First Dutch Quarto Edition, First and Only Issue
Anon., De rechtzinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandeling. âHamburgâ [Amsterdam], âHenricus Koenraadâ, printer: unidentified, for: [Jan Rieuwertsz fils] (bookseller), 1693.
Anonymous, with false imprint. Translation from the Latin by Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker. Technical Latin glosses in external margins made by an unknown editor. Contains list of errata. Possible exemplars: Spinozaâs lost holograph and/or an apograph of it; Glazemakerâs autograph manuscript and/or apograph, serving as printerâs copy, no longer extant; perhaps also T.1.
Second Dutch Quarto Edition, First and Only Issue
Anon., Een rechtsinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkunde. âBremenâ [Amsterdam?], printer: âHans Jurgen von der Weylâ, for: an unidentified bookseller, 1694.
Anonymous, with false imprint indicating a fictitious printer. Translation from the Latin, translator unknown. Editorial foreword, signed by the bookâs cloaked printer. Without the marginal notes. Edition has instruction for one text correction. Exemplars: T.4n/T.4 or T.5, possibly also De rechtzinnige theologant. Holograph of Dutch translation is lost.
âµ
1 The Dutch Quarto Editions of 1693 and 1694
The German travellers Stolle and âHallmannâ, it has already been previously mentioned, spent time in Amsterdam in the early summer of 1703.1 During their stay, they paid a visit to Jan Rieuwertsz filsâs bookshop in about late June.2 The latter showed his visitors a manuscript containing a Dutch translation, either the apograph or a copy of it, of Spinozaâs âTheological-Political Treatiseâ. In the German scholarsâ travel diaries, according to an entry composed by âHallmannâ, the Amsterdam bookseller
⦠showed me the manuscript of the Dutch version of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, but he kept its author [read: translator] however secret, and [he] said to me this: that he had translated many other similar writings in this language. It was written [in a] very small [hand] and illegible.3
Virtually certain, the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs unnamed translator referred to in the diary entry was Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker. He was a professional translator from Amsterdam who regularly worked for Rieuwertsz père, translating works into Dutch for him, such as the writings of Descartes.4 In addition, in 1677, Glazemaker produced for him also De nagelate schriften, the Dutch translation of the Opera posthuma, with the exception of the Ethicaâs Parts 1 and 2. Those portions had already been translated in the early 1660s by Pieter Balling.5 Glazemakerâs Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, Spinozaâs second book, provided the basis for the first printed Dutch edition of the work issued in 1693: De rechtzinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge (The Orthodox Theologian, or Theological-Political Treatise). The book, fitted with marginal technical Latin glosses like in the Dutch twin volume of the printed posthumous writings, was clandestinely published in the quarto size by a certain âHenricus Koenraadâ. Not in Hamburg, as its title-page and those of T.1, T.2/T.2a, T.4n/T.4, T.5, and T.3t falsely declares, but in Amsterdam. Although still a matter of speculation, it is my educated guess Jan Rieuwertsz fils was De rechtzinnige theologantâs publisher.
A second Dutch quarto edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, perplexingly called Een rechtsinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkunde (An Orthodox Theologian, or Theological Politics), was published by a fictitious printer, called âHans Jurgen von der Weylâ, in 1694. The work seems to have no direct editorial interrelation with the Dutch 1693 edition or can be connected with book dealer Rieuwertsz fils either, but these two different text versions do share a common root. Tellingly, the bookâs printer bills himself in the bookâs foreword as a cousin of âHenricus Koenraadâ: âonsen vedder Henricus Koenraadâ.6 Twenty-one copies of the first quarto edition are known to be extant in international library holdings. The second edition has survived in just nine copies.
Suffice it to say that both titles of the two printed Dutch translations, De rechtzinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge and Een rechtsinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge, are truly provocative and deceiving. Those two editions, readily identified by the usage on its title-pages of De rechtzinnige and Een rechtsinnige, conceal the fact that their contents are straightforward radical assaults on traditional Reformed theology. They underline the haphazardness of Holy Scriptureâs entire textual corpus and disdain the belief in those natural events which are explained in the Bible as miracles, like for example in verses 147:15 and 147:18 of Book 5 of Psalms. Spinoza, in chapter 6 of the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ, points out the psalmâs author calls, in verse 15, the wind and cold âthe command and word of Godâ, and in 18 he refers to the natural workings of the wind and heat as âthe word of Godâ. Decidedly, Spinoza remarks about those two examples that they âare nothing but the very action and order of natureâ.
Hardly anything is known about the printing of both disguised late-seventeenth-century Dutch editions of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. Nevertheless, particularly the editing and publication history of the 1693 quarto edition is well-documented and it is recorded that its earliest origins even date back to 1671. Spinoza, in a letter written in The Hague on 17 February 1671, informed his trusted Amsterdam friend Jarig Jelles he had recently received a visit from a Dutch university professor, in either Voorburg or The Hague. This professor, according to Spinoza, had warned him that âaâ or âtheâ Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus was being prepared for the press. In a tone of urgency, Spinoza writes to Jelles the following:
When Professor ⦠visited me recently, he said, among other things, that he had heard that my Theological-Political Treatise has been translated into Dutch, and that someone (he didnât know who) intended to have it printed. I beg you, therefore, very earnestly, to please find out about this, to prevent the printing, if thatâs possible. This is not only my request, but also that of many of my friends, who would not like to see this book prohibited. If itâs published in Dutch, that will doubtless happen. I donât doubt that you will do me and the cause this service.7
This statement gives reason to believe Spinoza was perhaps aware the Dutch translation was already scribally circulating in a prepublished version in Amsterdam and further afield, within a âclosedâ coterie of readers for personal use only. From the above account it also appears Jelles possibly knew the individual who was busy preparing the treatiseâs printing. Subsequently, the theory can now be put forward that this was precisely why Spinoza turned to Jelles in the first place, begging him in his letter to halt all pre-press preparations. Jelles, at an early stage in response to entreaties and demands of friends and admirers and the like in Spinozaâs inner or outer âcircleâ, may have persuaded the latter to let him, or someone else publish a Dutch rendition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, suitable enough for production in print. For this purpose, Jelles possibly had advised him to commission from a professional Amsterdam translator (Glazemaker) a well- edited and reliable Dutch translation of it. The reason for this was probably that Pieter Balling, the earlier Dutch translator (âP.B.â) of the Dutch renderings of Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica and of Parts 1 and 2 of the Latin Ethicaâs had passed away in 1664.
