In vier blogs had
ik aandacht voor Richard Popkin’s Spinozastudie: op 12 juli
2009 het blog: “Richard H. Popkin
(1923 - 2005) - zijn Spinoza-boekje”; en in het blog van 31 okt 2011: “Spinoza scepticus?” O.a. over het boek
van Richard H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Op 23 januari 2019 tenslotte meldde ik dat
Richard Popkin’s The History of Scepticism met Chapter 15 “Spinoza’s Scepticism
and Antiscepticism” op internet staat.
1960 1979 2003 |
Twee blogs
had ik [nl. op 6 en 9 febr. 2012] met de vraag “Waarom ontving Richard Popkin
niet de Nobelprijs voor Spinoza Studies?” Dit n.a.v. zijn “Serendipity at the
Clark: Spinoza and the Prince of Condé,” [Clark Newsletter 10 (1986), pp. 4–7.],
dat ik in dat tweede blog overnam.
“Popkin’s
Spinoza”
Sarah Hutton schreef een gedegen en informatief overzichtsartikel over hem, “Popkin’s Spinoza”: het derde hoofdstuk in Jeremy D. Popkin (ed.), The Legacies of Richard Popkin (2008).1) Dat hoofdstuk was – mét kleursignaleringen van een uploader – als PDF hier te vinden [toevoeging 5-9-2019: daar het stuk daar alweer is verdwenen, heb ik het naar hier geüpload]. Ze benadrukt dat zijn bredere historische studie "enabled him to contribute immensely to the reconstruction of Spinoza’s intellectual milieu, peopling it with figures previously ignored, or unknown, such as Menasseh ben Israel, Orobio da Castro, Uriel da Costa, Isaac La Peyrère, Jacques Basnage, Henry Oldenburg, Margaret Fell, Samuel Fisher, Adam Boreel and Henry Morelli."
Het is vanwege de notitie van Sarah Hutton, “Popkin follows this [Bayle's] detective model of investigation” [p. 36], dat ik de kop van dit blog formuleerde. Op meer plaatsen trouwens verwees ze naar hem en zijn aanpak als naar [die van] een detective. Die indruk wordt duidelijk bevestigd door hoe hij zelf over zijn onderzoek naar Spinoza schreef - een tekst die ik hierna overneem.
Sarah Hutton schreef een gedegen en informatief overzichtsartikel over hem, “Popkin’s Spinoza”: het derde hoofdstuk in Jeremy D. Popkin (ed.), The Legacies of Richard Popkin (2008).1) Dat hoofdstuk was – mét kleursignaleringen van een uploader – als PDF hier te vinden [toevoeging 5-9-2019: daar het stuk daar alweer is verdwenen, heb ik het naar hier geüpload]. Ze benadrukt dat zijn bredere historische studie "enabled him to contribute immensely to the reconstruction of Spinoza’s intellectual milieu, peopling it with figures previously ignored, or unknown, such as Menasseh ben Israel, Orobio da Castro, Uriel da Costa, Isaac La Peyrère, Jacques Basnage, Henry Oldenburg, Margaret Fell, Samuel Fisher, Adam Boreel and Henry Morelli."
Het is vanwege de notitie van Sarah Hutton, “Popkin follows this [Bayle's] detective model of investigation” [p. 36], dat ik de kop van dit blog formuleerde. Op meer plaatsen trouwens verwees ze naar hem en zijn aanpak als naar [die van] een detective. Die indruk wordt duidelijk bevestigd door hoe hij zelf over zijn onderzoek naar Spinoza schreef - een tekst die ik hierna overneem.
Eerst neem
ik hier de obutuary over die Sarah Hutton over Richard Popkin schreef in The
Guardian (7th May, 2005 – tekst hier
te vinden.)
In the
field of the history of philosophy, Richard Popkin, who has died aged 81, was
best known for his work on scepticism, and especially for his classic study The History Of Scepticism From Erasmus To
Descartes (1960).
A professor
at the University of California, San Diego, (1963-73) and Washington
University, St Louis, Missouri (1973-86), he was among the founders of the Journal Of The History Of Philosophy,
and, with Paul Dibon, started the International
Archives In The History Of Ideas; he also wrote about the 1963
assassination of the US president, John Kennedy.
