A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age

by Steven Nadler

When it appeared in 1670, Baruch Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise was denounced as the most dangerous book ever published--"godless," "full of abominations," "a book forged in hell . . . by the devil himself." Religious and secular authorities saw it as a threat to faith, social and political harmony, and everyday morality, and its author was almost universally regarded as a religious subversive and political radical who sought to spread atheism throughout Europe. Yet Spinoza's book has contributed as much as the Declaration of Independence or Thomas Paine's Common Sense to modern liberal, secular, and democratic thinking. In A Book Forged in Hell, Steven Nadler tells the fascinating story of this extraordinary book: its radical claims and their background in the philosophical, religious, and political tensions of the Dutch Golden Age, as well as the vitriolic reaction these ideas inspired.

It is not hard to see why Spinoza's Treatise was so important or so controversial, or why the uproar it caused is one of the most significant events in European intellectual history. In the book, Spinoza became the first to argue that the Bible is not literally the word of God but rather a work of human literature; that true religion has nothing to do with theology, liturgical ceremonies, or sectarian dogma; and that religious authorities should have no role in governing a modern state. He also denied the reality of miracles and divine providence, reinterpreted the nature of prophecy, and made an eloquent plea for toleration and democracy.

A vivid story of incendiary ideas and vicious backlash, A Book Forged in Hell will interest anyone who is curious about the origin of some of our most cherished modern beliefs.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Religion, Biography, Politics, Audiobook

300 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 9, 2011

About the author

Steven Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. His books include Rembrandt's Jews, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize; Spinoza: A Life, which won the Koret Jewish Book Award; and A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age (Princeton).

Reviews

[William2 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jorge Luis Borges said one of his greatest pleasures was to read (or write) books about books. I have always found this solid advice, especially when it comes to the heaped abstractions of philosophy. I have always felt grateful for deft interpreters. Steven Nadler is just such a writer. Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise is discussed here within the social, political, and religious context that demanded its composition. Spinoza believed in the use if reason when it came to the interpretation of scripture. The author’s methodical approach to the Treatise shows Spinoza to be one of our earliest biblical scholars in the modern day sense.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Spinoza was the first to argue that the Bible is not literally the word of God but rather a work of human literature; that “true religion” has nothing to do with theology, liturgical ceremonies, or sectarian dogma but consists only in a simple moral rule: love your neighbor; and that ecclesiastic authorities should have no role whatsoever in the governance of a modern state.”

On July 27, 1656, at the tender age of twenty three, before Baruch de Spinoza had ever published a single page of anything at all, he was cast out of the Talmud Torah congregation, the most prominent Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam, with a vengeance.

“By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse, and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God… Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.”

Damn. They didn’t just want him out of their synagogue, they wanted him to suffer, to have a bad and highly intolerable existence, to be tormented like an ant under a magnifying glass on a hot August day in Oklahoma. The proclamation goes on to say that no one was to speak to Spinoza, to write letters to him, to show him any kindness, to be under the same roof, to read anything he has written, or to step within “four cubits” (roughly six feet) of him.

Damn. This was the most extreme excommunication ever handed down to a Jew in Holland. Ever. And we don’t really know why. The herem doesn’t say. As far as anyone knows he hadn’t penned a word of his treatise yet, or of ‘Ethics’ (his philosophical masterpiece). Whatever it was that he said or wrote he received the full attention of Polish rabbinical authority. And it was unforgivable.

If this alone doesn’t make you want to get better acquainted with Baruch Spinoza and his philosophies, to read and savor every word of Steven Nadler’s richly informative A Book Forged in Hell, I don’t think I want to know you. Stay four cubits away from me.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise

About 25 years ago, I was engaged in serious graduate study in philosophy and preparing to write a dissertation on Spinoza's "Theological-Political Treatise" (1670). I have had a lifelong interest in Spinoza and was interested in the Treatise because of the questions of how to interpret texts it raises in terms of its treatment of the Bible. Also, at the time, the Treatise was receiving far less attention than Spinoza's most famous work, the "Ethics". I never completed the dissertation but retained my interest in Spinoza and the Treatise.

The Treatise has received substantial attention since the time I was closely engaged with it. Historian Jonathan Israel has written a trilogy of lengthy, difficult books showing the great influence of Spinoza and the Treatise on Enlightenment thought and on the French and American Revolutions. "Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750", "Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752", "Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750-1790". Steven Nadler's new study, "A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" (2011) is much more accessible than Israel's studies and has a different focus. Nadler's aim is to offer a study of the Treatise to a general readership rather than simply to an academic audience in order to explain the book, its teachings, and its significance. Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin -- Madison. He is the author of many books on Spinoza including a biography,"Spinoza: A Life", a study of Spinoza's excommunication, , and a study of Spinoza's Ethics,"Spinoza's 'Ethics': An Introduction".

Nadler quite properly emphasizes the radical revolutionary character of Spinoza's Treatise. The title of Nadler's book derives from one of the many criticisms leveled at the Treatise shortly after its publication. One Willem van Blijenburgh, who had been a correspondent of Spinoza's, wrote a lengthy book refuting the Treatise in which he said: "This atheistic book is full of studious abominations and an accumulation of opinions which have been forged in hell, which every reasonable person, indeed every Christian, should find abhorrent." Nadler documents many similar comments about the book as well as the events which led to the ban on the book two years after its publication. More importantly, Nadler explains what it was in Spinoza's Treatise that so disturbed its contemporary readers.

The Treatise concerns the relationship between religion and government and between religion and philosophy, broadly construed to include all forms of intellectual inquiry. Spinoza was concerned with religious wars, limitations on thought, and clerics influence on civil government. In a way that manages to be both cautious and bold, the Treatise takes a naturalistic view of God and prophecy, denies the existence of miracles, and takes a historical approach to the composition and interpretation of Scripture. Spinoza finds the Bible the work of human beings writing at particular times. Religion's goals are ethical in that it teaches people to be kind to one another, but it does not have further cognitive or doctrinal teachings. In a free society, for Spinoza, people should be free to believe as they wish. As Nadler quotes the basic teaching of the Treatise: "The state can pursue no safer course than to regard piety and religion as consisting solely in the exercise of charity and just dealing, and that the right of the sovereign, both in religious and secular spheres, should be restricted to men's actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he will and to say what he thinks."

