Get rid of that medieval nonsense and move on to modernity! That, in short, was how many nineteenth-century historians thought about the Enlightenment. Today we know that the Enlightenment is a difficult period to understand. Its multi-colouredness becomes clear in the collection 'Enlightenment in the Netherlands 1650-1850'.
It used to be so clear. After greats such as Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, and the French writer Voltaire had shed their light, the European elite wrestled from all the dogmatics of religion. For many nineteenth-century secular historians, the Enlightenment was the decisive battle in a centuries-long struggle between science and religion. Get rid of that medieval nonsense and move on to modernity!"
That it is not so simple is once again apparent from the collection Enlightenment in the Netherlands 1650-1850, a publication on the occasion of the third lustrum of the Center for the Study of Religion and Enlightenment of Leiden University. The book was presented to British historian Jonathan Israel on 19 October in Museum Boerhaave. Israel is one of the most influential historians on the Dutch Enlightenment.
In his book Radical Enlightenment Israel describes how, in addition to a 'moderate', a 'radical' Enlightenment emerged in the Netherlands, mainly thanks to Spinoza's ideas. That radical Enlightenment, in which almost all aspects of religion were dealt with, was the 'true' Enlightenment for Israel.
'Enlightenment in the Netherlands', edited by Jan Wim Buisman, now paints a different picture. The Enlightenment was 'strange', with all kinds of ideas in which secular and religious elements were used interchangeably in a way that we can no longer fully understand. And according to Buisman, the influence Israel attributes to Spinoza is somewhat exaggerated.
Why this motley collection of Enlightenment authors? What did you want to demonstrate? “In our book we wanted to draw attention to the unknown writers from the Enlightenment. Much has already been written about the great minds, including Spinoza. We were more concerned with what the 'common man' did to someone like Spinoza. The book consists of a number of original texts, preceded by an introductory essay. By helping the reader to read the original texts, we wanted to let the Enlightenment speak for itself. In this way it becomes very clear how diverse and multicolored that period was.”
Spinoza (1632-1677)
The Jewish Baruch Spinoza was born in 1632 in The Hague. His parents were Portuguese Jews who fled to the Netherlands when Portugal was annexed to Catholic Spain in 1580.
According to Spinoza, God and nature were one, a view that in the seventeenth century was equivalent to atheism. Among the natural philosophers he was a radical who denied the miracles of Christ and accepted no explanation other than that based on reason. He stated that the biblical prophets were ordinary people with extraordinary imaginations who did not speak for God.
Spinoza developed a philosophy in which theology played no role and regardless of which religion is applicable. He argued that God and nature are the same and that insight into nature also increases the knowledge of the divine. His books were banned in Europe for two hundred years because his historical criticism of the Bible would lead to atheism and fatalism.
To what extent is the book a critique of Jonathan Israel? “It is not intended as such, but if you want to say something about the Enlightenment in the Netherlands, you simply cannot ignore him. Israel is nuanced enough to distinguish between a moderate and a radical Enlightenment, but for him the "radical Enlightenment" is the most important aspect. I don't agree with him. The Enlightenment in the Netherlands is moderate, with a small group of radicals who play a subordinate role. There was hardly even any mention of atheism. A 1900 census showed that even then only two percent called themselves unchurched. In my opinion, Spinoza's influence was rather marginal for a long time”
What does that show? “Spinoza had gathered a whole group of supporters around him. But very often you see that many misunderstandings arise when adopting his ideas. Many people took from Spinoza's work what they could put to good use, and omitted the rest. They started tinkering in their own way, and all kinds of enlightened and religious ideas arose from this. You see this, for example, with the Amsterdam suitcase maker and amateur philosopher Willem Deurhoff (1650-1717). He called himself 'Spinozist' but combined Spinoza's ideas with all kinds of Christian ideas.”
What was Israel's reaction when you offered him this book?
“Israel is a very kind and accessible historian, who responded eloquently to our comments. He argued that his aim was not to emphasize the role of Spinoza himself, but to draw attention to the circles of his followers that sprung up all over Europe. According to him, Spinoza therefore acted as a catalyst for the ideas of freethinkers.”