The History Of Scepticism
revolutionised the received picture of both the history of philosophy and the
history of science, by demonstrating the influence, in the century before
Descartes, of ancient Greek sceptical arguments about the impossibility of
knowing God and the world.
In making
his case for this central contribution to the development of modern science and
philosophy, Popkin gave attention to the intellectual context of the time,
especially the role of religious disputes in the take-up of philosophical
scepticism deriving from the discipline's Greek founder, Pyhrro. Instead of
treating the history of science and philosophy as a series of breakthroughs by
canonical figures, Popkin sought to view the thought of the past from within
its own framework...
Popkin also
achieved fame with The Second Oswald
(1966), the book in which he disputed the findings of the Warren commission
that Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin. He foresaw the rise of religious
fundamentalism in the United States and the Middle East, contributing an
analysis of its American dimension in
Messianic Revolution (1998, co-authored with David Katz). He also wrote for
a general philosophical readership, with such books as Philosophy Made Simple (co-authored with Avrum Stroll, 1969).
Popkin was
an inspirational teacher who gave great encouragement to younger scholars, such
as myself. When I first met him, I was struck by his wry sense of humour, and
the touch of scepticism that ensured he never took himself or others
over-seriously. All who knew him remember his generosity; and he was always
good company and an entertaining raconteur.
Hierin
werd zijn Spinoza-studie nog niet genoemd maar dat ‘maakte ze dus ruimschoots
goed’ met haar “Popkin’s Spinoza.”
Popkin
publiceerde twee autobiografische teksten, nl. in:
• Richard H. Popkin, "Intellectual autobiography:
warts and all," in: R. A. Watson 7 J.E. Force (eds.), The Sceptical Mode in Modern Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Richard H.
Popkin. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988 / Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, p.
103-149 – books.google
• James Force and David S. Katz (eds.), Everything Connects: In Conference with
Richard H. Popkin. Essays in His Honor. Brill, 1999
met daarin
Richard H. Popkin, Introduction: Warts and All, Part 2, pp. XI-LXXVI – books.google
Richard H. Popkin, Introduction: Warts and All, Part 2, pp. XI-LXXVI – books.google
Uit het
eerstgenoemde boek citeer ik hetgeen hij daarin over zijn Spinoza-research schrijft.
[On the first, I found one way of countering or contending with
the morbidity of the suicidal soliloquies, and depressive retreats into bed,
was to do the essential hack-work, intellectual tasks — encyclopedia articles,
introductory summaries of views, and such items.]
However, in 1977, the three hundredth anniversary of Spinoza's death, I was
asked to write some pieces on him, and to take part in symposia at the Jewish
Theological Seminary and the Hebrew Union College. I wrote on Spinoza and La
Peyrere, which eventually became two additional chapters of my History of Scepticism. For the Jewish
Theological Seminary affair, I worked on a "new" idea — namely why
didn't Spinoza attack contemporary prophets, or even refer to them? In
particular, why, if he was trying to show how ridiculous prophecy was, didn't
he attack the followers of Sabbatai Zevi? There is a letter of Henry Oldenburg
of the Royal Society of England asking Spinoza if it is true that the king of
the Jews has arrived, as news of Sabbatai Zevi reached England. Oldenburg said,
if this were true, it would be of momentous significance to everyone. Then, we
are told that there is no evidence that Spinoza ever answered the letter.
So,
I posed the question — why did Spinoza not discuss the matter, and show that
the contemporary Jews in Amsterdam, almost all of whom accepted Sabbatai Zevi
as the Messiah, were fools? Why did Spinoza never mention Menasseh ben Israel,
and his view of 1654-55 that the coming of the Messiah was imminent? When I
gave the paper, the commentator was Fritz Rothchild who said it was a Sherlock
Holmes story — why didn't the dog bark? I had no answer, only a question. In
Oldenburg's correspondence, published only in the mid-1960s, I found that one
Peter Serrarius answered Oldenburg's query, with a resounding "yes",
and flooded Oldenburg and Robert Boyle with news about Sabbatai Zevi. Serrarius
was misidentified in the notes as Spinoza's secretary or agent.