Nadler's book begins with some brief biographical information about Spinoza and about his famous excommunication from the Amsterdam Jewish community. He also gives some important historical information about the Netherlands in Spinoza's day. Although there was in fact a larger degree of religious toleration in the Netherlands than in any other European community at the time, it was precarious and threatened by conflicts between monarchists and ecclesiastics on one hand and dissenting sects on the other hand. Spinoza wrote against a backdrop which thus contained both elements of liberty and the threat of repression. His aim was to increase the former. While there are universal lessons to be drawn from the Treatise, Nadler emphasizes that the book is also the product of a particular time and place. (For example, he writes: Moreover, while the Treatise remains of great relevance today, it is also a response to very particular and very complex historical exigencies, and we do not do it justice by trying to make it fit some transhistorical category of theories."

Most of the book consists of Nadler's close reading and exposition of Spinoza's text on the nature of god and prophecy, miracles, Scriptural interpretation and authorship, and political philosophy. Nadler ties the teachings of the Treatise to the teachings of Spinoza's much more obscure "Ethics". Nadler also draws important parallels between Spinoza and other thinkers. Thomas Hobbes receives attention throughout, both in the way Spinoza followed and the way he differed from him. Nadler also pays attention to the great medieval Jewish thinker Maimonides and offers his views on what Spinoza learned from Maimonides and where he disagreed. Nadler compares Spinoza's treatment of miracles in the Treatise with the famous work on the subject by a subsequent philosopher, David Hume, as well as with medieval Jewish and Christian understandings of miracles. Spinoza's views on tolerance and free speech are compared and contrasted with the views of John Locke, John Milton, and of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. The book considers Spinoza's alleged role as the first "secular Jew" (which Nadler rejects) and Spinoza's role as the founder of a philosophy of secularism and of secular government (which Nadler accepts.)

Although long relegated to obscurity, the Treatise has been a book of pervasive and lasting influence. As Nadler concludes:

"Without a doubt, the Theological-Political Treatise is one of the most important and influential books in the history of philosophy, in religious and political thought, and even in Bible studies. More than any other work, it laid the foundation for modern critical and historical approaches to the Bible. And while often overlooked in books on the history of political thought, the Treatise also has a proud and well-deserved place in the rise of democratic theory, civil liberties, and political liberalism. The ideas of the Treatise inspired republican revolutionaries in England, America, and France, and it encouraged early modern anticlerical and antisectarian movements."

I enjoyed revisiting the Treatise and thinking about it again through reading Nadler's study. Readers with a broad interest in philosophy and in ideas will benefit from Nadler's book and perhaps receive encouragement to read Spinoza's own book for themselves.

Robin Friedman

[David S. T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

My interest in philosophy started only a little over half a year ago; I read Durant's History of Philosophy and I've slowly read more in the months after. From Durant's book the philosopher I've been most interested in is Spinoza. Here was this renegade Jew whom questioned the bible and the faith of his fathers only to be excommunicated and later wrote a few political and religious texts. Eventually I'm going to attempt to tackle his Ethics, but the geometric style sort of scares me (furthermore I have absolutely no training in philosophy). In the mean time I'm going to read his more accessible Theological-Political Treatise (referred to in early criticisms as a 'book forged in hell'); this lead me to this excellent introduction from Nadler.

This book covers a brief history of Spinoza, the environment he lived in, the events leading up to his publishing of TPT, and the aftermath of the book. Here you have the common stories such as Spinoza developing the ideas of his version of God which got him excommunicated from the Jewish community, the death of his friend for publishing a book questioning the rationality of religion, Spinoza wanting to publish The Ethics only to decide to write TPT in order to prove that he wasn't an atheist and to better get the public ready for his ideas which would be in the later published book (only to have this backfire when most who read his book labeled him as an atheist). It doesn't cover all of Spinoza's life and death, although Nadler has written a comprehensive biography on Spinoza (one which I plan to read).

The bulk of the book covers themes and ideas in TPT along with comparisons to the works which inspired Spinoza. It seems that the major influences on TPT are Hobbes's Leviathan and Maimonides's Guide to the Perplexed. For someone like myself who is interested in religious texts, the TPT sounds very interesting. Written at a time when the majority of the public considered the bible as almost directly dictated by god (similar to the modern Islamic view of the Quran), Spinoza attempted to question that notion and prove that not only is the bible a man made book, but that the common assumptions such as those like authorship of it were wrong (for example Moses didn't author the Torah), and he supported the redactor view that Ezra was likely the later compiler/editor of the Hebrew bible and Ezra was rushed, which explains the sometimes contradictory nature of it (ie compare Genesis 1 with 2-3). The influence of this early criticism is still felt today, with this book leading the way to later higher and historical criticisms of the bible.

Moving away from the religious themes, the TPT also presents one of the earliest major philosophic arguments for democracy. He highly supports religious freedom and freedom to philosophize (one of the major reasons for attacking the scriptures was to lessen religious constraints). One of the things I did find odd though was that apparently Spinoza supported a state religion, I guess he wants the average man to follow these teachings (while still allowing complete freedom for religious toleration).

Overall this book was excellent, in the past few weeks I've read a few popular accounts of Spinoza and I liked this one the best. Nadler's book was accessible and did the best job explaining the philosophy (although I he did have the benefit of not getting far into the more complicated philosophy of The Ethics). I feel ready to finally tackle my first Spinoza the TPT. When I finally feel ready to read The Ethics, I'll be sure to first pick up Nadler's introduction.

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

شرح سبينوزا مضمون كت��به “الرسالة في اللاهوت والسياسة” بقوله: “وفيها تتم البرهنة على أن حرية التفلسف لا تمثل خطراً على التقوى (الدين) أو على سلامة الدولة، بل إن في القضاء عليها قضاء على سلامة الدولة وعلى التقوى ذاتها في آن واحد”.


كتاب يقرأ من خلاله نادلر بأسلوبه الرصين في التاريخ المحيط بالرسالة اللاهوتية السياسية ل اسبينوزا. والتي يراها واحدة من أهم الكتب وأكثرها تأثيرًا على الإطلاق. وكيف تلقاها الدارسون والفلاسفة والعلماء ورجال الدين في عصره. عن إمكان حدوث المعجزات، وفصل الدين عن السياسية، ودفاع سبينوزا عن حرية الفكر والتعبير والمعتقد، وتمجيده للعقل والفكر الفلسفي، كلها أشياء أصبحت لاحقا أحد المكتسبات الأساسية للحداثة الأوروبية. وغيرها من المواضيع التي أثارت الكثير من الجدل حول شخصه وفكره؛ في العلاقة بين الايمان والفلسفة عند اسبينوزا.

