Lantern Theater's "New Jerusalem' (2nd review)

Others who write about New Jerusalem may celebrate the achievements of Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1677. I prefer to dwell more on the man who appears on stage.

This character, as written by David Ives and enacted by Sam Henderson, is a wonderful creation. He's warm, witty, altogether charming— traits that we don't normally associate with the real man. Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus never impressed me with its wit.

(Henderson does physically resemble the real Spinoza, whose ancestors were Portuguese. He looks young, and properly so: Spinoza was age 23 at the time of his trial.)

The play deals with Spinoza's excommunication trial in Amsterdam, allegedly for promoting atheism. His teachings might have been tolerated within his community; even Orthodox rabbis extol the Socratic virtue of asking questions, as Spinoza persisted in doing. But Dutch Calvinist officials deemed him a threat to society and demanded that the synagogue condemn him.

Spinoza's writings make clear that he believed in God, though in a most unorthodox way. He wrote of an impersonal God, not a fatherly God who cares about humanity. Spinoza postulated an "eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature," and he described a "divine nature" as opposed to a God with human attributes. Not until the late 19th Century, with the Jewish Reform movement, and new leadership in the Conservative rabbinate in the early 20th Century did Spinoza's ideas gain any acceptance within Judaism.

Good reason for expulsion

Today most of Spinoza's ideas seem sensible. But in 1656 his thinking was way out of bounds. Even Jewish laity (not to mention rabbis) in 1656 would have been offended by Spinoza's having a romance with a gentile woman, or by his assertion that the Torah was not the word of God. You could argue that Amsterdam's Talmud Torah Congregation had ample cause to expel him.

But this argument in no way excuses the Amsterdam officials who blamed all of the city's Jews for harboring Spinoza, and who demanded that the congregation excommunicate him. Their scapegoating was extreme, as Ives makes clear: "There is evil abroad in our city, and you people are the source of it. Our city must be purged!"

The play's conflicts between Christians and Jews, between native Dutch and immigrants, between men of principle and those who compromise, provide great drama as well as warm moments. Spinoza contended that every act of humans and other animals was divine. As the stage Spinoza tells his young friend:

"Two Jews are talking. One says to the other that the fish market is running a sale on fresh fish. Cod normally is $4 and today it's $2. He buys one for $2. So what is the true price of cod? His friend says $4. The other Jew responds that is wrong because the purchase was $2. So is $2 the true price? No. The correct answer is zero, because no living creature should have a price."

Rabbi's price

Such an open approach to religious inquiry propels the chief rabbi, Saul Levi Mortera, to tell Spinoza that the Jews of Amsterdam must pay a price for the liberty that Holland has granted them. When Amsterdam gave refuge to Spanish and Portuguese Jews fleeing the Inquisition, the city demanded that the Jews give up the right to practice their religion in public. Even funeral processions were forbidden. And the chief rabbi feels that he must keep his part of the bargain.

The Spinoza we see on stage is probably more likeable and self-effacing than the real guy. In his writings, Spinoza sounds dogmatic. His Ethics contains many passages like: "I myself have proved sufficiently clearly, at any rate in my own judgment, that..." and "I think an attentive reader will see that I have already answered [contrary] propositions, and I have shown all their arguments to be absurd." Also: "I need spend no time in refuting my opponents' wild theories."

Another Dr. Pangloss?

Modern writers tend to endow Spinoza with godlike attributes. But his own teachings deserve the same critical scrutiny that Spinoza applied to others.

For example, Spinoza asserted: "Things have been brought into being by God in the highest perfection" and "Things could not have been by him created other than they are." This sounds suspiciously like Voltaire's speeches for Dr. Pangloss about "the best of all possible worlds"— which, of course, Voltaire meant satirically. If nothing could exist in any other way, it would follow that free will cannot exist.

Spinoza also scoffed at a separation of church and state, writing, "The sovereign should have complete dominion in all public matters secular and spiritual" (italics added).

So the endearing fellow on stage may not be the historical Spinoza. Forgive me, but I prefer the company of the Ives-Henderson character.♦


To read another review by Robert Zaller, click here.
To read another review by Marshall A. Ledger, click here.
To read a response, click here.
To read a related comment by Jim Rutter, click here.
To read a related commentary by Dan Rottenberg, click here.
To read a related commentary by Steve Cohen, click here.