From
another side, I ran across the quotation of a letter of the Quaker William Ames
that he met a Jew in Amsterdam who had been cast out by the Jews. Quaker
historians thought, or hoped, that this was Spinoza. The date would put the
meeting a few months after the excommunication of Spinoza, and the views
advanced by the Jew were Spinozistic views, and, as I was soon arguing, Spinoza
was the only expellee who met the condition of the facts. Statements by other
Quakers in Amsterdam at the time indicated that the ex-Jew was set to work
translating a Quaker pamphlet by Margaret Fell, designed to convert the Jews.
So I gave a paper on
Spinoza and the Quakers suggesting links, but still lacking real data. I
started ferreting out data about Serrarius. He was a friend of Menasseh ben
Israel. He was a chiliast, much older than Spinoza. He was linked with the
Scottish Millenarian, John Dury, with Oldenburg, with Comenius, and he was
Spinoza's contact with the English world. Although he is only once mentioned in
Spinoza's remaining correspondence, he appears often in Oldenburg's as the one who
sent and received Spinoza's mail. He was involved with Adam Boreel, the leader
of the Dutch Collegiants, who took Spinoza in after his excommunication.
Serrarius was the one who introduced Spinoza to William Ames. (Ames was living
in Serrarius' house at the time.) Serrarius was the leader of the Christian
supporters or followers of Sabbatai Zevi and he sent reports to England and
France about the movement, and published pamphlets describing its progress. He
explained to Oldenburg how one could still accept Sabbatai Zevi after the
latter had become a Moslem. God works in mysterious ways.
So, a new world opened
to be explored — the rationalist, naturalist Spinoza, excommunicated by the
Synagogue, fell into the arms of the Millenarian Quakers trying to convert the
Jews. And Spinoza was known to Serrarius right after the excommunication, and
was clearly involved in Spinoza's affairs for the next decade. I now saw
Spinoza in the midst of the Millenarians. One leading Spinoza scholar had said
that Spinoza could not have been a friend of Serrarius, because Serrarius was
beyond the pathological limits of rationality. He was just a crazy Millenarian.
But he was apparently Spinoza's friend and patron, and was close to Spinoza's
Quaker friends and to Boreel, the leader of the group Spinoza lived with in
Amsterdam and Rijnsburg. The Quakers, Boreel, and Serrarius were all
Millenarians. The latter two were involved with Menasseh, and were friends of
Spinoza's English friends, Boyle and Oldenburg, who were also Millenarians.
So, I started following
these leads. I met Ernestine van der Wall, who is finishing a dissertation on
Serrarius at Leiden, and her mentor, Jan van den Berg, and have been exploring
the ambiance with them of Spinoza amongst the Millenarians. The interchange
with them, with David Katz, who knows the English scene so well, and with Yosef
Kaplan, who knows what was going on in the Jewish community, filled me with
leads like a magic thread. I found in rapid succession the sale catalogue of
Serrarius' books and manuscripts, an account of Serrarius' meeting with a rabbi
from Jerusalem, a pamphlet of John Dury describing the visit of Rabbi Nathan
Shapira of Jerusalem, the teacher of Nathan of Gaza, the Elijah of the Sabbatai
Zevi movement, to Amsterdam in 1657 and his discussions with Serrarius. Rabbi
Shapira's view of Christianity closely parallels Spinoza's. Then I found two
copies of the Hebrew translation of the Quaker leader, Margaret Fell's
pamphlet, published in 1658, plus lots of correspondence about it and its
translator. A series of papers I wrote placed Spinoza squarely in the midst of
the conversionist Millenarians.
Finally I found Boreel's
huge manuscript, that Serrarius had had copied for Robert Boyle, which gives
Boreel's answer to the theory of Les
Trois Imposteurs, that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed invented religions for
political purposes. Spinoza was obviously dealing with the same theme in the Tracatus.
Now from a question, I
was advancing to a new interpretation of Spinoza. By chance I came across an
item in the Clark Library that led me to realize that Spinoza did meet the Prince of Condé and became
closely involved with some of the libertines in his entourage. He also became
close to a Dr. Henri Morelli, an Egyptian Jew, who ended up as the doctor to
the unbelieving Charles Saint-Evremond, to the courtesan Ninon de l'Enclos, and
to the Countess of Sandwich, the daughter of the atheist Earl of Rochester.