يستكشف الكتاب حجج الرسالة وتأثيرها على الفكر الأوروبي. ويكتب أن الكتاب كان "عملًا رائدًا في الفلسفة السياسية ونقد الكتاب المقدس الذي تحدى بشكل أساسي الفهم التقليدي للعلاقة بين الدين والحكومة". الفلسفة ليست ضد الدين بقدر ما هي ضد قَولبَة العقل وتعليبهِ باسم الدين والإيمان كما يذكر سبينوزا.

كتب نادلر أيضًا أن "الرسالة اللاهوتية السياسية" كانت "واحدة من أكثر الكتب التي تم نشرها فضيحة على الإطلاق"- سبينوزا.. “فضيحة العصر.” وصفه أحدهم على النحو التالي: “انه الكتاب الأشد كفرا في التاريخ“! وقال آخر عنه إنه “تم تأليفه في جهنم، من قبل يهودي مارق مرتد وبمعونة الشيطان. فالمؤلف يستهزئ فيه بالرسل والحواريين. وفي رأيه أنه لم تحصل أبدا معجزات، ومن المستحيل أن تحصل. فهناك نظام صارم في الطبيعة لا يفلت منه أحد”.

ويشير إلى أن الكتاب تم حظره على الفور من قبل السلطات الدينية والعلمانية، وأن سبينوزا نفسه تم حرمانه من الطائفة اليهودية. ارتكزت فلسفته على تفسير ثوري للتوراة والإنجيل (أي للكتاب المقدس). إضافة إلى نقده لتاريخ اليهود القديم أو نقده اللاهوت اليهودي بالدرجة الأولى.

بشكل عام ، يتحدى الكتاب بشكل أساسي الفهم التقليدي للعلاقة بين الدين والحكومة. وتم حظره على الفور من قبل السلطات الدينية والعلمانية.
كما كان للكتاب أثر عميق في الفكر الأوروبي، وساعد في إرساء أسس عصر التنوير ونشوء العلمانية.

للمهتمين بتاريخ الفلسفة، أو تاريخ الأديان، أو تاريخ التنوير ، اقرؤوا هذا الكتاب.

[Márcio · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been meaning to learn more about Bento (Baruch) de Spinoza since, as a teen, I had to make a presentation for a conversation class at language school where I learned English. The theme I chose was human rights and while preparing it, I came across some interesting information on the Netherlander philosopher of Portuguese origin, and I must say that regardless of being quite repetitive sometimes, Steven Nadler A book forged in hell was as informative as I wished for.

Spinoza was born in the 17th century, more exactly in 1632 Amsterdam, thus in a time and place that allowed the exchange of thoughts and ideas much easier than in his Sephardic parents' Portugal, where the Catholic Inquisition was devastating the New Christian communities, not even sparing the Jews who lived in Brazil, a colony then.

Regardless of having a traditional Jewish upbringing, at 23 Spinoza was expelled and shunned from the Jewish community for heresy. As a free thinker, he surpassed Descartes and Thomas Hobbes, who didn't dare write as boldly as Spinoza did.

For some, his philosophy is pantheistic. For others, atheistic. Yet, he seemed not to contest the existence of God but believes the proper way to understand the essence of God is by objective study and reason, not one of fervor and fear:

The vilest hypocrites, urged on by that same fury which they call zeal for God’s law, have everywhere prosecuted men whose blameless character and distinguished qualities have excited the hostility of the masses, publicly denouncing their beliefs and inflaming the savage crowd’s anger against them. And this shameless license, sheltering under the cloak of religion, is not easy to suppress. (—Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise)

(...) he certainly does believe in what he calls the “true religion,” that is, the basic rational moral principles that lead to principles, above all, to love one’s neighbor as oneself. (Nadler)

His philosophy is one of a universal moral principle based on reason and that can lead to the highest form of moral form, that is, to love one's neighbor as oneself, thus placing democracy as the adequate form of government:

Sovereignty is vested in all the citizens, and laws are sanctioned by common consent. In such a community the people would remain equally free whether laws were multiplied or diminished, since it would act not from another’s bidding but from its own consent.

To make it short, the greatness of Spinoza's philosophy is to bring reason to the spotlight and allow our minds to see the clear sense of things, of the world. Thus, it is a utopia, because human greed is far stronger than reason itself, and we see it all over the world up to this day, where norms and thousands of doctrines prevail over faith; where religious thought, instead of bringing a sense of humanity and worldness, brings division, prejudice, hate, death, idiocy, or as in good old Latin: stultitia.

No wonder that even in the fairer and somehow more liberal Netherlands, his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was called a book forged in hell. It is just that it is heavenly for those who can use reason to understand it and set their biased ideas aside.

I stand with Spinoza.

[Adam Floridia · Rating 2 out of 5]

One time for Christmas, I used my credit card points to get Erin jewelry for Christmas. Full of joy that Xmas morning, I handed her my thoughtful gift with a twinkle in my eye and love in my heart. She opened the small box and her eyes lit up and her mouth fell agape. "Gross!" she gagged. I told her that if she just tried the necklace and earrings on, maybe she'd like them. "If I put that on, I think I'll puke," she replied. From that day forth, I have sworn to never again order jewelry off of the internet (credit card points or no).

There's a parable in there. I always get excited by a new book about, for lack of better words, how religion is stupid and nonsensical. However, whenever I order said book and begin to read, I realize that I'm really wasting my time. These books usually make very logical arguments about how Scripture is not divine law, how religion was/is a socio-political tool, how miracles are ways of stupid people explaining things they don't understand, etc. ad nauseam. Because I've mulled all these ideas over myself and come to pretty concrete personal conclusions, I don't need to read pages upon pages of logical refutation of religions' quackeries. I'm on board. I've had these ideas--sure, not expressed nearly as coherently or articulately, but the central argument is one that I have exhausted myself. So I swear that I won't buy another book like this; I won't waste my money. Aaaaand...just as sure as Erin is getting internet jewelry this Christmas, I end up buying another about how religion is stupid and nonsensical.

As is typical, this book has some great passages--passages that distill some of my central beliefs into pithily worded quotations. But for the most part it's freakin' dry. Boring history; boring summaries (oft repeated) of Spinoza's other seminal work; boring meanderings that stray from Spinoza's actual treatise. Still, I'll admit that my dissatisfaction is mostly my fault. If I had wanted to read Spinoza's treatise, I should have read Spinoza's treatise, not a book promising to give history, summary, and contextual meanderings. Nevertheless, I would still say this book is not intended for a general public readership.

Finally, I must admit that if I had a bookshelf marked "started but did not finish," then this would be one of the only a handful of books on it. I tried to finish it, I really did. But a smart man knows when it's time to





New Year's Resolutions: No more books about religion no matter how sensational the title and no more internet jewelry...maybe.

[Brad Lyerla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) is regarded as one of the most original thinkers in western philosophy. A BOOK FORGED IN HELL is Stephen Nadler's account of Spinoza's TRACTATUS THEOLOGICO-POLITICUS (the 'Treatise'), which was published in 1670.

The Treatise was motivated by politics. Spinoza hoped to persuade influential people in the Dutch Republic to support greater freedom for the pursuit of philosophy and science. The Treatise failed to accomplish Spinoza's goal and instead provoked a backlash from religious authorities that resulted in the book being banned across Europe.

I read Nadler's book out of curiosity. I have been a casual reader of philosophy since undergraduate days. Despite reading widely, I have not read anything by Spinoza except a few random excerpts here and there. Nor have I read another philosopher (save one) who acknowledged any intellectual debt to Spinoza. Yet, everyone seems to agree that he was highly influential. I hoped Nadler would help me to understand his influence.

Let me begin with where I am aware of Spinoza's influence. Leo Strauss, the 20th century political philosopher, acknowledged the influence of Spinoza in his own writings. One area where Spinoza seems to have influenced Strauss is in the way that Strauss understood the difference between revelation and knowledge.

In Spinoza's time, one of the great controversies was between the 'dogmatics' who believed that when science contradicted scripture, then scripture should be read metaphorically to resolve the conflict, and 'skeptics' who doubted the authority of science and believed that, in cases of conflict, scripture always trumps science. Spinoza tried to bridge this controversy by showing that science and scripture are compatible.

Spinoza's attempt at reconciliation was not fully satisfactory. But it may have opened the door for Strauss' great insight that religious revelation and scientific knowledge are two separate and distinct things that do not conform to the same rules and cannot contradict one another. As I understand Strauss, revelation is not logical. It is not verifiable rationally or empirically. It is revealed to the believer through an unexplained agency. Knowledge, on the other hand, must conform to the rules of logic and can be verified rationally or empirically. Because revelation and knowledge exist in two different spheres with no rules in common, they cannot be cited against one another. One cannot refute the other.

Nadler tackles the question whether Spinoza was secretly converted to Christianity. This question has its roots in three facts. First, Spinoza was expelled from Judeaism as a young man for heretical views. Second, after his expulsion, most of his friends seem to have been free thinking Christians. Third, in the Treatise, Spinoza writes more approvingly of Christianity than of Judeaism, though he generally disapproves of all sectarian religions.

Nadler debunks Spinoza's supposed Christianity convincingly. Strauss considered Spinoza's gentleness in criticizing Christian dogma to be an example of 'esoteric' writing. But Nadler offers a more straightforward explanation. Spinoza wanted to persuade Christian intellectuals to join him in advocating for greater freedom to do science. He could not succeed if he alienated his audience by attacking their religion. But that does not require us to conclude that Spinoza had embraced Christianity.

On the contrary, Spinoza's views on the nature of God in his Treatise and more fully in his ETHICS published after his death, make it clear that he was no Christian. Rather, Spinoza seems to have been a pantheist of sorts. He equated God with nature and nature with God. They are co-extensive. This means that miracles, including prophecy, are not possible. The laws of nature are the very essence of God. God cannot work miracles because to do so would contravene his own essence. That makes the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracle of the Eucharist and the resurrection all impossibilities. Though Spinoza admired the moral teachings of the Christian bible, he certainly was no Christian.

So what was Spinoza's influence? Nadler seems to think that it was pervasive in the flourishing of secularism in the century following his death. Nadler may be right. But I cannot tell from his account. I am inclined to think that the seeds of the secularism that flourished in the 18th century were planted by Hobbes, Spinoza's older contemporary, who did not write as boldly as Spinoza in denying miracles, prophecy and the authority of scripture, but who wrote more subversively. Hobbes did not openly deny the truth of religious doctrine. He redefined the question of religion so that its truth no longer matters. After Hobbes, what matters is how religion makes us feel and behave, not whether it saves us.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baruch Spinoza is my favorite philosopher whom I have barely read. I’ve read much about him and his thought, but his original writings are incredibly opaque to anyone not a trained philosopher. My training stopped with a few undergraduate courses, so while I have the interest, I don’t always have the tools to fully understand dense, technical philosophic works.

A Theologico-Political Treatise is sole work of Spinoza’s that I’ve read. While it is slightly more accessible than his masterwork, The Ethics, it is still a difficult book. I could follow its gist, comprehend some of his larger points, but I often was lost both in his opaque language, and in the screen of pious lip serves that he included to soften his more radical ideas about religion from the wrath of the orthodox religionists of his time.

So that makes me the intended audience for Steven Nadler’s book A Book Forged In Hell. It is written precisely to make The Theologico-Political Treaties accessible to a general audience. He accomplishes this task remarkably well.

The book does several things. Foremost, it tackles the original book, section by section, and explains in clear, modern language the salient points Spinoza was making. This alone makes the book invaluable, for Spinoza was doing important work here. He was demystifying the Bible, laying the groundwork for studying it as a historical document rather than Divine Revelation, and anticipating the Higher Criticism by over a century. Together with this, he was attacking the very idea of clerical authority over the state, becoming the grandfather of secular society and laying the first bricks in the Wall of Separation between church and state.

But beyond just making Spinoza’s work accessible, Nadler also provides important context. He explains Spinoza’s personal history. He explains the political and religious situation of the Dutch State where Spinoza lived and wrote. He gives details of other contemporary philosophical works, such as Hobbes Leviathan, how it may have influenced Spinoza, and how the works differed. He explains how the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides influenced Spinoza’s thinking and where they differed. And he explains the reception and reaction that Spinoza’s contemporaries gave to his work.

You could read this book by itself and gain a sufficient understanding of Spinoza’s book that is a building block of our modern, secular society. Or, you could read it together with Spinoza’s original to gain better insight into it. Either way, this is an excellent work for anyone with an interest in these important subjects.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Imagine a world where there is only one reality (substance) with an infinite number of attributes and any digression from that agreed upon reality from the stifling suffocating consensus based on foundationless authority can lead to punishment by death or imprisonment. That’s the world Spinoza was thrown into and in some ways it’s not that much different from our current world with the MAGA hat hate spewing fanatics replacing the stifling suffocating consensus keeping fanatics from Spinoza's time. (In Texas today (9/2021) they will arrest you for thinking of having an abortion or aiding such a person and they will shame you for wearing a mask or getting a vaccine against Covid. The world is just as fucked up today as it was in Spinoza’s time).

Spinoza realizes that the reality that is given by his contemporaries is full of mischief and uses their assumptions, relationships, and context that they embrace while overturning their deviously perverted system by using their own paradigms. Biblical exegesis with no special pleading and a firm commitment to ratio (rational thought with causal relationships leading to reason) while always respecting the traditions of the believers gives a world-shattering interpretation and results in one of the most important books ever written, the Theological-Political Treatise.


For those who have not read Spinoza’s two great works, the Ethics, or his TTP or have not read Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplex or Hobbes’ Leviathan or Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment I would highly recommend this book, but, for me, I have read those books and found this book to be mostly a re-working of things I already have read and I would heartily recommend it for those who are not familiar with those other sources since this book is at an introductory level and quotes often from those sources.

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to dissent from other Goodreads reviewers of this book, I suppose partly because I was misled by the provocative title into thinking that it would be similar to the recent semi-bestseller The Swerve, by Stephen Greenblatt. But it is definitely not for the general reader: it is a scholarly book for a relatively narrow audience, lightly edited to make it seem more relevant to general interests. Spinoza's scandalous treatise was widely condemned for declaring that the Bible is not literally the word of God, but is a work of literature by men; that sectarian dogma is not the same thing as religion; and that states should not be governed by religious authorities. This was interesting to me, since I just finished a book on the philosophy of Pascal, who died just eight years before the publication of Spinoza's treatise, and who would have been one of the people most scandalized by it. This is a useful reminder of how far independent philosophical thought had come by 1670. Otherwise there was little here to intrigue me. Here is Nadler's concluding paragraph, attempting to make the case for general interest:
"To the extent that we are committed to the ideal of a secular society free of ecclesiastic influence and governed by toleration, liberty, and a conception of civic virtue; and insofar as we think of true religious piety as consisting in treating other human beings with dignity and respect, and regard the Bible simply as a profound work of human literature with a universal moral message, we are the heirs of Spinoza's scandalous treatise."
OK. Some of us might think that "true religious piety" might include rather more than that, but otherwise not a very arguable conclusion. Or a very compelling one.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title makes it sound like Spinoza once played drums for Spinal Tap: Direct from Hell, it's the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus!, but the book itself is bound to disappoint those looking for a salacious story of Satan at the forge. Spinoza was a mundane character with a mundane point of view, which in a way is what caused all the fuss: he denied the historical reality of miracles in the Bible, and he suggested that Biblical stories should not be taken literally. That point of view still raises hackles in some segments of society, but in the 17th century it was indeed scandalous, even in the fairly tolerant Dutch Republic.

Nadler's approach is serious and scholarly, and it focuses more on Spinoza's philosophy and life than on the "scandal", though that is part of the story as well. It serves best as an introduction to the thought of Spinoza as evinced in the Theological-Political Treatise, and to Spinoza's interpretation of religion in general. Nadler's detailed forays into 17th century Dutch politics are less than riveting, but historical context matters. I was hoping at the end that Spinoza would evaporate in a spontaneous explosion, but apparently he died the death of a typical mortal and went to heaven like all good philosophers.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is well done, clearly written, and the author does a great job explaining Spinoza's ideas, which are clearly very important in the history of philosophy. He also does a great job putting Spinoza in context, which was my favorite aspect of the book. However, (and this is not Nadler's fault), I just don't care all that much about the metaphysical and religious aspects of Spinoza's thought, which are very abstract to me, so I found some sections of the book a little dull.

Here's why Spinoza matters: he argued for a naturalistic form of religion that privileged morality over doctrine, mythology, and the supernatural. He said that nature is essentially God, and that its rules are never broken, which means that in a sense the supernatural does not exist, meaning no miracles, of course. He views God in a sort of deist way, as in God created the universe and its laws but has not human traits, emotions, desires, etc and does not intervene in human affairs. He argued for religious freedom much more than pretty much anyone of his time, but he also thought that the state, for the sake of domestic harmony and unity, should endorse a general religion with rites, ceremonies, and so on. This reflects the elitism of Spinoza's thought: he believed that ordinary people needed order, ceremony, mythology, and other elaborate things to remain moral and restrained. I think this was the biggest weakness of Spinoza's thought: on one hand he believes that most of religion is an attempt to mystify the ordinary people while taking their freedom and dominating them, but he then endorses doing a form of that to the "ordinary" folks, whom he sees as simplistic and emotional. Thus, Spinoza endorses one form of morality and social contract for elites like himself and a totally different one for the common people. I may be misreading him here, but this is why I was skeptical that he should be counted as a "democratic" thinker. I suppose he is liberal in a broad sense, and he certainly took a big step toward modern secularism.

However, I found Spinoza's political thought in general to be a bit confusing. He's sort of a Hobbesian in that he believes people form social contract and grant power to an executive to keep the peace. However, he's much more of a democrat than Hobbes, although he still had a very expansive view of executive power, in contrast to a more restrictive thinker like Locke. I think he could best be described as a defender of private autonomy and belief who still believed in a more authoritarian public sphere. I'm not sure he or Nadler worked out those tensions, and Nadler indeed refers to these tensions throughout the book.

Nadler does a great job with the history here, but some of the philosophy I just didn't find that interesting. I don't find metaphysics, epistemology, or debates about the nature of God very interesting (particularly because I don't believe in God), and that's a big chunk of this book. I like political and ethical thought, so I enjoyed those sections. I guess you could say that I'm standing on the shoulders of giants like Spinoza who paved much of the path to my secular, liberal worldview, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in the rehashing of all of those debates. Still, this is a good intro to Spinoza's thought and to the intellectual and political world of the Netherlands in the mid-17th century.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think what I enjoyed most about this book is how well Nadler describes the context for Spinoza's philosophy: the liberal (but not always) state in Amsertdam; Hobbes and Descartes shaking up thought at the time; the conservatism and resistance of religious dogma; and so on.

That much of Spinoza's works were a response to the times and those that resisted his philosophy was very interesting, as I often read works like these disembedded from the context.

The author suggests that it is the message of tolerance that best represents Spinoza's Treatise:

“The state can pursue no safer course than to regard piety and religion as consisting solely in the exercise of charity and just dealing, and that the right of the sovereign, both in religious and secular spheres, should be restricted to men’s actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he will and to say what he thinks.”

But I very much like his argument to conflate the idea of God with Nature:

“God created Nature so ineffective and prescribed for her laws and rules so barren that he is often constrained to come once more to her rescue if he wants her to be preserved, and the course of events to be as he desires. This I consider to be utterly divorced from reason.” [Spinoza]

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fine little heresy.

Spinoza's 1670 "Theological-Political Treatise" took the view that the Bible (primarily the Old Testament) could not be taken literally and should instead be read as a more literary/metaphorical text for to do otherwise would be to limit God to our own anthropomorphic emotions and tendencies and also as a way to counter the abuse of the clerisy across most aspects of society. Diving a hard liune between philosophy and theology, and never the twain shall meet, Spinoza challenged the orthodox views of prophecy, ceremony, and even the divine provenance of miracles. Suffice it to say, he was not the most popular guy at church parties.

Nadler's 2011 "A Book Forged in Hell" (a description given to Spinoza's Treatise at the time) walks the reader through Spinoza's thinking and how his Treatise came to be written (for a general audience while his "Ethics" was a more analytic and less accessible work espousing his overall philosophy). Just as much a work of religious philosophy as it was a political response to what Spinoza saw as the corrupting influence of the clerical class, Nadler expertly helps the reader understand the multiple threads Spinoza was working with as well as the institutional reactions thereto. A solid and enlightening look at a seminal philosophical work.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this in-depth exploration of the man and his philosophy. Nadler does an excellent job bringing Spinoza and his thoughts to life, set against the backdrop of the 17th century Dutch Republic's Golden Age; for an excellent accompanying primer be sure to read Roger Scruton's Spinoza: A Very Short Introduction.

[Campbell Rider]

barook spinozer

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

How was Spinoza's writing shocking and why was it? Those are the two questions Nadler answers. Having read a fair amount about Spinoza, I found the long passages explaining his philosophy a bit tedious. I found the cultural aspect more interesting--for instance, Nadler's take on why so many people who should have been sympathetic turned on Spinoza. I believe he is probably right that those less radical than Spinoza both did not want to be associated with him and felt that turning on him might save them from the same fate.

[John Xavier · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The more a government strives to curtail freedom of speech, the more obstinately is it resisted; not indeed by the avaricious… but by those whom good education, sound morality, and virtue have rendered more free.” – Spinoza

The great works of philosophy all have at least one thing in common; they are all disruptive. Like a sudden unruly star plunging through some unsuspecting solar system, they sweep the planets from their usual orbits and cast them aside in trembling chaos. Of course, it has to be that way. Progress comes from overcoming entrenched falsehoods, so any revolutionary insight will inevitably introduce radical upheaval into the existing state of affairs. And, to a certain extent, a work’s historical impact can be measured by its seismic consequences.

Which is not to say that the value of a book can be easily correlated with its status at any given time. Some works, like those of John Donne, receive initial acclaim but fall out of appreciation and are only later reaffirmed in their greatness. Others are ignored to begin with but then slowly rise in public estimation. And then another kind is immediately condemned, reviled even, but outlives the convictions of those who once degraded it; in this third group Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus stands as one of history’s most notable examples. Although Spinoza’s political ideas haven’t traditionally been those for which he’s most well-known, his pantheism being the main focal point of his reputation, it could be argued that his work in proselytizing for religious neutrality in civil society and for the pre-eminence of reason in assessing any doctrine, including religious ones, was in the end his most impactful contribution. Even Einstein, the most distinguished Spinozist of the 20th century, owed as much to the famous philosopher’s societal teachings as he did to Spinoza’s cosmological ones.

And still there is a curious void in the public discourse when it comes to Spinoza. Especially in politics. Despite being maybe the most eloquent defender of a modern style republic for his time, his political contributions aren’t even acknowledged in the ways that Locke’s and Hobbes’ are; and of course philosophers aren’t cited that much anyways. Here however, Steven Nadler stepped in to offer a work that feels like an earnest attempt at historical correction; to rectify the oversight that’s occurred in relation to one of the most controversial books to ever be published. One gets the sense that the author is embarking on a personal mission and there are mild didactic undertones throughout but, overall, the book is successful at what it sets out to do; highlight the immense importance of a philosophical classic.

The title of the book however does it a bit of a disservice by misdirection. Although there are a few sections of the narrative where the reader gets to experience something of the thrill and intrigue of the Dutch Golden Age, this book is more often than not a careful professorial survey of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ primary claims. Something much dryer then than the title, probably chosen by the publisher, would lead one to believe. And, to be perfectly honest, the book sags somewhat in the middle; I doubt the average reader will be much more interested in Spinoza’s disproof of miracles than I was, either because they’re already firmly convinced of their non-existence or because their convictions run the other way and Spinoza’s arguments here are fairly conventional for contemporary readers. But this rough patch aside, the book does much better in its beginning and ending thirds; also, the only really objectionable part I found in the book was its repeating of the Galileo myth (Yes, science has its own myths too) that portrays Galileo as a passive victim of persecution. No. He was absolutely right, sure, but insulting the Pope the way he did was itself hubris and stupidity.

Spinoza conversely receives his just dues as a martyr for the truth here; not quite at the level of Socrates or Bruno but movingly nonetheless. I wasn’t aware of the role that a friend of Spinoza’s being persecuted to death played in the writing of his book either and even more of an emphasis on those kinds of things would have been welcome. As it is though, the book was enjoyable and provides a good companion volume to a work that did as much as any to liberate the human mind.

[Ian Gillies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spinoza was surely one of the bravest philosophers, swimming conscientiously against the tides of religious and ideological intolerance roiling the Netherlands in the mid to late sixteenth century. Expelled from the community of Jewish traders he grew up in for his heretical views (termed "monstrous" by local rabbis) Spinoza lived a simple, solitary life while building a systematic view of religion, politics and ethics that challenged the powers of his times and influenced the course of philosophy to this day. Many of his insights, such as the identification of God with nature, may seem acceptable and moderate to us today but in his times such views were considered blasphemous and seditious. The "Book Forged in Hell" was the term given specifically to Spinoza's Theological Political Treatise by Dutch theologians and political leaders (often the same people) after it was published in the 1670s. The book argued for a surgical separation of church and state and freedom to philosophize. It also argued for the merits democracy and the rule of law over ecclesiastical or hereditary powers. Steven Nadler is steeped in the writing and times of Spinoza and I believe is a trustworthy interpreter of his life. The book is well written, comprehensive in its treatment of the Treatise and engaging but perhaps the language does not sparkle so that is why I only rated it three stars. However, I will go on to read Nadler's biography of Spinoza. A closing comment from the book which summarizes the ground covered by Spinoza's thought - "To the extent that we are committed to an ideal of a secular society free of ecclesiastic influence and governed by toleration, liberty and a conception of civic virtue; and insofar as we think of true religious piety as consisting in treating other human beings with dignity and respect and regard the bible simply as a profound work of human literature with a universal moral message, we are all heirs to Spinoza's scandalous treatise".

[Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nadler writes about an interesting figure, Spinoza, and makes the case that his book, Theological-Political Treatise, is the one of the most important books in European intellectual history.

After reading Nadler’s book, I agree with him, though I do not think Nadler’s book does a great job of articulating why the book is important. Nadler spends much of his book unpacking the Treatise, rather than explaining the reaction its publication caused throughout Europe.

A stronger book would have focused less on objects, like the book, and more on characters. I think that the weakness of Nadler’s history is that it makes invisible the people involved in this story and focuses too much on the ideas.

Ideas are important in intellectual history, but they are only important because those ideas matter to people, they set people on fire for or against them. Intellectual historians like Nadler frequently take the value of ideas as self-evident, burying themselves and their work in arguments over minutiae about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. A stronger work would have done more to show how the publication of the Treatise set off an explosion in Europe.

[Donna Herrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spinoza was ejected from his Jewish congregation and censored by Dutch authorities for these controversial writings where he argues for God and against religion with its rituals and fantabulisms. His writings were and are still considered to be heretical, hence being only briefly mentioned in high school history. But they set the stage for secular society as opposed to competing religious sects.
So, the fact that we have here a book that talks about Spinoza's ideas and how they were received at the time is a wonderful service. Still, this involves long, complicated excerpts. I think that listening to it is a great introduction to the topic. If you feel inclined to explore my deeply, then read the book.

[Roy Kenagy · Rating 4 out of 5]

RK AUDIBLE

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophy can be a dry discipline but Spinoza's life and works are a notable exception. Indeed, reading about the trials and tribulations of this remarkable freethinker is a constant source of inspiration, excitement, tragedy, and drama for me and others. Nadler is an acclaimed Spinoza biographer. He has chosen to focus, here, on a single book of his, the Theological-Political Treatise. Before talking about Nadler's book, let me say a few words about the Treatise. Spinoza novices who do not know where to start, or who are intimidated (as they should be) by the "geometric" method of demonstration (really, organization) in his masterwork, Ethics, have no excuse not to delve into the Treatise as their entry point. This prescient book of Bible criticism, sociology, history and philosophy, which was condemned as a "book forged in hell" (and later lauded as a masterwork of religious scholarship) because of its radical implications, is a remarkably lucid, well written, and relevant piece of writing that helps to illuminate his philosophy and the radical Enlightenment critique of organized religion, prophecy, miracles, and the clergy.

Now, onto Nadler's book. It is well-written and engaging all the way through. It mixes serious philosophical and political discussion about the nature of humanity, society, and divinity with an exciting, all-too-human tale of daring, hope, struggle, friendship, and betrayal, peppered with many scandalous, tragic, and comedic details. The archives reveal a smorgasbord of juicy details from private correspondence, bureaucratic paperwork, and public pronouncements. There is a really fascinating story here, both secular and spiritual, that also happens to touch on issues of fundamental importance for human flourishing, freedom, and social organization. The better we understand the birth-pangs of the secular age, the better we understand our own. Nadler's great achievement is in letting the story speak for itself. This would make for a great TV series!

My only critique of the book is that it has a bit of an identity crisis. It is trying to cater to two audiences at once: people looking for a biography of the writing of the Treatise and those looking for a philosophical summary of its contents. This is exactly what it proceeds to do. On the one hand, it narrates the relevant biographical details of the author, and the cultural and political circumstances surrounding the creation, publication, and aftermath of the publication of the Treatise in the Dutch Republic. In this way, it serves as a side story, or a "spinoff," of his general biography, Spinoza: A Life. On the other hand, the book also tries to encapsulate and summarize, in a semi-scholarly but accessible way, the philosophical and scientific contents of the Treatise. These sections, too, are interesting and well-written, but they seem relatively more heavy-going and "scholastic." The book is roughly evenly split between these two parts. In serving two masters - philosophers and historians - he book often succeeds in capturing the best of both worlds, but some people will probably be put off by this duality. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some discussion about the long-tailed reception of the book in European history after Spinoza's death. At the same time, we lack many biographical details about Spinoza's life, so it may have been better to keep the story short rather than to engage in speculative historiography. And this allowed the author to keep the book focused and concise. It is the perfect length.

Why should people care about Spinoza? Even his detractors will acknowledge that he was a fascinating man, an important Enlightenment thinker, and a tireless truth-seeker. But it would be a mistake to think that Spinoza's historical "redemption arc" ended with the birth of the modern secular age characterized by increasing reliance on reason, science, and liberal democracy. Far from it! He still remains one of our sharpest contemporary critics and guides to the future. Our society has failed to live up to the high (but achievable) standards set by Spinoza. He showed that societies flourish, in both secular and spiritual ways, only when people are allowed to engage in free thinking and free speech as institutional tools of self-criticism, self-improvement, and self-transcendence. And it is precisely by studying the "book forged in hell" that the doors of Heaven (understood as the doors to living together well in a complex, evolving, and pluralistic society) open up.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent historical introduction to the TTP, as well as a decent primer of its contents.

[William Schram · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Book Forged in Hell is a book written by Steven Nadler. It discusses the critical response to Baruch Spinoza’s 1670 book called Theological-Political Treatise. Although I have read Ethics which was also authored by Spinoza, this particular book is more accessible to the mainstream person. This is also what made it far more dangerous to the ecclesiastical synods and other things. The Ethics of Baruch Spinoza is quite technical and filled with abstruse language, making it impenetrable to the common reader.

The book talks about the political, religious, and philosophical history behind the decisions to eventually ban the Theological-Political Treatise in the Dutch confederation and all across the world. The book is marvelously well-done and researched quite thoroughly. Given what the book actually said in print, I am astonished that it was even printed in the first place. Other books discussed this topic of miracles not being real and the Bible having a historical basis, not a divine one. However, Spinoza went too far in some cases, especially considering the sensibilities of the time.

Nadler’s main idea is that without Spinoza to blaze the trail, we might not have reached the Secular Age, or so I suppose. I assume that even without Spinoza the world would eventually have turned out the way it did; it just might have taken longer to accomplish.

I really enjoyed this book; it was difficult to put down and very informative.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nadler is to be commended for providing such a readable introduction to Spinoza's thought for non-specialists.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is interesting what gets people upset. Even atheists get riled when their beliefs and presuppositions are challenged. The Jewish leaders in Amsterdam didn't like Spinoza's close reading of the Old Testament so they excommunicated him. I thought only the Catholics and the pope excommunicated people. Spinoza focused on contradictions in the books of the prophets. He focused on the role of imagination in prophecy, but he didn't discount the prophets mystical experiences. After all Spinoza did believe in God, but for him God was nature. Like so many arguments about God this stance has a lot of problems.
Nader gives a thumbnail biography of Spinoza which sheds light on how his life informed his philosophy.

[Mike Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great and informative read on Spinoza and his work. Quite timely a read for 2021 and life in the government going-ons of the United States.

[Paul Spence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historian Jonathan Israel has written a trilogy of lengthy, difficult books showing the great influence of Spinoza and the Treatise on Enlightenment thought and on the French and American Revolutions. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750,Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750-1790.

Steven Nadler's new study, "A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" (2011) is much more accessible than Israel's study and has a different focus. Nadler's aim is to offer a study of the Treatise to a general readership rather than simply to an academic audience in order to explain the book, its teachings, and its significance. Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin -- Madison. He is the author of many books on Spinoza including a biography, Spinoza: A Life, a study of Spinoza's excommunication, Spinoza's Heresy: Immortality and the Jewish Mind, and a study of Spinoza's Ethics, Spinoza's 'Ethics': An Introduction (Cambridge Introductions to Key Philosophical Texts).

Nadler quite properly emphasizes the radical revolutionary character of Spinoza's Treatise. The title of Nadler's book derives from one of the many criticisms levelled at the Treatise shortly after its publication. One Willem van Blijenburgh, who had been a correspondent of Spinoza's, wrote a lengthy book refuting the Treatise in which he said: "This atheistic book is full of studious abominations and an accumulation of opinions which have been forged in hell, which every reasonable person, indeed every Christian, should find abhorrent." (p. 232) Nadler documents many similar comments about the book as well as the events which led to the ban on the book two years after its publication. More importantly, Nadler explains what it was in Spinoza's Treatise that so disturbed its contemporary readers.

The Treatise concerns the relationship between religion and government and between religion and philosophy, broadly construed to include all forms of intellectual inquiry. Spinoza was concerned with religious wars, limitations on thought, and clerics influence on civil government. In a way that manages to be both cautious and bold, the Treatise takes a naturalistic view of God and prophecy, denies the existence of miracles, and takes a historical approach to the composition and interpretation of Scripture. Spinoza finds the Bible the work of human beings writing at particular times. Religion's goals are ethical in that it teaches people to be kind to one another, but it does not have further cognitive or doctrinal teachings. In a free society, for Spinoza, people should be free to believe as they wish. As Nadler quotes the basic teaching of the Treatise: "The state can pursue no safer course than to regard piety and religion as consisting solely in the exercise of charity and just dealing, and that the right of the sovereign, both in religious and secular spheres, should be restricted to men's actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he will and to say what he thinks." (p.214)

Nadler's book begins with some brief biographical information about Spinoza and about his famous excommunication from the Amsterdam Jewish community. He also gives some important historical information about the Netherlands in Spinoza's day. Although there was in fact a larger degree of religious toleration in the Netherlands than in any other European community at the time, it was precarious and threatened by conflicts between monarchists and ecclesiastics on one hand and dissenting sects on the other hand. Spinoza wrote against a backdrop which thus contained both elements of liberty and the threat of repression. His aim was to increase the former. While there are universal lessons to be drawn from the Treatise, Nadler emphasizes that the book is also the product of a particular time and place. (For example, he writes: Moreover, while the Treatise remains of great relevance today, it is also a response to very particular and very complex historical exigencies, and we do not do it justice by trying to make it fit some transhistorical category of theories." p.207)

Most of the book consists of Nadler's close reading and exposition of Spinoza's text on the nature of god and prophecy, miracles, Scriptural interpretation and authorship, and political philosophy. Nadler ties the teachings of the Treatise to the teachings of Spinoza's much more obscure Ethics. Nadler also draws important parallels between Spinoza and other thinkers. Thomas Hobbes receives attention throughout, both in the way Spinoza followed and the way he differed from him. Nadler also pays attention to the great medieval Jewish thinker Maimonides and offers his views on what Spinoza learned from Maimonides and where he disagreed. Nadler compares Spinoza's treatment of miracles in the Treatise with the famous work on the subject by a subsequent philosopher, David Hume, as well as with medieval Jewish and Christian understandings of miracles. Spinoza's views on tolerance and free speech are compared and contrasted with the views of John Locke, John Milton, and of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. The book considers Spinoza's alleged role as the first "secular Jew" (which Nadler rejects) and Spinoza's role as the founder of a philosophy of secularism and of secular government (which Nadler accepts.)

Although long relegated to obscurity, the Treatise has been a book of pervasive and lasting influence. As Nadler concludes (p. 240):

"Without a doubt, the Theological-Political Treatise is one of the most important and influential books in the history of philosophy, in religious and political thought, and even in Bible studies. More than any other work, it laid the foundation for modern critical and historical approaches to the Bible. And while often overlooked in books on the history of political thought, the Treatise also has a proud and well-deserved place in the rise of democratic theory, civil liberties, and political liberalism. The ideas of the Treatise inspired republican revolutionaries in England, America, and France, and it encouraged early modern anticlerical and antisectarian movements."

I enjoyed revisiting the Treatise and thinking about it again through reading Nadler's study. Readers with a broad interest in philosophy and in ideas will benefit from Nadler's book and perhaps receive encouragement to read Spinoza's own book for themselves.