Whether, Spinoza initially had approved of publishing the Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus is not known, but this seems to be a distinct possibility. He had however his reservations, as is evinced by the latter bookâs Preface, begging the âcommon peopleâ in it not âto read these thingsâ and urge them âto neglect this book entirelyâ. In addition, it may also be questioned whether Jan Rieuwertsz père was involved in the project, too. Nevertheless, as becomes evident from the letter of 17 February 1671, Spinoza decidedly backed out in an act of self-imposed censorship. He instructed Jelles in the letter to cancel the Dutch translationâs printing immediately. Probably because of the general vituperation directed against the Latin edition and repeated accusations of atheism, possibly landing him in hot water by allowing a Dutch rendition to be put to press.8 And, as the letter further clearly shows, he was nervous about the whole matter after consultation with âmanyâ of his friends and in a hurry, too.
The unidentified Dutch professor who had informed Spinoza about the Dutch translationâs printing, it has been proposed, may have been the Cartesian Leiden professor of philosophy Theodorus Craanen.9 Contacts between Craanen and Spinoza are however not recorded. Nevertheless, the former is known to have responded to the Tractatus theologico-politicus in a note he composed for Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the spring of 1672.10 Craanen in his comment made only brief mention of the book and told his German correspondent rumours were circulated that Spinoza had written the treatise.11 Craanen further informed Leibniz about the treatise and the chances Spinoza would enter a public discussion about his second book. Here is what Craanen wrote:
The âTheological-Political Treatiseâ, which some people ascribe to Spinoza, has so far been refuted by nobody, apart from a letter of which the son of Maresius [i.e., Henri des Marets] is asserted to be the author; any day now a book about this treatise will posthumously appear, by [Van] Mansveld, professor of philosophy in Utrecht. I donât think, though, the author will reply to it, unless with an epistolary disquisition to a friend of his. As for the author of the book âPhilosophia S. Scripturae interpresâ: that is not Spinoza, but I think some physician from Amsterdam.12
Evidently, Craanenâs remark the Tractatus theologico- politicus had not been publicly refuted was, arguably, a misconception, also implying the latter had followed the debate about Spinozaâs treatise probably only as an interested bystander. For, the book had been first publicly castigated in print in the previously-mentioned Epistola ad amicum. That theological rejoinder had been written by the German Protestant pastor Johannes Melchioris. He had composed the riposte in the summer of 1670, at the instigation of Cartesian scholars of the Utrecht Collegie der Scavanten, which was surreptitiously published in mid-May 1671.13 Since spring 1670, through the information network of the Utrecht theologian Frans Burman (I), erstwhile rector of Utrecht University and one of the leaders of the urban Cartesian circle, the Utrecht Cartesians, knew too well Spinoza was the author who hid behind the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ. Between June and September 1670, members of the Collegie had supervised and helped prepare Melchiorisâs text for the press to ensure the success of their orchestrated theological assault on Spinoza.14
The original manuscript (siglum: Glazemaker) of Glazemakerâs early Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus is no longer extant. Yet, his translation is known to have survived in at least three text versions:
The first version, loyal to Glazemakerâs now-lost manuscript, was published in 1693 in De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693). Possible other exemplars of the latter printed edition are: (1) Spinozaâs lost holograph and/or an apograph of it; (2) Glazemakerâs autograph manuscript and/or apograph, serving as printerâs copy, no longer extant; (3) or perhaps also T.1.
A second, corrected redaction of Glazemakerâs lost manuscript and revised by a second translator/editor which has survived, in an undated manuscript copy (siglum: KB/âVerhandelingeâ, 322 pp.), under the title âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ. Possibly this translator/editor was someone around Spinoza, like for instance Johannes Bouwmeester, a prominent member of the Amsterdam literary society Nil volentibus arduum (âNothing is arduous to the Eagerâ). âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ was written, by different hands, in the last quarter of the seventeenth century and is known in Spinoza scholarship as codex A. Because of pre-press preparations and notes made by a typesetter in it, starting in chapter 6 and broken off in 11, this was without question the manuscript Spinoza asked Jelles to prevent from being printed. Once in the possession of the Dutch physician Johannes Monnikhoff, the corrected redaction is now kept in the National Library of the Netherlands in The Hague (ms. 75 G 15). It has been suggested the manuscript was formerly owned by the Amsterdam leather goods trader and lay philosopher Willem Deurhoff, a controversial propagator of Spinozaâs philosophical system in the disguise of Reformed theology. Monnikhoff fanatically admired Spinoza and collected his writings.15
A series of substantial portions of another hitherto unknown third version (siglum: Van Blijenbergh) of Glazemakerâs original translation came to light during the preparation of this bibliography. These fragments are contained in De waerheyt van de christelijcke godts-dienst en de authoriteyt der H. Schriften (The Truth about the Christian Religion and the Authority of Holy Scripture), put to press in 1674. The latter work was composed by the Dordrecht retailer and amateur philosopher Willem Laurensz van Blijenbergh, one of Spinozaâs early correspondents and critics, who deserves the reputation of being the first public detractor of the Tractatus theologico-politicus in Dutch.16
Aside from the three above text redactions of Glazemakerâs early Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico- politicus, it has already been stated that also another Dutch rendition of Spinozaâs treatise survived. Een rechtsinnige theologant (1694), comprising the treatiseâs fourth known redaction, purports the book as a reprint of De rechtzinnige theologant (1693). It however lacks the Latin glosses and represents a textual status markedly different from the first printed âGlazemakerâ edition. Unfortunately, the editor and/or translator of the 1694 edition remains unidentified up to this day.
Before the status of its redaction can be properly assessed with historical certainty, more in-depth examination of this second printed Dutch quarto edition Een rechtsinnige theologant is required. For this reason, the inspection of the bookâs printing flaws proved to be a rewarding method for making several preliminary statements about the bookâs exemplar. Regarding printing errors, unlike the 1693 Dutch edition De rechtzinnige theologant, the 1694 Een rechtsinnige theologant does have in its chapter 15 on page 209 (l. 26) the printing flaw âExod. 4: 14â, instead of the correct biblical reference Exod. 34:14. This directly excludes T.1 as its Latin exemplar, which lacks the aforementioned misprint. Nevertheless, this also does suggest a possible relationship with the Latin quartos T.2/T.2a, T.4n/T.4, and T.5 that have the same flaw âExod. 4. vers. 14.â
The French X and Y editions printed in duodecimo have the same misprint, but cannot have served as the bookâs exemplar since Een rechtsinnige theologant explicitly states on its title-page the book was translated from the Latin and not from the French: âUit het Latijn in ât Hollands vertaald.â Investigation of other relevant printing flaws further reveals the second 1694 Dutch edition has two striking typesetting errors which conclusively exclude, next to T.1, also T.2/T.2a as the bookâs exemplar, likewise further pointing in the direction of T.4n/T.4 and T.5.