A series of such finds
has now led to seeing Spinoza as journeying from student rebel in the Synagogue
to immersion in the creedless world of the Millenarian Collegiants and Quakers,
to a theorist of the rationalized version of their spiritualized Christianity,
and perhaps of Rabbi Shapira's Jewish Christianity, to the unbelieving world of
the followers of the Prince of Condé. One has to have some ideas where clues
may be, and one has to be able to recognize them. As Paul Schrecker used to
say, "You have to know what is possible in order to tell what is
actual."
*
* *
Verder noem ik
nog van hem:
• Richard H. Popkin, ‘Hume and Spinoza.” In: Hume Studies, Vol. 5, 1979 [PDF
• Richard H. Popkin, “SPINOZA'S RELATIONS WITH THE
QUAKERS IN AMSTERDAM.” In: Quaker History,
Vol. 73, January, 1984 [cf. PDF hier]
• Richard H. Popkin, “Could Spinoza have known
Bodin's coloquium Heptaplomares?” In: Philosophia,
Vol. 16, December, 1986 [cf. PDF hier]
• Richard H. Popkin, “The first published discussion
of a central theme in Spinoza's tractatus.” In: Philosophia, Vol. 17, March, 1987 [cf. PDF
hier]
• Richard H. Popkin, “Was
spinoza a Marrano of reason?” In Philosophia,
20 (3):243-246 (1990), December, 1990 [cf. Springer – ’t PDF heeft gestaan op PhilPapers, maar is daar niet meer te
vinden; zie overigens het PDF hier].
• Richard H. Popkin, "Can one be a True Christian
and a Faithful Follower of the Law of Moses? The Answer of John Dury.” In: Martin
Mulsow & Richard Henry Popkin (eds.), Secret
conversions to Judaism in early modern Europe. BRILL, 2004 - 237 pagina's,
p. 33 – 50 - in z'n geheel te lezen bij books.google.
• J.E. Force & R.H. Popkin (Eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture. Recent
Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology and Biblical Criticism in the
Netherlands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013 - 230
pagina's
Introduction is van de hand van Richard H. Popkin, pp. I - XVIII en in z'n geheel te lezen.
Chapter 1, Richard H. Popkin, "Spinoza and Bible Scholarship" (is deels te lezen) – books.google.
Introduction is van de hand van Richard H. Popkin, pp. I - XVIII en in z'n geheel te lezen.
Chapter 1, Richard H. Popkin, "Spinoza and Bible Scholarship" (is deels te lezen) – books.google.
Dick Popkin and James Force have attended a number of
recent conferences where it was apparent that much new and important research
was being done in the fields of interpreting Newton's and Spinoza's
contributions as biblical scholars and of the relationship between their biblical
scholarship and other aspects of their particular philosophies.
This collection represents the best current research
in this area. It stands alone as the only work to bring together the best
current work on these topics. Its primary audience is specialised scholars of
the thought of Newton and Spinoza as well as historians of the philosophical
ideas of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
• Richard H. Popkin schreef het lemma over
"Benedict de Spinoza, Dutch-Jewish Philosopher" in de Encyclopaedia Britannica
dat op 20 juli 1998 door de redactie op internet
werd
geplaatst. Ik overweeg dit lemma, dat door Sarah Hutton niet wordt genoemd, in
een volgend blog over te nemen.
____________________
1) Jeremy D. Popkin (ed.), The Legacies of Richard Popkin. [International Archives of the
History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, Volume 198]. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008 - 301
pagina's – books.google.
Richard H. Popkin (1923-2005) transformed the study of
the history of philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century. His
History of Scepticism and his many other publications demonstrated the
centrality of the problem of skepticism in the development of modern thought,
the intimate connections between philosophy and religion, and the importance of
contacts between Jewish and Christian thinkers. In this volume, scholars from around
the world assess Popkin’s contributions to the many fields in which he was
interested. The Legacies of Richard Popkin provides a broad overview of
Popkin’s work and demonstrates the connections between the many topics he wrote
about. A concluding article, by Popkin’s son Jeremy Popkin, draws on private
letters to provide a picture of Popkin’s life and career in his own words,
revealing the richness of the documents now accessible to scholars in the
Richard Popkin papers at the William Andrews Clark Library in Los Angeles.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten