v e r s i t y Park: P e n n s y l v a n i a State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1998). B y putting Lagarde into this c o n t e x t o f ostensibly legitimate historiography, Strauss d o e s n o t exculpate Lagarde b u t p o i n t s t o t h e fact that anti-Judaism is e n d e m i c t o t h e e n t i r e e n t e r p r i s e o f P r o t e s t a n t s c h o l a r s h i p o n "late J u d a i s m " (Spätjudentumsforschung). Y e t , in contrast t o t h e n a m e d liberal o p p o n e n t s o f a n t i - S e m i t i s m , the a n t i - S e m i t e is at least ready t o act u p o n his beliefs; that is, his v i e w s are o f o n e c l o t h , h o n e s t , u p - f r o n t , a n d radically moral, rather than softened b y appeals t o w e a k h u m a n istic i m p e r a t i v e s . W h i l e this m a y appear distasteful t o us, Strauss p r o v e d clairvoyant i n that, w h e n G e r m a n liberals w e r e p u t t o t h e test n o t m u c h later, their resolve failed t h e m , w h e r e a s t h e a n t i - S e m i t e s acted u p o n their radical political beliefs. 13.

Literally: Entwirklichtheit. Strauss used this w o r d i n several variations o n t w o

earlier o c c a s i o n s , n a m e l y , i n " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e ' " and i n " T h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u . " A l t h o u g h t h e w o r d is n o t i n t h e dictionary, its m e a n i n g is quite clear, y e t a precise equivalent can n o t b e f o r m e d i n E n g l i s h w i t h o u t creating an a w k w a r d n e s s that is absent i n t h e G e r m a n ( " d e - r e a l i z e d h o o d , " "de-realitization," etc.). W h e r e a s i n t h e present essay Strauss a c c o m p a n i e s t h e w o r d w i t h an a p o l o g y for "an almost i m p o s s i b l e w o r d f o r m a t i o n , " i n " T h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u " h e i n t r o d u c e s it as a matter o f c o u r s e . T h e a p o l o g y is o m i t t e d i n this translation b e c a u s e t h e E n g l i s h e x p r è s -

Zionist

Writings

101

(1921-32)

s i o n u s e d instead o f the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d m o n g r e l terms is p e r f e c d y reasonable: " d e ­ v o i d o f reality." In fact, there is n o t h i n g very o d d about t h e G e r m a n expression entwirklicht, w h i c h simply m e a n s t h e o p p o s i t e of verwirklicht. T h e s o m e w h a t m o r e c l u m s y n e o l o g i s m Entwirklichtheit e v i d e n t l y refers t o t h e result o f a process b y w h i c h o n e has lost o n e ' s reality, o r , as o n e m i g h t say today, t h e result o f a process o f d i s e m b o d i m e n t .

More

precisely, Strauss uses t h e t e r m i n order t o p r o v i d e a v i v i d expression for t h e status o f galut (exile), w h i c h h e sees as a c o n d i t i o n caused b y t h e loss o f the ancient J e w i s h state, or, m o r e generally, as t h e case o f a loss o f the trappings o f a g e n u i n e political e x i s t e n c e (cf. also t h e m o r e c o m m o n expressions Luftmenschen, Luftvolk, Volksgespenst, etc.). Strauss's t e r m i n o l o g y has a p o l e m i c e d g e i n that it constitutes a c o u n t e r t e r m i n o l o g y t o M a r t i n B u b e r ' s popular m o t t o o f Verwirklichung. 14.

"Assimilation": cf. also i n " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e . "

15.

" G u m p e l i n o " : a character in H e i n r i c h H e i n e ' s "Bäder v o n L u c c a , " d e p i c t i n g

i n a m o s t b i t i n g satire t h e stereotype o f a rich J e w i s h upstart and social climber. C h r i s ­ tian G u m p e l , w h o unsuccessfully tries t o transform himself i n t o the Italian n o b l e M a r c h e s e C h r i s t o f o r o di G u m p e l i n o , represents a figure o f artificial and soulless "culturedness," i n v o l v i n g e v e n t h e a d o p t i o n o f p i o u s C a t h o l i c habits, w i t h o u t — t o again use t h e l a n ­ g u a g e o f Strauss's e s s a y — e i t h e r e x p e r i e n c i n g a g e n u i n e spiritual rebirth o r w i t h o u t e v e n k n o w i n g t h e difference b e t w e e n religious f o r m and g e n u i n e religious substance. M y thanks t o K e n G r e e n for identifying t h e source o f this reference. 16.

Lagarde, " U e b e r die g e g e n w ä r t i g e n A u f g a b e n , " 3 7 .

17.

Allheit: s e e H e r m a n n C o h e n , Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, 4 t h e d . ( H i l d e s h e i m

and N e w Y o r k : O l m s , 1 9 7 7 ) , i n d e x , p. 6 8 3 . 18.

" T h e r e is n o 'right'," e t c . : cf. Der Jude 8, n o . 1 (January 1 9 2 4 ) : 14: "Es gibt

k e i n ' R e c h t ' , m i t d e m der E i n z e l n e g e g e n e i n e A u f l e h n u n g die in d e n A u f g a b e n b e r e i c h des Staates fallen u n d d e m E i n z e l n e n w i d r i g sind, M a ß n a h m e n rechtfertigen k ö n n t e . " T h e w o r d s gegen and Maßnahmen are o u t o f order. H e i n r i c h M e i e r corrects this i n GS, 2 : 3 3 0 : "Es gibt k e i n ' R e c h t ' , m i t d e m der E i n z e l n e e i n e A u f l e h n u n g g e g e n M a ß n a h m e n , die i n d e n Aufgabenbereich des Staates fallen u n d d e m E i n z e l n e n widrig sind, rechtfertigen k ö n n t e . " Cf. GS, 2:618f. 19.

Lagarde, " U e b e r d i e g e g e n w ä r t i g e n A u f g a b e n , " 3 7 .

S o c i o l o g i c a l Historiography? (1924) E v e r y a u t h o r is m e a s u r e d first o f all b y t h e s t a n d a r d t h a t h e e x p r e s s l y a c ­ k n o w l e d g e s i n h i s o w n w o r k . T h e b e s t w a y t o d i s p o s e o f a n a u t h o r is t h e r e ­ f o r e t o p r o v e t h a t h e fails t o a c h i e v e w h a t h e strives for. T h e i d e a l o f k n o w l e d g e s t r i v e n for i n D u b n o w ' s that of "objectivity."

2

1

h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h is

N o w , objectivity can b e u n d e r s t o o d in v e r y different

w a y s . L e t us a s s u m e t h a t w h a t it m e a n s is r e f r a i n i n g f r o m

passion-driven

j u d g m e n t s ; a c a l m w e i g h i n g o f b o t h sides o f e v e r y issue ( a n d h e n c e also o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y i n t h e p e r i o d f r o m 1 8 8 1 t o 1 9 1 4 ) ; a v o i d a n c e o f all d o c t r i n a i r i s m

102

Chapter

2

i n assessing h i s t o r i c a l facts; a critical, p o s s i b l y s k e p t i c a l , a s s e s s m e n t o f e v e n t h o s e facts w h i c h t h e p a r t y p o l i t i c s o f t h e a u t h o r ' s p o s i t i o n c o u l d , for t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , b i d h i m t a k e s e r i o u s l y i n g o o d faith. T h i s a r b i t r a r y a n d n o t w e l l o r g a n i z e d list o f criteria o f " o b j e c t i v i t y " c o n f o r m s w i t h t h e m o s t b l a t a n t f o r m s o f "subjectivity" that characterize t h e historical w o r k o f D u b n o w . I b e g i n w i t h t h e p o i n t m e n t i o n e d last. F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e e n t h u s i a s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h e E n g l i s h p r o t e s t m o v e m e n t against t h e R u s s i a n p o g r o m s I miss t h e b l u n t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e g e o p o l i t i c a l b a c k g r o u n d o f this m o v e m e n t . S p e ­ cifically, w h i l e g e n u i n e l y c o n v i n c e d o f t h e p u r e l y m o r a l o r i g i n o f t h e i r struggle o n b e h a l f o f m i n o r i t i e s , t h e E n g l i s h d o n o t e n g a g e in t h e least p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n if it is n o t i n t h e i r p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t t o d o so. T h i s b e i n g s o , t h e h i s t o r i a n , w h o s e f u n c t i o n it is t o r e p r e s e n t realities, s h o u l d , I t h i n k , call a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s reality w i t h s o m e e m p h a s i s . O f c o u r s e , a p o l i t i c i a n w h o w i s h e d t o m a k e u s e o f t h e fact u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n i n o r d e r t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e o n t h e R u s s i a n g o v e r n ­ m e n t d i d n o t at all h a v e t o k n o w a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n a l n a t u r e o f this fact; its s e r v i c e a b l e m a s s i v e n e s s w a s sufficient for h i m , n o m a t t e r w h a t its m o t i v a t i o n . As an e x a m p l e from internal politics, consider the following. N o

one

w i l l d o u b t t h a t it is a n e x p e d i e n t p o l i t i c a l t r i c k t o s p e a k o f n e g o t i a t i o n s " b e ­ t w e e n the descendant of the H a s m o n e a n s and the descendant of the C r u s a d ­ e r s " i n o r d e r t o fight against H e r z l ' s p o l i t i c a l efforts d i r e c t e d at t h e G e r m a n kaiser. T h i s is p e r h a p s as e x p e d i e n t as, i n G e r m a n p o l i t i c s , d i s c r e d i t i n g a R u s s o p h i l e f o r e i g n p o l i c y b y m a k i n g f r e q u e n t use o f s u c h n a m e s as A p f e l b a u m a n d B r a u n s t e i n . H o w e v e r , this is o b v i o u s l y n o t a c o n s c i e n t i o u s historical c h a r ­ a c t e r i z a t i o n , a n d p e r h a p s n o t e v e n a n e n t i r e l y fair p o l i t i c s . D u b n o w is i n d i g n a n t at t h e R u s s i a n g o v e r n m e n t ' s s t r u g g l e against t h e J e w i s h state w i t h i n t h e state, b u t h e hails e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y t h e s t r u g g l e o f t h e F r e n c h radicals against t h e clerical c o n g r e g a t i o n s as a s t r u g g l e against " a state w i t h i n t h e s t a t e — a h o t b e d o f clerical f a n a t i c i s m a n d h a t r e d o f d e m o c r a c y . " A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s a m e r e a s o n i n g , a g o v e r n m e n t at w a r s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d t o r o o t o u t t h e J e w i s h state w i t h i n t h e state as a " h o t b e d o f d e f e a t i s m , " at least if o u r a u t h o r is c o r r e c t in t r a n s l a t i n g t h e S i x t h C o m m a n d m e n t as " D o n o t k i l l . " W h a t is t h e p o i n t o f s u c h m e a n i n g l e s s q u o t a t i o n s o f biblical passages, a n y w a y ? I h a v e o f t e n w o n d e r e d w h y , in discussions a b o u t t h e e s s e n c e o f J e w i s h p o l i t i c s , p e o p l e a l w a y s a d d u c e t h e s a m e passages f r o m t h e p r o p h e t i c writings (taken o u t of context), w h i c h could obviously be countered b y just as m a n y o t h e r passages s a y i n g p r e c i s e l y t h e o p p o s i t e . N a t u r a l l y , D u b n o w t o o is c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e J e w i s h spirit c a n b e r e d u c e d t o t h e f o r m u l a o f a s t r u g g l e o f j u s t i c e [Gerechtigkeit]

against f o r c e [Gewalt].

I n his case, h o w e v e r , this f o r ­

m u l a receives an original and shrewd, rather than moral, interpretation, in

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

103

w h i c h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f J e w i s h i n t e r e s t s is i d e n t i f i e d w i t h ["Gerechtigkeit"],

"justice"

a n d t h e struggle against J e w i s h i n t e r e s t s is i d e n t i f i e d w i t h

" f o r c e " [ "Gewalt"].

I p r e f e r t o stick w i t h t h e e n t i r e l y u n a m b i g u o u s passage i n 71

J o s h u a 9:7, w h i c h c a n b e easily a p p l i e d t o o u r s i t u a t i o n i n the galut.

But we

digress. W h a t is b e f o r e us n o w is D u b n o w ' s " s u b j e c t i v i t y . " H e c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e 4

w a r o f 1 8 7 0 / 7 1 as a "senseless b r a w l " ; G e r m a n y b e f o r e t h e w a r w a s a " b a r ­ r a c k s s t a t e " [Kasernenstaat],

w h e r e the blind w o r s h i p o f the fatherland a n d the

a r m y s u p p r e s s e d a n d d e p e r s o n a l i z e d e v e r y t h i n g " ; t h e r e is a " h o l y r i g h t o f m a n ' s f r e e d o m o f m o v e m e n t , " a n d so o n . O n e c o u l d r e g a r d s u c h t h i n g s as m e r e silliness, t o o trivial t o m a k e a g r e a t fuss a b o u t , w e r e t h e y n o t so t h o r ­ o u g h l y characteristic o f t h e entire attitude of the w o r k . T h e i d e a l o f " o b j e c t i v i t y " is s u p p o s e d t o b e r e a l i z e d b y m e a n s o f t h e 5

m e t h o d o f " s o c i o l o g y . " N o w , according to D u b n o w , a sociological a p p r o a c h 6

is o n e t h a t d r a w s e q u a l l y o n e c o n o m i c , p o l i t i c a l , a n d c u l t u r a l facts. W e d o n o t w i s h t o e n t e r i n t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l difficulty t h a t a t t a c h e s t o t h e d e m a n d for d r a w i n g equally

o n e c o n o m i c , p o l i t i c a l , a n d c u l t u r a l facts. It is r e a d i l y

c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t n o t h i n g is less " o b j e c t i v e , " a n d n o t h i n g fits t h e o b j e c t less, t h a n s u c h c o o r d i n a t i o n ; this w o u l d b e t h e case if one g r o u p o f facts w e r e u n m i s t a k a b l y predominant

i n t h e o b j e c t t o b e d e a l t w i t h . B e t h a t as it m a y ,

" o b j e c t i v i t y " i n t h e sense o f d o i n g j u s t i c e t o t h e facts c o u l d in a n y case h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d b y D u b n o w b y m e a n s o f s o c i o l o g y , especially b y m e a n s o f s o c i o l o g y o f t h e e c o n o m i c v a r i e t y . After all, t h e r e is i n J e w i s h h i s t o r y a series o f facts t r a c e a b l e t o e c o n o m i c factors. T h u s it c a n b e easily e x p l a i n e d w h y , for e x a m p l e , t h e g u i l d s w e r e m o r e h o s t i l e t o t h e J e w s t h a n t h e a b s o l u t e m o n ­ a r c h y ; this w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e J e w i s h p r o b l e m is u n a f f e c t e d b y d e m o c r a c y . O r it c a n t h u s b e e x p l a i n e d w h y n i n e t e e n t h - a n d t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y P o l a n d is m o r e h o s t i l e t o t h e J e w s t h a n t h e P o l a n d o f t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; f r o m this it w o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o l e a r n t h a t t h e J e w i s h p r o b l e m is u n a f f e c t e d b y c i v i l i z a ­ tion,

a n d so o n . B y c o m p r e h e n d i n g t h a t m a n y h i s t o r i c a l facts a r e c a u s e d b y

a m o r a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s u c h as e c o n o m i c c o m p e t i t i o n , o n e is able t o a v o i d cheap moralizing, w h i n i n g , and scolding. If o n e t h i n k s t h a t this is w h a t o n e m a y r i g h d y e x p e c t f r o m a s o c i o l o g i c a l investigation, t h e n o n e will be disappointed in D u b n o w . D u b n o w belongs to those historians that Nietzsche, w i t h Treitschke a n d Sybel in m i n d , referred 7

t o as h i s t o r i a n s w i t h " h e a v i l y b a n d a g e d h e a d s . " It d o e s n o t e v e n o c c u r t o D u b n o w t o see i n a n t i - S e m i t i s m a n y t h i n g b u t h a t r e d , e i t h e r g r o u n d l e s s o r g r o u n d e d i n t h e l o w e s t u r g e s . B r u t a l a b s u r d i t y [brutale

Sinnlosigkeit]—the

F r a n c o - P r u s s i a n W a r — b r i n g s a b o u t a h e i g h t e n i n g o f t h e will t o brutal a b s u r d i t y

104

Chapter

2

( G e r m a n m i l i t a r i s m ) a n d h e n c e t o a n t i - S e m i t i s m as a special form o f b r u t a l a b s u r d i t y . D u b n o w h a s a p r e d i l e c t i o n for e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e e m b a r r a s s i n g (or, as t h e y say, " p e r s o n a l " ) m o t i v e s o f t h e l e a d e r s o f a n t i - S e m i t i s m . It s h o u l d b e o b v i o u s t h a t a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f this sort c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d a n t i - S e m i t i s m . H o w w o u l d it p r o p o s e t o d e a l w i t h a m a n as t h o r o u g h l y h o n e s t as L a g a r d e ?

8

T h e s a m e h o l d s t r u e for D u b n o w ' s j u d g m e n t o f G e r m a n - J e w i s h r e l a t i o n s . O f c o u r s e this is n o t t o say t h a t t h e h i s t o r i a n m u s t b e l u k e w a r m a b o u t , o r d i s ­ 9

pense with, evaluations. Pinsker understands anti-Semitism ten times m o r e t h o r o u g h l y t h a n D u b n o w , a n d it is for this v e r y r e a s o n t h a t h e e x p r e s s e s his h a t r e d m u c h m o r e d e e p l y a n d m u c h m o r e effectively. A s i d e f r o m t h i s f u n d a m e n t a l flaw, D u b n o w ' s w o r k is a b s o l u t e l y i n d i s ­ p e n s a b l e as t h e o n l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y o f t h e r e c e n t past t h a t t r e a t s all t h e accessible m a t e r i a l . H o w e v e r , it is not w h a t it claims t o b e : a " s y n t h e s i s " o f t h e m a t e r i a l .

10

It is often n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a

c o n v e n i e n t c o m p i l a t i o n o f n e w s r e p o r t s a n d e d i t o r i a l o p i n i o n p i e c e s . It is d e v o i d o f a n y i d e a t h a t w o u l d c o n s t r u e t h e h i s t o r i c a l facts f r o m t h e i r i n n e r l a w ; t h e a u t h o r ' s p o l i t i c a l ideals a r e s o m e w h a t m i n d l e s s l y j u x t a p o s e d w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l facts. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , o n e v i e w p o i n t t h a t justifies t h e s t r u c t u r e o f D u b n o w ' s w o r k , a l i n e a r e n u m e r a t i o n o f m o s t l y v e r y sad e n c o u n t e r s o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h e d e t a i l e d p o r t r a y a l , i n s p i r e d b y s t r o n g feelings, o f t h e suffering o f t h e R u s s i a n , P o l i s h , a n d R u m a n i a n J e w s has a n i n t r i n s i c v a l u e : as martyrology.

No

o n e s h o u l d c o n t e s t its i m p o r t a n c e . T h i s is so b e c a u s e , first, it has t h e vital f u n c t i o n o f k e e p i n g alive in us t h e d e e p h a t r e d t h a t facilitates o u r e x i s t e n c e i n t h i s w o r l d o f h a t r e d , a n d t h a t takes for us t h e p l a c e o f a n a r m y a n d o f f o r ­ tresses; a n d b e c a u s e , s e c o n d , it is t h e c o g n i t i v e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a n essential form

o f t h e life o f o u r p e o p l e , n a m e l y , suffering as s u c h . F o r this is b y n o

m e a n s a m e r e l y passive e x p e r i e n c e o f f o r c e , b u t r a t h e r it is p r e p a r e d f r o m w i t h i n , a l m o s t w i l l e d , b e f o r e this e x p e r i e n c e o f f o r c e c o u l d h a v e b e e n m u c h o f a n issue. T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p e o p l e s o f t h e w o r l d as n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e c r u e l t o r m e n t o r s o f t h e defenseless is as a b s u r d f r o m a s o c i o l o g i c a l v i e w ­ p o i n t as it is m e a n i n g f u l a n d u n a v o i d a b l e h e r e , w h e r e t h e p e o p l e s o f t h e w o r l d a r e c o n s i d e r e d as t h e mere c o r r e l a t e o f t h e suffering o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , t h a t is, as t h o s e w h o c a u s e t h a t suffering. I n this c o n t e x t , t h e n o t i o n t h a t is o p p o s i t e t o force [Gewalt] is n o t " r i g h t " ["Recht"],

b u t t h e experience o f f o r c e .

A n y a p p e a l t o a l e a g u e o f n a t i o n s o r t o d e m o c r a c y , a n y assertion o f a claim n o t t o b e t o r m e n t e d , is h e r e i n v a l i d a t e d as e m b a r r a s s i n g . All t h a t r e m a i n s is selicha [forgiveness]. It h a r d l y n e e d s s a y i n g t h a t D u b n o w misses this a s p e c t as w e l l . It is c o m p l e t e l y s h u t o u t f r o m his v i e w b y h i s v i g o r o u s faith in n a t i o n a l - c u l t u r a l autonomy.

1 1

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

105

NOTES S o u r c e : " S o z i o l o g i s c h e Geschichtsschreibung?" Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 8, n o . 3 ( M a r c h 1 9 2 4 ) : 1 9 0 - 9 2 , reprinted i n GS, 2 : 3 3 3 - 3 7 . 1.

N o t e b y t h e e d i t o r o f Der Jude, Ernst S i m o n : " S . M . D u b n o w , Die neueste

Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, v o l . III, Berlin, 1 9 2 3 . After t h e m o r e favorable r e v i e w b y J o s e f M e i s l (issue n o . 1 0 / 1 1 , 1 9 2 3 ) w e publish also this harsh critique w i t h o u t a n y i n t e n t i o n o f c o n c l u d i n g a discussion that is o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e . R a t h e r , w e certainly e n c o u r a g e n e w , alternative statements." J o s e f (or: Joseph) M e i s l , a regular c o n t r i b u t o r t o DerJude w h o s e m o r e favorable r e v i e w is m e n t i o n e d here as an alternative t o Strauss's "harsh c r i t i q u e , " w e n t o n to b e c o m e a c o n t r i b u t o r first t o t h e G e r m a n Encyclopaedia Judaica, t h e n t o t h e English EJ ( b e g u n u n d e r C e c i l R o t h for K e t e r , Jerusa­ l e m ) , and w a s t h e director o f the Central A r c h i v e s for t h e H i s t o r y o f the J e w i s h P e o p l e , Jerusalem. H e w a s also t h e author o f the first part o f t h e EJ entry o n S i m o n D u b n o w ( s e c o n d part: H . H . B e n Sasson). 2.

S i m o n D u b n o w ( 1 8 6 0 - 1 9 4 1 ) , R u s s i a n autodidact, J e w i s h historian, and j o u r ­

nalist, w h o s e political v i s i o n o f J e w i s h political a u t o n o m y and t h e h e g e m o n y o f cultural centers w a s at odds w i t h b o t h assimilation and Z i o n i s m . H i s Neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (3 v o l s . , 1 9 2 0 - 2 3 ) appeared simultaneously i n R u s s i a n , G e r m a n , and H e b r e w . T h e w e l l - k n o w n t e n - v o l u m e Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1 9 2 5 - 2 9 ) r e p r o d u c e s t h e c o n t e n t of Neueste Geschichte i n an e d i t e d f o r m i n v o l u m e s 8 ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o v o l . 2 i n t h e m o d i f i e d e d i t i o n o f Neueste Geschichte, 1 9 2 8 ) and 9 ( w i t h o u t reference t o t h e p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n , p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 2 9 ) . O n D u b n o w ' s p r i n ­ ciples o f historiography, s e e Weltgeschichte, l:v—vi, x i i i - x x x i , and again i n 9 : 5 - 7 . 3 . J o s h u a 9:7: " A n d t h e m e n o f Israel said u n t o t h e H i v i t e s , P e r a d v e n t u r e y e d w e l l a m o n g us; a n d h o w shall w e m a k e a l e a g u e w i t h y o u ? " T h i s passage, representing an ideal c o n q u e s t o f t h e Land o f Canaan based o n d e u t e r o n o m i c l a w , p r o v i d e s t h e b a c k g r o u n d for t h e specific story that e x e m p l i f i e s that t h e c o n q u e r i n g Israelites are l o a t h t o transgress t h e i n j u n c t i o n against m a k i n g a c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e aliens w h o d w e l l a m o n g t h e m (i.e., t h e original inhabitants o f the land). B y t h e same t o k e n , Strauss i m p l i e s , o n e m u s t c o n c e d e t o t h e n o n - J e w i s h p o w e r s h o l d i n g s w a y o v e r the J e w s i n e x i l e t h e right t o refuse t o enter i n t o p r o t e c t i v e arrangements w i t h t h e J e w s if t h e y feel so c o m p e l l e d . W h a t is right for t h e c o n q u e r i n g Israelites m u s t b e right for others as w e l l , e v e n if and w h e n the J e w s are o n t h e r e c e i v i n g e n d . 4.

T h e w a r o f 1 8 7 0 / 7 1 : t h e Franco-Prussian W a r , l e a d i n g t o t h e Versailles p r o c ­

l a m a t i o n o f the S e c o n d G e r m a n R e i c h . 5.

Cf. D u b n o w , Weltgeschichte, l : x v : "Es ist n u n e i n e Errungenschaft der l e t z t e n

Z e i t , daß m a n e n d l i c h z u e i n e r umfassenderen, rein wissenschaftlichen Auffassung d e r j ü d i s c h e n G e s c h i c h t e , d i e m a n als d i e soziologische b e z e i c h n e n kann, v o r g e s c h r i t t e n ist" [ O n l y r e c e n d y h a v e w e , at last, progressed t o a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e , purely scholarly c o n c e p t i o n o f J e w i s h history, a c o n c e p t i o n that m a y b e called a s o c i o l o g i c a l o n e ) . B u t cf. p . x x : " D i e s e Auffassung w e i s t unserer G e s c h i c h t s c h r e i b u n g [sic] d e n W e g aus d e m Labyrinth der t h e o l o g i s c h e n u n d m e t a p h y s i s c h e n T h e o r i e n u n d stellt sie a u c h e i n e feste bio-soziologische Grundlage" [This c o n c e p t i o n leads our historiography o u t o f the labyrinth o f t h e o l o g i c a l a n d metaphysical theories and establishes it o n a solidly bio-sociological

106

Chapter

2

f o u n d a t i o n ] . I n a final n o t e t o his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Weltgeschichte, D u b n o w remarks that the d e s c r i p t i o n o f his m e t h o d as s o c i o l o g i c a l h a d g i v e n rise t o a "scientific c o n t r o v e r s y . " H e n c e , i n order t o a v o i d further "misunderstandings and futile p o l e m i c s , " h e distin­ g u i s h e d his m e t h o d f r o m that w h i c h M a x W e b e r had shortly before applied t o t h e study o f a n c i e n t J u d a i s m (Das antike Judentum, 1 9 2 3 ) . D u b n o w , w h o f r o m early o n w a s i n f l u ­ e n c e d b y C o m t e and M i l l , uses "sociological" o r " b i o - s o c i o l o g i c a l " t o describe a sphere o f historical r e l e v a n c e that is n e i t h e r identical w i t h t h e nation-state n o r w i t h religion. T h u s h e aims t o s t r e n g t h e n his a r g u m e n t for a s o u n d political e x i s t e n c e o f the J e w s i n a u t o n o m o u s h e g e m o n i c centers o f political, e c o n o m i c , a n d cultural life that, i n order t o f u n c t i o n properly, is n e i t h e r necessarily i n n e e d o f a state n o r t o b e r e d u c e d t o t h e beliefs, rituals, and t h e literature o f Judaism as a religion. 6.

Cf. D u b n o w , Weltgeschichte, l : x x i .

7.

Friedrich N i e t z s c h e , Jenseits von Gut und Böse, " A c h t e s H a u p t s t ü c k : V ö l k e r

u n d Vaterländer," n o . 2 5 1 , i n vol. 5 oiSämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe ( M ü n c h e n : D T B ; B e r l i n a n d N e w Y o r k : W a l t e r d e Gruyter, 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 9 2 . 8.

S e e "Paul d e Lagarde."

9.

L e o n Pinsker ( 1 8 2 1 - 9 1 ) , Odessa physician and leader o f the H i b b a t Z i o n m o v e ­

m e n t . A s t h e a n o n y m o u s author o f "Autoemancipation" : Mahnruf an seine Stammesgenossen von einem russischen Juden (Berlin, 1 8 8 2 ) , Pinsker analyzed t h e roots o f a n t i - S e m i t i s m a n d w a s o n e o f t h e first, a n d m o s t w i d e l y read, t o a d v o c a t e t h e establishment o f a J e w i s h national c e n t e r as t h e o n l y viable a n s w e r t o a n t i - S e m i t i s m . 10.

Cf. D u b n o w , Weltgeschichte, 1 :xiii: " W i e i n der W e l t g e s c h i c h t e der M e n s c h h e i t ,

s o m u ß a u c h i n d e r W e l t g e s c h i c h t e des J u d e n t u m s d i e synthetische Methode d i e v o r ­ h e r r s c h e n d e s e i n " J u s t as t h e synthetic method m u s t d o m i n a t e t h e universal history o f m a n k i n d , so it m u s t d o m i n a t e t h e universal history o f t h e J e w s ] . A n d o n p . x x i i : " A u f der S u c h e n a c h e i n e r u m f a s s e n d e n S y n t h e s e der j ü d i s c h e n G e s c h i c h t e , e i n e r S y n t h e s e , der i c h v o m ersten T a g e m e i n e r w i s s e n s c h a f t ü c h e n F o r s c h u n g an unausgesetzt n a c h g i n g . . ." [In t h e pursuit o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e synthesis o f J e w i s h history, a synthesis I h a v e p u r s u e d f r o m t h e first d a y o f m y scientific research . . . ] . 11.

F o r D u b n o w ' s v i e w s o n religion—critical i n his y o u t h , a n d m o r e appreciative

later o n as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f the spirit o f the p e o p l e ( a l o n g t h e lines o f R e n a n , T o l s t o y , a n d A h a d H a ' a m ) — s e e EJ, s.v. " D u b n o w , S i m o n , " b y H . H . B e n Sasson.

R e v i e w o f A l b e r t L e v k o w i t z , Contemporary Religious Thinkers (1924) I n Contemporary

Religious

Thinkers:

On

Changes

in the Modem

w h i c h is a d e t a i l e d r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e , Albert

1

Levkowitz

Views

of

Life,

wants to ac­

quaint w i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophy those J e w i s h readers w h o , because o f t h e i r o t h e r p u r s u i t s , h a v e n o t h a d t h e l e i s u r e t o l e a r n a b o u t it f r o m t h e s o u r c e s , o r f r o m t h e u s u a l r e p o r t s i n t h e daily n e w s p a p e r s . A s a r e s u l t , a c e r t a i n c r u d e ness i n t h e a r g u m e n t a t i o n a n d a certain r e p e t i t i o n o f things w e l l k n o w n are

Zionist

Writings

107

(1921-32)

u n a v o i d a b l e . S t a n d i n g o n t h e solid g r o u n d o f t h e r e l i g i o n o f J u d a i s m , t h e a u t h o r c a n easily pass j u d g m e n t o n p a r t i c u l a r p h i l o s o p h e r s . H e strives f o r a " s e r i o u s a n d d e e p a r g u m e n t w i t h t h e spiritual forces o f t h e w o r l d a r o u n d u s . " T h i s a r g u m e n t results i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e a n c i e n t J e w i s h w o r l d v i e w w i t h a synthesis o f B e r g s o n i a n c r e a t i v e e v o l u t i o n w i t h t h e ideals o f C o h e n ' s e t h i c s o f h u m a n i t y a n d w i t h t h e h o l y a c c o r d i n g t o O t t o . It is n o t w i t h o u t d o g g e d n e s s t h a t t h e a u t h o r is able t o e m p h a s i z e t h e ideal o v e r against t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f life, a n d t o e m p h a s i z e life o v e r against t h e idealists. A s i d e f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , u n s t a t e d a i m o f t h e w o r k , t h e r e is also a n a i m t h a t is expressly e m p h a s i z e d b y t h e a u t h o r : n a m e l y , t h a t o f t a k i n g o n , i n g i v e - a n d - t a k e , t h e (!) J e w i s h r o l e i n t h e r e l i g i o u s s e a r c h o f o u r t i m e . 2

T o b e s u r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a u t h o r , this w r e s t l i n g [Ringen]

for p a r t i c i p a t i o n

i n m o d e r n c u l t u r e d e r i v e s f r o m t h e classical u n i v e r s a l i s m o f J u d a i s m . NOTES

Source: "Bücherschau: A . L e v k o w i t z , Religiöse Denker der Gegenwart," Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift, (Berlin) 8, n o . 7 (July 1 9 2 4 ) : 4 3 2 . T h e full tide o f the b o o k u n d e r r e v i e w

is Albert L e v k o w i t z , Religiöse Denker der Gegenwart: Vom Wandel der modernen Lebensan­ schauung (Berlin: P h i l o Verlag, 1 9 2 3 ) . 1.

Albert L e v k o w i t z (usually: L e w k o w i t z ) ( 1 8 8 3 - 1 9 5 4 ) , rabbi and scholar, r e ­

c e i v e d his t h e o l o g i c a l e d u c a t i o n f r o m the J e w i s h T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary in Breslau, w h e r e h e later also briefly l e c t u r e d o n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n and o n p e d a g o g y ( 1 9 1 4 ) . H i s first p h i l o s o p h i c a l teacher w a s H e r m a n n C o h e n , an i n f l u e n c e h e attests t o i n his c o n t r i ­ b u t i o n t o t h e FestschriftJudaica (Berlin: B r u n o Cassirer, 1 9 1 2 ) , 1 6 7 - 7 6 . H i s m a i n w o r k is

Das Judentum und die geistigen Strömungen des 19. Jahrhunderts ( 1 9 3 5 ) . Cf. EJ, s.v. "Lewkowitz, Albert." 2.

F o r Ringen, cf. " D e r K o n s p e k t i v i s m u s " (GS, 2 : 3 6 7 ) , w h e r e this t e r m is e v e n

m o r e strongly i r o n i z e d .

On the Argument with European Science

(1924)

N o w a n d i n f u t u r e , this j o u r n a l w i l l r e p o r t o n w o r k s o n t h e s c i e n c e o f r e l i ­ g i o n t h a t , f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , a r e n o t a n i m a t e d b y a n y specifically J e w i s h i n t e r ­ est. W h a t r i g h t d o w e h a v e t o d o this? W h a t r i g h t d o w e h a v e t o e n d a n g e r o u r s o fragile J e w i s h c o h e s i o n e v e n f u r t h e r b y t r o u b l i n g a J e w i s h p u b l i c w i t h c o m m e n t s o n w o r k s t h a t b e l o n g entirely t o t h e E u r o p e a n c o n t e x t ( e v e n t h o u g h s o m e o f t h e i r a u t h o r s m a y h a p p e n a c c i d e n t a l l y t o b e J e w i s h ) ? F o r it s h o u l d b e self-evident that a Jewish reviewer's private relation t o s o m e E u r o p e a n m a t ­ t e r d o e s n o t y e t establish a n y r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t a n d t h a t

108

Chapter

2

v e r y m a t t e r . M o r e o v e r , if s o m e E u r o p e a n fact is o f E u r o p e a n s i g n i f i c a n c e , it d o e s n o t y e t f o l l o w t h a t it c o n c e r n s us i n a n y w a y as J e w s , u n l e s s , o f c o u r s e , o n e shares t h e v i e w o f " J e w i s h u n i v e r s a l i s m " h e l d b y a c e r t a i n l i b e r a l i s m . W h a t has E u r o p e t o d o w i t h us as J e w s ! W h a t h a s E u r o p e t o d o w i t h us? Q u i t e a l o t , it s e e m s . B u t w h a t t h i n g s E u r o p e a n a r e o f c o n c e r n t o us, w h a t c o n c r e t e E u r o p e a n facts a r e o f c o n c e r n t o us, c a n o n l y b e a s c e r t a i n e d o n t h e basis o f a c o n c r e t e e x a m i n a t i o n .

Our

c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y lies i n t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t . A n d if as J e w s w e p r e s u m e t o b u s y o u r s e l v e s w i t h s o m e t h i n g n o n - J e w i s h , t h e n t h e p l a c e t h a t this n o n - J e w i s h m a t t e r is m e a n t t o o c c u p y i n t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t m u s t b e s h o w n w i t h s o m e c o n c e p t u a l p r e c i s i o n [Bestimmtheit].

T h i s c a n a n d m u s t b e a m a t t e r of concrete

c o n c e p t u a l analyses [Bestimmungen]

alone, and n o t of blather about Jewish

r h y t h m i c s a n d t h e l i k e , b l a t h e r t h a t m a k e s it p o s s i b l e t o r e q u i s i t i o n v i r t u a l l y a n y t h i n g as a l e g i t i m a t e J e w i s h possession. T h e r e is a E u r o p e a n e n d e a v o r t h a t as s u c h has a n i m m e d i a t e r e l a t i o n t o t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t , a n d this e n d e a v o r is t h e e n t i r e c o m p l e x o f t h e m o d e r n s c i e n c e o f r e l i g i o n . F o r w h e n E u r o p e c r i t i c i z e d itself, t h a t is, its C h r i s t i a n i t y , it e o i p s o c r i t i c i z e d J u d a i s m . T h a t this c r i t i q u e made an impact on t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t is i l l u s t r a t e d historically b y t h e fact t h a t t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , insofar as it w a s n o t able t o r e c o n s t r u c t itself w i t h r e g a r d t o this c r i t i q u e , s u c c u m b e d t o E u r o p e ' s a t t a c k . H e r e i n lies t h e d e c i s i v e c a u s e o f w h a t is k n o w n as assimila­ t i o n , w h i c h t h e r e f o r e is J e w i s h l y l e g i t i m a t e also f r o m this p e r s p e c t i v e . T o pass off s o m e i d i o t i c " e n t i c e m e n t s " o f E u r o p e , o r " p a g a n " m o t i v e s , as t h e essential c a u s e o f t h e d e f e c t i o n f r o m t r a d i t i o n is t o b e g u i l t y o f d e f a m a t i o n . T h e O r t h o d o x side s h o u l d finally s t o p u s i n g a p o l e m i c t h a t w a s m e a n i n g f u l i n t h e case o f A l e x a n d r i a a n d R o m e . W h a t h a p p e n e d in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n ­ t u r y w a s a n y t h i n g b u t apikorsut,

" E p i c u r e a n i s m " in t h e literal sense.

I n a n y case, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c r i t i q u e i n q u e s t i o n is t h e l i m i t a t i o n it p u t s o n t h e claim t o validity o f tradition. In t h e present day, e v e n o n t h e O r t h o ­ d o x side, o n e n o l o n g e r a r g u e s , p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e B i b l e , against t h e p r o p o ­ sitions o f n a t u r a l s c i e n c e . W e e x p e c t t h a t this c a m p w i l l also c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h b i b l i c a l c r i t i c i s m i n like m a n n e r , t h a t is, l i k e w i s e b y m e a n s o f a J e s u i t pragmatist interpretation, or rather by means of a transcendental-idealist o n e . H o w e v e r , a t r a d i t i o n t h a t , b e c a u s e o f a c r i t i q u e l a u n c h e d against it, has r e l i n ­ q u i s h e d c e r t a i n c l a i m s (claims t h a t p r e s u m a b l y a r o s e f r o m it n o t w i t h o u t i n ­ n e r n e c e s s i t y ) , i n d e e d , a t r a d i t i o n t h a t has r e c o n s t r u c t e d itself so t h a t it is n o l o n g e r e v e n able t o m a k e t h o s e c l a i m s — s u c h a t r a d i t i o n , if it is h o n e s t , w i l l h a v e t o a d m i t t h a t it is n o l o n g e r t h e o l d , u n b r o k e n t r a d i t i o n . If t h e r e n u n c i a ­ t i o n o f t h e c l a i m t o scientific v a l i d i t y is s u c h a s e l f - e v i d e n t m a t t e r , as is t o d a y o f t e n a s s e r t e d e v e n f r o m p u l p i t s , h o w is it t h a t s u c h significant m i n d s as all

Zionist

Writings

109

(1921-32)

positive religions c o u n t a m o n g their o r t h o d o x theologians defended their t r a d i t i o n against s c i e n c e w i t h a l m o s t u n p r e c e d e n t e d t e n a c i t y ? O b v i o u s l y t h e b l o w s t r u c k b y s c i e n c e d i d n o t miss. T h a t M o s e s w r o t e t h e T o r a h w a s r e ­ g a r d e d as t r u e n o t j u s t i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c o n t e x t a n d " i n w a r d l y , " b u t t r u e , p u r e a n d s i m p l e ; a n d w h o e v e r t h o u g h t o t h e r w i s e w a s a radical d e n i e r o f t h e faith. T h e r e w a s a time, n o t so l o n g a g o , w h e n t h e t w o p o w e r s , t r a d i t i o n a n d s c i e n c e , d i d n o t c o e x i s t p e a c e f u l l y o n parallel p l a n e s , w i t h n o p o i n t s o f c o n ­ tact, b u t e n g a g e d in a l i f e - a n d - d e a t h s t r u g g l e for h e g e m o n y o n t h e

single

plane of the "truth." R e l i g i o n w a s s a v e d n o t b y its o w n d e f e n s e , b u t r a t h e r b y t h e s e l f - c r i t i q u e o f t h e c r i t i q u e . K a n t " n e e d e d t o d e n y k n o w l e d g e i n o r d e r t o m a k e r o o m for f a i t h . " I n t h e c o n t e x t o f this s e l f - c r i t i q u e , r e l i g i o n w a s s a v e d at t h e p r i c e o f a n idealist, r o m a n t i c r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w e v e r , t h e m o r e t h e s c i e n c e o f r e l i ­ g i o n ( n o w n o l o n g e r in n e e d of criticizing r e l i g i o n ) d e v o t e d itself t o t h e c o n ­ c r e t e a c t u a l i t y o f r e l i g i o n , t h e c l e a r e r it b e c a m e t h a t t h e c l a i m t o t r a n s c e n ­ d e n c e , w h i c h , if n o t r e l i n q u i s h e d , w a s still e n d a n g e r e d b y r o m a n t i c i s m a n d w h i c h is t h e u l t i m a t e r o o t o f t h e specific c l a i m t o t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n , is also t h e vital p r i n c i p l e o f r e l i g i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , w h i l e a n idealistically r e i n t e r p r e t e d r e l i g i o n m a y p e r h a p s b e t h e m o s t a m u s i n g t h i n g i n t h e w o r l d , it c a n i n a n y case n o l o n g e r b e r e l i g i o n . T h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t r a n s c e n ­ d e n c e p r e s e n t e d itself i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e spirit, w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e u n d i s ­ p u t e d basis for t h e a r g u m e n t a t i o n o f p o s t - K a n t i a n s c i e n c e o f r e l i g i o n . O n c e r e l i g i o n w a s c o m p r e h e n d e d scientifically b y m e a n s o f t h e c a t e g o r y o f t h e " r e l i g i o u s a p r i o r i , " it n o l o n g e r s t o o d o p p o s e d as b r u t a l l y factual r e v e l a t i o n 1

t o t h e d o m a i n o f s c i e n c e , o f k n o w l e d g e o p e n t o i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l , as it d i d i n t h e a r g u m e n t s o f t h e age o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t . I n a f u n d a m e n t a l l y differ­ e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l s i t u a t i o n , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e o l o g y h a d t o b e p o s e d a n e w , as o n e t h a t c o u l d b e d e a l t w i t h scientifically. W h o e v e r w i s h e s t o g e t t o k n o w t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t stages o f this w a y s h o u l d t u r n for a first l o o k (if o n l y that) t o t h e " c o m p e n d i u m o f s o u r c e s " e n t i t l e d " P h i l o s o p h y o f R e l i g i o n " e d i t e d b y Wobbermin.

2

T o be sure, w h a t

o n e misses m o s t a m o n g t h e n e w e s t s o u r c e s a r e t h o s e t h a t p r e p a r e d a n e w t h e o l o g y ; a b o v e all, o n e misses H e r m a n n C o h e n himself. It is p o s s i b l e for t h e s c i e n c e o f r e l i g i o n t o l i b e r a t e itself c o m p l e t e l y f r o m a n E n l i g h t e n m e n t a p p r o a c h o f t h e critique o f r e l i g i o n a n d t o c o n c e r n itself solely w i t h a p u r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l a c t u a l i t y o f r e l i g i o n .

3

This

possibility b e c o m e s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e w h e n t h e d o g m a t i c e l e m e n t s o f r e l i ­ g i o n are c o n c e i v e d as s e c o n d a r y as c o m p a r e d w i t h " r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , " p e r h a p s o n l y as its " e x p r e s s i o n . " H o w e v e r , if o n e b e l i e v e s t h a t o n e m u s t t a k e t h e d o g m a t i c seriously, as it is a n d as it p r e s e n t s itself t o us, t h e n o n e w i l l n o t

110

Chapter

2

v i e w t h e a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n s c i e n c e a n d r e l i g i o n — C o h e n calls this d e t e r ­ 4

m i n i n g t h e " c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o n in t h e s y s t e m o f p h i l o s o p h y " — a s a " v i o l a ­ t i o n " o f r e l i g i o n . N o t t h e least r e a s o n for t h e fruitfulness o f C o h e n ' s t h e o l o g y is t h a t , w h i l e it " r a t i o n a l i z e s " t h e d o g m a s o f t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n a n d t h u s d e v e l o p s t h e m f u r t h e r , it leaves t h e m o n t h e i r o w n p l a n e . I n his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d " c o m p e n d i u m o f s o u r c e s , " Wobhermin

deals w i t h t h e " c o n c e p t , task, a n d m e t h o d o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f

r e l i g i o n . " H e r e h e p o l e m i c i z e s against v i e w i n g r e l i g i o n f r o m t h e v a n t a g e p o i n t o f " t h e c o n t e x t o f a p h i l o s o p h i c s y s t e m t h a t has b e e n d e v i s e d w i t h o u t p a y i n g h e e d t o r e l i g i o n . " W h e t h e r a n d w h e r e s o m e t h i n g o f this s o r t a c t u a l l y exists is o f n o i n t e r e s t t o us at this p o i n t . B u t if it is H e r m a n n C o h e n against w h o m t h e P r o t e s t a n t t h e o l o g i a n t u r n s in t h e passage in q u e s t i o n , t h e n h e forgets t h a t t h e e n t i r e c o n t e x t o f C o h e n ' s p h i l o s o p h i c s y s t e m rests o n r e l i ­ gious presuppositions. Concept of Religion

5

T o b e s u r e , a r e f l e c t i o n o n m o r e t h a n its t i d e ,

in the System

of Philosophy,

6

The

a n d i n d e e d , n o t h i n g less t h a n a

r e a d i n g o f t h e e n t i r e w o r k , w o u l d h a v e s h o w n t h a t this is t h e case: s y s t e m a n d s c i e n c e a r e d e c i s i v e l y prepared b y r e l i g i o n . I n t h e final analysis, scientific c r i ­ t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n is a n immanent

c r i t i q u e . ' It exists a l r e a d y w h e r e t h e t e r m

" s c i e n c e " c a n n o t y e t b e s p o k e n o f i n t h e S c h o l a s t i c sense. T h e t h e o l o g i a n s only c o n t i n u e w h a t the prophets h a d b e g u n . T h e r e can be n o d o u b t that w i t h s u c h t h e s e s C o h e n i n t e r p r e t e d a n d j u d g e d his o w n s y s t e m c o r r e c t l y — a l t h o u g h this is t o s p e a k g e n e r a l l y , for w h e n it c o m e s t o t h e details, h e o c c a ­ sionally c l a i m s t o o m u c h . I f w e a r e c o m p e l l e d t o d e f e n d o u r s e l v e s so expressly against t h e r e p r o a c h 7

t h a t t o start f r o m c r i t i q u e — a n d , f r o m o u r p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e p h i l o s o p h i c sys­ t e m is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e c r i t i q u e is r o o t e d — s i g n i f i e s a " v i o l a t i o n " o f r e l i g i o n , t h e n , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e are e q u a l l y c o m p e l l e d 8

t o let pass t h e p o s i t i v e m o m e n t in W o b b e r m i n ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n , t h a t is, t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f r e l i g i o n f r o m " r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . " I n d e e d , as W o b b e r m i n h i m s e l f has often e m p h a s i z e d , this m o m e n t is c o n d i ­ t i o n e d b y specifically P r o t e s t a n t p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . H e r e , as J e w s , w e m u s t d i s ­ qualify o u r s e l v e s . I n t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d w o r k , R.

Winkler

(on pp. 16 t h r o u g h 27)

p r o v i d e s a c a t a l o g o f n a m e s a n d subjects ( w i t h t h e sole flaw o f n o t b e i n g a l p h a b e t i z e d ) t h a t h e entitles " S u r v e y o f W o r k i n t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f R e l i g i o n f r o m K a n t t o t h e P r e s e n t " a n d that, a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n j u d g m e n t , " e l a b o r a t e s

1

T h i s is n o t to say that the entire range o f critique exists historically in J u d a i s m o r

that, i n this sense, critique is p e r m a n e n d y J e w i s h .

Zionist

Writings

111

(1921-32)

t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l t r e n d s in t h e c o n t e x t o f ideas in t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . " C o n c e r n i n g W i n k l e r , suffice it t o q u o t e his c a t e g o r i c a l j u d g m e n t o n K i e r k e g a a r d . " A s a result o f his u n m e t h o d i c a l , s t r o n g l y j o u r n a l i s t i c m e t h o d a n d o f his p a t h o l o g i c a l i n c l i n a t i o n t o w a r d e x a g ­ geration a n d p a r a d o x , Kierkegaard was u n a b l e t o exercise a decisive influence o n t h e m o v e m e n t o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n " (p. 2 3 ) . A l s o w o r t h r e a d i n g is t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e historical case o f a " m a r k d o w n " ["Ermässigung"]

on

H e g e l ' s p a n l o g i s m (p. 2 4 ) , w h i c h o p e n s u p s u r p r i s i n g possibilities for f i n a n c i a l c o n d u c t in theology. 9

O n a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n , w e d r e w a t t e n t i o n t o t h e significance, i n this c o n t e x t o f the history of theology, of R u d o l f O t t o ' s investigations into " t h e h o l y . " " O t t o o p e r a t e s w i t h c a t e g o r i e s t h a t are useful for t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f traditional t h e o l o g y in a situation created by the critique of tradition. T h i s s c h o l a r p r i m a r i l y tries t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m o m e n t s o f t h e r e l i g i o u s object. H i s analyses c a n a l m o s t b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a t h e o r y o f a t t r i b u t e s . I n this c o n n e c ­ t i o n , it m a k e s g o o d sense t o d i s p e n s e w i t h a n e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e w a y s a n d m e a n s b y w h i c h r e l i g i o n a n d its o b j e c t are " c o n s t i t u t e d " i n t h e c o n t e x t o f h u m a n e x i s t e n c e . T h e o l o g y is n e e d e d as an a u t o n o m o u s s c i e n c e , insofar as it m a k e s sense t o s p e a k o f G o d ' s b e i n g - i n - H i m s e l f [An-Sich-Sein

Gottes],

insofar as t h e r e is k n o w l e d g e o f this b e i n g - i n - H i m s e l f [An-Sich-Seiendes].

and On

this basis, it is p o s s i b l e t o r e g a i n r e c o g n i t i o n for t h o s e m o m e n t s t h a t h a d b e e n lost i n t h e c o n c a t e n a t i o n o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t c r i t i q u e a n d r o m a n t i c r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . P u t i n t e r m s o f a f o r m u l a : t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f G o d is d e t e r m i n e d as (1) b e y o n d experience [Erlebens-Jenseitigkeit], a n d (3) b e y o n d ideas

[Ideen-Jenseitigkeit].

(2) b e y o n d life

[Lebens-Jenseitigkeit],

10

H o w e v e r t h e o l o g i c a l l y l e g i t i m a t e it m a y b e t o r e n o u n c e a n e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e h u m a n c o n t e x t s f r o m w h i c h r e l i g i o n arises, s u c h r e n u n c i a t i o n leads t o difficulties o n a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e w h e n it c o m e s t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e history o f r e l i g i o n . U n d o u b t e d l y , this also i n v o l v e s a J e w i s h i n t e r e s t o f t h e g r e a t e s t c o n t e m p o r a r y relevance. T h e a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n O r t h o d o x y and Liberalism, a n d e v e n m o r e so t h e a r g u m e n t o f b o t h o f t h e s e p a r t i e s w i t h Z i o n i s m , c a n n o t dispense w i t h reliance o n the Bible. T i m e a n d again, J e w i s h j o u r n a l i s m o f t h e r e c e n t d e c a d e s has c i r c l e d a r o u n d , albeit m o s t l y i n a d i l e t t a n t i s h w a y , t h e p r o b l e m of the relation b e t w e e n prophecy and m o n a r c h y , a p r o b l e m that can b e dealt w i t h only by Bible science. N o w , the principle of the history o f

" R u d o l f O t t o , Das Heilige. Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen, 7th edition, Breslau, 1922. Idem, Aufsätze, as Numinose betreffend, Stuttgart/Gotha, 1923.

112

Chapter

2

r e l i g i o n , p r o p o s e d b y O t t o , is h e r e e n t i r e l y i n a d e q u a t e . T h i s is n o t t o d i m i n ­ ish t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t O t t o m a k e s w h e n e v e r h e p r o v i d e s c o n c r e t e h i s t o r i ­ cal analyses. I n this c o n n e c t i o n , special m e n t i o n s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o t h e essay 1

" P r o p h e t i c E x p e r i e n c e o f G o d , " " in w h i c h a decisive step is t a k e n t o w a r d a r e n e w e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e s c h a t o l o g y , w h i c h for a l o n g t i m e h a d b e e n b u r ­ i e d b e n e a t h p r e j u d i c e s o f C h r i s t o l o g y , E n l i g h t e n m e n t , a n d especially r o m a n ­ t i c i s m . B u t w e h a v e m i s g i v i n g s a b o u t t h e w a y in w h i c h m y t h is p a s s e d off as a p r e l i m i n a r y stage o f r e l i g i o n . " T h e daimonion

b e c o m e s t h e theion.

Dread

b e c o m e s d e v o t i o n . D i s j o i n t e d feelings flaring u p i n c o n f u s i o n b e c o m e religio. . . . T h e numen b e c o m e s G o d a n d G o d h e a d " (Das Heilige, p . 1 3 2 ) . T h i s d e v e l ­ o p m e n t , as O t t o c l a i m s , is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e " r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n " o f t h e n u m i n o u s , t h a t is, w i t h t h e o t h e r m o m e n t i n t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n . I n c o n ­ trast t o t h e p r o c e s s o f r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , it u n f o l d s " p u r e l y in t h e s p h e r e o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l itself." H o w e v e r , it m u s t b e a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e s e t w o d e v e l o p m e n t s a r e as " c o o r d i n a t e d "

["nebengeordnet"]

as O t t o t h i n k s , a n d w h e t h e r

the

n u m i n o u s a c t u a l l y " a t t r a c t s " t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x i s t i n g " r a t i o n a l " ideas after t h e fact. I n a p o l e m i c against X e n o p h a n e s , O t t o r e m a r k s : " H o w e v e r , i n t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n , t h i n g s h a p p e n e d in a n e n t i r e l y different w a y . H e r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e e d e d n o t f r o m t h e k n o w n , t h e familiar, a n d t h e 11

c a n n y [das Heimliche], Numinose,

b u t r a t h e r f r o m t h e u n c a n n y [das Unheimliche]"

(Das

p . 1 7 ) . R e l i g i o n is t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e w h o l l y o t h e r , o f t h e

" o p p o s i t e t o e v e r y t h i n g h u m a n . " P r e c i s e l y for this r e a s o n , h o w e v e r , it is v e r y d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t proceeds f r o m t h e u n c a n n y . W h a t O t t o says is, a t t h e v e r y least, m i s l e a d i n g . It m a y b e valid for s o m e s t r e t c h e s i n t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n , say, for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m A m o s a n d Isaiah t o t h e R a m b a m a n d t o C o h e n . C o n c e r n i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h biblical p r o p h ­ e c y finds itself, it is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e fact t h a t p r e - p r o p h e t i c

1 2

" r e l i g i o n " is

p a s s i o n a t e l y r e j e c t e d n o t for b e i n g " u n c a n n y " b u t p r e c i s e l y for b e i n g c a n n y , for b e i n g all t o o c a n n y . A n d t h e result o f this rejection o f t h e c a n n y is t h e " r a t i o n a l i s m " o f t h e p r o p h e t s . O n e c a n easily m a k e this clear, for e x a m p l e , b y q u o t i n g A m o s 9 : 7 : " O S o n s o f Israel, a r e y o u n o t t o m e like t h e E t h i o p i a n s , d e c l a r e s Y H W H ? H a v e I n o t b r o u g h t u p Israel f r o m t h e l a n d o f M i z r a i m , and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arameans from Kir?" This shudderingly harsh tearing away of the national G o d from His n a t i o n — w h i c h is, i n d e e d , s o m e t h i n g like a " r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n " — c a n b e v i e w e d as a step f o r ­ n

w a r d [Weiterschritt]

f r o m t h e u n c a n n y t o t h e c a n n y o n l y if o n e t h i n k s i n

t e r m s o f t h e r e c e n t , i n fact v e r y c a n n y , p a m p h l e t l i t e r a t u r e o n t h e u n i v e r s a l i s t

R u d o l f O t t o , " P r o p h e t i s c h e Gotteserfahrung" in: Das Numinose, n o . 17.

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

113

m o n o t h e i s m o f t h e p r o p h e t s . W h a t a p p e a r e d t o t h e i r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s as t h e h e i g h t o f d a n g e r a n d o f the u n c a n n y vanishes in contrast w i t h t h e level o f t h e u n c a n n y m e a n t b y t h e p r o p h e t s . T h e w a y f r o m m y t h t o r e l i g i o n is a w a y f r o m t h e c a n n y t o t h e u n c a n n y . W h a t is t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t r u g g l e o f t h e p r o p h e t s against " h u m a n " c u s t o m s (historically c o n c r e t e , t h e s e c u s t o m s c o n ­ sisted i n t h e c o n t e n t s o f p r e - p r o p h e t i c " r e l i g i o n " ) , a n d w h a t is t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e i r (as o n e says) " i r o n i c " u s e o f p o p u l a r ideas a n d h o p e s , if n o t t h e b r a n d i n g o f t h e c a n n y as a n a b o m i n a t i o n ? n o t o n l y simultaneously vom Heimlichen],

1 4

A n d " r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n " asserts itself

w i t h this c u t t i n g o n e s e l f off f r o m t h e c a n n y

[Abstich

n o t o n l y beside it, b u t as identical w i t h it. T h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e

t w o m o m e n t s governs the w o r k of H e r m a n n C o h e n from the beginning, e v e n a n d especially h i s Logic of Pure Cognition, tive o f r e l i g i o n . " 6

Gegebenen"].*

1 5

H e r e t h e t e r m is: "Cutting

w h i c h was "designed irrespec­ off from the given"

["Abstich

vom

A n d , p r o c e e d i n g f r o m this p a r t i c u l a r " s y s t e m a t i c " a p p r o a c h ,

C o h e n summarizes t h e peculiar quality o f the p r o p h e t i c d e v e l o p m e n t in t h e f o r m u l a : s t r u g g l e against m y t h as t h a t w h i c h r e m a i n s w i t h i n t h e " g i v e n , " w i t h i n t h e h u m a n , s e e k i n g i n it s e c u r i t y against t h e u n c a n n y .

1 7

O n a first r e a d i n g o f t h e m o s t r e c e n t w o r k s of Ernst Cassirer," o n e m i g h t t h i n k o f h i m as a s u c c e s s o r o f H e r m a n n C o h e n .

1 8

O n t h e basis o f m a t e r i a l s

g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e special sciences a n d o f t h e a t t e n d a n t discussions, C a s s i r e r r e a c h e s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p e c u l i a r f o r m o f m y t h i c t h o u g h t consists i n a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f g i v e n s [Gegebenheiten] leibliche Einheit]

a r o u n d t h e p s y c h o s o m a t i c u n i t y [geistig­

o f t h e h u m a n b e i n g . T h i n g s a r e classified e i t h e r i n a c c o r d

w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r a s s i g n e d t o t h e m b y t h e p r i m i t i v e affect o r i n a c c o r d w i t h a n a n a l o g y t o t h e p a r t s o f t h e h u m a n b o d y , a n d so o n . T h u s it is t r u e t h a t m y t h f o r m s t h e g i v e n s [Gegebenheiten],

b u t "it s o o n recedes again, a l o n g w i t h

its o w n p r o d u c t , i n t o t h e f o r m o f t h e g i v e n [Gegebenheit]" Natorp,

(Festschrift für

Paul

p . 5 1 ) . It is t r u e t h a t m y t h , like all o t h e r f o r m s o f t h e m i n d , c r e a t e s a

r e a l m o f " m e a n i n g s " ; i n this r e s p e c t it t o o idealizes t h e w o r l d o f t h i n g s . B u t , t o m y t h , " t h e m o m e n t s o f t h i n g a n d m e a n i n g i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y " flow i n t o o n e a n o t h e r . F o r i n s t a n c e , it r e g a r d s t h e n a m e s o f t h i n g s as real material p r o p e r t i e s o r p o w e r s . N o w , t o a certain d e g r e e , t h e m y t h i c c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n is t h e f u n d a ­ m e n t a l layer t h a t certainly d o e s n o t v a n i s h i n t h e m o r e m a t u r e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f h u m a n i t y , w h i c h has o v e r c o m e it i n p r i n c i p l e . I f o n e asks, h o w e v e r , w h a t

, v

Ernst Cassirer, Die Begriffsform im mythischen Denken [ S t u d i e n der B i b l i o t h e k

W a r b u r g , v o l . I ] , Leipzig: T e u b n e r , 1 9 2 2 . I d e m , " P h i l o s o p h i e der M y t h o l o g i e " i n

Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g (ed.), Festschrift für Paul Natorp zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage von Schülern und Freunden gewidmet, Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1 9 2 4 .

Chapter

114

2

m o t i v e b r i n g s a b o u t t h e o v e r c o m i n g [Überwindung] " s u b l a t i o n " [Aufhebung],

o f m y t h , o r r a t h e r its

Cassirer a n s w e r s i n a t y p i c a l l y idealistic m a n n e r t h a t

t h e o v e r c o m i n g is b r o u g h t a b o u t b y v i r t u e o f t h e fact t h a t t h e m i n d r e a d s t h e w o r l d o f m y t h as its o w n p r o d u c t , t h a t t h e m i n d r e c o g n i z e s itself in t h e w o r l d o f m y t h — a n d t h e r e b y this w o r l d loses its " c o m p u l s o r y "

1 9

c h a r a c t e r for h u ­

m a n beings. " T h e s e q u e n c e o f stages o f t h e intellectual forms o f e x p r e s s i o n " leads from m y t h t o l a n g u a g e t o art, in w h i c h t h e m i n d attains its h i g h e s t

freedom.

N a t u r a l l y , this t h e o r y c a n n o t b e a p p l i e d t o t h e biblical d e v e l o p m e n t . T o b e s u r e , w h e n t h e f o r m a t i o n s o f p r e - p r o p h e t i c " r e l i g i o n " a r e s e e n as " t h e w o r k o f m a n , " this also m e a n s t h e n e g a t i o n o f t h e i r c o m p u l s o r y c h a r a c t e r . H o w e v e r , t h e work o f m a n t h a t c o m p e l s h u m a n b e i n g s is n o w r e p l a c e d n o t b y t h e a u t o n o m o u s h u m a n spirit, b u t r a t h e r b y a different, s t r o n g e r c o m p u l ­ s i o n , t h e " o n e a n d o n l y " c o m p u l s i o n [der "einzige"

Zwang].

20

T h e products of

m y t h a r e r e j e c t e d n o t b e c a u s e t h e y compel h u m a n b e i n g s b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e , i n v i e w o f t h e i r h u m a n o r i g i n , t h e y cannot c o m p e l t h e m . It is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e difference e x i s t i n g from s c h o o l t h a t Cohen's

the beginning

b e t w e e n C o h e n and the M a r b u r g

p o l e m i c against m y t h — a i m i n g , as it d o e s , n o t at its

" s u b l a t i o n " ["Aufhebung"]

b u t at its e l i m i n a t i o n [Beseitigung]—is

guided pre­

cisely not b y idealist m o t i v e s . C o h e n t e a c h e s t h a t t h e ethical m o t i v e , t h a t is, t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e q u e s t i o n " t o w h a t e n d ? " [das Wozu],

supersedes (not: sublates)

t h e m y t h i c a l m o t i v e , t h a t is, t h e interest i n t h e q u e s t i o n " w h e n c e ? " [das Woher]. W h a t d o e s this m e a n ? I n t h e c o n c r e t e c o n t e x t o f h u m a n e x i s t e n c e , t h e t r a n ­ s c e n d e n c e o f t h e O u g h t i n r e l a t i o n t o B e i n g d e m a n d s b y its v e r y n a t u r e , as C o h e n s t a t e d o v e r a n d o v e r again, t h a t e t h i c s b e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d i n t o r e l i ­ gion. from

2 1

I n C o h e n , t h e e t h i c a l m o t i v e o f t r a n s c e n d e n c e c o n t a i n s w i t h i n it,

the outset and in latent form, the p o w e r a n d depth of the religious

m o t i v e o f t r a n s c e n d e n c e . In this r e s p e c t it is essential t h a t , w h e n e v e n t u a l l y i n his t h e o l o g y h e t a k e s u p t h e p r o p h e t i c p o l e m i c s against t h e w o r s h i p o f i m ­ a g e s — a p o l e m i c s , t o say it a g a i n , t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a p a s s i o n a t e r e j e c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n a " s u b l a t i o n " — h e d o e s so b y p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e religious n o t i o n o f transcendence. H e r e , the inner connection b e t w e e n C o h e n ' s entire philo­ sophical system and J u d a i s m

2 2

is r e v e a l e d , a s y s t e m t h a t i n e v e r y r e s p e c t fulfills

itself i n his t h e o l o g y , a n d h e r e a real, s y s t e m a t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e rise o f p r o p h e c y has b e e n a c h i e v e d . It s e e m s t o m e t h a t it is n o a c c i d e n t t h a t Cassirer, i n his a t t e m p t t o s k e t c h t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e m y t h i c a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s f o r m a t i o n o f c o n c e p t s , refers t o V e d i c r e l i g i o n , t o Parsiism, t o C a l v i n i s m , a n d t o J a n s e n i s m , b u t not t o J u d a i s m . T h i s fact is a s y m p t o m a t i c i n d i c a t i o n t h a t C a s s i r e r ' s t h e o r y o f m y t h o l o g y is n o t a c o n g r u e n t e x p a n s i o n o f t h e C o h e n i a n s y s t e m b u t its d i s m a n t l i n g , a fact b a r e l y h i d d e n b e h i n d t h e o c c a s i o n a l a g r e e ­ m e n t regarding idealism.

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

115

NOTES S o u r c e : " R e l i g i o n s p h i l o s o p h i e : Z u r A u s e i n a n d e r s e t z u n g m i t der e u r o p ä i s c h e n W i s s e n ­ schaft," Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 8, n o . 10 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 2 4 ) : 6 1 3 - 1 7 . 1.

einsichtig: Strauss uses t h e adjective einsichtig i n an unusual w a y , as if it m e a n t

s o m e t h i n g that is o p e n t o i n s p e c t i o n , e x a m i n a t i o n , e t c . U s u a l l y einsichtig d e n o t e s t h e attitude o f s o m e o n e s h o w i n g Einsicht (insight, d i s c e r n m e n t ) , that is, it refers t o a p e r s o n , rather than t o a thing, a p e r s o n w h o is reasonable, sensible, and s o forth. I assume that Strauss m e a n s t o speak o f k n o w l e d g e that is based o n o b s e r v a t i o n and thus einsehbar rather than einsichtig, and h e n c e I translate t h e w o r d as " o p e n t o i n s p e c t i o n . " 2.

G e o r g W o b b e r m i n ( 1 8 6 9 - 1 9 4 3 ) , Protestant systematic t h e o l o g i a n . I n f l u e n c e d

b y T r o e l t s c h ( h i s t o r y - o f - r e l i g i o n school) and t h e n e w l y e m e r g i n g s c h o o l o f t h e p s y ­ c h o l o g y o f religion ( W . James), W o b b e r m i n r e n e w e d Schleiermacher's approach t o religion. Strauss refers t o W o b b e r m i n ' s Religionsphilosophie, Series: Q u e l l e n - H a n d b ü c h e r der P h i l o s o p h i c 5. B a n d (Berlin: P a n - V e r l a g R o l f H e i s e , 1 9 2 4 ) . 3.

Literally: " w i t h historically actual r e l i g i o n . " Cf. similarly t w o paragraphs ear­

lier: " t h e c o n c r e t e actuality o f r e l i g i o n . " 4.

Cf. H e r m a n n C o h e n , Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie ( G i e ß e n :

Töpelmann, 1915). 5.

T h i s claim is u n i q u e t o Strauss. In c o m p a r i s o n , R o s e n z w e i g ' s d e p i c t i o n o f

C o h e n ' s m o v e f r o m M a r b u r g t o Berlin i n 1 9 1 2 as i m p l y i n g an a b a n d o n m e n t o f idealist p h i l o s o p h y i n favor o f a return t o g e n u i n e religiosity (a d e p i c t i o n that raised t h e hackles o f the surviving members o f the Marburg school and incensed the w i d o w , Martha C o h e n ) d o e s n o t assert that the entire systematic p h i l o s o p h y o f C o h e n rested o n reli­ g i o u s presuppositions. (Cf. R o s e n z w e i g , " E i n l e i t u n g , " inJS, and see the m a n y passages i n R o s e n z w e i g ' s letters f r o m t h e p e r i o d i n w h i c h h e admits t o b e n d i n g t h e facts i n order for t h e m t o fit i n t o a hagiographie s c h e m e . ) It is e v e n m o r e o u t r a g e o u s w h e n Strauss insinuates, as h e d o e s here, that W o b b e r m i n s h o u l d b e m i n d f u l o f a v i e w o n C o h e n that n o o n e ( e x c e p t for C o h e n h i m s e l f and m o s t l y i n n o t - s o - w e l l - p u b l i c i z e d places) had e v e r suggested before. G i v e n this and w h a t f o l l o w s i n t h e text, Strauss's appreciation o f C o h e n s e e m s t o b e g r o w i n g rather than d i m i n i s h i n g . F o r this reason a l o n e it is false t o assume that t h e essay " C o h e n ' s Analysis o f Spinoza's B i b l e S c i e n c e " — w r i t t e n a n d p u b ­ lished before " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o p e a n S c i e n c e " — i n d i c a t e d a g r o w i n g d i s ­ tance f r o m C o h e n . Cf. K e n n e t h G r e e n , Jew and Philosopher (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , 5 2 . Strauss asserts o n several o c c a s i o n s that " w h e n it c o m e s t o details" C o h e n " o c c a ­ sionally claims t o o m u c h , " b u t i n the m a i n h e is d e e p l y impressed and inspired b y C o h e n ' s intuitions. T h i s is particularly so w i t h respect t o C o h e n ' s interpretation o f M a i m o n i d e s . Cf., for instance, i n t h e letter t o Krüger, 7 M a y 1 9 3 1 (GS, 2 : x x x n. 4 3 ) and i n t h e letter t o S c h o l e m , 2 O c t o b e r 1 9 3 5 (GS, 2:xxiii n. 2 5 ) . 6.

See note above.

7.

T h i s defense o f critique elaborates a v i e w first expressed i n " R e s p o n s e " ( 1 9 2 3 ) ,

w h e r e w e find a s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n that Strauss had turned a w a y f r o m t h e p o s i t i o n that h e had e n d o r s e d i n his dissertation, w h i c h w a s critical o f "criticism." 8.

" m o m e n t " : T h e G e r m a n Moment that is u s e d rather frequently i n this essay a n d

Chapter

116

2

that o c c u r s frequently i n t h e philosophical literature o f the t i m e (especially i n t h e w o r k s o f H e r m a n n C o h e n , u n d e r w h o s e stylistic i n f l u e n c e L e o Strauss s e e m s t o b e o p e r a t i n g ) , c o u l d b e translated b y " e l e m e n t , " a m u c h m o r e c o m m o n w o r d i n English. Y e t m o ­ m e n t , a p e r f e c d y c o m m o n English w o r d as w e l l , preserves t h e aspect o f m o t i o n that is i n t e n d e d here and that is l a c k i n g i n t h e w o r d " e l e m e n t . " I therefore translate Moment as c o n s i s t e n d y as possible as " m o m e n t . " T h i s s e e m s all t h e m o r e appropriate because Strauss also uses t h e w o r d Element. 9. 10.

Cf. " T h e H o l y , " supra p p . 7 5 - 7 9 . T h e triplet o f " b e y o n d s " indicates as a strength o f O t t o ' s approach its ability t o

avoid the most c o m m o n reductions o f transcendence—namely, the psychological r e ­ d u c t i o n ( g r o u n d i n g t h e o b j e c t o f religion i n h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e ) , t h e vitalistic r e d u c t i o n ( g r o u n d i n g t h e object o f religion in t h e vital urges o f h u m a n physiology), and t h e idealist reduction (grounding t h e object o f religion i n t h e s p o n t a n e i t y o f the h u m a n m i n d ) . 11.

" t h e canny": i n G e r m a n , das Heimliche ( h i d d e n , secret) s h o u l d actually b e das

Heimelige ( t h e h o m e l y , c o z y ) . S i n c e g can i n s o m e cases (and i n s o m e local dialects s u c h as t h e Hessian) b e p r o n o u n c e d like t h e soft ch, heimlich and heim(e)lig can s o u n d identical. Based o n this, O t t o uses heimlich ( m e a n i n g heimelig) as t h e o p p o s i t e t o unheimlich. Strauss builds o n this p u n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g argument: T h e p r o p h e t s reject t h e simplistic, y e t natural, n o t i o n o f an unseverable tie b e t w e e n G o d and n a t i o n (a m y t h o l o g i c a l , n o t unheimlich, a n d e v e n heimelig n o t i o n ) ; p r o p h e t i c m o n o t h e i s m has a far m o r e u n c a n n y / u n h o m e l y idea o f G o d than its p r e - p r o p h e t i c , m y t h o l o g i c a l predecessors. 12.

In t h e original publication, as w e l l as i n GS, 2, w e find here " p r o p h e t i c "

instead o f " p r e - p r o p h e t i c . " W i t h o u t o u r e m e n d a t i o n , h o w e v e r , the text m a k e s n o sense. M y thanks t o K e n G r e e n w h o , after l o n g discussions back and forth, finally r e s o l v e d this p r o b l e m v e r y m u c h t o m y satisfaction. 13.

Weiterschritt: a p u n o n Fortschritt (progress).

14.

" B r a n d i n g t h e c a n n y an a b o m i n a t i o n . " In t h e original: Perhorreszierung des

Heimlichen. 15. H e r m a n n C o h e n , System der Philosophie, Erster Teil: Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (Berlin: B r u n o Cassirer, 1 9 0 2 ) ; 2 d e d . : 1 9 1 4 ; 3 d e d . : 1 9 2 2 . A fourth e d i t i o n has b e e n p u b l i s h e d as v o l . 6 o f H e r m a n n C o h e n , Werke, H e r m a n n - C o h e n - A r c h i v at P h i l o s o p h ­ isches S e m i n a r o f Z u r i c h U n i v e r s i t y , directed b y H e l m u t H o l z h e y ( H i l d e s h e i m , Z ü r i c h , and N e w Y o r k : G e o r g O l m s Verlag, 1 9 7 7 ) . 16.

Strauss m i s q u o t e s C o h e n i n a m e a n i n g f u l w a y . Firsdy, t h e unusual t e r m Abstich

(translated here as "cutting off") is i n d e e d used b y C o h e n , namely (as H a r t w i g W i e d e b a c h k i n d l y p o i n t e d o u t t o m e ) o n p . 9 3 (fourth e d i t i o n ) , w h e r e it refers t o an act o f t h o u g h t , m o r e precisely t o o n e o f the " m o m e n t s o f t h o u g h t i n the j u d g m e n t o f o r i g i n " (Moment des Denkens im Ursprungsurteil) . W h a t is n e g a t e d i n this act o f t h o u g h t is, h o w e v e r , n o t "the g i v e n " (das Gegebene), as Strauss has it, b u t a "relative n a u g h t " that is n o t t h e o p p o s i t e o f o u g h t b u t m e r e l y a "springboard" b y m e a n s o f w h i c h t h o u g h t a c h i e v e s "separation" (Sonderung), w h i c h , a l o n g w i t h "unification" (Einigung), constitutes t h e m o m e n t s o f t h o u g h t . T h e a i m o f C o h e n ' s p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l description o f the acts o f t h o u g h t is t o establish w h a t it m e a n s t o say that objects o f c o g n i t i o n are c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h o u g h t rather than " g i v e n " t o sense e x p e r i e n c e . Strauss is therefore correct w h e n h e

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

117

generalizes as h e d o e s . O n e m a y simplify C o h e n ' s i n t e n t i o n w i t h o u t falsifying it t o o m u c h b y saying that t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l reflection o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h o u g h t à la C o h e n p r o c e e d s b y n e g a t i n g (i.e., an act of Abstich) t h e g i v e n n e s s o f w h a t seems t o b e g i v e n t o sense e x p e r i e n c e . T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f the o b j e c t in contrast t o t h e a s ­ s u m p t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g g i v e n t o sense e x p e r i e n c e (das Gegebene) is, h e n c e , a m a j o r p r o b l e m that Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, and C o h e n ' s t h o u g h t i n general, tries t o s o l v e .

See, e.g., Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (4th ed.), 2 7 f , 8 1 f , 9 1 f , 1 9 2 f , 5 8 7 . 17.

S e e , e . g . , H . C o h e n , " D i e Errichtung v o n L e h r s t ü h l e n " ( 1 9 0 4 ) , in JS, 2 : 1 1 8 .

"Es gibt nur E i n e R e l i g i o n , w e l c h e v o n allen Z a u b e r n der M y t h o l o g i e sich grundsätzlich frei m a c h t , das ist d i e R e l i g i o n der P r o p h e t e n , das ist d i e R e l i g i o n des J u d e n t u m s " [ T h e r e is o n l y O n e religion that liberates itself fundamentally o f all e n c h a n t m e n t s o f m y t h o l o g y , n a m e l y , t h e religion o f t h e prophets, w h i c h is t h e religion o f J u d a i s m ] . C o h e n ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f m y t h i c t h o u g h t reaches back t o his earliest publications. S e e , for e x a m p l e , " M y t h o l o g i s c h e V o r s t e l l u n g e n v o n G o t t u n d S e e l e , p s y c h o l o g i s c h e n t w i c k e l t " ( 1 8 6 8 / 6 9 ) , i n Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, e d . A . G ö r l a n d and E . Cassirer (Berlin: A k a d e m i e v e r l a g , 1 9 2 8 ) , 1 : 8 8 - 1 4 0 . A n d cf. M i c h a e l Z a n k , The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen ( P r o v i d e n c e , R . I . : B r o w n Judaic Studies, 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 1 . 18.

O n C o h e n ' s c o n c e p t o f m y t h i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Cassirer's, see t h e disserta­

t i o n o f Alfred J o s p e , " D i e U n t e r s c h e i d u n g v o n M y t h o s u n d R e l i g i o n b e i H e r m a n n C o h e n u n d Ernst Cassirer i n ihrer B e d e u t u n g fur die j ü d i s c h e R e l i g i o n s p h i l o s o p h i e , " published in 1 9 3 2 in O p p e l n b y R e u t h e r und Reichard. 19.

" ' c o m p u l s o r y ' character." In t h e original: "Zwangs"-Charakter, that is, t h e c h a r ­

acter o f t h a t w h i c h is diametrically o p p o s e d t o t h e f r e e d o m attained t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e o f cultural d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e w o r d Zwang is t h e c o m m o n G e r m a n translation for t h e G r e e k àvàvyKT\. 20.

S i n c e Strauss e x p l i c i d y reads Cassirer against t h e b a c k d r o p o f C o h e n , t h e u s e o f

t h e w o r d einzig refers back t o C o h e n ' s emphasis o n G o d ' s " u n i q u e n e s s " (die Einzigkeit Gottes). S e e C o h e n , Religion der Vernunft, chap. 1. 21.

W h a t Strauss claims here as having b e e n stated b y C o h e n " o v e r and o v e r again,"

n a m e l y , "that ethics b e further d e v e l o p e d i n t o r e l i g i o n , " stands i n curious o p p o s i t i o n t o w h a t is usually asserted t o have b e e n C o h e n ' s program: t h e resolution o f religion i n t o ethics. 22.

Cf. C o h e n ' s d i c t u m , " i m Z u s a m m e n h a n g m e i n e r wissenschaftlichen E i n s i c h t e n

steht m e i n J u d e n t u m , " i n a letter, dated 11 D e c e m b e r 1 9 0 4 , a n d p u b l i s h e d as " A n t w o r t a u f e i n G l ü c k w u n s c h s c h r e i b e n der Frankfurtloge," Bericht der Großloge für Deutschland U.O.B.B,

n o . 2 (February 1 9 0 5 ) , reprinted i n t h e n o t e s t o Franz R o s e n z w e i g ' s i n t r o ­

d u c t i o n to JS. In c o n t e x t : " Y o u are quite right w h e n y o u p o i n t o u t that it w a s t h e d u t y o f truthfulness that d e m a n d e d t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f Judaism i n m y systematic ethics. M y e n t h u s i a s m for Judaism is r o o t e d i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n that o u r idea o f G o d is o f ethical v a l u e ; in the context of my scientific insights stands my fudaism. F o r this reason I c o n s i d e r m y s e l f fortunate t o have b e e n able t o demonstrate its significance i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s y s t e m before p u b l i s h i n g m o r e e x t e n s i v e w o r k s o n t h e idea o f J u d a i s m " {JS, 1:333, emphasis added).

118

Chapter

2

C o m m e n t o n W e i n b e r g ' s Critique (1925) 1

W h a t I p r e s e n t e d at c a m p w a s t h e v e r y p r e l i m i n a r y result o f m y l o n g - s t a n d ­ ing p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the p r o b l e m o f Zionism. Since I never h a d the o p ­ 2

p o r t u n i t y , e i t h e r i n s i d e o r o u t s i d e t h e K a r t e l l , for a real d e b a t e w i t h t h e Zionist public, t h e r e was n o reason t o anticipate that I w o u l d i m m e d i a t e l y m a k e c o n t a c t w i t h m y Bundesbrüder

3

a s s e m b l e d at F o r c h t e n b e r g .

4

I would

like t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t this w a s d u e n o t t o t h e o s t e n s i b l y " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " c h a r a c t e r o f m y i d e a s , b u t m e r e l y t o t h e fact t h a t I m a d e t h e effort t o see t h i n g s as t h e y a r e , u n p r e j u d i c e d b y v u l g a r Z i o n i s t " i d e o l o g i e s , " w h i c h are distinguished b y a thoughtless application of E u r o p e a n categories to Jewish, t h a t is, n o n - E u r o p e a n , m a t t e r s (and, c o n c o m i t a n t l y , b y a b l a t h e r i n g p o m p o s ­ ity). W h a t s e e m e d " a b s t r a c t " w a s in t r u t h t h e r i g o r o u s f o r m u l a t i o n o f o u r real i n n e r state o f affairs. I n o r d e r t o m a k e m y i n t e n t i o n as clear as possible I shall p r o c e e d f r o m its p r a c t i c a l - p o l i t i c a l effect. I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e g r o u p i n g o f G e r m a n J e w r y i n t o p a r t i e s n o l o n g e r c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e spiritual s i t u a t i o n o f o u r g e n e r a t i o n . T h e alliance o f Z i o n i s m a n d O r t h o d o x y w i l l h a v e t o b e r e p l a c e d b y t h e alliance o f Z i o n i s m a n d l i b e r a l i s m . T o d a y , t h e e n e m y is o n t h e R i g h t !

5

The more we

are c o n c e r n e d w i t h d o i n g c o n c r e t e " c u l t u r a l " w o r k ["Kultur"-Arbeit]

t h e clearer

it w i l l b e c o m e t h a t t h e Z i o n i s m t h a t I w o u l d like t o c h a r a c t e r i z e as p r i m a r i l y p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m is liberal, t h a t is, it rejects t h e a b s o l u t e s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e L a w a n d instead makes individual acceptance o f traditional contents d e p e n ­ d e n t o n o n e ' s o w n d e l i b e r a t i o n . T h i s , h o w e v e r , is w h a t m a t t e r s at t h e p r e s e n t m o m e n t . It s h o u l d n o t b e said t h a t I a m a b s o l u t i z i n g w h a t is m e r e l y r e l a t i v e t o a " c u l t u r a l " v i e w : it is sufficient t o m e n t i o n t h e n a m e o f " M i z r a h i "

6

in

o r d e r to m a k e clear e v e n t o the m o s t i g n o r a n t w h a t e m i n e n t l y practical m a t ­ ters o f f i n a n c i a l p o l i t i c s d e p e n d d i r e c d y o n this " c u l t u r a l " d e c i s i o n . I a m p l e a s e d t o b e able t o state t h a t this c o n c e p t i o n is i n n o w a y m e r e l y m y p r i v a t e meshugas

[craziness]. I k n o w t h a t it is s h a r e d b y p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s , 7

8

for e x a m p l e , b y B l u m e n f e l d a n d L a n d s b e r g . A b o v e all, h o w e v e r , it w a s m y 9

e x p e r i e n c e i n r e c r u i t m e n t [Keilerfahrung],

m o s t recently again in C o l o g n e ,

t h a t s h o w e d m e t h a t it is n o t difficult t o establish c o n t a c t e v e n w i t h e x ­ t r e m e l y liberal J e w s , j u s t so l o n g as w e start h o n e s t l y f r o m t h e real s i t u a t i o n o f G e r m a n J e w r y a n d n o t f r o m s o m e o t h e r , " a b s t r a c t , " false n a t i o n a l i s m s .

10

A t c a m p , I b e g a n w i t h t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n as s k e t c h e d i n t h e n e o - O r t h o d o x y of Ernst Simon.

1 1

I n o u r c o n t e x t , it is o f n o c o n c e r n t o us

w h e t h e r o n e t a k e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f this n e o - O r t h o d o x y e s ­ pecially seriously. I t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e skepticism o f m o s t o f o u r Bundesbrüder

a n d a m t o d a y i n c l i n e d t o s h a r e it. W h a t m a t t e r s is t h e d e m a n d

Zionist

Writings

119

(1921-32)

for a n a c c e p t a n c e o f t r a d i t i o n , a d e m a n d t h a t is j u s t i f i e d b y t h e w e l l - k n o w n i d e o l o g y o f " r e t u r n . " A n e x p r e s s i o n u s e d i n this c o n t e x t is " J e w i s h l e g i t i ­ m a c y . " I raise this e x p r e s s i o n b e c a u s e it forces o n e t o t a k e seriously t h e d e ­ b a t e w i t h t r a d i t i o n , a n d b e c a u s e it m a k e s i m p o s s i b l e o n e ' s c o n t i n u i n g w i t h the comfortable j o g trot. N o w , i n all m e m b e r s o f t h e K . J . V . t h e r e is a c e r t a i n " I k n o w n o t w h a t " t h a t o b j e c t s t o this d e m a n d . A n d this " I k n o w n o t w h a t " varies a c c o r d i n g t o the b e i n g a n d essence of each individual; seen from t h e standpoint o f the K a r t e l l , it is a " p r i v a t e m a t t e r " ! I a t t e m p t e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r this a v o w e d d i s t a n c e f r o m t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h is alive i n all o f us, d o e s n o t possess a c e r t a i n o b j e c t i v i t y w i t h i n t h e K a r t e l l . I t h e r e f o r e a s k e d myself, w h a t is a c t u a l l y t h e m i n i m u m t h a t w e p r e s u p p o s e i n e a c h Bundesbruder?

I s a i d — a n d this is n o t

c o n t e s t e d b y a n y o n e — [ t h a t this m i n i m u m consists in] political Z i o n i s m . N o w I r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r this " i n d i s p e n s a b l e " m i n i m u m d o e s n o t a l r e a d y justify t h e d i s t a n c e t o w a r d t r a d i t i o n . T h i s q u e s t i o n h a d t o b e a n s w e r e d i n t h e affirmative, s i n c e t r a d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o its m e a n i n g , e x c l u d e s p o l i t i c s , t h a t is, " p o l i t i c s " u n d e r s t o o d as a w i l l s u s t a i n e d b y t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t y for t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d d i g n i t y o f a p e o p l e , w h e r e b y s u c h e x i s t e n c e is s e e n as d e p e n d i n g o n p u r e l y " n a t u r a l " c o n d i t i o n s , w h e t h e r h u m a n o r e x t r a h u m a n . F o r t h e sake o f b r e v i t y , I shall n o t discuss t h e p r o o f s t h a t I a d d u c e d i n s u p p o r t o f m y a r g u m e n t f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l w r i t i n g s as w e l l as f r o m c o n t e m p o ­ rary O r t h o d o x literature. H e n c e , p o l i t i c s as o p p o s e d t o t r a d i t i o n . T o b e s u r e , t h e q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r this o p p o s i t i o n d o e s n o t a d m i t o f b e i n g o v e r c o m e f r o m w i t h i n . F r o m this p e r s p e c t i v e , I e x a m i n e d t h e o n l y t w o a t t e m p t s t h a t h a v e b e e n m a d e i n this d i r e c t i o n , n a m e l y , first t h e a t t e m p t t o r e a c h t h a t synthesis o f p o l i t i c s a n d r e l i g i o n b y w a y o f t h e " p o l i t i c a l " e l e m e n t s i n t h e biblical w o r l d (Judges a n d K i n g s i n W e l l h a u s e n ' s c o n c e p t i o n ) , cultural Zionism

1 2

a n d second t h e a t t e m p t o f

t o b r i d g e t h e o p p o s i t i o n b y r e d u c i n g r e l i g i o n t o altruistic

ethics (Ahad H a ' a m ) ,

1 3

1 4

o r t o t h e socialism o f a " c o m m u n i t y " (early B u b e r ) —

in short, to a merely i n t e r h u m a n p h e n o m e n o n , a n d by perverting into a 1 5

politics o f the "spirit" the realpolitik devised b y H e r z l . 1 believe that I have d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e s e a t t e m p t s d o not a c c o m p l i s h w h a t w e n e e d . I c l o s e d m y p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t I k n e w o f n o w a y l e a d i n g o u t o f this crisis; at t h e s a m e t i m e , I o b j e c t e d o n p r i n c i p l e t o a n y a t t e m p t t o d e p r i v e t h i s crisis o f its s e r i o u s n e s s t h r o u g h c h e a p s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s o r t h r o u g h e v e n c h e a p e r h o p e s (in t h e style of: " I n P a l e s t i n e this synthesis is s u r e t o c o m e a b o u t o r ­ ganically"). M y critic asserts t h a t I said: " T h e d u a l i s m [ o f n a t i o n a l i s m a n d r e l i g i o n ] consists in t h e f o l l o w i n g : nationalism is political, w h i l e religion is a p o l i t i c a l . "

16

Chapter

120

2

W h a t I contrasted was n o t religion a n d nationalism, b u t religion a n d political Z i o n i s m . T h i s is q u i t e s i m p l y a real a n t a g o n i s m , r a t h e r t h a n a " l o g i c a l a n t a g o ­ n i s m " o r e v e n less s o — u n l e s s w e are b o b b y s o x e r s [Backfische]—an

"emotional"

a n t a g o n i s m . T o speak i n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f W e i n b e r g , I m u s t l e a v e it t o s o m e p h i l o s o p h e r s t o d e t e r m i n e h o w this reality relates t o l o g i c , o r t o e m o t i o n . It w o u l d n o t o c c u r t o m e t o d e n y t h a t " h a n d i c r a f t s , oil p a i n t i n g , a n d b e e k e e p i n g a r e also a p o l i t i c a l " a n d y e t are n o t in o p p o s i t i o n t o p o l i t i c s , j u s t as little as it w o u l d o c c u r t o m e t o d e n y t h a t t h e r e are b l a c k , c r o o k e d d o g s 17

( d a c h s h u n d s ) , j u s t b e c a u s e " c r o o k e d " is n o t a c o l o r , a n d especially n o t b l a c k . M a y I, t o o , d r a w o n " l o g i c " : o n e l e a r n s f r o m this discipline t h a t t h e r e a r e several k i n d s o f n e g a t i o n . " A p o l i t i c a l " m a y m e a n : l y i n g o n a different p l a n e t h a n p o l i t i c s , a n d it m a y also m e a n : e x c l u d i n g p o l i t i c s . O f c o u r s e I o n l y h a d t h e s e c o n d m e a n i n g i n m i n d w h e n s p e a k i n g o f t h e apolitical c h a r a c t e r o f t h e Jewish tradition. I d o n o t k n o w h o w W e i n b e r g c o m e s to i m p u t e to m e a decision in favor o f O r t h o d o x y , a n d t o i m p u t e it t o m e , o u t r a g e o u s l y , as a d e c i s i o n 1 8

h o n e s t e n t h u s i a s m . " 1 trust t h a t t h e Bundesbrüder

"from

w h o heard m y Forchtenberg

presentation will agree w i t h m e w h e n I c o n c l u d e that there was n o trace o f " e n t h u s i a s m " t o b e f o u n d in it. A s c o n c e r n s m y " d e c i s i o n for O r t h o d o x y , "

1 9

this a n t i c r i t i q u e w i l l n o t l e a v e a n y r e m a i n i n g d o u b t a n d t h u s m a y s e r v e as a n e x a m p l e [of m y t r u e p o s i t i o n ] .

2 0

H o w e v e r , if w h a t I a m b e i n g r e p r o a c h e d for

is m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e t h i n g s i n t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n t h a t a r e essential a n d o b l i g a t o r y for us, t h e n I a m b e i n g r e p r o a c h e d for n o t b e i n g a perfect horse. I n o w t u r n t o W e i n b e r g ' s p o s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s . It w i l l n o t s u r p r i s e h i m if I a c c e p t his c o n c l u s i o n — o r r a t h e r if I a c k n o w l e d g e it as m y o w n ( w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y g r a i n o f salt, o f c o u r s e ) — t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e for us t o a c c e p t t h e L a w . H o w e v e r , I c a n n o t m a k e m y o w n h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s is s o for t h e s i m p l e r e a s o n t h a t W e i n b e r g has at his disposal a w o r l d v i e w

[Weltanschauung].

T h i s w o r l d v i e w h a s b e e n p i c k e d u p f r o m t h e alleys o f E u r o p e , o r , at best, f r o m its b r o c h u r e s , a n d I d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d h o w it is s u p p o s e d t o b e j u s t i f i e d as o b l i g a t o r y for Z i o n i s t s . W h e n w e Z i o n i s t s s p e a k e x c a t h e d r a , t h a t is, as Z i o n i s t s , w e m a y o n l y rely o n t h i n g s t h a t a r e j u s t i f i e d b y t h e s i t u a t i o n o f J e w r y , i n o u r case b y t h e s i t u a t i o n o f G e r m a n J e w r y . W h a t is j u s t i f i e d b y this s i t u a t i o n is t h e w i l l t o t h e J e w i s h state, t o J e w i s h e x t e r n a l p o l i t i c s . C o r r e c t l y u n d e r s t o o d , t h a t is, u n d e r s t o o d in t h e Z i o n i s t sense, " f r e e d o m " a n d " i n d i ­ v i d u a l i s m " a r e " p r i v a t e m a t t e r s . " W h a t is n o t p r i v a t e , h o w e v e r , b u t o f a n o b j e c t i v e Z i o n i s t c h a r a c t e r , is t h e fact t h a t t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w a s d e v a s t a t e d i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y s o - c a l l e d a s s i m i l a t i o n , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o its l e g i t i m a t e s e n s e , is n o t h i n g b u t a c r i t i q u e o f t r a d i t i o n . I n this s e n s e , t h e r e f o r e ,

Zionist

Writings

121

(1921-32)

w e are "assimilated," "liberals," o r w h a t e v e r o t h e r expression o n e prefers. A n d if t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g l i k e " i n d i v i d u a l i s m " i n this, t h e n , for G o d ' s s a k e , w e are e v e n " i n d i v i d u a l i s t s . " B u t n o t b e c a u s e i n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d f r e e d o m are so beautiful, o h so beautiful. U n d o u b t e d l y , w e all e n d o r s e W e i n b e r g ' s c r i t i q u e o f M i z r a h i . W h a t I s e e as t h e g r e a t e s t d a n g e r , h o w e v e r , is its " o r g a n i c " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f O r t h o d o x y . T h i s n e o - O r t h o d o x y is a s o f t e n i n g o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c o n t e x t , w h o s e g r e a t ­ ness c o n s i s t s i n its " r i g i d i t y . " Finally, I d i d n o t say t h a t " n a t i o n a l i s m " is u n a b l e t o fulfill a m a n ,

2 1

b u t that

t h e p o l i t i c a l w i l l is u n a b l e t o d o so. T h i s is, I b e l i e v e , s o m e w h a t m o r e p r e c i s e .

NOTES S o u r c e : " B e m e r k u n g z u der W e i n b e r g s c h e n Kritik," Der jüdische Student 2 2 ( 1 9 2 5 ) : 1 5 1 8 . I n t h e h e a d i n g o f t h e essay, L e o Strauss is identified as a m e m b e r o f the Frankfurt chapter o f Saronia, w h i c h , i n t h e early 1 9 2 0 s , i n c l u d e d t h e f a m o u s Frankfurt rabbi N e h e m i a N o b e l as an Alter Herr h.c. L e o L ö w e n t h a l a n d Erich F r o m m — m e m b e r s o f the "Frankfurt" g r o u p against w h o s e "prinzipielles W o r t zur Erziehungsfrage" Strauss argues i n his " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e ' " — w e r e also m e m b e r s o f this g r o u p . Cf. also anecdotal observations b y G e r s h o m S c h o l e m i n Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Frankfurt: S u h r k a m p , 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 9 3 - 9 8 . In this essay, L e o Strauss responds t o H a n s W e i n b e r g ' s " Z i o n i s m u s u n d R e l i g i o n , " w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e d o n pages 8 - 1 5 o f t h e same issue o f Der jüdische Student (vol. 2 2 , 1 9 2 5 ) . H e r e W e i n b e r g , a m e m b e r o f the R u d e r V e r e i n j ü d i s c h e r S t u d e n t e n i n B e r l i n , criticized a lecture g i v e n b y Strauss at t h e 1 9 2 4 retreat o f t h e K.J.V. Strauss's l e c t u r e h a d b e e n solicited b y t h e board o f t h e K.J.V., and t h e same board, w h i c h also e d i t e d Der jüdische Student, i n t r o d u c e d W e i n b e r g ' s response t o Strauss as a p o l e m i c a l ("stark subjektiv gefärbt") s t a t e m e n t o n t h e relation b e t w e e n Z i o n i s m and religion, w h i c h t h e y called " o n e o f t h e m o s t b u r n i n g p r o b l e m s o f Z i o n i s m , " and i n v i t e d others t o c o n t r i b u t e t o this debate. T h e K.J.V. retreat h a d t a k e n place 2 9 J u l y - 1 A u g u s t 1 9 2 4 i n t h e v i l l a g e o f F o r c h t e n b e r g (near H e i l b r o n n in W ü r t t e m b e r g - H o h e n l o h e ) . T h e m a i n points o f Strauss's l e c t u r e are briefly s u m m a r i z e d i n " D a s C a m p v o n F o r c h t e n b e r g , " Der jüdische Student 2 1 , n o s . 8 / 9 ( O c t o b e r - N o v e m b e r 1924): 197f. T w o further lectures o f Strauss at Z i o n i s t retreats are k n o w n , n a m e l y , " R e l i g i ö s e Lage der G e g e n w a r t " ( 1 9 3 0 ) , first published i n GS, 2 : 3 7 7 - 9 1 , a "lecture, t o b e h e l d o n D e c . 2 1 , 1 9 3 0 at t h e federal c a m p o f Kadimah i n Brieselang, near B e r l i n " and " D i e geistige Lage der G e g e n w a r t , " a t w e l v e - p a g e l e c t u r e m a n u s c r i p t dated 6 February 1 9 3 2 , first p u b l i s h e d i n GS, 2 : 4 4 1 - 6 4 . 1.

H e r e and b e l o w , Strauss uses t h e w o r d Kamp, t h e G e r m a n i z e d spelling o f an

A n g l i c i s m t h e n fashionable. 2.

T h a t is, t h e Kartell j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n (K.J.V.), an association o f t w o

m a j o r c o n f e d e r a t i o n s o f Z i o n i s t students' fraternities (see n o t e a b o v e ) .

Chapter

122 3.

2

Bundesbrüder: T h e literal translation, "confederates," c o n v e y s distracting s e c ­

ondary m e a n i n g s i n E n g l i s h that are far f r o m t h e neutral and technical G e r m a n term. Translating t h e w o r d as " c o m r a d e s " w o u l d c o n v e y similarly u n i n t e n d e d c o n n o t a t i o n s and m a y i n v o k e c o n f u s i o n w i t h o n e o f the early J e w i s h Wanderbünde b y t h e n a m e o f K a m e r a d e n . S i n c e t h e t e r m is part o f t h e j a r g o n o f student fraternities that is e v i d e n t n o w h e r e else i n Strauss's writings, I leave this t e r m untranslated. T h i s a l l o w s s o m e o f t h e unusually insiderish flavor o f the essay t o b e preserved i n translation. 4.

Cf. " D a s C a m p i n F o r c h t e n b e r g , " 196—200, a detailed report o n t h e retreat

h e l d 2 9 J u l y - 1 A u g u s t 1 9 2 4 , at F o r c h t e n b e r g , w h e r e L e o Strauss had b e e n i n v i t e d b y the b o a r d o f directors (Präsidium) o f the K.J.V. t o present a lecture entitled " T h e P r o b ­ l e m o f J e w i s h C u l t u r e i n t h e C o n t e x t o f O u r P r o g r a m o f E d u c a t i o n " ("Das j ü d i s c h e Kulturproblem in unserem Erziehungsprogramm"). 5.

Cf. "Ecclesia militans" ( 1 9 2 5 ) .

6.

Literally "Easterner," n a m e o f the religious Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t , d e r i v e d f r o m

the t e r m MerkaZ RuHanI (spiritual center). F o u n d e d i n Vilna in 1 9 0 2 , its m o t t o w a s " T h e Land o f Israel for t h e P e o p l e o f Israel a c c o r d i n g t o t h e T o r a h o f Israel." M i z r a h i a i m e d t o k e e p political Z i o n i s m l i m i t e d t o w o r k i n g t o w a r d t h e attainment o f the p o l i t i ­ cal goal o f s t a t e h o o d , o p p o s i n g t h e g r o w i n g popularity of Kulturarbeit, that is, t h e agenda o f cultural Z i o n i s m . After t h e First W o r l d W a r , its c e n t e r w a s at first i n Frankfurt a m M a i n . It w a s d u r i n g its "Frankfurt p e r i o d " that M i z r a h i b e g a n t o d e v e l o p its e d u c a t i o n a l n e t w o r k . S u b s e q u e n t l y it established n u m e r o u s s c h o o l s and institutions o f teacher train­ i n g i n Palestine a n d abroad, as w e l l as a university (Bar Ilan i n R a m a t Gan). After t h e f o u n d i n g o f t h e State o f Israel, Mizrahi u n i t e d w i t h t h e H a - P o ' e l h a - M i z r a h i and estab­ lished t h e N a t i o n a l R e l i g i o u s Party (Mafdal). 7.

Kurt B l u m e n f e l d (1884—1963), president o f t h e G e r m a n Z i o n i s t F e d e r a t i o n

f r o m 1 9 2 4 t o 1 9 3 3 , later m e m b e r o f t h e directorate o f K e r e n H a y e s o d i n Palestine. B l u m e n f e l d , b o r n t o an assimilated family i n East Prussia, j o i n e d t h e Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t as a l a w s t u d e n t at t h e universities o f Berlin, Freiburg, a n d K ö n i g s b e r g , and b e c a m e an influential y o u n g e r m e m b e r o f the Z i o n i s t i s c h e V e r e i n i g u n g fur D e u t s c h l a n d ( Z V f D ) , w h i c h , b e t w e e n 1 9 0 5 a n d 1 9 2 0 , had its c e n t e r i n Berlin. J e h u d a R e i n h a r z credits B l u m e n f e l d w i t h a decisive "radicalization" o f G e r m a n Z i o n i s m : "Insofar as historical c h a n g e c a n b e attributed t o a single personality, o n e c a n say that B l u m e n f e l d altered t h e i d e o l o g i c a l c o u r s e o f the G e r m a n Z i o n i s t organization b e t w e e n 1 9 1 0 and 1 9 1 4 " (Father­ land or Promised Land: The Dilemma of the German Jew, 1893—1914 [ A n n Arbor: U n i v e r ­ sity o f M i c h i g a n Press, 1 9 7 5 ] , 1 5 2 ) . T h e shift i n i d e o l o g i c a l orientation a c c o m p l i s h e d b y B l u m e n f e l d c o n s i s t e d i n a c h a n g e f r o m a "political-philanthropic" t o a "practical" o r i e n t a t i o n for Z i o n i s m , i n v o l v i n g s e t d e m e n t , i m m e d i a t e action, and o t h e r values r e ­ flecting

the c o n c e r n s o f the Z i o n i s t y o u t h m o v e m e n t . Cf. Fatherland or Promised Land,

1 5 4 - 5 8 . Cf. also A v r a h a m Barkai, " D i e O r g a n i s a t i o n der j ü d i s c h e n G e m e i n s c h a f t , " i n

Deutsch-jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, v o l . 4: Aufbruch und Zerstörung, 1918—1945 ( M ü n c h e n : B e c k , 1 9 9 7 ) , 9 1 - 9 5 ( " D i e Z i o n i s t e n " ) , E n g l i s h translation b y W i l l i a m T e m p l e r o n pages 9 0 - 9 5 o f Renewal and Destruction, 1918-1945,

e d . A . Barkai and Paul

M e n d e s - F l o h r , v o l . 4 o f German Jewish History in Modern Times, e d . M i c h a e l M e y e r a n d M i c h a e l B r e n n e r ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 6 ) . 8.

Like B l u m e n f e l d , Alfred Landsberg w a s a representative o f the y o u n g e r g e n -

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

123

eration o f G e r m a n Z i o n i s t leaders, similarly hailing f r o m an assimilated b a c k g r o u n d . H e p r e c e d e d B l u m e n f e l d as t h e chairman o f the Z i o n i s t i s c h e V e r e i n i g u n g für D e u t s c h l a n d f r o m 1 9 2 3 t o 1 9 2 4 . Cf. R e i n h a r z , Fatherland or Promised Land, 1 0 3 . 9.

Keilerfahrung: a t e r m f r o m t h e vocabulary o f student fraternities, m e a n i n g r e ­

cruitment. 10.

Strauss's reference t o his Keilerfahrung i n C o l o g n e s h o w s that h e w a s active i n

the o n g o i n g effort o f recruiting n e w m e m b e r s (Keilfiixe o r Keilfüchse) t o t h e Z i o n i s t students' organization. T h e results o f the recruiting efforts w e r e periodically p u b l i s h e d i n Der jüdische Student. S e e , for instance, "Keilbericht für das S o m m e r s e m e s t e r 1 9 2 1 , " Der jüdische Student 1 8 , n o . 5 ( S e p t e m b e r - O c t o b e r 1 9 2 1 ) : 2 2 8 - 3 1 . T h e author o f this report, Arthur Stein, insists that "die Frage der Keilarbeit e i n e Existenzfrage n i c h t n u r für das K.J. V., s o n d e r n für die g a n z e zionistische B e w e g u n g b e d e u t e t " [the q u e s t i o n o f r e c r u i t m e n t w o r k is a q u e s t i o n o f e x i s t e n c e n o t just for t h e K.J.V. b u t for t h e entire Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t " (230). Cf. also t h e critical remarks o n t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f these r e c r u i t m e n t practices b y a n e w Kartell m e m b e r , M a r t i n Flesch, i n t h e same issue o f Der

jüdische Student. 11.

In t h e early essays, Strauss repeatedly takes as his p o i n t o f departure p o s i t i o n s

formulated b y S i m o n o r b y t h e Frankfurt g r o u p t o w h i c h S i m o n b e l o n g e d . A s s o m e o n e a d v o c a t i n g a "primarily political" Z i o n i s m , Strauss s h o w s great c o n c e r n w i t h t h e o p i n ­ i o n s o f cultural Z i o n i s t s . H i s p r e d o m i n a n t interest i n religion c o u l d e v e n b e said t o b e s o m e w h a t at o d d s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a "primarily political" Z i o n i s m . S i m o n is also a d ­ dressed i n " R e s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f P r i n c i p l e ' " ( 1 9 2 3 ) and i n "Biblical H i s ­ t o r y and S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 5 ) . 12. Julius W e l l h a u s e n ( 1 8 4 4 - 1 9 1 8 ) , Protestant O l d T e s t a m e n t scholar, g a v e t h e d o c u m e n t a r y h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e sources o f t h e H e x a t e u c h its definitive f o r m u l a t i o n i n his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1 8 9 9 ) . Cf. t h e reference t o W e l l h a u s e n i n t h e essay "Paul d e Lagarde" ( 1 9 2 4 ) . T h e political reading o f t h e biblical sources, p o s e d as a p r o b l e m i n t h e Theological-Political Treatise o f Spinoza, w a s first addressed b y Strauss i n his essay " C o h e n ' s Analysis o f Spinoza's B i b l e S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 4 ) . A close paral­ lel t o t h e political interpretation o f t h e biblical J u d g e s and K i n g s referred t o a b o v e is f o u n d i n Strauss's essay o n S i m o n D u b n o w , "Biblical H i s t o r y and S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 5 ) . 13.

Ahad Ha'am, p e n name of Asher Hirsch Ginsberg ( 1 8 5 6 - 1 9 2 7 ) , the main v o i c e

o f "cultural Z i o n i s m . " S e e n o t e s t o " A N o t e o n t h e D i s c u s s i o n o n ' Z i o n i s m and A n t i Semitism'" (1923). 14.

A s a s o c i o l o g i c a l t e r m , Gemeinschaft w a s c o i n e d b y Ferdinand T ö n n i e s i n o p ­

p o s i t i o n t o Gesellschaft. B u b e r adopts this distinction i n his early w o r k , i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e social p h i l o s o p h y o f G e o r g S i m m e l . Cf. Paul M e n d e s - F l o h r , From Mysticism to Dialogue: Martin Buber's Transformation of German Social Thought (Detroit: W a y n e State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 9 ) . Strauss's critique o f B u b e r here is consistent w i t h that i n his 1 9 2 3 " R e ­ s p o n s e t o Frankfurt's ' W o r d o f Principle'." 15.

Strauss deals w i t h w h a t h e calls here a Depravation (perversion) o f Herzl's p o l i t i ­

cal Z i o n i s m i n t h e 1 9 2 3 essay " T h e Z i o n i s m o f N o r d a u . " 16.

Q u o t a t i o n marks at t h e e n d o f this s e n t e n c e are m i s s i n g i n t h e original.

17.

" D a c h s h u n d " : i n G e r m a n , Dackel. T h e expression krummer Hund ( c r o o k e d d o g )

also m e a n s "dirty d o g . "

Chapter

124

2

18.

S e e H a n s W e i n b e r g , " Z i o n i s m u s u n d R e l i g i o n , " 9.

19.

I n t h e j a r g o n o f t h e y o u t h m o v e m e n t , t h e t e r m " d e c i s i o n " is a l o a d e d o n e that

c a n stand a l o n e , p o i n t i n g t o t h e act o f d e c i s i o n as an e n d i n itself. T h i s attitude is called "decisionism." 20.

Literally: "this anticritique, for e x a m p l e , w i l l n o t leave any r e m a i n i n g d o u b t . "

2 1 . Cf. W e i n b e r g , " Z i o n i s m u s u n d R e l i g i o n , " 14: "daß die nationale Idee allein als ideologisches Fundament für den einzelnen nicht ausreicht, v i e l m e h r n o c h eines w i e i m m e r gearteten ' H i n t e r g r u n d e s ' bedarf. E i n e s o l c h e Auffassung ist für die Situation, i n d e r sich d e r Z i o n i s m u s befindet, recht charakteristisch. E i n e ganze A n z a h l Z i o n i s t e n glaubt, daß d e r Z i o n i s m u s w e d e r 'wesenhaft' sei, n o c h seiner N a t u r nach w e r d e n k ö n n e . U n d

damit h a b e n sie j a n i c h t so unrecht" [that the national idea does not by itself suffice as an ideological foundation for the individual, that it rather n e e d s t o b e a u g m e n t e d b y a 'back­ d r o p ' o f s o m e sort. T h i s k i n d o f v i e w is quite typical for t h e current situation o f Z i o n ­ ism. T h e r e are a large n u m b e r o f Z i o n i s t s w h o b e l i e v e that Z i o n i s m n e i t h e r is, n o r c a n — b y virtue o f its n a t u r e — b e c o m e essential. A n d i n this t h e y are n o t so v e r y w r o n g ] , (emphasis added). A n d cf. "Das C a m p v o n F o r c h t e n b e r g , " 1 9 8 f : "warf Strauss d i e Frage auf, o b ü b e r h a u p t u n d w i e w e i t die M ö g l i c h k e i t einer A n e i g n u n g d e r W e r t e des traditionellen J u d e n t u m s o h n e R ü c k k e h r zur Tradition m ö g l i c h sei. Denn geistige Menschen

würde ein nur auf das nationale Ehrgefühl begründeter Zionismus nicht befriedigen, w e n n seine tieferen S p h ä r e n z u i h m ganz b e z i e h u n g s l o s b l e i b e n sollten. O h n e hier e n d g ü l t i g e F o r m u l i e r u n g e n f i n d e n z u k ö n n e n , b e a n t w o r t e t e er d i e Frage i n m e h r n e g a t i v e m S i n n " [Strauss raised t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r and t o w h a t e x t e n t it is possible t o appropriate t h e values o f traditional Judaism w i t h o u t a return t o tradition. For spiritual people cannot be

satisfied by a Zionism that rests exclusively on national honor if one's d e e p e r spheres remain c o m p l e t e l y d i s c o n n e c t e d f r o m it. U n a b l e t o a d v a n c e ultimate formulations h e answers the q u e s t i o n m o r e i n a n e g a t i v e sense] (emphasis added).

Ecclesia militans

(1925)

T h e J e w i s h C h u r c h — a s , h e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e , w e refer t o t h e separatist O r ­ t h o d o x y o f F r a n k f u r t — i s o n t h e offensive. T h i s fact is o f i n t e r e s t t o u s , b u t it d o e s n o t f r i g h t e n u s . W e k n o w all t o o w e l l t h a t n o t all offensives s u c c e e d . Perhaps t h e attack o f t h e O r t h o d o x will r u n a g r o u n d o n the b a r b e d w i r e f e n c e s i n f r o n t o f o u r p o s i t i o n , so t h a t it m a y n o t e v e n b e n e c e s s a r y for u s t o d e f e n d t h e f r o n t l i n e , l e t a l o n e t o call for a r e t r e a t . A s l o n g as w e k e e p c o o l h e a d s a n d s t r o n g h e a r t s , t h e evil o l d e n e m y [alt böse Feind]* w i l l p o s e n o d a n g e r t o u s . H i s c r u e l a r m o r [sein(e) grausame Rüstung

ist] is t h e j o y f u l r o u g h -

a n d - r e a d y o f his r h e t o r i c i a n s , w h o s u r m o u n t obstacles o f l o g i c b y m e a n s o f e n t h u s i a s m . It is b e c a u s e o f t h e J e w i s h h e a r t t h a t o n e d o e s n o t s t a n d v e r y f i r m against this s o r t o f i m p u d e n c e . L e t u s cast a n o t h e r g l a n c e at t h e a r m s [ Wehr und Waffen] o f o u r e n e m y , o u r fiercest a n d m o s t v i c i o u s e n e m y . First, w i t h r e g a r d t o his w a r o b j e c t i v e —

Zionist

Writings

125

(1921-32)

a n d f o r g i v e m e for all t h e s a b e r - r a t t l i n g i m a g e s , b u t t h e s i t u a t i o n forces t h e m u p o n us; b e s i d e s , t h e y l e n d o u r e n e m y ' s o p e r a t i o n s a m o r e p l e a s a n t sense t h a n t h e y d e s e r v e — i t is: s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e t o t h e T o r a h . T h i s o b j e c t i v e c a n b e r e a l i z e d w i t h o u t a fight o n c e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d a n d t h e divine provenance of the T o r a h have been acknowledged. N o w , the w e a p o n , o r t h e t r i c k , o f O r t h o d o x y is t o t r y t o f o r c e t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f this d e m a n d , w i t h o u t first h a v i n g t o o b t a i n t h e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f its d o g m a t i c p r e s u p ­ p o s i t i o n s . O n e is c o m p e l l e d t o r e s o r t t o this t r i c k b e c a u s e t h e a c k n o w l e d g ­ m e n t of these d o g m a s could never be obtained from the majority of c o n t e m ­ porary Jewry. O n e then makes do w i t h the thoroughly dishonest doctrine t h a t t h e r e are n o d o g m a s i n J u d a i s m , a d o c t r i n e t h a t s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n i n v e n t e d just for the p u r p o s e of fundamentally destroying any seriousness o f t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n . A s if w h a t m a t t e r e d w a s t h a t , a m o n g us, t h e p r e c o n d i ­ t i o n o f b l e s s e d n e s s is n o t c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e e x p l i c i t affirmation o f p r o p o s i ­ t i o n s o f o n e s o r t o r a n o t h e r , a n d as if w h a t m a t t e r e d w a s n o t r a t h e r t h e s i m p l e fact o f t h e s e l f - e v i d e n c e w i t h w h i c h o u r p r a y e r s refer t o t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d a c t i o n s o f G o d (a fact t h a t c a n n o t b e r e m o v e d b y a n y a m o u n t o f e n t h u s i a s m ) , a n d t h a t t h e y c a n b e said w i t h d e c e n c y o n l y b y s u c h J e w s w h o b e l i e v e i n t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d a c t i o n s o f G o d in t h e sense o u d i n e d b y t h e p r a y e r s ! F u r t h e r , 2

o n e d o e s n o t d e e m it a r o b b e r y [erachtet es nicht als Raub]

w h e n one deduces

t h e n e c e s s i t y o f fulfilling t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s f r o m t h e legal c h a r a c t e r o f t h e T o r a h , w h e r e b y " l a w " is a s o r t ofcanis

a non canendo?

Moreover, one makes

u s e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e o f a r g u m e n t , w h i c h is n o less shameless: t h e affirma­ t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n i m p l i e s t h e affirmation o f t h e n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e — i n o u r case, h o w e v e r , t h e n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e is t h e T o r a h — h e n c e , it i m p l i e s t h e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e T o r a h . A s if t h e f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n o f r e l i g i o n c o u l d b e d e c i d e d b y a n a t i o n a l d e c r e e ! Finally, o n e is n o t a s h a m e d t o justify t h e T o r a h i n a " d e e p e r " w a y b y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e politics o f t h e p e o p l e s w h o d o n o t s t a n d u n d e r t h e 4

rule of the T o r a h — " t h e T o w e r of Babel" —leads to w o r l d war. This justifi­ c a t i o n t o o w o u l d lead t o an o b s e r v i n g o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s i n a m a n n e r [that a m o u n t s t o ] a p i o u s fraud, since o n e w o u l d fulfill t h e m for t h e sake o f t h e i r p l e a s a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s . B u t d o e s it prove a n y t h i n g ? D o e s it l e a d t o a truth? A s c a n b e p r o v e d , t r u t h s are n o t p r o v e d b y t h e p l e a s a n t n e s s o f t h e i r consequences. A s I said, O r t h o d o x y is i n t h e h a b i t o f a r g u i n g o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r i n t h e m a n n e r d e s c r i b e d . F o r t h e o p e n discussion o f t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s has b e ­ c o m e a s t o r m y issue e v e r s i n c e t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f r e v e l a t i o n , o n c e c u s t o m a r y in traditional theology, was m a d e impossible b y the E u r o p e a n critique. — A s a n aside: it m a y b e o f i n t e r e s t t o t h e h i s t o r i a n o f p r e s e n t - d a y ideas t h a t c e r t a i n c l e v e r m i n d s , w h o h e a r t h e grass g r o w , h a v e o f late b e e n s p e a k i n g o f t h e

126

Chapter

2

s h a l l o w n e s s o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t . E n d o w e d w i t h an astonishingly s u b d e sense o f m o d e r n i t y , t h e y h a v e a l o t t o say a b o u t t h e soullessness, a n d so o n , o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . A s if t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o r e t h a t h a p p e n s t o b e c o n c e a l e d i n s u c h t i r a d e s , o r t h e s e tirades t h e m s e l v e s , c o u l d e v e r b e able t o b l o t o u t o n c e a n d for all t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n o f t h e m o d e r n era. — I t is o n l y w h e n t h e futility o f all p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d s o c i o l o g i c a l e v a s i o n s a n d tricks w i l l h a v e b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d t o it i n e v e r y single case t h a t O r t h o d o x y w i l l c o n s e n t t o start w i t h a b l u n t statement of the central dogmas. If w e a r e n o t m i s t a k e n a b o u t c e r t a i n i n d i c a t i o n s , it is a l r e a d y b e i n g r e ­ called t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f G o d a n d H i s r e v e l a t i o n m u s t b e p o s e d q u i t e s i m p l e m i n d e d l y a n d h o n e s d y , w i t h o u t regard to any actual disadvantages involved. I n t h e e n d , t h i s is i n t h e h i g h e s t i n t e r e s t o f r e l i g i o n itself. R e l i g i o n is n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n t h o s e w h o fulfill t h e L a w for t h e sake o f t h e i r p e o p l e , o r for t h e sake o f all p e o p l e s , a n d n o t , o r n o t p r i m a r i l y , for t h e sake o f G o d . O n l y w h e n t h e q u e s t i o n w i l l a g a i n b e p o s e d i n this w a y , a n d w h e n t h e f o r m a t i o n

of

p a r t i e s w i t h i n J u d a i s m w i l l t a k e its s h a p e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e differences b e ­ t w e e n t h e a n s w e r s g i v e n t o this q u e s t i o n , w i l l a n a r g u m e n t , i n d e e d a c o m ­ m u n i t y , o f O r t h o d o x y a n d n o n - O r t h o d o x y b e g e n u i n e l y possible. I n a n y case, it is a n e n c o u r a g i n g step f o r w a r d w h e n , in his m o s t r e c e n t w o r k (The Jewish

National

Home,

F r a n k f u r t , 1 9 2 5 ) , Isaac Breuer

5

sees as t h e

decisive question " w h e t h e r G o d a n d the T o r a h deserve to have p r i m a c y o v e r t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , o r w h e t h e r t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n is t o b e t h e r e v e r s e . " It is n o l o n g e r a m a t t e r o f i n d i v i d u a l i s m v e r s u s t y p i s m [Typismus],

6

p o w e r versus

spirit, h i g h t r e a s o n v e r s u s l o y a l t y t o t h e L a w , t h a t is, it is n o l o n g e r a m a t t e r o f interpersonal concerns. B r e u e r ' s w r i t i n g is e n c o u r a g i n g n o t o n l y for this r e a s o n , b u t also b e c a u s e it c a n d i d l y p o i n t s o u t t h e u l t i m a t e d o g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . I n t e r m s o f p r e s e n t a t i o n , it also differs m o s t a d v a n t a g e o u s l y f r o m t h e a u t h o r ' s p r e v i o u s w r i t i n g s , a n d i n d e e d f r o m m o s t o f J e w i s h p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . It is a g e n u i n e l y 7

p o l i t i c a l p u b l i c a t i o n , m a t t e r - o f - f a c t [sachlich]

a n d clear; t h e d u b i o u s p o e t i c

eruptions that m a d e w o r k i n g through Breuer's previous publications a tor­ m e n t a r e p u s h e d w h e r e t h e y b e l o n g , t h a t is, i n t o t h e c o r n e r s , as a n oasis for t h e J e w i s h h e a r t p a r c h e d in t h e d e s e r t o f p o l i t i c s . T o b e s u r e , e v e n n o w h e c a n n o t g e t b y w i t h o u t b r i n g i n g in t h e w r i n k l e d little o l d m o t h e r . M e a n ­ w h i l e , t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e a u t h o r is at h o m e i n p o l i t i c s — b y t h e w a y , i n v e r y aggressive p o l i t i c s — s u g g e s t s t h a t his p o e t r y is m e r e l y a w e a p o n (a m i ­ r a g e gas, if s u c h is t e c h n i c a l l y possible) i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e p o l i t i c s . H e n c e it m u s t n o t b e j u d g e d b y its pitiful p o e t i c qualities b u t r a t h e r b y its m o r e t o l e r ­ able d e m a g o g i c qualities. T h i s t i m e , t h e a u t h o r has d i s p e n s e d w i t h s u c h p o p u l a r n u m b e r s , m a d e spicier, w i t h o u t t h u s h a v i n g b e e n m a d e " p r e t t i e r , " b y t h e

Zionist

Writings

127

(1921-32)

c u t - a n d - t h r u s t o f j u r i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t slice t h r o u g h t h e s c h m a l t z o f t h e s t r e e t o r g a n . H e h a s r e a c h e d seriousness. It so h a p p e n s t h a t this seriousness is also o u r o w n seriousness; o r , at least, t h a t this s e r i o u s n e s s is a s e r i o u s m a t t e r t o u s . W h a t e v e n t h e m o s t s h o r t s i g h t e d o b s e r v e r o f O r t h o d o x p o l i t i c s m a y h a v e n o t i c e d is practically stated h e r e b y t h e o n e w h o has b e e n i n s p i r i n g this p o l i t i c s : Z i o n i s m has a single J e w i s h e n e m y , a n d t h a t e n e m y is O r t h o d o x y . T o O r t h o d o x y , w e t h e n o n - O r t h o ­ d o x a r e traitors a n d infidels. T h i s s o u n d s r e f r e s h i n g , e v e n p l u c k y , a n d s o , I s u p p o s e , it is q u i t e in o r d e r . B r e u e r k e e p s t h e s e t h e s e s i n v i e w , y e t h e m o v e s b e y o n d t h e m w i t h o u t e x p r e s s i n g h i m s e l f i n a less a m b i g u o u s m a n n e r .

8

He

deals at g r e a t l e n g t h w i t h c e r t a i n q u a r r e l s t h a t h a v e lately b e e n o f c o n c e r n i n P a l e s t i n e , q u a r r e l s t h a t s e e m t o agitate h i m v e r y m u c h . L a c k i n g e x p e r t k n o w l ­ e d g e o u r s e l v e s , t h a t is, n o t h a v i n g t r a v e l e d t o P a l e s t i n e , w e m u s t l e a v e t h e p r a c t i c a l [sachlich] s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e s e q u a r r e l s t o t h e Z i o n i s t l e a d e r s h i p . I n this m a t t e r , B r e u e r a s s u m e s t h e p e c u l i a r p o s i t i o n o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n — w h i c h is t h e b e a r e r o f t h e rights d e r i v e d f r o m t h e B a l f o u r D e c l a r a t i o n — p r o t e s t i n g against t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m e a s u r e s o f a f o r e i g n a u ­ t h o r i t y , t h a t is, t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f t h e Z i o n i s t n a t i o n t h a t is a b s u r d l y t h e trustee of t h e rights of the Jewish nation; a k n o t t y situation. P u t crudely (and transposed from the key of horse-bell ringing to the key of the T o w e r of 9

B a b e l ) : t h e p o i n t is t o p i n s o m e t h i n g o n t h e Z i o n i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n in t h e e y e s o f t h e E n g l i s h g o v e r n m e n t . T h i s o b j e c t i v e s t a n d s i n a n ideal c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r o n e : t o c a u s e t r o u b l e for t h o s e O r t h o d o x w h o are w o r k i n g w i t h i n the Zionist organization. F r o m Breuer's standpoint, these O r t h o d o x w o u l d l i k e l y b e s e e n as Z i o n i s t citizens o f t h e J e w i s h faith. T h i s is essentially a n i n n e r - O r t h o d o x a r g u m e n t o r , as it w e r e , a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l - O r t h o d o x o n e . W e refrain f r o m a n y i n t e r f e r e n c e . S h o u l d w e say t h a t w e are indifferent t o this dismissal f r o m t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e ? T o d a y as a l w a y s , w e a r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t a n a r g u m e n t w i t h O r t h o ­ d o x y , b e c a u s e w e h o l d o n t o t h e n o t i o n o f t h e historical u n i t y o f t h e J e w i s h c o n n e c t i o n . H o w e v e r , this entails c e r t a i n difficulties t h a t w e h a v e a l r e a d y s p o k e n a b o u t . B r e u e r has r e m o v e d t h e g r e a t e s t o f t h e s e difficulties: t h e s u p ­ p r e s s i o n o f t h e a c t u a l p o i n t o f c o n t r o v e r s y . Y e t s o m e difficulties still r e m a i n . O n e w o u l d d o O r t h o d o x y an i n j u s t i c e if o n e w e r e t o c h a r g e it w i t h s u b j e c t i v e d i s h o n e s t y . T h i s c h a r g e w o u l d n o t o n l y b e u n j u s t , it w o u l d also b e p r e s u m p t u o u s , laughable, meaningless, a n d — a m a t t e r o f indifference. W e d o n o t say this for t h e sake o f e x t e n u a t i o n , n o r o u t o f h a l f h e a r t e d n e s s . Q u i t e t h e c o n t r a r y ! — T h e O r t h o d o x tactics are possible o n l y b e c a u s e O r t h o d o x y n e v e r m a k e s t h e effort, n o r has it e v e r m a d e t h e effort, t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e w i l l o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m . T a g g e d w i t h t h e label o f apikorsut

[apostasy], it is n o t t h e

128

Chapter

2

t o p i c o f s e r i o u s a r g u m e n t . W h y a r g u e at all, if o n e k n o w s , really a n d t r u l y knows,

t h a t o n e is r i g h t a n d t h a t t h e o t h e r s a r e i n e r r o r ? O n e a l w a y s a n d o n

p r i n c i p l e has a g o o d c o n s c i e n c e . . . . B u t d o e s t h e u n s h a k a b l e p o s s e s s i o n o f a g o o d c o n s c i e n c e n o t s i g n i f y — t h e loss o f o n e ' s c o n s c i e n c e a l t o g e t h e r ? R e a d i n g a b o u t H e r z l , o n e h a r d l y b e l i e v e s o n e ' s eyes: t h a t h e " d a r e d t o m a k e a reckless l e a p a m o n g t h e g r e a t p o w e r s , " a l e a p t h a t h a p p e n e d t o b o u n d t o t h e n a t i o n a l h o m e o n l y t h r o u g h its " m i r a c u l o u s c o n c u r r e n c e " w i t h t h e W o r l d W a r . Is this fair? U n l e s s w e are m i s i n f o r m e d , H e r z l k n e w t h a t , if t h e p e o p l e s r e n d e r it a p o l i t i c a l s e r v i c e , t h e n t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e w o u l d h a v e t o offer t h e m a p o l i t i c a l service in return. W h a t w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h , t h e n , is n o t a " l e a p , " b u t a p l a y i n g off o f p o w e r against p o w e r , as is t h e case i n all p o l i t i c s . H e n c e t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e real f o u n d a t i o n s o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m a n d t h e real f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e W o r l d W a r is n o t a m i r a c u l o u s c o n n e c t i o n b u t a n a t u r a l o n e . W e call a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact t h a t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f T u r k e y , a n d t h e s t r u g g l e for t h e m i n o r i t i e s , w e r e w a r o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e E n t e n t e , a n d t h a t t h e E n t e n t e — a b o v e all, E n g l a n d — h a d a n interest i n a favorably d i s p o s e d J e w ­ ish p u b l i c . T h e g e n i u s o f H e r z l c o n s i s t e d n e i t h e r in a " l e a p " n o r i n a " c r y , " b u t in the politicization of the Jewish people. T h e r e f u t a t i o n o f t h e factual c l a i m w o u l d n o t d o j u s t i c e t o o u r o p p o n e n t . O n e m u s t g o f u r t h e r b y asking: W h a t is t h e p u r p o s e o f B r e u e r ' s c l a i m ? W h a t c a n b e g a i n e d f r o m it? First: t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m as a c o n s e ­ q u e n c e o f t h e W o r l d W a r — n o t a bad w a y of stigmatizing Z i o n i s m in t h e eyes o f t h e b l a c k - r e d - a n d - g o l d citizen.

10

S e c o n d : t h e B a l f o u r D e c l a r a t i o n as

n o a c h i e v e m e n t o f Z i o n i s m — a s a gift o f t h e h o u r , o f h i s t o r y , o f p r o v i d e n c e . H e n c e O r t h o d o x y m a y also m a k e u s e o f it w i t h o u t scruples. B y a similar l o g i c , it f o l l o w s t h a t Z i o n i s m w a n t s t o m a k e t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e i n t o a p e o p l e like all o t h e r p e o p l e s . Y e a r s a g o o n e s p o k e i n d e e d i n this sense o f " r e a l i z a t i o n " [" Verwirklichung"].

u

Y e t the m o r e Herzl's original will

n o w c o m e s alive, t h e m o r e d i s t i n c d y w e p e r c e i v e t h e w i l l t o n o r m a l c y as unmotivated.

1 2

" A p e o p l e like all o t h e r p e o p l e s " c a n n o t b e t h e p r o g r a m o f

self-critical Z i o n i s m . R a t h e r , its p r o g r a m is o n l y t h a t b e i n g t h e c h o s e n p e o p l e n e e d n o t m e a n : t o b e a p e o p l e o f m e r c h a n t s a n d l a w y e r s . T h i s is n o t a m a t t e r o f a " b a t d e against t h e r u l e o f G o d , a b a t t l e against t h e r u l e o f t h e T o r a h o f G o d . " W e a r e n o t t a l k i n g a b o u t a " b a t t l e " at all, b u t at m o s t a b o u t d i s t a n c e . T h i s d i s t a n c e is n o t r o o t e d in t h e w i l l t o n o r m a l c y — Z i o n i s m is n o t a s y m p ­ t o m o f d e p r e s s i o n . W e p r o t e s t against a n y s u c h i m p u t a t i o n a n d , i n case o f its r e c u r r e n c e , w e shall n o l o n g e r b e able t o l o o k at it as a n e r r o r in g o o d faith. R a t h e r , this d i s t a n c e is r o o t e d in t h e fact t h a t , as a result o f E u r o p e a n c r i t i q u e , t h e d o g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f O r t h o d o x y h a v e b e e n r e c o g n i z e d as q u e s ­ t i o n a b l e . If O r t h o d o x y is r e s o l v e d t o d o b a t t l e o n this g r o u n d , t h e n Z i o n i s m

Zionist

Writings

(1921-32)

129

w i l l n o t refuse t o g i v e b a t t l e , e v e n t h o u g h it c a n n o t a p p e a l t o this t r a d i t i o n b u t only to reason. NOTES S o u r c e : "Ecclesia militans,"/M

Historical-Philological Writings on Spinoza (1924-26) I n t h e first essay i n c l u d e d i n this s e c t i o n , " C o h e n ' s A n a l y s i s o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e S c i e n c e , " Strauss d e f e n d s S p i n o z a ' s Theological-Political Treatise against t h e c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t it b y H e r m a n n C o h e n . C o h e n ' s

"Spinoza

ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m , " a w a r t i m e e s s a y f r o m 1 9 1 5 , w a s C o h e n ' s j'accuse against t h e S e p h a r d i c p h i l o s o p h e r w h o , in his v i e w , h a d c o m m i t t e d t h e " h u m a n l y i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e betrayal" o f denigrating Judaism w h i l e elevating Christianity, p r o v i d i n g t h e subse­ q u e n t tradition o f C o n t i n e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y w i t h an e x c u s e to ignore and despise the civilizational potential o f the sources o f Judaism. In C o h e n ' s v i e w , Spinoza had k n o w i n g l y , high-handedly, and thus unforgivably dis­ t o r t e d t h e r e c o r d , a n d h e h a d d o n e s o f o r t h e selfish m o t i v a t i o n o f r e ­ v e n g e o n t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y that h a d e x c o m m u n i c a t e d h i m . Strauss's defense o f Spinoza was occasioned b y the 1 9 2 4 publication o f C o h e n ' s Jüdische Schriften t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e 1 9 1 5 essay. T h e r e v i e w w a s o n e o f s i x c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y Strauss t o Der Jude p u b l i s h e d i n t h e s p a c e o f a s i n g l e y e a r ( 2 3 O c t o b e r t o 2 4 O c t o b e r ) , a n d i t is n o t w i t h o u t a c e r t a i n p o i ­ g n a n c y that his critique o f C o h e n ' s a p o l o g e t i c s f o l l o w e d o n t h e heels o f his d e f e n s e o f t h e m o r a l i n t e g r i t y o f C o h e n ' s o l d n e m e s i s , P a u l d e L a g a r d e . T h e r i g o r o u s i m p a r t i a l i t y o f Strauss's d e f e n s e o f S p i n o z a a t t r a c t e d t h e a t t e n t i o n o f J u l i u s G u t t m a n n , a d e d i c a t e d C o h e n l o y a l i s t , w h o , as t h e a c a d e m i c d i r e c t o r o f t h e A k a d e m i e fur d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t d e s J u d e n t u m s ( w h i c h h a d b e e n c o i n i t i a t e d b y C o h e n a n d later n o t o n l y p u b l i s h e d his

Jüdische

Schriften b u t a l s o , i n 1 9 2 8 , h i s Schriften zur Philosophie

und

Zeitgeschichte), o f f e r e d Strauss a r e s e a r c h f e l l o w s h i p t o p u r s u e h i s r e s e a r c h o n S p i n o z a further. " O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a a n d H i s P r e c u r s o r s , " t h e s e c o n d t e x t i n this s e c t i o n , is Strauss's 1 9 2 6 r e p o r t o n t h e p r o g r e s s o f his research for t h e A k a d e m i e Korrespondenzblatt.

a n d w a s o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n its

T o b e s u r e , t h e s t u d y u n d e r t a k e n b y Strauss d e v i a t e d

139

140

Chapter

3

f r o m w h a t G u t t m a n n h a d c o m m i s s i o n e d i n t h a t it f o c u s e d o n S p i n o z a ' s critique o f r e l i g i o n rather than o n his B i b l e science. T h e t u g o f w a r b e t w e e n G u t t m a n n a n d Strauss is n o t y e t e v i d e n t i n t h e 1 9 2 6 r e p o r t , w h i c h is e x t r a c t e d f r o m a l o n g e r m a n u s c r i p t b e g u n i n 1 9 2 5 a n d c o m ­ p l e t e d i n 1 9 2 8 , b u t c o m e s t o t h e f o r e i n t h e c o m p r o m i s i n g tide o f t h e

b o o k p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 0 : Spinoza's

His

Bible

Science

(Die

Critique of Religion as the Foundation of Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner

Bibelwissenschaft). G u t t m a n n ' s e d i t o r i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e p r o m p t e d Strauss t o c o m p l a i n privately about the "conditions o f censorship" under w h i c h h e w a s c o m p e l l e d t o w r i t e his first b o o k , c o n d i t i o n s that d i d n o t p r e v e n t Strauss, h o w e v e r , f r o m c o n t i n u i n g his official association w i t h t h e A k a d e m i e e v e n b e y o n d h i s dismissal as a n e m p l o y e e , p r e c i p i t a t e d b y a g e n e r a l f i n a n c i a l crisis, i n 1 9 3 1 .

C o h e n ' s Analysis o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e S c i e n c e (1924)' I. I t is t y p i c a l o f H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s style t h a t h e c o u c h e s t h e c r i t i q u e o f a n i d e a i n t h e c r i t i q u e o f t h e p o s s i b l y a c c i d e n t a l e x p r e s s i o n o f t h a t i d e a . * T h i s is t h e w a y o f o u r i n t e n s i v e a n d p e n e t r a t i n g traditional a r t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h t a k e s e a c h w o r d s e r i o u s l y a n d w e i g h s it carefully. T h u s , C o h e n a l r e a d y o b ­ j e c t s t o t h e title " T h e o l o g i c o - P o l i t i c a l T r e a t i s e , " w h e r e h e misses " a r e f e r ­ e n c e t o p h i l o s o p h y , w h i c h m a y b e a s s u m e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e o l o g y as w e l l as t o p o l i t i c s . " U s i n g t h e historical-critical a p p r o a c h , w e shall establish t h e fact that in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h century o n e c o u l d dispense w i t h such a reference. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , C o h e n himself n e e d e d t o give his theological m a g n u m o p u s

1

H e r m a n n C o h e n , "Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m " ( 1 9 1 5 ) i n Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur, v o l . 18, pp. 5 6 - 1 5 0 , n o w reprinted i n v o l u m e 3 o f t h e c o l l e c t e d Jewish Writings o f H e r m a n n C o h e n , w h i c h h a v e just b e e n p u b l i s h e d b y t h e A k a d e m i e für die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s (Berlin: S c h w e t s c h k e Verlag). * [Strauss adds i n t h e margins o f his c o p y : ] A further e x a m p l e : C o n t e m p l a t i o n s o f t h e " S o c i e t y o f Ethical C u l t u r e " [Gesellschaft für ethische Kultur] C o h e n criticizes as fol­ lows: " A n d y e t , t h e G r e e k w o r d s h o u l d h a v e r e m i n d e d o n e clearly e n o u g h o f Socrates and P l a t o , o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l discoverers o f ethics, o f t h e founders o f m o r a l i t y " Jüdische Schriften III, p . 1 1 0 . ( T h e ethical attitude referred t o t h e simple e v i d e n c e o f t h e moral.) [Cf. GS, 1 : 3 6 3 / 3 8 7 and seeJS, 3 : 1 1 0 ( " R e l i g i o n u n d Sittlichkeit").]

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

141

(1924-26)

t h e title " T h e R e l i g i o n o f Reason O u t o f t h e S o u r c e s o f j u d a i s m "

1

because, in

o u r century, "religion o u t of the sources o f j u d a i s m " m i g h t otherwise suggest s o m e t h i n g c o m p l e t e l y different. 2

T h e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e title c o n t a i n s i n a n u t s h e l l t h e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e b o o k . P h i l o s o p h y is m i s s i n g , a n d w i t h o u t t h e l i n k o f p h i l o s o p h y t h e j o i n i n g t o ­ g e t h e r o f t h e o l o g y a n d politics m u s t appear arbitrary. T h u s t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e title a l o n e a r o u s e s t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e b o o k m a y h a v e n o n o b j e c t i v e 3

p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . W h a t is a p p l i e d h e r e is a h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e m e t h o d t h a t s t e m s p e r h a p s f r o m t h e t h e o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e o f a p o l o g e t i c s : S h o u l d a passage b y a n u n i n s p i r e d a u t h o r b e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t e r o r s h o u l d it s e e m t o h i m o b j e c t i o n a b l e , t h e n h e m u s t raise q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e a u t h o r ' s life. I n its d a r k recesses h e w i l l f i n d an e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e d a r k passage. T h e r e are t w o s u c h d a r k recesses i n S p i n o z a ' s life. First, h e " f o r c e d "

4

himself to accept

a n a n n u i t y for his p o l i t i c a l w r i t i n g s i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e p o w e r o f t h e s t a t e — this is t h e " p o l i t i c s " ; a n d s e c o n d , his h o s t i l e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e m a k e s h i m l o o k like " t h e informer, a distinct type characteristic of the history 5

o f p e r s e c u t i o n s o f t h e J e w s " — t h i s is t h e " t h e o l o g y . " C o h e n o n l y hints at these terrible c h a r g e s , i n s u p p o r t o f w h i c h h e c a n , i n c i d e n t a l l y , c i t e a n e u t r a l n o n 6

J e w i s h a u t h o r — a n " u n b i a s e d p a r t y " — b u t h e h i n t s at t h e m i n s u c h a w a y t h a t n o m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g is possible. I n a n y case, S p i n o z a ' s life is m a d e t o a p p e a r h e r e , in an astonishing w a y , as t h e m e d i a t i n g a g e n t b e t w e e n ideas t h a t " s t a n d 7

o n l y in a v e r y loose c o n n e c t i o n w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . " H o w e v e r perfect t h e e n ­ l i g h t e n m e n t p r o v i d e d b y this e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i c h m a y b e in c o n f o r m i t y w i t h S p i n o z a ' s life a n d m a y d o j u s t i c e t o it, w e w o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s l i k e t o a t t e m p t t o g e t b y w i t h o u t it. S i n c e w h a t is b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d at this p o i n t is n o t t h e m e t h o d o l o g y o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n g e n e r a l , m a y it suffice t o c o n t r a s t t h e k i n d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t focuses s t r o n g l y o n p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l k i n d . T h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e l a t t e r is e x p r e s s e d , v e r y a p t l y for o u r c o n t e x t , b y M o m m s e n ' s d i c t u m : It is n o t permissible t o refer t o " e g o t i s t i c a l " m o t i v e s w h e r e m o t i v e s " i n a c c o r d w i t h d u t y " suffice for a n e x p l a n a t i o n .

8

A s w e s a w , C o h e n b e l i e v e s t h a t h e m u s t d r a w o n t h e aforesaid e m b a r ­ rassing facts o f S p i n o z a ' s life i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e " u n n a t u r a l "

9

b e t w e e n literary c r i t i q u e [of t h e B i b l e ] a n d t h e " p u b l i c i s t i c t a s k " cal p a m p h l e t [Staatsschrift]

connection 1 0

of a politi­

o n behalf of the D u t c h politician Jan de W i t t .

1 1

If,

h o w e v e r , w e v i e w t h e Treatise as a w o r k a r i s i n g f r o m m o t i v e s " i n a c c o r d w i t h d u t y " — a s t h e title reads, t h e w o r k is m e a n t t o d e m o n s t r a t e " t h a t n o t o n l y c a n t h e f r e e d o m o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g b e g r a n t e d w i t h o u t d e t r i m e n t t o piety a n d peace within

the state, b u t its a b r o g a t i o n necessarily entails t h e a b r o g a t i o n 1 2

o f piety a n d p e a c e w i t h i n the s t a t e " — t h e n the necessity of c o n n e c t i n g t h e

142

Chapter

3

political p r o b l e m w i t h the philological o n e follows immediately. T h e free­ d o m of inquiry was to be protected from the public p o w e r s — a n d there w e r e t w o p u b l i c p o w e r s , t h e secular a n d t h e spiritual. The combination heterogeneous problems in the Treatise has a deep root, namely, 13

the separation of the two powers arises.

of the two

the context from

which

T h a t is t o say: w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s t a t e — 1 4

a n d s i n c e t h e r e f e r e n c e w a s t o a liberal g o v e r n m e n t — t h e r a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c ­ t i o n w o u l d h a v e sufficed. T h e claims o f t h e c h u r c h , h o w e v e r , r e s t e d less o n r e a s o n t h a n o n S c r i p t u r e . T h e r e f o r e it w a s n o t e n o u g h t o p r o v e t h a t r e a s o n d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e s u c h t u t e l a g e b y t h e c h u r c h , it also h a d t o b e s h o w n t h a t t h e c h u r c h c o u l d n o t rely o n S c r i p t u r e . T h i s proof, h o w e v e r , p r e s u p ­ p o s e d t h e successful r e f u t a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t o f t h e ecclesiastical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . S i n c e it m a y b e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e r e is a basis for t h e claims o f t h e c h u r c h i n S c r i p t u r e , it h a d t o b e s h o w n t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o its o w n d e e p e r m e a n i n g , S c r i p t u r e c a n n o t b e an a u t h o r i t y for r e s t r i c t i n g free i n q u i r y . Therefore Spinoza, aiming to secure the freedom of inquiry, had to m a k e h i s a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g c h u r c h a n d state s i m u l t a n e o u s l y unless h e w a n t e d t o i g n o r e t h e h i s t o r i c a l reality o f his t i m e . F o r t h e sake o f his a r g u m e n t w i t h t h e c h u r c h h e h a d t o o v e r t h r o w t h e s u p p o r t s o n w h i c h r e s t e d t h e ecclesiasti­ cal a r g u m e n t a t i o n , t h a t is, t h e a u t h o r i t y o f S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e ecclesiastical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . T h e g e n e r a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e Treatise is t h a t " n a t u ­ r a l , " if o n e p r o c e e d s f r o m its o b j e c t i v e t e n d e n c y [sachliche Tendenz].

T o be

s u r e , [ a c c o r d i n g t o C o h e n ] t h e t w o p r o b l e m s — t h e p r o b l e m o f political t h e o r y and the p r o b l e m of the critique of the Bible—have "lost" their "isolated o b j e c t i v i t y " ["isolierte Sachlichkeit

15

eingebüßt"].

"Lost"? C a n o n e speak of an

o b j e c t i v e i s o l a t i o n [sachliche Isoliertheit] f r o m o n e a n o t h e r o f t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d ecclesiastical-theological problems in the seventeenth century? " I n fact, t h e c r i t i q u e o f t h e B i b l e [Bibelkritik]

w o u l d n o t h a v e e n t e r e d this

b o o k h a d it n o t b e e n p r e p a r e d b y a n o t h e r m o m e n t in S p i n o z a ' s l i f e . " o t h e r m o m e n t is t h e m a j o r b a n

1 7

16

This

imposed on Spinoza by the Amsterdam

S y n a g o g u e , o r r a t h e r , t h e " p r o t e s t p a m p h l e t " [Protestschrift] w r i t t e n b y S p i n o z a "against the ban imposed o n h i m . "

1 8

G r a n t e d that Spinoza w o u l d n o t have

w r i t t e n t h o s e p a r t s o f t h e Treatise t h a t e m e r g e d f r o m t h e " p r o t e s t p a m p h l e t " if h e h a d n o t first w r i t t e n t h e " p r o t e s t p a m p h l e t " ; a n d t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e c o m p o s e d t h e l a t t e r if h e h a d n o t b e e n b a n n e d ; a n d t h a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n b a n n e d if-—well, if w h a t ? If h e h a d n o t said a n d d o n e t h e t h i n g s t h a t h e justified in his " p r o t e s t p a m p h l e t . " T h i s a m o u n t s t o circular r e a s o n i n g : S p i n o z a w o u l d n o t h a v e w r i t t e n his c r i t i q u e o f t h e B i b l e if h e h a d n o t h e l d v i e w s critical o f t h e B i b l e [bibelkritische

Ansichten].

W h e t h e r t h e Treatise o w e s its

existence i n p a r t t o a r e a c t i o n t o t h e b a n , o r w h e t h e r S p i n o z a i n t e n d e d t o state

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

143

t h e results o f his r e s e a r c h i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f w h a t e v e r n e e d h e m a y h a v e h a d for j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r r e v e n g e , is insignificant w h e n it c o m e s t o t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f its contents. T h i s is s o b e c a u s e t h e c o n t e n t s precede t h e b a n . H e w a s b a n n e d b e c a u s e o f " a b o m i n a b l e b l a s p h e m i e s against G o d a n d M o s e s . " Is it n e c e s s a r y t o p o i n t o u t t o H e r m a n n C o h e n t h e i d e a w i t h w h i c h t h e Critique Reason b e g i n s ?

19

of Pure

It is d o u b t f u l t h a t S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e B i b l e b e g i n s w i t h

t h e b a n ; a s s u m i n g , h o w e v e r , t h a t it b e g i n s w i t h t h e b a n , it n e e d n o t t h e r e f o r e arise f r o m it a l o n e . T h e essential t h i n g , t h a t is, t h e c o n t e n t s , w o u l d h a v e arisen f r o m S p i n o z a ' s o w n c o n t e x t o f t h o u g h t [Denkzusammenhang],

while

t h e sense i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e b a n m e r e l y p r o v i d e d t h e o c c a s i o n . " T h u s w e see that t h e ostensibly psychological interest m a k e s a critical

substitution

[UnterschleiJ] t h a t is fatal a n d typical." T h u s c o n c l u d e s . . . H e r m a n n C o h e n h i s e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d i d e a o n p a g e 97f. o f t h e t h i r d e d i t i o n o f his f a m o u s w o r k , Kant's

Theory of

Experience.

20

A p p e a l t o t h e facts o f t h e life h i s t o r y o f a t h i n k e r m a k e s sense if it d r a w s o n c o n f i r m e d facts o f s y m b o l i c v a l u e for h i s l i f e w o r k .

21

B u t w h a t is o n e t o

t h i n k o f e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t d r a w o n facts t h a t a r e m e r e l y c o n j e c t u r e d a n d a r e o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e for t h e w o r k t o b e e x p l a i n e d , s u c h as t h e f o l l o w i n g : S p i n o z a "apparently refrained from publishing t h e p a m p h l e t because h e w a n t e d t o l a u n c h t h e a t t a c k o n h i s e n e m i e s o n a l a r g e r scale a n d f r o m a b r o a d e r p e r s p e c ­ t i v e . P e r h a p s h e also d e r i v e d a n a m b i g u o u s satisfaction f r o m t h e i d e a t h a t h e w a s t o c o n d u c t h i s b a t d e against J u d a i s m a n d its biblical s o u r c e i n c o m b i n a ­ t i o n w i t h t h e spirit o f his p o l i t i c s " ?

22

If o n e w a n t e d t o r e j e c t this c o n j e c t u r e ,

t h e n C o h e n ' s explanation o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e o l o g y a n d politics i n t h e Treatise w o u l d n o t b e sufficient e v e n i n t h e m o s t superficial sense. F o r if S p i n o z a h a d w a n t e d t o w r i t e a p a m p h l e t o f p o l i t i c a l a g i t a t i o n for J a n d e W i t t , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d a p a m p h l e t against J u d a i s m , o n t h e o t h e r , h e w o u l d n o t h a v e n e e d e d t o c a r r y o u t b o t h plans b y m e a n s o f a single b o o k . T h u s , aside f r o m its lack o f o b j e c t i v i t y , C o h e n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y pure conjecture. T h e r e f o r e : * in Spinoza's theory [Staatstheorie]

historical context,

23

the connection between

and critique of the Bible is sufficiently

political

motivated."

* [ A d d e d i n t h e margin:] C o h e n h i m s e l f says s o m e t h i n g like this i n t h e Halberstadt lecture published i n Korrespondenzblatt. [Ed.: Cf. GS, 1 : 3 6 6 / 3 8 6 . T h e reference is m o s t likely t o JS, 1 : 2 0 8 - 1 0 , t h e addition t o t h e c o m b i n e d reprint o f t w o essays C o h e n had

previously published in Korrespondenzblatt des Verbandes der Deutschen Juden, " G e s i n n u n g " and " D e r N ä c h s t e " (see JS, 1 : 3 3 9 - 4 0 ) . In t h e a d d e d paragraphs, C o h e n a p o l o g i z e s for n o t m a i n t a i n i n g a strict separation b e t w e e n matters p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e relation b e t w e e n

144

Chapter

3

S o m u c h f o r t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e title. C o h e n also e x a m i n e s carefully t h e t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s a n d r e m a r k s i n this c o n n e c t i o n t h a t " a l m o s t t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e e n t i r e b o o k deals w i t h biblical t h e o l o g y , "

2 4

t h a t is, Treatise, c h a p t e r s 1—

1 1 . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t h e m e o f c h a p t e r s 1 7 a n d 1 8 is: t h e state a n d h i s t o r y o f t h e 2 5

H e b r e w s . " T h e Treatise h a s 2 0 c h a p t e r s . "

A f u r t h e r p r o o f o f S p i n o z a ' s evil

s c h e m e s . C o h e n w o u l d n o t g o i n t o s u c h statistical p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n if h e did n o t credit t h e m w i t h s o m e d e m o n s t r a t i v e force i n support o f t h e claim t h a t S p i n o z a " s a v e d u p all his r e s e n t m e n t against t h e b a n i n o r d e r t o p o u r it o u t i n this w o r k o n p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y b a s e d o n p h i l o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h i n t o the Bible."

2 6

C o h e n d o e s c o n c e d e t h a t t h e " p h i l o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e B i b l e " is a p r e c o n d i t i o n for " g i v i n g full v e n t t o t h e o l d g r u d g e . "

2 7

T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e is a

c e r t a i n s e p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e w i c k e d e n d f r o m t h e m e a n s that, in a n d o f itself, C o h e n m a y n o t o b j e c t t o . T h i s m e a n s is p u t i n s e r v i c e o f t h e i d e a " t h a t t h e religion o f j u d a i s m , f o u n d e d b y M o s e s , set, r a t h e r , as its sole e n d t h e e s t a b l i s h ­ m e n t a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e Jewish state."

26

A n d , t o C o h e n , this i d e a is S a ­

t a n i c — w h i l e h e c e r t a i n l y w o u l d n o t h a v e c o n s i d e r e d it satanic b u t d i v i n e i f s o m e o n e said t h a t t h e sole e n d o f t h e r e l i g i o n o f j u d a i s m is t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e socialist state. F o r all t h a t , this r e m a r k is e n t i r e l y u n r e ­ l a t e d t o t h e m a t t e r at issue; it m e r e l y serves t o p o i n t t o C o h e n ' s real t e n d e n c y i n his c r i t i q u e o f t h e Treatise.

29

P u t briefly: t h e sacrilege o f S p i n o z a c o n s i s t s ,

a c c o r d i n g t o C o h e n , i n t h e p o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n (in t h e sense c o n v e y e d a b o v e ) . T h e m o t i v e for this p o l i t i c i z a t i o n is t h e w i l l t o " d e s t r o y t h e Jewish concept of religion,"

3 0

a n d this w i l l is at least p a r t l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e

grudge that Spinoza nursed o n account of the ban. H e r e , for o n c e , it is advisable t h a t w e t o o d r a w o n t h e " u n b i a s e d p a r t y . "

3 1

It t e a c h e s u s t h a t " t h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e spiritual a n d t h e s e c u l a r p o w e r s i n t h e H e b r e w state w a s t h e s t a n d i n g a r g u m e n t for t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s o f C a l v i n i s t o r t h o d o x y . I n r e p l y t o this, S p i n o z a d e n i e s t h a t this s e p a r a t i o n w a s t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e M o s a i c L a w , a n d seeks t o p r o v e t h a t t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t o f priesdy i n d e p e n d e n c e , a n d even of the institution of prophecy, was a calam­ i t y f o r t h e state. In this respect Spinoza's

argument

with Judaism

is in complete

G o d a n d m a n ( t h e o l o g y ) and mattere pertaining t o t h e relation b e t w e e n m e n (morality, politics). I n o t h e r w o r d s , as Strauss points o u t correctly, C o h e n admits that there m a y b e perfectly respectable reasons for d o i n g w h a t S p i n o z a d o e s i n Theological-Political Trea­

tise.] " It m a y b e useful t o refer t o t h e treatment o f questions c o n c e r n i n g biblical criti­ c i s m i n H o b b e s ' s w o r k o f political p h i l o s o p h y , Leviathan [Ed.: First p u b l i s h e d 1 6 5 1 ] .

Historical-Philological agreement

with the innermost

Writings on Spinoza

end of the Treatise."

32

(1924-26)

145

H e r e t o o , for a n o b j e c t i v e

e x a m i n a t i o n t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o search for m o t i v e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e t h a t are " i n a c c o r d w i t h d u t y . " S p i n o z a w a n t s t o fight against t h e d a m a g e t o p o l i t i c a l life t h a t arises f r o m t h e c o e x i s t e n c e o f t h e t w o p o w e r s . T h e d e f e n d e r s o f this c o e x i s t e n c e [of t h e p o w e r s ] s u p p o r t e d t h e i r c l a i m b y t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e H e ­ b r e w n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e it has t o b e s h o w n a d h o m i n e m t h a t this c o e x i s t e n c e w a s n o t salutary, t h a t t h e biblical m o d e l s o f spiritual p o w e r w e r e e i t h e r n o t " s p i r i t u a l " o r w e r e n o t m o d e l s . T h e r e is n o n e e d t o h a v e r e c o u r s e t o t h e b a t h o s o f a t h i r s t for r e v e n g e i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n this t h o r o u g h l y clear a n d self-sustaining c o n t e x t . W e s a w a b o v e t h a t S p i n o z a w a n t s , as it w e r e , t o w i n r e c o g n i t i o n for t h e n e u t r a l i t y o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r v i s - à - v i s state a n d c h u r c h . H o w is this t o b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e fact t h a t h e n o w sides w i t h t h e p a r t y o f t h e state a n d against t h e p a r t y o f t h e c h u r c h ? Is it n e c e s s a r y h e r e t o i n v o k e t h e t w o h u n ­ d r e d guilder? T h e o b j e c t i v e reason for S p i n o z a ' s partisanship is that, o n g r o u n d s o f p r i n c i p l e , h e n e e d s t o d e n y t o r e l i g i o u s associations t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a " s p i r i t u a l power"

\geistliche Gewalt] w h i l e , n o less o n g r o u n d s o f p r i n c i p l e , h e

n e e d s t o e m p h a s i z e t h e p o w e r c h a r a c t e r [Gewaltcharakter] c i a t i o n [des staatlichen

Verbandes].

of the political asso­

W h a t e v e r o n e m a y m a k e of the objective

j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f this d e n i a l [of t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a " s p i r i t u a l power"

to religious

a s s o c i a t i o n s ] , it suffices for o u r c r i t i q u e t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n C o h e n ' s e n t i r e s t a n d p o i n t t h a t h e c o u l d u s e t o o b j e c t t o this d e n i a l . T h u s , it is n o t S p i n o z a ' s fault if his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e B i b l e suffers f r o m u n s c i e n t i f i c e n d s t h a t a r e n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h an e l u c i d a t i o n o f t h o s e c o n t e n t s for t h e i r o w n sake. If O r t h o d o x y w a s able t o m a k e its p o l i t i c a l claims b u l l e t p r o o f b y m e a n s o f a n a p p e a l t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f S c r i p ­ t u r e , t h e n o n e c o u l d n o t b l a m e t h e liberals if t h e y a v a i l e d t h e m s e l v e s o f t h e s a m e m e a n s . A f t e r all, S p i n o z a w a s n o t t h e first t o l o o k at t h e B i b l e f r o m a p o l i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , this p e r s p e c t i v e b e i n g s e l f - e v i d e n t i n his a g e : h e m e r e l y t u r n e d t h e tables w i t h a s t o n i s h i n g e n e r g y . It w a s p a r t o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l l a n d ­ s c a p e f r o m w h i c h S p i n o z a p r o c e e d e d t h a t , " i n p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n i n g , biblical analogies w e r e o f the strongest demonstrative f o r c e . "

3 3

T h e well-known rea­

s o n w h y t h e C a l v i n i s t s s u p p o r t e d [their p o l i t i c a l claims] w i t h t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is t h a t i n t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e t h e r e a r e " s p i r i t u a l p o w e r s " t h a t signify a g r e a t d e a l for c o n c r e t e p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s , w h i l e t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t separates G o d a n d C a e s a r , a n d c o m ­ m a n d s t h e C h r i s t i a n t o s u b m i t t o t h e secular a u t h o r i t i e s . H e n c e , if a n o p p o ­ n e n t o f C a l v i n i s t o r t h o d o x y w a n t e d t o deal it a d e c i s i v e b l o w , h e t o o h a d t o f o c u s o n t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e a n d d e p r i v e its " s p i r i t u a l p o w e r s " o f t h e i r r e l i ­ gious halo.

146

Chapter T h e r e f o r e : in Spinoza's

Bible is sufficiently

3

historical context,

the politicizing

interpretation

of the

motivated.

A f u r t h e r m o m e n t in t h e spiritual s i t u a t i o n o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y is t h e P r o t e s t a n t o r i e n t a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n t o w a r d faith a n d t o w a r d S c r i p t u r e . F o r the Protestant o f t h a t time, the W o r d of G o d , revelation, universal religion, d i v i n e l a w , a n d f a i t h — a l l t h e s e w e r e i n fact, if n o t i d e n t i c a l , t h e n c e r t a i n l y o f e q u a l v a l u e . F o r S p i n o z a [ , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , ] it w a s , t o b e g i n w i t h , selfe v i d e n t a n d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h his e n t i r e s t a n d p o i n t t o g i v e p r e c e d e n c e t o a u t o n o m o u s k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis]

over the authority of Scripture. H o w ­

e v e r , h e also h a d t o s h o w n o w , a r g u i n g a d h o m i n e m , n o t c o n t a i n t h e essential k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnisse],

3 4

that Scripture does

t a u g h t in p a r t also b y t h e

C h u r c h , t h a t w e o w e t o r e a s o n ; i n d e e d , e v e n t h a t S c r i p t u r e , a c c o r d i n g t o its o w n m e a n i n g , d o e s n o t at all w i s h t o i m p a r t k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnisse]. S p i n o z a , k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnis] e d g e [Erkenntnis]

For

is a l w a y s ( m e d i a t e d o r i m m e d i a t e ) k n o w l ­

of G o d . Given the ontic primacy of G o d over the created

things, delegating the k n o w l e d g e of G o d to Scripture and the k n o w l e d g e of created things to a u t o n o m o u s reason w o u l d again lead to an authoritarian d e p e n d e n c e o f r e a s o n [ o n S c r i p t u r e ] . H e n c e it is a q u e s t i o n o f life o r d e a t h for r e a s o n t o p r o v e its o w n p r i o r i t y o v e r S c r i p t u r e , a n d e v e n , if p o s s i b l e , t o p r o v e t h e i r r e l e v a n c e o f S c r i p t u r e w i t h r e g a r d t o m a t t e r s o f scientific v a l i d i t y . O n l y if G o d w e r e t o h a v e n o q u a l i t y o f e x i s t e n c e [Seins-Charakter], w e r e , say, a n i d e a o r a n i d e a l ,

35

if H e

a n d if t h e r e f o r e t r u e k n o w l e d g e o f e x i s t i n g

t h i n g s [seiende Dinge] w a s possible e v e n w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e t o G o d (a n o t i o n o n a c c o u n t o f w h i c h , i n t h e age o f S p i n o z a , o n e w o u l d d o u b t l e s s l y h a v e b e e n b u r n t at t h e s t a k e a n d p e r h a p s w i t h o u t S p i n o z a p r o t e s t i n g against it), t h e n o n l y c o u l d r e a s o n d o w i t h o u t t h e p r o o f t h a t faith a n d S c r i p t u r e as t h e n o r m o f faith h a v e n o essential c o g n i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h i s is n o t t o r u l e o u t t h e fact t h a t e l e m e n t s o f k n o w l e d g e [Erkenntnismomente]

c o n t r i b u t e t o faith o r t o S c r i p ­

t u r e . If S p i n o z a n e e d e d t o " g e n e r a t e this m i s c o n c e p t i o n [Unbegriff] o f r e l i g i o n b y entirely excluding the k n o w l e d g e of G o d from faith," t h a t t h e O r t h o d o x m i s c o n c e p t i o n [Unbegriff]

36

h e d i d so i n o r d e r

of science w o u l d n o t prevail,

and n o t in order to damage the reputation of Scripture and ofjudaism. N o w w h a t d o e s C o h e n say? " T h e first c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t

follows

from

this u n n a t u r a l c o n n e c t i o n o f p r o b l e m s (i.e., t h a t o f politics a n d philology) is t h a t Spinoza does n o t seek to determine the concept o f religion from t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f his Ethics, b u t r a t h e r h e d e r i v e s it f r o m S c r i p t u r e , a n d h e n c e e q u a t e s it a b s o l u t e l y w i t h t h e c o n t e n t o f S c r i p t u r e , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s o - c a l l e d ' W o r d o f G o d . ' T h u s t h e r e f o r m e d in his m i n d an i d e n t i t y o f t h e c o n c e p t s : W o r d of G o d , revelation, universal religion, divine law, a n d faith."

37

As w e

h a v e s e e n , S p i n o z a w a s n o t t h e first for w h o m this i d e n t i t y f o r m e d itself. T h i s

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924—26)

147

identity seems to b e n o m o r e " u n n a t u r a l " than t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f politics a n d p h i l o l o g y if o n e c o n s i d e r s t h e q u e s t i o n : for w h o s e e n l i g h t e n m e n t d i d S p i n o z a 7

w r i t e t h e Treatise , a n d n o t t h e q u e s t i o n : w h o p a i d h i m a n d w h o m d i d h e w a n t t o d e n o u n c e ? It m a y b e a m a t t e r o f u n r e a s o n a b l e identifications a n d c o n ­ n e c t i o n s ; b u t these w e r e j u s t as " n a t u r a l " in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y as t h e c o n ­ n e c t i o n a n d identification o f p r o p h e c y a n d socialism in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e r e f o r e : in Spinoza's

historical context, the identification

of religion and Scrip­

ture, and thereby the denial of the cognitive value of religion, is adequately

motivated.

A t this p o i n t , a c o m m e n t o n a m a t t e r o f p r i n c i p l e m a y b e i n o r d e r . W e are g u i d e d h e r e b y t h e interests o f J u d a i s m . T h e s e interests are af­ f e c t e d in t h e g r a v e s t m a n n e r b y t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h i c h i m a g e o f t h e b i b l i c a l w o r l d possesses t h e b i n d i n g p o w e r o f t h e t r u t h . T h i s is w h y S p i n o z a , w h o t h r o u g h his c r i t i q u e c o n t r i b u t e d m o r e t h a n a n y o n e else t o t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i m a g e , is o f i n t e r e s t t o us. N o w , it is t r u e t h a t t h e critical a r g u m e n ­ t a t i o n as s u c h is, w i t h i n c e r t a i n limits, i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l , p o ­ litical, o r selfish m o t i v e s t h a t o c c a s i o n e d it i n its a u t h o r . B u t t h e d e e p e r s i g ­ n i f i c a n c e o f this c r i t i q u e d e p e n d s o n its p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e , o n t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f m o t i v e s t h a t a n i m a t e s it. If this c o n n e c t i o n is w o r t h l e s s , t h e n t h e c r i t i q u e is a purely philological

38

enterprise. This was C o h e n ' s claim: Spinoza e l a b o ­

r a t e d " h i s ideas t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g a literary effect, i n d e e d a n effect o n c o n ­ temporary issues."

39

H e e v e n t o p p e d this c l a i m b y s e e k i n g t o m a k e p l a u s i b l e

the insincerity o f the entire critique b y p o i n t i n g to Spinoza's hatred of J u d a ­ i s m . H e arrives at this result: " S u c h a m a n m a y h a v e b e e n able t o e l u c i d a t e t h e a g e a n d t h e o r d e r o f t h e biblical s c r i p t u r e s . T h e s e m e r i t s are fully c o m p r e ­ h e n s i b l e . B u t biblical c r i t i c i s m [Bibelkritik] h a u s t e d itself i n s u c h philology,

w o u l d b e i n b a d s h a p e if it e x ­

if its understanding

o f t h e B i b l e , its u n d e r s t a n d ­

i n g of the prophets, truly and inwardly rested o n Spinoza's shoulders."

40

Much

d e p e n d s o n t h e t e n a b i l i t y o f t h e claims l e a d i n g t o s u c h a j u d g m e n t . W e w e r e able t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e s e c o n d c l a i m , a n d t o t a k e t h e e d g e off t h e first. W e d i d this b y s h o w i n g t h a t , i n S p i n o z a ' s historical c o n t e x t , t h e " u n n a t u r a l " c o n n e c ­ t i o n o f politics a n d philology, t h e politicizing t e n d e n c y o f the interpretation o f the Bible, a n d the denial of the cognitive character of religion necessarily e m e r g e f r o m t h e s t r i v i n g for t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f s c i e n c e a n d t h e state f r o m ecclesiastical t u t e l a g e . Spinoza by legitimate motives,

was compelled to engage in the critique of the Bible

whether or not he was full of hatred toward

Judaism.

II. 41

T h e t o p i c a l a n d historically c o n d i t i o n e d e n d o f t h e Treatise, as l e g i t i m a t e as it m a y b e , is a s o u r c e o f e r r o r s for a g e n u i n e c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e c o n t e n t s

Chapter

148 of the Bible.

4 2

3

T o b e s u r e , t h e s t r i v i n g for t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f s c i e n c e a n d t h e

state f r o m ecclesiastical t u t e l a g e is, i n this r e s p e c t , n o m o r e d a n g e r o u s t h a n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e t h a t s u p p o r t s ecclesiastical claims t o p o w e r . H o w ­ e v e r , s u c h a c o n f r o n t a t i o n m e r e l y e x c u s e s , b u t it d o e s n o t s u r m o u n t , t h e l a c k o f o b j e c t i v i t y i n S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e r e s e a r c h [Bibelforschung]. ad h o m i n e m .

4 3

Spinoza must argue

T h u s h e r u n s t h e risk o f b e i n g d i v e r t e d f r o m t h e d e e p e r c o n ­

n e c t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l m o t i v e s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e Ethics, a n d o f e v e n t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c t i n g this c o n n e c t i o n . If o n e c o u l d p r o v e s u c h a c o n t r a d i c t i o n , t h e c h a r g e o f a l a c k o f o b j e c t i v i t y w o u l d g a i n c o n s i d e r a b l y in w e i g h t . If, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e s h o w e d t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f one s u c h a t t e m p t e d proof, w e still w o u l d n o t h a v e s e c u r e d t h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f t h e Treatise, w h i c h , i n this c o n t e x t , m e a n s : its i n n e r c o n n e c t i o n a n d h a r m o n y w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s y s t e m o f 44

t h e Ethics.

P e r h a p s o t h e r c o n t r a d i c t i o n s c o u l d still b e p r o v e n ! A t this p o i n t ,

h o w e v e r , the positive p r o b l e m of deriving the fundamental principles of S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e f r o m t h e s y s t e m o f t h e Ethics c a n o n l y b e p o s e d . W i t h its s o l u t i o n , t h e t o p i c a l i t y o f t h e Treatise w o u l d b e freed f r o m t h e g r a v e s t suspicions. F r o m n o w o n , C o h e n is c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o v i n g a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e ­ t w e e n philosophical theses. This b e i n g so, the plane o c c u p i e d in t h e h i t h e r t o d i s c u s s e d p a r t o f t h e analysis is a b a n d o n e d : w e b r e a t h e again t h e p u r e air o f philosophical argumentation. C o h e n h a d r e p r o a c h e d S p i n o z a for " s e e k i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o n n o t f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f his Ethics, b u t t o d e r i v e it f r o m S c r i p ­ ture."

4 5

H e s a w this as t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e p u b l i c i s t i c a n d d e n u n c i a t o r y

tendency.

4 6

W e h a v e s e e n t h a t S p i n o z a a r g u e s ad h o m i n e m . W h e t h e r this

a r g u m e n t a t i o n leads t o a n " u t t e r c o n t r a d i c t i o n . . . w i t h t h e S p i n o z a o f t h e 47

Ethics"

s e e m s , t h e r e f o r e , t o b e o f little i m p o r t a n c e .

4 8

T h e contradiction could

b e e x p l a i n e d as an e x t e r n a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o ecclesiastical t e a c h i n g s , a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n n o t u n c o m m o n in t h e a g e o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t . B u t t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n w o u l d r e m a i n , a n d it w o u l d g i v e n e w life t o t h e s u s p i c i o n . H e n c e w e w i l l h a v e t o t a k e a closer l o o k . Cohen's first philosophical

objection refers t o t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e

c o n c e p t o f t h e w i l l i n t h e Ethics a n d t h a t w h i c h is p r e s u p p o s e d i n t h e t e a c h ­ i n g s o f t h e Treatise o n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n , o r r a t h e r , o n t h e o l o g y . " A c c o r d i n g t o S p i n o z a , faith is o b e d i e n c e t o G o d . C o n s e q u e n d y , faith establishes a n d signifies n o t a t h e o r e t i c a l r e l a t i o n t o G o d b u t m e r e l y a p r a c t i ­ cal o n e . "

4 9

W h y d o e s S p i n o z a d i s p u t e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f faith? First,

h e d o e s this for t h e sake o f s a f e g u a r d i n g t h e a u t o n o m y o f r e a s o n . B u t s e c o n d , h e also d o e s so i n o r d e r t o o v e r c o m e t h e d e p e n d e n c e o f blessedness o n b e l i e f i n all o f t h e v i e w s a n d e v e n t s h a n d e d d o w n i n t h e B i b l e . N o w C o h e n , h o w -

Historical-Philological e v e r , s u b s t i t u t e s his (as it w e r e ) P r o t e s t a n t faith

in Scripture—for

Writings on Spinoza 5 0

(1924-26)

M a i m o n i d e a n - K a n t i a n rational faith

149 for t h e

w h i c h , o n e m a y p r e s u m e , t h e r e is a J e w i s h

a n a l o g u e , as is s h o w n , for e x a m p l e , b y t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h e b a n o n S p i n o z a . It is this P r o t e s t a n t faith i n S c r i p t u r e w h o s e t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e is a t t a c k e d b y Spinoza. O n the other hand, the n o r m of C o h e n ' s

Maimonidean-Kantian

rational faith is n o t w h a t is said a b o u t G o d i n Scripture i n a s m u c h as it is S c r i p ­ t u r e , b u t r a t h e r it is t h e concept o f G o d — a n d h e is s u r p r i s e d t h a t S p i n o z a e x c l u d e s k n o w l e d g e o f G o d f r o m faith in spite of this. S p i n o z a d o e s n o t k n o w o f t h e " f a i t h " t h a t C o h e n substitutes for t h e discussions o f t h e Treatise*

Rather,

first a n d a b o v e all, h e k n o w s o f faith i n S c r i p t u r e as t h e n o r m o f t r u t h a n d t h e c r i t e r i o n o f a p i o u s state o f m i n d [Gesinnung],

faith t h a t w a s t h e n a n a c t u a l i t y

o f t h e h i g h e s t o r d e r . T h e r e f o r e , S p i n o z a ' s thesis c i t e d i n C o h e n ' s w o r d s m e a n s n o n e o t h e r t h a n this: faith i n t h e " t r u t h " o f all passages o f S c r i p t u r e has n o s i g n i f i c a n c e for k n o w l e d g e . T o b e s u r e , S p i n o z a s u b s t r u c t s his own c o n c e p t o f faith b e n e a t h t h e O r t h o d o x o n e .

5 1

Faith is n o t faith i n a c o n t e n t for t h e s a k e

o f this c o n t e n t , b u t r a t h e r faith, insofar as it m a k e s o n e blessed [selig], c a n o n l y b e t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e v e r y t u r n o f m i n d [Gesinnung] 52

w h i c h itself is, " b l e s s e d n e s s " [Seligkeit].

w h o s e r e w a r d is, o r

T h i s t u r n o f m i n d is o b e d i e n c e t o

the divine c o m m a n d m e n t of love of the neighbor. Spinoza examines the [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e a n d finds t h a t t h e o n l y sense i n w h i c h faith is c o m m a n d e d i n S c r i p t u r e is t h e sense i n w h i c h h e u n d e r s t a n d s it, n o t , h o w e v e r , as faith i n t h e o p i n i o n s a n d actions r e p o r t e d in Scripture. A t this p o i n t , C o h e n b r i n g s in t h e " s h a r p s h o o t i n g g u n s o f t h e

53

Ethics":

" H o w , t h e n , is h u m a n a c t i o n possible if it is n o t g u i d e d b y r e a s o n , w h i c h , i n S p i n o z a , is in a n y case s y n o n y m o u s w i t h t h e w i l l ? " m o r a l action are inscribed in every h u m a n b e i n g ,

5 5

5 4

Because the norms of

e v e n in o n e n o t g u i d e d b y

r e a s o n , a n d b e c a u s e e v e r y o n e c a n a c c e p t t h e m f r o m S c r i p t u r e . " T h e w i l l is t h u s t o b e m o v e d b y S c r i p t u r e e v e n if it r e m a i n s u n m o v e d b y r e a s o n ! "

5 6

I n d e e d , those w h o s e will c a n n o t be m o v e d b y reason are b r o u g h t to m o r a l a c t i o n b y o b e d i e n c e a l o n e . T h e w i l l o f t h e u n w i s e is i d e n t i c a l w i t h his o b e d i ­ e n t r e a s o n , j u s t as t h e w i l l o f t h e w i s e is i d e n t i c a l w i t h his a u t o n o m o u s r e a s o n . I n a n y case: intellectus et voluntas unum et idem sunt [intellect a n d w i l l are o n e and the same].

5 7

T h e r e f o r e , it is n o t possible t o s p e a k o f a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e ­

t w e e n t h e d o c t r i n e [in S p i n o z a ' s Treatise] o f t h e m e r e l y p r a c t i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f faith a n d t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e Ethics. T h e d e e p e r c a u s e o f t h e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

* [ A d d e d i n the margin:] " T h e cultural historical significance o f Protestantism consists in the d e t a c h i n g [Ablösen] o f religion f r o m s c i e n c e , o f s c i e n c e f r o m r e l i g i o n . " (Jüd. Sehr. III 1 1 4 ) . [Cf. GS,

1:372, 3 8 7 and s e e J S , 3 : 1 1 4 . ]

Chapter

150

3

is t h a t C o h e n o v e r l o o k s t h e hierarchy t h a t is a c k n o w l e d g e d h e r e as w e l l as e l s e w h e r e in S p i n o z a ' s s y s t e m , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h o b e d i e n c e t o G o d is a l o w e r f o r m , l e g i t i m a t e i n itself, o f t h e h u m a n r e l a t i o n t o G o d , w h o s e h i g h e s t r u n g is t h e amor Dei intellectualis

[intellectual love of G o d ] . Instead, C o h e n

finds i n t h e Treatise a n " i r r e c o n c i l a b l e opposition losophy."

b e t w e e n religion and p h i ­

5 8

T h e truth can b e c o m p r e h e n d e d by a u t o n o m o u s , theoretical reason alone. T h e salvation o f o n e ' s soul, h o w e v e r , m u s t n o t b e m a d e d e p e n d e n t o n k n o w l ­ e d g e o r else it w o u l d b e u n a t t a i n a b l e for m o s t h u m a n b e i n g s .

59

T r u t h can

o n l y b e k n o w n , it c a n n o t b e b e l i e v e d i n . O n e has a t t a i n e d it o n l y w h e n o n e u n d e r s t a n d s it; if o n e d o e s n o t u n d e r s t a n d it, o n e has b u t w o r d s . T r u t h s t h a t are n o t u n d e r s t o o d b u t m e r e l y believed in can e n d a n g e r the salvation o f the s o u l (e.g., t h e d o c t r i n e o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n , if m i s u n d e r s t o o d , c a n l e a d t o t h e m o s t lax morality); a n d u n t r u t h s that are i n w a r d l y accepted a n d shape t h e h e a r t o f a h u m a n b e i n g c a n c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e salvation o f t h e s o u l (e.g., t h e b e l i e f i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f angels). W e t h e r e f o r e u n d e r s t a n d S p i n o z a ' s thesis, w h i c h C o h e n expresses thus: Spinoza " p u t religion altogether outside the pale of t r u t h . "

6 0

H e q u o t e s , full o f i n d i g n a t i o n : " D o g m a s o f this k i n d c o u l d

b e r e g a r d e d as p i o u s i n o n e a n d as i m p i o u s i n a n o t h e r ; this is b e c a u s e t h e y a r e merely to be j u d g e d according to their w o r k s . "

6 1

For C o h e n , "it cannot be

d o u b t e d t h a t this t h e o r y m u s t dissolve itself i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . "

62

W e shall s e e .

In order to create an authority r e m o v e d from the confusion of opinions a b o u t r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e o f his c e n t u r y , S p i n o z a establishes a n u m b e r o f d o g ­ m a s that are the logical presupposition of o b e d i e n c e to G o d a n d love of the neighbor.

6 3

W e are n o t c o n c e r n e d h e r e w i t h truth, or w i t h validity o n t h e

h i g h e s t l e v e l o f t h e h u m a n m i n d , t h a t is, o n t h e level o f a u t o n o m o u s a n d p h i l o s o p h i z i n g r e a s o n . F o r r e a s o n , after all, t h e r e is n o c a t e g o r y o f o b e d i e n c e t o G o d ! C o h e n especially o b j e c t s t o t h e fact t h a t t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f G o d is m e n t i o n e d i n this c o n t e x t . " A n d is t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f G o d n o t s u p p o s e d t o rest o n k n o w l e d g e ? T h e specialist i n J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n d o e s n o t m e n t i o n at all t h a t u n i q u e n e s s is a p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e a l o n e . . . , "

6 4

It w a s

u n n e c e s s a r y for S p i n o z a t o raise a b i g fuss a b o u t t h e fact t h a t u n i q u e n e s s , i n a l e g i t i m a t e a n d u l t i m a t e sense, is accessible o n l y t o t h o u g h t . B u t it is n o t a c ­ cessible t o e v e r y o n e ' s t h o u g h t , a n d [yet] e v e r y o n e w h o w a n t s t o l e a d a d e ­ c e n t life m u s t , at least a c c o r d i n g t o S p i n o z a , b e l i e v e i n this u n i q u e n e s s . " B e ­ c a u s e d e v o t i o n , v e n e r a t i o n , a n d l o v e s p r i n g o n l y from t h e p r e e m i n e n c e o f t h e o n e a b o v e all o t h e r s . "

6 5

I n a similar m a n n e r , C o h e n discusses y e t a n o t h e r o f S p i n o z a ' s d o g m a s . H e r e , t o o , h e fails t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e , so t o s p e a k , s o c i o p e d a g o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f S p i n o z a ' s d o g m a t i c s — w h i c h , b y t h e w a y , is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e p e r h a p s

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924—26)

151

m o s t c o n s c i o u s , at least t h e m o s t u p r i g h t a n d d i s i n t e r e s t e d , f o r m o f t h e pia fraus [ p i o u s f r a u d ] . C o h e n takes it for a " p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n . "

66

C o h e n : If k n o w l e d g e , r a t h e r t h a n r e l i g i o n , p o i n t s " t h e w a y e v e n t o w a r d p r a c t i c e , " " t h e n S c r i p t u r e c o u l d n o t a t t a i n its i d e n t i t y w i t h faith. S c r i p t u r e i n r e g a r d t o its ' p r o p e r ' c o n t e n t , h o w e v e r , is s u p p o s e d t o b e a u t h e n t i c a t e d h e r e as t h e ' W o r d o f G o d . ' W e k n o w t h a t this is t h e m a i n t o p i c o f t h e

67

Treatise."

W e k n o w t h a t this p r e s e n t a t i o n reverses S p i n o z a ' s t r a i n o f t h o u g h t . H e p r o ­ c e e d s f r o m t h e h i s t o r i c a l l y actual " i d e n t i t y " o f faith a n d S c r i p t u r e . T h i s i d e n ­ t i t y p o i n t s t o w a r d t h e possibility o f a m o r a l p r a c t i c e t h a t is n o t f o u n d e d o n knowledge. Cohen's

second philosophical

objection is m u c h w e i g h t i e r . It is n o l o n g e r

l e v e l e d against a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n S p i n o z a ' s i n d i v i d u a l theses b u t r a t h e r d i r e c t l y against t h e c o r e o f t h e system: e t h i c a l i d e a l i s m is m a d e i m p o s s i b l e b y t h e c o m p l e t e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e e t h i c a l i n t o t h e U n i t y o f N a t u r e [die Natur].

Eine

S i n c e o u r c o n c e r n h e r e is o n l y w i t h B i b l e s c i e n c e , w e c o n t e n t o u r ­

selves w i t h m e r e l y m e n t i o n i n g this f u n d a m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p p o s i t i o n . W e shall c o m m e n t o n o n l y o n e p o i n t . C o h e n calls S p i n o z a a " s o p h i s t , "

6 8

n a m e l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o his c o m p l e t e e l i m i n a t i o n , w i t h i n t h e U n i t y o f N a ­ t u r e , o f o p p o s i t i o n s o f v a l u e [ Wertgegensätze]

that belong u n d e r the p u r v i e w

o f r e a s o n , " f o r N a t u r e ' s b o u n d s are n o t set b y t h e l a w s o f h u m a n r e a s o n . "

6 9

S p i n o z a e x p r e s s e s this i d e a i n y e t a n o t h e r w a y : O u r k n o w l e d g e is o n l y p a r ­ tial.

70

T h a t is t h e p r o f o u n d i d e a o f J o b , c h a p t e r 3 8 . W e u n d e r s t a n d

7 1

that

C o h e n feels r e p e l l e d b y it, C o h e n w h o asks: " H o w c a n n a t u r e , h o w c a n G o d a n s w e r for this d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g h u m a n b e i n g s "

7 2

(seil, t h e difference b e ­

t w e e n t h o s e w h o are d e s i g n a t e d b y n a t u r e t o live a c c o r d i n g t o r e a s o n a n d t h o s e n o t so d e s i g n a t e d ) ? M e a n w h i l e h e p u t s S p i n o z a a m o n g t h e " m y s t i c s " w h o a r e " n o t satisfied w i t h t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f G o d " !

7 3

C o h e n v i e w s S p i n o z a ' s p o l i t i c a l d o c t r i n e [Staatslehre]

w i t h great antipa­

t h y . W e d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t w o m o m e n t s i n this d o c t r i n e . 1. T h e f o u n d a ­ tion

7 4

o f t h e state o n e g o i s m a n d p r u d e n c e , o n " e t e r n a l t r u t h s " — a s S p i n o z a

says s e r i o u s l y a n d C o h e n ironically. J u s t as easily as h e d i d for t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t t h e r e w a r d o f v i r t u e is v i r t u e itself,

75

C o h e n could have certainly i n d i ­

c a t e d t h e s o u r c e o f this d o c t r i n e i n Pirkei Avot: m e n t , m e n w o u l d swallow each other alive."

7 6

" B u t for t h e fear o f g o v e r n ­ 2. T h e d e m a n d , based o n the

a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , for a s u p e r o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e p o w e r o f t h e state o v e r t h e c h u r c h . In o u r c o n t e x t , this s e c o n d p o i n t is m o r e e s s e n ­ tial. I q u o t e t h e m a i n passage f r o m S p i n o z a : " H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e h u m a n b e ­ i n g s usually e r r t h e m o s t i n r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e y c o m p e t e w i t h e a c h o t h e r i n v e n t i n g all sorts o f t h i n g s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e casts o f m i n d (as is a b u n d a n d y c o n f i r m e d b y e x p e r i e n c e ) , so s u r e l y t h e r i g h t o f t h e

152

Chapter

3

state w o u l d b e m a d e d e p e n d e n t o n t h e v a r i o u s j u d g m e n t s a n d affects o f i n ­ d i v i d u a l s if n o o n e w e r e legally r e q u i r e d t o o b e y t h e s u p r e m e p o w e r i n m a t ­ ters t h a t h e h i m s e l f i m p u t e s t o r e l i g i o n . "

77

W e n o t e t h a t b e h i n d this j u d g ­

m e n t s t a n d s t h e h i s t o r i c a l reality o f s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y N e t h e r l a n d s , w i t h its p l e t h o r a o f sects, a n d t h a t , i n a n y case, it refers t o this h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y r a t h e r t h a n t o a n y J e w i s h m a t t e r s . H o w e v e r w o r t h l e s s its r e a s o n s , t h e c l e r g y t h a t w i s h e d t o r e b e l against t h e s e c u l a r a u t h o r i t y c o u l d d o so, w i t h t h e m o s t effective p r e t e n s e , b y a p p e a l i n g t o t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s . I n l i g h t o f this s i t u ­ a t i o n , S p i n o z a ' s j u d g m e n t — a j u d g m e n t t h a t is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d as t h o r ­ o u g h l y a d h o m i n e m — t o t h e effect t h a t t h e p r o p h e t s " s t i r r e d u p t h e p e o p l e m o r e than they i m p r o v e d t h e m , " and that they w e r e "often found intoler­ able e v e n b y p i o u s k i n g s , "

7 8

is n o t w h o l l y i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e .

w e n e e d n o t s u s p e c t t h a t b e h i n d this j u d g m e n t lies t h e s a t a n i c

80

7 9

I n a n y case, consciousness

o f o p p o s i t i o n t o e t h i c a l i d e a l i s m o r , e v e n less, a n i n d i r e c t p r o o f o f t h e e t h i c a l idealism o f the prophets. W e m a i n t a i n : the moral principle of the Treatise does not contradict that of the Ethics. Spinoza's

general way of proceeding in the Treatise can be justified

systematic perspective,

because the fundamental

legitimacy of the argumentatio that is important mental to the

ad hominem

also from a

necessity and the objective [sachlich]

(in the unusual extension

of its

application

to the Treatise) follows from the principle of hierarchy that is funda­

Ethics.

III. W e have a t t e m p t e d to s h o w that the p u r p o s e a n d disposition of the

Treatise

c a n b e easily u n d e r s t o o d f r o m t h e g e n e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e o f t h e s e v e n ­ t e e n t h c e n t u r y . I n this a t t e m p t it has b e e n u n n e c e s s a r y t o stress S p i n o z a ' s J e w i s h c o n n e c t i o n s , aside f r o m t h e m o r e t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n o f his k n o w l e d g e o f l a n g u a g e a n d l i t e r a t u r e . A t least it s h o u l d h a v e b e c o m e clear t h a t a n o b j e c ­ t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p u r p o s e a n d d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e Treatise is e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e " p e r s o n a l " m o t i v e s stressed b y C o h e n . N o w , it is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t S p i n o z a ' s g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s h o w s itself m o r e i n t h e mentation

of his investigation,

s c i e n c e [bibelwissenschaftliche

imple­

n a m e l y , i n t h a t it d i r e c t e d his r e s e a r c h i n B i b l e Forschung]

t o w a r d t h o s e facts w h o s e d i s c l o s u r e

a m o u n t e d to an attack o n Judaism. T h e r e f o r e w e n o w turn to C o h e n ' s o b ­ j e c t i o n s t o S p i n o z a ' s theses o f Bible s c i e n c e [bibelwissenschaftliche

Thesen]. A b o v e

all, w e ask h o w t h e result o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t h e Treatise c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e r e l i g i o n s , t h a t is, t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f C h r i s t i a n i t y o v e r J u d a i s m , is t o b e assessed w i t h r e g a r d t o C o h e n ' s r e p e a t e d l y m e n t i o n e d c h a r g e . T h e first c h a p t e r o f t h e Treatise deals w i t h p r o p h e c y a n d t h e s e c o n d w i t h

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

153

t h e p r o p h e t s . " Y e t a l r e a d y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r o p h e c y it says: ' A p r o p h e t is s o m e o n e w h o . . .' If this w r i t i n g is t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e m o r e r e c e n t B i b l e s c i e n c e [Bibelwissenschaft],

t h e n this b e g i n n i n g is still q u i t e p r i m i -

t i v e . F o r w e m i g h t s u r e l y e x p e c t t h a t , w h e n it c o m e s t o t h e c o n c e p t o f p r o p h e c y , o n e w o u l d h a v e t o start w i t h a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n literary d o c u m e n t s a n d p r o p h e c y i n t h e f o r m o f oracles. H e r e , h o w e v e r , p r o p h e c y is d e f i n e d as 8

a 'certain k n o w l e d g e revealed by G o d to m a n . ' " ' W i t h equal right " w e m i g h t e x p e c t " t h e C o p e r n i c a n r e v o l u t i o n [to h a v e b e e n i n i t i a t e d ] i n [ t h e w o r k s of] T h a ï e s , o r t h e infinitesimal c a l c u l u s i n [ t h e w o r k s of] P y t h a g o r a s . S p i n o z a n e e d e d t o start f r o m a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o g n i t i v e v a l u e o f p r o p h e t i c k n o w l e d g e , b e c a u s e h e w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h s e c u r i n g t h e p e r f e c t selfsufficiency o f r a t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e v i s - à - v i s r e v e a l e d k n o w l e d g e . O n l y o n t h e basis o f this d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o u l d h e establish all o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f r e a s o n o v e r S c r i p t u r e i n t e r m s o f scientific v a l u e ; t h e m e a s u r i n g o f d o c t r i n e s t a u g h t o n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e b y a s t a n d a r d i n d e p e n d e n t o f S c r i p t u r e ; t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f d e v i a t i o n s f r o m this s t a n dard; a n d t h e i m p a r t i a l e v a l u a t i o n o f distinctions s u c h as that b e t w e e n preliterary a n d literary p r o p h e c y . S p i n o z a c h a r a c t e r i z e s p r o p h e c y a c c o r d i n g t o his " f u n d a m e n t a l e x e g e t i c a l r u l e " : S c r i p t u r e is t o b e e x p l a i n e d b y S c r i p t u r e a l o n e , o n t h e basis o f S c r i p ture.

8 2

I n a d d i t i o n , h e h a d n o o t h e r c h o i c e , as h e states n o t w i t h o u t i r o n y ,

" f o r n o w a d a y s , so far as I k n o w , w e h a v e n o p r o p h e t s . " ness [Primitivität]

8 3

Despite the crude-

o f his B i b l e s c i e n c e h e is t h u s m o r e critical t h a n , say, p r e s e n t -

day American psychology of religion.

84

O n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e t h e n , h e

distinguishes b e t w e e n r e v e l a t i o n s t h r o u g h w o r d s , t h r o u g h visions, a n d t h r o u g h both words and visions.

85

W o r d s a n d v i s i o n s c a n b e : 1. real; o r , 2 . " i m a g i -

n a r y " ( m e r e l y e n v i s i o n e d ) . C o h e n o b j e c t s . " T h e literary p o i n t o f v i e w is h e r e n o t t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t at a l l .

86

For h o w can a revelation or any c o m m u n i c a -

t i o n o c c u r o t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h w o r d s i n t o w h i c h v i s i o n s as w e l l as a p p a r i t i o n s m u s t i m m e d i a t e l y translate t h e m s e l v e s ? T h i s classification c a n n o t b e a r r i v e d at i m p a r t i a l l y . It m u s t a i m at a d i s t i n c t i o n . "

87

T h e d i s t i n c t i o n C o h e n has i n

m i n d is t h a t b e t w e e n biblical p r o p h e c y a n d t h e p r o p h e c y o f C h r i s t .

8 8

D o e s t h e classification a d d u c e d a b o v e really d e p e n d o n l o v e o f C h r i s tianity

or, rather, o n hatred of J u d a i s m ?

8 9

N o . B e c a u s e e v e n if a v i s i o n m u s t

" t r a n s l a t e itself i m m e d i a t e l y " i n t o w o r d s — o n e c a n v e r y w e l l c o n t e s t this " m u s t " : o f c o u r s e t h e p r o p h e t s ' visions, as far as w e k n o w o f s u c h , m u s t h a v e c e r t a i n l y t r a n s l a t e d t h e m s e l v e s s o m e h o w i n t o w o r d s , b u t this d i d n o t n e c e s sarily o c c u r " i m m e d i a t e l y " — a v i s i o n is d i s t i n g u i s h e d clearly a n d d i s t i n c t l y f r o m an a u r a l r e v e l a t i o n [Audition],

especially f r o m a n a u r a l r e v e l a t i o n

[Audi-

tion] o f w o r d s . E v e n w i t h o u t evil i n t e n t i o n s o n e w o u l d arrive at this d i s t i n c t i o n ,

Chapter

154

3

o r at o n e o b j e c t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o it, if o n e w e r e t o t h i n k o f t h e v a r i e t y o f r e v e l a t i o n s i n , say, A m o s 7:1 a n d 4 H o s e a 1, a n d Isaiah 6 .

9 0

C o h e n : " T h e p r o p h e t s h e a r d a real voice; e v e n M o s e s is n o e x c e p t i o n here."

9 1

T h i s is s u p p o s e d t o b e S p i n o z a ' s c o n c e p t i o n . I n S p i n o z a w e r e a d :

" T h e r e f o r e t h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t t h a t o t h e r p r o p h e t s d i d not hear a real voice,"

92

while Moses, however, did hear such a voice. — C o h e n : " H e wants

to d e m o n s t r a t e f r o m E x o d u s 25:22, w h i c h h e quotes in H e b r e w , 'that G o d a v a i l e d h i m s e l f o f a real v o i c e . ' Likewise

in 1. Samuel

m

3.'

R e g a r d i n g this

passage, S p i n o z a says: " H o w e v e r , s i n c e w e m u s t d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p r o p h e c y o f M o s e s a n d t h a t o f t h e o t h e r p r o p h e t s , we must necessarily state that the voice heard by Samuel was imaginary.

T h i s can already b e g a t h e r e d f r o m

t h e fact t h a t it w a s similar t o t h e v o i c e o f E l i . . . , "

9 4

T o b e s u r e , it m u s t b e

admitted that n o t h i n g depends o n the inaccuracy of the representation of S p i n o z a ' s ideas i n this c o n t e x t .

9 5

F o r it suffices for C o h e n t h a t S p i n o z a o p i n e s

t h a t , i n n u m e r o u s passages, S c r i p t u r e clearly t e a c h e s t h e c o r p o r e a l i t y o f G o d , a n d t h a t h e e l u c i d a t e s this o p i n i o n b y t h e f u r t h e r assertion t h a t t h e p r o h i b i ­ tion o f graven images does n o t imply the c o m m a n d m e n t to believe in t h e i n c o r p o r e a l i t y o f G o d . O n this p o i n t , S p i n o z a c o n c u r s w i t h R a b a d , great o p p o n e n t of the R a m b a m

9 7

9 6

the

(highly revered b y C o h e n ) , w h o objected

to the R a m b a m : Greater and better m e n than he had followed the v i e w of G o d ' s c o r p o r e a l i t y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h w h a t is t a u g h t i n S c r i p t u r e .

98

This

r e m a r k [of R a b a d ] p r o v e s t h a t t h e v i e w t h a t S p i n o z a d e r i v e d f r o m his r e a d i n g o f t h e B i b l e c a n also b e d e r i v e d f r o m a r e a d i n g o f it w i t h o u t h a r b o r i n g evil intentions. W e n o w c o m e to the m a i n point. Spinoza teaches: Moses spoke w i t h G o d face t o face, h e n c e as b o d y t o b o d y , w h e r e a s C h r i s t s p o k e w i t h G o d as m i n d to m i n d .

9 9

O b v i o u s l y , this thesis is n o t a n i m m e d i a t e c o n s e q u e n c e o f

S p i n o z a ' s m e t h o d o f B i b l e s c i e n c e , w h i c h is b a s e d o n t h e " f u n d a m e n t a l e x e g e t i c a l r u l e . " T h i s m e t h o d is n o m o r e r e f u t e d b y t h e possible lack o f o b j e c ­ tivity i n t h e thesis b y w h i c h S p i n o z a c o m p a r e s r e l i g i o n s t h a n is t h e l a w o f causality b y a failed e x p e r i m e n t . A c c o r d i n g t o this m e t h o d [of B i b l e s c i e n c e ] , t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t w o u l d h a v e t o b e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n e x a c t l y t h e s a m e w a y as t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e , a n d if, i n fact, it d o e s n o t s p e a k o f C h r i s t as h a v i n g s e e n o r h e a r d G o d , w e l l , t h e n w e w i l l j u s t h a v e t o a c c e p t it. I n fact, this thesis w o u l d i m p l y n o d i s p a r a g e m e n t w h a t s o e v e r o f j u d a i s m , for J u d a i s m is n o t at all i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e m o r e p r i m i t i v e stages o f t h e B i b l e ; r a t h e r , t h e " i m p o r ­ t a n t as w e l l as i n t e r e s t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n s " m a d e b y t h e T a l m u d a n d b y t h e t h e o l o g i a n s a r e j u s t as p e r t i n e n t t o it. B e s i d e s , t h e spirituality o f t h e i m a g e s i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t w a s m a d e possible solely b y t h e s p i r i t u a l i z i n g t e n d e n c y o f p r o p h e c y . If, h o w e v e r , S p i n o z a ' s thesis i n q u e s t i o n is n o t s u s t a i n a b l e v i s - à -

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

155

vis t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , w e l l , t h e n S p i n o z a w a s m i s l e d b y his " r e v e r e n c e f o r t h e life o f C h r i s t " ( C o h e n ) .

1 0 0

This " r e v e r e n c e " can perhaps be m o r e a c c u ­

r a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y n o t i n g t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f a p h i l o ­ sophical nature that Spinoza gave p r e c e d e n c e to Christianity over Judaism; in w h i c h r e s p e c t h e m a y , o f c o u r s e , h a v e e r r e d as w e l l . I n a n y case, if o n e t h i n k s o f t h e a b s u r d i t y o f t h e C h r i s t i a n d o g m a s o f t e n stressed o n t h e J e w i s h s i d e , t h e n , f r o m his p o i n t o f v i e w , s u c h j u d g m e n t w a s n o t as u n f o u n d e d as o n e m i g h t t h i n k . S p i n o z a d i d n o t associate t h e s e d o g m a s w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y at all. H e c o n c e r n e d himself w i t h the simple teaching of the Gospels according to w h i c h t h e fulfillment o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s t o o b e y G o d a n d t o l o v e o n e ' s n e i g h b o r is t h e m a r k o f t r u e p i e t y ( r a t h e r t h a n t h e fulfillment o f " e s s e n t i a l l y indifferent" ceremonies); he c o n c e r n e d himself w i t h Paul's deeper struggle against t h e L a w . T h e ecclesiastical d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e P r o t e s t a n t sects p o i n t e d t o w a r d a C h r i s t i a n i s m [Christlichkeit]

in w h i c h the d o g m a s and c e r e m o n i e s o f

C h r i s t i a n i t y lost t h e i r essential significance. A t t h a t t i m e , t h e r e w a s n o d e v e l ­ o p m e n t o f J u d a i s m t h a t a i m e d t o a b o l i s h t h e L a w . If S p i n o z a n o w r e j e c t e d t h e L a w as t h e h e a r t o f r e l i g i o n , if h e r e g a r d e d it as r e l i g i o u s l y p o s s i b l e t o transgress t h e L a w , t h e n h e w a s p u t t i n g h i m s e l f o u t s i d e o f J u d a i s m i n t h e o n l y h i s t o r i c a l f o r m i n w h i c h it t h e n e x i s t e d . A p p e a l t o S c r i p t u r e w a s n o t p o s s i b l e , b e c a u s e S c r i p t u r e c o n t a i n s t h e L a w a n d r e q u i r e s its o b s e r v a n c e ; for t h e C h r i s ­ tian, in possession o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , a n d especially o f t h e P a u l i n e Epistles, a n a p p e a l against c h u r c h a n d d o g m a w a s a l w a y s p o s s i b l e ( w h e t h e r o r n o t l e g i t i m a t e ) . S p i n o z a ' s p r e f e r e n c e for C h r i s t i a n i t y is a b s o l u t e l y sustainable, first, if o n e c o n c e i v e s o f t h e L a w as r e l i g i o u s l y i r r e l e v a n t a n d , s e c o n d , if o n e c o n ­ c e d e s t h a t J u d a i s m is n o t t h i n k a b l e w i t h o u t t h e L a w . ( H e r e I u n d e r s t a n d b y " L a w " t h a t w h i c h o n e t r a d i t i o n a l l y u n d e r s t a n d s b y it, a n d this m e a n s n e i t h e r social m e a s u r e s for t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e c o m m o n w e l f a r e , n o r p e r s o n a l taste for r e l i g i o u s f o r m . ) I n this c o n t e x t , it is n o t i m p r o p e r t o p o i n t o u t t h a t w h e n S p i n o z a i n c u r r e d t h e b a n o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n b y his l a w - t r a n s g r e s s i n g a n d l a w - d e n y i n g c o n d u c t , a n d t h u s e x p e r i e n c e d i n his o w n life t h e i d e n t i t y o f J u d a i s m a n d the Law, h e was certainly n o t disposed to appreciate the p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s a n d s u b l i m a t i o n s o f t h e c e r e m o n i a l l a w . O n e m u s t also (to q u o t e C o h e n ) " c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e s o f Z w i n g l i m u s t h a v e b e e n k n o w n to h i m ,

1 0 1

a n d t h a t , i n his circle o f R h y n s b u r g e r s , h e flattered h i m s e l f

w i t h t h e illusion that t h e d o g m a t i c c o n c e p t i o n o f the T r i n i t y h a d b e e n g e n ­ erally o v e r c o m e . "

1 0 2

If this is a n " i l l u s i o n , " t h e n , as t h e m o r e

fair-minded

M e n d e l s s o h n w o u l d h a v e said, w e are d e a l i n g w i t h a n e r r o r o f t h e i n t e l l e c t rather than w i t h malice of the heart. T h e r e f o r e : Spinoza's

preference for Christianity

is motivated by objective consider­

ations ( w h e t h e r these o b j e c t i v e considerations are s o u n d is a separate q u e s t i o n ) ,

Chapter

156

3

and h e n c e w e n e e d n o t have recourse to Spinoza's sentiments in o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d this p r e f e r e n c e . T h e p h i l o l o g i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f this a t t i t u d e t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n i t y is t h a t S p i n o z a v i e w s t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t as a " u n i f o r m S c r i p t u r e . " H o w e v e r , t h a t d o e s n o t forestall t h e j u d g m e n t o f B i b l e s c i e n c e o n this m a t t e r . F o r it p r o c e e d s b y d i v i d i n g t h e p r e t e n d e d u n i f o r m i t y o f t h e c a n o n i n t o its a c t u a l layers, a n d for this p r o c e d u r e it is i r r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r o n e starts from the premise o f t h e h o m o g e n e i t y o r t h e h e t e r o g e n e i t y , o f t h e u n i f o r mity or the divergence, of the t w o documents. According to the "fundamental e x e g e t i c a l r u l e , " e v e r y t h i n g d e p e n d s o n t h e outcome o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Briefly s t a t e d , S p i n o z a ' s c o n c l u s i o n is as f o l l o w s : u n i f o r m i t y o f t h e p r o p h e t i c C h r i s t i a n - P a u l i n e l i n e i n t h e s t r u g g l e against e x t e r n a l w o r k s , w i t h this l i n e r e p r e s e n t i n g a n a s c e n t ; d i v e r g e n c e o f t h e t w o d o c u m e n t s insofar as t h e h e a r t o f t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e is t h e L a w a n d t h e h e a r t o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is t h e requirement,

flowing

from a pious conviction, of a loving conduct toward

one's neighbor. N o w , as for t h e [ H e b r e w ] B i b l e as s u c h , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e

New

T e s t a m e n t , S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e stresses j u s t t h o s e t h e m e s w h i c h a r e r e a d i l y c o v e r e d u p [bedecken], i n p a r t a l r e a d y b y t r a d i t i o n b u t especially b y l i b e r a l i s m . T h e s e t h e m e s are mainly the following. 1. The primitive-numinous

as opposed to the rational, spiritualized, m o d e r -

a t e d : t h e p a s s i o n s , t h e zeal, t h e c o r p o r e a l i t y o f G o d . C o h e n : " S i n c e [ a c c o r d i n g t o S p i n o z a ] 'at n o p o i n t d o e s M o s e s t e a c h t h a t G o d is free o f p a s s i o n o r e m o t i o n , w e c a n e v i d e n t l y infer t h a t M o s e s b e l i e v e d this himself, o r at least t h a t h e w i s h e d t o t e a c h it, n o m a t t e r h o w m u c h , in o u r v i e w , this p r o n o u n c e m e n t is o p p o s e d t o r e a s o n . ' T h u s S c r i p t u r e is i n t e r p r e t e d c o n t r a r y t o the meaning of monotheism."

1 0 3

W h i c h m o n o t h e i s m ? Cf. t h e w o r d s o f R a b a d

quoted above. 2 . The cultic as opposed to the humanitarian:

t h e S a b b a t h is v i e w e d as a

morally indifferent ceremonial institution rather than a social-ethical o n e . 3 . The naïve-egotistical

as opposed to the moral: t h e h o p e o f t h e p i o u s for

t e m p o r a l r e w a r d , G o d ' s b l e s s i n g as t e m p o r a l p r o s p e r i t y . 4 . The national

as opposed to the humanity-related

[das Menscheitliche]:

the

biblical G o d is t h e G o d o f t h e H e b r e w p e o p l e , G o d ' s e n e m i e s a r e t h e e n e m i e s o f t h e H e b r e w p e o p l e , t h e H e b r e w p e o p l e is a p e o p l e l i k e a n y o t h e r . W h i l e " l i k e a n y o t h e r " i m p l i e s a l i m i t a t i o n o n n a t i o n a l i s m , it o b v i o u s l y lies i n a d i r e c t i o n d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s e d t o t r a d i t i o n a n d t o liberalism. C o h e n sees a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n S p i n o z a ' s r e f e r r i n g t o p a r t i c u l a r passages i n t h e B i b l e for p r o o f o f t h e r e l i g i o u s p a r t i c u l a r i s m o f j u d a i s m , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , his

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924—26)

157

a p p e a l i n g t o universalist passages, t h a t is, passages s p e a k i n g o f G o d ' s l o v e for all p e o p l e , i n o r d e r t o c o n t e s t t h e c h o s e n n e s s o f t h e H e b r e w p e o p l e . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n , h o w e v e r , leads b a c k t o t h e B i b l e . C o h e n r e c o g n i z e s this h i m ­ self w h e n h e says t h a t , " f u n d a m e n t a l l y , " biblical r e l i g i o n ' s " n a t i o n a l p a r t i c u ­ larism m u s t t u r n i n t o a universalism of h u m a n i t y . "

1 0 4

P r e s u m a b l y , if S p i n o z a

h a d h a d at his disposal t h e l o g i c a l m e a n s o f H e g e l i a n dialectics, h e w o u l d h a v e r e s o l v e d this c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t h e s a m e w a y as C o h e n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the Hegelian system presupposes that of Spinoza. W i t h regard to religious nationalism, Spinoza should n o t have referred to 2 C h r o n i c l e s 3 2 : 1 9 ; as C o h e n states c o r r e c t l y , this passage h a r d l y p r o v e s w h a t it w a s m e a n t t o p r o v e .

1 0 5

R a t h e r , h e should have referred to D e u t e r o n o m y

4 : 1 9 - 2 0 , J u d g e s 1 1 : 2 4 , a n d J e r e m i a h 2 : 1 1 . It is all b u t s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f A b r a h a m ' s b l e s s i n g ( G e n e s i s 1 2 : 3 ) , venivrekhu

1 0 6

must be inter­

p r e t e d i n t h e passive v o i c e . 5. The political as opposed to the religious: t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n is a f u n c t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y , w h i c h h e r e , h o w e v e r , is u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e n a r r o w e r sense: r e l i g i o n is a m e a n s for p o l i t i c a l e n d s . C o h e n sees a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n S p i n o z a ' s " t a k i n g as d i r e c t p r o p h e c i e s " t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t s o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e H e b r e w p e o p l e , a n d t a k i n g t h e m as fulfilled p r o p h e c i e s at t h a t , w h i l e n e v e r ­ theless t r y i n g t o a c c o u n t for t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p e o p l e i n t h e D i a s p o r a as c o n t r a r y t o t h o s e a n n o u n c e m e n t s . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n is r e s o l v e d if o n e calls t o m i n d S p i n o z a ' s v i e w t h a t , g i v e n t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e H e b r e w state c a u s e d b y p o l i t i c a l m i s t a k e s o f t h e p e o p l e , t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p e o p l e h a s b e c o m e politically m e a n i n g l e s s , a n d t h u s a l t o g e t h e r m e a n i n g ­ l e s s — f o r t r u e r e l i g i o n is n o t n a t i o n a l — a n d t h a t it has its sole r e a s o n i n t h e separation of the J ews and the hatred of the Gentiles. T h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e a r e t h e o c c a s i o n for C o h e n ' s aggressive d e f e n s e . I n a f e w successful i n s t a n c e s this d e f e n s e r e b u t s s o m e o f S p i n o z a ' s e x a g g e r a t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t t h e result o f his m e t h o d , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h it is i r r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e d u e t o o b j e c t i v e e r r o r s o r e v i l i n t e n t i o n s . If o n e focuses o n t h e essential results, o n e c a n say t h a t o n e w o u l d h a v e h a d t o a r r i v e at t h e m e v e n w i t h o u t evil i n t e n t i o n s . E v e n if S p i n o z a s a w i n t h e s e results a c r u s h i n g j u d g m e n t o n J u d a i s m ; e v e n if h e d i s c o v e r e d a n d p r e s e n t e d t h e m w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f c r u s h i n g J u d a i s m ; e v e n if it w e r e true that only a m i n d sharpened by a " h u m a n l y incomprehensible" alien­ ation

1 0 7

c o u l d h a v e a r r i v e d at t h e m ; e v e n s o , t h e t r u t h o f t h e s e results is i n d e ­

p e n d e n t of such personal presuppositions. T h e r e f o r e : the essential conclusions of Spinoza's motivated

by the actual nature [Beschaffenheit]

Bible science are

of the object of this science.

sufficiently

Chapter

158

3

IV. W e h a d t o resist C o h e n ' s a p p e a l t o S p i n o z a ' s J e w i s h c o n n e c t i o n b e c a u s e , as matters stood, C o h e n saw the objectivity of Spinoza's Bible science e n c u m ­ b e r e d b y this c o n n e c t i o n . It h a d t o b e s h o w n t h a t t h e purpose, disposition

the general

o f t h e p r o b l e m s , a n d t h e result o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t h e

Treatise

can be u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t any reference to Spinoza's empirical c o n n e c t i o n t o J u d a i s m . I n this r e s p e c t , t h e Treatise is a C h r i s t i a n - E u r o p e a n , n o t a J e w i s h , event. T h e method o f t h e Treatise, h o w e v e r , is a n o t h e r m a t t e r . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t , i n its final a n d d e v e l o p e d f o r m , it is n o n - E u r o p e a n . W h a t p o i n t s m o r e d e e p l y t o w a r d J e w i s h c o n t e x t s is m e r e l y t h e o r i g i n o f t h e m e t h o d t h a t u n ­ folds m o s t o f all i n t h e p o l e m i c against t h a t o f t h e R a m b a m . H e r e t h e b a t d e against t h e " P h a r i s e e s " s e e m s t o b e m o r e t h a n a v e i l e d a t t a c k o n t h e t e a c h i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . E v e n this n e e d n o t b e s e e n as a n i n n e r J e w i s h d e b a t e : p e r h a p s the R a m b a m ' s interpretation of the Bible seemed to Spinoza the m o s t o b v i ­ o u s o n e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h his e d u c a t i o n , o r p e r h a p s it s e e m e d t o h i m t h e m o s t c o n s i s t e n t f o r m o f t h e k i n d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e t h a t is c o m ­ m o n t o all c h u r c h e s . I n a n y case, h e r e w e w o u l d l i k e t o address t h e a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n R a m b a m a n d S p i n o z a o n l y insofar as it is a special case o f t h e a n t i t h ­ esis b e t w e e n t h e traditional-ecclesiastical

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e a n d t h e criti­

cal-scientific i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e . O n l y b e c a u s e o f t h a t m o r e g e n e r a l a n t i t h e s i s d i d S p i n o z a ' s m e t h o d a c q u i r e s i g n i f i c a n c e for C h r i s t i a n E u r o p e . M o r e o v e r , as has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t a b o v e , t h e s t r u g g l e against t h e ecclesiasti­ cal f o r m o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e w a s a n e c e s s a r y m o m e n t i n t h e s t r u g g l e against ecclesiastical claims v i s - à - v i s s c i e n c e a n d t h e state. T h e r e f o r e , i n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m e t h o d o f t h e Treatise w e m o v e a l o n g t h e s a m e l i n e as w e d i d i n o u r replies t o C o h e n ' s a t t a c k . H o w e v e r , this l i n e w i l l l e a d us to an even deeper formulation of the question. T h e i n n e r p r o g r e s s o f a l i v i n g r e l i g i o n , if s u c h a r e l i g i o n is b a s e d o n h o l y s c r i p t u r e s , o c c u r s o n l y t h r o u g h t h e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n [umdeutende

Auslegung]

of

t h e s e h o l y s c r i p t u r e s . T h u s , as is w e l l k n o w n , s e n s u o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e d i v i n e a r e s p i r i t u a l i z e d a n d h a r s h features are m i t i g a t e d . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e p r o g r e s s o f c o g n i t i v e r e a s o n [erkennende

Vernunft]

is c o m m u n i c a t e d i n this

w a y t o r e l i g i o n . H o w e v e r , i n c o n t r a s t t o this k i n d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d r e l i g i o n in, as it w e r e , a s t r a i g h t d i r e c t i o n , t h e r e a r o s e t h e i d e a (in t h e P r o t e s t a n t i s m o f t h e first c e n t u r i e s o f t h e m o d e r n era, f r o m v e r y specific, r e l i g i o u s l y c o n d i t i o n e d p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s ) o f a r e t u r n t o t h e l a y e r o n w h i c h t r a d i t i o n u l t i m a t e l y rests, t h e l a y e r o f " p u r e d o c t r i n e . " T h i s is S p i n o z a ' s

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

159

s t a r t i n g p o i n t . A i d e d substantially b y t h e h u m a n i s t e l e m e n t s i n t h e t h i n k i n g o f his t i m e , h e n o w d e v e l o p s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e as a p u r e s c i e n c e , t h a t is, as a s c i e n c e t h a t is n o l o n g e r , f r o m its v e r y o u t s e t , s u b s e r v i e n t t o r e l i g i o n . T h i s is n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n [Erzeugung]

of

this s c i e n c e is d u e t o , o r at least c o d e t e r m i n e d b y , t h e o b j e c t i v e o f f i g h t i n g against ecclesiastical claims. T h e s c i e n c e itself is, i n its [ i n h e r e n t ] m e a n i n g , s e p a r a b l e f r o m this m o t i v e , e v e n t h o u g h it m a y initially d e t e r m i n e t h e d i r e c ­ tion of the inquiry. H e n c e , a r e t u r n t o Scripture that was hostile to tradition existed already b e f o r e S p i n o z a . It m u s t b e asked: H o w d i d h e f i n d a w a y f r o m his J e w i s h f o u n d a t i o n s t o it? W h y d o e s h e refuse t o i n t e r p r e t S c r i p t u r e i n s u c h a w a y as t o m a k e it c o n f o r m w i t h his r e l i g i o u s a n d r a t i o n a l p e r s u a s i o n , so as t o i n t e ­ grate himself into the f r a m e w o r k of Judaism, he " o n w h o s e lineage, w h o s e m i n d , a n d w h o s e learning the J e w s h a d vested t h e greatest h o p e s " ? W h y does h e i n t e r p r e t " h o n e s d y " i n this far f r o m s e l f - e v i d e n t sense? W h a t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e o b v i o u s t o h i m t h a n fidelity t o w a r d t h e c o m m u n i t y for w h i c h his fathers h a d sacrificed w i t h o u t h e s i t a t i o n life, h o m e l a n d , a n d possessions? W h a t d r o v e h i m t o " d e s t r o y t h e beautiful w o r l d " ? T h i s is b u t t o p o s e t h e q u e s t i o n . W i t h r e s p e c t t o C o h e n , t h e f o l l o w i n g c a n b e a d v a n c e d . It m a t t e r s n o t why S p i n o z a w a s " h o n e s t " — w h a t his r e l i ­ g i o u s , m o r a l , o r selfish m o t i v a t i o n s w e r e ; suffice it t h a t h e w a s , a n d t h a t t h e i m a g e o f t h e B i b l e d i s c o v e r e d o n t h e basis o f this " h o n e s t y , " if a n d insofar as it is t r u e , m a i n t a i n s a n d s u p p o r t s itself a n d d e p o s e s its o p p o s i t e . F o r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Ethics, t r u t h is t h e n o r m o f itself and o f t h e f a l s e .

108

T h e n e e d t h a t h a d t o g i v e rise t o S p i n o z a ' s e n t e r p r i s e , t h a t is, t h e s t r u g g l e for t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f s c i e n c e a n d state f r o m t h e c h u r c h , w a s h a r d l y p e r ­ c e p t i b l e i n C o h e n ' s t i m e : it h a d b e e n r e s o l v e d b y t h e efforts o f t h e p r e v i o u s c e n t u r i e s . N o w , C o h e n is, a m o n g his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , t h e o n e w h o has t h e d e e p e s t i n n e r c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e spirit o f t h e g r e a t a g e o f t h e E n l i g h t e n ­ m e n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n his r e v i e w o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e R a m b a m ' s p r i n c i p l e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , C o h e n misses t h e decisive s e n t e n c e : " I f M a i m o n i d e s h a d b e e n c o n v i n c e d b y r e a s o n t h a t t h e w o r l d is e t e r n a l , he would not hesitated

have

to twist and to interpret Scripture u n t i l it w o u l d h a v e seemed finally t o

teach the same t h i n g . "

1 0 9

H e r e t h e h o n e s t y a n d s i n c e r i t y , for w h i c h C o h e n

gladly a n d often praises t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , t u r n s against t h e traditional m e t h o d o f r e i n t e r p r e t i n g a n d r e s h a p i n g [umdeutende

Fortbildung]

o f biblical d o c t r i n e s .

W h a t p r e v e n t s C o h e n i n this case f r o m b e i n g j u s t is less a t r a d i t i o n a l i s t t h a n a n a p o l o g e t i c i n t e r e s t . H i s i n t e r e s t i n b r i n g i n g o u t clearly w h a t is a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n i n t h e B i b l e is w e a k e n e d b y his c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e C h r i s t i a n a t t a c k s

160

Chapter

3

against J u d a i s m — i n o t h e r w o r d s , b y an interest o f "life."'" In S p i n o z a this a p o l o ­ g e t i c i n t e r e s t is, o f c o u r s e , a b s e n t . B l a m e it o n h u m a n f r a i l t y — t h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f the investigation o f Bible science m a y n o m o r e be e n d a n g e r e d b y the s k e p t i c a l c o l d n e s s o f t h e a p o s t a t e t h a n b y t h e a p o l o g e t i c l o v e o f t h e faithful. W e shall n o t discuss t h e q u e s t i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d J u d a i s m . Its r e s o l u t i o n w o u l d n o t c o n t r i b u t e a n y t h i n g d e c i s i v e t o a n o b j e c t i v e u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g o f t h e Treatise. A s t o a " h u m a n " a s s e s s m e n t o f S p i n o z a ' s c o l d n e s s a n d alienness t o w a r d J u d a i s m , this w o u l d p r e s u p p o s e a n assessment o f t h e c o n ­ d u c t o f t h e J e w s t o w a r d h i m : n o t an assessment of the ban of e x c o m m u n i c a ­ t i o n (against w h i c h , n a t u r a l l y , n o t h i n g c a n b e o b j e c t e d ) b u t , r a t h e r , o f t h e expressions o f private attitudes that w e r e presumably n o t above criticism to t h e s a m e e x t e n t as t h e b a n o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n itself. W e w o u l d r a t h e r n o t b e d r a w n i n t o this difficult business. It w a s p o s s i b l e t o r e a c h a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p u r p o s e , t h e d i s p o s i t i o n , t h e c o n c l u s i o n s , a n d t h e m e t h o d o f t h e Treatise o n t h e basis o f S p i n o z a ' s m o t i v e s that w e r e " i n accord w i t h d u t y , " because w e refrained from c o n s i d ­ e r i n g t h e J e w i s h i n t e r e s t . It is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t a c r i t i q u e o f t h e B i b l e t h a t results f r o m e v e n t h e m o s t o b j e c t i v e a n d h a t e - f r e e a t t i t u d e is n o t i n t h e i n t e r ­ est o f j u d a i s m . I n d e e d , s i n c e S p i n o z a ' s m e t h o d w a s a p p l i e d b y h i m a n d j u s t i ­ fied b y its a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his a l i e n a t i o n f r o m J u d a i s m a n d his e n t r a n c e i n t o t h e C h r i s t i a n - E u r o p e a n c o n t e x t , its s i g n i f i c a n c e

for

J u d a i s m w a s n o t established from t h e outset. W e m a y p o i n t ad h o m i n e m t o t h e g r e a t e r " h o n e s t y " o f this m e t h o d , as against C o h e n , w h o k n e w o f n o fundamental reservations about the right of science. F r o m o u r standpoint, h o w e v e r , it m u s t b e a s k e d in all s e r i o u s n e s s h o w this " h o n e s t y " relates t o p o s s i b l e h i g h e r n e e d s o f j u d a i s m , w h e t h e r it b e s t o w s a right t o d e s t r o y t h e b e a u t i f u l w o r l d o f t r a d i t i o n ? W h a t d o e s t h e s t r u g g l e for t h e a u t o n o m y o f s c i e n c e a n d t h e state h a v e t o d o w i t h t h e i n t e r e s t o f J u d a i s m ? W h a t i n t e r e s t c a n J u d a i s m h a v e i n k n o w i n g w h a t t h e d a w n o f its h i s t o r y w a s actually like?

"' " O n the o t h e r hand, w h e n Spinoza, w i t h uncharitable harshness, n o t o n l y m a k e s his tribe c o n t e m p t i b l e (just w h e n R e m b r a n d t , residing i n his alley, i m m o r t a l i z e s t h e ideality o f t h e J e w i s h type) b u t also mutilates the u n i q u e G o d w h o s e c o n f e s s i o n w a s t h e reason for his and his father's fleeing Portugal and t h e Inquisition, n o o n e o p p o s e s this h u m a n l y i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e act o f treason. H e n c e , t h e r e is b u t o n e e x p l a n a t i o n for this, o n e that is h i g h l y w e l c o m e : that for o n c e a J e w o f i m p o r t a n c e has r e n o u n c e d his s t u b ­ b o r n n e s s . . ." [JS, 3 : 3 6 0 - 6 1 ] . " T h e p i t h y sayings i n w h i c h Spinoza discharged his v e n g e f u l hatred o f t h e J e w s can still b e f o u n d t o d a y almost literally in the daily n e w s p a ­ pers o f certain political l e a n i n g s " [JS, 3 : 3 6 3 ] .

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

161

T h e r e f o r e , a n o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n w o u l d b e n e e d e d t o ask h o w t h e i n t e r e s t o f J u d a i s m relates t o S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e . W e m a y d e f i n e this task m o r e p r e c i s e l y b y a s k i n g : Which Jewish impulses are alive in Spinoza's

Bible science?

B a s e d o n this q u e s t i o n , it is possible t o r e a c h a f u n d a m e n t a l j u d g m e n t o n C o h e n ' s analysis o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e . C o h e n is r i g h t w h e n h e e s t a b ­ lishes ( a l t h o u g h n o t explicitly) t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u d a i s m as t h e h i g h e s t a u t h o r i t y for assessing this s c i e n c e ; h e is w r o n g w h e n h e d e t e r m i n e s t h e i n t e r e s t o f Judaism b y t h e external consideration of the purposes o f theologico-political a p o l o g e t i c s , r a t h e r t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g it o n t h e basis o f t h e i n n e r n e e d o f t h e spirit o f o u r p e o p l e [ Volksgeist]. H e is right w h e n h e seeks t o m e a s u r e S p i n o z a ' s t h o u g h t a b o u t J u d a i s m , a n d his c o n d u c t t o w a r d Judaism, by J e w i s h standards. B u t w o u l d it n o t b e m o r e c o n d u c i v e to t h e self-knowledge o f t h e J e w i s h spirit i f o n e a s k e d w h a t m o t i v e s o f j u d a i s m l e d t o S p i n o z a ' s t h o u g h t a n d c o n d u c t w i t h r e g a r d t o J u d a i s m if o n e c o n c e i v e d o f his a r g u m e n t w i t h J u d a ­ i s m as a J e w i s h a r g u m e n t ? B e t h a t as it m a y , e v e n this n a r r o w e r f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n testifies t o t h e e x e m p l a r y s e r i o u s n e s s o f H e r m a n n

Cohen,

w h o w a s n o t satisfied w i t h t h e i m a g e o f t h e " G o d - i n t o x i c a t e d m a n , " a n image drawn b y G e r m a n romanticism and copied by Jewish romanticism.

NOTES S o u r c e : " C o h e n s A n a l y s e der B i b e l - W i s s e n s c h a f t S p i n o z a s , " DerJude: Eine Monatsschrift (Berlin) 8, nos. 5 / 6 ( M a y - J u n e 1924): 2 9 5 - 1 4 , reprinted i n GS, 1 : 3 6 3 - 8 6 . Strauss q u o t e s f r o m H e r m a n n Cohenjüdische

Schriften (Berlin: S c h w e t s c h k e Verlag, 1 9 2 4 ) . T h e e d i t o r

o f t h a t c o l l e c t i o n , B r u n o Strauß, w a s aware o f L e o Strauss's plan t o publish " C o h e n ' s Analysis" i n Der Jude. S e e JS, 3 : 3 7 5 . T h e essay o n C o h e n a n d S p i n o z a c a u g h t t h e a t t e n t i o n o f Julius G u t t m a n n , t h e n director o f t h e A k a d e m i e fur d i e Wissenschaft d e s J u d e n t u m s , w h i c h w a s t o p r o v i d e Strauss first w i t h a f e l l o w s h i p and t h e n w i t h e m p l o y ­ m e n t as an e d i t o r and specialist i n J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y . Cf. t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e present volume. T h e t e r m "Bible s c i e n c e " is as o d d i n E n g l i s h as t h e w o r d Bibelwissenschaft is i n G e r m a n . It s e e m s t o j u x t a p o s e its t w o h e t e r o g e n e o u s parts i n u n m i t i g a t e d o p p o s i t i o n . In " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m " (JS, 3 : 2 9 0 - 3 7 2 ) , C o h e n uses a variety o f terms referring t o biblical scholarship, such as Bibelkritik, theologische

Wissenschaft, biblische Theologie, Bibelforscher, Bibelforschung, Wissenschaften (as o p p o s e d b y S p i n o z a t o o b e d i e n c e required b y t h e laws o f M o s e s ) , Bibelexegese, Theologie (as o p p o s e d t o p h i l o s o p h y ) , biblische Geschichte, a n d o n c e also t h e t e r m Bibelwissenschaft (p. 3 1 3 : " D a diese Schrift d e n A n f a n g d e r n e u e r e n Bibelwissenschaft b i l d e n soll"), a passage q u o t e d b y Strauss i n " C o h e n s A n a l y s e der B i b e l - W i s s e n s c h a f t Spinozas," 3 0 7 . Strauss uses t h e e x p r e s s i o n Bibelwissenschaft i n t h e title and four times ( o n c e as an adjective referring t o m o r e recent scholarship) i n s e c t i o n III o f this essay, w h e r e it appears m o s t l y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an a d u m b r a t i o n o f his o w n n o n p o l e m i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Spinoza's c o n t r i -

162

Chapter

3

b u t i o n . I n t h e essay " Z u r Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas u n d seiner Vorläufer" (1926), Strauss explores t h e subject matter i n d e p e n d e n d y o f C o h e n ' s v i e w s and consistendy e m p l o y s the s o m e w h a t unusual t e r m Bibelwissenschaft. S i n c e , i n his collaboration w i t h Elsa Sinclair, Strauss a p p r o v e d o f t h e expression "Bible s c i e n c e " as t h e English equivalent o f Bibel­ wissenschaft, t h e present translation f o l l o w s this p r e c e d e n t and prefers t h e perhaps i n t e n ­ tionally jarring e x p r e s s i o n t o m o r e c o m m o n terms s u c h as "biblical s c i e n c e , " "biblical scholarship," a n d s o o n . 1.

H e r m a n n C o h e n , Die Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums (Leipzig:

Gustav F o c k , 1 9 1 9 ) , p o s t h u m o u s l y p u b l i s h e d i n a series o f "Schriften h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n der Gesellschaft zur F ö r d e r u n g der Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s . " Religion der Vernunft w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d i n 1 9 0 4 b y the Gesellschaft ( c o f o u n d e d b y C o h e n i n 1 9 0 2 ) as t h e v o l u m e o n "Jewish p h i l o s o p h y o f religion and ethics" i n its series "Grundriss der g e s a m t e n Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m . " C o h e n w a s i n t h e process o f revising and e d i t i n g it w h e n h e d i e d i n April 1 9 1 8 . I n 1 9 2 4 , w h e n Strauss w r o t e t h e present essay, h e q u o t e d f r o m the o n l y e d i t i o n i n e x i s t e n c e at t h e t i m e , w h i c h appeared u n d e r t h e e r r o n e o u s title Die Religion der Vernunft. T h e problematic definitive article, suggesting an e x c l u s i v i s m alien to C o h e n ' s t h o u g h t , w a s d r o p p e d o n l y i n t h e s e c o n d e d i t i o n , e d i t e d b y B r u n o Strauß and p u b l i s h e d b y K a u f f m a n n i n Frankfurt a m M a i n i n 1 9 2 9 . 2.

W h i l e t h e w o r d Kritik can b e translated either as criticism or as critique (see

" O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f Spinoza and H i s Precursors," n o t e 5 ) , t h e p r e p o s i t i o n am m a k e s it u n a m b i g u o u s : Kritik am Titel and Kritik am Buch m e a n , respectively, "criticism o f the tide a n d "criticism o f the b o o k , " w h e r e a s t h e earlier phrases Kritik eines Gedankens and Kritik des Ausdrucks (simple g e n i t i v e , n o preposition) are best rendered as "critique o f an idea" a n d "critique o f the expression," respectively. 3.

I n t h e o p e n i n g paragraphs o f "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d

C h r i s t e n t u m , " C o h e n distinguishes b e t w e e n t h e "logical disposition" i n d i c a t e d i n t h e tide o f Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise and t h e significant effects the Treatise had o n "cultural history." A s for its cultural historical effects, C o h e n (in the m a n n e r o f a captatio benevolentiae) e m p h a s i z e s t h e significant c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the TPT t o the history o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t before p r o c e e d i n g t o criticize it. S e e C o h e n , "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " inJS, 3 : 2 9 0 . 4.

T h e phrase hat es übersieh gebracht is m e a n t ironically. T o m a k e this u n a m b i g u ­

o u s i n English, I a d d e d q u o t a t i o n marks t o "forced." Generally speaking, t h e o p e n i n g paragraphs i n this essay, d e f e n d i n g Spinoza against attacks i n f o r m e d b y C o h e n ' s d e e p l y o f f e n d e d sensibility, m a y b e characterized as ironic. 5.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 2 , refers t o t h e b a n (i.e., t h e

e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) i m p o s e d o n S p i n o z a b y t h e A m s t e r d a m J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . H e says that, i n a d d i t i o n t o a m o r e specific reason discussed later o n i n t h e essay, t h e c o m m u n i t y w o u l d h a v e b e e n justified t o p r o n o u n c e a b a n as a measure o f s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n against S p i n o z a as a malshin, that is, as an informer o r collaborator w h o betrays his f e l l o w J e w s to t h e n o n - J e w i s h authorities. T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this c o n c e p t c a n b e g l e a n e d f r o m t h e fact that a special b e n e d i c t i o n cursing the i n f o r m e r w a s inserted i n t o t h e E i g h t e e n B e n e ­ dictions (a c e n t e r p i e c e o f J e w i s h liturgy) after t h e first J e w i s h revolt against R o m e , w h i c h c u l m i n a t e d i n t h e m o m e n t o u s e v e n t o f the destruction o f the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e (66-70 CE.).

Historical-Philological 6.

Writings on Spinoza

(1924—26)

163

unparteiische Seite: C o h e n , "Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 5 . T h e refer­

e n c e is t o Carl Gebhardt's 1 9 0 8 translation o f Thelogical-Political Treatise, P h i l o s o p h i s c h e B i b l i o t h e k , v o l . 9 3 ( H a m b u r g : Felix M e i n e r , 1 9 0 8 ) . S e e C o h e n , "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 1 n. 1. T h i s e d i t i o n o f Gebhardt's translation w a s n o t available t o m e . I u s e d t h e fifth e d i t i o n , 1 9 5 5 (reprint: Darmstadt, 1 9 6 5 ) , w h i c h is identical w i t h t h e fourth e d i t i o n , 1 9 2 2 . P . x x x v i o f this e d i t i o n lists C o h e n ' s essay o n S p i n o z a i n its u p ­ dated bibliography. 7.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 4 , q u o t i n g Carl Gebhardt.

8.

M o m m s e n ' s d i c t u m is reminiscent o f W i l l i a m o f O c k h a m ' s principle o f e c o n o m y

( " O c k h a m ' s R a z o r " ) , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h t h e simplest e x p l a n a t i o n for a thing, i f suffi­ cient, s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d as t h e true o n e . 9.

C o h e n , "Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 1 : "da diese V e r b i n d u n g u n n a t ü r ­

l i c h ist. . . . " 10.

Ibid. distinguishes b e t w e e n a "publicistic task," w h i c h consists i n (in Gebhardt's

w o r d s ) a " D u t c h state paper [Staatsschrift] i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e politics o f Jan d e W i t t " and a "purely philological task" (emphasis i n t h e original), w h i c h consists i n d e t e r m i n i n g dates and authorships o f the biblical b o o k s . 11.

S e e C o h e n , q u o t i n g Gebhardt, i n " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 1 :

"daß dieses W e r k i n s e i n e m praktischen T e i l e nichts anderes ist als e i n e h o l l ä n d i s c h e Staatsschrift i m S i n n e der Politik Jan d e W i t t s " [in practical respects this w o r k is n o t h i n g b u t a political p a m p h l e t a d v o c a t i n g t h e politics o f Jan d e W i t t ] . A n d cf. Strauss, " C o h e n ' s A n a l y s e , " 2 9 6 , w h e r e q u o t a t i o n s f r o m Gebhardt are n o t distinguished f r o m q u o t a t i o n s from C o h e n . 12.

S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, prints this s e n t e n c e o n t h e

title page. T h e full text, i n t h e c o n t e x t o f Spinoza's preface t o t h e Treatise, runs as f o l l o w s : " N o w s i n c e w e h a v e t h e rare g o o d fortune t o l i v e i n a c o m m o n w e a l t h w h e r e f r e e d o m o f j u d g m e n t is fully granted t o t h e individual c i t i z e n a n d h e m a y w o r s h i p G o d as h e pleases, and w h e r e n o t h i n g is e s t e e m e d dearer and m o r e p r e c i o u s than f r e e d o m , I think I a m u n d e r t a k i n g n o ungrateful or unprofitable task i n demonstrating that not only

can this freedom be granted without endangering piety and the peace of the commonwealth, but also that the peace of the commonwealth and piety depend on this freedom" (Baruch d e Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. S a m u e l Shirley [Leiden: Brill, 1 9 8 9 ; reprint, I n d i a ­ napolis: H a c k e t t P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 9 8 ] , 3 ; emphasis added). In a letter t o H e i n r i c h O l d e n ­ burg, c o n j e c t u r e d t o h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n i n t h e year 1 6 6 5 , that is, five y e a n b e f o r e t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e Treatise i n 1 6 7 0 , S p i n o z a describes his m o t i v a t i o n t o w r i t e o n S c r i p ­ ture as threefold: " I ' m n o w w r i t i n g a treatise o n m y v i e w s regarding Scripture. T h e reasons that m o v e m e t o d o so are these: 1. T h e prejudice o f t h e t h e o l o g i a n s . F o r I k n o w that these are t h e m a i n obstacles w h i c h p r e v e n t m e n f r o m g i v i n g their m i n d s t o p h i l o s o p h y . S o I apply m y s e l f t o e x p o s i n g s u c h prejudices and r e m o v i n g t h e m f r o m t h e m i n d s o f sensible p e o p l e . 2 . T h e o p i n i o n o f m e h e l d b y t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e , w h o c o n s t a n d y accuse m e o f atheism. I a m driven t o avert this accusation, t o o , as far as I c a n . 3 . T h e f r e e d o m t o p h i l o s o p h i s e and t o say w h a t w e think. T h i s I w a n t t o v i n d i c a t e c o m p l e t e l y , for here it is i n e v e r y w a y suppressed b y t h e e x c e s s i v e authority and e g o t i s m o f preachers" (Letter 3 0 i n Spinoza: The Letters, trans. S a m u e l Shirley [Indianapolis: H a c k e t t P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 9 5 ] , 185f.). G i v e n t h e c l o u t o f censorship, S p i n o z a w a s f o r c e d

164

Chapter

3

to publish t h e treatise a n o n y m o u s l y and, for this reason alone, t h e defense o f the p h i ­ l o s o p h e r against t h e c h a r g e o f atheism appears o n l y i n passing and i n general terms. 13.

T h a t is, i f o n e agrees, as C o h e n is here a s s u m e d t o have agreed, that c h u r c h a n d

state s h o u l d b e separated, o n e must, w i t h Spinoza, also affirm that Scripture p r o v i d e s n o support for religion's claim t o a rational g r o u n d i n g . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e v e r y c o m b i n a ­ t i o n o f t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a n d t h e political indicates t h e rational c o h e r e n c e o f Spinoza's attack o n Scripture. 14.

T h e original da es sich um eine liberale Regierung handelte is a m b i g u o u s and c o u l d

refer either t o t h e actual g o v e r n m e n t or t o t h e o n e a d v o c a t e d i n Theological-Political Treatise. S i n c e , at t h e t i m e o f Spinoza, t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f the N e t h e r l a n d s w a s n o t i n fact a liberal o n e , at least n o t o n e that w a s e v e n close t o tolerating t h e k i n d o f f r e e t h i n k i n g S p i n o z a a d v o c a t e d , Strauss m o r e likely refers t o t h e liberal g o v e r n m e n t that is a d v o ­ cated i n t h e Treatise, n o t t h e o n e that actually existed at t h e t i m e o f S p i n o z a . 15.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 1 : "At least o n e o f the t w o tasks

lost its isolated o b j e c t i v i t y . " T h e emphasis indicates that C o h e n , t o o , a c k n o w l e d g e s o b ­ j e c t i v e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e o l o g y and politics b u t nevertheless charges S p i n o z a w i t h a reductionist caricature o f religion, o r politics, o r b o t h . 16.

Ibid.

17.

Cf. ibid., " m i t d e m g r o ß e n B a n n b e l e g t , " a n d Strauss, "der . . . ü b e r S p i n o z a

v e r h ä n g t e G r o ß e B a n n . " T h e reference is t o a herem qlali, a b a n o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n , as o p p o s e d t o a m i n o r b a n , herem zuta, w h i c h is usually referred t o b y t h e f o r m o f p u n i s h ­ m e n t it i m p o s e s , s u c h as fines, stripes, and b o y c o t t s . 18.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 2 .

19.

Cf. I. K a n t , Kritik der reinen Vernunft, e d . Karl R o s e n k r a n z , 2 d e d . (Leipzig:

V o s s , 1 8 3 8 ) , 6 9 5 : "Dass alle unsere Erkenntniss m i t der Erfahrung anfange, daran ist gar k e i n Z w e i f e l . . . " [ T h e r e is n o d o u b t , that all o u r k n o w l e d g e b e g i n s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e . . . ] . Strauss e c h o e s this phrase i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e . 20.

H e r m a n n C o h e n , Kants Theorie der Erfahrung ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 3 d e d . , i n v o l . 1, pt. 2 o f

Werke ( H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1 9 8 7 ) , 99f. T h e emphasis is Strauss's, n o t C o h e n ' s . I n t h e original, t h e s e n t e n c e s u m m a r i z e s a discussion o n E n g l i s h sensualism that is a d d u c e d as an e x a m p l e o f a c o m m o n p s y c h o l o g i c a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Cartesian p h i l o s o p h y . A c ­ c o r d i n g t o C o h e n , sensualism " t o o k 'lively' feelings for 'impressions' o f things, a n d ideas as t h e ' c o p i e s ' o f t h o s e impressions." C o h e n articulates Kant's "transcendental m e t h o d " as a direct c o n v e r s i o n o f the "substitution" that is t h e "fatal and typical" flaw o f sensualist t h e o r y o f c o g n i t i o n . W h a t sensualism represents as t h e "processes o f c o g n i ­ t i o n " [Vorgänge des Erkennens] must instead b e interpreted as " c o n c e p t s that c o n c e r n t h e v a l u e a n d c o n t e n t s o f c o g n i t i o n " ( 9 9 ) . B y referring t o this passage, Strauss portrays C o h e n as falling short o f his o w n m e t h o d o l o g i c a l postulate w h e n h e l o o k e d for e x t r a ­ n e o u s p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n s t o explain w h y S p i n o z a c o m b i n e d political p h i l o s o p h y and criticism o f the B i b l e . T h e added emphasis p o i g n a n d y turns t h e adjectives "fatal a n d typical" against C o h e n , their author. 2 1 . für das Werk des betreffenden Lebens (the w o r k o f the relevant life). T h e unusual turn o f phrase is d e r i v e d f r o m t h e t e r m Lebenswerk. 22.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 2 . C o h e n assumes that, w h e n

S p i n o z a w r o t e t h e Theological-Political Treatise, h e a i m e d t o m a k e an a r g u m e n t for p o l i t i -

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

165

cal liberty that w a s i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e principles o f his Ethics. W h a t Strauss calls a c o n j e c t u r e is t h e a s s u m p t i o n that Spinoza m a y h a v e d e c i d e d n o t t o publish his Apology ( w h i c h C o h e n calls a "protest pamphlet") because it m a y h a v e p r o v i d e d h i m less satis­ faction than t h e m o r e sophisticated a r g u m e n t p r e s e n t e d i n t h e Theological-Political Trea­ tise, w h e r e t h e a r g u m e n t against J e w s and Scripture is less personal b u t all t h e m o r e p r o f o u n d , and w h e r e his protest is e m b e d d e d i n an elaborate political theory. 23.

C o h e n , t o o , refers t o H o b b e s i n this c o n t e x t , albeit n o t w i t h t h e same p u r p o s e .

Cf. "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 3 . 24.

S e e ibid., 2 9 3 , a n d cf. t h e emphases i n t h e original here o m i t t e d .

25.

Ibid., 2 9 2 .

26.

Ibid., 2 9 4 .

27.

Ibid.

28.

Ibid., 2 9 3 . I n t h e original, o n l y t h e w o r d s " r e l i g i o n " and "state" are e m p h a ­

sized. Strauss highlights t h e w o r d "Jewish" as preparation for t h e p o i n t h e is a b o u t t o make in the next sentence. 29.

W h a t Strauss i m p l i e s is that C o h e n ' s critique is hypocritical i n that h e h i m s e l f

has a h i d d e n political agenda, that is, Strauss turns a r o u n d C o h e n ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d political o b j e c t i o n s t o S p i n o z a t o reveal C o h e n ' s o w n p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d political m o t i ­ vations. 30.

Ibid.

31.

Cf. n o t e 6 , a b o v e . T h e f o l l o w i n g l e n g t h y q u o t a t i o n is f r o m Carl Gebhardt's

i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Theological-Political Treatise ( 1 9 0 8 ) . 32.

S e e Gebhardt, i n t r o d u c t i o n t o S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, x v i i . T h e

emphasis is a d d e d b y Strauss. 33.

Ibid., x v i .

34.

Cf. ibid., x v i i , xxf. T h e argumentatio ad hominem that G e b h a r d t sees at w o r k i n

S p i n o z a e c h o e s S p i n o z a ' s i m p u t a t i o n o f t h e like rhetoric t o Ezra as t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l a u t h o r o f the B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y and o f the b o o k s o f j o s h u a t h r o u g h Kings. S o , for e x a m p l e , t o w a r d t h e e n d o f chapter 8 o f Theological-Political Treatise. 35.

A d i g at C o h e n w h o , i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e principles o f critical idealism a n d

d r a w i n g o n t h e M a i m o n i d e a n d o c t r i n e o f attributes, e m p h a s i z e d that essential attributes o f reality, e x i s t e n c e , life, and so o n c a n n o t apply t o G o d . T h e "idea o f G o d " is p r o m i n e n d y i n t r o d u c e d i n C o h e n ' s 1 9 0 4 Ethik des reinen Willens ( 1 9 0 4 ; 2 d e d . , 1 9 0 7 ; 5 t h e d . i n v o l . 7 o f Werke [ H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1 9 8 1 ] ) , chapter 9 , and again i n D i e Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, 1st ed., 186f. (chap. 9 , "Das P r o b l e m der religiösen L i e b e " ) , w h e r e C o h e n responds t o t h e charge that a m e r e "idea o f G o d " c a n n o t b e t h e o b j e c t o f religious l o v e : "How can one love an idea? T o this o n e s h o u l d answer: H o w c a n o n e l o v e a n y t h i n g b u t an idea?" ( D i e Religion der Vernunft, 1st e d . , 1 8 7 ) . T h e c o n c e p t o f the "ideal" prepares t h e w a y for t h e chapter o n t h e idea o f G o d i n Ethik des reinen Willens ( n a m e l y , chap. 8 ) . 36.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 6 .

37.

Ibid., 295f. (cf. t h e various e m p h a s e s i n t h e original, w h i c h Strauss d o e s n o t

r e p r o d u c e here). 38.

Cf. ibid., 2 9 1 : " e i n e rein philologische Frage."

39.

Ibid., 2 9 7 . Strauss alters t h e syntax o f the original, creating t h e i m p r e s s i o n that

Chapter

166

3

S p i n o z a w a s t h e sole target o f this charge, w h e r e a s , i n t h e original, C o h e n m u s e s o n a certain recklessness i n t h e literary style o f "spirits w h o , like Spinoza, elaborate their ideas t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g a literary effect o n c o n t e m p o r a r y matters." 40.

Ibid., p. 2 9 5 : "Philologie," Strauss's emphasis. In t h e original, t h e G e r m a n w o r d

for " p r o p h e t s " is also e m p h a s i z e d . 41.

Der aktuelle . . . Zweck, that is, t h e i m m e d i a t e historical purpose that S p i n o z a

pursues i n Theological-Political Treatise and from w h i c h t h e w o r k arises. In t h e f o l l o w i n g , Strauss differentiates b e t w e e n t h e possibility o f d e r i v i n g Spinoza's B i b l e s c i e n c e f r o m topical (aktuellen)—that is, c i r c u m s t a n c e - d r i v e n — m o t i v e s that m a y lead h i m t o c o n t r a ­ dict t h e principles o f his Ethics, and that o f tracing t h e principles o f his B i b l e s c i e n c e back t o t h e Ethics, a n d thus p r o v i n g t h e political i n d e p e n d e n c e and rational c o h e r e n c e o f Spinoza's w o r k . 4 2 . H e r e Strauss raises t h e larger q u e s t i o n o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f Spinoza's critique o f the B i b l e , a d u m b r a t i n g , i n a nutshell, t h e p r o b l e m dealt w i t h i n t h e essay " O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a a n d H i s Precursors," as w e l l as, m o r e exhaustively, i n Strauss, Die Religionskritik Spinozas also Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch Politischem Traktat, Series: V e r ö f f e n t l i c h u n g e n der A k a d e m i e für d i e W i s s e n ­ schaft des J u d e n t u m s , P h i l o s o p h i s c h e S e k t i o n , Z w e i t e r B a n d (Berlin: A k a d e m i e Verlag, 1 9 3 0 ) , translated i n t o English as Spinoza's Critique of Religion, trans. Elsa Sinclair ( N e w York: Schocken, 1965). 43.

"ad h o m i n e m " : see n o t e 3 4 , a b o v e .

4 4 . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that Strauss problematizes t h e philosophical c o h e r e n c e o f Theological-Political Treatise w i t h C o h e n a n d against Gebhardt. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e latter it is t h e v e r y argumentatio ad hominem—namely, t h e political purpose o f the Staatsschrift i n favor o f the p o l i c i e s o f Jan d e Witt—-that m a k e s it impossib le for S p i n o z a t o argue f r o m a p o s i t i o n c o n g e n i a l t o his Ethics. W h i l e a v o i d i n g u n c o n s c i o n a b l e contradictions t o his p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s , Spinoza advocates t h e p o s i t i o n o f the aristocratic regents o r the "neutralists." Cf. Gebhardt, i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Theological-Political Treatise, xviiif. Like C o h e n , h o w e v e r , Strauss is interested i n t h e q u e s t i o n o f the relation b e t w e e n t h e p h i l o ­ sophical Ethics and t h e critique o f the B i b l e i n t h e Treatise, a p r o b l e m G e b h a r d t dismisses w h e n h e states that t h e Treatise includes quite a f e w s e n t e n c e s that contradict t h e Ethics and n o n e that contradict the "neutralist" c r e e d (xix). 45.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 5 .

4 6 . Cf. ibid.: " H o w d o e s Spinoza d e t e r m i n e t h e c o n c e p t o f religion? It is t h e first c o n s e q u e n c e that f o l l o w s from this unnatural c o n n e c t i o n o f problems: that S p i n o z a d o e s n o t seek t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o n c e p t o f religion f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f his Ethics, b u t that h e derives it f r o m Scripture instead . . . " (emphases o m i t t e d ) . 47.

Ibid., 2 9 9 .

48.

Strauss is h e r e i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h Gebhardt. B u t cf. n o t e 4 4 , a b o v e .

49.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 7 .

5 0 . sit venia verbo: Strauss cautions that t h e expression " M a i m o n i d e a n - K a n t i a n ra­ tional faith" m u s t n o t b e taken t o insinuate that h e a c c e p t e d the tenability o f C o h e n ' s synthesis o f M a i m o n i d e a n a n d Kantian n o t i o n s . H e m e r e l y uses this expression i n order t o describe placatively w h a t C o h e n substitutes for t h e Protestant faith i n Scripture that S p i n o z a , a c c o r d i n g t o Strauss, actually attacked. O n e s h o u l d bear i n m i n d that, t o Strauss,

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

167

trust i n revelation ( M a i m o n i d e s ) a n d trust i n reason (Kant) represent irreconcilable o p ­ posites.] 51.

" N u n substruiert S p i n o z a allerdings seinen Glaubensbegriff d e m o r t h o d o x e n . "

Instead o f paraphrasing and interpreting t h e term substmiert—as d o e s the F r e n c h transla­ tion ("Spinoza, quant à lui, construit s o n c o n c e p t d e foi e n subvertissant le c o n c e p t o r t h o d o x e d e la f o i " ) — I offer t h e literal translation o f the t e r m substmiert, w h i c h is n o less rare i n t h e G e r m a n dictionary than its equivalent i n t h e E n g l i s h o n e . Y e t t h e m e a n ­ i n g is quite clear, as is Strauss's i n t e n t i o n . T h e w o r d , d e r i v i n g from the Latin substruo ( t o lay a f o u n d a t i o n , b u i l d b e n e a t h ) , is m e a n t t o indicate that, w h i l e C o h e n i n a d v e r t e n d y i m p u t e s t o S p i n o z a an alien c o n c e p t o f faith, S p i n o z a c o n s c i o u s l y establishes his d e p i c ­ t i o n o f o r t h o d o x faith o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f his o w n c o n c e p t o f faith and thus i n a c c o r ­ d a n c e w i t h t h e principles o f his Ethics. 5 2 . Cf. C o h e n , "Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 3 4 : " U n d i n d i e s e m h ö c h s t e n G u t e der E r k e n n t n i s besteht unsere Seligkeit." 5 3 . Ibid., referring t o Spinoza: " U n d das gesamte Scharfgeschütz der E t h i k w i r d h i e r aufgefahren. . . . " 54.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 7 .

5 5 . " W e i l d i e N o r m e n s i t t l i c h e n H a n d e l n s j e d e m M e n s c h e n e i n g e s c h r i e b e n sind . . . " : cf. chap. 5 o f Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt: "daß das göttliche G e s e t z , das d i e M e n s c h e n wahrhaft g l ü c k l i c h m a c h t u n d das w a h r e L e b e n lehrt, allen M e n s c h e n g e m e i n ist; ja i c h habe es so aus der m e n s c h l i c h e n N a t u r hergeleitet, daß es danach aussieht, als sei es d e m m e n s c h l i c h e n Geist e i n g e b o r e n u n d sozusagen e i n g e ­ s c h r i e b e n " [that t h e d i v i n e l a w that leads t o t h e happiness o f t h e p e o p l e and t e a c h e s t h e m t h e true life is c o m m o n t o all p e o p l e ; I e v e n d e r i v e d it from h u m a n nature, m a l t i n g it s e e m as i f it w e r e native t o t h e h u m a n spirit and, as it w e r e , inscribed i n i t ] . 56.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 8 .

57.

Ibid., 2 9 9 . A n d cf. Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 8 4 .

5 8 . C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 3 . T h e emphasis is a d d e d b y Strauss. 59.

Cf. S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, chapter 1 5 , last paragraph.

6 0 . C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 2 9 9 . T h i s s e n t e n c e is q u o t e d again p r o m i n e n d y i n Strauss's preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 1 8 . 6 1 . C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 0 . T h e r e is n o sign o f i n d i g n a ­ tion i n t h e t e x t close t o this q u o t a t i o n . R a t h e r , C o h e n c o m m e n t s o n t h e q u o t e f r o m S p i n o z a b y a d d i n g ironically: "This t h e n is t h e d e e p e r m e a n i n g o f the s e n t e n c e : ' D o g ­ mas are m e r e l y practical rules o f o b e d i e n c e . ' U n f o r t u n a t e l y , w h a t is m i s s i n g is t h e e x p o ­ sition o f the spiritual b o n d that establishes a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n such w o r k s . " 6 2 . Ibid.: "It c a n n o t b e d o u b t e d that this t h e o r y m u s t dissolve i n t o absurd c o n t r a ­ dictions." 6 3 . Cf. S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, chapter 14: " O n Faith"; i n t h e Shirley translation, p. 1 6 7 . 6 4 . Strauss: "die E i n z i g k e i t nur e i n P r o b l e m der E r k e n n t n i s . " Cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 300f.: "die Einzigkeit durchaus nur e i n P r o b l e m der Erkenntnis" (emphasis added). A s e v i d e n t f r o m t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e original, t h e "specialist i n

Chapter

168

3

J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n " is n o n e o t h e r than S p i n o z a himself, w h o — a c c o r d i n g t o C o h e n — r e m a i n s silent o n a salient p o i n t o f the J e w i s h philosophical tradition, n a m e l y , o n t h e idea o f G o d ' s u n i q u e n e s s , an idea that, t o C o h e n , is t h e m a i n source o f c o m p a t ­ ibility and c o n g e n i a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e J e w i s h a n d G r e e k philosophical traditions. S e e C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " a n d cf. i d e m , Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie (Giessen: T ö p e l m a n n , 1 9 1 5 ) , pt. 2 , paras. 2 6 - 3 7 , 5 8 - 5 9 , as w e l l as t h e essay " E i n h e i t o d e r E i n z i g k e i t G o t t e s " ( 1 9 1 8 ) , i n Jüdische Schriften, 1 : 8 7 - 9 9 , chapter 1 o f Religion of Reason, and e l s e w h e r e . T h e i n s i n u a t i o n Strauss picks u p o n and rejects is that S p i n o z a s h o w s his bad faith b y i g n o r i n g t h e m e a n i n g , w h i c h C o h e n alleges t o b e o b v i o u s , o f this c o r e d o c t r i n e o f J e w i s h religious t h o u g h t . 65.

S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Shirley, 1 6 7 . Shirley, incidentally,

translates t h e h e a d i n g o f t h e s e c o n d o f Spinoza's universal doctrines o f faith ( " e u m esse u n i c u m " ) as " G o d is o n e a l o n e , " w h e r e a s G e b h a r d t reads " G o t t ist e i n z i g , " as q u o t e d i n C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 0 . 66.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 1 . R e f e r r i n g t o chapter 14 o f

S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 2 5 6 , C o h e n uses t h e phrase diese Art von Philosophie der Religion i n a m o c k i n g t o n e . W h i l e Strauss attempts t o portray all o f C o h e n ' s rhetoric i n this essay as d r i v e n b y righteous i n d i g n a t i o n , and his j u d g m e n t as c l o u d e d b y passion, C o h e n ' s style is i n fact m u c h m o r e n u a n c e d and n e e d s t o b e e x a m ­ i n e d o n its o w n terms. I n his preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, Strauss's assessment o f C o h e n ' s critique o f S p i n o z a is m u c h m o r e balanced a n d less p o l e m i c a l . 67.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 2 .

68.

Cf. i b i d . , 3 0 4 : "so tritt damit der alte sophistische G e g e n b e g r i f f der M a c h t als

N a t u r auf, u n d d i e sitdiche Grundkraft der N a t u r v e r s c h w i n d e t . . . ." A n d ibid., 2 7 3 , w i t h reference t o Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt: " D e r sophistische Charakter dieses NaturbegrifFs b e z e u g t sich b e i S p i n o z a s c h o n dadurch, daß er 'die G r u n d l a g e n des Staates' i m 1 6 . Kapitel z u b e g r ü n d e n b e g i n n t a m 'natürlichen R e c h t e des E i n z e l n e n , o h n e vorerst a u f Staat u n d R e l i g i o n R ü c k s i c h t z u n e h m e n ' . . . ." A n d cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 7 . C o h e n ' s emphasis o n t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n the P l a t o n i c m e t h o d o f d e r i v i n g t h e particular f r o m t h e universal and t h e Sophists' m e t h o d o f p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e particular t o t h e u n i v e r s a l — w h e r e i n natural p h i l o s o p h y and s c i e n c e are respectively m a d e t h e p o i n t o f departure for t h e respective d e t e r m i n a ­ t i o n o f the p r o b l e m o f rights—is e c h o e d i n Strauss's essay "Spinoza's Bible S c i e n c e " as w e l l as i n Spinoza's Critique of Religion, w h e r e Strauss takes t h e analysis a step further w h e n h e asks for t h e prephilosophical m o t i v a t i o n o f the critique o f religion i n t h e Epicurean tradi­ tion. In t h e latter tradition, t h e school o f c h o i c e i n natural p h i l o s o p h y is that o f D e m o c r i t u s w h o , like t h e Sophists and Spinoza, proceeds from the particular t o t h e universal. 69.

Strauss, " C o h e n s Analyse der Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas," 3 0 5 : " d e n n die N a t u r

w i r d n i c h t d u r c h d i e G e s e t z e der m e n s c h l i c h e n V e r n u n f t b e g r e n z t . " Cf. TheologicalPolitical Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 2 7 5 : " D e n n die N a t u r ist n i c h t z w i s c h e n die G e s e t z e d e r m e n s c h l i c h e n V e r n u n f t eingeschlossen." O u r translation f o l l o w s Theological-Political Trea­ tise, trans. Shirley, 1 8 0 . 70.

Strauss: " U n s e r W i s s e n sei S t ü c k w e r k . " Cf. Theological-Political Treatise, trans.

Gebhardt, 2 7 6 : " w e i l unsere K e n n t n i s v o n d e n D i n g e n S t ü c k w e r k ist." Shirley trans­ lates: " o u r k n o w l e d g e is o n l y partial" (Theological-Political Treatise, 1 8 0 )

Historical-Philological

71.

Writings

on Spinoza

(1924-26)

169

Wir begreifen . . . : cf. C o h e n , "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 7 1 (from

w h e n c e t h e q u o t a t i o n , later i n this paragraph, is also taken): "Es kann n u n z w a r begriffen w e r d e n . . . ." . A n d s e e n o t e 7 3 , b e l o w . 72.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 0 6 , and cf. Strauss, preface t o

Spinoza's Critique of Religion ( 1 9 9 7 ) , 1 9 , w h e r e t h e s e n t e n c e is q u o t e d again. 73.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 7 1 : "Es kann n u n z w a r begriffen

w e r d e n , daß Mystiker v o n der Transzendenz des e i n z i g e n G o t t e s n i c h t befriedigt w e r d e n . D a g e g e n hat d i e G e s c h i c h t e gelehrt, daß der Pantheismus an sich n i c h t i m W i d e r s p r u c h steht z u m M o n o t h e i s m u s " [ W h i l e it m a y b e understandable that mystics are dissatisfied w i t h t h e transcendence o f t h e u n i q u e G o d , history has taught us that pantheism as s u c h d o e s n o t necessarily contradict m o n o t h e i s m ] . T h i s passage, partially q u o t e d b y Strauss, explicitly p o i n t s t o t h e possibility o f finding r e d e e m i n g qualities i n p a n t h e i s m , w h i c h C o h e n holds t o b e " n o t intrinsically o p p o s e d t o m o n o t h e i s m . " W h a t e v e r t h e m e a n i n g o f C o h e n ' s reference t o "mystics w h o are n o t satisfied w i t h t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f G o d , " Strauss defends S p i n o z a ' s respect for d i v i n e t r a n s c e n d e n c e b y p o i n t i n g t o his insistence o n t h e "fragmentary" nature o f h u m a n k n o w l e d g e . 74.

Ibid., 3 0 7 , a n d S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 2 7 7 : "daß

m a n es u n t e r d i e e w i g e n W a h r h e i t e n r e c h n e n m u ß , d i e n i e m a n d v e r k e n n e n k a n n . " Shirley translates: " T h i s l a w is so d e e p l y inscribed i n h u m a n nature that it s h o u l d b e c o u n t e d a m o n g t h e eternal truths universally k n o w n " (Theological-Political Treatise, 1 8 1 ) . 75.

M i s h n a h A v o t 4 : 2 , s'khar mitsvah mitsvah ( T h e reward o f a c o m m a n d m e n t is a

c o m m a n d m e n t ) is q u o t e d — w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s o u r c e — i n Theological-Political Treatise, chapter 4 . G e b h a r d t translates: "der höchste Lohn des Gesetzes ist das G e s e t z selbst" (83), w h i c h C o h e n cites: "As t h e fourth characteristic [seil, as t h e fourth distinction o f t h e "natural d i v i n e l a w " ] h e points t o t h e s e n t e n c e : 'the highest reward o f t h e d i v i n e l a w is t h e l a w i t s e l f [ f o o t n o t e : Summum legis divinaepraemium esse ipsam Legem]. H e r e , a d d i n g m e r e l y t h e w o r d 'highest,' h e t o o k a s e n t e n c e f r o m t h e M i s h n a h , f r o m t h e f a m o u s Ethics of the Fathers. . . . B u t , o f course, h e d e n i e s b e i n g i n d e b t e d i n a n y w a y t o the Pharisees" ("Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 3 6 ) . Strauss p o i n t s o u t that C o h e n ' s d e m a n d o f a disclosure o f rabbinic sources cited b y S p i n o z a appears o n e - s i d e d a n d a p o l o g e t i c i n that it i g n o r e s that e v e n Spinoza's " f o u n d a t i o n o f the state o n e g o i s m a n d p r u d e n c e " — s o m e t h i n g C o h e n o p p o s e s o n ethical g r o u n d s — c a n b e said t o h a v e its source in the Mishnah. 76.

M i s h n a h A v o t 3 : 2 , q u o t e d also i n Strauss, preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Reli­

gion ( 1 9 9 7 ) , 2 2 . 77.

Strauss, " C o h e n s Analyse der Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas," 3 0 5 f , q u o t i n g Theo­

logical-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 2 9 0 . Cf. Shirley (Theological-Political Treatise, 1 8 9 ) : " B u t i n m a t t e n o f religion m e n are especially p r o n e t o g o astray and c o n t e n t i o u s l y a d v a n c e m a n y ideas o f their o w n devising, as is a b u n d a n d y testified b y e x p e r i e n c e . It is therefore quite clear that, i f n o b o d y w e r e b o u n d b y right t o o b e y t h e s o v e r e i g n p o w e r i n t h o s e matters w h i c h h e thinks t o pertain t o religion, t h e state's right w o u l d t h e n inevitably d e p e n d o n j u d g m e n t s and feelings that vary w i t h e a c h individual." 78.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 2 , q u o t i n g Theological-Political

Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 3 2 7 . Cf. Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Shirley, 2 1 4 . 79.

" I n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . " Cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 2 9 , i n a

170

Chapter

3

différent c o n t e x t , b u t still related t o t h e discussion o f p r o p h e t s and p r o p h e c y : "It s h o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s r e m a i n i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e h o w it c o u l d b e c o m e possible for S p i n o z a t o generalize t h e necessary particularism o f the political l a w s [Staatsgesetze] t o apply t o t h e entire c o n t e n t o f t h e M o s a i c and O l d T e s t a m e n t l a w s i n general." 80.

Cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 3 3 , i n a different c o n t e x t , b u t

still related t o t h e discussion o f Spinoza's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e value o f t h e H e b r e w r e l i g i o n a n d t h e reasons for its l o n g e v i t y e v e n after t h e d e m i s e o f t h e a n c i e n t state: " H o w t h e latter political p o i n t o f v i e w [seil, t h e possibility o f a r e n e w e d e l e c t i o n o f Israel as i m p l i e d i n a r e n e w a l o f J e w i s h nationalism; cf. Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 7 5 ; Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Shirley, 4 7 ] g o e s a l o n g w i t h his reli­ g i o u s n o t i o n o f a d i v i n e g o v e r n a n c e o f t h e w o r l d is hardly c o m p r e h e n s i b l e w i t h o u t recourse t o a d e m o n i c sense o f i r o n y . " 81.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 312f. Strauss (GS, 1:376): " d e m

M e n s c h e n " ; C o h e n ("Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 3 ) : "den M e n s c h e n " ; Spinoza (Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 15): " d e n M e n s c h e n . " Cf. Tractatus theologicopoliticus, e d . J. V a n V l o t e n and J . P . N . Land ( T h e H a g u e : Martinus Nijhoff,

1913-14),

1:357, cited i n C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 3 n. 1: "certa c o g n i t i o a D e o h o m i n i b u s revelata." 82.

S e e S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 1 8 ; a n d cf. C o h e n ,

" S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 4 . 83.

S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 1 8 .

84.

T h e reference is m o s t likely t o W i l l i a m J a m e s , Varieties of the Religious Experi­

ence, first p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 0 2 a n d translated i n t o G e r m a n b y G. W o b b e r m i n ( s e c o n d e d i t i o n : 1 9 1 4 ) . G u i d e d b y a positivist u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s c i e n c e , this influential s c h o o l initially e m p h a s i z e d t h e extraordinary religious e x p e r i e n c e , such as conversion and mystical e x p e r i e n c e , a n d t h e empirical data it analyzed c o n s i s t e d m o s d y o f autobiographical w r i t ­ ings, diaries, and so o n . H e n c e , Strauss's critical aside. A l m o s t a century later, the A m e r i c a n academic study o f religion continues to be preoccupied with the methodological o p p o ­ sition i m p l i e d i n this b r i e f aside. S e e , m o s t r e c e n d y , D a v i d R a y Griffin, " R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e , N a t u r a l i s m , a n d t h e Social Scientific S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n , " J / L 4 R 6 8 , n o . 1 ( M a r c h 2 0 0 0 ) : 9 9 - 1 2 5 , a n d t h e responses and rejoinders i n t h e same issue, p p . 1 2 7 - 4 9 . 8 5 . JS, 314—15, c i t i n g Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 1 9 . 86.

W h a t C o h e n m e a n s t o say here, a n d explicitly says a f e w lines b e f o r e , is that

S p i n o z a d o e s n o t take i n t o a c c o u n t t h e possibility that t h e p r o p h e t s t h e m s e l v e s , at t h e stage at w h i c h their oracles w e r e fashioned i n t o t h e literature that a l o n e is available t o us, acted as t h e authors o f this p r o p h e t i c literature; i n o t h e r w o r d s , S p i n o z a s e e m s t o assume n a i v e l y that h e is dealing w i t h i m m e d i a t e a n d unreflected representations o f sense i m p r e s s i o n s (aural a n d visual) rather than w i t h literary formations o f s u c h r e p r e ­ sentations. W e c a n claim that e v e n C o h e n ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e possibility o f inferring f r o m t h e t e x t t h e creative g e n i u s o f its p r o p h e t i c authorship is o v e r l y c o n f i d e n t . Strauss a d v a n c e s a similar o b j e c t i o n i n t h e parenthesis b e l o w . 87.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 5 .

88.

T h a t is, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n that C o h e n c o r r e c d y identifies as u n d e r l y i n g S p i n o z a ' s

classification o f p r o p h e c y i n t o real and imaginary. Cf. ibid., 3 1 4 - 1 8 , w h i c h f o l l o w s a n d

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

171

paraphrases t h e a r g u m e n t o f chapter 1 of Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt, 1 9 2 5 ; cf. Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Shirley, 1 1 - 1 4 . 89.

Strauss's e q u a t i o n o f l o v e o f Christianity and hatred o f j u d a i s m stretches t h e

p o i n t . W h i l e C o h e n i m p u t e s t o Spinoza a certain "piety for t h e teachings o f Christ" ("Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 8 ) , h e n e i t h e r c o n d e m n s this s e n t i m e n t n o r associates it w i t h a "hatred o f j u d a i s m . " R a t h e r , C o h e n associates this piety w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a n t h e i s m o f the Ethics, w h i c h , as S p i n o z a h i m s e l f c o n c e d e s , is far f r o m t h e a c c e p t e d Christological d o c t r i n e o f " s o m e " churches. W h a t C o h e n criticizes w i t h regard t o t h e p r o p h e t o l o g y i n t h e Theological-Political Treatise is that Spinoza allows for a p h i l o s o p h i c a l interpretation o f the revelation i n / t o Christ y e t denies such a possibility t o t h e interpretation o f t h e M o s a i c revelation. T h i s charge is, t o C o h e n , aggravated b e cause e l s e w h e r e (in his Ethics) S p i n o z a d o e s r e c o g n i z e an a d u m b r a t i o n o f his pantheistic p h i l o s o p h y a m o n g " s o m e H e b r e w s . " Cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 2 0 , a n d s e e C o h e n , Religion der Vernunft, 2 d e d . (Frankfurt a m M a i n : K a u f f m a n n , 1929), 8 3 , 122, 124, 126f, 190, 260. 90.

A m o s 7:1 a n d 7:4 are e x a m p l e s o f parabolic v i s i o n s " s h o w n " t o t h e p r o p h e t ;

H o s e a 1 is an e x a m p l e o f w o r d s s p o k e n directly t o a p r o p h e t ; Isaiah 6 is t h e p r o p h e t ' s a c c o u n t o f a t h e o p h a n y . A n d cf. M a i m o n i d e s , Guide 11:45. 91.

In C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 5 , o n l y t h e w o r d Stimme

( v o i c e ) is e m p h a s i z e d . 92.

Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 2 3 . T h e emphasis is Strauss's.

M y translation h e r e is adapted f r o m Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Shirley, 1 4 . 93.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 6 .

94.

S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 1 9 .

95.

C o h e n ' s report o f Spinoza's o p i n i o n s is, i n d e e d , inaccurate and, as Strauss readily

c o n c e d e s , t h e m a j o r p o i n t o f C o h e n ' s a r g u m e n t d o e s n o t h i n g e o n t h e distortion o f t h e details i n q u e s t i o n . Still, I k n o w o f n o o t h e r case w h e r e C o h e n ascribes t o an author, w h o s e w o r k h e parses w i t h as m u c h care as h e d o e s S p i n o z a ' s Treatise, an o p i n i o n as blatandy c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e actual text. 96.

R . A b r a h a m b e n D a v i d o f Posquières (c. 1 1 2 5 - 9 8 ) , p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y e d u c a t e d

and w i d e l y respected P r o v e n ç a l halakhist. R a b a d a u t h o r e d , a m o n g m a n y o t h e r w o r k s , a critical s c h o l i o n (hassagot) o n t h e Code o f M a i m o n i d e s that, since t h e earliest printed e d i t i o n s , has b e e n a standard c o m p a n i o n t o t h e latter. (Cf. EJ, s.v. " A b r a h a m b e n D a v i d o f P o s q u i è r e s , " b y I. T w e r s k y . 97.

R a b b i M o s h e b e n M a i m o n , or M o s e s M a i m o n i d e s (1135—1204). C o h e n ' s w e l l -

k n o w n appreciation o f M a i m o n i d e s is manifest i n m a n y o f his writings. S e e i n particular t h e essay "Charakteristik der E t h i k M a i m u n i s , " i n Moses Ben Maimon: Sein Leben, seine

Werke und sein Einfluss: Zur Erinnerung an den siebenhundertsten Todestag des Maimonides, ed. W . B a c h e r , M . B r a n n , D . S i m o n s e n , and J. G u t t m a n n for t h e Gesellschaft z u r F ö r d e r u n g der Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s , v o l . 1 (Leipzig: F o c k , 1 9 0 8 ) , 6 3 - 1 3 4 . 98.

N o t e that R a b a d w a s h i m s e l f a rationalist interpreter o f Scripture a n d h e n c e far

f r o m asserting d i v i n e corporeality. Y e t h e criticized t h e m o r e theoretically o r i e n t e d M a i m o n i d e s for g o i n g t o o far w h e n , i n his Code, h e f o u n d t h o s e asserting corporeality deserving o f excommunication.

172

Chapter 99.

3

Strauss: " w i e Geist z u Geiste"; cf. Theological-Political Treatise, e d . Gebhardt,

2 5 : " v o n Geist z u Geiste"; Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Shirley, 14: " m i n d t o m i n d . " A n d s e e C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 317f. 100.

Cf. Strauss: '"seine Pietät für Christi Leben' ( C o h e n ) " ( = Spinoza's r e v e r e n c e

for t h e life o f Christ); a n d C o h e n , "Spinoza ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 8 : "seiner Pietät für dessen Lehren" ( = Spinoza's r e v e r e n c e for t h e teachings o f Christ). E m p h a s e s added. Cf., h o w e v e r , C o h e n , "Ein ungedruckter Vortrag H e r m a n n C o h e n s über Spinozas Verhältnis z u m J u d e n t u m , " w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n b y Franz R o s e n z w e i g , i n Festgabe zum 10jährigen Bestehen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1919-1929

(Berlin:

A k a d e m i e Verlag, 1 9 2 9 ) , 4 2 - 6 8 , w h i c h is t h e printed v e r s i o n o f a s p e e c h C o h e n g a v e i n 1 9 1 0 . O n p. 5 8 o f this text, w h i c h Strauss references i n t h e n o t e s t o his preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, w e find a passage that m a y h a v e b e e n o n Strauss's m i n d w h e n h e w r o t e o f Spinoza's piety, alleged b y C o h e n , for t h e "life o f Christ" instead o f for t h e "teachings o f Christ:" " A l s o nicht allein d i e s o g e n a n n t e Lehre Christi n a c h der h e r g e b r a c h t e n F i k t i o n , s o n d e r n d i e L e b e n s g e s c h i c h t e Christi n a c h d e n A p o s t e l n soll m a n m e n s c h l i c h l e i c h t b e g r e i f e n k ö n n e n " [ H e n c e n o t just t h e s o - c a l l e d d o c t r i n e o f Christ a c c o r d i n g t o t h e traditional fiction is s u p p o s e d t o b e h u m a n l y and easily c o m p r e ­ hensible, b u t also t h e b i o g r a p h y o f Christ a c c o r d i n g t o t h e aposdes]. T h i s passage w a s n o t y e t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 2 4 and, unless another, similar passage can b e identified i n C o h e n ' s p u b l i s h e d w o r k , Strauss m a y b e a s s u m e d t o h a v e had access t o t h e manuscript. It is possible, o f c o u r s e , that h e inadvertently s w i t c h e d "life" for " d o c t r i n e " (Leben instead o f Lehre) d u e t o t h e alliteration as w e l l as t h e closer association b e t w e e n piety and life (a lectio simplicior) than b e t w e e n piety and doctrine. 101.

Cf. C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 9 : "bekannt g e w o r d e n " ;

and Strauss, " C o h e n s A n a l y s e der Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas," 3 0 9 : "bekannt g e w e s e n . " 102.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 1 9 .

103.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 5 3 , q u o t i n g chapter 7 o f S p i n o z a ,

Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 1 3 9 . 104.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 2 9 .

105.

Cf. i b i d . , 3 2 5 , and see chapter 2 o f S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans.

Gebhardt, 5 0 . 106.

G e n e s i s 1 2 : 3 b . Cf. KJV, "and i n t h e e shall all families o f the earth b e blessed,"

and Tanakh (JPS): " A n d all t h e families o f t h e earth / Shall bless t h e m s e l v e s b y y o u . " 107.

C o h e n , "Spinoza über Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 3 6 1 : "diesen m e n s c h l i c h unbegreif­

l i c h e n Verrat." Instead o f Spinoza's "betrayal" (Verrat), Strauss speaks here o f his " a l i e n ­ a t i o n , " a t e r m that later, i n Spinoza's Critique of Religion, is used t o describe Spinoza's p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n . S e e , for e x a m p l e , Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 1 7 4 . In t h e last f o o t n o t e here, h o w e v e r , as w e l l as i n t h e 1 9 6 2 preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 1 9 , C o h e n ' s v i e w is c i t e d fully and w i t h o u t this m o d i f i c a t i o n . In f o o t n o t e 3 9 o f t h e preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, t h e m o s t strongly negative epithets C o h e n a p ­ p l i e d t o S p i n o z a are d o c u m e n t e d b y n o less than six references. 108.

S e e S p i n o z a , Ethics pt. 2 , p r o p o s i t i o n 4 3 , s c h o l i u m .

109.

C h a p t e r 7 o f S p i n o z a , Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Gebhardt, 1 5 6 ; cf.

C o h e n , " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , " 353f.

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

173

On the Bible Science of Spinoza and His Precursors The

following

(1926)

essay is m e a n t t o p r o v i d e a p r o g r a m m a t i c a l l y b r i e f o r i e n t a 1

t i o n — a s a p p r o p r i a t e for t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e Korrespondenzblatt —on

the guid-

ing question of the investigation I a m undertaking o n behalf of the A c a d e m y for t h e S c i e n c e o f J u d a i s m .

2

T h e s u b j e c t o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n is t h e B i b l e

3

s c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a a n d o f s o m e o f his p r e c u r s o r s ( U r i e l da C o s t a , Isaac d e La P e y r è r e , a n d T h o m a s H o b b e s ) , w h o w o r k e d u n d e r similar c o n d i t i o n s t o w a r d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f this d i s c i p l i n e . S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e has n o t b e e n t h e t h e m e o f adequate, and certainly not o f productive, m o n o g r a p h i c treatment s i n c e 1 8 6 7 , w h e n C a r l Siegfried's article " S p i n o z a als K r i t i k e r u n d A u s l e g e r des A l t e n T e s t a m e n t s " w a s p u b l i s h e d . T h e p r e s e n t a t t e m p t t o p r o d u c e a n e w e x p o s i t i o n is a m p l y j u s t i f i e d b y t h e m a n y c h a n g e s i n o u r c o n c e p t i o n a n d j u d g m e n t o f S p i n o z a d u e t o studies t h a t h a v e b e e n p u b l i s h e d i n t h e m e a n t i m e , studies d e a l i n g w i t h his b i o g r a p h y , w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f his d o c t r i n e , w i t h t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y o f his t i m e , a n d w i t h t h e g e n e r a l h i s t o r y o f B i b l e s c i e n c e . I o w e t h e i d e a for m y w o r k t o t h e critical s t u d y o f H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s article, " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m " ( r e p r i n t e d in t h e t h i r d v o l u m e o f his Jüdische Schriften),

4

w h i c h , in terms

o f t h e r a d i c a l i s m o f its q u e s t i o n i n g a n d t h e forcefulness w i t h w h i c h h e calls S p i n o z a t o a c c o u n t , is s i m p l y p a r a d i g m a t i c a n d w h i c h , in this v e r y r e s p e c t , is peerless in the r e c e n t literature o n Spinoza. T o b e sure, w h i l e few of C o h e n ' s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e as i n s p i r e d as h e w a s b y t h e spirit o f t h e g r e a t a g e o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , t o w h i c h h e zealously testified i n m a n y i m p o r t a n t passages o f 5

his w r i t i n g s , w h e n it c o m e s t o his c r i t i c i s m o f S p i n o z a , a p p a r e n t l y d i v e r t e d b y his i n s i g h t i n t o t h e d e e p e r o p p o s i t i o n , h e failed t o r e c o g n i z e S p i n o z a ' s t r u e o b j e c t i v e ( w h i c h is essentially i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t ) as w e l l as t h e i m m e d i a t e t a r g e t o f his a t t a c k . S p i n o z a d i d n o t t u r n against t h e " m o n o t h e i s m o f J u d a i s m " o r against t h e " s o c i a l e t h i c s o f t h e p r o p h e t s " b u t r a t h e r against r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n in all its f o r m s . In v i e w o f C o h e n ' s radicalization o f t h e q u e s t i o n , o n e m u s t a g a i n u n d e r t a k e an analysis o f t h e

Theological-Politi-

cal Treatise as a r a d i c a l c r i t i q u e o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n .

I. S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e is first o f all a fact i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e s c i e n c e s . S p i n o z a has t h e u n d i s p u t e d m e r i t o f h a v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d B i b l e s c i e n c e as a s c i e n c e "free o f p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . " In t h e p e r t i n e n t c h a p t e r s o f t h e Theological-Political Treatise h e d e t e r m i n e d t h e f u n d a m e n t a l o b j e c t i v e s a n d m e t h o d s o f 6

Chapter

174

3

r e s e a r c h o f t h e n e w d i s c i p l i n e a n d a d v a n c e d t o f u n d a m e n t a l results t h a t h a v e n e v e r b e e n c h a l l e n g e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e field. B i b l e s c i e n c e f o r m s a p a r t o f t h e w h o l e o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c disciplines. I n r e g a r d t o its i n s i g h t i n t o t h e d e m a n d s o f h e r m e n e u t i c s as s u c h , h o w e v e r , t h e a c h i e v e ­ m e n t o f t h e Treatise falls s h o r t o f w h a t , for e x a m p l e , E r a s m u s o f R o t t e r d a m c o n c e i v e d as n e c e s s a r y .

7

T h u s t h e total a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e Treatise in t h e

history o f the sciences w o u l d s e e m to be the constitution o f a specialized s c i e n c e . T h i s r e m a r k clearly misses t h e t r u e m e a n i n g o f S p i n o z a ' s a c h i e v e ­ m e n t , b e c a u s e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f B i b l e s c i e n c e is o f d e e p e r s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a n , 8

say, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e specialized s c i e n c e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s t u d y o f E g y p t i a n o r A s s y r i a n a n t i q u i t i e s . I n d e e d , this d e e p e r significance o f t h e

Trea­

tise d o e s n o t c o n s i s t at all i n its c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e . O n c e it is p r e s u p p o s e d t h a t , w i t h r e s p e c t t o its o r i g i n , t h e B i b l e is in p r i n c i p l e j u s t a literary d o c u m e n t l i k e a n y o t h e r , it f o l l o w s t h a t it m u s t b e dealt w i t h s c i e n ­ tifically j u s t l i k e a n y o t h e r d o c u m e n t , t h a t f r o m t h e o u t s e t it f o r m s a p a r t o f t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h e h u m a n i t i e s w i t h t h e i r essentially c o h e r e n t m e t h o d o l o g y , a n d t h a t t h e r e a r e n o f u r t h e r difficulties i n p r i n c i p l e t h a t h i n d e r t h e c o n s t i t u ­ t i o n o f B i b l e s c i e n c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f B i b l e s c i e n c e is p r e c e d e d b y t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f its p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , t h a t is, t h e c r i t i q u e o f t h e o p p o s i t e presupposition m a d e by revealed religion and the critique of revealed reli­ g i o n i n g e n e r a l . D u e t o t h e s e p r e c o n d i t i o n s , S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e is e n ­ d o w e d w i t h a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t t h a n t h a t w h i c h it w o u l d h a v e e a r n e d as a m e r e fact i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e sciences. It is a n i m p o r t a n t m o m e n t i n t h e u n i v e r s a l m o v e m e n t c a l l e d t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n . Is this c r i t i q u e , a n d in particular Spinoza's critique of revealed religion, s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n scientific a n d t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e ? In S p i n o z a ' s v i e w it is n o t . T h i s v i e w m u s t b e t a k e n s e r i o u s l y a n d w e i g h e d carefully, b u t it m u s t n o t b e b i n d i n g o n u s . A n i m m a n e n t analysis m i g h t b e sufficient if w e w e r e d e a l i n g w i t h a n i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Ethics. H o w e v e r , w h e n S p i n o z a r e a c h e s b e y o n d t h e c o n t e x t o f h i s o w n life a n d t h o u g h t a n d w h e n h e e m b a r k s o n t h e c r i t i q u e o f a n o t h e r c o n t e x t , h e is s u b j e c t t o a n o r m o t h e r t h a n t h e o n e i m m a n e n t in h i m . B y u n d e r t a k i n g this c r i t i q u e h e subjects h i m s e l f t o t h e j u d g m e n t i m p l i c i t i n t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r h e h i t o r m i s s e d t h e c r i t i c i z e d c o n t e x t . O n l y w h e n this q u e s t i o n is p o s e d d o t h e specific p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f his c r i t i q u e e m e r g e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , S p i n o z a ' s g e n e r a l c o n c e p t i o n o f his c r i t i q u e as t h e o r e t i c a l , o r e v e n as p o t e n t i a l l y t h e o r e t i c a l , is called i n t o q u e s t i o n . T h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s B i b l e s c i e n c e is t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , a n d t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , i n t u r n , is t h e result o f t h e s y s t e m d e v e l o p e d i n t h e Ethics. S t r i c d y s p e a k i n g , t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n c a n n o t b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e s y s t e m , b e c a u s e t r u t h is t h e n o r m o f itself a n d o f f a l s e h o o d . R e l i g i o n

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

175

is r e f u t e d a n d its c l a i m s a r e p r o v e n t o b e e r r o n e o u s b y t h e p o s i t i v e c o n s t r u c tion o f the system. T h u s , the ultimate presuppositions o f Spinoza's critique o f r e l i g i o n a r e i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n s a n d a x i o m s o f t h e Ethics ( o r w i t h e q u i v a l e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s ) . A l t h o u g h it is n o t his h a b i t t o u n c o v e r t h e e r r o r s o f o t h e r s , S p i n o z a m a k e s a n e x h a u s t i v e effort t o refute r e l i g i o n , b e c a u s e its c l a i m s a r e p r e j u d i c e s t h a t c a n o b s t r u c t t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f his p r o o f s . T h e c l a i m s o f r e l i g i o n a r e n e c e s s a r y e r r o r s , r o o t e d in h u m a n n a t u r e , a n d are i m p o s s i b l e t o eradicate from the m i n d s a n d hearts of m o s t h u m a n beings. H e n c e the errors 9

o f r e l i g i o n ( o f s u p e r s t i t i o n , as S p i n o z a likes t o s a y ) a n d t h e t r u t h s o f p h i l o s o p h y are of a k i n d that cannot be evaded b y the h u m a n being. R a t h e r , the h u m a n b e i n g ' s o r i g i n a l a n d sole striving, t h a t o f p e r s i s t i n g in his b e i n g , f o r c e s h i m e i t h e r t o w a r d t h e s e t r u t h s o r t o w a r d t h o s e e r r o r s . T h e s t r i v i n g f o r selfp r e s e r v a t i o n g e n e r a t e s t h e v e r y passions in w h i c h it r u n s a g r o u n d a n d n e g a t e s itself.

10

T h e passions e n d a n g e r o u r being. T h e situation in w h i c h t h e striving

for s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n loses itself i n t h e s t r i v i n g for sensual h a p p i n e s s a n d t e m p o r a l g o o d s gives rise t o r e l i g i o n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e radically u n d e r s t o o d s t r i v i n g for s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n fulfills itself i n t h e o r y .

1 1

T h e o r y a n d reli-

g i o n are o p p o s i t e possibilities for t h e h u m a n b e i n g t h a t are as d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s e d t o e a c h o t h e r as s t r e n g t h a n d i m p o t e n c e , f r e e d o m a n d b o n d a g e , a spiritual a n d a carnal attitude. T h e r e is a difference b e t w e e n t h e r e l i g i o n o f t h e m u l t i t u d e , s u p e r s t i t i o n , a n d t h e official d o c t r i n e o f t h e t h e o l o g i a n s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e t e a c h ings o f t h e p r o p h e t s , t h e Psalms, t h e Proverbs, t h e Gospels, a n d the P a u l i n e E p i s t l e s , o n t h e o t h e r . I n his fight against t h e " s u p e r s t i t i o n " t h a t c o m p l e t e l y d o m i n a t e d the c o n t e m p o r a r y churches, Spinoza relied o n the doctrine o f the "ancient r e l i g i o n , " u s u r p e d a n d disfigured b y priests o u t o f g r e e d a n d v a n i t y . T h u s S p i n o z a ' s o w n c o n c e p t i o n w a s t h a t h e d i d n o t fight against r e l i g i o n b u t against s u p e r s t i t i o n ( w h i c h , h o w e v e r , is j u s t p o s i t i v e r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n i n all its f o r m s ) , a n d n o t against S c r i p t u r e b u t against t h e c o n c e p t i o n a n d u s e o f S c r i p t u r e b y r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n . H e r e g a r d s his c r i t i c i s m o f r e l i g i o n as a n i m m a n e n t critique. S p i n o z a ' s p o s i t i o n , a n d t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n t h a t c o m e s w i t h it, asserts itself i n t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l c o n t e x t as w e l l as i n t h a t o f t h e Treatise t h r o u g h h i s critique of the position of Maimonides. N o w , M a i m o n i d e s ' position implies a c r i t i c i s m o f a " m o r e n a ï v e " p o s i t i o n , w h i c h is t h e v e r y p o s i t i o n S p i n o z a d e n i g r a t e s as s u p e r s t i t i o n a n d w h i c h M a i m o n i d e s j u d g e s n o m o r e l e n i e n d y . I n t h e c o u r s e o f his critical d i s m e m b e r m e n t o f t h e w h o l e o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n i n t o its c o m p o n e n t parts, S p i n o z a d i s c o v e r s t h e " n a ï v e " p o s i t i o n t h a t h a d b e e n " o v e r c o m e " ['überwunden"]

b y M a i m o n i d e s , a n d h e m a k e s it t h e

o b j e c t o f a c r i t i c i s m s h a r p l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m his c r i t i q u e o f M a i m o n i d e s .

176

Chapter

3

T h e " n a ï v e " p o s i t i o n p r e s e n t s itself t o h i m i n d e p e n d e n t l y in t h e f o r m o f t h e C a l v i n i s t o r t h o d o x y o f his t i m e . A c c o r d i n g l y , S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n o c c u r s i n t w o p h a s e s : first, as a c r i t i q u e o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f M a i m o n i d e s ; a n d s e c o n d , as a c r i t i q u e o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f C a l v i n i s t o r t h o d o x y (or o f a c o r r e s p o n d i n g Jewish f o r m o f the same). The Critique

of Maimonides'

Position

T h e c r i t i q u e o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n is a scientific c r i t i q u e o f scientific c l a i m s , a n d as s u c h it is i m m a n e n t in M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n . T h i s is so b e c a u s e i n j u s t i f y i n g his d o c t r i n e , M a i m o n i d e s relies n o t so m u c h o n S c r i p t u r e as o n r e a s o n . H e s i m p l y d e r i v e s t h e t r u e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e b y i n t e r p r e t i n g it o n t h e basis o f o b j e c t i v e t r u t h s t h a t r e a s o n k n o w s w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o S c r i p t u r e . T h i s m a k e s r e a s o n s e e m i n g l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f S c r i p t u r e . T r u e , it b e c o m e s i m p o s s i b l e t o o b j e c t t o t h e results o f r a t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o n t h e basis o f i n d i v i d u a l passages o f S c r i p t u r e , h o w e v e r n u m e r o u s . B u t t h e o p e r a t i v e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n M a i m o n i d e s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e — t h a t S c r i p t u r e is t r u e b e c a u s e it is r e v e a l e d — d i r e c t s t h e o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n t o w a r d a c e r t a i n c o n c e p t o f G o d . T h e fact o f r e v e l a t i o n is p r e s u p p o s e d . S p i n o z a a r g u e s against this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n t w o w a y s . First, h e d e n i e s t h e r e v e a l e d c h a r a c t e r o f S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e factuality o f r e v e l a t i o n t h r o u g h a philological a n d historical critique o f the c a n o n a n d the tradition. A n d seco n d , h e refutes t h e possibility o f r e v e l a t i o n t h r o u g h a p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i q u e o f t h e c o n c e p t o f G o d o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t it c o n t r a dicts G o d ' s e s s e n c e t o r e v e a l a l a w . B u t it is j u s t this m o r e radical p a r t o f h i s c r i t i q u e t h a t is n o t i m m a n e n t . E v e n if w e s u p p o s e t h a t , i n S p i n o z a ' s m i n d , h i s p o s i t i o n is d e r i v e d f r o m M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n b y m e a n s o f a f u r t h e r i m m a n e n t d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d t h u s b y strict i n f e r e n c e , a n d e v e n if w e f u r t h e r s u p p o s e t h a t h e i n v a r i a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t r i g o r o u s d e d u c t i o n f r o m (as h e claims) g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h e o l o g i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s yields results t h a t n e g a t e u

urird]

[aufgehoben

t h e p o s i t i o n o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , [ w e m u s t c o n c l u d e that] this b e l i e f is

n o t g r o u n d e d i n t h e facts. S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e possibility o f r e v e l a t i o n follows f r o m t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i n G o d i n t e l l e c t a n d w i l l a r e o n e a n d t h e s a m e . T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is equivalent to a denial of creation, of the giving of the Law, and of miracles. T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is also e n c o u n t e r e d i n M a i m o n i d e s . T h i s fact s e e m e d t o justify t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e w a s an essential a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n M a i m o n i d e s a n d S p i n o z a — a fact t h a t d o e s n o t r e d o u n d t o M a i m o n i d e s ' c r e d i t . N e v e r t h e less, o n closer i n s p e c t i o n it b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t t h a t w h a t M a i m o n i d e s a d v a n c e s a n d w h a t S p i n o z a m a k e s t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f his c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a r e

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

177

n o t t h e s a m e p r o p o s i t i o n . T h u s , t h e t h e o l o g y o f M a i m o n i d e s is n o t t h e basis o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n . If o n e l o o k s for s u c h a basis, t h e n o n e must return to those presuppositions of the aforementioned proposition o f i d e n t i t y b y w h i c h S p i n o z a u n d e r m i n e s M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n , t h a t is, t h e b e l i e f i n a G o d w h o freely c r e a t e s a n d acts g r a c i o u s l y . T h e s e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s are d e v e l o p e d in t h e

Ethics.

T h e e x t e n s i v e discussion in t h e Treatise, h o w e v e r , p o i n t s t o a n o t h e r , m o r e i m m e d i a t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t also has t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b e i n g e x p l i c i t l y a c ­ k n o w l e d g e d b y M a i m o n i d e s . I a m r e f e r r i n g t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n of theory c o m ­ m o n t o M a i m o n i d e s a n d S p i n o z a . T h e o r y as p r e s u p p o s i t i o n a n d e l e m e n t o f t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d a n d t h u s of beatitudo [blessedness] is t h e h i g h e s t i n t e r ­ est o f h u m a n b e i n g s , a n d it absorbs o r d e p r e c i a t e s all o t h e r interests. P r o c e e d ­ i n g f r o m t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e o r y as s u c h , S p i n o z a b r i n g s t o light t h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d Scripture ( m o r e precisely, b e t w e e n t h e o r y and T o r a h ) : t h e T o r a h d i r e c t s itself t o a g r o u p o f h u m a n b e i n g s , a special g r o u p o f h u m a n b e i n g s , w h i l e t h e o r y is i n p r i n c i p l e t h e c o n c e r n o f e a c h h u m a n b e i n g as a n i n d i v i d u a l . M a i m o n i d e s a v o i d s this c o n s e q u e n c e b y his d o c t r i n e o f t h e divine law. A c c o r d i n g t o this d o c t r i n e , t h e d i v i n e l a w has t h e f u n c t i o n o f d e t e r m i n ­ i n g t h e m e a n s t h a t s e r v e t h e h e t e r o g e n e o u s goals i n life o f t h e w i s e f e w a n d t h e u n w i s e m a n y t h r o u g h a single legal o r d e r . T h e T o r a h a i m s at t h e h i g h e s t p e r f e c t i o n o f t h e f e w , t h a t is, t h e o r y . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , it a i m s at t h e social o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e m a n y a n d at t h e i r c i v i l i z i n g [Sittigung],

w h i c h serves this

s e c o n d a r y p u r p o s e . T h u s , t h e p u r p o s e o f r e v e l a t i o n , insofar as it is n o t s i m p l y i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e o r y , is t h e s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e m u l t i t u d e .

For

M a i m o n i d e s , t h e r e l a t i o n o f care for t h e m u l t i t u d e v i s - à - v i s t h e o r y is n o t j u s t t h e r e l a t i o n o f a m e a n s t o an e n d , in t h e sense t h a t social o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d e x t e r n a l s e c u r i t y o f life are t o g e t h e r t h e conditio sine qua non o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l life. R a t h e r , h e is vitally c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t r u t h s b e r e c o g n i z e d as s u c h b y t h e m u l t i t u d e , i g n o r i n g t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e t r u t h s in t h e o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n o f s o c i e t y . All h u m a n b e i n g s , t h e w i s e a n d t h e f o o l i s h ,

13

are t o b e

u n i t e d b y t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f one t r u t h . S p i n o z a is n o t m o v e d b y t h e i n t e r e s t t h a t all h u m a n b e i n g s r e c o g n i z e t h e truth, an interest n o t entailed b y the interest in truth. T h e s e h e t e r o g e n e o u s i n t e r e s t s are u n i t e d o n l y b y t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o r y w i t h r e v e l a t i o n , a n d thus b y the identification of the acceptance o f u n t r u t h w i t h idolatry. F o r S p i n o z a , t h e m u l t i t u d e is an object of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t ; h e e n j o y s t h e c o n ­ t e m p l a t i o n of the m u l t i t u d e [whose m e m b e r s ] are enslaved b y their passions. T h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e m u l t i t u d e is t h e u l t i m a t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s t h e o r y o f t h e state. I n t h e final analysis, his i n t e r e s t i n t h e social o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e m u l t i t u d e p r o v e s t o b e a c o n s e q u e n c e o f his i n t e r e s t in t h e o r y . T h u s

178

Chapter

3

t h e r a d i c a l i z a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t t u r n s o u t t o b e a n essential m o ­ m e n t i n t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n S p i n o z a a n d M a i m o n i d e s , a n d a n essential p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n . T h i s p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is i m m a ­ n e n t in M a i m o n i d e s ' position. T h i s state o f affairs is n o t a l t e r e d b y t h e o v e r t c o n n e c t i o n t h a t S p i n o z a establishes b e t w e e n t h e u n l i m i t e d s u p r e m a c y o f t h e o r y a n d t h e d e n i a l o f b o t h d i v i n e a n d h u m a n f r e e d o m , t h a t is, t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t all h u m a n affects a n d a c t i o n s a r e a p r o d u c t o f t h e o n e N a t u r e t h a t is a l w a y s a n d e v e r y w h e r e t h e s a m e ; for t h e s u p r e m a c y o f t h e o r y is r e c o g n i z e d b y M a i m o n i d e s u n d e r t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f totally different objective c o n v i c t i o n s . In this regard, Spinoza's critique only confirms the objections, advanced from within r e ­ vealed religion, to t h e a t t e m p t to elevate theory, u n d e r the assumption o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , t o t h e [level of] h i g h e s t h u m a n i n t e r e s t . T h u s it is a t r u l y i m m a n e n t critique. I n t e r e s t i n r a d i c a l l y c o n c e i v e d t h e o r y d e m a n d s t h a t e v e r y t h i n g t h a t is should b e c o m e the object of theory, and that o n e should adopt a theoretical a t t i t u d e i n a p p r o a c h i n g e v e r y t h i n g t h a t is. T h u s S p i n o z a m u s t t a k e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e special status t h a t S c r i p t u r e is a s s i g n e d i n t h e w o r k o f M a i m o n i d e s . It t o o b e c o m e s a n o b j e c t o f t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t , a n d e v e r y o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n it is d e v a l u e d i n p r i n c i p l e . T h i s has d e c i s i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s for t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . S c r i p t u r e m u s t n o t b e presupposed

t o b e t r u e . It is o n l y o n t h e

basis o f a n u n b i a s e d e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t o n e c a n pass j u d g m e n t o n its t r u t h . It is t r u e t h a t M a i m o n i d e s c a n n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h e t r u t h o f S c r i p t u r e o n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e , t h a t is, o n t h e basis o f its literal s e n s e , b e c a u s e his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c r i p t u r e p r e s u p p o s e s his c o n v i c t i o n o f its t r u t h . T h i s c o n v i c t i o n , h o w ­ e v e r , is a u t h e n t i c a t e d b y t h e t r a d i t i o n o f its r e v e a l e d c h a r a c t e r . A t this p o i n t , w e m a y disregard the philological and historical critique by w h i c h Spinoza d e f e n d s h i m s e l f a g a i n s t this c o n v i c t i o n . W h a t is o f f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e is t h a t t h e w a y i n w h i c h M a i m o n i d e s i n t e r p r e t s S c r i p t u r e — n a m e l y , h e d o e s so o n t h e basis o f his c o n v i c t i o n o f its t r u t h — i s s e e n b y S p i n o z a as failing t h e e l e m e n t a r y d e m a n d s o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a t t i t u d e . H e m a r v e l s at h o w u n s c r u ­ p u l o u s l y M a i m o n i d e s n e g a t e s o r falsifies all o f t h e m o s t o b v i o u s o p p o s i n g j u d g m e n t s , a n d at h o w u n r e s t r a i n e d h e is in a d a p t i n g Scripture t o his o p i n i o n s . J u s t l i k e S p i n o z a ' s d o c t r i n e o f t h e d i v i n e l a w , his d o c t r i n e o f p r o p h e c y c o n t a i n s p r o o f o f a f u n d a m e n t a l i n n e r difficulty i n M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n . H e r e t o o t h e starting p o i n t of Spinoza's p r o p h e t o l o g y in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c t r i n e o f M a i m o n i d e s has l o n g b e e n e v i d e n t a n d w a s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d b y M . Joël.

1 4

M a i m o n i d e s ' p r o p h e t o l o g y arises f r o m t h e difficulty t h a t t h e b e l i e f

i n t h e t r u t h o f S c r i p t u r e r u n s i n t o w h e n it faces t h e m a n i f e s t u n t r u t h o f n u -

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

179

m e r o u s s c r i p t u r a l passages. F o r e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g t o A r i s t o t e l i a n p h y s i c s , c h a n g e s i n t h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e celestial b o d i e s s u c h as t h o s e in t h e m i r a c l e o f J o s h u a [Joshua 10:12—14] are i m p o s s i b l e . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t p r e s e n t s i t ­ self h e r e — b e t w e e n a m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e t h a t is literal, i n a p p r o p r i a t e , a n d i m a g i n a t i v e a n d o n e t h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e a n d t r u e — m a k e s it n e c e s s a r y t o r e p ­ r e s e n t t h e act o f p r o p h e t i c p e r c e p t i o n i n s u c h a w a y t h a t it s i m u l t a n e o u s l y explains the i n n e r truth a n d the imaginative expression of prophetic speech. T h u s M a i m o n i d e s t e a c h e s t h a t p r o p h e c y is a n e m a n a t i o n f r o m G o d t h a t , m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h t h e a c t i v e i n t e l l e c t , first u n f o l d s i n t h e i n t e l l e c t a n d t h e n i n t h e i m a g i n a t i v e faculty o f t h e p r o p h e t . T h e i n t e l l e c t a n d t h e i m a g i n a t i v e faculty c o o p e r a t e i n t h e p r o p h e t i c act; i n fact, e a c h o f t h e s e capacities is e n ­ hanced beyond ordinary measure. S p i n o z a ' s d e c i s i v e o b j e c t i o n states t h a t , g i v e n t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t a n d i m a g i n a t i v e f a c u l t y — a n o p p o s i t i o n r e c o g n i z e d also b y M a i m o n i d e s — a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e i m a g i n a t i v e faculty m u s t l e a d t o an e x ­ t r a o r d i n a r y r e d u c t i o n o f t h e c a p a c i t y for p u r e i n t e l l e c t i o n . T h i s o b j e c t i o n is a i m e d at a n i n n e r difficulty i n M a i m o n i d e a n p r o p h e t o l o g y . I n this case, t h e c r i t i c i s m d o e s n o t affect M a i m o n i d e s , b e c a u s e S p i n o z a has a totally different c o n c e p t i o n a n d v a l u a t i o n o f t h e " i m a g i n a t i v e f a c u l t y " a n d t h u s misses t h e p o i n t o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p r o p h e t o l o g y . A p a r t f r o m t h i s , w h a t is o f f u n d a m e n t a l significance is t h a t t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t s d e r i v e d f r o m M a i m o n i d e s ' p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e o f G o d a n d H i s a t t r i b u t e s are o f little a c c o u n t for t h e d i s ­ c u s s i o n s i n t h e Treatise. I n c o n t r a s t t o S p i n o z a , t h e c o n c e p t o f G o d c h a r a c t e r ­ istic o f M a i m o n i d e s has a v o i c e i n his p r o p h e t o l o g y o n l y insofar as, a c c o r d i n g t o this d o c t r i n e , G o d c a n p r e v e n t at H i s d i s c r e t i o n t h e a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e p r o p h e t i c p o t e n t i a l . I n all o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e s e r v a t i o n is n e v e r m e n t i o n e d . Closer examination of the misunderstanding implied in Spinoza's criti­ cism

1 5

o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p r o p h e t o l o g y brings to light a d e e p e r presupposition

t h a t , t h o u g h f a v o r i n g t h e r a d i c a l i z a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l interest, c a n n o t b e d e r i v e d f r o m this i n t e r e s t itself.

16

According to Maimonides' doctrine, the

c o o p e r a t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t a n d i m a g i n a t i v e faculty i n t h e p r o p h e t i c p e r c e p t i o n does n o t detract from the theoretical dignity of prophecy, because the imagi­ n a t i v e faculty d o e s n o t i n f l u e n c e , a n d t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t h i n d e r a n d i n t e r f e r e w i t h , t h e i n t e l l e c t . R a t h e r , t h e i m a g i n a t i v e faculty is r u l e d a n d c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e i n t e l l e c t a n d p u t i n its s e r v i c e . As I said, S p i n o z a fails t o p e r c e i v e this p o i n t i n M a i m o n i d e s ' p r o p h e t o l o g y . B e s i d e s , his c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a ­ t i v e faculty c o m p e l l e d h i m t o d e n y t h e possibility p r e s u m e d b y M a i m o n i d e s . It goes w i t h o u t saying t h a t a decisive role in this o p p o s i t i o n

between

Chapter

180

3

M a i m o n i d e s a n d S p i n o z a is p l a y e d b y t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i r c o n c e p ­ tions—the Aristotelian and the Cartesian—of truth and k n o w l e d g e . I n a n d b e h i n d this o p p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h e r e a p p e a r s a m o m e n t t h a t is e v e n m o r e characteristic o f the critique o f revelation. A c c o r d i n g to M a i m o n ­ i d e s , t h e o r y o p e r a t i n g b y m e a n s o f t h e i n t e l l e c t a l o n e is in p r i n c i p l e

surpass­

able. T h i s is so i n t w o respects. First, p h i l o s o p h i c a l k n o w l e d g e c a n b e , a n d h a s a c t u a l l y b e e n , s u r p a s s e d b y p r o p h e t i c k n o w l e d g e . S e c o n d l y , an essentially u n s u r p a s s a b l e a n d essentially p e r f e c t p h i l o s o p h i c a l k n o w l e d g e exists h i s t o r i ­ cally i n t h e d o c t r i n e o f A r i s t o t l e . T h u s all t h e o r e t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n m o v e s i n a h o r i z o n r u l e d a n d l i m i t e d b y authorities. M a i m o n i d e s ' a t t e m p t t o identify t h e o r y a n d S c r i p t u r e p r e s u p p o s e s t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e o r y has a r r i v e d at its e s s e n ­ tial c o m p l e t i o n a n d p e r f e c t i o n i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f A r i s t o d e . T h i s is so b e c a u s e , if S c r i p t u r e is t o b e m a d e accessible o n l y b y its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t a i m s at o b j e c t i v e t r u t h , p e r f e c t t r u t h m u s t b e available. R e v e l a t i o n is t o b e i d e n t i f i e d o n l y w i t h a p e r f e c t a n d c o m p l e t e t h e o r y . It is i m p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r ­ t a k e this e n d e a v o r v i s - à - v i s t h e " n e w s c i e n c e , " w h i c h a d m i t s infinite p r o g r e s s , a n d t h u s a d m i t s essential i n c o m p l e t e n e s s a n d i m p e r f e c t i o n at e a c h c o n c r e t e stage. T h e t y p e o f t h e o r y e n v i s i o n e d b y M a i m o n i d e s offers less r e s i s t a n c e t o identification w i t h revelation than the type present to Spinoza. T h e o v e r ­ t h r o w o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f A r i s t o d e b y t h e n e w p h y s i c s d i s c r e d i t e d t h e contents of M a i m o n i d e s ' interpretation of Scripture. T h e liberation of science from e v e r y tie t o a u t h o r i t y a n d t h e rise o f a p o s i t i v e s c i e n c e w i t h a n u n l i m i t e d h o r i z o n o f f u t u r e tasks a n d d i s c o v e r i e s m a d e t h e principle

of Maimonides'

interpretation untenable. A t this p o i n t , the question w e m u s t p u t to Spinoza's critique of M a i m o n ­ ides a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , t o M a i m o n i d e s h i m s e l f calls for a m o r e a c c u r a t e f o r ­ mulation. W e p r o c e e d e d from the fundamental agreement b e t w e e n the t w o p h i l o s o p h e r s ' c o n c e p t i o n a n d v a l u a t i o n o f t h e o r y . B a s e d o n this a g r e e m e n t , S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i c i s m p r e s e n t e d itself as a n i n n e r c r i t i q u e o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f M a i m o n i d e s . It u r g e s t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d S c r i p t u r e a n d a r ­ g u e s against t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f harmonizing

t h e o r y a n d Scripture. M o r e radical

than the question o f w h e t h e r theory a n d Scripture can b e h a r m o n i z e d , h o w ­ e v e r , is t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e i r c o o r d i n a t i o n — t h a t is, a s s u m i n g t h e s u p r e m a c y o f t h e o r y , t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h a t an interest i n r e v e l a t i o n really m e a n s . M o r e a c c u r a t e l y , if t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e o r y is t h e h i g h e s t i n t e r e s t o f h u m a n b e i n g s , a b s o r b i n g o r d e p r e c i a t i n g all o t h e r i n t e r e s t s , a n d if t h e i n t e l l e c t as t h e n a t u r a l o r g a n o f t h e o r y is a d e q u a t e for t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f t h e o r y , w h a t t h e n is t h e p u r p o s e o f r e v e l a t i o n ? T h i s q u e s t i o n is n o t d i r e c t e d t o t h e belief i n r e v e l a t i o n , w h i c h c a n s u p p o r t itself b y a g r e a t m a n y a r g u m e n t s d r a w n f r o m t h e o l o g y ,

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

181

f r o m t h e e c o n o m y o f s a l v a t i o n , a n d f r o m h i s t o r y , b u t t o t h e issue o f w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e , i n p r i n c i p l e , for t h e t h e o r i s t t o l e a d his life i n d i s r e g a r d o f r e v e l a ­ t i o n . If this p o s s i b i l i t y is g r a n t e d , t h e n t h e b e l i e f i n r e v e l a t i o n m a y b e c o m e a constituent o f the intellectual convictions of the theorist, a constituent from w h i c h , i n c i d e n t a l l y , t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s for t h e c o n t e n t s o f his t h e o r y , a n d especially for a specific c o n c e p t o f G o d , m a y , o r e v e n m u s t , f o l l o w . R e v e l a t i o n , h o w e v e r , has n o significance for his life, for his h i g h e s t a n d e x c l u s i v e i n t e r e s t , a n d for t h e c o n s u m m a t i o n o f his t h e o r y . H e d o e s n o t need r e v e l a t i o n . If it is c l a i m e d t h a t t h e t h e o r i s t ' s o w n t h o u g h t is u n s u r p a s s a b l e , o r e v e n j u s t a d e q u a t e , for t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f t h e o r y , t h e n it f o l l o w s t h a t this possibility m u s t b e a d m i t t e d . It c a n b e s h o w n t o b e t y p i c a l o f t h e t h e o r y t h a t arises i n t h e c o n t e x t o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n t h a t it calls i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e l e g i t i m a c y i n p r i n c i p l e o f u n ­ a i d e d h u m a n t h o u g h t , w h i l e it also a t t e m p t s t o s e c u r e its o w n t h e o r y , d e t e r ­ m i n e d e v e n i n its c o n t e n t s b y t h e t r a d i t i o n o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , against t h e u n b e l i e v i n g t h e o r y o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s . T h i s h o l d s t r u e for M a i m o n i d e s as w e l l . H i s s p e c u l a t i v e p r a c t i c e suggests t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l v i e w o f t h e r e l a ­ t i o n b e t w e e n reason a n d revelation: the truths of revelation are identical w i t h t h e t r u t h s o f r e a s o n , t h a t is, t h e y are accessible t o h u m a n r e a s o n . T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t u n g u i d e d h u m a n r e a s o n left t o its o w n r e s o u r c e s c o u l d h a v e d i s c o v ­ e r e d all f u n d a m e n t a l t r u t h s . E v e n A r i s t o t l e , the p h i l o s o p h e r , c o u l d k n o w o n l y t h e s u b l u n a r w o r l d i n its essential t r u t h . It is n o t b y a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e d e c i s i v e correction M a i m o n i d e s m a d e to Aristotelian-Neoplatonic theology, namely, t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e w o r l d has b e e n c r e a t e d , is a c o r r e c t i o n o f this t h e o l o g y t h a t a c c o r d s w i t h S c r i p t u r e . O f c o u r s e , M a i m o n i d e s p r o v i d e s reasons for t h e d o g m a o f c r e a t i o n . H e p r o v e s t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d is m o r e p l a u s i b l e t h a n its e t e r n i t y . B u t h e is a w a r e t h a t h u m a n c a p a c i t y d o e s n o t suffice for s o l v i n g this q u e s t i o n perfectly. W h e n it c o m e s t o a f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n , o n w h o s e r e s o ­ lution depends the b e i n g or n o n b e i n g of revealed religion, unaided h u m a n r e a s o n is i n p r i n c i p l e s u b j e c t t o e r r o r . I n t h e face o f this l i m i t a t i o n o f h u m a n t h o u g h t , M a i m o n i d e s d e m a n d s c a u t i o n a n d distrust o f h u m a n t h o u g h t a n d refers t o t h e t r a d i t i o n f o u n d e d o n p r o p h e c y . W e m a y t h e r e f o r e p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n is t h e c o n ­ v i c t i o n o f t h e sufficiency o f h u m a n t h o u g h t for t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f t h e o r y . O n e m i g h t o b j e c t t h a t t h e o p p o s i t e c o n v i c t i o n , t h a t is, distrust o f h u m a n t h o u g h t , is n o t t r u l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f M a i m o n i d e s t h e " r a t i o n a l i s t . " T h i s o b j e c t i o n d r a w s its s t r e n g t h f r o m a c o m p a r i s o n o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n w i t h o t h e r p o t e n t i a l a n d a c t u a l p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n . B u t this a p p r o a c h is i n a p p r o p r i a t e if w e are a s k i n g a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c difference

between

182

Chapter

3

S p i n o z a as t h e o n e w h o d e n i e s r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n a n d M a i m o n i d e s as t h e o n e w h o affirms it. T h e necessity o f r e v e l a t i o n is t o b e l e g i t i m i z e d solely b y d o u b t ­ i n g o r l i m i t i n g t h e right o f s o v e r e i g n h u m a n t h o u g h t . T h e following considerations speak in favor of locating the core of the o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n S p i n o z a a n d r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n (and, a c c o r d i n g l y , o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n S p i n o z a a n d M a i m o n i d e s ) i n t h e antithesis o f b e l i e f i n sufficiency a n d b e l i e f in insufficiency. All o b j e c t i v e a r g u m e n t s against t h e doctrines o f revealed religion presuppose t h e c o n v i c t i o n that h u m a n t h o u g h t , f o l l o w i n g its o w n d i r e c t i v e s , is c o m p e t e n t a n d qualified t o j u d g e r e v e l a t i o n . H e n c e t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f this c o n v i c t i o n m u s t p r e c e d e t h e c r i t i q u e o f t h e d o c t r i n e s o f r e v e l a t i o n . A t t h e v e r y least, a n y d o u b t as t o t h e sufficiency o f h u m a n t h o u g h t m u s t first b e r e m o v e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , if t h e b e l i e f i n a G o d w h o revealed a law could be destroyed or even had been destroyed by philo­ s o p h i c a l c r i t i q u e , o r if t h e b e l i e f i n t h e r e v e l a t i o n o f t h e M o s a i c l a w c o u l d b e d e s t r o y e d o r e v e n h a d b e e n d e s t r o y e d b y h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i q u e , this still w o u l d by n o m e a n s r e n d e r destructible, o r actually destroy, the interest in revelation g r o u n d e d i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n , o r i n t h e i n s i g h t , t h a t h u m a n life i n itself is e i t h e r c o m p l e t e l y d i r e c t i o n l e s s o r lacks a d e q u a t e d i r e c t i o n . H e n c e t h e c r i t i c — h a v ­ i n g s h a k e n h i m s e l f free o f t h e b e l i e f i n a r e v e l a t i o n a c c o m m o d a t e d t o h u m a n i n t e r e s t , o r i n a s u p e r h u m a n r e v e l a t i o n t h a t first a w a k e n s this i n t e r e s t , a n d t h e r e f o r e h a v i n g set h i m s e l f t h e task o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e a l l e g e d r e v e l a t i o n o f G o d as m e r e l y a w o r k o f m a n a n d d e r i v i n g it f r o m t h e l a w s o f h u m a n n a t u r e — i s l i k e l y t o b e g i n t h e analysis o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n w i t h t h e fact t h a t appears, even from the perspective o f revealed religion, to be the h u m a n c o r r e l a t e o f a s u p e r h u m a n r e v e l a t i o n , n a m e l y , w i t h t h e fact o f m a n ' s i n a d ­ e q u a c y for t h e g u i d a n c e o f his o w n life. T h u s w e u n d e r s t a n d w h y S p i n o z a prefaces w i t h a c r i t i q u e o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n r e v e l a t i o n , t h a t is, a c r i t i q u e o f t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y e x p e r i e n c e o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , t h e Theological-Political

Treatise,

w h i c h , i n its m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l parts, is d e d i c a t e d t o t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e v e a l e d religion. I n s u m m a r y , w e m a y c h a r a c t e r i z e S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f M a i m o n i d e s as f o l l o w s . O n t h e basis o f t h e o r y , S p i n o z a a r g u e s against t h e possibility o f h a r ­ m o n i z i n g t h e o r y a n d S c r i p t u r e . H i s c r i t i q u e a i m s at t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f " p h i ­ l o s o p h y " f r o m " t h e o l o g y " a n d o f t h e o r y f r o m S c r i p t u r e . W h a t a p p e a r s i n this p r o c e s s is i n p a r t t h e i n n e r difficulties o f M a i m o n i d e s ' p o s i t i o n a n d in p a r t its h i s t o r i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d c h a r a c t e r . T h e p r i m a r y c o n d i t i o n for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h a r m o n i z i n g t h e o r y and Scripture proves to b e the belief in the d e p e n ­ d e n c e o f h u m a n r e a s o n o n s u p e r h u m a n g u i d a n c e for t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f t h e o r y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c e n t r a l task o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e -

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

183

v e a l e d r e l i g i o n m u s t b e t o criticize t h e b e l i e f i n t h e insufficiency [of h u m a n thought]. The Critique

of Calvin's

Position

T h e o b j e c t o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e is n o t M a i m o n i d e s ' d o u b t a b o u t t h e suffi­ c i e n c y o f m a n — a d o u b t t h a t j u s t b a r e l y subsists, is h a r d l y e v e r actually o p e r a ­ t i v e , a n d i n d e e d a p p e a r s i n his t h o u g h t v e r y i n f r e q u e n d y — b u t t h e e m p h a t i c d e n i a l o f h u m a n sufficiency a n d t h e c l a i m t h a t h u m a n n a t u r e is radically c o r r u p t . S p i n o z a ' s a t t a c k is d i r e c t e d n o t against M a i m o n i d e s b u t against P r o t ­ e s t a n t i s m , m o r e p r e c i s e l y against C o u n t e r r e m o n s t r a n t C a l v i n i s m .

17

In o r d e r

t o c o m p r e h e n d clearly, if possible e v e n m o r e clearly t h a n S p i n o z a h i m s e l f succeeded in d o i n g , Spinoza's critique of revealed religion, w e m u s t confront the ultimate presuppositions of Spinoza w i t h those of Calvin. C a l v i n b e g i n s h i s t h e o l o g y w i t h a n e x p o s i t i o n o f w h a t it is t o k n o w G o d . A f t e r all, for h i m t o o t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l o f t h e vita beata is t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d . T h e c o n t e n t s of t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d — G o d the creator, sustainer, a n d ruler o f the w o r l d , o m n i p o t e n t lord, just j u d g e , a n d merciful father of h u m a n b e i n g s , i n s h o r t , t h e biblical i d e a o f G o d — i s h e r e at first n o t e v e n c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b u t r a t h e r p r e s u p p o s e d as t r u e . K n o w l e d g e o f G o d t h u s u n d e r s t o o d is i m p l a n t e d i n t h e h u m a n h e a r t , a n d is f u r t h e r m o r e

manifest

f r o m t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e w o r l d a n d f r o m its steadfast g o v e r n a n c e . T h e fact t h a t h u m a n b e i n g s n e v e r t h e l e s s criticize this i d e a o f G o d is a sign t h a t n a t u r a l k n o w l e d g e o f G o d is all t o o easily o b s c u r e d , a n d t h a t h u m a n k n o w l e d g e is n o t sufficient for t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t r u e G o d . T h e r e f o r e t h e h u m a n b e i n g is i n n e e d o f a s u p p o r t b e t t e r t h a n t h e n a t u r a l l i g h t : h e n e e d s t h e w o r d o f G o d as t h e w i t n e s s b o r n e b y G o d a b o u t H i m s e l f offered i n t h e H o l y S c r i p t u r e s o f t h e O l d a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t s . T h e h u m a n b e i n g is c o n v i n c e d o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e H o l y S c r i p t u r e s b y t h e i n n e r t e s t i m o n y o f t h e H o l y Spirit. T h e s a m e spirit w h o s p o k e t h r o u g h t h e m o u t h o f t h e p r o p h e t s v o u c h e s for t h e t r u t h o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s b y b e i n g effective i n u s . T h e l i v i n g u n i t y o f S c r i p ­ t u r e a n d spirit c o n v i n c e s us o f t h e t r u t h o f t h e i d e a o f G o d t h a t S p i n o z a contests.

18

T h e positions o f Calvin a n d Spinoza seem to be directly o p p o s e d to o n e a n o t h e r w i t h o u t t h e possibility o f a g r e e m e n t or, w h a t a m o u n t s t o t h e s a m e t h i n g , w i t h o u t t h e possibility o f g e n u i n e c r i t i q u e . S p i n o z a appeals for his t h e o l ­ o g y t o t h e n a t u r a l light j u s t as u n c o m p r o m i s i n g l y as C a l v i n appeals for his t h e o l ­ o g y t o S c r i p t u r e , v o u c h e d for a n d m a d e accessible b y t h e i n n e r t e s t i m o n y o f the H o l y Spirit.

19

T h e s e p o s i t i o n s are n o t d e f e n s i v e p o s i t i o n s , i m p r e g n a b l e b y

184

Chapter

3

v i r t u e o f a f u n d a m e n t a l c i r c u l a r i t y b u t t h e r e f o r e also u n f i t for a t t a c k . R a t h e r , t h e p a s s i o n a t e faith i n t h e j u s t i c e a n d t r u t h o f o n e ' s c a u s e c o m p e l s e a c h o f t h e t w o o p p o n e n t s ( i n d e e d it c o u l d n o t b e o t h e r w i s e ) t o a t t a c k . Every

right

is

d e n i e d t o t h e o p p o n e n t ' s p o s i t i o n . A s y e t , n e i t h e r side is r e a d y t o a c c e p t a clean separation b e t w e e n religion and theory. R a t h e r , revealed religion a n d e n l i g h t e n m e n t fight a life-and-death battle o n t h e same plane of t h e o n e a n d e t e r n a l t r u t h . L e t us f i n d o u t a b o u t t h e t w o o p p o n e n t s ' offensive w e a p o n s . F o r his d o c t r i n e S p i n o z a relies o n his o w n j u d g m e n t . H e s p e a k s s c o r n ­ fully o f t h o s e w h o d e e m it p i o u s n o t t o trust r e a s o n a n d t h e i r o w n j u d g m e n t . T o S p i n o z a this is n o t p i e t y b u t s h e e r folly. T h e o n l y w a y h e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e s k e p t i c i s m o f h i s o p p o n e n t s is t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e y fear t h a t r e l i g i o n a n d b e l i e f c a n n o t b e d e f e n d e d unless h u m a n b e i n g s d e l i b e r a t e l y k e e p t h e m s e l v e s in c o m p l e t e i g n o r a n c e and entirely take leave of reason. O n each occasion h e is r e a s s u r e d b y w h a t t h e i n t e l l e c t reveals, w i t h o u t i n a n y w a y s u s p e c t i n g t h a t h e m a y h a v e d e c e i v e d himself. It is p o s s i b l e t h a t this trust is j u s t i f i e d b y t h e d e e p e r presuppositions o f Spinoza's system. H o w e v e r , in the c o n t e x t o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , all c o n c r e t e o b j e c t i o n s t o it h a v e as t h e i r p r i m a r y c o n d i ­ t i o n t h e t r u s t i n o n e ' s o w n r e f l e c t i o n s , t h e h i g h - m i n d e d faith i n t h e h u m a n b e i n g a n d i n r e a s o n as his s u p r e m e p o w e r . C a l v i n ' s r a d i c a l c r i t i q u e is d i r e c t e d against this c o n f i d e n c e a n d against t h e r e a d i n e s s t o b e satisfied w i t h h u m a n c a p a c i t i e s . H e sees t h e t y p i c a l o b s t a c l e t o h u m a n self-knowledge in the natural t e n d e n c y of h u m a n beings to

flatter

t h e m s e l v e s , t h e i r c o m p l e t e l y b l i n d s e l f - i n f a t u a t i o n . F r o m this n a t u r a l t e n ­ d e n c y arises t h e c o n v i c t i o n h e l d b y a l m o s t all h u m a n b e i n g s t h a t " m a n is a b u n d a n t l y self-sufficient t o live w e l l a n d i n h a p p i n e s s " (hominem sufficere ad bene beateque vivendum).

sibi

abunde

H u m a n beings t e n d to be reassured b y their

gifts, t o b e at p e a c e w i t h t h e m s e l v e s , a n d t o b e satisfied w i t h t h e m s e l v e s . B u t o n l y h e c a n b e satisfied w i t h h i m s e l f w h o d o e s n o t k n o w h i m s e l f a n d w h o s e c o n s c i e n c e is n o t sufficiently t e n d e r , h e w h o d o e s n o t p r o s t r a t e h i m s e l f b e ­ f o r e t h e m a j e s t y o f G o d i n c o n f u s i o n a n d distress o f m i n d . C a l v i n sees t h e i n a b i l i t y a n d u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o h a v e o n e ' s c o n s c i e n c e radically s h a k e n as s t e m ­ m i n g f r o m s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , f r o m faith i n t h e sufficiency o f h u m a n b e i n g s , w h i c h is t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n for disinterest i n r e v e l a t i o n . This critique smacks of theological polemics. Calvin coarsens o p p o n e n t ' s o p i n i o n b y t h e w a y h e r e p o r t s it (hominem

sibi abunde

the

sufficere,

e t c . ) ; b y m a k i n g a state o f m i n d t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s see as t h e g o a l i n life o f a f e w n o b l e spirits t h e a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t o f a l m o s t all h u m a n b e i n g s ; a n d b y r e d u c i n g a n i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s t h a t is a n y t h i n g b u t v u l g a r — a t least in their o w n m i n d s — t o a very vulgar t e n d e n c y . T h i s character of t h e critique

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

185

s h o u l d b e s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e d . J u s t as C a l v i n a t t r i b u t e s t h e b e l i e f i n h u m a n sufficiency t o v u l g a r self-satisfaction, t o c a r n a l self-love, S p i n o z a a t t r i b u t e s t h e b e l i e f i n h u m a n insufficiency t o t h e v u l g a r i n c a p a c i t y t o p l a n , t o i m m o d ­ e r a t e c a r n a l d e s i r e . J u s t as C a l v i n scornfully p o i n t s o u t t h e s h a m e f u l m u l t i p l i c ­ ity (pudenda

varietas) o f p h i l o s o p h i e s , S p i n o z a refers t o t h e g r e a t m u l t i p l i c i t y

a n d c h a n g e a b i l i t y o f " s u p e r s t i t i o n . " O n e c a n n o t dismiss this c r i t i q u e as m e r e a b u s e o f o n e ' s o p p o n e n t . A t t h e v e r y least it has t o b e t a k e n v e r y seriously as a n i n d i c a t i o n o f h o w little t h e critic is interested in understanding

his o p p o n e n t ' s

p o s i t i o n . C a n t h e r e b e t r u e critique o n this level o f discussion, a level at w h i c h o n e sniffs o u t o n t h e g r o u n d o f t h e d i s p u t e d s t a n c e o n l y t h o s e f u n d a m e n t a l facts a b o u t t h e h u m a n b e i n g t h a t o n e ' s o w n c o n c e p t i o n r e q u i r e s , a n d at w h i c h o n e d i s r e g a r d s t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e o p p o n e n t [by v i e w i n g it] as a r a t i o ­ n a l i z a t i o n o f his c a r n a l m i n d ? C a n t h e r e b e t r u e c r i t i q u e so l o n g as faith i n t h e Tightness o f o n e ' s cause is n o t l i m i t e d b y a n y insight i n t o its conditionality, a n d so l o n g as t h e critic c a n rely o n s o m e t h i n g absolute (either o n revelation o r o n r e a s o n c o m m o n t o all h u m a n beings)? O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is radical c r i t i q u e — s u c h as is e v i d e n t i n C a l v i n o r Spinoza, w h i c h d e n i e s e v e r y r i g h t t o t h e o p p o ­ site p o s i t i o n — p o s s i b l e u n d e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ? I n a n y case, i n o u r c o n t e x t it suffices t o s h o w t h a t S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n is a n e x t e r n a l c h a l l e n g e r a t h e r t h a n a t r u e c r i t i q u e . S p i n o z a associates i n t e r e s t i n r e v e l a t i o n w i t h fear, n a m e l y , w i t h t h e fear o f d a n g e r . I n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , h o w e v e r , a d i s t i n c t i o n is a l w a y s d r a w n b e t w e e n fear o f G o d a n d p r o f a n e fear. P a y i n g n o h e e d t o a d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t [in his view] a m o u n t s to a [mere] p r o t e s t ,

20

Spinoza deduces revealed religion

f r o m p r o f a n e fear. T h e q u e s t i o n t h a t is v e r y m u c h s u g g e s t e d b y this d e d u c ­ t i o n is w h e t h e r h e k n e w w h a t t h e fear o f G o d , a n d t h e s t i r r i n g o f c o n s c i e n c e e n t a i l e d b y it, a c t u a l l y is. H i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e l a w s h o w s r a t h e r d i s t i n c t l y t h a t h e d o e s n o t u n d e r s t a n d h u m a n b e i n g s w h o fear n o t o u t o f fear o f p u n i s h ­ m e n t a n d w h o o b e y n o t o u t o f a slavish a t t i t u d e . I n this c o n t e x t n o t h i n g is less j u s t i f i e d t h a n S p i n o z a ' s a p p e a l t o P a u l ' s c r i t i c i s m o f legalism. I n P a u l , t h e d e e p e s t a w a r e n e s s o f sin r e b e l s against legalism, w h i l e S p i n o z a ' s r e j e c t i o n o f t h e L a w rests o n t h e r e j e c t i o n o f o b e d i e n c e as s u c h , a n d rests u l t i m a t e l y o n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y a w a r e n e s s o f sin. S p i n o z a is a homo liber a n d a homo fortis,

to

w h o m r a d i c a l stirrings o f c o n s c i e n c e a n d m o m e n t s o f u l t i m a t e d e s p a i r a r e u n k n o w n . H e either did n o t k n o w or d e a d e n e d in himself the characteristic e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e i n t e r e s t i n r e v e l a t i o n . I n a n y case, h e did n o t subject t h e m to critique. T h e i n a d e q u a c y o f the critique follows f r o m t h e character o f the critique. S p i n o z a w a n t s t o c r i t i c i z e r e l i g i o n b y m e a n s o f t h e o r y . S i n c e a n d insofar as

Chapter

186

3

r e l i g i o n , as h e s a w it, is f o u n d e d o n o b e d i e n c e a n d belief, o n distrust a n d s u s p i c i o n o f h u m a n capacities, especially o f t h e o r y , his c r i t i c i s m is essentially t r a n s c e n d e n t . It d o e s n o t arise o u t o f o b e d i e n c e a n d belief. E v e r y critical a r g u m e n t , a n y p r e s u p p o s i t i o n m a d e b y S p i n o z a , is p r e c e d e d b y t h e c o n v i c ­ tion that o n e can j u d g e the truths of religion from a theoretical stance outside o f t h e d o m a i n o f o b e d i e n c e a n d belief. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a n d o f t h e critical q u e s t i o n it entails, w h a t b e c o m e s p r o b l e m a t i c is t h e w i l l t o t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e a n d t h e r e a d i n e s s for it as w e l l as for t h e o r y i n g e n e r a l . T h e q u e s t i o n o f " W h y t h e o r y ? " is p o s e d as t h e q u e s t i o n o f " W h y d i s o b e d i e n c e a n d u n b e l i e f ? " T h i s " W h y ? " p r e c e d e s all t h e o r y . R a t h e r t h a n a t h e o r e t i c a l i n s i g h t o r a c o n v i c t i o n , it is a m o t i v e . T h e q u e s t i o n " H o w is c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n at all p o s s i b l e ? " m a k e s it n e c ­ essary t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d m o t i v e . T h e i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n o f S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n also p o i n t s t o this d i s t i n c t i o n . A s S p i n o z a n o t e d e x p l i c i t l y , h e n e e d s o n e m e t h o d for t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e v e l a t i o n a n d a n o t h e r for t h e c r i t i q u e o f m i r a c l e s . T h e c r i t i q u e o f r e v e l a t i o n is a " t h e o l o g i c a l " p r o b ­ l e m , w h i l e t h e c r i t i q u e o f m i r a c l e s is a " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " p r o b l e m . B u t this m e a n s t h a t t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n is d i v i d e d i n t w o : t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e o f t h e theoretical claims o f religion; a n d critique o f the presupposition o f reli­ g i o n t h a t casts d o u b t o n t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e o r y itself, a c r i t i q u e t h a t is i m ­ m a n e n t i n r e l i g i o n a n d relies o n S c r i p t u r e . T h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t ' s c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n w a s c r o w n e d w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l e a n d l a s t i n g success i n spite o f t h e fact t h a t it c o n f r o n t e d t h e actual i n t e n t i o n o f r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n i n a l m o s t c o m ­ p l e t e b l i n d n e s s . T h i s h i s t o r i c a l fact c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y o n t h e basis o f t h e distinction b e t w e e n motive and theory. O n e is l e d t o this d i s t i n c t i o n , alien t o S p i n o z a ' s t h o u g h t , o n l y b y r e f l e c ­ tion

2 1

o n t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e possibility o f a c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n . If it is

granted that the m o t i v e of the critique of religion and the motives of revealed r e l i g i o n itself a r e u n r e l a t e d , t h e n this d e p r i v e s t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n o f its d e c i s i v e w e i g h t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e are v a r i o u s m o t i v e s t h a t m a y c o m p e l o n e t o t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , a n d t h e s e m a y b e differentiated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r a n k a n d f o r c e , a n d especially a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o t h e o r y a n d t o t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n t h a t is t h e o r e t i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d . F o r t h e s a k e o f a fundamental ranking of the questions posed by Spinoza's critique of religion, o n e is w e l l a d v i s e d t o b e g u i d e d b y t h e E p i c u r e a n t y p e o f c r i t i c i s m o f r e l i ­ g i o n . R a t h e r t h a n b e i n g a t t a i n e d b y v i r t u e o f a n i d e a l i z i n g a b s t r a c t i o n , this t y p e o f c r i t i c i s m , b o t h as a historical fact a n d i n t e r m s o f its h i s t o r i c a l effec­ t i v e n e s s , p r o v e s t o b e a n e x t r e m e case o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n m a i n l y b e ­ c a u s e h e r e t h e p r i m a c y o f t h e m o t i v e is e v i d e n t , c o n s c i o u s , a n d e x p l i c i t . T h e t h e o r y o f t h e E p i c u r e a n s essentially serves t h e p u r p o s e o f l i b e r a t i n g h u m a n

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

187

b e i n g s f r o m t h e fear o f t h e g o d s a n d f r o m t h e fear o f d e a t h . T h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e is t h e i n t e r e s t i n a life o f t r a n q u i l i t y a n d a b s e n c e o f t e r r o r . T h i s i n t e r ­ est r e b e l s against t h e fear o f t h e g o d s a n d against t h e fear o f d e a t h . It w a n t s t o r e a c h its g o a l t h r o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f actual causes. T h i s e n t e r p r i s e has a c h a n c e o f success i f a n d o n l y if t h e t r u e b e i n g o f t h e g o d s a n d o f t h e c o s m o s is s u c h t h a t k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m d o e s n o t lead t o n e w e r , a n d e v e n g r e a t e r , a n x i e t y a n d d i s q u i e t . I n this r e s p e c t , t h e E p i c u r e a n c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n l i k e w i s e p r e ­ s u p p o s e s a p r i m a r y t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n . T h e stability [Fixierung]

o f this

t y p e o f c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a n d o f t h e analysis o f r e l i g i o n associated w i t h it is t h e c o n d i t i o n for a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a n d t h u s also o f the Bible science of the seventeenth century. This m u s t n o t b e taken to m e a n t h a t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e r e a c h e d as far as t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e E p i c u r e a n analysis o f r e l i g i o n . A s for S p i n o z a himself, h e is n o t i n e v e r y r e s p e c t i n f l u e n c e d b y this m o t i v e , b u t r a t h e r b y t h e E p i c u r e a n c o n c e p t i o n a n d e x p l a n a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n a l o n e : r e l i g i o n as a f i g m e n t o f fear a n d d r e a m . A l o n g w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e s o f t h e analysis o f r e l i g i o n , t h e m o t i v e s o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a r e t h e u l t i m a t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f B i b l e s c i e n c e , at least insofar as t h e B i b l e is c o n s i d e r e d p r i m a r i l y as a r e l i g i o u s d o c u m e n t . T h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e p r i m a r y efforts at c r i t i c i z i n g r e l i g i o n a r e c o n c r e t i z e d i n B i b l e s c i e n c e is n o t c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e d b y t h e g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n a n d B i b l e s c i e n c e . W e shall t r a c e this p r o c e s s o f c o n c r e t i z a t i o n i n Uriel da Costa,

2 2

a p r e c u r s o r o f S p i n o z a w h o t o o k u p t h e fight against r e l i ­

g i o n b y m e a n s o f B i b l e s c i e n c e u n d e r similar p r e c o n d i t i o n s . D a C o s t a shares o n e specific p r e c o n d i t i o n w i t h S p i n o z a , n a m e l y , t h a t o f b e i n g o f J e w i s h o r i ­ gin or, m o r e precisely, o f M a r r a n o origin.

II.' If w e a s s u m e t h a t t h e affiliation o f t h e M a r r a n o s w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y w a s b a s e d o n n o t h i n g b u t coercion by the church a n d b y t h e Iberian monarchies that w e r e t h e n i n t h e process o f consolidation, t h e n their criticism o f Christianity a p p e a r s t o b e fully u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . T o b e s u r e , t h e fact t h a t t h e i r a n c e s t o r s h a d at o n e t i m e b e e n f o r c i b l y c o n v e r t e d t o C h r i s t i a n i t y d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e descendants from b e i n g d e v o u t Christians. T h i s b e i n g so, w h a t c o u l d h a v e led a d e v o u t Christian a n d son o f a d e v o u t Christian t o criticism o f C h r i s t i a n ­ ity? It w a s m o r e l i k e l y a C h r i s t i a n difficulty t h a n a n o b j e c t i o n raised b y J e w s ,

' F o r the f o l l o w i n g I have used: Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa. Mit Einleitung, Uebertragung und Regesten, ed. Carl Gebhardt ( 1 9 2 2 ) .

188

Chapter

3

n e v e r m i n d b y J e w i s h a n c e s t o r s . It is o n l y

following

his loss o f faith i n t h e

church, b r o u g h t o n b y the experience that the doctrine of works of the church is n o t sufficient for s a l v a t i o n , t h a t da C o s t a a d o p t s J e w i s h a r g u m e n t s against C h r i s t i a n i t y . Is t h e c r i t i c i s m t h a t leads h i m t o J u d a i s m c o n n e c t e d w i t h h i s b e i n g a M a r r a n o ? D a C o s t a h i m s e l f d o e s n o t a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n . H e m e n ­ t i o n s his M a r r a n o d e s c e n t a n d d e s c r i b e s his p a t h f r o m C h r i s t i a n i t y t o J u d a i s m w i t h o u t indicating any connection b e t w e e n the two. Doubtless such a c o n ­ n e c t i o n exists. T h e life o f t h e M a r r a n o s w i t h i n t h e C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h a n d w i t h i n C h r i s t i a n s o c i e t y lacks all n a t u r a l n e s s . T h u s t h e y a r e p r e d i s p o s e d t o a c r i t i c i s m o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . N o w , if a M a r r a n o ' s c r i t i c i s m o f C h r i s t i a n i t y leads h i m t o J u d a i s m , t h e n it is n a t u r a l t o r e g a r d t h e critical a t t i t u d e o f t h e J e w t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n i t y as t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c o n d i t i o n o f his c r i t i c i s m . M a r r a n o s o f da C o s t a ' s t y p e , u n c e r t a i n a n d i n s e c u r e C h r i s t i a n s , w e r e p o i n t e d t o w a r d Judaism, o f w h o s e contents they k n e w litde or nothing, b y virtue of the t r a d i t i o n s o f t h e i r families. T h e i r c r i t i c i s m is n o t J e w i s h ; a t m o s t it is c r i t i c i s m b a s e d o n t h e critical a t t i t u d e o f t h e J e w t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d h e n c e is d e v o i d , o r a l m o s t d e v o i d , o f specifically J e w i s h c o n t e n t s . O f c o u r s e , this is n o t h o w da C o s t a s a w himself. H e p o i n t s t o d o u b t s a b o u t t h e t r u t h o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d t o g o o d r e a s o n s for t h e t r u t h

ofjudaism.

T h e s e reasons are r e m i n i s c e n t of the discussion, m o r e than a c e n t u r y old, b e t w e e n t h e S p a n i s h J e w s a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y , t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is m o r e r a t i o ­ n a l t h a n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ; f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is m o r e t r u s t ­ w o r t h y t h a n t h e N e w b e c a u s e t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is a n u n d i s p u t e d a u t h o r i t y for b o t h J e w s a n d C h r i s t i a n s w h i l e t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is so o n l y for C h r i s ­ tians ( D a C o s t a , p . 1 0 6 ; cf. J u d a h H a l e v i , Kuzari

1:10; J o s e p h A l b o ,

Sefer

Ha 'iqqarim 1:11 a n d 2 4 ) . T o this c o n t e x t also b e l o n g s t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i d e a o f t h e N o a h i d e c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h e s e specific a r g u m e n t s w o u l d n o t h a v e e n t i c e d d a C o s t a a w a y from C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d i n d e e d h e w o u l d n o t h a v e a r r i v e d at t h e s e a r g u m e n t s , w i t h o u t t h e earlier a n d m o r e radical c r i t i q u e o f t h e C a t h o l i c d o c t r i n e o f w o r k s . T h i s c r i t i q u e is p r e c e d e d b y t h e g e n e r a l c o n ­ d i t i o n o f t h e M a r r a n o r e a d i n e s s t o criticize C h r i s t i a n i t y . B u t d o e s this condi­ tion o f all M a r r a n o c r i t i c i s m p r o d u c e da C o s t a ' s c r i t i q u e ? Is it its sufficient c a u s e a n d its i n n e r motive? If w e a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n i n t h e n e g a t i v e , t h e n w e f i n d o u r s e l v e s i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h da C o s t a h i m s e l f w h o , i n his a u t o b i o g r a p h y , m e n t i o n s his b e i n g a M a r r a n o as a c i r c u m s t a n c e o f his life b u t n o t as critical t o his s p i r i t u a l d e c i s i o n . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m o t i v e o f his c r i t i q u e w e w i l l follow

his o w n a c c o u n t .

B o r n the son o f a g o o d Catholic, da Costa grows u p in the C a t h o l i c m i l i e u . H e strives t o f o l l o w m e t i c u l o u s l y all t h e b e h e s t s o f t h e c h u r c h o u t o f fear o f e t e r n a l d a m n a t i o n . A s a n a d u l t h e e x p e r i e n c e s t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

189

g a i n i n g r e m i s s i o n o f sins t h r o u g h c o n f e s s i o n a n d , f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i m p o s s i ­ b i l i t y o f fulfilling t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e c h u r c h . T h u s h e despairs o f h i s salva­ t i o n ; h e faces e t e r n a l d a m n a t i o n i n all its h o r r o r . D a C o s t a ' s b e i n g a n d e s s e n c e a r e r e v e a l e d i n t h e w a y i n w h i c h h e r e s p o n d s t o this s i t u a t i o n : h e c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r u t h o f w h a t w a s u s u a l l y t a u g h t a b o u t t h e h e r e a f t e r (p. 1 0 6 ) . T h u s fear o f e t e r n a l d a m n a t i o n d r i v e s d a C o s t a t o d e n y t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f t h e s o u l . If d e a t h is t h e e n d o f e v e r y t h i n g , t h e n t h e t e r r o r s o f h e l l cease t o exist. T h e Epicurean m o t i v e is u n m i s t a k a b l e . T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h it i n f l u e n c e d d a C o s t a c a n b e g l e a n e d f r o m several o f his p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . " W h a t w e i g h e d h i m d o w n a n d t o r m e n t e d h i m m o s t i n this life" w a s t h e i d e a o f e t e r n a l bliss [einem ewigen Gut] a n d e t e r n a l w o e [einem ewigen Übel]. T h i s is a t o r m e n t i n g i d e a , b e c a u s e it m e a n s s o m e t h i n g u n c e r t a i n . E t e r n a l bliss is a " w a g e r against l o n g o d d s " (p. 1 0 1 ) . T h e E p i c u r e a n a s p i r a t i o n after c e r t a i n h a p p i n e s s stands i n t h e w a y o f so g r e a t a risk. A b o v e all, it p r o h i b i t s t h e b e l i e f i n e t e r n a l d a m n a t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e o r i g i n a l p r e f e r e n c e for j o y o v e r p a i n . R e l i g i o n is c o n t e s t e d as a s o u r c e o f " t h e g r a v e s t t e r r o r s a n d fears" (p. 1 2 0 ) . D a C o s t a c h a r g e s r e l i g i o n w i t h d e f a m i n g G o d b y " v i r t u a l l y p r e s e n t i n g h i m t o t h e eyes o f m e n as t h e c r u d e s t h a n g m a n a n d m o s t t e r r i b l e t o r t u r e r " (p. 1 2 1 ) . H o w e v e r , h e c a n n o t a d o p t t h e E p i c u r e a n t h e o l o g y . F o r h i m as t h e h e i r o f m i l l e n n i a l r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n s , t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e w o r l d is m u c h t o o vital. F o r h i m , t o o , G o d is t h e autor naturae [the a u t h o r o f n a t u r e ] (p. 1 1 0 ) . T h e r e f o r e , his b a t t l e is d i r e c t e d n o t against t h e i d e a o f a n a c t i v e G o d b u t solely a g a i n s t the idea of eternal d a m n a t i o n a n d immortality of the soul. T h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e itself is u n c h a n g e d b y this l i m i t a t i o n o f its field o f a p p l i c a t i o n . I n c i ­ dentally, da Costa explicidy advocates the vindication of Epicurus, w h o m h e d o e s n o t k n o w d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h his w o r k s b u t o n l y t h r o u g h his d o c t r i n e s a n d t h r o u g h t h e j u d g m e n t o f c e r t a i n m e n w h o a r e l o v e r s o f t r u t h (p. 108f.). P r e d e s t i n e d b y his n a t u r e , d a C o s t a has his p l a c e i n t h e E p i c u r e a n m o v e m e n t o f his t i m e , a t r e n d against w h i c h t h e r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s n o l o n g e r o f f e r e d absolute protection." T h e p r e d i c a m e n t i n w h i c h da C o s t a w a s c a u g h t at t h e age o f t w e n t y causes h i m t h e r e f o r e t o e x a m i n e , o n t h e basis o f his o w n r e f l e c t i o n , t h e p r e ­ c o n d i t i o n o f this v e r y p r e d i c a m e n t , t h a t is, t h e C a t h o l i c ideas o f afterlife. S i n c e his r a t i o n a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f C a t h o l i c d o g m a s d e p r i v e d h i m o f t h e s p i r i ­ t u a l s u p p o r t h e h a d o n c e f o u n d i n t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , h e is d o m i n a t e d b y t h e desire t o find such s u p p o r t elsewhere. T h u s h e begins to read the T o r a h

" D a Silva, w h o s e criticism w a s m o r e justified than h e realized, called h i m " o n e w h o resurrects the disgraceful and l o n g buried sect o f E p i c u r u s . " S e e Gebhardt, p. 1 7 4 .

190

Chapter

3

a n d t h e p r o p h e t s ; t h e t r a d i t i o n o f h i s family p o i n t i n g t o w a r d J u d a i s m h a d l i k e l y s h o w e d h i m t h e w a y . H e finds h e r e less s e r i o u s difficulties for r e a s o n t h a n i n t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e n e w c o v e n a n t . It is t h u s b y his o w n r e f l e c t i o n t h a t h e c o m e s t o trust M o s e s m o r e t h a n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , a n d consequently

to

a c k n o w l e d g e the duty of obedience to the Mosaic law. S o o n after j o i n i n g t h e S e p h a r d i c c o m m u n i t y i n A m s t e r d a m h e n o t i c e s t h a t t h e c o m m u n i t y d o e s n o t c o n d u c t itself a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e t t e r o f t h e M o s a i c l a w . H e c o m e s i n t o conflict w i t h t h e c o m m u n i t y . T h i s w a s u n a v o i d ­ a b l e ; after all, t h e c o n c r e t e c o n t e x t o f j u d a i s m h a d l o n g since v a n i s h e d f r o m t h e h o r i z o n o f t h e M a r r a n o s , a c o n t e x t t h a t h a d g i v e n rise t o his a n d his a n c e s t o r s ' c r i t i q u e o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , y e t o n e t h a t w a s n o t at all r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c r i t i q u e . H i s r e t u r n t o J u d a i s m is r o o t e d i n this c r i t i q u e , w h i c h , i n h i s case, h a s its d e e p e s t a n d m o s t p e r s o n a l r o o t i n t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e ; i n d e e d , it is this E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e t h a t d e t e r m i n e s h i s " J u d a i s m . " T h e r e f o r e , o n h i s first e n c o u n t e r w i t h c o n c r e t e J u d a i s m h e finds it n e c e s s a r y t o e x t e n d t o J u d a ­ i s m t h e c r i t i q u e t h a t h e h a d h i t h e r t o d i r e c t e d o n l y at C h r i s t i a n i t y .

More

p r e c i s e l y : first, h e a r g u e s against t h e l a w o f t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n o n t h e g r o u n d o f t h e l a w o f M o s e s ( " T h e s e s against t h e T r a d i t i o n , " 1 - 3 2 ) ; a n d s e c o n d , h e a r g u e s against t h e d o g m a o f i m m o r t a l i t y a d v o c a t e d b y J u d a i s m o n t h e g r o u n d s o f b o t h r e a s o n a n d S c r i p t u r e ( " O n t h e M o r t a l i t y o f t h e H u m a n S o u l , " 33— 1 0 1 ) . T h e c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e c o m m u n i t y o p e n s fully t h e w a y for c r i t i q u e . F r o m n o w o n , p o s i t i v e r e l i g i o n a n d n a t u r a l l a w (i.e., t h e N o a h i d e c o m m a n d ­ ments) are antithetically o p p o s e d to o n e a n o t h e r . T h e value of t h e c e r e m o ­ nies, t h e election o f t h e Jewish people, t h e divinity of the Mosaic law, the m i r a c l e s , a n d t h e right o f ecclesiastical j u r i s d i c t i o n are d e n i e d . T h e c r i t i q u e o f the M a r r a n o ends in that century's c o m m o n E u r o p e a n m o v e m e n t of critique o f r e l i g i o n , w h i c h w a s s u s t a i n e d , j u s t l i k e his o w n c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , b y t h e h o r r o r at t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e ira theologorum

[the w r a t h o f t h e t h e o l o ­

gians] . A s h e c a n say a b o u t himself: circa religionem passus sum in vita

incredibilia

[I h a v e suffered u n b e l i e v a b l e t h i n g s i n life b e c a u s e o f r e l i g i o n ] . T h i s m o t i v e is identical w i t h the Epicurean one. W h a t can b e learned from the religious upheavals a n d struggles o f that c e n t u r y c o n c e r n s only the intensity o f t h e effect o f t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e , b u t n o t , h o w e v e r , its i n n e r e s s e n c e . A t this j u n c t u r e it m u s t b e b o r n e i n m i n d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f t h e v e r y fact that t h e y fought, t h e Epicureans o f t h a t age e v i d e n d y n o longer lived a c c o r d ­ i n g t o t h e p r e c e p t s o f E p i c u r u s . E p i c u r u s w a s n o fighter. N o t h i n g c o u l d m a k e h i m risk h i s life a n d h a p p i n e s s . T r u e t o h i s u l t i m a t e i n t e n t i o n , h e s u b ­ m i t t e d t o t h e d o m i n a n t c u l t a n d r e c o g n i z e d it. W h e n L u c r e t i u s sings t h e praises o f E p i c u r u s as t h e first t o h a v e d a r e d t o o p p o s e r e l i g i o n (obsistere contra), h e d e s c r i b e s his o w n a t t i t u d e r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f his m a s t e r . T h e m o r e a c t i v e

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

191

a n d m a n l y attitude characteristic o f the m e n o f the E n l i g h t e n m e n t w h o agree w i t h Epicurus's p r i m a r y i n t e n t i o n — a n attitude that distinguishes t h e m from E p i c u r u s h i m s e l f a n d t h a t t h e y s h a r e w i t h L u c r e t i u s — e x p r e s s e s itself also i n t h a t t h e y fight r e l i g i o n (like L u c r e t i u s ) n o t o n l y as t h e s o u r c e o f t h e g r e a t e s t t e r r o r s a n d a n x i e t i e s , b u t also as t h e o r i g i n o f t h e m o s t h e i n o u s c r i m e s ( G e b h a r d t , p . 1 2 0 f ) . R e l i g i o n is n o t o n l y h a r m f u l b u t also evil. T h u s da C o s t a feels t h a t h e is n o t j u s t a f i g h t e r p u r e a n d s i m p l e b u t a f i g h t e r for t r u t h a n d f r e e d o m against f a l s e h o o d a n d e n s l a v e m e n t . H o n o r forbids t h e e v a s i o n o f this c o m b a t . T o e v a d e it m i g h t b e useful, b u t it w o u l d b e s h a m e f u l (p. 115ff.). H o w e v e r , i n his c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , a n d especially o f t h e i d e a o f e t e r n i t y , d a C o s t a refers t o t h e riskiness a n d fearfulness (or e v e n evil) o f this i d e a , b u t relies j u s t as m u c h o n r e a s o n a n d S c r i p t u r e . H e m a k e s it s e e m as if h e a r r i v e d at a d e n i a l o f i m m o r t a l i t y o n l y b e c a u s e h e s u b m i t t e d t o S c r i p t u r e : Post caeptum opus (sc. a study of the Bible) accidit etiam ( . . . ) ut ( . . . ) accederem sententiae illorum, qui legis veteris p r e m i u m et p œ n a m definiunt temporalem, et de altera vita et i m m o r t a l i t a t e a n i m o r u m m i n i m e cogitant ( . . . . ) (P. 108) [After a study of the Bible it also happened . . . that . . . I adopted the propositions of those w h o defined the reward and punishment of the old law as temporal, and thought litde of another life and of the immortality of souls. . . . (P. 108).]

T h i s , h o w e v e r , is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e fact t h a t , at t h e v e r y first, da C o s t a t o o k e x c e p t i o n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d o c t r i n e s r e g a r d i n g a n o t h e r life. D a C o s t a w a n t s to create t h e impression that the road h e traversed, from the m o s t u n r e a s o n able o f all r e l i g i o n s t o a n u n d i s g u i s e d E p i c u r e a n i s m , w a s d e t e r m i n e d b y r e a s o n a n d S c r i p t u r e a l o n e . In c o n t r a s t t o t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e , da C o s t a ' s r a d i c a l i s m t o w a r d t h e B i b l e a n d his r a t i o n a l i s m a r e b o t h o f s e c o n d a r y n a t u r e . It is t r u e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e s e t w o t e n d e n c i e s r e p r e s e n t a single i n t e g r a t e d a u t h o r i t y for t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n , a n a u t h o r i t y t h a t c a n n o t s i m p l y b e d e rived from that motive. T h u s d a C o s t a r e g a r d s h i m s e l f as i m p e l l e d t o criticize r e l i g i o n n o t o n l y b y t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e b u t also b y d o u b t a b o u t t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f r e l i g i o u s d o g m a s a n d t h e i r c o n f o r m i t y w i t h S c r i p t u r e . T h i s d o u b t , t h e n , is e v i d e n t l y o f a different c h a r a c t e r t h a n t h e E p i c u r e a n m o t i v e . If t h e s e t r u l y h e t e r o g e n e o u s efforts n e v e r t h e l e s s c o m e t o g e t h e r i n t h e s a m e result, t h e n w e a r e dealing n o t w i t h an external coincidence b u t w i t h an inner h a r m o n y , w h o s e analysis w o u l d l e a d us far b e y o n d t h e limits o f this s t u d y . H e r e it suffices t o

192

Chapter

3

n o t e t h a t i n t h e case o f d a C o s t a , j u s t as u n d o u b t e d l y as i n t h e case o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f E p i c u r u s , t h e " p r a c t i c a l " m o t i v e is t h e p r i m a r y o n e . T h u s d a C o s t a t u r n s t h e i n s i g h t s t h a t p r o v i d e a basis for t h e d o u b t s i n t o m e a n s t o w a r d his " p r a c t i c a l " e n d s . H e o w e s t h e s e i n s i g h t s t o t h e physiology

of Michael

1

Servetus."

2 3

S e r v e t u s — w h o discovered the p u l m o n a r y blood circulation—under­ t o o k t o i l l u m i n a t e t h e d o c t r i n e s o f S c r i p t u r e o n t h e basis o f his p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n s i g h t s . T h i s d o c t r i n a l m a t t e r is p a r t o f a t h e o l o g i c a l s y s t e m w h o s e o r i g i n a l m o t i v e s a r e n o t v e r y clear. T h i s m u c h , h o w e v e r , s e e m s likely: t h a t S e r v e t u s ' s d e n i a l o f t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f t h e s o u l (if o n e c a n s p e a k at all o f s u c h a d e n i a l i n Servetus),

1V

rather than

flowing

d i r e c t l y f r o m h i s i n t e r e s t , is a m e r e c o n s e ­

q u e n c e o f this i n t e r e s t , a n d n o t e v e n a v e r y e m p h a t i c o n e . S e r v e t u s is n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h l i b e r a t i n g h i m s e l f f r o m t h e fear o f e t e r n a l d a m n a t i o n b y d e ­ n y i n g t h e existence o f hell. T h e d o c t r i n e o f Servetus that da C o s t a adopts t e a c h e s t h a t t h e s o u l ( t h e vital spirit) s p r i n g s f r o m a u n i o n o f t h e air, b r e a t h e d i n b y t h e l u n g s a n d t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e h e a r t , w i t h t h e finest a n d t h i n n e s t b l o o d t h a t is t r a n s p o r t e d f r o m t h e liver t o t h e h e a r t . T h e finer it b e c o m e s , t h e m o r e t h e vital spirit strives u p w a r d t o w a r d t h e b r a i n , w h e r e i t is t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a p s y c h i c a l spirit (spiritus animalis). H e n c e i t is o n e a n d t h e s a m e f o r c e t h a t v

acts i n b r e a t h , b l o o d , t h e vital spirit, a n d t h e s o u l . J u s t like t h e souls o f a n i m a l s , t h e souls o f h u m a n b e i n g s a r e p r o p a g a t e d b y p r o c r e a t i o n . "

From

'" It w a s Professor Julius G u t t m a n n w h o b r o u g h t t h e relation b e t w e e n da C o s t a a n d Servetus t o m y attention. Iv

H . Tollin, Das Lehrsystem Michael Setvet's genetisch dargestellt, esp. vol. III (Gütersloh,

1 8 7 8 ) , 283ff. v

Servetus, Christianismi Restitutio (1553), p. 169: "In his omnibus est unius spiritus et

lucis Dei energia" ["In all o f these there is a u n i f o r m spirit and t h e e n e r g y o f G o d ' s l i g h t " ] .

O n p . 170: "Hinc dicitur anima esse in sanguine, et anima ipsa sanguis, . . . ut docet ipse Deus Gen. 9, Lev. 17 et Deut. 12" [ " T h e r e u p o n it is said that t h e soul is i n t h e b l o o d a n d t h e soul itself is b l o o d , . . . as G o d himself teaches i n Genesis 9 , Leviticus 17, and D e u t e r o n o m y

12"]. O n p . 178: "Eue totam animae rationem, et quart anima omnis camis in sanguine sit, et anima ipsa sanguis sit, ut ait Deus. Nam qfflante Deo, inspirataper os et narcs, in cor et cerebrum ipsius Adae, et natorum eius, ilia caelestis spiritus aura, sive idealis scintilla, et spiritali Uli sanguineae materiae intus essentialiter iuncta, facta est in eius visceribus anima. Gen. 2, Esa. 57, Ezech. 37, et Zacha. 12" ["See t h e w h o l e reason o f the soul a n d h o w t h e soul o f all flesh is i n t h e b l o o d a n d t h e s o u l itself is b l o o d , as G o d asserts. B e c a u s e it w a s breathed b y G o d i n t o A d a m ' s o w n heart a n d brain and i n t o t h o s e o f his offspring, inspired t h r o u g h m o u t h a n d nostrils, a n d that aura o f the h e a v e n l y spirit, like a scintillation o f the ideal, a n d o u t o f spiritual a n d b l o o d y matter that is essentially c o m b i n e d w i t h i n , t h e soul is m a d e i n their b o w e l s . G e n e s i s 2 , Isaiah 5 7 , E z e k i e l 3 7 , a n d Zachariah 1 2 " ] . O n p . 1 7 9 : ". . . Idipsum

Historical-Philological

Writings

on Spinoza

(1924-26)

193

t h i s t h e a s s e r t i o n f o l l o w s b y n e c e s s i t y t h a t t h e s o u l is m o r t a l . T h i s is also t h e t e a c h i n g o f S c r i p t u r e : i t r e g a r d s t h e g r a v e a n d h e l l as o n e a n d t h e s a m e . N u m e r o u s passages d w e l l o n life's b r e v i t y a n d v a n i t y , a n d m o s t o f all, h o w e v e r , o n t h e basic h o p e l e s s n e s s o f h u m a n life. S e r v e t u s l i m i t s this p r o p o s i t i o n

by

t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t C h r i s t ' s d e s c e n t i n t o hell has r e n d e r e d t h e despair e x p r e s s e d

probat litera Geneseos. Nam non simpliciter dicitur halitus ille Dei esse anima: sed inspirato illo halitu facta est intus anima vivens" [This is p r o v e n b y t h e letter o f Genesis. N a m e l y it d o e s n o t simply say that t h e breath o f G o d is t h e soul b u t , rather, o n l y o n c e that breath w a s breathed a l i v i n g soul w a s m a d e w i t h i n ] . O n p. 2 1 6 : "Nisihcecvis, ac eliciendœ et producendœ animez virtus elementis inesset, non dixisset Deus, Producant terra et aqua animalia" [ G o d w o u l d n o t have said "Let t h e earth and t h e w a t e r b r i n g forth a n i m a t e d creatures" i f it w e r e n o t for that force a n d that strength i n h e r e n t i n t h e e l e m e n t s that elicits a n d p r o d u c e s t h e souls]. In da C o s t a , p. 6 5 : " T h u s , w e say, t h e h u m a n s o u l is and is called t h e vital spirit, t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e h u m a n b e i n g lives, and t h e said vital spirit is i n t h e b l o o d , . . . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e soul o f t h e beast is its b l o o d filled w i t h spirit, as t h e L a w states a n d it is i n t h e b l o o d that t h e s o u l d w e l l s . " O n p. 7 6 , da Costa refers t o G e n e s i s 2:7 t o p r o v e "that t h e animals h a v e t h e same vital spirit as t h e h u m a n b e i n g because w h e n G o d created t h e m H e said: L e t t h e earth bring forth t h e l i v i n g b e i n g and afterwards, w h e n creating the h u m a n b e i n g , w h o w a s already a n i m a t e d b y t h e vital spirit that H e b r e a t h e d i n t o t h e m , it says: and m a n b e c a m e a l i v i n g b e i n g ; a n d thus h e used t h e same w o r d i n b o t h passages,. . ." O n p . 7 7 : " H a d A d a m b e e n alive w h e n G o d gave t h e vital spirit i n t o h i m w e c o u l d say that this spirit w a s s o m e t h i n g distinct a n d separate f r o m t h e breath o f life o f t h e animals since A d a m w a s already alive. H o w e v e r , A d a m d i d n o t m o v e b e f o r e the vital spirit e n t e r e d i n t o h i m . It f o l l o w s that t h e vital spirit that w a s breathed i n t o A d a m w a s t h e animal spirit and this v e r y animal spirit w a s t h e rational soul a n d all is o n e and t h e same n a m e l y i n that, at t h e m o m e n t t h e animal soul e n t e r e d i n t o t h e h u m a n b e i n g , reason a n d reflection are also i n h i m , i . e . , w h a t o n e calls t h e rational s o u l . " Incidentally, in his d o c t r i n e o f animal souls Descartes also refers t o D e u t e r o n o m y 1 2 : 2 3 a n d t o Leviticus 1 7 : 1 4 . S e e H e n r i G o u h i e r , Lapensée religieuse de Descartes (Paris, 1 9 2 4 ) , p. 2 2 5 . v

' Servetus, p. 1 7 9 : "Ex semine manifeste eliciuntur animantium aliorum animce, ac etiam

humance, accedenti ipsi homini divince mentis halitu, . . . " [ T h e souls o f the o t h e r a n i m a t e d b e i n g s are elicited f r o m manifest s e m e n , a n d i n d e e d also t h e h u m a n o n e s , b e i n g like h u m a n s f r o m t h e breath o f the d i v i n e m i n d , . . . ] . O n p . 2 6 0 : "Si constat brutorum animas elici ex semine, et nobis esse cum eis plurima communia, constabit quoque nostras ex semine quodammodo elici" [If it is s e t d e d that t h e souls o f the animals are elicited f r o m s e m e n , it w i l l b e certain that o u r souls are also elicited i n a certain m a n n e r f r o m s e m e n ] . In da C o s t a , p . 6 5 : "It is crystal clear that t h e h u m a n b e i n g b e g e t s t h e s o u l o f a n o t h e r h u m a n b e i n g b y natural procreation i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r as an animal b e g e t s t h e s o u l o f a n o t h e r animal o f its k i n d , . . ." O n p. 6 6 : ". . . t h e d i v i n e order and i n s t i t u t i o n that, b y force o f the d i v i n e w o r d , puts all b y m e a n s o f the s e m e n i n t o e a c h particular creature; e a c h b e g e t s its o w n k i n d , and thus t h e kinds c o n t i n u e a n d increase."

194

Chapter

3

i n t h e s e v e r y passages u n t e n a b l e . T h r o u g h C h r i s t t h e souls b e c a m e i m m o r t a l / " P u r s u i n g his o w n i n t e n t (namely, that of u p r o o t i n g the d o c t r i n e of eternal d a m n a t i o n a n d of t h e immortality of the soul in o r d e r to liberate t h e h u m a n b e i n g f r o m t h e g r a v e s t t e r r o r s a n d a n x i e t i e s ) , d a C o s t a disregards this q u a l i f i ­ c a t i o n , a n d t h u s r e a c h e s a c o n c e p t i o n o f h u m a n life t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s v e r y little t o t h e i n t e n t o f S e r v e t u s . T o b e s u r e , it is i m p o s s i b l e t o tell w h e t h e r , a n d t o w h a t d e g r e e , d a C o s t a w a s h i m s e l f affected b y t h e m o o d e x p r e s s e d i n t h e biblical passages t h a t h e a d d u c e s . R e l i a n c e o n r e a s o n a n d r e l i a n c e o n S c r i p t u r e w o r k t o g e t h e r i n da C o s t a ' s a r g u m e n t against i m m o r t a l i t y . A t first, b o t h a u t h o r i t i e s are, i n fact, i d e n t i c a l . T h e y c o n t r a s t w i t h e a c h o t h e r o n l y g r a d u a l l y , u n t i l finally t h e y face o n e a n o t h e r as e n e m i e s . I n this p r o c e s s a t e n d e n c y reveals itself t h a t d o m i n a t e s d a C o s t a ' s t h o u g h t as if it w e r e its l a w . T h i s t e n d e n c y — o n e still p o t e n t t h e n b u t d e s t i n e d t o d i e s o o n — c a n b e historically d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c a t e g o r y o f " R e ­ naissance. " T h e r e is a c o n v i c t i o n , i n h e r e n t i n t h e s t r i v i n g o f t h e R e n a i s s a n c e for a r e b i r t h o f life f r o m its o r i g i n s , t h a t r e g a r d s t h e p r e s e n t state as t h e c o r r u p t i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l p e r f e c t state. W h a t applies h e r e is t h e f o r m u l a : t r u t h is i n t h e b e g i n n i n g . T h i s b e l i e f w a s n o u r i s h e d b y r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , w i t h its i d e a o f a first a n d p e r f e c t r e v e l a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d i n p r i m o r d i a l t i m e s a n d t h a t d e f i n i ­ t i v e l y d i s c l o s e d , at least for t h e p r e s e n t state o f t h e w o r l d , t h e t r u e g o a l a n d t h e t r u e n o r m o f life. W i t h i n r e v e a l e d r e l i g i o n , a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o it, this b e l i e f a t t a i n e d its m o s t radical application in t h e P r o t e s t a n t R e f o r m a t i o n . T h e o r i g i n a l r e v e l a t i o n is c o n t r a s t e d i n its p u r i t y w i t h all t h i n g s o f later o r i g i n , w h i c h a r e falsifying a d d i t i o n s , f i c t i o n s , lies, a n d t h e m e r e w o r k o f m a n . T h e p u r e d o c -

v

" Servetus, p . 2 3 5 f : "Qui ante mortem Christi mortui sunt, ad infemum ducti sunt, quasi a Deo oblitioni traditi, exceptis paucis, quosfuturi Christi fides fovebat. Hinc sepulcrum vulgo dicebatur terra perditionis et oblivionis, ps. 88. Idem sacris literaris erat sepulcri et infemi nomen, ut simul ad sepulcrum, et infemum iretur. . . Ut corpus peccato animam traxit, ditionique subiecit: ita cum corporis sepulcro sublicitor anima tenebris, morti et inferno" [Those w h o died before the death o f Christ w e r e l e d t o hell, as if h a n d e d b y G o d t o obliteration, e x c e p t the f e w w h o m faith i n t h e future o f Christ m a i n t a i n e d . F r o m this cause, the grave is c o m m o n l y called the land o f p e r d i t i o n and o f o b l i v i o n (Psalm 8 8 ) . In the H o l y Scriptures, grave and hell had the same n a m e , so that o n e w e n t at the same time to grave and hell. . . . Just as the b o d y p u l l e d t h e soul i n t o sin and subjected it to its force, so the s o u l is b r o u g h t u n d e r the d o m i n i o n o f darkness, death, and hell w h e n the b o d y is p u t i n the grave] D a C o s t a , p p . 6 8 f , q u o t e s Psalm 88:11—13, and c o m m e n t s : " H e r e b y it is d e n i e d that the dead g i v e praise t o G o d and that t h e y can rise again for that p u r p o s e b e c a u s e , w h e r e t h e y are, there is n o life nor is there spirit i n the t o m b , the land o f d e c a y the land o f g l o o m and o f o b l i v i o n , and o n l y the l i v i n g can praise G o d . . . . "

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

195

t r i n e w a s c o r r u p t e d a n d b e f o u l e d b y t h e p r i e s t s ' lust f o r p o w e r a n d g r e e d f o r w e a l t h . H e n c e t h e w o r s t a s p e r s i o n cast i n t h e p o l e m i c s o f this a g e is t h e r e p r o a c h o f i n n o v a t i o n . I n d a C o s t a , this d o m i n a n t t e n d e n c y is c o n t r o l l e d b y the Epicurean motive. W e see t h a t f o r d a C o s t a t u r n i n g t o t h e t r u t h is r e t u r n i n g t o t h e o r i g i n a l . T h u s : first, h e r e t u r n s t o t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t as against t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , n e x t h e r e t u r n s t o t h e T o r a h as against t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , t h e n h e r e t u r n s t o t h e T o r a h as a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r parts o f S c r i p t u r e , " " a n d finally h e r e t u r n s t o t h e N o a h i d e c o m m a n d m e n t s as against t h e T o r a h . T h e N o a h i d e l a w is t h e lex primaria [ p r i m a r y l a w ] t h a t e x i s t e d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d t h a t w i l l a l w a y s exist. It is i n n a t e a n d c o m m o n t o all h u m a n b e i n g s , t h e r o o t o f all l a w s a n d t h e s o u r c e o f all r i g h t s . A n y d e v i a t i o n a n d a n y a d d i t i o n is already a c o r r u p ­ tion. T h e natural original l a w c o m m a n d s m u t u a l love. T h e positive religions l e a d t o m u t u a l h a t r e d . T h e state b r o u g h t a b o u t b y r e l i g i o n is c o n t r a r y t o h u m a n n a t u r e . It is r o o t e d i n w i c k e d n e s s , i n thirst for h o n o r a n d g a i n , i n t h e a i m o f h o l d i n g h u m a n b e i n g s i n t e r r o r (da C o s t a , p p . 1 0 7 a n d 1 1 8 f f ) . T h e r e t u r n t o t h e o r i g i n a l is a c c o m p l i s h e d b y r e c o g n i z i n g t h e o r i g i n a l r e v e l a t i o n i n r e a s o n . G o d r e v e a l s H i m s e l f i n t h e l a w o f n a t u r e . E v e r y later r e v e l a t i o n n e e d s t o b e m e a s u r e d b y this s t a n d a r d . Insofar as S c r i p t u r e c o n t r a d i c t s r e a s o n , it is h u m a n i n v e n t i o n (ibid. p . 1 1 0 ) . S i n c e r e a s o n d e c i d e s t h e t r u t h o f t h e d o c t r i n e s o f S c r i p t u r e , it d e c i d e s at the same time their genuineness. T h u s t h e equation true = genuine deter­ m i n e s d a C o s t a ' s c r i t i c i s m o f t h e B i b l e . T h e d o c t r i n e o f i m m o r t a l i t y is u n t r u e b e c a u s e it c o n t r a d i c t s t h e L a w . T h u s t h e passages o f S c r i p t u r e t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e critic's o p i n i o n , actually s p e a k o f i m m o r t a l i t y ( n a m e l y D a n i e l 1 2 : 2 a n d 1 2 : 1 3 ) a r e e x c i s e d as i n v e n t i o n s o f t h e P h a r i s e e s . Critique

of dogma guides the

critique of the biblical text; critique concerning the truth guides the critique genuineness,

concerning

a l t h o u g h it d o e s n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y d e t e r m i n e t h e latter. D a C o s t a

relies, at least i n a s u b s i d i a r y m a n n e r , o n a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e S a d d u c e e s , w h o d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e B o o k o f D a n i e l . S i n c e i t is a t t e s t e d t o o n l y b y t h e P h a r i s a i c t r a d i t i o n , t h e g e n u i n e n e s s o f t h a t b o o k collapses. T h i s thesis is t h e n e x t e n d e d t o t h e w h o l e o f S c r i p t u r e , w i t h o u t f u r t h e r specific j u s t i f i c a t i o n ( p p . 8 5 a n d 9 5 ) . W h a t is t y p i c a l a b o u t this p r o c e d u r e is t h a t , for t h e p u r p o s e o f a

vl

" T h e report i n t h e first b o o k o f S a m u e l o f Saul's n e c r o m a n c y is "absolutely opposed t o t h e d o c t r i n e that f o l l o w s f r o m t h e Law," therefore "necessarily false" s t e m ­ m i n g f r o m t h e Pharisees, i . e . , n o t g e n u i n e . " W e h a v e t h e L a w as a g u i d e a n d f u n d a ­ m e n t a l basis, a n d t h r o u g h t h e L a w w e m u s t j u d g e and distinguish false f r o m true" (da C o s t a , p . 81f.).

196

Chapter

3

critical e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c a n o n i n its t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m , o n e relies o n

such

e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e t i m e o f t h e c o m p i l a t i o n o f t h e c a n o n that, r e p o r t e d b y t h e t r a d i t i o n itself, is o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r f o r it.

NOTES S o u r c e : " Z u r Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas u n d seiner Vorläufer," Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins zur Gründung und Erhaltung einer Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 1 ( 1 9 2 6 ) : 1 - 2 2 , reprinted i n GS, 1:389—414. T h e essay " Z u r Bibelwissenschaft S p i n o z a s u n d seiner Vorläufer" is a short c o m p a n i o n p i e c e t o t h e m o n o g r a p h D i e Religionskritik Spinozas, p u b l i s h e d b y t h e A k a d e m i e für die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s i n B e r l i n i n 1 9 3 0 . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e preface t o t h e English translation (Spinoza's Critique of Religion, [ N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1 9 6 5 ] ) , Strauss w r o t e t h e b o o k b e t w e e n 1 9 2 5 a n d 1 9 2 8 . T h e E n g l i s h v e r s i o n b y Elsa M . Sinclair w a s authorized b y L e o Strauss. Sinclair had p r e v i ­ ously translated t h e manuscript o f The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 3 6 ) . T h e essay " Z u r Bibelwissenschaft S p i n o z a s " o f t e n agrees v e r b a t i m w i t h passages i n t h e larger c o m p o s i t i o n . H e n c e , i n w o r k i n g o n t h e present translation, it w a s possible t o c o m p a r e and c o n s u l t t h e authorized translation o f D i e Religionskritik Spinozas. W h e r e t h e literal m e a n i n g o f t h e text c o u l d b e r e n d e r e d m o r e accurately, b u t n o less e l e g a n d y , I a l l o w e d m y s e l f to deviate f r o m t h e 1 9 6 5 trans­ lation. T h e s a m e is true i n cases w h e r e Sinclair s e e m s t o have missed t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g o f the original. 1.

A c c o r d i n g t o its masthead, t h e Korrespondenzblatt n o t o n l y had t h e p u r p o s e o f

p u b l i s h i n g t h e annual reports o f the activities o f t h e A k a d e m i e and o f the s o c i e t y that s u p p o r t e d it b u t also o f a l l o w i n g "learned w o r k " t o h a v e an effect " o n t h e b r o a d e r p u b l i c t h r o u g h generally accessible essays g r o w i n g o u t o f t h e w o r k o f t h e research institute." 2.

O n Strauss's affiliation w i t h t h e A k a d e m i e fur d i e Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s ,

see t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e and t h e e u l o g y o n Franz R o s e n z w e i g ("Franz R o s e n z w e i g a n d t h e A c a d e m y for t h e S c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m " ) . 3.

Bibelwissenschaft: rendering t h e G e r m a n Wissenschaft as " s c i e n c e , " t h e transla­

t i o n a d o p t e d b y Sinclair and presumably a p p r o v e d b y Strauss, is s o m e w h a t c o n f u s i n g t o the A n g l o - S a x o n reader. T h e critical and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y g r o u n d e d scholarship that is i n t e n d e d b y t h e t e r m Bibelwissenschaft s e e m s r e n d e r e d m o r e elegantly i n terms s u c h as "critical study o f t h e B i b l e , " "biblical scholarship," a n d t h e like, w h i l e "Bible s c i e n c e " (as c o n s i s t e n d y u s e d t h r o u g h o u t Spinoza's Critique of Religion) s e e m s c l u m s y , b u t p e r ­ haps it is i n t e n t i o n a l l y retained because o f its specifically G e r m a n i c c o n n o t a t i o n s . T h e difference i n t e r m i n o l o g y (the G e r m a n Wissenschaft applies t o b o t h t h e sciences and t h e humanities) p o i n t s t o a d e e p e r t a x o n o m i c difference b e t w e e n t h e systems o f classifica­ t i o n prevalent i n t h e G e r m a n and t h e A n g l o - S a x o n a c a d e m i c traditions, respectively. S i n c e this t a x o n o m i c matter i n v o l v e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f t o w h a t degree t h e paradigm o f scientific k n o w l e d g e c a n b e legitimately applied t o t h e h u m a n i t i e s , t h e p r o b l e m m u s t h a v e b e e n for Strauss m o r e than a relatively indifferent t e r m i n o l o g i c a l matter. T h e r e are, i n fact, strong indications that Strauss u s e d t h e t e r m Bibelwissenschaft deliberately, a t e r m that, c o m p a r e d t o biblische Wissenschaft and t h e like, o c c a s i o n a l l y

Historical-Philological

Writings

on Spinoza

(1924-26)

197

s o u n d s a w k w a r d e v e n i n G e r m a n . Strauss himself already uses the expression Bibelwissen­ schaft i n t h e t i d e , as w e l l as four times i n s e c t i o n III o f his essay " C o h e n ' s Analysis o f Spinoza's B i b l e S c i e n c e " ( 1 9 2 4 ) . T h e r e it o c c u r s e x c l u s i v e l y i n the c o n t e x t o f an a d u m ­ bration o f Strauss's o w n n o n p o l e m i c a l understanding o f Spinoza's c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e study o f the B i b l e rather than i n the c o n t e x t o f his critical paraphrase o f C o h e n ' s v i e w s o n Spinoza. W h e n h e paraphrases C o h e n , h e sticks t o the latter's t e r m i n o l o g y , u s i n g expressions s u c h as Bibelkritik, biblische Wissenschaft, and s o forth. I n t h e essay " Z u r B i b e l ­ wissenschaft Spinozas u n d seiner Vorläufer," Strauss e x p l o r e s t h e subject matter i n d e ­ pendently o f C o h e n ' s perspective and consistently employs the s o m e w h a t unusual c o n s t r u c t i o n Bibelwissenschaft. T h a t this u s a g e w a s d e l i b e r a t e is c o n f i r m e d b y Strauss's approval o f "Bible s c i e n c e " as the English e q u i v a l e n t of Bibelwissenschaft. It m a y n o t b e farfetched t o regard t h e term as ironic i n that it c o m b i n e s t h e v e r y attitudes (revelation and theory) w h o s e difference has b e e n m u d d i e d b y m o d e r n i t y , a difference Strauss sets o u t t o restore. B i b l e s c i e n c e i n Spinoza's sense is s h o w n t o b e g r o u n d e d i n t h e a s s u m p ­ tion o f a sufficiency o f reason, w h e r e a s the Bible and, w i t h it, revealed religion is f o u n d e d o n distrust i n t h e sufficiency o f reason and, h e n c e , is f o u n d e d o n faith. T h e r e f o r e , w h e r e v e r possible, t h e present translation strives t o render t h e expression Bibelwissenschaft literally, e x c e p t w h e r e s u c h literalness w o u l d g i v e rise t o syntactic and stylistic a w k ­ wardness absent i n t h e original. 4.

" C o h e n s A n a l y s e der Bibel-Wissenschaft S p i n o z a s , " Der Jude 8 ( 1 9 2 4 ) : 2 9 5 -

3 1 4 , translated i n this v o l u m e as " C o h e n ' s Analysis o f Spinoza's Bible S c i e n c e . " H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s " S p i n o z a ü b e r Staat u n d R e l i g i o n , J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m " ( 1 9 1 5 ) w a s first p u b l i s h e d i n Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 18 ( 1 9 1 5 ) : 5 6 - 1 5 0 , a n d reprinted i n JS, 3 : 2 9 0 - 3 7 2 . 5.

T h e w o r d Kritik c a n b e translated either as "criticism" o r as "critique." D e r i v ­

i n g f r o m t h e G r e e k Kptatç, w h i c h originally refers t o a court o f l a w o r t o j u d g m e n t , Kritik is t h e act o f e x a m i n i n g or investigating an issue either w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f establishing its true nature o r character ("critique") o r (if c o n v i n c e d o f its inferiority, guilt, etc.) w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f a c h i e v i n g a c o n d e m n a t i o n ("criticism"). B e c a u s e o f the latter possibility, Kritik is f r e q u e n d y associated w i t h an i n h e r e n d y prejudicial bias t o ­ w a r d finding t h e o b j e c t o f scrutiny guilty i n t h e sense o f the accusation, and criticizing s o m e o n e or s o m e t h i n g falls itself u n d e r t h e critical verdict o f revealing p r e c o n c e i v e d n o t i o n s . I n G e r m a n , w h e n u s e d w i t h t h e p r e p o s i t i o n an (as i n t h e phrase in seiner Kritik an Spinoza), t h e m e a n i n g is u n a m b i g u o u s l y that o f criticism i n this n e g a t i v e sense. In p h i l o s o p h i c a l literature, o n t h e o t h e r hand, Kritik often takes the tint, c o n s t r u c t i v e m e a n i n g o f "critique." A s i n t r o d u c e d b y I m m a n u e l K a n t i n his Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Critique o f pure reason] (Riga: H a r t k n o c h , 1 7 8 1 ) critique r e f e n t o a m e t h o d o f p h i l o ­ sophical inquiry a i m i n g t o establish t h e range a n d g r o u n d s o f legitimate j u d g m e n t s o f reason. S o m e o f the differences o v e r the interpretation o f Kant's First Critique c a n b e illustrated b y this a m b i v a l e n c e i n the term Kritik. W h i l e t o M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n , for e x a m p l e , w h o t o o k Kritik t o m e a n c r i t i c i s m , K a n t w a s t h e " a l l - d e s t r o y i n g " (der Alleszertrümmemde),

t o H e r m a n n C o h e n , interpreting Kritik as a constructive act o f

rational Grundlegung, Kant w a s the f o u n d e r o f a m e t h o d o f critical idealism i n t h e sense o f a constructive idealism. T o d a y "critique" is c o m m o n l y u s e d in t h e c o n t e x t o f applied aesthetics, literary theory, and so o n , w h e r e it hovers b e t w e e n hermeneutics o f s u s p i c i o n

Chapter

198

3

and Kantian critique. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , t o "critique" a painting, a n o v e l , o r a musical c o m p o s i t i o n i n v o l v e s t h e critical e x a m i n a t i o n o f its presuppositions as w e l l as a j u d g ­ m e n t o n w h e t h e r o r n o t it a c c o m p l i s h e s its o b j e c t i v e . In t h e present essay, Strauss takes a specific m o m e n t i n t h e l o n g - s t a n d i n g tradition o f Religionskritik (critique o f religion) and subjects it t o a critical investigation as t o t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f its m e t h o d s a n d m o t i v e s . O n t h e basis o f this e x a m i n a t i o n , Strauss d e c i d e s w h e t h e r Kritik is c o n s t r u c t i v e , based o n t h e i n h e r e n d y a g r e e d - u p o n presuppositions, and h e n c e critique, o r w h e t h e r it is m e r e external o r p o l e m i c a l criticism. C r i t i q u e r e ­ veals s o m e t h i n g essential about the e x a m i n e d object, w h e r e a s criticism reveals s o m e ­ t h i n g about t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f the e x a m i n e r w i t h o u t revealing s o m e t h i n g essential a b o u t the e x a m i n e d object. S i n c e Strauss h i m s e l f e x a m i n e s t h e e x a m i n a t i o n s o f others, h e c a n n o t always i m m e d i a t e l y indicate w h e t h e r w h a t h e is l o o k i n g at is a case o f critique o r criticism. In m o s t cases, this ambiguity is simply h i d d e n , because t h e same w o r d stands for b o t h m e a n i n g s . " T h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a " derives considerable suspense from this a m b i g u i t y , w h i c h itself is n o w h e r e stated. Y e t t o t h e translator this presents t h e difficulty o f h a v i n g to d e c i d e i n e a c h case w h a t Strauss is referring t o , w h e r e a s author did n o t n e e d t o m a k e this d e c i s i o n . H e s i m p l y u s e d t h e same w o r d for b o t h , and m a d e it u n a m b i g u o u s o n l y i n a f e w cases, either b y t h e use o f a preposition or b y t h e c o n t e x t . S i n c e m a k i n g this d e c i s i o n o n b e h a l f o f t h e author a m o u n t s t o interpretation, I h a v e taken advantage o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y usage o f critique, w h i c h b y n o w has b e c o m e similarly a m b i g u o u s . O n l y w h e r e c o n t e x t o r construction m a k e it u n a m b i g u o u s l y clear that criticism is t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g d o I u s e the latter term. Strauss's theoretical interest i n t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f the c r i t i q u e / c r i t i ­ c i s m o f religion harks back t o his dissertation o n Jacobi (see " O n t h e P r o b l e m o f K n o w l ­ e d g e " ) , w h e r e h e describes a fundamental t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e attitude o f b e l i e f and t h e critical attitude instantiated b y t h e Cartesian tradition, t o w h i c h Spinoza b e l o n g s . In t h e present essay, a related o p p o s i t i o n is p r e s u p p o s e d — n a m e l y , that b e t w e e n b e l i e f i n t h e sufficiency a n d t h e b e l i e f i n t h e insufficiency o f the h u m a n intellect. T h e latter is t h e attitude at t h e r o o t o f religious faith; t h e former is t h e attitude at t h e r o o t o f the E p i c u ­ rean criticism o f religion, r e v i v e d (as Strauss assumes at this time) b y Spinoza. T h e essay e x a m i n e s Spinoza's critique/criticism o f M a i m o n i d e s and o f C a l v i n . In each case, Strauss tries t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r Spinoza's e x a m i n a t i o n a m o u n t s t o critique o r criticism, that is, w h e t h e r it points t o difficulties inherent i n the e x a m i n e d position and m e r e l y radicalizes it t o t h e p o i n t that contradictory first assumptions b e c o m e visible, or w h e t h e r t h e as­ s u m p t i o n s at t h e r o o t o f M a i m o n i d e s ' a n d Calvin's respective positions are m i s j u d g e d b y S p i n o z a . In this sense, Strauss reads S p i n o z a as u s i n g his o w n critical m e t h o d a n d e x a m i n e s i n w h i c h case h e uses it appropriately a n d i n w h i c h cases h e fails t o d o s o . 6.

In t h e original: '"voraussetzungslose' Wissenschaft." Cf. Spinoza's Critique of

Religion, 1 3 0 , 2 6 3 / D i e Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 1 0 , 2 6 0 . 7. F o r a c u r i o u s y e t instructive c o m p a r i s o n , s e e Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 3 5 / Die Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 - 2 . H o w e v e r , a l t h o u g h t h e G e r m a n original is similar t o o u r essay, it is clear that t h e English version has b e e n r e w o r k e d b y Strauss ( o r at least b y Sinclair). 8. Konstitution refers here either t o t h e establishment o f a s c i e n c e , t o its justifica-

Historical-Philological

Writings on Spinoza

(1924-26)

199

t i o n , o r t o its disposition. B y reiterating the term, Strauss remains v a g u e a n d t h e r e b y draws a t t e n t i o n t o t h e possibility that a discipline as w e l l established as biblical s c h o l a r ­ ship m a y b e h a u n t e d b y u n s e t d e d questions o f justification o r disposition. 9.

F o r Strauss o n S p i n o z a a n d superstition, s e e Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 2 5 2 -

53/Die Religionskritik Spinozas, 2 4 8 - 4 9 . 1 0 . Literally "in d e n e n es sich selbst aufhebt." It is s o m e t i m e s unclear w h a t Strauss has i n m i n d w h e n h e uses t h e H e g e l i a n term aufheben. In an almost identical passage i n Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 2 0 3 / D i e Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 9 3 , Sinclair translates aufheben as "sublate," b u t w e find that i n this case h e r c h o i c e o f w o r d s is s o m e w h a t misleading. S e e t h e n e x t n o t e . 1 1 . F r o m this a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e it is clear w h y Sinclair c h o s e "sublate" as the e q u i v a l e n t o f aufheben i n t h e previous s e n t e n c e (see p r e v i o u s n o t e ) . Strauss's d i s t i n c ­ t i o n b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n o f religion and t h e origin o f t h e o r y c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d t o m e a n the f o l l o w i n g . T h e striving for self-preservation generates passions that o b v i a t e t h e p r e s ­ ervation o f t h e self. T h i s "situation" c a n b e o v e r c o m e b y t w o diametrically o p p o s e d cultural strategies, n a m e l y , religion and theory. T h e c o m m o n origin o f religion a n d t h e o r y consists i n t h e conflict b e t w e e n t h e striving for self-preservation and t h e passions that are g e n e r a t e d b y this striving. Stricdy speaking, o n l y t h e o r y qualifies as t h e result o f a sublation i n t h e H e g e l i a n sense, for o n l y i n t h e o r y is t h e striving for self-preservation purified a n d carried t h r o u g h t o its "radical" (as Strauss likes t o p u t it) c o n c l u s i o n s . T h e o r y c o u l d n o t h a v e e m e r g e d as t h e consistent pursuit o f self-preservation w i t h o u t the antithesis o f t h e passions. T o w h a t degree religion is l i k e w i s e the result o f a g e n u i n e synthesis i n w h i c h self-preservation and the o b v i a t i n g passions it e n g e n d e r s are b o t h sublated i n t o a different synthesis is unclear. W h e t h e r o r n o t all this accurately repre­ sents Strauss's i n t e n t i o n , it explains w h y Sinclair m a y h a v e felt c o m p e l l e d t o o p t for t h e H e g e l i a n term. Self-preservation and passions are related like thesis a n d antithesis. T h e fact that t w o syntheses are possible t o this dialectic a n d that these syntheses constitute antagonists i n an eternal struggle (as "diametrically o p p o s e d " possibilities) propels Strauss b e y o n d t h e orbit o f H e g e l i a n t h o u g h t a n d closer t o Carl Schmitt. O n Carl S c h m i t t a n d L e o Strauss, see H e i n r i c h M e i e r , Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, trans. J. H a r v e y L o m a x ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 5 . 12.

See note above.

13.

die Weisen und die Unweisen : see Spinoza's Critique of Religion, p. 1 7 1 / Die Religions­

kritik Spinozas, p. 1 5 6 : "the w i s e and t h e foolish." 14. M a n u e l Joël: for t h e specific reference, s e e Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 1 5 2 n. 1 8 8 / D i ' e Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 3 4 n. 1 8 8 . 1 5 . W h i l e "critique" w o u l d w o r k here i n English as w e l l , or e v e n better than "criticism," t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n Kritik an u n a m b i g u o u s l y refers t o "criticism," n o t "cri­ tique." 16. F r o m this s e n t e n c e a l o n e it remains unclear w h a t , t o Strauss, constitutes s u c h a " d e e p e r p r e s u p p o s i t i o n " and w h e t h e r it resides i n M a i m u n i or i n Spinoza. It is n o t until t w o pages further d o w n i n t h e inquiry that this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is identified as that o f "the c o n v i c t i o n [ o n Spinoza's part] o f t h e sufficiency o f h u m a n t h o u g h t for t h e p e r f e c ­ tion o f theory." 17.

C o u n t e r r e m o n s t r a n t C a l v i n i s m refers t o t h e traditional faction o f R e f o r m e d

Chapter

200

3

ministers a n d t h e o l o g i a n s that prevailed o v e r t h e A r m i n i a n faction at t h e S y n o d o f D o r d r e c h t (held f r o m 1 3 N o v e m b e r 1 6 1 8 t o 2 9 M a y 1 6 1 9 ) . T h e A r m i n i a n s ( i n c l u d i n g the h u m a n i s t a n d natural l a w theorist H u g o Grotius) argued for tolerance i n n o n e s s e n ­ tial d o g m a t i c matters, a n d unsuccessfully p e t i t i o n e d t h e state for t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f their c r e e d . T h e m a i n d o g m a t i c disagreements c o n c e r n e d t h e d o c t r i n e o f predestination, a n d the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r faith is entirely p r e o r d a i n e d o r w h e t h e r h u m a n b e i n g s c o n t r i b ­ u t e t o their salvation b y an e l e m e n t o f faith that originates i n t h e m rather than i n G o d . T h e A r m i n i a n s p r e s e n t e d their suggestions for an a m e n d m e n t o f the H e i d e l b e r g C a t ­ e c h i s m i n a d o c u m e n t called " R e m o n s t r a n t i e " ( 1 6 1 0 ) , w h i c h w a s countered b y a " C o n t r a R e m o n s t r a n t i e " ( 1 6 1 1 ) . After t h e S y n o d o f D o r d r e c h t e x p e l l e d t h e A r m i n i a n s , t h e y organized themselves in the "Remonstrantsche Broederschap."

18. Cf. Die Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 8 2 / Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 1 9 3 , for a series o f almost identical s e n t e n c e s . Die Religionskritik Spinozas/Spinoza's

Critique of Re­

ligion adds t h e reference t o C a l v i n , Institutio 1.3—8. 19.

E m p h a s i z i n g t h e parallel e l e m e n t s i n this s e n t e n c e , Strauss later a d d e d q u o t a ­

t i o n marks t o t h e expressions "natural light" and " i n n e r t e s t i m o n y o f the H o l y Spirit."

See Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 195/Di'e Religionskritik Spinozas, 1 8 4 . 20.

T h a t is, S p i n o z a dismisses t h e distinction b e t w e e n t w o kinds o f fear as a m e r e

o u t c r y o f protest, g r o u n d e d i n a p o l o g e t i c s rather than i n a substantive difference. 21.

Cf. " R e f l e k t i e r t h e i t " i n t h e o p e n i n g s e n t e n c e o f "Paul d e Lagarde," a n d cf. t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e . W h i l e i n t h e early essays Strauss regards "reflection" as an i m p o r t a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e v i c e , around 1 9 2 9 / 3 0 it b e g i n s t o appear t o h i m as t h e q u i n t ­ essential e x p r e s s i o n o f the b e h o l d e n n e s s t o h i s t o r i c i s m — o r t o t h e past as "fate"—that, i n his phase o f r e o r i e n t a t i o n , h e identifies as that w h i c h n e e d s t o b e o v e r c o m e . 22.

F o r U r i e l da C o s t a o r A c o s t a ( 1 5 8 5 - 1 6 4 0 ) , cf. EJ, s.v. "Costa, U r i e l da," b y

R i c h a r d H . P o p k i n . B e l o w , Strauss relates s o m e o f the relevant biographical i n f o r m a ­ t i o n a b o u t da C o s t a . M o r e i m p o r t a n d y , h o w e v e r , his analysis o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f da Costa's critique o f r e l i g i o n — t h a t is, t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f da Costa's v i e w s critical o f Christian d o c t r i n e prior t o his turning t o J u d a i s m — h a s b e e n c o n f i r m e d b y historical e v i d e n c e f r o m d o c u m e n t s o f the Inquisition. S e e t h e P o p k i n article just cited, a n d s e e also chap. 2 o f L e o Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 5 3 - 6 3 . 23.

M i c h a e l Servet, Servetus, o r M i g u e l S e r v e t o , also k n o w n u n d e r various forms

o f the n a m e V i l l a n u e v a , b o r n 1 5 1 1 i n T u d e l a (Spain), w a s b u r n e d alive as a heretic i n C h a m p e l (Switzerland) i n 1 5 5 3 . Originally trained as a lawyer, Servetus b e c a m e an i n n o v a t i v e physician w h o w a s t h e first i n t h e W e s t t o describe p u l m o n a r y circulation. H e p u b l i s h e d several scientific w o r k s ( 1 5 3 5 : o n c o m p a r a t i v e g e o g r a p h y ; 1 5 3 7 : o n d i ­ g e s t i o n ; 1 5 3 8 : o n m e d i c a l astrology). N o m i n a l l y a C a t h o l i c , this humanist t h i n k e r a n d c o r r e s p o n d e n t o f m a n y Protestant r e f o r m e n aroused t h e ire o f b o t h t h e I n q u i s i t i o n a n d o f C a l v i n b e c a u s e o f his anti-Trinitarian t h e o l o g y based o n an i n t e n s i v e study o f t h e B i b l e and o n a N e o p l a t o n i c c o s m i c - p a n t h e i s t i c C h r i s t o l o g y . Servetus's m a i n t h e o l o g i ­ cal w o r k s are: De Trinitatis erroribus libri Septem ( H a g e n a u , 1 5 3 1 ) ; Dialogorum de Trinitate

libri duo ( H a g e n a u , 1 5 3 2 ) ; Biblia Sacra ex Santis Pagini tralatione . . . recognita et scholiis illustrata ( L y o n s , 1542—45); Christianismi restitutio ( 1 5 5 3 ) .

IV K|>

Reorientation (1928-32) T h e l a t e t w e n t i e s a n d e a r l y t h i r t i e s w e r e f o r Strauss a t i m e o f r e o r i e n t a ­ tion.

T h e r e t h i n k i n g o f his p o s i t i o n s is e v i d e n t i n h i s l e t t e r s a n d i n p u b ­

lications o f t h e m i d - 1 9 3 0 s , especially i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o

Philosophy

and Law ( 1 9 3 5 ) . I n t h e f e w w r i t i n g s h e p u b l i s h e d at t h e time, h o w e v e r , h e o n l y h i n t s at s o m e o f t h e c o n c e r n s h e e x p r e s s e d m o r e f r e e l y i n l e c ­ t u r e s t o l e a r n e d a u d i e n c e s at t h e L e h r a n s t a l t f ü r d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t d e s J u d e n t u m s a n d t o t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h s h e c o n t i n u e d t o address o n o c c a ­ s i o n . T h e n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n is t h e 1 9 2 8 r e v i e w o f F r e u d ' s Future of an Illusion. P u b l i s h e d i n Der jüdische Student, t h e w i d e l y d i s s e m i n a t e d p u b l i ­ c a t i o n o f t h e Z i o n i s t s t u d e n t s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n Kartell j ü d i s c h e r V e r b i n d u n g e n (K.J.V.), t h e essay presents an a r g u m e n t for a radically atheistic c o n c e p ­ tion

o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m , a p o s i t i o n that, t o t h e m a j o r i t y o f Strauss's

r e a d e r s , w a s as u n a c c e p t a b l e o n p r i n c i p l e as o n p r a g m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In t h e s e c o n d half o f the 1920s, G e r m a n Z i o n i s m h a d largely o u t g r o w n the theoretical a n d diasporatic orientation o f t h e y o u t h m o v e m e n t a n d h a d t u r n e d " P a l e s t i n o c e n t r i c " i n s t e a d ( s e e L a v s k y , Before Catastrophe, c i t e d h e r e i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . T h e shared pragmatic goals o f increasing a n d s u p p o r t i n g t h e J e w i s h c o l o n i z a t i o n o f P a l e s t i n e b r o u g h t w i t h it a careful avoidance o f ideological conflict b e t w e e n t h e l e f t - w i n g H a p o e l Hatzair a n d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s Z i o n i s m , M i z r a h i . Strauss's a r g u m e n t v i o l a t e d t h i s tacit a g r e e m e n t . T h e s t r o n g l y n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e t o i t h a d t h e e f f e c t o f e n d i n g h i s c a r e e r as a p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t o f Z i o n i s m . Z i o n i s m h a d c h a n g e d , a n d t h e radical h o n e s t y o f t h e y o u t h m o v e m e n t w a s o u t . Strauss w a s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y d e t e r r e d . O v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t f e w y e a r s Z i o n i s t y o u t h g r o u p s still p r o v i d e d t h e s e t t i n g f o r s o m e o f h i s u n ­ published ruminations o n t h e "religious situation o f t h e present" and s i m i l a r t h e m e s , y e t t h e s e r u m i n a t i o n s w e r e i n c r e a s i n g l y less s t r a i g h t f o r ­ ward, m o r e ironic and double-edged, and ever m o r e self-conscious in

201

202

Chapter

4

s t y l e . R e r e a d i n g L e s s i n g , Strauss b e c a m e m i n d f u l o f t h e e x o t e r i c c h a r a c ­ t e r o f all t h e o l o g i c a l - p o l i t i c a l w r i t i n g , a n d h e b e g a n t o p r a c t i c e i t h i m s e l f . B u t this s o m e w h a t playful w r i t i n g s o o n g a v e w a y t o t h e earnest a n d o p e n r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i s d i s e n c h a n t m e n t w i t h Z i o n i s m as t h e u l t i m a t e resolution to the J e w i s h problem caused b y the dissolution o f the ghetto, t h e o n l y J e w i s h p r o b l e m h e w a s truly interested i n . H e h a d t u r n e d f r o m practical i n v o l v e m e n t i n a political m o v e m e n t t o t h e theoretical e x a m i ­ n a t i o n o f p r e m o d e m p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d its i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r m o d ­ ern man.

Sigmund Freud, The

following

The Future of an Illusion (1928)

r e m a r k s a r e m e a n t as a call t o d e v e l o p t h e Z i o n i s t i d e o l o g y i n

a d i r e c t i o n i n w h i c h i t i s n o t c o m m o n l y d e v e l o p e d . T h e y f o l l o w The of an Illusion

b y S i g m u n d Freud,

Future

1

w h i c h appeared a year a g o . T h e y d o so

neither in order to cloak themselves in the authority o f a m a n o f European f a m e ( n o authorities exist i n t h e field i n w h i c h t h e y m o v e ) , n o r because w h a t they imply could n o t have been k n o w n w i t h o u t Freud. Rather, they d o so m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e clarity a n d simplicity o f t h e F r e u d i a n m a n n e r o f s p e a k i n g (a c l a r i t y a n d s i m p l i c i t y n o t v e r y c o m m o n i n G e r m a n y ) h e l p t o p r e v e n t b e a t ­ i n g a r o u n d t h e b u s h o n t h e essential q u e s t i o n s . T o b e sure, s u c h clarity a n d simplicity are also a great danger; t h e y f o o l readers u s e d t o different m a n n e r s o f speaking into ignoring the substance o f the Freudian expositions, includ­ i n g their q u e s t i o n a b l e substance. E v e n readers w h o are m e r e l y familiar w i t h t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e q u e s t i o n o f r e l i g i o n is c u s t o m a r i l y dealt w i t h at G e r m a n u n i v e r s i t i e s c o u l d e a s i l y d i s m i s s t h e w o r k t o w h i c h w e refer as s u p e r f i c i a l . W h o e v e r is satisfied w i t h s u c h criticism has u n d e r s t o o d n o t h i n g o f t h e q u e s ­ tion

that guides Freud. P o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m h a s r e p e a t e d l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d i t s e l f as t h e w i l l t o n o r m a l ­

ize the existence o f the Jewish people, to normalize the Jewish people. B y this s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n it h a s e x p o s e d itself t o a grave m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,

namely,

t h e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e w i l l t o n o r m a l i t y w a s t h e first w o r d o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m ; t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e c r i t i c i s m o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m rests o n this m i s u n ­ derstanding. In truth, t h e presupposition o f the Zionist will to normalization, t h a t i s , o f t h e Z i o n i s t n e g a t i o n of galut

[ e x i l e ] , is t h e c o n v i c t i o n that " t h e

p o w e r o f r e l i g i o n h a s b e e n b r o k e n " ( K l a t z k i n , Krisis und Entscheidung,

p.57).

2

Because t h e break w i t h religion has b e e n resolutely effected b y m a n y indi­ v i d u a l J e w s , a n d only because of this reason, i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s t o r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n o n b e h a l f o f t h e i r p e o p l e , h o w t h e p e o p l e is t o l i v e f r o m 3

n o w o n . N o t that t h e y prostrate t h e m s e l v e s b e f o r e t h e idol o f normality; o n

Reorientation

(1928-32)

203

t h e c o n t r a r y : t h e y n o l o n g e r see a n y r e a s o n for t h e l a c k o f n o r m a l i t y normalität].

[Nicht-

A n d this is d e c i s i v e : in t h e a g e o f a t h e i s m , t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e c a n

n o l o n g e r base its e x i s t e n c e o n G o d b u t o n l y o n itself a l o n e , o n its l a b o r , o n its l a n d , a n d o n its state. It m u s t e v e n as a p e o p l e b r e a k w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n s t h a t so m a n y i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e a l r e a d y l o n g s i n c e b r o k e n w i t h ; b e t t e r t h e h o n e s t [redlich] n a r r o w n e s s a n d b a r r e n n e s s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n t h a n t h e b r e a d t h a n d p l e n t y t h a t t h e a t h e i s t w o u l d b e able t o p u r c h a s e o n l y at t h e p r i c e o f a l i e .

4

C u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m possesses t h e d u b i o u s m e r i t o f h a v i n g m e d i a t e d b e ­ t w e e n political Z i o n i s m a n d tradition b y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e J e w i s h religion, f r o m t h e start, as a p r o d u c t o f t h e spirit o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h e f o l l o w i n g is a p o p u l a r n o t i o n : t h e p r o p h e t s p r o c l a i m e d t h e m o s t p e r f e c t m o r a l i t y , t h e y p o s e d the d e m a n d ; t h i s m o r a l i t y , this p a t h o s , is w h a t is essentially J e w i s h ; after t h e d e m i s e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l " f o r m s , " n o t h i n g p r e v e n t s t h e s a m e spirit f r o m c r e a t i n g for itself n e w " f o r m s " i n Erets Yisrael [ t h e L a n d o f Israel]. T h e p r o p h ­ ets, h o w e v e r , i n v o k e d G o d , w h o t o l d t h e m w h a t t o say t o t h e p e o p l e , r a t h e r t h a n i n v o k i n g t h e spirit o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . O f c o u r s e , t h e p r o p h e t s ' c i t a ­ t i o n s o f t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i r w o r d s a r e n o t b i n d i n g . T h e a t h e i s t has t h e p e r f e c t r i g h t , h e is e v e n d u t y b o u n d , t o i n t e r p r e t t h e " s p e e c h o f G o d " as t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e h e a r t o f t h e " o n e s w h o h e a r k e n " [Gebild des Herzens

der

"Hörenden"],

p e r h a p s as t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e spirit o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e . B u t h e n e e d s t o b e a w a r e h i m s e l f t h a t t h e w o r d s h e so i n t e r p r e t s w e r e n o t m e a n t i n t h e sense o f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; unless h e w a n t s t o fish i n t r o u b l e d w a t e r s , h e m u s t realize t h a t his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e n i e s t h e o r i g i n a l sense o f t h e L a w a n d t h e p r o p h e t s ; h e m u s t m a k e this d e n i a l e x p l i c i t a n d u n a m b i g u o u s . O n c e h e c o m p r e h e n d s what h e d e n i e s , n a m e l y , o n c e h e c o m p r e h e n d s t h a t it is G o d h e d e n i e s , t h e n h e w i l l l o s e , o n c e a n d for all, his a p p e t i t e for t h e c u l t u r e p r o p a g a t e d b y c u l ­ t u r a l Z i o n i s m ; t h e n h e w i l l c o m p r e h e n d h o w m e a g e r a n a b s t r a c t i o n is t h e 5

" p r o p h e t i c e t h i c s " t h a t r e m a i n s after t h e d e n i a l o f G o d . C o m p a r e d w i t h t h e e n o r m o u s g u l f y a w n i n g b e t w e e n b e l i e f a n d unbelief, t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e spirit o f r a d i c a l socialism ( w h i c h s o m e b e l i e v e t h e y f i n d i n t h e B i b l e ) a n d t h e spirit o f r a d i c a l a n t i s o c i a l i s m is m e r e l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t w o n u ­ a n c e s o f u n b e l i e f . I n its a r g u m e n t w i t h t h e n o n - J e w i s h a n d t h e a n t i - Z i o n i s t e n v i r o n m e n t , p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m has a l w a y s v i g o r o u s l y resisted t h e spirit o f 6

7

i n d e c i s i v e n e s s , especially t h e spirit o f " d e l i b e r a t e " i n d e c i s i v e n e s s t h a t calls itself " p i e t y t o w a r d life" ["Lebensfrömmigkeit"];

h e n c e it m u s t [also] clearly

a n d sharply relinquish the tides fraudulently o b t a i n e d b y cultural Z i o n i s m . G i v e n t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f H e r z l ' s Z i o n i s m , w h i c h e x p r e s s e d itself m o s t clearly i n his Altneuland,

8

c u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m h a d a n easy p o s i t i o n t o d e f e n d .

T h e r e w a s s o m e t h i n g c o n v i n c i n g i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t w h o e v e r affirms t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e necessarily afFirms its spirit, a n d t h e r e f o r e necessarily affirms

204

Chapter

4

t h e c u l t u r e i n w h i c h its spirit r e v e a l e d itself. F r o m t h e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e national culture s o m e p r o c e e d e d to the affirmation of the national tradition o f t h e L a w ; a m o n g t h e s e w e r e c e r t a i n l y a f e w w h o d i d n o t fully realize t h a t this L a w claims t o b e divine law. T h e believers cleared the w a y from their side. H o w o f t e n h a v e w e h e a r d t h a t w h a t J u d a i s m calls for is n o t b e l i e f b u t a c t i o n , n a m e l y , t h e fulfillment o f t h e L a w . B u t w h a t t h e b e l i e v e r m a y

rightly

d e m a n d , t h e u n b e l i e v e r c a n b y n o m e a n s d o . F o r w h a t t h e b e l i e v e r praises as a h e a r k e n i n g a n d a b e l i e v i n g t h a t arises f r o m d o i n g

9

is t o t h e u n b e l i e v e r a

s l i p p e r y s l o p e i n t o belief, a n u m b i n g o f c o n s c i e n c e , a n d s e l f - d e c e p t i o n .

No

o n e c a n b e l i e v e i n G o d for t h e sake o f his n a t i o n ; n o o n e c a n fulfill t h e l a w for n a t i o n a l r e a s o n s . It is b a d e n o u g h t h a t e v e n t o d a y o n e m u s t still w a s t e w o r d s o n t h e t h o u g h t l e s s n e s s t h a t follows this p a t h . B u t c a n o n e r e m a i n s t a n d ­ i n g at t h e a f f i r m a t i o n o f n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e ? C u l t u r a l Z i o n i s m leads u p t o t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t is p o s e d b y a n d t h r o u g h t h e L a w , a n d t h e n it c a p i t u l a t e s , y i e l d ­ i n g either to resolute belief or to resolute unbelief.

10

P o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m , w i s h i n g t o g r o u n d itself radically, m u s t g r o u n d itself i n u n b e l i e f . T h e a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m a n d its radical o p p o n e n t s m u s t b e c o n d u c t e d solely as a s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n u n b e l i e f a n d belief. T h i s s t r u g g l e is a n c i e n t ; it is " t h e e t e r n a l a n d sole t h e m e o f t h e e n t i r e h i s t o r y o f t h e world and of m a n . "

1 1

T h i s struggle, w h i c h h a d almost given o u t in the era o f

t h e p h i l o s o p h i e s o f c u l t u r e a n d o f e x p e r i e n c e [Kultur- und

12

Erlebnisphilosophie],

is t a k e n u p a g a i n b y F r e u d i n t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d w o r k . L e t u s see w h a t F r e u d wants a n d w h a t h e achieves. T h e m o s t F r e u d could achieve w o u l d b e the refutation of the religious n o t i o n s . A t first, r e f u t a t i o n s e e m s c o n c e i v a b l e : after all, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a c ­ c o u n t o f t h e B o o k o f K i n g s , Elijah p r o v e d e x p e r i m e n t a l l y t o t h e p e o p l e t h a t B a a l is p o w e r l e s s c o m p a r e d w i t h Y a h w e h .

1 3

" W h e n St. B o n i f a c i u s c u t d o w n

t h e sacred tree v e n e r a t e d b y the Saxons, t h e bystanders anticipated a terrible e v e n t as a r e s u l t o f t h e sacrilege. It d i d n o t o c c u r , a n d t h e S a x o n s a c c e p t e d b a p t i s m " (p. 6 5 ) . G e o r g e B e r n a r d S h a w o c c a s i o n a l l y c o n d u c t e d t h e f o l l o w ­ i n g e x p e r i m e n t : h e lay a w a t c h i n f r o n t o f h i m s e l f o n a t a b l e a n d said, if G o d exists a n d if h e d i s a p p r o v e s o f a t h e i s m , let h i m t h r o w a l i g h t n i n g b o l t i n t o t h e h o u s e I a m i n s i d e w i t h i n t h e n e x t five m i n u t e s ; n o l i g h t n i n g s t r u c k . T h e e x p e r i m e n t is n o t v e r y p e r s u a s i v e ; it is p o s s i b l e , after all, t h a t G o d exists a n d h a s e n o u g h o f a s e n s e o f h u m o r t o let h u m a n b e i n g s a c h i e v e felicity i n t h e i r o w n w a y a n d t o t h i n k o f " b l a s p h e m y " d i f f e r e n d y f r o m priests a n d p u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r s . If G o d ' s t h o u g h t s a r e n o t t h e t h o u g h t s o f m e n , a n d m e n ' s w a y s are n o t t h e w a y s o f G o d , t h e n G o d ' s t h o u g h t s a n d ways are n o t e x p e r i m e n ­ tally c o n t r o l l a b l e ; m o r e o v e r , e v e r y a t t e m p t t o justify d i r e c d y b y scientific m e a n s t h e d e n i a l o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d is f u n d a m e n t a l l y d e f i c i e n t .

Reorientation

(1928-32)

205

T h e i n s i g h t i n t o this i m p o s s i b i l i t y is t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f F r e u d ' s c r i ­ t i q u e . " T h e r e a l i t y v a l u e [Realitätswert]

o f m o s t o f t h e m (i.e., o f m o s t o f t h e

r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s ) c a n n o t b e j u d g e d . J u s t as t h e y a r e u n p r o v a b l e , t h e y are also i r r e f u t a b l e " (p. 5 0 ) . T h e r e a l m o f scientific k n o w l e d g e is so l i m i t e d t h a t s c i e n c e c a n n o t r e f u t e r e l i g i o n . D o e s this m e a n , h o w e v e r , t h a t s c i e n c e is n o t a n d c a n n o t b e the j u d g e o f religion? B y n o m e a n s . W h i l e the critique o f r e l i g i o n c a n n o t s h a k e t h e d o c t r i n e s o f r e l i g i o n , it c a n c e r t a i n l y s h a k e t h e justifications of these doctrines. W h a t possibilities o f j u s t i f y i n g its d o c t r i n e s a r e available t o r e l i g i o n ? U n ­ til several c e n t u r i e s a g o all physicists a g r e e d t h a t p h y s i c s w a s able t o p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d a n d t h a t [in fact] it p r o v e d it. H o w e v e r , this p r o o f for t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , a l o n g w i t h all o t h e r p r o o f s , lost t h e g r o u n d b e n e a t h its feet d u e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s o f t h e last c e n t u r i e s . T h e c l a i m t h a t G o d exists m a y r e m a i n u n r e f u t e d : as t o j u d g i n g its scientific v a l u e , it is n o t h i n g b u t o n e hypothesis a m o n g m a n y others. T h e s e c o n d p o s s i b i l i t y o f j u s t i f y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e s o f r e l i g i o n is t h e r e l i ­ a n c e o n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n . T h i s possibility, t o o , has b e c o m e a n i m p o s s i b i l i t y . It is n o t i n t h e least a n a r g u m e n t for t h e t r u t h o f a d o c t r i n e t h a t it is also f o u n d i n S c r i p t u r e , o r t h a t it is m a i n t a i n e d b y t r a d i t i o n . T h e r e l e v a n t classical e x a m p l e is m i r a c l e s . T h e r e a s o n w h y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f m i r a c l e s c a n n o t b e p r o v e d f r o m S c r i p t u r e is t h a t t h e r e is n o g u a r a n t e e w h a t ­ ever that the authors o f the accounts o f the miracles or their informants o b ­ s e r v e d w i t h sufficient a c c u r a c y a n d a n a l y z e d w i t h sufficient rigor. " W e k n o w m o r e o r less i n w h a t t i m e s a n d b y w h a t k i n d s o f p e o p l e t h e r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s w e r e c r e a t e d " (p. 5 2 ) . R e l i g i o u s n o t i o n s s t e m f r o m a n a g e o f l i m i t e d s c i e n ­ tific c u l t u r e ( 4 1 , 53); t h e scientific m i n d is c o n s c i o u s o f t h e fact t h a t its t h o u g h t is m o r e d i s c i p l i n e d t h a n t h e t h o u g h t o f p r e s c i e n t i f i c h u m a n i t y . T h e last r e m a i n i n g possibility o f j u s t i f y i n g r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s is t h e a c t u a l present experience o f the believers. This w a y of justifying religious doctrines m o s t c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e c u r r e n d y r e g n a n t spirit, t h e p o s i t i v e [posmV] spirit; h e n c e it is also t h e o n l y [ w a y o f j u s t i f y i n g r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s ] t h a t is i m p o r ­ tant a n d necessary to argue w i t h .

1 4

T h e p o s i t i v e [positiv] j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f r e l i ­

gion excludes o n principle every external or m e d i a t e d justification, w h e t h e r b y p h y s i c s , o r b y S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n ; it relies o n l y o n w h a t t h e b e l i e v e r sees, o n w h a t h e e x p e r i e n c e s . H e n c e , t h e u n b e l i e v e r a p p e a r s t o h a v e n o o t h e r c h o i c e t h a n t o a d m i t : I see a n d e x p e r i e n c e n o t h i n g o f w h a t y o u , t h e b e l i e v e r , c l a i m t o see a n d e x p e r i e n c e ; t h e r e f o r e , I m u s t a t t e m p t t o g e t a l o n g o n t h e basis o f m y o w n e x p e r i e n c e s ; y o u c a n n o t call o n m e t o d e p e n d o n w h a t y o u c l a i m t o see a n d e x p e r i e n c e . " W h e n o n e has g a i n e d t h e u n s h a k a b l e c o n v i c ­ t i o n o f t h e real t r u t h o f t h e r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s f r o m a d e e p l y c a p t i v a t i n g state

Chapter

206

4

o f ecstasy, w h a t d o e s it m e a n t o a n y o n e e l s e ? " (44). T h i s , h o w e v e r , o n l y m a k e s t h e difficulty g r e a t e r . W h e n t h e u n b e l i e v e r asserts t h a t h e sees o r e x p e ­ riences

n o t h i n g o f w h a t t h e b e l i e v e r claims t o see o r e x p e r i e n c e , d o e s h e

t h e r e b y n o t a d m i t t h a t h e lacks an o r g a n , t h a t h e is b l i n d ? T h i s c h a r g e c a n n o t b e t u r n e d against t h e b e l i e v e r : for t h e b e l i e v e r sees e v e r y t h i n g s e e n b y t h e u n b e l i e v e r , a n d h e sees m o r e . B u t is it n o t g e n e r a l l y t h e case t h a t t h e p r e ­ s u m p t i o n s p e a k s i n f a v o r o f t h e o n e w h o sees r a t h e r t h a n o f t h e o n e w h o is b l i n d , o f t h e o n e w h o sees m o r e t h a n t h e o n e w h o sees less? T h i s e m p h a s i s o n t h e r e l i a n c e o n e x p e r i e n c e is w e a k e n e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e r e is also a n e x p e ­ r i e n c e o f w i t c h e s , g h o s t s , a n d devils. O f c o u r s e , r e c a l l i n g I v a n K a r a m a z o v ' s e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e d e v i l , o n e c o u l d say t h a t I v a n ' s e x p e r i e n c e tells h i m s o m e ­ t h i n g i n f i n i t e l y more important a n d infinitely deeper t h a n a n y t h i n g t h a t t h e m o s t a d m i r a b l e s c i e n c e s w o u l d b e able t o tell h i m ; t h e r e is v e r y little t o a d v a n c e against this a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i n n e r w o r l d . B u t i m p o r t a n c e a n d d e p t h a r e b a d c r i t e r i a w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e truth. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d d e e p e s t c l a i m s o f r e l i g i o n lose t h e i r f o r c e if G o d d o e s n o t exist. T h e b e l i e v e r s assert t h a t t h e y have e x p e r i e n c e d t h e existence of G o d , that they have e n c o u n t e r e d G o d ; the u n b e l i e v e r s n o t o n l y assert t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t h a d this e x p e r i e n c e , b u t t h e y also d o u b t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e b e l i e v e r s . W h a t possibilities are available t o t h e u n b e l i e v e r t o verify e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t h e h i m s e l f has n o t h a d ? T h e e x p e r i ­ e n c e s o f t h e b e l i e v e r s a r e r e f l e c t e d i n s t a t e m e n t s ; t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e , as s u c h , d e t e r m i n a b l e ; the various statements are c o m p a r a b l e ; the c o m p a r a t i v e study o f t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s , m a d e b y t h e b e l i e v e r s i n v a r i o u s eras, t e a c h e s us t h a t t h e r e is a h i s t o r y o f belief, t h a t b e l i e f c h a p g e d i n an essential r e s p e c t : " w i t h i n t h e s e p r o d u c t s (sc. t h e r e l i g i o u s n o t i o n s ) , t h e e m p h a s i s g r a d u a l l y shifts." T h e e m p h a s i s shifts f r o m n a t u r e t o m a n ; " t h e m o r a l [ b e c o m e s ] its a c t u a l d o m a i n " ( 2 6 f ) . T o earlier g e n e r a t i o n s , t h e p o w e r o f G o d o v e r n a t u r e s h o w e d itself i n t h e m i r a c l e s ; t h e c h a n g e i n t h e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d m i r a c l e s is s y m p t o m a t i c o f t h e c h a n g e t h a t has t a k e n p l a c e at t h e c o r e o f belief. It has b e e n n o t e d b y b e l i e v ­ ers

1 5

t h a t a l r e a d y i n S c r i p t u r e t h e e m p h a s i s is n o t o n t h e fact o f t h e m i r a c l e b u t

o n t h e expectation

o f t h e m i r a c l e : trust i n G o d is n o t m a n i f e s t e d b y h i m w h o

c o n f i r m s t h a t a m i r a c l e has h a p p e n e d , o r w h o b e l i e v e s t h a t a m i r a c l e h a s h a p p e n e d o n h e a r i n g t h e a c c o u n t s o f o t h e r s , b u t b y h i m w h o faithfully e x ­ p e c t s t h e f u t u r e m i r a c l e . T h i s r e m a r k is o n l y h a l f a c c u r a t e ; it n e g l e c t s t h e fact t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e , it is also v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e m i r a c l e h a s h a p p e n e d ; a n d b e t w e e n this " a l s o v e r y i m p o r t a n t " a n d b e c o m i n g i n d i f f e r e n t [to t h e r e a l i t y o f biblical m i r a c l e s ] ,

16

t h e r e is a g r e a t d i s t a n c e . It is

n o e x a g g e r a t i o n t o say t h a t , a m o n g t h e b e l i e v e r s o f o u r a g e , t h e r e is little i n c l i n a t i o n t o r e c o g n i z e t h e biblical m i r a c l e s as realities. W h a t d o e s this resis-

Reorientation

(1928-32)

207

t a n c e m e a n ? T h e p o w e r o f G o d o v e r n a t u r e has lost its c r e d i b i l i t y : t h e c l a i m o f [ t h e e x i s t e n c e of] G o d [Gottesbehauptung]

n o w h o l d s t r u e m e r e l y for t h e

i n n e r w o r l d , for t h e w o r l d o f t h e h e a r t . If t h a t is t h e case, t h e n it m u s t b e stated that the G o d of Scripture, the G o d w h o created h e a v e n and earth, w h o n o t o n l y d i r e c t s t h e h e a r t s o f m e n like rivers, b u t w h o also g u i d e s n a t u r a l e v e n t s w i t h a C r e a t o r ' s f r e e d o m , t h a t this G o d is n o l o n g e r b e l i e v e d i n . W h a t , h o w e v e r , a r e w e t o t h i n k o f a b e l i e f i n G o d t h a t has c h a n g e d so m u c h ? " W h e n it c o m e s t o q u e s t i o n s o f r e l i g i o n , p e o p l e a r e g u i l t y o f all sorts o f insincerities a n d intellectual bad manners. Philosophers stretch the m e a n i n g o f w o r d s to the p o i n t that t h e y retain barely any o f their original sense, t h e y n a m e s o m e v a g u e a b s t r a c t i o n o f t h e i r o w n m a k i n g ' G o d , ' a n d t h u s are also deists, b e l i e v e r s i n G o d b e f o r e t h e e n t i r e w o r l d , w h o c a n praise t h e m s e l v e s for h a v i n g r e c o g n i z e d a loftier, p u r e r c o n c e p t o f G o d , a l t h o u g h t h e i r G o d is m e r e l y a n u n r e a l [wesenlos] s h a d o w a n d n o l o n g e r t h e p o w e r f u l p e r s o n a l i t y o f religious d o c t r i n e " ( 5 I f ) . F r e u d e x p l i c i t l y r e m a r k s (59) t h a t his c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n is i n d e p e n d e n t o f psychoanalysis, the science he founded. T h e psychoanalytical explanation o f r e l i g i o n is i n fact o n l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e as a task o n c e r e l i g i o n has b e c o m e u n w o r t h y o f belief; t h e n , h o w e v e r , it is n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n r e l i g i o n , t o ask w h y it o c c u r r e d t o h u m a n b e i n g s t o i n v e n t a g o d , t o c l i n g t o a g o d . W e n e e d n o t c o n c e r n ourselves here w i t h the Freudian explanation of religion, w h i c h , i n c i d e n t a l l y , c a n b e t h o r o u g h l y c o n t e s t e d o n a n a t h e i s t i c basis; w h a t is i m ­ p o r t a n t for us is t h e t e n d e n c y t h a t g u i d e s this e x p l a n a t i o n . F r e u d p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e fact o f h u m a n m i s e r y , from t h e helplessness o f m a n v i s - à - v i s t h e d a n g e r s w i t h w h i c h h e is t h r e a t e n e d b y s o - c a l l e d fate, t h a t is, b y u n c o n q u e r e d n a t u r e a n d b y o t h e r h u m a n b e i n g s ; n o t j u s t his e x i s t e n c e , b u t first o f all his v e r y sense o f self [Selbstgefühl]

is g r a v e l y t h r e a t e n e d ; h e is m i s e r a b l e , h e

feels h i m s e l f m i s e r a b l e . N o w r e l i g i o n is " b o r n from t h e n e e d t o m a k e h u m a n helplessness b e a r a b l e " (27). F r e u d s h a r p l y p r o t e s t s against t h e v i e w t h a t t h e " f e e l i n g o f h u m a n smallness a n d p o w e r l e s s n e s s b e f o r e t h e e n t i r e u n i v e r s e " b e c a l l e d r e l i g i o u s : " I t is n o t this feeling t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e e s s e n c e o f r e l i g i o s i t y . . . ; r a t h e r , it is t h e n e x t s t e p , t h e r e a c t i o n t o this f e e l i n g t h a t seeks a r e m e d y for i t " (52). R e l i g i o n is a n illusion. T h i s d o e s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y i m p l y t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s a r e e r r o r s : s o m e illusions also t u r n i n t o t r u t h s . B u t t h e fact t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n o f m a n is, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c l a i m s o f r e l i g i o n , j u s t w h a t h e w o u l d b e b o u n d t o w i s h it t o b e — t h i s is w h a t m a k e s t h e s e claims s u s p e c t : " W e tell o u r s e l v e s , t h a t it w o u l d b e v e r y n i c e if t h e r e w e r e a G o d w h o is a c r e a t o r o f t h e w o r l d a n d a b e n e v o l e n t p r o v i d e n c e , if t h e r e w e r e a m o r a l w o r l d o r d e r a n d a n o t h e r life, b u t it is r a t h e r o b v i o u s t h a t this is all j u s t h o w

208

Chapter

4

w e are b o u n d t o w i s h i t " ( 5 3 ) . T h e fact that r e l i g i o n p r o v i d e s c o m f o r t a n d h e l p b e c o m e s t h e d e c i s i v e o b j e c t i o n t o it. W e a r e v e r y m u c h i n n e e d o f c o m f o r t : this is sufficient r e a s o n t o b e o n g u a r d against illusions t h a t d e l u d e us a b o u t o u r r e a l s i t u a t i o n . O n e c a n assess this c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n p r o p e r l y o n l y if o n e b r i n g s t o m i n d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n as it w a s c o n s t i ­ t u t e d in previous c e n t u r i e s .

1 7

T h e p r e v i o u s c r i t i q u e w a s sustained, e v e n s w e p t

u p , by the conviction that the vanquishing of religion w o u l d be the d a w n o f t h e a g e o f h a p p i n e s s , o f h e a v e n o n e a r t h ; i n a n y case, it hoped to derive some benefit [versprach sich etwas] f r o m t h e d e m i s e o f r e l i g i o n . F r e u d p r o m i s e s [verspricht] n o t h i n g , e x c e p t i n s i g h t i n t o t h e real s i t u a t i o n o f m a n . T h i s , t h e n , is t h e state o f t h e s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n b e l i e f a n d u n b e l i e f . L o n g a g o it w a s d e c i d e d t h a t n o a s c e n t f r o m t h e w o r l d t o G o d is possible w i t h o u t t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f belief; n o w it has also b e e n d e c i d e d t h a t e n l i g h t e n m e n t a b o u t t h e situation o f m a n , o f m a n ' s misery, d o e s n o t lead t o G o d unless G o d is a l r e a d y p r e s u p p o s e d . L o n g a g o it w a s d e c i d e d t h a t t h e t e r r i b l e n e s s o f b e l i e f is n o t a n o b j e c t i o n t o belief; n o w u n b e l i e f has also m a t u r e d e n o u g h t o a r r i v e at t h e i n s i g h t t h a t t h e p r o b a b l y d e s p e r a t e s i t u a t i o n i n t o w h i c h m a n h a s b e e n b r o u g h t b y u n b e l i e f i n n o w a y justifies belief. M u c h is g a i n e d w h e n

the

d e s p a i r , t h e h o p e l e s s n e s s , t h e helplessness o f m a n , w h e n " t h e m i s e r y o f m a n w i t h o u t G o d , " w h e n t h e resdessness, t h e l a c k o f p e a c e , t h e staleness a n d s h a l l o w n e s s o f life w i t h o u t G o d are n o l o n g e r a n o b j e c t i o n t o unbelief; w h e n it n o l o n g e r s e e m s i m p o s s i b l e t h a t t r u t h a n d d e p t h are o p p o s i t e s , t h a t o n l y i l l u s i o n has d e p t h . F r o m this [ p e r s p e c t i v e ] w e m u s t p o s e t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t is left u n d e c i d e d b y F r e u d ' s c r i t i q u e . Is i t — a s F r e u d p r e s u p p o s e s — t h e m e a n i n g o f b e l i e f t o p r o v i d e c o m f o r t a n d aid, t o g i v e life m e a n i n g , p e a c e , a n d d e p t h ?

1 8

Is it n o t i n

t r u t h t h e case t h a t the d a n g e r from w h i c h t h e b e l i e v e r h o p e s t o b e s a v e d is b e y o n d all t h e d a n g e r s t h a t c a n b e k n o w n t o t h e u n b e l i e v e r , t h a t t h e r e f o r e b e l i e f b r i n g s j u s t as m u c h , a n d m u c h r a t h e r , d e s p a i r t h a n c o m f o r t a n d h e l p ? Is it t h a t t h e b e l i e v e r b e l i e v e s b e c a u s e , as a n u n b e l i e v e r , life w i t h o u t G o d a p ­ p e a r s t o h i m h o p e l e s s , stale, a n d s h a l l o w , o r is it n o t r a t h e r t h e case t h a t , b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e s , h e r e c o g n i z e s t h e lack o f c o m f o r t , h o p e l e s s n e s s , staleness, a n d s h a l l o w n e s s o f life w i t h o u t G o d ? I n o t h e r w o r d s , is t h e h u m a n m i s e r y seen a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d by Freud the same " m i s e r y " that the believer k n o w s as the m i s e r y ? T o ask i n this w a y m e a n s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e real q u e s t i o n b e g i n s o n l y after F r e u d ' s c r i t i q u e . B u t — g i v e n t h e r e c e n t , c e r t a i n l y n o t a c c i ­ dental, renunciation or (which a m o u n t s to the same) reinterpretation o f the assertion of c r e a t i o n a n d t h e miracles, o f belief in t h e p o w e r of G o d o v e r n a t u r e — F r e u d ' s c r i t i q u e r e m a i n s o f u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e also for t h e real q u e s ­ tion.

Reorientation

(1928-32)

209

NOTES S o u r c e : ' " D i e Z u k u n f t e i n e r Illusion,'" Der jüdische Student 2 5 , n o . 4 (August 1 9 2 8 ) : 1 6 - 2 2 . M y sincere gratitude t o E u g e n e Sheppard, w h o b r o u g h t this essay t o m y a t t e n ­ t i o n . I n " C o m m e n t o n W e i n b e r g ' s C r i t i q u e " (see t h e n o t e s there), Strauss is i d e n t i f i e d as a student m e m b e r o f t h e J e w i s h student c o r p o r a t i o n "Saronia." W h i l e Saronia is m e n t i o n e d here as w e l l , Strauss is n o w an Alter Herr and his residence is g i v e n as " A l t o n a H a m b u r g . " I n t h e O c t o b e r 1 9 2 8 issue of Derjüdische Student appeared a critical response to Strauss's "atheistic i d e o l o g y o f Z i o n i s m " ("Zur atheistischen I d e o l o g i e des Z i o n i s m u s , " Der jüdische Student 2 5 , n o s . 6 / 7 [ O c t o b e r 1 9 2 8 ] : 8 - 1 3 ) . T h e author, M a x J o s e p h , s u b s e q u e n d y p u b l i s h e d his o w n take o n Freud ("1st d i e R e l i g i o n w i r k l i c h e i n e Illusion?" Der jüdische Student 2 5 , n o . 8 [ D e c e m b e r 1 9 2 8 ] : 6 - 1 7 ) . 1.

S i g m u n d Freud, Die Zukunft einer Illusion (Leipzig, W i e n , and Z ü r i c h : I n t e r n a ­

tionaler P s y c h o a n a l y t i s c h e r Verlag, 1 9 2 7 ) , later in: S i g m u n d Freud, Gesammelte Schriften, v o l . 1 1 : Schriften aus den Jahren 1923 bis 1928: Vermischte Schriften (Leipzig, W i e n , a n d Z ü r i c h : Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1 9 2 8 ) , 4 1 1 - 6 6 . English i n v o l . 21 o f 77ie Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. J a m e s Strachey and A n n a Freud ( L o n d o n : H o g a r t h Press, 1 9 6 1 ) , 5—56. T h e essay w a s a p r e d e ­ cessor t o Civilization and Its Discontents ( 1 9 3 0 ) . 2. J a c o b Klatzkin ( 1 8 8 2 - 1 9 4 8 ) , trained i n rabbinic J u d a i s m b y his father, Elijah Klatzkin (the shklover ilui and "Lubliner R a v " ) , later studied p h i l o s o p h y u n d e r H e r m a n n C o h e n i n M a r b u r g (doctorate: B e r n e , 1 9 1 2 ) . Z i o n i s t publicist and, w i t h N a h u m G o l d m a n n , coinitiator o f t h e G e r m a n Encyclopedia Judaica a n d o f the first e n c y c l o p e d i c v e n ­ ture i n H e b r e w . H i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l vitalism distanced h i m f r o m C o h e n (see t h e critical appreciation i n Klatzkin, Hermann Cohen, 2 d e d . (Berlin: J ü d i s c h e r Verlag, 1 9 2 1 ) . T o Klatzkin, w h o w a s also a n o t e d H e b r e w essayist and translator, t h e future o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n d e p e n d e d o n land and l a n g u a g e rather than o n intellectual r e f i n e m e n t o r spiritual culture. Krisis und Entscheidung im Judentum ( 1 9 2 1 ) , t h e w o r k cited b y Strauss, is t h e s e c o n d e d i t i o n of Probleme des modernen Judentums (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1 9 1 8 ) . 3.

T h e q u e s t i o n " w i e das V o l k n u n m e h r l e b e n soll" p o s e d b y individuals for t h e

sake o f their n a t i o n as t h e m o s t urgent and inevitable q u e s t i o n anticipates a n d prepares the g r o u n d for a m o r e general formulation o f t h e same q u e s t i o n , n a m e l y pous bioteon ( H o w are w e t o live?) that w e find i n t h e lecture ' " R e l i g i o u s Situation o f the P r e s e n t ' " ( 1 9 3 0 ) . T h e reformulation o f this q u e s t i o n i n t o its general f o r m signals t h e p o i n t at w h i c h Strauss b e g i n s t o transform w h a t h e understands t o b e t h e fundamental p r o b l e m o f Z i o n i s m i n t o t h e fundamental p r o b l e m o f p h i l o s o p h y i n general. 4.

It is i r o n i c , i f n o t u n c o m m o n i n t h e vitalistic rhetoric o f the 1 9 2 0 s , t o speak o f

a " n a r r o w n e s s " (Enge) a n d "barrenness" (Kargheit) o f civilization, attributes usually asso­ ciated w i t h t h e g h e t t o e x i s t e n c e o f galut that Z i o n i s m aims t o o v e r c o m e . T h e reference t o atheism leads t o t h e n e x t paragraph. I n his early w r i t i n g s , Strauss—similar t o R o s e n z w e i g i n "Atheistische T h e o l o g i e " ( 1 9 1 4 ) — f r e q u e n d y criticizes B u b e r ' s cultural Z i o n ­ i s m as a f o r m o f d i s h o n e s t (unredlich), atheistic t h e o l o g y . In logical terms, typical for Strauss's a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n t h e early writings, h e is interested i n establishing t h e radically o p p o s e d presuppositions at t h e r o o t o f alternative w o r l d v i e w s that m a k e facile attempts at " r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , " "synthesis," o r "sublation" i m p o s s i b l e .

210

Chapter 4 5.

Passages s u c h as these c a n b e easily misread as e n d o r s e m e n t s o f O r t h o d o x faith.

Strauss, h o w e v e r , builds n o road t o such an e n d o r s e m e n t . Instead, w h a t h e speaks o f here a n d e l s e w h e r e is the untenability, o r at least t h e intellectual p o v e r t y ("scantiness"), o f cultural Z i o n i s m , w h i c h Strauss regards as a f o r m o f "atheistic t h e o l o g y " (an u n t e n ­ able, self-contradictory p o s i t i o n ) . W h a t h e a c h i e v e s i n this way is an h o n e s t realization o f the relative p o v e r t y o f m o d e r n atheism relative t o t h e w e a l t h o f the beautiful w o r l d o f tradition that is d e s t r o y e d b y a m o d e r n atheism that, nevertheless, s e e m s inevitable t o h i m . T h e h e r o i c gesture i n v o l v e d i n this critique o f cultural Z i o n i s m — t h a t is, t h e g e s ­ ture o f staring at t h e o p e n grave o f a b e l o v e d — h a s an existentialist flavor t o it (as n o t e d b y Julius G u t t m a n n i n his r e v i e w of Philosophie und Gesetz; cf. here in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . B u t it is i m p o r t a n t that irreconcilable o p p o s i t e s i n t h e field o f philosophical truths are associated w i t h irreconcilable political opposites. M o r e precisely, tracing seemingly e q u i v a ­ lent and pragmatically c o m b i n a b l e political alternatives t o irreconcilable p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s is t o clarify that, t o t h e Z i o n i s t y o u t h , o n l y o n e political o p t i o n is avail­ able that c a n claim t o b e radically " h o n e s t . " 6.

Literally: " l i m p i n g o n b o t h legs" (auf beiden Seiten hinken), an i d i o m d e r i v e d

f r o m Luther's translation o f Elijah's s p e e c h o n M t . C a r m e l i n 1 K i n g s 1 8 : 2 1 . W h a t L u t h e r translates as " W i e l a n g e w o l l t ihr a u f b e i d e n S e i t e n h i n k e n ? " t h e K i n g J a m e s v e r s i o n translates as " H o w l o n g halt y e b e t w e e n t w o o p i n i o n s ? " 7.

In e x t e n s i o n o f the i m a g e o f a " l i m p i n g o n b o t h l e g s , " literally "verstehendes"

Hinken, that is, a c o m p r e h e n d i n g , o r k n o w i n g , l i m p . 8.

T h e o d o r H e r z l ( 1 8 6 0 - 1 9 0 4 ) , Altneuland (cf. E n g l . Old New Land, trans. Paula

A r n o l d (Haifa: Haifa P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 6 0 ) , a Z i o n i s t n o v e l published i n 1 9 0 2 d e s c r i b ­ i n g t h e life o f t h e n e w J e w i s h s o c i e t y i n Palestine. W i t h its emphasis o n a m b i t i o u s t e c h n o l o g i c a l s c h e m e s and its Utopian social v i s i o n o f tolerance and h a r m o n y , Altneuland resembles t h e s c i e n c e fiction o f Jules V e r n e . B u t its m o t t o ( " W e n n Ihr w o l l t , so ists k e i n M ä r c h e n " ) e m p h a s i z e d the feasability o f this v i s i o n s o p o w e r f u l l y that it b e c a m e t h e m o t t o o f t h e entire Z i o n i s t m o v e m e n t . W h a t m a d e it t h e target o f t h e criticism o f cultural Z i o n i s m w a s t h e c o m p l e t e lack i n H e r z l ' s v i s i o n o f a J e w i s h state o f a c o n c e r n w i t h J e w i s h l a n g u a g e , literature, o r religion. 9.

Cf. E x o d u s 2 4 : 7 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e traditional J e w i s h translation o f the phrase:

" W e shall d o and w e shall h e a r k e n . " 10.

Strauss shares his critical attitude t o w a r d t h e spiritualism e m b r a c e d b y cultural

Z i o n i s m (especially o f A h a d H a ' a m ) w i t h J a c o b Klatzkin, w h o m h e cites earlier. 1 1 . J o h a n n W o l f g a n g G o e t h e : " D a s e i g e n t l i c h e , e i n z i g e u n d tiefste T h e m a d e r W e l t - u n d M e n s c h e n g e s c h i c h t e , d e m alle übrigen untergeordnet sind, bleibt der Konflikt des U n g l a u b e n s mit d e m G l a u b e n . Alle E p o c h e n , i n w e l c h e n der G l a u b e herrschte, u n t e r w e l c h e r Gestalt er a u c h w o l l e , sind g l ä n z e n d , h e r z e r h e b e n d u n d fruchtbar für M i t w e l t und N a c h w e l t . A l l e E p o c h e n d a g e g e n , i n w e l c h e n der U n g l a u b e , i n w e l c h e r F o r m a u c h es a u c h sei, einen k ü m m e r l i c h e n S i e g b e h a u p t e t , und w e n n sie a u c h einen A u g e n b l i c k mit e i n e m S c h e i n g l a n z e prahlen sollten, v e r s c h w i n d e n vor der N a c h w e l t , w e i l sich n i e m a n d g e r n mit Erkenntnis des U n f r u c h t b a r e n a b g e b e n mag" [ T h e real, o n l y , and d e e p e s t t h e m e o f the history o f the w o r l d and o f h u m a n i t y t o w h i c h all o t h e r t h e m e s are subordinate remains the conflict b e t w e e n u n b e l i e f and belief. A l l e p o c h s d o m i n a t e d b y belief, n o matter i n w h a t guise, are brilliant, elevating, and fertile for t h e

Reorientation

(1928-32)

211

c o n t e m p o r a r y and posterior w o r l d . All e p o c h s , o n t h e o t h e r hand, d u r i n g w h i c h u n b e ­ lief, n o matter i n w h a t guise, claims a miserable v i c t o r y — a n d e v e n t h o u g h t h e y m a y flaunt their false g l o r y for a m o m e n t — v a n i s h before t h e v a n t a g e p o i n t o f posterity, for n o o n e likes t o b u s y h i m s e l f gladly w i t h k n o w l e d g e o f t h e infertile]. F r o m Noten und Abhandlungen zum besseren Verständnis des West-östlichen Divan, q u o t e d again i n L e o Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing ( G l e n c o e , 111.: T h e Free Press, 1 9 5 2 ) , 1 0 7 n. 3 5 . T h a n k s t o K e n G r e e n for i d e n t i f y i n g t h e source o f this q u o t a t i o n . 12.

" P h i l o s o p h y o f culture" (Kulturphilosophie) m a y refer t o t h o s e a c a d e m i c p h i ­

l o s o p h i e s that, i n t h e m i n d o f t h e y o u n g e r g e n e r a t i o n , are strongly associated w i t h W i l h e l m i a n b o u r g e o i s culture (cf. H e i d e g g e r ' s verdict o n n e o - K a n t i a n i s m i n 1 9 2 9 at the students' c o n f e r e n c e i n D a v o s ) . "Philosophy o f e x p e r i e n c e " (Erlebnisphilosophie) brings t o m i n d G e o r g S i m m e l ( 1 8 5 8 - 1 9 1 8 ) and his m o s t famous Z i o n i s t disciple, Martin B u b e r . Cf. Paul M e n d e s - F l o h r , Von der Mystik zum Dialog: Bubers geistige Entwicklung bis hin zu "Ich und Du" ( K ö n i g s t e i n / T s . : Jüdischer Verlag, 1 9 7 9 ) . 13.

See 1 Kings 18.

14.

O n t h e "positive spirit" cf. Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, trans. Elsa

Sinclair ( N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 8 0 . 15.

T h e reference is presumably t o Franz R o s e n z w e i g , The Star of Redemption,

trans. W i l l i a m W . H a l l o ( N o t r e D a m e , Ind.: U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e D a m e Press, 1 9 8 5 ) , 9 3 - 1 1 1 : " O n t h e Possibility o f E x p e r i e n c i n g Miracles." 16.

T h e t h o u g h t o f this s e n t e n c e is e x p l a i n e d b y w h a t f o l l o w s .

17.

F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g , cf. " O n t h e B i b l e S c i e n c e o f S p i n o z a a n d H i s Precursors"

( 1 9 2 6 ) and t h e m o n o g r a p h Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch Politischem Traktat, w h i c h Strauss c o m p l e t e d at the same t i m e h e w r o t e t h e essay o n Freud. It w a s published i n Berlin b y A k a d e m i e Verlag in 1 9 3 0 , as the s e c o n d v o l u m e in t h e series o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l publications o f the A k a d e m i e für d i e Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s . T h e English translation is cited i n n. 15 a b o v e . 18.

W h i l e Strauss, t h e political Zionist, thinks that m u c h can b e gained for political

Z i o n i s m from Freud's assertion o f the validity o f u n b e l i e f vis-à-vis an illusory belief, Strauss, the philosopher o f religion, challenges Freud's c o n c e p t o f belief as t o o narrowly g r o u n d e d in a Protestant definition o f belief. T h i s is expressed o n p. 21 o f ' " D i e Z u k u n f t einer Illusion,'" w i t h reference t o Freud, Zukunft einer Illusion, 5 2 : "Scharf verwahrt sich Freud d a g e g e n , daß das 'Gefühl der m e n s c h l i c h e n Kleinheit u n d O h n m a c h t v o r d e m G a n z e n der W e l t ' als religiös angesprochen w e r d e " [Freud sharply protests against t h e v i e w that t h e "feeling o f h u m a n smallness and powerlessness before the entire universe" b e called reli­ gious]. S e e supra, p. 2 0 7 . W h i l e Freud denies this "feeling o f d e p e n d e n c e o n the universe" the quality o f a religious experience, his c o n c e p t o f religion still takes this Schleiermacherian position as t h e p o i n t o f departure for his definition o f the religious illusion. I n contrast, as Strauss argues i n " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h European S c i e n c e " (1924) ( c o m b i n i n g a critical appreciation o f R u d o l f O t t o ' s The Holy w i t h H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s characterization o f t h e prophetic religion), prophetic m o n o t h e i s m c o m b i n e s a h e i g h t e n e d rationality w i t h h e i g h t ­ e n e d uncanniness: " C o n c e r n i n g t h e situation i n w h i c h biblical p r o p h e c y finds itself, it is characterized b y t h e fact that preprophetic 'religion' is passionately rejected n o t for b e i n g 'uncanny' but precisely for b e i n g canny, for b e i n g all t o o canny. A n d t h e result o f this rejection o f the canny is t h e 'rationalism' o f the prophets" ( " O n t h e A r g u m e n t w i t h E u r o ­ p e a n Science").

212

Chapter

4

Franz Rosenzweig and the Academy for the Science ofjudaism (1929) T h e a c t u a l f o u n d i n g d o c u m e n t o f t h e A c a d e m y f o r t h e S c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m is t h e o p e n l e t t e r " I t ' s time . . . Ideas o n t h e C u r r e n t P r o b l e m o f E d u c a t i o n , "

1

addressed b y Franz R o s e n z w e i g t o H e r m a n n C o h e n in t h e middle o f t h e war.

2

T h e i d e a o f t h e A c a d e m y w a s first d e v e l o p e d i n this l e t t e r . I n fact, it

w a s d e v e l o p e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t t h e w a y t o w a r d its r e a l i z a t i o n c o u l d b e i m ­ m e d i a t e l y p r e p a r e d . F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g is t h e founder

o f the A c a d e m y .

3

Franz R o s e n z w e i g ' s idea, a c c o r d i n g t o his express i n t e n t i o n , w a s m e a n t t o b e political.

T h i s m a n , w h o as a t h i n k e r a n d a s c h o l a r m a d e s u c h g r e a t

c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o s c i e n c e , w a s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h s c i e n c e as s o m e t h i n g "selfe v i d e n t , " s o m e t h i n g t h a t is n o t r e s p o n s i b l e t o a n o t h e r , h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y ; h e was c o n c e r n e d w i t h Judaism. W i t h an u r g e n c y that w e c a n n o t forget, h e i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e n o r m o f all s c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m b e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for o u r e x i s t e n c e as J e w s . F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g w i l l a l w a y s r e m i n d all t h o s e w h o toil f o r t h e sake o f this s c i e n c e o f t h e i r t r u e task. Franz R o s e n z w e i g , a m e m b e r until his death of the philosophical c o m ­ m i s s i o n o f t h e A c a d e m y a n d o f t h e b o a r d o f trustees o f t h e A c a d e m y ' s H e r m a n n C o h e n F o u n d a t i o n , h a i l e d t h e Jewish

Writings

4

o f H e r m a n n C o h e n as a " g r e a t

gift" o f t h e A c a d e m y t o t h e J e w s o f G e r m a n y a n d t h e w o r l d . T h i s w o r k w i l l always r e m a i n l i n k e d w i t h Franz R o s e n z w e i g ' s n a m e : in his i n t r o d u c t i o n F r a n z R o s e n z w e i g h a s e r e c t e d a m o n u m e n t t o t h e greatest t e a c h e r o f G e r ­ m a n J u d a i s m . It w i l l pass o n t o all f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s t h e m e m o r y o f b o t h t h e s e v e n e r a b l e m e n , t h e o n e w h o is p r a i s e d a n d t h e o t h e r w h o praises, i n a fitting unity. NOTES S o u r c e : "Franz R o s e n z w e i g u n d die A k a d e m i e fur d i e Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s , "

Jüdische Wochenzeitung für Kassel, Hessen und Waldeck 6, n o . 4 9 (13 D e c e m b e r 1929): n . p . , reprinted i n GS, 2:363f. 1.

" Z e i t i s t s . . . (Ps. 1 1 9 , 126): G e d a n k e n ü b e r das B i l d u n g s p r o b l e m des A u g e n ­

blicks," reprinted in Zweistromland: Kleinere Schriften zu Glauben und Denken, ed. R e i n h o l d M a y e r and A n n e m a r i e M a y e r ( D o r d r e c h t and B o s t o n : Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 4 ) : 461— 8 1 . T h e reference t o Psalm 1 1 9 : 1 2 6 ("It is t i m e t o act o n b e h a l f o f Y H W H ; [for] t h e y have destroyed y o u r T o r a h " ) , o m i t t e d b y Strauss, is part o f the original tide. R o s e n z w e i g ' s historical p r e c e d e n t i n t h e use o f this q u o t a t i o n is M a i m o n i d e s ' Guide of the Perplexed, w h e r e t h e verse serves t o justify t h e R a m b a m ' s b r e a c h o f t h e l a w n o t t o d i v u l g e t h e secrets o f t h e T o r a h .

Reorientation 2.

(1928-32)

T h e idea for an A c a d e m y for t h e S c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m

213 ( A k a d e m i e fur d i e

Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s ) w a s initially c o n c e i v e d b y Franz R o s e n z w e i g i n 1 9 1 7 (at the M a c e d o n i a n front) as an i n n o v a t i v e institution c o m b i n i n g scholarship a n d t e a c h i n g , that is, a c o m b i n a t i o n o f free inquiry and responsibility t o w a r d t h e c o m m u n i t y that w a s t o benefit f r o m an e x c h a n g e w i t h a nontraditional scholar, just as t h e nontraditional scholar w a s t o benefit i n his scholarship from his responsibility t o w a r d a c o n c r e t e c o m ­ m u n i t y . T h e result w a s t o b e a n e w type o f professional, t h e "scientific t h e o l o g i a n " (wissenschaftlicher Theologenstand). " Z e i t i s t s . . . " w a s w r i t t e n i n t h e f o r m o f an o p e n letter t o H e r m a n n C o h e n (addressed as " H o c h v e r e h r t e r H e r r G e h e i m r a t " ) , first p u b l i s h e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h Neue jüdische Monatshefte ( a j o u r n a i edited, inter alia, b y C o h e n ) a n d t h e n w i d e l y reprinted. ( O n the background and history o f the publication, see R o s e n z w e i g , Gesammelte Schriften [Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 4 ] , 3:853.) H e r m a n n C o h e n r e s p o n d e d w i t h "youthful enthusiasm" t o t h e idea a n d spent t h e last m o n t h s o f his life ( h e d i e d i n April 1 9 1 8 ) fund-raising for t h e A c a d e m y . Cf. t h e historian Ismar E l b o g e n , o n e o f t h e later e m p l o y e e s o f t h e A c a d e m y , i n a 1 9 3 0 obituary for Franz R o s e n z w e i g , cited i n v o l . 1 o f Franz R o s e n z w e i g , Briefe und Tagebücher, e d . R a c h e l R o s e n z w e i g and E d i t h R o s e n z w e i g - S c h e i n m a n n ( w i t h B e r n h a r d Casper) ( T h e H a g u e : Nijhoff, 1 9 7 9 ) , 51 If. A n d see H e r m a n n C o h e n , " Z u r B e g r ü n d u n g einer A k a d e m i e fur die Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s , " i n Jüdische Schriften, e d . B r u n o Strauß (Berlin: C . A . S c h w e t s c h k e & S o h n Verlag, 1 9 2 4 ) , 2 : 2 1 0 - 1 7 and cf. C o h e n , füdische Schriften, l : l x i . D u e t o C o h e n ' s death a n d t h e political and e c o n o m i c collapse o f G e r m a n y at t h e e n d o f the First W o r l d W a r , t h e A c a d e m y w a s established o n a m u c h smaller scale: o n l y a f e w researchers w e r e s u p p o r t e d b y its stipends and n o n e o f t h e m t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f t h e o b l i g a t i o n , stipulated b y R o s e n z w e i g , t o teach s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n an adult e d u c a t i o n f r a m e w o r k . L e o Strauss w a s t h e notable e x c e p t i o n i n that, w h i l e supported b y t h e A c a d ­ e m y , h e taught i n Kassel. S e e R o s e n z w e i g , Briefe und Tagebücher, 1:512, 2 : 9 7 1 , 2 : 1 1 0 7 (the letter t o Gustav Bradt, 9 t h o f O c t o b e r 1 9 2 6 ) . O n t h e A c a d e m y and its m e m b e r s cf. also G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Frankfurt: S u h r k a m p , 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 8 9 . 3.

Strauss's emphasis i n this obituary o n R o s e n z w e i g ' s f o u n d i n g o f the A c a d e m y

for t h e Study o f j u d a i s m is i n stark contrast t o t h e t e n o r o f the o t h e r e u l o g i e s f o u n d i n the s a m e p u b l i c a t i o n . W h e r e a s A l p h o n s e Paquet, J o s e p h Prager, and H e r m a n n Schafft e m p h a s i z e , respectively, the J e w i s h spiritual significance o f R o s e n z w e i g ' s s p e e c h - t h i n k ­ i n g for t h e learning instituted at t h e Lehrhaus (Prager), his life o f faith (Schafft), r e v e r ­ e n c e for his h o l y suffering (Paquet), and his striking b e a u t y as a y o u t h (Prager), L e o Strauss p o i n t s o u t R o s e n z w e i g ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e s c i e n c e o f j u d a i s m a n d e v e n uses the o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o n n e c t R o s e n z w e i g w i t h t h e n a m e o f H e r m a n n C o h e n , w h o w a s w i d e l y regarded as passé. Strauss, w h i l e perhaps n o t b e i n g outright contrary, c e r ­ tainly c h o o s e s t o b e less sentimental than his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . ] 4.

C o h e n , Jüdische Schriften. R o s e n z w e i g ' s " E i n l e i t u n g " is f o u n d i n t h e first v o l ­

u m e (Ethische und religiöse Grundfragen), p p . x i i i - l x i v . I n t h e history o f the interpretation o f C o h e n ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f r e l i g i o n / J e w i s h t h o u g h t , this i n t r o d u c t i o n has i n d e e d p l a y e d a major, i f n o t always helpful, role. Cf. M i c h a e l Z a n k , The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen, B r o w n Judaic Studies Series ( P r o v i d e n c e , R . I . : B r o w n Judaic Studies, 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 3 - 4 4 , 1 6 5 - 7 7 .

214

Chapter

4

Review of Julius Ebbinghaus,

On the Progress of Metaphysics (1931)

T h i s R o s t o c k U n i v e r s i t y i n a u g u r a l l e c t u r e d e v e l o p s a p r o g r a m t h a t differs i n t w o respects from t h e coundess philosophical programs flooding the b o o k m a r k e t . It differs, first, i n t h a t it clearly d o e s n o t p r e c e d e t h e w o r k , b u t g r o w s o u t o f it; a n d , s e c o n d , i n t h a t it is n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n o r i g i n a l i t y . It has b e e n a l o n g t i m e , t o say t h e least, since t h e call for o r i g i n a l i t y , a n d t h e b e l i e f i n p r o g r e s s u n d e r l y i n g this call, has b e e n c o n t r a d i c t e d i n s u c h a f u n d a m e n t a l w a y as is d o n e h e r e b y Ebbinghaus.

W e are used t o p e o p l e s h o w i n g j u s t scorn

a n d m o c k e r y for t h e b e l i e f i n p r o g r e s s . H o w e v e r , w e are also u s e d t o t h e s e v e r y scorners a n d m o c k e r s h a v i n g n o qualms f r o m t h e outset a b o u t raising m o d e r n r e s e r v a t i o n s against t h e past. S i n c e t h e o w l o f M i n e r v a b e g i n s h e r flight at d u s k , t h o s e w h o r e g a r d t h e p r e s e n t as a t i m e o f d e c l i n e usually still b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e a r e m o r e possibilities o f k n o w l e d g e t o d a y t h a n e v e r b e f o r e . T h o s e w h o attribute to the philosophy of antiquity or to Scholasticism a fundamental superiority over m o d e r n philosophy nevertheless routinely find t h e m l a c k i n g i n e n t i r e disciplines o f m o d e r n o r i g i n , o r e v e n r e d i s c o v e r s u c h disciplines i n t h e m . E b b i n g h a u s r e n o u n c e s all m o d e r n o b j e c t i o n s b y a b a n d o n i n g the m o d e r n p r e j u d i c e , n a m e l y , t h e p r e j u d i c e t h a t the t r u t h has n o t a l r e a d y b e e n f o u n d i n t h e past (p. 6 f ) . T h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t m a k e s t h e a b a n d o n m e n t o f this f u n d a ­ m e n t a l m o d e r n p r e j u d i c e b o t h possible a n d n e c e s s a r y is t h e fact t h a t w e a r e " c o m p l e t e l y s o l d o u t o f k n o w l e d g e " ["gänzlich

ausverkauft

an

Erkenntnissen"]

(p. 9 ) . T h e " p h i l o s o p h i c a l c h a o s i n w h i c h w e l i v e " (p. 6) reveals t h e p r e ­ s u m e d p r o g r e s s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n as c o m p l e t e d e s t r u c t i o n . W i t h this, E b b i n g ­ h a u s e n t e r s i n t o o p p o s i t i o n i n p r i n c i p l e t o w h a t is t o d a y t h e m o s t f a v o r e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e " a n a r c h y o f s y s t e m s . " S i n c e a n y o n e w h o t h i n k s at all c a n n o t a v o i d s t a n d i n g s o m e w h e r e , o n e s e c u r e s t h e possibility o f b e i n g satis­ fied w i t h this " a n a r c h y " b y " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " it historically, p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y , s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , o r a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y , t h a t is, b y r e l a t i v i z i n g e a c h s y s t e m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e " l o c a t i o n " ["Standort"]

o f its a u t h o r ; fascinated b y t h e c o n d i ­

t i o n s a n d v i c i s s i t u d e s o f all q u e s t i o n s o n e s t o p s — q u e s t i o n i n g . O n t h e o t h e r hand, the few w h o derive from the anarchy a sharpened impulse to question a r e c o n f i r m e d b y t h e a n a r c h y i n t h e i r o p i n i o n t h a t "all t r e a s u r e s o f t h e past d o n o t suffice," t h a t o n e m u s t s e e k new a n s w e r s t h a t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e n e e d s o f t h e a g e (p. 7 ) . T h i s o p i n i o n is so a t t r a c t i v e p r e c i s e l y because w e a r e " c o m ­ p l e t e l y sold o u t o f k n o w l e d g e . " Is it n o t t r u e t h a t , h a v i n g set o u t " t o free t h e m i n d f r o m all p r e j u d i c e , " m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y has g r a d u a l l y d e s t r o y e d all t r a -

Reorientation

215

(1928-32)

ditions and thereby helped the m i n d advance to freedom?

Is it n o t , t h e n ,

p r e c i s e l y t o d a y , especially easy t o p h i l o s o p h i z e freely a n d o n o n e ' s o w n ? E b b i n g h a u s is o f a different o p i n i o n : t h e f r e e d o m t h a t is t h e result o f t h e m o d e r n d i s s o l u t i o n o f all t r a d i t i o n s is n o t h i n g b u t t h e f r e e d o m o f i g n o r a n c e [Unwissenheit],

a f r e e d o m t h a t is n o t a l t o g e t h e r u n b e a r a b l e o n l y if it is r e a d y

to—learn; specifically, if it is r e a d y t o " o p e n t h e o l d t o m e , "

1

t h a t is, t o read,

b u t n o t w i t h " t h a t r e m a r k a b l e i n d i f f e r e n c e , n o t t o say callousness, w i t h w h i c h the previous generations read those b o o k s , " b u t rather " w i t h the b u r n i n g i n t e r e s t o f o n e w h o w a n t s t o b e taught" r a n c e [Unwissenheit]

(p. 8 f ) . T h e t u r n f r o m a v o w e d i g n o ­

t o l e a r n i n g t h r o u g h r e a d i n g [lesendes Lernen] is n o t n a t u ­

2

r a l , as is s h o w n b y t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e classical t e a c h e r o f k n o w i n g a b o u t n o t k n o w i n g [Wissen

3

des Nichtwissens]

w i t h regard to learning through reading.

T h i s t u r n c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y f r o m w h a t is p e c u l i a r t o t h e presently

pos­

sible a n d n e c e s s a r y k n o w i n g a b o u t n o t - k n o w i n g . If it is t r u e t h a t " t h o s e w h o j u m p i n t o t h e sea [ o n a r e s c u e m i s s i o n ] a r e t h e m s e l v e s d r a g g e d i n t o t h e abyss b y t h e w e i g h t o f the rescue tools that they h a d assembled o n t h e shore o f the p r e s e n t " (p. 8 ) , t h e n t h e p r e s e n t has n o possibility o f n a t u r a l o r , as it is o f t e n called, " s y s t e m a t i c " p h i l o s o p h i z i n g ; t h e n t h e n o t - k n o w i n g [Nichtwissen] is real i n t h e p r e s e n t d a y is n o t at all t h e n a t u r a l n o t - k n o w i n g

that

[Nichtwissen]

w i t h w h i c h p h i l o s o p h i z i n g m u s t b e g i n ; t h e n a l o n g d e t o u r a n d a g r e a t effort a r e first n e e d e d i n o r d e r e v e n t o r e t u r n t o t h e state o f n a t u r a l i g n o r a n c e [Unwissenheit].

T o u s e t h e classical p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l difficulties o f

p h i l o s o p h i z i n g , n a m e l y P l a t o ' s p a r a b l e o f t h e c a v e , o n e m a y say t h a t t o d a y w e 4

find o u r s e l v e s i n a s e c o n d , m u c h d e e p e r c a v e t h a n t h e l u c k y i g n o r a n t p e r ­ s o n s S o c r a t e s d e a l t w i t h ; w e n e e d h i s t o r y first o f all i n o r d e r t o ascend t o t h e c a v e f r o m w h i c h S o c r a t e s c a n lead us t o light; w e n e e d a p r o p a e d e u t i c , w h i c h t h e G r e e k s d i d n o t n e e d , n a m e l y , l e a r n i n g t h r o u g h r e a d i n g . It is t h e m e r i t o f E b b i n g h a u s ' s w r i t i n g t h a t i t h a s called a t t e n t i o n , w i t h fitting forcefulness, t o this d e s i d e r a t u m o f all p r e s e n t - d a y p h i l o s o p h y . NOTES

Source: "Philosophie und Unterrichtswesen, Julius E b b i n g h a u s , Über die Fortschritte der Metaphysik, [ P h i l o s o p h i e u n d G e s c h i c h t e , H e f t 3 2 , ] T ü b i n g e n : J. C . B . M o h r (Paul S i e b e c k ) , 1 9 3 1 , " Deutsche Literaturzeitung 5 2 ( 2 7 D e c e m b e r 1 9 3 1 ) : 2 4 5 1 - 5 3 , reprinted i n GS, 2 : 4 3 7 - 3 9 . T h e r e v i e w and its o c c a s i o n is m e n t i o n e d i n a letter b y Strauss t o his friend Gerhard Krüger, 15 O c t o b e r 1 9 3 1 : "I n o w d i s c o v e r e d a fourth m a n w h o agrees w i t h us o n t h e present as a s e c o n d cave: E b b i n g h a u s . H i s lecture ' O n t h e Progress o f M e t a p h y s i c s ' contains a f e w quite e x c e l l e n t formulations; I w i l l r e v i e w t h e w r i t i n g i n DLL."

S e e GS, 2 : x x i x n. 4 0 . Strauss first heard E b b i n g h a u s i n 1 9 2 2 i n Freiburg w h i l e

216

Chapter

4

E b b i n g h a u s w a s l e c t u r i n g o n " t h e social doctrines o f the R e f o r m a t i o n a n d t h e E n l i g h t ­ e n m e n t . " I n " A G i v i n g o f A c c o u n t s " h e particularly recalls Ebbinghaus's lively p r e s e n ­

tation o f H o b b e s . S e e Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modem Jewish Thought, e d . and trans. K e n n e t h Hart G r e e n (Albany: S U N Y Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 461. 1.

" o p e n t h e o l d t o m e " : orig.: den alten Folianten aufzuschlagen. In his later, E n g l i s h

w r i t i n g s , Strauss uses t h e expression " t h e o l d b o o k s . " 2.

" n o t a natural o n e " : t h e phrase ist nicht natürlich appears also i n a 1 9 3 2 l e c t u r e

manuscript ( G S , 2:445): "Unterstellen w i r also, diese Frage sei e i n d e u t i g — s i e ist jedenfalls

nicht natürlich." 3.

T h e teacher o f " k n o w i n g a b o u t n o t - k n o w i n g " is Socrates (see t h e c o n t i n u a ­

4.

T h e n o t i o n o f a " s e c o n d c a v e " m a k e s its tint appearance i n " R e l i g i o u s S i t u a ­

tion). tion o f the Present" (GS, 2 : 3 8 6 ^ 8 7 , 3 8 9 ) . It returns i n " D i e geistige Lage der G e g e n w a r t " ( 1 9 3 2 ) (GS, 2 : 4 5 6 ) , i n Philosophie und Gesetz (Berlin: S c h o c k e n , 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 4 n , 4 6 , a n d

elsewhere. Cf. H e i n r i c h M e i e r , Die Denkbewegung von Leo Strauss: Die Geschichte der Philosophie und die Intention des Philosophen (Stuttgart and W e i m a r : M e t z l e r Verlag, 1 9 9 6 ) , 2 1 - 2 8 , 42f. A l s o s e e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o this v o l u m e a n d cf. GS, 2 : x x i x n. 4 0 .

T h e T e s t a m e n t o f S p i n o z a (1932) I n t h e i r j u d g m e n t o f S p i n o z a , E u r o p e , a n d J u d a i s m a l o n g w i t h it, p a s s e d t h r o u g h stages t h a t c a n b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d s u m m a r i l y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y : c o n d e m n a t i o n (i.e., t h e b a n p r o n o u n c e d b y t h e A m s t e r d a m c o m m u n i t y ) , followed

by vindication (Mendelssohn),

followed

by canonization (Heine,

H e s s ) , w h i c h w a s finally f o l l o w e d b y n e u t r a l i t y (Joël, F r e u d e n t h a l ) . It is o b v i ­ o u s t h a t i n e a c h o f t h e s e e p o c h s t h e r e w e r e m e n w h o d i d n o t t h i n k as t h e i r e p o c h did. W e must m e n t i o n by n a m e H e r m a n n C o h e n w h o , in the year 1910,

found

t h e c o u r a g e t o state o p e n l y t h a t S p i n o z a ' s " e x p u l s i o n f r o m t h e

c o m m u n i t y o f Israel w a s n e c e s s a r y a n d fully l e g i t i m a t e . "

1

N e u t r a l i t y t o w a r d S p i n o z a set i n o n c e o n e w a s able t o a d m i t t h a t t h e " m o d e m w o r l d v i e w , " w h o s e victory w a s decisively aided b y Spinoza's m e t a ­ p h y s i c s , d o e s n o t , o r d o e s n o t e n t i r e l y , c o i n c i d e w i t h this m e t a p h y s i c s . B u t e v e n at this stage it w a s still g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n e d , a n d e v e n e m p h a s i z e d , t h a t a m o n g t h e three great W e s t e r n philosophers o f t h e seventeenth c e n t u r y — D e s c a r t e s , H o b b e s , a n d S p i n o z a — S p i n o z a w a s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o n e be­ cause h e w a s t h e m o s t p r o g r e s s i v e o n e . H e a l o n e h a d d r a w n c e r t a i n c o n s e ­ q u e n c e s f r o m t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y , w h i c h b e c a m e fully clarified o n l y i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d w h i c h h e n c e f o r t h the general consciousness.

determined

Reorientation

217

(1928-32)

M e a n w h i l e things have reached the point w h e r e the general conscious­ ness is d e t e r m i n e d b y d o u b t a b o u t t h e " m o d e r n w o r l d v i e w . " R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f this d o u b t , it has h a d t h e effect o f m a k i n g t h e " m o d e r n w o r l d v i e w " n o l o n g e r s e l f - e v i d e n t , so t h a t a n a d v a n c e d s t u d e n t o f t h i s w o r l d v i e w is n o l o n g e r h e l d i n p a r t i c u l a r e s t e e m s i m p l y o n a c c o u n t o f s u c h a d v a n c e m e n t . If t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e " m o d e r n w o r l d v i e w " are b e i n g s h a k e n b y d o u b t , t h e n i n t e r e s t necessarily r e v e r t s f r o m its classical e x p o n e n t s t o t h e m e n w h o laid t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f this " w o r l d v i e w , " n a m e l y , t o D e s c a r t e s a n d H o b b e s . If t h e v e n e r a t i o n o f S p i n o z a is t o b e m o r e t h a n a d m i r a t i o n for h i s t a l e n t o r c h a r a c t e r a n d m o r e t h a n r e c o g n i t i o n o f his historical effect, a n d if it is t o a p p l y t o h i m as a teacher, t h e n this v e n e r a t i o n m u s t b e h e l d in a b e y a n c e at least u n t i l t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y has b e e n decided. W e h a v e t h u s b e g u n t o t h i n k o f S p i n o z a ' s " r a d i c a l i s m " differently t h a n t h e past c e n t u r y d i d . N o w w e see t h a t t h e b o l d i n n o v a t i o n s o f S p i n o z a w e r e o n l y c o n s e q u e n c e s , r a t h e r t h a n f o u n d a t i o n s . T h e fact t h a t n o w gains i n i m ­ p o r t a n c e is t h a t — c o m p a r e d t o t h e significance o f D e s c a r t e s , H o b b e s , a n d L e i b n i z — S p i n o z a is o n l y o f s e c o n d a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e in t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e c o r e s c i e n c e s , t h a t is, i n t h e h i s t o r y o f n a t u r a l s c i e n c e , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d o f n a t u r a l right, o n t h e o t h e r . A n d t h e fact t h a t S p i n o z a a c h i e v e d m o r e g e n e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n o n l y t o w a r d t h e e n d o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y is n o w also u n ­ d e r s t a n d a b l e : h e c o u l d b e a c c e p t e d o n l y at t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e "querelle des anciens et des modernes"

within philosophy had been decided on the main

p o i n t i n favor o f t h e m o d e r n s , a n d w h e n w h a t m a t t e r e d w a s t h e r e s t o r a t i o n , for t h e p u r p o s e o f c o r r e c t i n g t h e m o d e r n i d e a , o f c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p r e m o d e r n w o r l d t h a t h a d b e e n k n o c k e d o v e r i n t h e first o n s l a u g h t ; for S p i n o z a — w h o s t o o d o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y laid b y D e s c a r t e s a n d H o b b e s — h a d carried along into the m o d e r n w o r l d , w h i c h he already f o u n d i n e x i s t e n c e , t h e i d e a l o f life o f t h e p r e m o d e r n

(ancient-medieval)

tradition, t h e ideal o f t h e (theoretical) k n o w l e d g e o f G o d . T h e (respective) position o f J u d a i s m t o w a r d Spinoza coincides w i t h the (respective) p o s i t i o n o f E u r o p e t o w a r d h i m . H o w e v e r , it d o e s n o t c o m p l e t e l y c o i n c i d e w i t h it. S p i n o z a p l a y e d a special r o l e i n t h e J u d a i s m o f t h e past century. W h e n w h a t mattered was the justification of the b r e a k u p of the Jewish tradition and the entry of the Jews into m o d e r n E u r o p e , perhaps n o b e t t e r , b u t c e r t a i n l y n o m o r e c o n v e n i e n t , r e f e r e n c e offered itself t h a n t h e a p p e a l t o S p i n o z a . W h o w a s m o r e suitable for u n d e r t a k i n g t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f m o d e r n Judaism before the tribunal of the Jewish tradition, o n the o n e hand, and before the tribunal of m o d e r n E u r o p e , o n the other, than Spinoza, w h o ,

218

Chapter

4

as w a s a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d , w a s a classical e x p o n e n t o f this E u r o p e a n d w h o , as o n e d i d n o t g r o w w e a r y o f at least asserting, h a d t h o u g h t his t h o u g h t s i n t h e spirit o f J u d a i s m a n d b y m e a n s o f J u d a i s m ? It is c l e a r t h a t , at a t i m e w h e n m o d e r n E u r o p e has b e e n s h a k e n t o its f o u n d a t i o n s , o n e can n o l o n g e r justify o n e s e l f b e f o r e this E u r o p e for t h e sake o f J u d a i s m , n o r b e f o r e J u d a i s m for t h e s a k e o f this E u r o p e , s u p p o s i n g o n e still w a n t s t o d o so. T h e c o n v u l s i o n o f m o d e m E u r o p e l e d t o a r e n e w e d self-awareness

[Besinn­

ung] o f J u d a i s m . T h i s r e n e w e d a w a r e n e s s d i d n o t p r o d u c e a c h a n g e in t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f S p i n o z a , at least n o t a l w a y s a n d n o t i m m e d i a t e l y : S p i n o z a r e ­ m a i n e d a n a u t h o r i t y . T o b e s u r e , o n e n o l o n g e r n e e d e d h i m , o r at least o n e n o l o n g e r s e e m e d t o n e e d h i m , for o n e ' s self-assertion against t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n a n d against m o d e m E u r o p e . B u t i n t h e e x o d u s f r o m t h e n e w E g y p t o n e s a w o n e s e l f o b l i g e d t o t a k e a l o n g t h e b o n e s o f t h e m a n w h o h a d risen t o a kinglike position in that land and to c o n v e y t h e m to the p a n t h e o n of the J e w i s h n a t i o n , w h i c h v e n e r a t e d h i m as o n e o f h e r greatest s o n s . N o

doubt

this w a s d o n e i n g o o d faith. B u t w a s it right n o t t o h a v e a s k e d a b o u t t h e last will of the m a n thus h o n o r e d ? B u t o f w h a t c o n c e r n is S p i n o z a ' s last w i l l t o us if w h a t is m e a n t b y this is his e x p l i c i t will? E v e n S p i n o z a w a s b o u n d b y t h e historical c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h h e l i v e d a n d t h o u g h t . In his a g e , h e had to c o m e i n t o conflict w i t h J u d a i s m , a c o n f l i c t i n w h i c h b o t h sides w e r e r i g h t : t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y t h a t h a d t o d e f e n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f J e w i s h e x i s t e n c e i n t h e D i a s p o r a , o r as o t h e r s say, t h e J e w i s h " f o r m " ; a n d S p i n o z a , w h o w a s called u p o n t o l o o s e n t h e rigidity o f t h e c o n t e n t o f this " f o r m , " t h a t is, t h e " s u b t e r r a n e a n J u d a i s m , " a n d thus t o initiate t h e rebirth o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n . Several centuries w e r e n e e d e d t o m a k e S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e L a w sufficiently flexible so t h a t t h e L a w c o u l d b e a c k n o w l e d g e d w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g i n its r e v e a l e d c h a r a c t e r . A t t h e e n d o f this d e v e l o p m e n t s t o o d a g e n e r a t i o n t h a t w a s f r e e - s p i r i t e d e n o u g h t o b e a b l e t o a c c e p t S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e L a w , a n d t h a t w a s e v e n freer t h a n h e i n a s m u c h as it h a d m o v e d b e y o n d t h e c r u d e a l t e r n a t i v e : d i v i n e o r h u m a n ? revealed or conceived by men? W h e n properly interpreted, not only d o e s S p i n o z a n o t s t a n d o u t s i d e J u d a i s m , h e b e l o n g s t o it as o n e o f its g r e a t e s t teachers. W h o e v e r is a c q u a i n t e d w i t h S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e L a w k n o w s t h a t this c r i t i q u e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n possible w i t h o u t t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f m o d e r n philosophy. T o b e sure, in order to shake the authority of the Bible, Spinoza also refers t o c e r t a i n difficulties i n t h e biblical t e x t . B u t i n o r d e r t o b e a b l e t o d r a w f r o m t h e s e difficulties ( w h i c h h a d b e e n k n o w n l o n g b e f o r e h i m ) t h e consequence that the T o r a h was not written by Moses, and the further c o n ­ sequence that therefore the T o r a h was not revealed and hence n o t binding,

Reorientation

(1928-32)

219

h e h a d t o p r e s u p p o s e t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l c r i t i q u e o f t h e L a w t h a t , at least i n his case, is tied t o t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y . N o w t h a t this f o u n d a ­ tion

has b e c o m e d o u b t f u l , S p i n o z a ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e L a w has also b e c o m e

d o u b t f u l ; a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , it has also b e c o m e d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r h e s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a t e a c h e r o f j u d a i s m . B u t t h e n , m u s t a g r e a t m a n w h o m o n e w i s h e s t o v e n e r a t e necessarily b e a g r e a t t e a c h e r ? S h o u l d t h e r e n o t also exist, for e x a m p l e , g r e a t a n d h e n c e v e n e r a b l e h e r e t i c s [Irrlehrer]? A n d if this g r e a t h e r e t i c — w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h o m , i n c i d e n t a l l y , it h a s n o t y e t b e e n established t h a t h e was a h e r e t i c — i s a J e w , d o e s n o t t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , t h e n , h a v e t h e right a n d t h e d u t y t o r e m e m b e r h i m p r o u d l y a n d gratefully? S p i n o z a w a s a J e w . It is a certified fact t h a t h e w a s b o r n a n d e d u c a t e d as a J e w . B u t should w e m e n t i o n the names of other m e n , perhaps of equal rank w i t h S p i n o z a , w h o w e r e l i k e w i s e b o m a n d e d u c a t e d as J e w s , a n d w h o m s c a r c e l y a n y J e w w o u l d d a r e t o r e m e m b e r p r o u d l y a n d gratefully as a J e w ? W e n e e d n o t m e n t i o n t h e s e n a m e s , a n d c a n i n d e e d r e g a r d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n as proven, that the Jewish origin and education of a great m a n , taken by t h e m ­ selves, d o n o t g i v e us t h e r i g h t t o c l a i m his g r e a t n e s s for J u d a i s m . T h e r e f o r e , if o n e disregards t h e fact t h a t S p i n o z a w a s b o r n a n d e d u c a t e d as a J e w (a fact f r o m w h i c h p e r h a p s n o t m u c h c a n b e c o n c l u d e d ) , a n d if i n a d d i t i o n o n e is n o t satisfied w i t h v a g u e s p e c u l a t i o n s o n S p i n o z a ' s J e w i s h cast o f m i n d ; if t h e r e f o r e o n e w a n t s t o k n o w clearly a n d d i s t i n c d y w h e r e J u d a i s m is l o d g e d i n S p i n o z a ' s t h o u g h t , t h a t is, w h i c h o f S p i n o z a ' s d e c i s i v e ideas b e a r a p e c u l i a r l y J e w i s h i m p r i n t — t h e n o n e w i l l t u r n w i t h d e s e r v e d trust t o t h o s e scholars w h o have e n d e a v o r e d to d e t e r m i n e the Jewish sources of Spinoza's doctrine. A critical e x a m i n a t i o n o f w h a t has e m e r g e d f r o m t h e s e efforts leads t o t h e f o l ­ l o w i n g result: T h e r e is n o d o u b t w h a t e v e r t h a t S p i n o z a stands in a r e l a t i o n o f t h e s t r o n g e s t literary d e p e n d e n c e o n J e w i s h a u t h o r s . O r i g i n a l l y h e c a m e t o k n o w the philosophical tradition only t h r o u g h the mediation of the Jewish p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e M i d d l e A g e s . B u t w h a t h e l e a r n e d f r o m this p h i l o s o p h y w e r e i n s i g h t s o r o p i n i o n s t h a t h e c o u l d j u s t as w e l l h a v e a d o p t e d f r o m n o n J e w i s h ( M u s l i m o r C h r i s t i a n ) p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e M i d d l e A g e s ; it is t h e c o m ­ m o n p r o p e r t y o f t h e E u r o p e a n - M e d i t e r r a n e a n t r a d i t i o n . A n d e v e n if it s h o u l d a t o n e p o i n t c o m e t o l i g h t t h a t o n e o f S p i n o z a ' s core d o c t r i n e s , as f o u n d i n his w o r k s , is f o u n d o n l y in t h e w o r k o f o n e o r a n o t h e r J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r o r t h e o l o g i a n o f t h e past, t h e n it w o u l d still r e m a i n t o b e proved t h a t this d o c ­ t r i n e is actually p e c u l i a r l y J e w i s h , a n d t h a t it c o u l d n o t j u s t as w e l l h a v e b e e n conceived by a Greek, a Muslim, or a Christian. " G o o d E u r o p e a n " t h a t h e is, S p i n o z a takes f r o m t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n t h e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y o f E u r o p e a n ideas t h a t it c o n v e y e d t o h i m — a n d n o t h i n g

220

Chapter

4

else. T h u s w e b e l i e v e w e h a v e a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e J e w as a J e w is e n t i d e d t o v e n e r a t e S p i n o z a . S p i n o z a b e l o n g s n o t t o J u d a i s m , b u t t o t h e small b a n d o f s u p e r i o r m i n d s w h o m N i e t z s c h e called t h e " g o o d E u r o p e ­ a n s . " T o this c o m m u n i t y b e l o n g all t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n ­ t u r y , b u t S p i n o z a b e l o n g s t o it i n a special w a y . S p i n o z a d i d n o t r e m a i n a J e w , w h i l e D e s c a r t e s , H o b b e s , a n d L e i b n i z r e m a i n e d C h r i s t i a n s . T h u s it is n o t i n accordance w i t h Spinoza's wishes that h e be i n d u c t e d into the p a n t h e o n o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n . U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s it s e e m s t o us a n e l e m e n t a r y i m p e r a t i v e o f J e w i s h self-respect t h a t w e J e w s s h o u l d a t last a g a i n r e l i n q u i s h o u r c l a i m o n S p i n o z a . B y so d o i n g , w e b y n o m e a n s s u r r e n d e r h i m t o o u r e n e m i e s . R a t h e r , w e leave h i m to that distant a n d strange c o m m u n i t y of " n e u t r a l s " w h o m o n e c a n call, w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e j u s t i c e , t h e c o m m u n i t y o f t h e " g o o d E u r o p e a n s . " B e s i d e s , w e m u s t d o so o u t o f r e s p e c t , w h i c h w e o w e h i m e v e n if w e d o n o t o w e h i m v e n e r a t i o n . R e s p e c t for S p i n o z a d e m a n d s t h a t w e t a k e his last w i l l seriously; a n d his last w i l l w a s n e u t r a l i t y t o w a r d t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , b a s e d o n his b r e a k w i t h J u d a i s m . B u t d i d S p i n o z a l e a v e a t e s t a m e n t f r o m w h i c h this v e r y w i l l f o l l o w s u n ­ a m b i g u o u s l y ? Is t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n m e n t i o n e d at all i n his t e s t a m e n t ? O n e d o e s n o t n e e d t o s e e k for this t e s t a m e n t i n a r c h i v e s t h a t are difficult o f access. It c a n b e f o u n d t o w a r d t h e e n d o f t h e t h i r d c h a p t e r o f t h e

Theological-Political

Treatise. S p i n o z a says: " I f t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n h a v e n o t r e n ­ d e r e d t h e m i n d s o f t h e J e w s e f f e m i n a t e [weibisch], t h e n I w o u l d a b s o l u t e l y b e l i e v e t h a t s o m e d a y , g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y a n d h u m a n affairs b e i n g so c h a n g e ­ a b l e , t h e y ( t h e J e w s ) w i l l o n c e again establish t h e i r e m p i r e a n d G o d w i l l e l e c t them anew."

2

If w e d i s r e g a r d t h e r e m a r k a b o u t t h e r e n e w e d d i v i n e e l e c t i o n

o f t h e J e w s , w h i c h , c o m i n g f r o m S p i n o z a , is n o t h i n g b u t a n e m p t y p h r a s e , w h a t r e m a i n s as his o p i n i o n , as his " p o l i t i c a l t e s t a m e n t , " is t h e n e u t r a l c o n ­ s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e possibility c o n d i t i o n [Möglichkeitsbedingung]

for t h e r e s t o r a ­

t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h state. T h i s possibility c o n d i t i o n is t h a t t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n lose its p o w e r o v e r t h e m i n d s o f t h e J e w s b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o S p i n o z a , this r e l i g i o n l e a d s t o a s o f t e n i n g o f o n e ' s t u r n o f m i n d [Verweichlichung 3

Gesinnung].

der

T h a t n o state c a n b e e s t a b l i s h e d i n a s o f t e n e d t u r n o f m i n d r e ­

quires n o proof. B u t Spinoza's assertion that the J e w i s h religion enfeebles t h e m i n d is e x t r e m e l y q u e s t i o n a b l e ; in fact, it is u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . H a s S p i n o z a c o m ­ p l e t e l y f o r g o t t e n t h a t this r e l i g i o n g a v e t h e v i c t i m s o f t h e I n q u i s i t i o n t h e s t r e n g t h t o e n d u r e t h e m o s t e x t r e m e suffering? N o , S p i n o z a has n o t f o r g o t ­ t e n this fact; w e k n o w this w i t h c o m p l e t e c e r t a i n t y f r o m his letters. H e w a s s i m p l y o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h n e e d e d t o e n d u r e suffering is n o t t h e s a m e s t r e n g t h n e e d e d t o establish a n d p r e s e r v e a state, n a m e l y , t h e s t r e n g t h t o

Reorientation

(1928-32)

221

c o m m a n d , w i t h o u t w h i c h n o s o c i e t y c a n s u r v i v e . A n d j u s t as his t e a c h e r M a c h i a v e l l i h e l d C h r i s t i a n i t y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e c o r r u p t i o n o f R o m a n v i r t u e , so S p i n o z a h e l d J u d a i s m r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f a r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h state. It w o u l d b e risky t o d e d u c e f r o m t h e c i t e d passage t h a t S p i n o z a is t h e r e f o r e t h e father o f p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m . It w o u l d b e risky n o t so m u c h b e c a u s e , as e v e r y o n e k n o w s , t h e r e is also an O r t h o d o x , w h i c h is t o say c o n s e r v a t i v e , p o l i t i c a l Z i o n i s m . R a t h e r , it is b e c a u s e — u n l i k e h i s c o n t e m p o r a r y , Isaac d e la P e y r è r e , w h o p r o c e e d e d o n t h e basis o f similar p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s — S p i n o z a d o e s n o t a c t u a l l y w i s h for o r d e m a n d t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h state: h e m e r e l y discusses it. A s if c o n d e s c e n d i n g f r o m t h e h e i g h t o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a l n e u t r a l i t y , h e leaves it t o t h e J e w s t o l i b e r a t e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h e i r r e l i g i o n a n d t h u s t o o b t a i n for t h e m s e l v e s t h e possibility o f r e c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e i r state. T h e risk o f this a d v i c e — a n d at this p o i n t o n e m u s t recall t h a t S p i n o z a 4

m a k e s it his b u s i n e s s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e B a l a a m ! — b e c o m e s clear if o n e c o n s i d e r s t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h S p i n o z a offers it. T h i s c o n t e x t is his c o n t e s t i n g o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f the election o f the Jewish nation. M o r e precisely, Spinoza c o n tests t h e p r o o f o f its e l e c t i o n f o u n d i n t h e fact t h a t t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , a n d n o o t h e r n a t i o n , has p r e s e r v e d itself i n spite o f t h e loss o f its state a n d its d i s p e r s i o n o v e r t h e w h o l e e a r t h . A c c o r d i n g t o S p i n o z a , this fact is n o t a m i r a c l e b u t largely t h e n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f — t h e rites, w h i c h h a v e s e p a r a t e d t h e J e w ish n a t i o n f r o m t h e o t h e r p e o p l e s a n d h a v e p r e s e r v e d it h i t h e r t o a n d w i l l p r e s e r v e it f o r e v e r . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n o w e s its p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e p r e s e r v a t i o n t o its L a w , a n d t h u s t o its r e l i g i o n . A n d s h o u l d t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n n o w a b a n d o n this r e l i g i o n in o r d e r t o establish its state, w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o w h a t has b e e n said, it d o e s n o t n e e d , at least n o t for t h e sake o f its p r e s e r v a t i o n ? T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n h e r e is o n l y a p p a r e n t . It c a n b e p r o v e d t o b e a p p a r e n t e v e n if o n e c o m p l e t e l y disregards t h e fact t h a t S p i n o z a c o u l d h a v e r e c o m m e n d e d t o t h e J e w s , o r c o u l d h a v e w i s h e d for t h e m , t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e i r state o n g r o u n d s o t h e r t h a n t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e i r n a t i o n . It is clear t h a t S p i n o z a d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e " r i t e s " ( t h e " f o r m s , " as t h e y are o f t e n c a l l e d t o d a y ) a n d t h e " f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e r e l i g i o n . " A c c o r d i n g t o his a d v i c e , t h e l a t t e r a r e t o b e d i s c a r d e d , w h i l e t h e f o r m e r are t o b e r e t a i n e d . T h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e r e l i g i o n a r e t h a t spirit o f t h e L a w t h a t m a k e s t h e p o l i t i c a l r e s t o r a t i o n i m p o s s i b l e . L i b e r a t e d f r o m this spirit, t h e L a w w i l l n o t o n l y n o t h a m p e r t h e p o l i t i c a l r e s t o r a t i o n , b u t it w i l l f u r t h e r g u a r a n t e e t h e p e r m a n e n c e o f t h e n a t i o n , w h i c h will n o w have b e c o m e political again. T h e L a w as a m e a n s o f n a t i o n a l p r e s e r v a t i o n , o r as a f o r m o f n a t i o n a l l i f e — w h o d o e s n o t k n o w this v i e w o f j u d a i s m ! A n d d i d n o t S p i n o z a c o m e a m a z i n g l y c l o s e t o it, as close as w a s possible in t h e " u n h i s t o r i c a l " s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y ?

222

Chapter

4

T o b e s u r e , w i t h this difference: h e still p e r c e i v e d a n obstacle t o t h e p o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n i n t h e spirit o f t h e L a w . A n d t h e n , t o b e s u r e , w i t h t h e f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e t h a t s h o u l d n o t b e c o m p l e t e l y o v e r l o o k e d , w h i c h is t h a t h e v o i c e d this v i e w n o t as a J e w , b u t as a n e u t r a l ; a n d h e d i d n o t e v e n v o i c e it, b u t r a t h e r j u s t t o s s e d it off. S h o u l d t h i s , t h e n , b e w h a t S p i n o z a ' s t e s t a m e n t is a b o u t ? N o t i n this w a y , n o t w i t h v e i l e d w o r d s a n d a w e a r y h e a r t , s h o u l d w e b i d farewell t o S p i n o z a — if, i n fact, w e must b i d f a r e w e l l t o h i m as s o m e o n e o n w h o s e c o n s c i e n c e is a " h u m a n l y incomprehensible betrayal" (Cohen) of o u r nation. F o r a m o m e n t at least, w e w o u l d l i k e t o d i s r e g a r d t h e p o p u l a r p r i n c i p l e s o n t h e s t r e n g t h o f w h i c h o n e saw oneself compelled either to canonize Spinoza or to c o n d e m n h i m . I t is sufficient t h a t n o o n e has b e e n a b l e t o p o p u l a r i z e h i m , n o o n e h a s b e e n able t o t u r n h i m i n t o small c h a n g e , n o o n e h a s b e e n able t o " c u t h i m d o w n t o s i z e . " A n d still w e ask w h e t h e r w e o w e h i m v e n e r a t i o n ? S p i n o z a w i l l b e v e n e r a t e d as l o n g as t h e r e a r e m e n w h o k n o w h o w t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e i n s c r i p t i o n o n h i s s i g n e t r i n g ("caute")

5

o r , t o p u t it p l a i n l y : as l o n g as t h e r e a r e

m e n w h o k n o w w h a t it m e a n s t o u t t e r [the w o r d ] : independence [ Unabhängigkeit].

NOTES

Source: " D a s T e s t a m e n t Spinozas," Bayerische Israelitische Gemeindezeitung 8, n o . 2 1 (1 N o v e m b e r 1 9 3 2 ) : 3 2 2 - 2 6 , reprinted i n GS, 1.

1:415-22.

H e r m a n n C o h e n , "Ein u n g e d r u c k t e r Vortrag H e r m a n n C o h e n s ü b e r S p i n o z a s

Verhältnis z u m J u d e n t u m , " eingeleitet v o n Franz R o s e n z w e i g , i n Festgabe zum 10jährigen

Bestehen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1919-1929

(Berlin: A k a d e m i e

Verlag, 1 9 2 9 ) , 5 9 . Strauss cites this source again, and m o r e e x t e n s i v e l y , i n his preface t o Spinoza's Critique of Religion, trans. Elsa Sinclair ( N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1 9 6 5 ) . 2.

" W e n n d i e G r u n d l a g e n der j ü d i s c h e n R e l i g i o n d i e G e m ü t e r d e r J u d e n n i c h t

w e i b i s c h m a c h t e n . . . ." Cf. Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. C . G e b h a r d t ( H a m b u r g : M e i n e r , 1 9 5 5 ) , 7 5 : "Ja, w e n n die Grundsätze ihrer R e l i g i o n i h r e n S i n n n i c h t v e r w e i c h l i c h e n . . . " Cf. also Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. S a m u e l Shirley (Indianapolis: H a c k e t t , 1 9 9 8 ) , 4 7 : " I n d e e d , w e r e it n o t that t h e f u n d a m e n t a l principles o f their religion discourage m a n l i n e s s . . . " I n t h e original: " i m o nisi f u n d a m e n t a suae religionis e o r u m a n i m o s e f f o e m i n a r e n t . . . " 3.

T h e phrase Verweichlichung der Gesinnung that Strauss uses i n this explanatory

paraphrase is close t o t h e w o r d i n g o f Gebhardt's translation o f t h e s e n t e n c e i n q u e s t i o n . See previous note. 4.

Earlier i n chapter 3 o f Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza adduces t h e n o n -

Israelite p r o p h e t B a l a a m (cf. N u m . 22—24) t o argue that, a m o n g t h e ancient H e b r e w s , l e g i t i m a t e p r o p h e c y w a s n o t m e r e l y t h o u g h t o f as an Israelite property. I n N u m . 2 2 : 6 , Balaam's p o w e r t o bless and curse are described b y t h e k i n g o f M o a b i n t h e s a m e terms that, a c c o r d i n g t o G e n e s i s 1 2 : 3 , Y H W H p r o n o u n c e d as a special p r o m i s e t o A b r a ( h a ) m .

Reorientation

(1928-32)

223

W h i l e t h e biblical narrative has Balaam bless rather than curse Israel, J e w i s h tradition considers h i m a " w i c k e d " [Balaam ha-resha'] c o u n t e r f i g u r e t o A b r a h a m , representing pride and o t h e r vices. S e e M i s h n a h A v o t 5 : 1 9 . I n a letter b y H e r m a n n Badt t o M a r t i n B u b e r f r o m 4 J u l y 1 9 1 6 , t h e " w i c k e d Balaam" m a k e s an appearance as w e l l , curiously in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e f a m o u s debate b e t w e e n H e r m a n n C o h e n and M a r t i n B u b e r o n Zionism. See Hartwig Wiedebach, "Hermann C o h e n s Auseinandersetzung m i t d e m Z i o n i s m u s , " JSQ 6 ( 1 9 9 9 ) : 3 8 5 . 5.

caute (Lat., adv.): cautiously, safely.

Index of Sources

HEBREW SCRIPTURES Genesis 3:19, 79n. 7 11, 129n. 4 12:3, 157, 222n. 4 12:3b, 172n. 106 18:27, 79n. 7 Exodus 24:7, 210n. 9 25:22, 154 Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 , 222n. 4 22:6, 222n. 4 Deuteronomy 4:19-20, 157 7:2, 82n. 1 Joshua 9:7, 7 9 , 82n. 1, 103, 105n. 3 10:12-14, 179 Judges 1:19, 135, 136n. 14 11:24, 157 1 Samuel 3, 154 1 Kings 18, 211n. 13 18:21, 210n. 6 Isaiah 6, 7 8 , 79n. 7, 154 Jeremiah 2:11, 157

Hosea 1, 157, 171n. 90 Amos 7:1, 157, 171n. 9 0 7:1-4, 154 7:4, 171n. 9 0 9:7, 112 Job 34:15, 79n. 7 42:6, 79n. 7 38, 151 Psalms 119:126, 212n. 1 Daniel 12:2.13, 195 Ecclesiastes 3:20, 79n. 7 2 Chronicles 32:19, 157

NEW TESTAMENT Philippians 2:6, 129n. 2 MlSHNAH Avot 5:19, 223n. 4 Sanhédrin 10, 136n. 13

225

226

Index of Sources

MEDIEVAL Albo, Joseph

Sefer Ha'iqqarim 1.11 and 24, 188 Halevi, Judah

Kuzaril.10, 188 Maimonides, Moses,

Guide of the Perplexed, 1:31, 3 0 , 11:45, 171n. 9 0

General Index

Abraham, 94, 132, 157, 2 2 3 n . 4 Academy for the Science ofjudaism. See Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums act o f faith, 7 0 Ahad Ha'am (Asher Hirsch Ginsberg), x, 81, 119, 1 3 1 , 8 2 n . 6, 106n. 11, 123n. 13; archaeological vs. historical method, 131; "Moses" (Hebr.), 135n. 3; on Moses, 131 Akademie fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums, ix, 1 0 - 1 1 , 4 3 n . 55, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 212; Hermann C o h e n Foundation of the, 212; history of, 213n. 2; Kor­ respondenzblatt, 139, 173; list o f fellows of, 4 2 n . 52; as a political idea, 212 Alexander o f Aphrodisias, 31 Allheit (the all, totality), 95 amor Dei intellectualis, 150 A m o s , 112 Amsterdam, 190 Antiochus Epiphanes, 9 3 anti-Semitism, 7 9 - 8 2 , 103 apikorsut (apostasy), 127 apologetics, 139, 141, 157, 159, 161 a priori, religious, 109 Arbeiterjugend (youth w i n g o f German socialist m o v e m e n t ) , 5 Aristotle, 1 7 9 - 8 1 ; physics, 1 7 9 - 8 0 ; Politics, 24; as unsurpassable authority, 180 Arminians, 200n. 17 assimilation, 68, 7 0 , 76, 7 9 n . 5, 8 5 - 8 8 , 94, 96, 105n. 2, 108, 1 2 0 - 2 1

atheism, 3 1 , 47n. 99, 64, 133, 136n. 12, 1 6 3 - 6 4 n . 12, 2 0 1 - 1 1 attributes, doctrine of. See God, attributes of authenticity, xi Avicenna, 24; o n Plato's Notnoi, 4 4 n Badt, Hermann, 2 2 3 n. 4 Baer, Fritz Jizchak, 4 2 n . 52 Balaam, 2 2 1 , 2 2 3 n . 4 Balfour Declaration, 6 3 , 127 Bandmann, Martin, 7 3 n. 10 Baneth, Hartwig David, 42 n. 52 Barth, Karl, 3 3 , 136n. 10 being: doctrine o f (Seinslehre), 5 6 - 5 7 ; and representation, 55; and transcendence, 78 belief, 5, 7, 15, 5 5 - 5 6 , 60n. 6, 64; definition of, 55; duality of, 56; in G o d as a natural "instinct," 56; in natural reality, 55; subject to the control o f historical reasoning, 66; in sufficiency and in insufficiency, 27, 182; trivialization of, 132; and unbelief, 2 0 3 - 8 ; as an ultimate certainty impervious to "argumenta­ tion," 65 Benjamin, Walter, 2 3 Bergson, Henri, 107 Betar ideology (militarism), 7 3 n . 9 Bible, 7 1 , 108, 111; as the deposit o f a centuries-long development, 133; as literature, 174. See also Scripture Bible research (Bibelforschung), 148 227

228

General

Bible science (Bibelwissenschaft), 1 1 1 , 1 3 3 34, 140, 148, 1 5 1 - 6 1 ; atheism of, 133; and canon, 156; definition of, 161 n; the interest o f Judaism and, 258; translation o f the term, 1 9 6 - 9 7 n. 3 biblical criticism (Bibelkritik), 108, 147 Bildung, 9 4 Bismarck, Fürst O t t o v o n , 9 9 n . 3 Blau-Weiss. See Jüdischer Wanderbund Blau-Weiss Blumenfeld, Kurt, 42n. 4 8 , 118, 122n. 7 body, the, 5 5 - 5 6 Bolshevism, 81 Bonald, Louis Gabriel Ambroise, vicomte de, 7 4 n . 21 Bradt, Gustav, 2 1 3 n . 2 Breuer, Isaac, 1 2 6 - 2 9 ; Das jüdische Nationalheim (1925), 126 Brunner, Emil, 136n. 10 Bryan, William Jennings, 132, 136n. 6 Buber, Martin, 19, 35, 41n. 46, 67, 74n. 17, 119, 1 3 6 n . 12; o n realization (Verwirk­ lichung), 7 4 n . 19, l O l n . 13; on the socialism o f a "community," 119 Bultmann, Rudolf, 3 3 , 136n. 10 Bund jüdischer Corporationen (B.J.C.), 4 2 n . 4 8 , 71 n. 2 Bundesbrüder (confederates), 122n. 3 Burke, E d m u n d , 9 9 n . 4 Calvin, Jean, 1 8 3 - 8 5 Calvinism, 114, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 176; Counterremonstrant, 183, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 n. 17 canny, the (das Heimliche), and the uncanny, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 116n. 11 Cassirer, Ernst, ix—x, 6—8, 11, 25, 3 1 , 3 9 n . 3 1 , 57; Die Begriffsform im mythischen Denken, 113n; and Hermann C o h e n , 39n. 3 1 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 ; o n the problem o f knowledge, x causality, 154 Centrai-Verein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens ( C - V ) , 7 2 n . 2 certainty, ultimate source of, 56 Christ, 9 3 , 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 172n. 100 Christliche Welt, Die, 1 3 6 n . 10 church and state, 1 4 1 - 4 7 civilization, 2 0 3 C o h e n , Hermann, ix, 6 - 8 , 10, 16, 25, 29,

Index 3 9 n . 30, 4 0 n . 3 3 , 64, 76, 107, 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 134, 1 3 9 - 7 3 , 216, 222; and the Akademy for the Science o f Judaism, 2 1 2 - 1 3 ; Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 115n. 4, 167— 6 8 n . 64; "Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis," 171 n. 97; Ethik des reinen Willens, 165n. 35; Jüdische Schriften, 139, 173, 2 1 2 - 1 3 ; Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, 164n. 20; logic o f origin, 155; LogicofPure Cognition, 113, 116— 17n. 16, 147; and Martin Buber (1916 debate o n Zionism), 2 2 3 n . 4; Religion of Reason Out of the Sources ofJudaism, 1 1 7 n . 20, 141, 165n. 35, 1 6 7 - 6 8 n . 64; Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, 139; "Spinoza über Staat und Religion, Judentum und Christentum," 139—73; Strauss's interpretation of, 4 0 n . 3 3 , 1 1 5 n . 5; "Ein ungedruckter Vortrag Hermann Cohens über Spinozas Verhältnis zum Judentum," 172n. 100, 222 n. 1; uniqueness o f God according to, 150, 1 6 7 - 6 8 n . 64 C o h n , Emil, 84; Judentum. Ein Aufruf an die Zeit, 8 9 n . 2 C o m t e , Auguste, 106n. 5 Confessio Augustana (1530), lOOn. 8 consciousness (Bewußtsein), 5 4 - 5 7 ; c o n t e m ­ porary, 67; historical, 86, 185; religious, 78; theoretical, 76 conservatism, radical, 97n Copernican revolution, the, 153 counter-Enlightenment, 7 4 n . 21 craniology, 89n. 9 creation o f the world, 131, 134 criminology, 89n. 9 criticism. See Kritik, translated as "criticism" critique. See Kritik, translated as "critique" Cyrus o f Persia, 132 da Costa, Uriel, 173, 1 8 7 - 9 5 , 200 n. 22; On the Mortality of the Human Soul, 190; Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa. Mit Einleitung, Uebertragung und Regesten, 187; 77ieses Against the Tradition, 190 David, King, 132 decisionism, 26, 124n. 19 deism, 207 de Maistre, Joseph, 7 4 n . 21

General Democritus, 1 6 8 n . 68 Descartes, R e n é , 54, 180, 2 1 6 despair, 185, 189, 192, 208 determinism, 178 devil, the, 2 0 6 de Witt, Jan, 141, 143 dialectic theology, 136n. 10 doctrinairism. See French R e v o l u t i o n doctrine o f attributes. See God, attributes o f dogma, 7 0 , 92, 110, 1 2 5 - 2 9 , 1 3 0 - 3 3 , 150, 189; absence of, as a liberal Jewish doctrine, 95, 125; critique of, 195; o f immortality, 190; motif o f the absurdity o f Christian, 155; as secondary to "religious experience," 109 dogmatics, 91 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 69; Brothers Karamazov, 206 doubt, 54, 7 1 , 7 5 n . 2 5 D u b n o w , Simon, 1 0 1 - 6 , 1 3 0 - 3 5 ; Die neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 105n. 1; Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 105n. 1 Ebbinghaus, Julius, 2 1 4 - 1 6 egoism, 169n. 7 5 Einwirktichung (entering into reality), 19, 6 8 , 7 4 n. 19. See also Entwirklichtheit election o f Israel, doctrine o f the, 94, 221 Elijah, 2 0 4 emancipation, Jewish, 8 0 - 8 1 , 8 6 - 8 7 , 94, 96 encounter, philosophy o f (Erlebnis­ philosophie), 204 Enlightenment: the age of, 8 6 - 8 7 , 109, 112, 148, 159, 173; critique o f religion, 64, 111, 132, 174, 186; manly attitude of the men of, 191; reaction against, 69; shallowness of, 126 Entente, the, 128 enthusiasm, 120 Entwirklichtheit (lack o f reality), 19, 68, 87, 94, 1 0 0 - l O l n . 13 Epicureanism (apikorsut), 27, 108 Epicurean type criticism/critique o f religion. See Kritik Epicurus, 1 8 9 - 9 2 epigonism, 9 0 Erasmus o f Rotterdam, 174 Erets Yisrael (the Land o f Israel), 2 0 3 eschatology, 112

Index

229

essence (Wesen), 56; o f religion, 6 9 Europe, 96, 108; bourgeois-proletarianCossack future of, 90; extrication from, 63 Ewald, Heinrich, 98 existence, 56, 111; o f angels, 150; continued Jewish, 157; galut, 79; of God, 69, 125, 132: homunculus-like, 94; national, 95; . political, 68, 85, 9 3 , 119; in this world o f hatred, 104. See also G o d , existence of existentialism, 47 n. 99 experience (Erlebnis), 19, 25, 67; philosophy of, 2 0 4 Ezra the Scribe, 9 3 , lOOn. 12 faculties (Vermögen), cognitive, 54, 5 9 n . 2 faith, 85, 146, 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 151, 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; act of, 70; denial of, 109; in the ideals o f 1789, 87; Jewish, 127; Kant making r o o m for, 109; loss of, 188; in national-cultural autonomy, 104; as obedience to G o d , 148; passionate, 184; in the sufficiency o f human beings, 184 fascism, 4 6 n . 83 feminism, theological, 71 Fenner, Ferdinand, 9 8 n Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 97, 98 n First World War, 17 Fischer, Karl, 4 Flesch, Martin, 123n. 10 Foerder, Herbert, 38n. 13 Forchtenberg (Hohenlohe), 2 1 , 118, 1 2 1 n Frankfurt o n the Main, 9, 18, 2 2 , 38 n. 13, 57, 6 4 - 7 1 , 121n, 122n. 6, 1 2 3 n . 11, 124, 130 Frederick II ("the Great") o f Prussia, 135, 137n. 15 Frederick W i l h e l m IV o f Prussia, 98 freedom, 7 0 , 80, 103, 114, 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 134, 1 4 1 - 4 2 , 175, 178, 191, 207, 215 Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus (Frankfurt), 41 n. 10, 4 5 , 73n. 11, 2 1 3 n . 3 French Revolution: doctrinairism o f the, 86; ideals o f 1789, 65 Freud, Sigmund, 2 0 2 - 1 1 ; Civilization and its Discontents, 2 0 9 n . 1; Die Zukunft einer Illusion, 2 0 9 n . 1 Freudenthal, Joachim, 2 1 6 Fritzsche, Robert Arnold, 98 n

230

General

Fromm, Erich, 9, 18, 38 n. 13, 41 nn. 4 3 - 4 5 , 7 2 n . 4, 1 2 1 n Gadamer, Hans-Georg, xi, 7, 3 9 n . 30, 5 9 6 0 n . 5; Festschrift für Paul Natorp zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage von Schülern und Freunden gewidmet, 5 9 n . 5, 113n; Truth and Method, 6 0 n . 5 galut (exile), 14, 19, 6 8 - 6 9 , 7 9 , 8 1 , 8 5 - 8 7 , 103, 2 0 2 Geiger, Abraham, 95 Geist (mind), 56, 9 0 Gemeinschaft (community), 123n. 14 George, Stefan, 4 German Jewry, ix, 4, 16, 4 0 n . 38, 6 3 - 7 1 , 79—81, 87; cultural renaissance of, x - x i , 9, 9 0 German Judaism, 26, 75—76 Germans and Jews, 94, 104 Germany, 9 0 - 9 7 ; as the land o f "reconcilia­ tions" and "sublations," 20, 133 Gesellschaft für ethische Kultur, 140n ghost-people (Volksgespenst), 68 Gidion, Robert, 4 2 n . 4 8 Ginsberg, Asher Hirsch. See Ahad Ha'am G o d , 7, 14, 2 0 , 5 6 - 5 7 , 7 0 , 7 7 - 7 8 , 9 3 - 9 5 , 111, 1 2 5 - 2 8 , 1 3 2 - 3 5 , 146, 1 4 8 - 5 6 , 161, 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 179, 1 8 1 - 8 5 , 189, 195, 2 0 3 - 8 , 2 1 7 , 220; agency of, 133; attributes of, 7 6 - 7 8 , 165n. 35; blasphemies against, 143; as constituted by the human heart, 31; corporeality of, 31; existence of, 19, 6 9 , 125, 132; and the good, 25; and religious experience, 19, 67 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang: the age of, 134; Faust I, 7 5 n. 2 3 ; Noten und Abhand­ lungen zu besserem Verständnis des West­ östlichen Divans, 2 1 0 - 1 1 n. 11 Gogarten, Friedrich, 3 3 , 136n. 10 Goithein, Fritz, 3 8 n . 13, 41 n. 43 Goldmann, N a h u m , 7 2 n . 5, 2 0 9 n . 2 Gospels, the, 155 Graetz, Heinrich, 95 Grimm, Jacob, 97 Grotius, H u g o , 2 0 0 n . 17 Gumpelino (character in Heine, Reisebilder), 94, 101 n. 15 Guttmann, Julius, ix, 1 0 - 1 1 , 27, 4 3 n . 54, 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 192n. iii, 161n, 2 1 0 n . 5

Index Halakhah (rabbinic law), 131 Haller, Karl Ludwig von, 7 4 n . 21 haluts m o v e m e n t (socialist Zionism), 5 Hamann, Johann Georg, 58n Hapoel Hatzair, 201 happiness, 175, 184, 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 0 8 Hartmann, Nicolai, 59n. 5 Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm, 58, 9 9 n. 4, 111 Hegelian dialectics, 157 Hegelians, 9 0 Heidegger, Martin, x - x i , 7, 16, 2 3 - 2 4 , 36, 39n. 28 Heine, Heinrich, 4 4 n , 94, 216; Romanzero, 134, 136n. 12 HEP! HEP! riots, 74 n. 21 Herder, Johann Georg, 58 n hermeneutics, 174 Herzl, Theodor, x, 2 1 - 2 2 , 35, 64, 8 1 , 8 2 n . 2, 8 3 - 8 7 , 102, 119, 128, 203; Altneuland, 2 1 0 n . 8; "Mauschel," 7 9 Hess, Moses, 216 Hesse, Hermann, 4 hibbat tsiyon (love o f Zion), 6 8 , 7 4 n . 2 0 historical school, 99n. 4 historiography, 1 0 1 - 4 , 1 3 1 - 3 5 , history, 15, 17, 26; and dogmatics, 9 1 - 2 ; o f a problem (Problemgeschichte), 56, 59— 6 0 n . 5; o f religion, 111, 134, 157 Hitler, Adolf, 4 0 n . 37 Hobbes, Thomas, 11, 173, 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 220; Leviathan, 6 5 holiness, 78 Holy, The. See Otto, Rudolf, Das Heilige Homais the apothecary (figure in Flaubert, Madame Bovary), 87 honesty, 64, 83, 1 2 6 - 2 7 , 134, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 2 0 1 , 203; Lagarde as a model of, 104 Hönigswald, Richard, 59 n. 5 Husserl, Edmund, 7 hybridity, cultural, xi idealism, 57, 84, 114, 1 5 1 - 5 2 ideals o f 1789. See French R e v o l u t i o n ignorance, 13, 33, 36, 2 1 4 - 1 5 images, worship of, 114 imagination, 179 immortality, 1 8 9 - 9 5 individualism, 68, 95, 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 126 inequality, 6 9 , 151, 177

General Inhalte (contents), question o f j e w i s h , 6 4 , 72n. 5 Inquisition, the, 2 2 0 Institute o f Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), 9 intellect, 25, 3 1 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 56, 149 intellectualism, 67 irony, 44n, 153 Isaiah, 112, 132 Israelit, Der, 132 Jabotinsky, Vladimir, 9, 35, 4 0 - 4 1 nn. 3 9 4 0 , 47 n. 9 4 Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich, x, 6 - 7 , 12, 2 5 26, 3 4 - 3 5 , 5 3 - 6 1 Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig ("Turnvater Jahn"), 4, 3 8 n . 7 Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur, 197n. 4 James, William, 1 1 5 n . 2; Varieties of the Religious Experience, 1 7 0 n . 84 Jansenism, 114 Jesus, 9 1 - 9 4 Jewish Chronicle, 132 Joël, Manuel, 178, 216 Jonah, 132 Joseph, Max, 4 6 n . 92; "1st die R e l i g i o n wirklich eine Illusion?" 2 0 9 n Josephus Flavius, 131 Judaism, 20, 22, 36, 67, 76, 85, 9 0 - 9 7 , 108, 114, 131, 1 4 4 - 4 7 , 155, 1 6 0 - 6 1 , 188, 190, 2 0 4 , 212; as the anti-Christian principle, 94; and emancipation, 86; and Europe, x, 8; exclusiveness of, 94; future of, x; German, x, 6, 26, 6 7 - 6 8 , 7 5 , 212; hatred of, 153; history of, 131; intrinsic lawfulness in, 131; liberal, 69, 86, 95; and materialism, 94; n o dogmas in, 125; particularism of, 156-57; parties within, 126; as Pharisaism, 9 2 - 9 4 ; return to, xi, 16; science o f (see Wissenschaft des Judentums); Spinoza and, 139, 143, 216— 20; universalism of, 107; as a way of life (Lebensordnung), 130 Jude, Der, 10, 14, 139, 41 n. 46 Jüdische Rundschau, Die, 10, 4 1 - 4 2 n . 47, 130, 135n Jüdischer Wanderbund Blau-Weiss, 3 - 6 , 8, 18, 3 3 , 3 7 n . 4, 38n. 5, 38n. 13, 39 n. 2 1 , 4 6 n . 8 3 , 6 4 - 6 7 , 71 n. 1

Index

231

jüdische Student, Der, xi, 10, 22, 42n. 48, 201 Jüdisches Wochenblatt (Frankfurt), 1 3 0 - 3 1 jüdische Wille, Der, 42n. 48 Kadimah (Zionist youth organization), 4 4 n Kanowitz, Siegfried, 38n. 13 Kant, Immanuel, 2 6 - 2 7 , 54, 1 0 9 - 1 0 ; Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 143, 164n. 19 Kartell-Convent der Verbindungen deutscher Studenten jüdischen Glaubens (K-C), 4 2 n. 48 Kartell jüdischer Verbindungen (KJ.V.), 5, 8, 10, 2 0 - 2 2 , 3 8 n . 13, 4 2 n . 4 8 , 6 4 , 66, 71 n. 1, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 201 Kartell zionistischer Verbindungen, 4 2 n . 4 8 , 71n. 2 Keilerfahrung (recruiting experience), 8, 118, 1 2 3 n . 10 Kierkegaard, Seren, 34, 111 K J . V . See Kartell jüdischer Verbindungen Klatzkin, Jacob, 2 0 9 n . 2, 210n. 10; Hermann Cohen, 2 0 9 n . 2; Krisis und Entscheidung im Judentum, 202; Probleme des modernen Judentums, 2 0 9 n. 2 Klein, Jacob, xi, 24, 4 0 n . 34, 4 7 n . 104 knowledge (Erkenntnis, Wissen), 2 8 , 101, 111, 146, 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 153, 214; o f actual causes, 187; Aristotelian and Cartesian conceptions o f truth and, 180; o f facts, 27; and faith, 109; o f G o d , 7 0 , 149, 177, 183, 217; Jewish, 3 , 5; problem of, x, 6 - 7 , 2 5 , 5 3 - 5 8 ; receptivity of, 6; relativity of, 13; scientific, 87, 205; o f self, 1 6 1 , 184 Kojève, Alexandre, 45n. 6 4 Korrespondenzblatt des Verbandes der Deutschen Juden, 143n Kritik (criticism, critique): o n the translation of, 1 9 7 - 9 8 n. 5. See also Kritik, translated as "criticism"; Kritik, translated as "critique" Kritik, translated as "criticism," 66, 141, 160, 173, 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 202; biblical, 108, 147, 195; Epicurean type of, 186; o f legalism, 185; o f religion, 175, 186 Kritik, translated as "critique," 66, 7 4 n . 13, 108, 125, 128, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 147, 159, 174, 1 7 6 - 9 1 , 195, 197n. 5; o f the Bible (Bibelkritik), 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 147, 160, 195; and Bible science, 140; o f culture, 76; o f

232

General

Kritik, as "critique" (continued) dogma, 195; of Emancipation, 87; Enlightenment, 111; Epicurean, 187— 95; o f Freud, 205, 2 0 7 - 8 ; immanent, 110, 175; o f the Law, 218; literary, 141; o f miracles; radical, 173, 184, 188; o f religion, 64, 126, 140, 1 7 3 - 7 5 ; self-critique of, 109; o f tradition, 111, 120 Krüger, Gerhard, xi, 4 3 n . 54, 47n. 106 Kulturprotestantismus (cultural Protestantism), x, 64, 91 Lagarde, Paul de (née Bötticher), xi, 4, 15, 7 9 , 9 0 - 1 0 1 , 104, 139; Deutsche Schriften, 97n Landauer, Gustav, 67, 7 4 n . 16; Macht und Mächte, 7 4 n . 18 Landsberg, Alfred, 118, 1 2 2 - 3 n . 8 Langbehn, Julius, 4 Lausanne, Treaty o f (1924), 63 Law, 3 4 , 9 3 - 9 5 , 120, 125, 126, 132, 133, 156, 182, 195, 2 0 3 - 4 , 2 2 1 ; absolute Submission to, 118; constitutional, 80; divine, 4 4 n , 146; doctrine of, 177; giving o f the, 176; meaning o f the Mosaic, 144; as national tradition, 204; o f nature, 195; N o a h i d e , 195; observance of, 6 9 - 7 0 ; Paul's struggle against the, 155; philosophy and, ix, 43n. 54, 4 5 n . 73; from Sinai, 9 3 ; Spinoza's critique of, 2 1 8 - 1 9 learning through reading (lesendes Lernen), 12, 30, 2 1 5 Lehranstalt fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin), 201 Lehrhaus, Freies jüdisches. See Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus (Frankfurt) Leibniz, Gottfried W i l h e l m , 2 1 7 , 220 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 35, 4 2 n . 54, 133, 2 0 2 Levkowitz, Albert, 1 0 6 - 7 ; Religiöse Denker der Gegenwart, 1 0 6 - 7 liberalism, 11, 17, 18, 2 0 , 6 4 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 94, 108, 111, 118, 156 literalism, 57, 6 0 n . 7 location (Standort), 2 1 4 Loewie, Otto, 1 2 9 n . 7 logic, 120 Lombroso, Cesare, 88, 8 9 n. 9; Le Crime:

Index Causes et Remèdes, 8 9 n . 9; L'uomo delinquente, 89n. 9 Lombroso, Paola and Gina, 89n. 9 Löwenthal, Leo, 9, 18, 3 8 n . 13, 41 n. 4 3 , 41n. 4 5 , 7 2 n . 4 Löwith, Karl, xi, 2 3 - 2 4 Lucretius, 190 Luftvolk (a people living o n / i n the air), 85 Luther, Martin, 92, 129n. 1; "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott," 124 Machiavelli, N i c c o l ö , 11, 35, 221 Madame Bovary (Flaubert), 8 9 n . 8 Maimonides, Moses, 11, 1 3 - 1 6 , 2 4 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 34, 4 4 n , 4 8 - 4 9 n . 123, 159, 1 7 5 - 8 3 ; Guide of the Perplexed, 171 n. 90, 2 1 2 n. 1; Mishneh Torah, 171 n. 98 Maimuni. See Maimonides, Moses Mannheim, Karl, 2 3 , 4 4 n ; Ideologie und Utopie, 2 3 Marranos, 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 190 matter (Stoff), 54 Meisl, Josef (or Joseph), 105n. 1 Melanchthon, Philipp: Loci theologici (1521), lOOn. 8 Melekh Ely on (liturgical prayer), 77 Mendelssohn, Moses, xi—xii, xiv, 10—11, 3 5 , 4 2 - 4 3 n . 55, 155, 2 1 6 Merz, G., 136n. 10 messianism, 69, 8 5 - 8 6 method, 54 Metternich, Prince (Austrian chancellor), 7 4 n . 21 Michaelis, Ernst, 18, 38n. 13, 41 n. 4 3 militarism, German, 104 Mill, John Stuart, 106n. 5 mind (Geist), 113, 131, 154 miracles, 132, 134, 176, 186, 190, 2 0 5 - 6 , 208 missionism, 85 Mizrahi, x, 2 0 - 2 2 , 64, 118, 121, 2 0 1 . modernism, 6 5 , 9 1 , 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 214, 217 modernity, 126, 158, 202, 2 1 6 - 1 8 modernization, 6 3 - 6 4 Moment (moment, aspect, element), 55, 59 n. 4, 7 6 - 7 7 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 113, 1 1 5 - 1 6 n . 8 M o m m s e n , Theodor, 9 3 , 141; Römische Geschichte, lOOn. 12 monotheism, 64, 9 3 , 95, 113, 156, 173 Moses, 1 3 1 , 190, 2 1 8

General Moses, Walter, 5, 18, 6 5 , 7 1 n . 1, 7 2 - 7 3 nn. 8 - 9 myth, 1 1 2 - 1 4 , nationalism, 15, 2 1 - 2 2 , 35, 67, 87, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 121, 156 Natorp, Paul, 3 9 n . 30, 5 9 n . 5 natural law, 190 nature, 55, 56, 78, 9 1 , 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 151, 178, 189, 2 0 6 - 8 neo-Kantianism, ix, 6, 3 9 n . 30, 59n. 5, 134, 2 1 1 n . 12 n e o - O r t h o d o x y , 118, 121 neopaganism, 4 Neue jüdische Monatshefte, 2 1 3 n . 2 Nietzsche, Friedrich, xi, 5, 26, 32, 34, 76, 9 3 - 9 4 , 103, 2 2 0 nineteenth century, the, 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 108, 120, 126 Noahide commandments, 188, 190, 195 N o b e l , Nehemia, 9 - 1 0 , 121 n Nordau, Max, 8 3 - 8 9 ; Die konventionellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit, 89 n. 10; Zionistische Schriften, 88 n normality, 85 normalization, 1 3 1 , 2 0 2 - 3 numinous, the, 112 Nuremberg Laws, 4 5 n . 7 3 obedience, 132, 1 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 8 5 - 8 6 , 190 object (Gegenstand), 5 4 - 5 6 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 n . 16 Ockham's Razor, 163n. 8 Oldenburg, Heinrich, 163n. 12 O l d Testament, the, 7 6 - 7 7 , 9 3 , 188, 190 Orthodoxy, 2 1 - 2 3 , 36, 108, 121, 1 2 4 - 2 9 , 1 3 2 - 3 4 ; and atheism, 14, 2 3 - 3 3 , 47 n. 99; Calvinist, 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 176; decision in favor of, 2 1 , 120; and Liberalism, 111; reversion to, 14; and science, 132; separatist, 124; and Zionism, 20, 118 Otto, Rudolf, xi, 14, 25, 34, 7 5 - 7 9 , 107, 1 1 1 - 1 3 ; Das Heilige, 7 6 n , l l l n , 112; "Prophetische Gotteserfahrung," 112n o w l o f Minerva, the, 2 1 4 Palestine, 6 3 , 85, 96, 119, 127, 201 pantheism, 169n. 6 3 , 171n. 89 Pantheismusstreit (eighteenth-century debate o n pantheism), 35, 5 8 n Paquet, Alfons, 2 1 3 n . 3

Index

233

Parsiism, 114 Paul (apostle), 9 2 - 9 3 , 1 5 5 - 5 6 , 185 perception (Wahrnehmung), 55—56 pessimism, xi Peyrère, Isaac de la, 173, 221 Pharisees, 9 3 , 158, 195 p h e n o m e n o l o g y , 75 n. 22 philosophy, 6 - 7 , 3 0 - 3 3 , 57, 1 4 0 - 4 1 ; ancient and modern, 3 1 , 2 1 4 - 1 5 ; and theology, 182; contemporary, 106; Continental, 139; difficulties o f doing, 3 0 - 3 1 ; o f Epicurus, 192; exodus out of, 17; Greek, 36; Jewish, ix, 150, 219; medieval, 11, 13; modern, foundations o f the, 2 1 6 - 1 9 ; naturalist, 57; and nonphilosophy, 34; of perception and o f feeling, 58; o f reason, 56; and religion, 2 3 ; o f religion, 57, 77, 1 0 9 - 1 1 , 148, 151; opposition between religion and, 150; Platonic, 15; political, ix, 1 1 , 15, 18, 3 5 - 3 6 , 144, 202; system of, 110; the truths of, 175; Wilhelminian bourgeois, xi physiognomy, 8 9 n. 9 piafraus (pious fraud), 151 Pinsker, Leon, 104, 106n. 9 Pirkei Avot (Sayings o f the Fathers), 151 Plato, 3, 11, 13, 15, 18, 23, 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 4 8 n . 123; Laws (Nomoi), 24, 4 4 n ; parable o f the cave, 13, 16, 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 3 , 215; Republic (Politeia), 29 polemics, 195; prophetic, 114; theological, 184 politics, 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 0 , 8 3 - 8 4 , 86, 88, 9 3 , 9 6 , 102, 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 1 2 5 - 2 8 , 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 143, 146-47 pous bioteon (question o f the right life), 17, 28, 2 0 9 n . 3 power, 6 7 - 6 8 , 77, 80, 83, 9 5 - 9 6 , 109, 126, 128, 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 1 4 1 - 4 2 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 151, 184, 195, 2 0 2 , 204, 2 0 6 - 8 , 2 2 0 Prager, Joseph, 2 1 3 n . 3 prayer, 70, 77, 125 prejudice, 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 112, 118, 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 175, 2 1 4 probity (Redlichkeit), 6, 2 4 - 2 5 , 36, 9 0 - 9 1 Problemgeschichte (history o f a problem), philosophical method of, 5 9 - 6 0 n . 5 progress, 116n. 13, 158, 180, 214, 2 1 6 proof, 54

234

General

Index

propaganda, 4 0 n . 37 prophecy, 76, 7 8 , 111, 1 3 1 , 135, 144, 147, 1 5 2 - 5 4 , 178, 181 prophetology, 2 4 , 4 4 n , 1 7 8 - 8 0 prophets, 7, 2 0 , 3 2 , 9 3 - 9 4 , 102, 110, 133, 147, 1 5 2 - 5 4 , 173, 175, 183, 190, 203. See also religion Protestantism, 9 1 - 9 2 , 110, 146, 149, 155, 158, 183; cultural (see Kulturprotestantismus); O l d Testament scholarship of, 76; subjectivism of, 77

critique (Kant), 109; science o f (Religionswissenschaft), 1 0 7 - 9 ; state and, 19; Zionism and, 21 Rembrandt Harmens van Rijn, 160 Renaissance, 194 renaissance, German-Jewish cultural (1920s). See German Jewry, cultural renaissance of R e n a n , Ernest, 106n. 11 representations (Vorstellungen), 55 resignation, 9 0

Proverbs, 175 Prussia, 90, 9 9 n . 3, 105n. 4 Psalms, 133, 175 Pythagoras, 153

restoration, period o f (Reaktionszeit), 6 9 , 7 4 n . 21 return: to cultural inwardness, 14; into the darkness o f the cave, 29; to the Gospel, 92; in Heidegger (Kehre), 16; to Jewish "content," 18; to Judaism, xi, 16, 190; to the layer o f "pure doctrine," 158; to the level achieved by the ancients, 30; to Maimonides, 16, 24; to the natural conditions o f the polis, 33; to the "old books," 12; to the original, 195; to Orthodox faith, 21; to Palestine, 85; to the people, 68; to pre-Enlightenment thought, 16; to reality, 19; and repentance (teshuvah), 16, 36; in Rousseau, 4 8 n . 118; to Scripture, 159; to the state o f natural ignorance, 215; w e l l - k n o w n ideology of, 119; from words to things, 23

quaestio iuris, 7 9 n. 3 querelle des anciens et des modernes, 217 R . Abraham ben David o f Posquières (Rabad), 154, 156, 171 nn. 96, 9 9 Ranke, Leopold v o n , 9 9 n . 4, 131 rationalism, 57, 9 0 , 112, 191 Reaktionszeit. See restoration, period o f reality, 5 5 - 5 6 , 6 7 - 6 9 , 76, 8 4 - 8 5 , 87, 94, 96, 102, 120, 142, 152, 205 reason, 7, 2 0 , 2 3 - 2 6 , 3 4 , 55, 66, 9 1 , 129, 142, 146, 1 4 8 - 5 1 , 153, 156, 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 176, 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 4 - 9 5 reconciliation, 20, 2 3 , 2 6 - 2 7 , 36, 94, 133 recruitment experience. See Keilerfahrung Redlichkeit. See probity reflectiveness (Reflektiertheit), 26, 32, 7 5 , 90 religion, xi, 7 - 8 , 14, 1 8 - 2 0 , 22, 2 4 - 2 5 , 27, 31, 3 4 - 3 5 , 56-57, 64, 69, 71, 76-78, 9 1 - 9 5 , 106, 1 5 1 , 158, 2 0 5 , 207; compromised forms o f modern, 23; doctrine o f the "ancient," 175; historical, 30; history of, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 157; idealistically reinterpeted, as perhaps the most amusing thing in the world, 109; immanentist interpretation of, 67; internalization of, 69; Jewish, 203; Law as the heart of, 155; negative function o f the Jewish, 68; and philosophy, 36, 110; politicization o f the Jewish, 144; post-Enlightenment fate of, x; Protestant, 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; and reason, 23; revealed, 15, 174, 176, 178, 1 8 1 - 8 3 , 185, 194; saved by the self-critique o f

revelation, 32, 36, 4 8 n . 114, 9 1 , 109, 1 2 5 26, 153, 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 1 8 0 - 8 2 , 1 8 4 - 8 6 , 1 9 4 95 reward and punishment, 191 Rickert, Heinrich, 39n. 30 right to life, 131 Rilke, Rainer Maria, 4 Ritsehl, Albrecht Benjamin, 98 romanticism, 68, 99n. 4, 109 R o s e n z w e i g , Franz, 10, 16, 32, 34, 4 0 n . 3 3 , 41 n. 45, 4 2 n n . 4 9 - 5 3 , 7 3 n . 12, 89n. 2, 1 1 7 n . 22, 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 129n. 7; "Atheistische Theologie," 136n. 7, 136n. 12, 2 0 9 n . 4; "Einleitung" in Hermann Cohens Jüdische Schriften, 115 n. 5, 2 1 3 n . 4; Festgabe zum 10jährigen Bestehen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 1919-1929, 1 7 2 n . 100; The Star of Redemption, 21 I n . 15; "Zeit ists . . . (Ps. 119, 126). Gedanken über

General das Bildungsproblem des Augenblicks," 212, 2 1 3 n . 2 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 48 n. 118 Rückert, Friedrich, 9 7 R u d e r Verein jüdischer Studenten (Berlin), 121n Sabbath, 7 1 , 156 Sachlichkeit (matter-of-factness, objectivity), 126, 129n. 7, 142, 152 Sadducees, 195 Samuel, 131 Samuel, Sir Herbert, 6 3 San R e m o Conference, 6 3 Saronia (Frankfurt), 7 2 n . 4, 121 n Saul, King, 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 , 195 Savigny, Friedrich Karl v o n , 9 9 n . 4 Schafft, Hermann, 2 1 3 n . 3 Scheler, Max, 7, 6 9 , 75 n. 2 2 Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, 2 5 , 3 4 , 4 8 n . 108, 5 8 n , 6 0 n . 8, 115n. 2 , 2 1 1 n . 18 Schmitt, Carl, x v n . 1, 9, 11, 13, 3 5 , 4 0 n . 38, 1 9 9 n . 11; Der Begriff des Politischen, 12, 45n. 6 6 Scholem, Gerhard Gershom, x v n . 4, 9, 18, 2 3 - 2 4 , 4 2 n . 5 2 , 7 1 n . 1, 7 2 n . 5, 7 3 n. 11; "Die blau-weisse Brille," 3 7 n . 4, 3 9 n . 2 1 , 7 3 n . 8; " T h e Politics o f Mysticism: Isaac Breuer's N e w Kuzari," 129n. 5; Von Berlin nach Jerusalem, 4 6 nn. 8 3 - 8 4 science (Wissenschaft), 57, 6 5 , 6 9 , 87, 9 1 , 130, 1 3 2 - 3 4 , 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 1 5 8 - 6 0 , 1 7 3 - 7 4 , 180, 217; o f apologetics, 141; Orthodox misconception of, 146; and perfectibil­ ity, 27; o f propaganda, 8; o f psycho­ analysis, 207; and religion, 205—6; o f religion (Religionsivissenschaft), 7, 1 0 7 14; Rosenzweig's contributions to, 2 1 2 ; spirit of, 39 n. 2 8 Scripture, 1 3 2 - 3 4 , 142, 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 56, 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 179, 181, 186, 192, 206; authority of, 145, 183, 205; habituation t o , 31; identification o f religion and, 148; Protestant faith in, 146, 149; and reason, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 4 - 9 5 ; theory and, 1 7 7 - 7 8 , 180, 182; as the "Word o f G o d , " 1 4 6 secularization, 8 6

Index

235

self-preservation, 175 selicha (forgiveness), 104 Servetus, Michael, 1 9 2 - 9 4 Shaw, George Bernard, 2 0 4 Shulkhan Arukh, 3 2 Simmel, Georg, 1 2 3 n . 14, Simon, Ernst, 7 3 n . 1 1 , 21 I n . 12 sobriety, 5, 7, 6 6 socialism, 6 7 , 8 4 , 119, 147, 2 0 3 Socrates, 1 1 , 13, 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 1 5 sophism, 3 3 Sparta, 88 Spätjudentumsforschung (Protestant historiog­ raphy o n postexilic Judaism), lOOn. 12 species, preservation o f the, 56 Spengler, Oswald, xi Spinoza, Baruch de, ix, xiii-xiv, 10, 12, 1 4 15, 2 0 , 3 5 , 41 n. 4 5 , 6 5 , 1 3 9 - 2 0 0 , 2 1 6 23; Apology, 165n. 22; Ethics, 146, 1 4 8 49, 152, 159, 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 177; TheologicalPolitical Treatise, 12, 1 3 9 - 8 7 passim, 2 2 2 nn passim spirit o f August 1914, the, 81 Stahl, Julius, 7 4 n . 21 state and church. See church and state Stein, Arthur, 1 2 3 n . 10 Stern, Selma, 4 2 n . 52 Strauss, Leo, works of: "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt, D e r Begriff des Politischen," x v n . 1, 9, 12, 4 5 n n . 65— 67; "Anmerkung zur Diskussion über 'Zionismus und Antisemitismus'" ("A N o t e o n the Discussion o n 'Zionism and Antisemitism'"), 7 9 - 8 2 ; "Antwort auf das 'Prinzipielle Wort' der Frank­ furter" ("Response to Frankfurt's 'Word o f Principle'"), 5, 1 8 - 1 9 , 6 4 - 7 5 , 9 9 n , lOOn. 13; The Argument and the Action of Plato's "Laws, " 4 4 n; "Bemerk­ ung zu der Weinbergschen Kritik," ("Comment on Weinberg's Critique"), x v n . 4, 8, 2 0 - 2 1 , 6 4 , 1 1 8 - 2 4 , 2 0 9 n ; "Biblische Geschichte und Wissen­ schaft" ("Biblical History and Science"), 20, 2 2 , 1 3 0 - 3 7 ; "Cohens Analyse der Bibel-Wissenschaft Spinozas" ("Cohen's Analysis o f Spinoza's Bible Science"), 1 3 9 - 7 2 , 197n. 3; "Cohen und Maimuni," 4 4 n ; contributions to Der Jude, 10; contributions to Moses

236

General

Strauss, Leo, works o f (continued) Mendelssohn, Jubiläumsausgabe, 4 2 - 4 3 n . 54; the early writings, xii-xiv; "Ecclesia militans," 22, 6 4 , 9 9 n . 2, 1 2 4 - 3 0 ; Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre F. H. Jacobis (The Problem o f K n o w l e d g e in the Philosophical Doctrine o f Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi); —dissertation, 7, 2 5 , 53; —extract, 53— 61; "Franz R o s e n z w e i g und die Akademie fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums" ("Franz R o s e n z w e i g and the Academy for the Science o f Judaism"), 212—13; "Die geistige Lage der Gegenwart," 4 4 n , 121 n, 2 1 6 n . 4; Gesammelte Schriften (abbr. GS), xvn. 3, 4 3 - 4 4 n . 62; "A Giving o f Accounts," 34, 47n. 104, 2 1 6 n ; "Das Heilige" ("The Holy"), 26, 7 5 - 7 9 , 111; " H o w to Study Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise," 4 5 n . 69; "Introductory Essay to Hermann C o h e n , R e l i g i o n o f Reason O u t o f the Sources ofjudaism," 4 0 n . 33; "Jerusalem and Athens: S o m e Preliminary Reflections," 4 9 n . 124; Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 3 7 n . 2; "Das jüdische Kulturproblem in unserem Erziehungsprogramm" (Forchtenberg lecture), 122n. 4; "Der Konspektivismus" (review o f Karl Mannheim, Ideologie und Utopie), 4 4 n , 4 7 n . 9 5 , 107n. 2; major monographs o f the later career, 11; "On the Interpretation o f Genesis," 4 9 n. 124; "Paul de Lagarde," 26, 9 0 - 1 0 1 ; Persecution and the Art of Writing, 211 n. 11; Philosophie und Gesetz (Philosophy and Law), i x - x , xiv, 1 1 , 13, 2 3 - 2 4 , 27, 4 4 - 4 5 n . 62, 2 0 1 , 2 1 6 n . 4; The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Its Basis and Its Genesis, 196n; "Progress or Return?" 4 9 n . 127; "Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maïmonide et de Fârâbî," 4 9 n . 123; Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch Politischem Traktat (Spinoza's Critique of Religion as the Foundation of His Bible Science), 10, 13, 15, 25, 27, 140, 1 9 6 n , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 n n passim, 211

Index n. 17; —preface to the English edition of, 12, 4 4 n , 4 5 n . 65; '"Die Religiöse Lage der Gegenwart'," 2 7 - 3 0 , 3 1 - 3 3 , 47n. 9 3 , 4 8 n . 111, 121 n, 2 0 9 n . 3, 2 1 6 n . 4; review o f Religiöse Denker der Gegenwart (Contemporary Religious Thinkers), by A. Levkowitz, 1 0 6 - 7 ; review o f Uber die Fortschritte der Metaphysik ( O n the Progress o f Metaphysics), by Julius Ebbinghaus, 12, 30, 214—16; review o f Die Zukunft einer Illusion (The Future o f an Illusion), by Sigmund Freud, xvn. 4, 22, 64, 2 0 1 11 ; "Soziologische Geschichtsschreibung?" ("Sociological Historiography?"), 1 0 1 - 6 ; "Das Testament Spinozas" ("The Testament o f Spinoza"), 14, 2 1 6 - 2 3 ; What is Political Philosophy? 3 9 n . 31; " W h y w e remain Jews," 9, 41 n. 41; "Der Zionismus bei Nordau" ("The Zionism o f Nordau") , 8 3 - 8 9 , lOOn. 13; "Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der europäischen Wissenschaft" ("On the Argument with European Science"), 14, 1 0 7 - 1 7 , 211 n. 18; "Zur Bibelwissenschaft Spinozas und seiner Vorläufer" ("On the Bible Science o f Spinoza and His Precursors"), 1 7 3 - 2 0 0 , 2 1 1 n . 17 sublation, 20, 133 substructure (Substruktion), 57 Südfeld, Simon Maximilian. See Nordau, Max suffering, 84, 104, 220 sufficiency and insufficiency o f thought, 153, 1 8 1 - 8 4 superstition, 175 systems, anarchy of, 2 1 4 Talmud, 154 Thaïes, 153 theocracy, 133 theology, 64, 7 7 - 7 8 , 109, 111, 140, 148, 180; Aristotelian-Neoplatonic, 181; biblical, 134, 144; Calvin's, 183; Epicurean, 189; Hermann Cohen's, 114; history of, 76, 9 2 , 111; Maimonidean, 177; and politics, 141, 143; professors of, 133; religion and, 77; science as the handmaiden of, 130;

General separation o f philosophy from, 182; Spinoza's, 183; traditional, 125; Zionism and, 87 theophany, 7 9 n . 7, 133, 171 n. 9 0 theory, 1 7 7 - 8 2 , 186; o f attributes, 111; and blessedness (beatitudo), 177; distinction b e t w e e n motive and, 186; as the fulfillment o f striving for self-preserva­ tion, 175; o f knowledge (Erkenntnis­ theorie), 58; o f mythology, 114; political (Staatstheorie), 1 4 2 - 4 3 ; radicalism of, 35; religion and, 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; Zionist, 9 T h o m i s m , 34 Thurneysen, Eduard, 136n. 10 tolerance, 95 Tolstoy, Leo, 106n. 11 Tönnies, Ferdinand, 123n. 14 Torah, the, 126, 189, 195; battle against the rule of, 128; as the deposit o f a centuries-long development, 133; Mosaic authorship of, 107, 218; submission o f the Jewish people to, 125; tension b e t w e e n theory and, 177 T o w e r o f Babel, 3 3 , 125 tradition, 6 9 - 7 0 , 77, 90, 95, 108, 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 129, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 135, 156, 1 5 8 59, 176, 1 8 8 - 9 1 , 195, 2 0 3 , 205, 2 1 4 15, 2 1 7 - 1 9 ; the beautiful world of, 160 transcendence, 109, 111; o f God, 57, 151; o f the Ought, 114; o f reality, 55; o f the religious object, 78 Treitschke, Heinrich v o n , lOOn. 12, 103 Trinity, doctrine o f the, 155; criticism of, as shittuf (mixing), 75 n. 2 4 Troeltsch, Ernst, xi, 7, 1 1 5 n . 2 truth, 69, 92, 109, 125, 134, 147, 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 177, 184, 188; Aristotelian and Cartesian conceptions of, 180; availability o f perfect, 180; and being, 56; is in the beginning, 1 9 4 - 9 5 ; and depth are opposites, 208; faith in Scripture as the norm of, 149; and genuineness, 195; and the historical religions, 57; and illusion, 207; the Jewish concept of, 131; lovers of, 189; modern prejudice concerning the, 214; as the norm o f itself and o f the false, 159, 174; o f reason and o f revelation, 9 1 , 181; o f religious doctrines, 2 0 5 - 6 ;

Index

237

o f Scripture, 1 7 8 - 7 9 , 183; and untruth in politics, 83 Turkey, 6 3 , 128 turning, 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 9 , 76; to the truth, 195 unbelief. See belief uncanny, the, 65, 1 1 2 - 1 3 . See also canny, the, and the uncanny universalism: o f the Christian enlighten­ ment, 86; o f Judaism, 1 0 7 - 8 , 1 1 2 - 1 3 Unreflektiertheit (lack o f reflectiveness), 26, 75. See also reflectiveness untruth. See truth value, 9 5 - 9 6 ; judgments and the rhetoric o f radical opposites, 26; knowledge (Erkenntniswert), 54; o f moderation, 34; numinous, 78; oppositions of, 151; o f the political as distinct from the moral and the religious, 34; reality (Realitäts­ wert), 205 values, 15, 17, 20, 7 5 , 93; o f argumentation and formal politicism, 65; o f critique and argument, 7, 19; German-Jewish, 67; o f liberalism, 18; universal crisis of, x Vedic religion, 114 Verne, Jules, 2 1 0 n . 8 Vernunft (reason), 54, 59n. 3, 168n. 69. See also reason Vienna, Congress of, 7 4 n . 2 1 . See also restoration, period o f virtue, 87; Christianity and the corruption o f R o m a n , 2 2 1 ; o f courage, 34; o f intellectual Redlichkeit, 2 4 - 2 5 ; as its o w n reward, 151; o f modesty, 33; o f probity, the will to work, and frugality, 91 virtues, hierarchy of, 47 n. 104 vitalism, 6 0 n . 6, 7 3 n . 10, 116n. 10, 2 0 9 n. 2 Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), 132, 137n. 15 Wahrnehmung (perception), 54 Wandervogel, 3 - 4 , 10, 7 2 n . 5 Weber, Max, xi, 7, 15, 26, 3 9 n . 28 Weinberg, Hans, 2 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 1 ; "Zionismus und R e l i g i o n , " 4 6 n . 87 Wellhausen, Julius, 9 3 , 119; Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 123n. 12

General

238

Weh, Die, 4 1 - 4 2 n . 47, 8 2 n . 2 Weltsch, Robert, 3 7 n . 4, 41n. 47, I35n will: to belief, 70; to brutal absurdity, 103; to destroy the Jewish concept o f religion, 144; to existence, 85; identity o f intellect and, 176; to the Jewish state, 120; to life o f a people, 9 3 ; to live, 86; to mastery o f the innermost life, 91; to normalcy, 128; to perish, 86; to renewal, 7 0 ; Spinoza's concept o f the, 148; synonymity o f reason and, 149; to work, 91 Winkler, Rudolf, 1 1 0 - 1 1 Wirklichkeit (reality), 7 4 n . 19, 1 3 0 n . 11 Wissenschaft des Judentums, 130, 2 1 2 Wobbermin, Georg, 1 0 9 - 1 0 ; Religions­

philosophie, 115n. 2 woridview (Weltanschauung), 2X7 World War I. See First World W a r Xenophanes, 112 Yom Kippur (Day o f Atonement), 77

Index Zionism, i x - x , 3 - 6 , 8 - 1 0 , 111; and antiSemitism, 7 9 - 8 2 ; cultural, 119, 2 0 3 ; German-Jewish, 18, 6 4 - 7 5 , 2 0 1 ; — journals, 10; — y o u t h movement, ix, 4— 6, 9, 75; and messianism, 8 5 - 8 6 ; as a platform o f Strauss's theoretical work o n the modern predicament, 8, 14, 2 6 - 2 7 ; political, 3 , 15, 18, 6 3 - 6 4 , 8 3 - 8 9 , 1 2 7 28, 135, 2 0 2 , 204; —history, 6 3 ; — Jewish-Arab relations, 8; — p o l i c y o f secrecy of, x v n . 7; —recruitment (Keilarbeit), 8; —settlement in Palestine, 8; —Spinoza as the father of, 2 2 1 ; and religion, 1 9 - 2 3 , 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 1 8 - 3 0 ; religious (see Mizrahi); as a return to Judaism, xi. See also assimilation; Jüdischer Wanderbund Blau-Weiss; Kartell jüdischer Verbindungen (K.J.V.) Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland (ZVfD), 71 n Zwang (compulsion), 114, 117 n. 19 Zwingli, Huldrych, 155 Zwischen den Zeiten, 134, 1 3 6 n . 10