First, the 1694 Een rechtsinnige theologant has in its chapter 6 (p. 92, l. 11), instead of the correct reference to psalm 73, the following misprint: â(besie Psalm 37)â. This Bible reference is correctly printed in T.1, in T.2/T.2a (âvide Psal. 73.â, p. 73, l. 33) and in the Latin T.3 octavo edition (â(vide Ps. lxxiii.)â, p. 106, l. 31). It also occurs in De rechtzinnige theologant (âbezie Psalm lxxiiiâ, p.111, l. 26) and is even correct in manuscript 75 G 15 (â(bezie psalm 73.)â, p. 181/fol. 214r), too. In T.4n/T.4 and T.5, though, the reference to psalm 73 is printed (p. 73, l. 33) incorrectly as â(vide Psal. 37.)â.
In second place, the compositor of both T.4n/T.4 and T.5 forgot to set in type almost an entire sentence in chapter 10 (p. 132, l. 14), except for the lineâs first word âscilicetâ. Missing is â22. hoc ipsum clare indicatur. Levitae, inquit Historicusâ. At this instance, it now reads in both T.4n/T.4 and T.5 âscilicet temporis Eljasibi, Iojadae, Ionatanis & Iaduhe* supra Dariiâ; with âscilicetâ this time printed in italics, in accordance with the rest of the corrupted sentenceâs typography. The sentence, though, has been correctly set in type in the 1673 Latin octavo edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus and is also correctly translated into Dutch in De rechtzinnige theologant of 1693. Yet, in Een rechtsinnige theologant, the aforementioned Latin sentence, â22. hoc ipsum clare indicatur. Levitae, inquit Historicusâ, has not even been translated. This also conclusively points to either T.4n/T.4 or T.5 as the bookâs exemplars.
Since De rechtzinnige theologant was put to press in 1693, Een rechtsinnige theologantâs unidentified translator might, one would assume, have read the first Dutch quarto edition as back-up version to correct his own redaction. Given the aforementioned printing flaws, this though appears not to have been the case. Finally, in regard to dating, the foregoing conclusions seem to imply that the second Dutch edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus must have been translated in or before 1694, its publication year, which can be backdated to 1677 or later, the assumed publication dates of the bookâs likely exemplars T.4n/T.4 or T.5.
2 Vervolg van ât Leven van Philopater (1697) about the Translator of De Rechtzinnige Theologant (Glazemaker/Theologant 1693, Text Version 1)
Corroborated by historical evidence, in Spinoza scholarship there is general agreement that Glazemaker composed the original first Dutch translation (siglum: Glazemaker) of the Tractatus theologico-politicus.17 He may have grounded this translation on the first âtrueâ printed Latin quarto edition of 1670, T.1, but Akkerman has also considered the possibility Glazemaker made this translation based on a Latin now-lost manuscript by Spinoza, or on a copy of it. Hence, this then would be a translation composed not reliant on the printed T.1 quarto. Another of Akkermanâs suggestions is the speculation Glazemaker may have started translating the treatise even before the first Latin quarto edition was published in either late 1669 or early 1670.18
Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker was first mentioned as the translator of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs 1693 Dutch rendition in Vervolg van ât leven van Philopater (Sequel to the Life of Philopater). Vervolg, a prohibited book, was clandestinely published in 1697 and is ascribed to Johannes Duijkerius (1661/2â1702), an Amsterdam schoolmaster specializing in writing on moral and catechism topics, cynically dubbed by one of his critics a âSuygeling van spinosaâ (an infant of Spinoza).19 The foregoing novel was put to press four years after De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693) had been published. The Vervolg is the sequel to Het leven van Philopater, an anonymously-issued theological roman à clef (1691) by Duijkerius. The latter work describes how its protagonist, Philopater, developed from an adherent of Reformed orthodoxy into a proponent of Cartesianism, and eventually into a fervent advocate of Spinozaâs philosophical system.20
In Vervolg, a friend of the bookâs protagonist Philopater, Physiologus (âScientistâ), informs a group of fine gentlemen about the genesis and the publication history of the Dutch translation of the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ thus:
Sir, please read [this book], Philopater said, so we know what its title is. Next, he addressed the same [person] again, while reading [aloud]: âDe rechtzinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandelinge. Translated from the Latin. At Hamburg, by Henricus Koenraad. 1693ââ¦. I will say this, Philopater said, it is the âTractatus theologico-politicusâ by Benedictus de Spinoza, known to us all. But, addressing himself to Physiologus, he [Philopater] asked him: âHow is this work rendered in Dutch?â âThis happenedâ, he [Physiologus] answered, âbecause it was translated from the Latin into Dutch, as you can see. Yet, to give you an answer straightforwardly, please know, old Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker â whose name has become famous for translating the works of Mr Descartes and [of] many others â has also translated the works of this author [Spinoza]. Now you know the âEthicaâ, the âPolitical Treatiseâ, the âTreatise on the Emendation of the Intellectâ, and âSeveral Letters from Learned Menâ have been printed in Dutch. This work [i.e., the Tractatus theologico-politicus] is also translated by the same J.H. Glazemaker, and this manuscript remained in the hands of the person who had contracted the translator. It could have been printed many years ago, but the ecclesiastical [authorities] who judged their rule could be hampered [by it] sometimes worked against it until, eventually, it has been forgotten, but now it has been put to press [i.e., De rechtzinnige theologant]. I can also say you gentlemen furthermore about the matter that, after a copy of the original was given to another good friend (who in turn passed it without doubt to someone else), many others were born. By comparing the most recent ones with the original [read: Glazemakerâs] translation their manifold and poor transcription show little appreciation for the [original] translator when they would issue it under his name, or at least when it was believed the most recent [corrupted] copy was translated by Glazemaker and put to press [meant is presumably: Een rechtsinnige theologant], tooâ.21
Physiologus in Vervolg adds to this the information that the previous owner of the original manuscript of Glazemakerâs Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus was an individual much devoted to Spinozaâs writings, without however mentioning the latterâs name.22 According to Physiologus, this man was dedicated to publishing the Dutch translation with explanatory technical Latin glosses (âkonstwoordenâ) in the style of the Zedekunst, Glazemakerâs Dutch rendition of the Ethica published in De nagelate schriften. âPhilopaterâ states about 1693 De rechtzinnige theologant thus:
This is why I must say that this gentleman, well-known to me, a medical doctor and a noted philosopher who had the original [manuscript] by J.H. Glazemaker, has fully shown his particular assiduity and generosity by editing [it] and as amateur, most importantly, made sure the true copy was printed to make it universally known. Moreover, to ensure this work would deserve full recognition he has enriched it [the text] in the external margins with glosses (as is [also] the case of the Descartesâs writings and Spinozaâs âEthicaâ) so these can serve those [readers] who had Latin regarding [the quality of] its translation.23
Since in the 1694 Een rechtsinnige theologant, printed by âHans Jurgen von der Weylâ, those marginal subsidiary Latin notes are absent, arguably, the information given by âPhilopaterâ must refer to De rechtzinnige theologant, the first Dutch translation published in 1693. In Vervolg, Physiologus concludes his account by further referring to another Dutch rendition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, once apparently also scheduled for publication:
I tell you mainly this, gentlemen, he continued, because I know there are in any case two translations that can be found which, I believe, were made out of personal pleasure, [and] certainly copies of those are in the possession several people. Moreover, I have information it is a possible a second impression, based on one of those copies, will be put to press because a certain gentleman, who has arrived from [the Dutch Province of] Friesland, told me he had seen two printed pages (from the beginning) of the work. Yet he told me it was badly executed regarding paper and type, and it had no uniformity with the true copy [made] by Glazemaker.24
In the light of the intriguing aforementioned remarks made in the Vervolg the following conclusions can be summarized about Glazemakerâs Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus published in 1693:
Glazemaker made the first Dutch translation (siglum: Glazemaker) of the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ.
The manuscript of his translation remained in the hands of the unidentified individual (Jarig Jelles?) who commissioned it from Glazemaker.
Over time, many handwritten copies of Glazemakerâs Dutch translation were put into circulation. Usually, these copies were badly corrupted text versions of the original translation.
A further unnamed individual, returning from Friesland, had seen two already-printed pages of yet another inferior translation (unknown) scheduled to be put into press.
At an unknown date, a âmedical doctor and an illustrious philosopherâ came into possession of Glazemakerâs original translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus in a way not documented. Subsequently, the otherwise unidentified owner finally edited Glazemakerâs manuscript and had it printed in 1693 under the title De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693). The same owner also composed the technical Latin glosses printed in the external margins of the Dutch rendition.
3 Manuscript The Hague 75 G 15: âGod-Geleerde Staat-Kundige Verhandelingeâ (KB/âVerhandelingeâ, Text Version 2)
Because of the purist elements and multiple inaccuracies of Glazemakerâs Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, Fokke Akkerman has put forward the likely scenario Jarig Jelles had it revised and corrected by another probably more experienced âsecondâ translator before the final manuscript was circulated among friends and admirers. This well-edited text is scribally transmitted in âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, a copy preserved in the National Library of the Netherlands (ms. 75 G 15, siglum: KB/âVerhandelingeâ) at The Hague. Both its text and the signatures in the direction lines at the foot of the manuscriptâs recto pages clearly suggest it was an autonomous redaction which was not used to edit and publish De rechtzinnige theologant or Een rechtsinnige theologant in 1693 and 1694, respectively.25
According to Akkerman, the Dutch translationâs âsecondâ translator of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ was, in all likelihood, not Lodewijk Meyer. In the capacity as âofficialâ editor of the Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica he prepared the latter work for the press in 1663 and composed the bookâs Preface, cross-references, captions in the âMetaphysical Thoughtsâ.26 Akkermanâs theory, though, conjectures Jarig Jelles may have asked the Amsterdam physician Johannes Bouwmeester to improve Glazemakerâs Dutch translation.27 Bouwmeester, too all appearances a trusted friend of Spinoza, was in any case also instrumental in the plan broached to bring the philosopher to Utrecht in the late summer of 1673.28
Like Meyer, Bouwmeester was a talented and highly- experienced Latinist and translator. A prominent member of the Amsterdam literary society Nil volentibus arduum, the latter is credited for being the author (âI.B.M.D.â) of the laudatory poem âAd Librum.â, included in Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica. Pieter Balling, the translator of E1 and E2 and of the Dutch philosopherâs adumbration of 1663 adumbration of Descartes, had died in 1664. Because of this, as evinced by a letter of [June] 1665, Spinoza asked a still unknown âspecialâ friend in Amsterdam to translate E3 (by then running to 80 propositions). Johannes Bouwmeester is in any case quite a strong candidate for being the letterâs unknown addressee.29
Nil volentibus arduumâs proceedings confirm Bouwmeester also served as a translator of other Latin works into Dutch. Probably because of his interest in philosophy he was commissioned by its members to compose a Dutch translation of an Arabic âBildungsromanâ, originally called Ḥayy ibn YaqáºÄn, by the Andalusian writer Abu Jafaar Ebn Tophail (c.1105â1185).30 The novel tells the story of the life of a young boy, called Hayy bin Yaqzan, who lives on an isolated tropical island where he is raised by a goat and learns all about nature. The exemplar of Bouwmeesterâs translation was a Latin translation, called Philosophus autodidacticus, allegedly composed by the British Arabic literature expert and oriental scholar Edward Pococke (1648â1726). Although Pococke fils was the 1671 translationâs nominal author, it turns out his famous father, the Arabist Edward Pococke (1604â1691), actually hid behind the Latin book. Bouwmeesterâs Dutch rendition was issued under the title Het leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhan (The Life of Hai Ebn Yokdhan) in Amsterdam in 1672 by Spinozaâs publisher, Jan Rieuwertsz père.31
Chapter 6 of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, the Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. Fols 207vâ208r in codex A are fitted with handwritten âprintingâ type area, running headlines and pagination, direction lines, and compositorâs notes for signature L4 in brown ink, to be typeset and printed on page 84 of the planned book.
Being a seasoned businessman, the latter Amsterdam bookseller made an effort to interest potential readers by advertising Het leeven in the Dutch news serial Oprechte Haerlemse Dingsdaegse Courant:
At Amsterdam, at Jan Rieuwertszâs, bookseller, was published: âHet leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhanâ, written by Abu Jafaar Ebn Tophail in Arabic, and translated in Dutch from the Latin translation by Edward Pocock, Master of Arts. In [this work] is shown how someone, withheld from communication with people or education, can acquire knowledge about himself and of God. [After] being born, this philosopher [was] placed in a box and put to sea, then driven ashore by the flood on an island without inhabitants. [He was] raised by a goat, and saw no human beings until turning 50 years [of age]. In quarto.32
Although his role is entirely hypothetical, Bouwmeester is also a likely candidate for being one of the members of the editorial team responsible for putting to press Spinozaâs posthumous writings in 1677.33 In sum, as has been argued by Akkerman, the latter Amsterdam medical doctor perhaps served as the âsecondâ translator of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, Glazemakerâs translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus.
The text copy of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ contained in the The Hague manuscript 75 G 15 (codex A) is undated. Its handwriting however gives the strong impression it has been copied during the later second half of the seventeenth century. The manuscript itself, it seems, is in that of the initiati around Spinoza who copied the new translator/editorâs the text. Its subtitle reads the following: âTranslated from the Latin, and with Notes from its Authorâ (âUijt het Latijn vertaald, en met Anteekeninge des Schrijvers voorzienâ). The text of 75 G 15 is written in dark brown ink by different Dutch hands. âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ is contained on the folios 99â422. The translation features a separate, handwritten title-page (fol. 100r) in Dutch calligraphy reading the following:
Godgeleerde | Staat-kundige | Verhandelinge, | Inhoudende, enige redeneeringen, | Door de welke word getoond, dat de vrijheid | van te philosopheren, niet alleenlijk | behoudens de godvruchtigheid, en vre|de vande gemeene staat, magh wer-|den toegestaan: Maar de zelv|de niet dan met de vreede | vande gemene staat | zelve, en de godvruch|tigheid, noegh geno-|men kan worden. Johannis eerste briev. Cap. IV. V. XIII. | Hier aan kennen wij, dat wij in God blijven, en dat God in ons, om dat hij ons van synen geest gegeven heeft. (Dutch translation of 1 John 4:13:)
Manuscript 75 G 15 also includes a text version of the Korte verhandeling.34 More importantly, it also comprises thirty-four of the Adnotationes (lacking notes 20, 27, 28, 29, 30), already discussed in chapter 5 of the present bibliography. The Adnotationes have the following Dutch title: âAantekeningen bij het Godgeleerd-Staatkundig Vertoogâ (Additional Notes to the Theological-Political Treatise).35
Codex A includes a âVoor-Reedenâ (prologue, fols 101â111; pp. 1â22) to the Dutch translation of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and a table of its contents (fols 112â113; pp. 23â26). The Preface, table of contents, and the main text of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ are all set in semi-âprintâ frames, drawn on each page in dark brown ink. Like many other works printed in the seventeenth century, codex A has written running headlines (âEerste Hooftdeelâ, etc.) and keyed notes in Dutch and in Latin, all placed in the external margins and at the foot of the page. The work is paginated, 1â608. Each page has a written direction line with catchwords for the first word of its following page. Those catchwords are placed at the end of the foot of each page, in the lower right outer corner; another example of how the text should look like when in print. Signatures are not in the direction lines, but they are indicated in brief notes in the outer external margins. In the main text of codex A, words and phrases are struck out with black ink and corrected in several instances.36 The paper of pages 164 to 379 of codex A is heavily thumbed and stained with inkspots.37 The manuscript shows, unmistakably, evidence of editorial intervention. It contains many captions and instructions in ink, all scribbled in the codex by a compositor. Those details prove abundantly the manuscript was used as a copy-text for a typesetter in a printerâs workshop.
In other instances, codex A shows how the compositor made calculations and also numbered the lines of each page.38 When busy typesetting the text of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, he marked page breaks with horizontal lines in the body of the text. He also scribbled signatures in the manuscriptâs external margins with their respective indications of pagination. Because the compositorâs notes start on the third page of chapter 6 (âSeste Hooftdeelâ), treating of miracles, Akkerman has put forward the following in my view convincing theory. At an earlier stage, a tidy copy-text of the previous chapters 1 to 5 (ten gatherings A â K, comprising eighty pages) had already been conveyed to a printer.
Apparently, to increase production speed the compositor may have been later allowed to make his own editorial notes in the remainder of the manuscript pages of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ itself.39 The compositorâs captions and corrections, in the external margins in codex A, start in chapter 6 on folio 205v (p. 164, âl2/82â). His notes abruptly are stopped in chapter 11, on folio 308v (p. 379 of the translation, âx prima w/161â), presumably when the printer halted preparations of the three-fifths portion of the book. Akkerman has also construed that the work was treated by an unknown compositor to produce a book in the bibliographical quarto size, in gatherings of eight pages each.
All of the aforementioned aspects and details make it plausible to assume that codex A included the text-copy of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ planned to put to press in early 1671. The compositorâs work on the manuscript was, in all likelihood, cancelled soon after 17 February 1671 when Spinoza instructed Jelles to stop the translationâs printing preparations at once. If this all proves to be historically correct, it then suggests Spinozaâs friends must have copied the âsecondâ translatorâs âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ in any case before mid-February 1671. Who in 1670 or in early 1671 hatched the plan to have Glazemakerâs Dutch translation corrected and prepared for the press remains an unsolved mystery as yet. Of course, Jan Rieuwertsz père immediately springs to mind for being the Dutch translationâs likely publisher and printer but there is no historical evidence supporting this conjecture.
4 Glazemakerâs Dutch Translation: A New Third Redaction in Van Blijenberghâs 1674 De Waerheyt (Van Blijenbergh, Text Version 3)
In the early 1670s, in a way not further known, a manuscript copy (now lost) of âaâ or âtheâ Dutch translation of Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico-politicus ended up in the hands of Willem van Blijenbergh, a merchant-magistrate and amateur-philosopher from Dordrecht. The latter, a nephew of the noted Dordrecht painter Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627â1678), was one of the sharper pencils in the drawer of Spinozaâs early correspondents. Between late December 1664 and early June 1665, they had exchanged almost a dozen letters discussing flagging moral issues in âParts I and II of Descartesâs Principles of Philosophyâ; Metaphysical Thoughtsâ, among others about the exact status of good and evil.40 In Spinoza scholarship, these letters, all written in Dutch, are sometimes referred to as âThe Letters on Evilâ. Van Blijenbergh also met Spinoza personally in mid-March 1665, in Voorburg presumably. There, they must have continued their discussion on pressing subjects in Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica. Because of their philosophical and theological differences, the Dutch philosopher finally put a stop to their strained correspondence as is evidenced by his last letter to Van Blijenbergh of 3 June 1665.
How and exactly when Willem van Blijenbergh got hold of the Dutch translationâs manuscript remains unclear, but the salient fact is he had access to its text and published portions of it almost two decades before Glazemakerâs text was eventually printed in De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693). Van Blijenbergh in his rebuttal, dedicated to the Dordrecht Burgomasters and Vroedschap, scrutinized Spinozaâs treatise in seventeen chapters. The bookâs preface was signed by Van Blijenbergh on 8 September 1674, very shortly after the provincial Hof van Holland, Zeeland, and West-Friesland in an official placard of 19 July had proscribed the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ.
Very likely, the hitherto unknown third redaction, owned by Van Blijenbergh, comprised either a copy of a translation loyal to Glazemakerâs original manuscript (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693), or an improved version (siglum: KB/âVerhandelingeâ) of it by a âsecondâ translator. In 1674, Van Blijenberg published portions of this redaction (siglum: Van Blijenbergh) in De waerheyt van de christelijcke godts-dienst en de authoriteyt der H. Schriften, a work composed to refute the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ.41
With De waerheyt, the Dordrecht retailer introduced readers who were not Latinate in the vernacular to Spinozaâs philosophical notions about Godâs essence and Godâs eternal perfection, his denial of miracles, and his rejection of the Bible as a work revealing Godâs truth. Being the first public Dutch detractor of the Tractatus theologico-politicus in print, Van Blijenbergh also linked Spinozaâs teachings in this daring treatise at the same instance with irreligion and heterodoxy. To put it differently, he irrefutably composed De waerheyt particularly to warn Dutch readers against the philosopherâs biblical scepticism and virulent atheism, aiming to undermine traditional Reformed Christian theology and society as a whole.
De waerheyt was a sequel to another anti-atheist work, called De kennisse Godts en godts-dienst, beweert tegen dâuytvluchten der atheisten (The Knowledge of God and the Worship of God, Argued Against the Atheistsâ Excuses), published by Van Blijenbergh in Leiden in 1671.42 He had, by his own account, written De kennisse Godts to lambast those people âwho does not want to believe in anythingâ (âwelcke niets en willen geloovenâ), except for âthe naked and natural reasonâ (âde bloote en natuurlijcke redenâ).
Title-page of Willem van Blijenberghâs refutation of Spinoza: De waerheyt van de christelijcken godts-dienst (Leiden: 1674). The work is an assault on the Tractatus theologico-politicus and contains numerous quotations from a hitherto unknown surviving third Dutch text redaction of the latter treatise.
Soon after the riposteâs publication, Van Blijenbergh must have begun composing De waerheyt. About two years prior to the publication of De waerheyt by its Leiden publisher Daniel van Gaasbeeck (fl.1655â1693), the Dordrecht retailer had been shopping around the workâs manuscript in scholarly networks, as is evinced by a letter of the Utrecht Cartesian theologian Frans Burman père to Van Blijenbergh. How contacts between the two men were established is unclear. In all likelihood, Van Blijenbergh must have been familiar with the efforts of the Utrecht Cartesian network made in 1670 to prepare a rejoinder to the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ.43 Given the sheer length (467 pp.) of De waerheyt and the date of Burmanâs letter, 2 September 1672, Van Blijenbergh must have already started composing the bookâs manuscript in 1670 or 1671.
Burman pèreâs letter also reveals he was acting as an intermediary in finding booksellers possibly interested to put to the press Van Blijenberghâs manuscript of De waerheyt. The former Utrecht theologian in any case discussed the workâs publication with Meinardus van Dreunen, an Utrecht bookseller, city and university printer working close to the Munsterkerkhof (nowadays the Domplein). Van Dreunen, a publisher of some repute, had issued among many other works the writings of both Burman père and the Dutch anatomist and microscopist Jan Swammerdam (1637â1680). Tellingly, Van Dreunen had also put to print in 1665 an ordinary disputation on Cartesian philosophy Spinozaâs erstwhile pupil Casearius had defended that same year on 14 July at Utrecht University.44
From Burmanâs letter of 2 September 1672, it becomes further apparent the trunk holding Van Blijenberghâs manuscript of De waerheyt (referred to by Burman as âthis treasureâ [âdien schatâ]) was, by then, in the hands of an unnamed Amsterdam friend, acquaintance, or colleague of Burman père. This contact, be it someone with an academic background or a publisher, had been treating the work with âspecial attentionâ, according to Burman. Unclear is though what the latter exactly meant by this and for what reason Van Dreunen had dispatched Van Blijenberghâs manuscript to Amsterdam. Here is what Burman père writes about the then still unpublished manuscript of his riposte to the Tractatus theologico-politicus:
Because I was in Leiden your pleasant letter was forwarded to me a bit late. When I came home [in Utrecht] I have spoken with Mr Van Dreunen, who told me, that his trunk, which contained your manuscript, was safely stored at [the house of] a certain gentleman [much] appreciated by me in Amsterdam and that your manuscript had his special attention. Thus he was of the opinion that it was properly kept, should it be [kept] somewhere. However, now it was not at his disposal. He was however confident that [the fact that it was well-stored] would make you feel comfortable. If not I will see whether it is possible to do something in this matter. Like you I would be not pleased that this treasure, which will be of value to many, would return damaged.45
In the late spring and summer of 1670, the Utrecht Collegie had also monitored and put to press the German theologian Johannes Melchiorisâs Epistola ad amicum (1671), the first public theological rejoinder to the Tractatus theologico-politicus in print.46 So, presumably, perhaps Burman saw in Van Blijenberghâs De waerheyt a new opportunity to demolish the arguments put forward in Spinozaâs treatise with a new series of counterarguments. Whether Burman studied Van Blijenberghâs work, gave him instructions, made useful suggestions, corrected the holograph or apograph of it, or shared it with other Cartesians in Utrecht is unfortunately not known. Why De waerheyt was eventually published in 1674 by Van Gaasbeeck in Leiden and not by Van Dreunen in Utrecht is also an unsolved matter.
Van Blijenbergh in De waerheytâs prologue remarks Spinozaâs treatise, questioning Godâs divine identity and thereby rejecting the Bible as the written record of Godâs primary and revealed eternal truth, was crammed with âlearned horrorsâ (âstudieuse gruwelenâ). For this reason, according to De waerheyt, he considered the Tractatus theologico-politicus a âheap of concepts forged in hellâ (âeen ophoopinge van in de hel gesmede conceptenâ). The Dordrecht retailer also informs readers particularly it has been the treatiseâs âruinousâ attack on the Bible and âthe foundations of Christianityâ (âde Fondamenten van het Christendomâ) which had strongly motivated him âto smother this monster with all possible means under its own motherâ (âom dit gedrocht door alle mogelijcke middelen onder de Moeder te smoorenâ). Since the worldâs beginning, Van Blijenbergh continues in De waerheytâs preface, âno wickeder book has ever been put to pressâ (âsoo langh de Werelt gestaen heeft, geen heylooser Boeck in ât licht is gekomenâ). This Tractatus theologico-politicus, according to him, was a treatise fiercely âbound in acrid bileâ (âvan bittere galle by een gebondenâ).
De waerheyt is packed with substantial portions from a now-lost version (from either its original holograph or an apograph) of âaâ or âtheâ Dutch translation of Spinozaâs treatise. This new redaction seems to contain textual elements which are closely related to both Glazemakerâs original Dutch translation (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693) and the cancelled revised manuscript of âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (siglum: KB/âVerhandelingeâ). The fact that Van Blijenbergh included those quotations in De waerheyt underlines that, almost ten years after the break-up by Spinoza of their correspondence, he apparently had remained in contact with people around or interested in Spinoza. In a way not known, they must have given him access to the Dutch translation or, perhaps, sold a copy of it to the Dordrecht grain broker.47 A printed copy of De waerheyt listed on the inventory of Spinozaâs reference library proves the Dutch philosopher was even familiar with Van Blijenberghâs rejoinder and the text version of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs Dutch translation included in it.48
Long before Van Blijenbergh started composing De waerheyt in 1670 or 1671, many intellectuals in the Netherlands already knew Spinoza had composed the âTheological- Political Treatiseâ. Therefore, it is highly surprising the Dutch philosopher is not mentioned in De waerheyt as the treatiseâs concealed author. Even more perplexing is that the Dordrecht retailer does however refer to Lodewijk Meyerâs prologue to Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica. Oddly enough, Van Blijenbergh even praises Spinoza as the latter bookâs author and brings up the appended âMetaphysical Thoughtsâ, too. He lauds him by remarking the following: âBenedictus de Spinoza, a man with a profound philosophical mindâ (âBenedictus de Spinosa, een Man van een diep Philosofisch verstandâ).49
That Van Blijenbergh was unaware Spinoza was the concealed author of the Tractatus theologico-politicus seems highly improbable. For he went to a lot of trouble gaining access to a surreptitiously-circulated manuscript containing the Dutch translation of the treatise in the first place. He had been also in an epistolary contact with Burman père. The latter, like others in the Utrecht Cartesian network, was since the summer of 1670 familiar with the fact Spinoza wrote the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ. During his vexed trip to Utrecht, he had met up with several members of the townâs Cartesian Collegie der Scavanten, in any case with the professor of history and rhetoric Johannes Georgius Graevius who had passed Spinoza an invitation calling him to Utrecht with the help of his intermediary Johannes Bouwmeester.50
Thus, if indeed it was no secret to Van Blijenbergh Spinoza had composed the treatise, he must have refrained deliberately from mentioning the latter as the bookâs author. This suggests that, while he assaulted the philosopherâs radical Bible criticism, he was also actively protecting Spinozaâs identity at the same time. Actually, also Johannes Melchioris in his 1671 Epistola ad amicum, the cleverly-conceived product of the Utrecht Cartesian network, had protected Spinozaâs identity by referring with the anagrams âXinospaâ and âZinospaâ to the disguised authorâs name. Evidently, these were just cunning word games for those well-informed intellectuals in Dutch and German academia involved in the debate about the Dutch philosopher.51
Possibly, because the latterâs treatise had been banned by the then only very recently-issued placard of 19 July 1674, Van Blijenbergh refrained from connecting in De waerheyt Spinoza with the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ. Since he abundantly praises him however in De waerheyt as the author of the Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica, this new game appears even more intriguing. It seems a form of protective fascination mixed with sheer horror, a stance Van Blijenbergh shared with the Utrecht Cartesian network and with a formidable scholar such as for instance Leibniz.52
Although only a matter of pure speculation, the distinct possibility should nonetheless finally also be considered that, after the vexed epistolary âbreak-upâ of early June 1665, Van Blijenbergh had stayed in indirect or even in direct contact with Spinoza and/or with his friends and followers in a way not known. This could also explain why the Dordrecht retailer avoided disclosing the Dutch philosopher as the author of the Tractatus theologico-politicus and why he praised him as âeen Man van een diep Philosofisch verstandâ who wrote the âPrinciples of Philosophyâ and the âMetaphysical Thoughtsâ.
Van Blijenberghâs De waerheyt comprises portions of a new and only until recently unknown text version of âaâ or âtheâ Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. For this reason, it seems relevant to present readers of this descriptive bibliography with two prime examples from all Dutch redactions of the treatiseâs text known to be still extant. Below, I have placed Van Blijenberghâs De waerheyt in chronological order between
Glazemakerâs original translation, printed in De rechtzinnige theologant (1693),
the The Hague manuscript 75 G 15 (codex A), containing the revised Glazemaker redaction âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ Spinoza cancelled before 17 February 1671,
and the treatiseâs printed second Dutch edition Een rechtsinnige theologant (1694).
The words and phrases in the examples below put in italics indicate mutual differences. The first example concerns a passage from the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs chapter 3 (âOn the Calling of the Hebrewsâ).53 Here, between the texts hardly any differences can be observed. The second is a passage from the treatiseâs chapter 4 (âOf the Divine Lawâ).54 This example, though, gives the distinct impression De waerheyt follows the revised Glazemaker redaction of âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ in 75 G 15 far more loyally. Collation of other relevant surviving passages quoted by Van Blijenbergh in De waerheyt seems to confirm the newfound third redaction of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs Dutch translation included in the riposte highly likely has been composed after the revised Glazemaker-translation surviving in manuscript 75 G 15 (codex A). For the purpose of the collation below, lists composed by Fokke Akkerman with text variants have been loyally followed.55
Example 1: Tractatus theologico-politicus, chapter 3 (G 3/ 46â47)
â Anon. (Spinoza), De rechtzinnige theologant, 1693, pp. 49â50 (Glazemaker, late 1669/early 1670):
Alles wat wy eerlijk begeren, word voornamelijk tot deze drie dingen gebracht; namelijk, de zaken door hun eerste oorzaken te verstaan. De hartstochten te bedwingen, of de hebbelijkheit des deuchds te verkrijgen. En eindelijk veiliglijk met een gezond ligchaam te leven. De middelen, die regelrecht tot het eerste en twede dienstig zijn, en die gelijk naaste en uitwerkende oorzaken aangemerkt konnen worden, zijn in de menschelijke natuur zelve begrepen; invoegen dat der zelver verkrijging, voornamelijk in onze macht bestaat, of van de enige wetten der menschelijke natuur afhangt: en om deze oorzaak, moet men gantschelijk vast stellen, dat deze gaven aan geen volk eigen en bezonder, maar altijd aan het geheel menschelijk geslacht gemeen zijn: â¦.
â The Hague, ms. 75 G 15/codex A, p. 63/fol. 155v (before 17 February 1671):
Alles wat wy eerlyk begeeren, word voornamelyk tot deze drie dingen gebragt, namelyk de zaaken door hun eerste oorzaaken te verstaan, de hartstogten te bedwingen, ofte de hebbelykheid des deugds te verkrygen, en eyndelyk met een gezond lighaam te leeven. De middelen die regel regt tot het eerste en tweede dienstig zyn, en die gelyck naaste en uytwerkende oorzaaken aangemerkt konnen worden, zyn inde menschelyke natuur zelve begreepen; invoege dat de zelvde verkrijging voornamentlijk in onze magt be alleen bestaat, ofte van de wetten alleen der menschelyke natúur afhangd. En om deze oorzaak moetmen gantschelyk vast stellen, dat deze gaaven aan geen volck eygen, en bezonder, maar altyd aant geheel menschelyk geslagt gemeen hebben geweest.
Chapter 3 (âOn the Calling of the Hebrewsâ) of Van Blijenberghâs rejoinder De waerheyt van de christelijcken godts-dienst, page 76.
â Van Blijenbergh, De waerheyt, 1674, pp. 75â76:
⦠dat alle het gene wy eerlijck begeeren, voor-namentlijck tot dese drie dingen wort gebracht; te weten de saecke door hun eerste oorsaecke te verstaen, de harts-tochten te bedwingen, of de hebbelijckheyt der deugt te verkrijgen, en eyndelijck in veyligheyt en met een gesont Lichaem te leven, de middelen die regel-recht tot het eerste en tweede dienstigh zijn, en die gelijck naeste en uytwerckende oorsaecken aen-gemerckt konnen worden, zijn in de Menschelijcke natuer selve begreepen, invoegen dat der selver verkrijginge in onse macht alleen bestaet, of van de eenige Wetten der Menschelijcke natuer af-hangt, en om dese oorsaeck moetmen gantschelijck vast stellen, dat dese gaven aen geen volck eygen en bysonder, maer altijt aen ât geheel Menschelijck geslacht, gemeen is geweest.
â Anon. (Spinoza), Een rechtsinnige theologant, 1694, p. 40:
Alles wat wy eerlijk begeeren word voornamelijk tot dese drie dingen gebracht, namelijk, de saken door hun eerste oorsaken te verstaan. De hartstochten te bedwingen, of de hebbelijkheid des deugts te verkrijgen. En eindelijk in veiligheid, met een gesond lichaam te leven. De middelen die regel recht tot het eerste en twede dienstig zijn, en dan gelijk naaste en uitwerkende oorsaken aangemerkt konnen worden, zijn in de menschelijke natuur selve begrepen; Invoegen dat der selver verkrijging, voornamelijk in onse macht alleen bestaat, of alleen van de euwige wetten der menschelijke natuur afhangt. En om dese oorzaak moetmen gantschelijk vaststellen, dat dese gaven aan geen volk eigen of bysonder, maar altijd aan ât geheel menschelijck geslacht gemeen hebben geweest.
Example 2: Tractatus theologico-politicus, chapter 3 (G 3/ 62â63)
â Anon. (Spinoza), De rechtzinnige theologant, 1693, p. 74 (Glazemaker, late 1669/early 1670):
⦠men kan dit lichtelijk uit de natuur van Gods wil afleiden, die niet van Gods verstand onderscheiden word, dan ten opzicht van onze reden en verstand; dat is Gods wil en verstand, zijn waarlijk in zich een en ât zelfde, en worden niet onderscheiden, dan ten opzicht van onze gedachten, die wy van Gods verstand vormen. Tot een voorbeeld: als wy alleenlijk hier op merken, dat de natuur van de driehoek, van eeuwigheit in de goddelijke natuur als een eeuwige waarheit is begrepen, zo zeggen wy, dat God het denkbeeld van de driehoek heeft, of de natuur van de driehoek verstaat: maar als wy daar na hier op merken, dat de natuur van de driehoek, dus in de goddelijke natuur is begrepen, uit dâenige noodzaaklijkheit van de goddelijke natuur, en niet uit de nootzaakelijkheit van de wezentheit en natuur des driehoeks, ja dat de noodzakelijkheit der wezentheit en eigenschappen van de driehoek, voor zo veel zy ook als eeuwige waarheden, begrepen worden, van dâenige noodzakelijkheit der goddelijke natuur en verstand afhangt, en niet uit de natuur van de driehoek, zo noemen wy dan dat geen, het welk wy Gods verstand geheten hebben, Gods wil of besluit. Wy zeggen dieshalven, ten opzicht van God, een en ât zelfde, als wy zeggen, dat God van eeuwigheit gewilt en besloten heeft, dat de drie hoeken van een driehoek met twee rechte hoeken gelijk zijn, of dat God dit verstaan heeft. Hier uit volgt, dat Gods bevestigingen en ontkenningen, altijd een eeuwige noodzakelijkheit of waarheit insluiten.
â The Hague, ms. 75 G 15/codex A, p. 63/fol. 155v (before 17 February 1671):
⦠men kan dit ligtelyk uyt de natuur van gods wil af leyden, die niet van gods versta nd onderscheiden word, dan ten op zigt van onze reeden en verstand onderscheiden word, dat is gods wil, en gods verstand, zyn waarlyk in zig een en ât zelvde, en worden niet onderscheiden, dan ten opzigt van onze gedagten, die wy van gods verstand vormen: tot een voorbeeld als wy alleenlyk hyer op merken, dat de natuur van de driehoek van eeuwigheid in de goddelyke natuur als een eeuwige waar heid is begrepen, zo zeggen wy, dat god het denkbeeld van de drie hoek heeft, of de natuur van de drie hoek verstaat; maar als wy daar naar hier op merken, dat de natuur van de driehoek dus in de goddelyke natuur is begreepen, uyt de noodzaakelykheid van de goddelyke natuur alleen, en, niet uyt de noodzaakelykheid van de wezentheid en natuur des drie hoeks, jaa dat de noodzaakelykheid der wezentheid en eygenschappen van de drie hoek, voor zo veel zy ook als eeuwige waarheden begreepen worden, van dâeenige noodzakelykheid der goddelyke natuur en verstand afhangd, en niet uyt de natuur van de drie hoek, zo noemen wy het geen ât welk wy gods verstand geheeten hebben, gods wil of besluyt. Wy zeggen dies halven, ten opzigt van god een en ât zelve, als wy zeggen, dat god van eeuwigheid beslooten en gewild heeft, dat drie hoeken, van een drie hoek met twee regte hoeken gelyk zouden zyn, ofte dat god dit verstaan heeft. Hier uyt volgd, dat gods verzeekeringen, en ontkenningen altyd een eeuwige noodzaakelykheid, of waarheid insluytenâ¦.
â Van Blijenbergh, De waerheyt, 1674, p. 109:
⦠men kan ⦠dit lichtelijck uyt de natuer van Godts wil af-leyden, die niet van Godts verstand onderscheyden wort, dan ten opsicht van onse reden en verstand; dat is Godts wil en Godts verstand, zijn waerlijck in sich een en het selfde, en worden niet onderscheyden, dan ten opsicht van onse gedachten, die wy van Godts verstand vormen.
[text in De waerheytâs quotation lacking]
Wy seggen dieshalven ten opsicht van God een en selfde, als wy seggen dat Godt van eeuwigheyt beslooten en gewilt heeft, dat de drie-hoecken van een drie-hoeck met twee rechte hoecken gelijck souden zijn, of dat Godt dit verstaen heeft, en hier uyt volght dat altijts Godts verseeckeringe en ontkenninge, een eeuwige nootsaeckelijkheyt of waerheyt in-sluyten.
â Anon. (Spinoza), Een rechtsinnige theologant, 1694, pp. 60â61:
⦠kan men lichtelijk uit de natuur van Gods wil af leiden, die niet van Gods verstand word onderscheiden, dan ten opsicht van onse reden, dat is, Gods wil, en Godts verstand, zijn waarlijk in sich, een en ât selfde; en worden niet onderscheiden, dan ten opsicht van onse gedachten, die wy van Gods verstand vormen. Tot een voorbeeld, als wy alleenlijk hier op merken, dat de natuur van de Driehoek van eeuwigheid in de Goddelijke natuur word begrepen, (of vervat,) als een euwige waarheid, so seggen wy, dat God het denkbeeld van de Driehoek (of des Driehoeks) heeft; of de natuur des Driehoeks verstaat; Maar als wy daar na hier op merken, dat de natuur van de Driehoek dus in de Goddelijke natuur is begrepen, uit de noodsakelijkheid van de Goddelijke natuur alleen, ende niet uit de noodsakelijkheid van de wesendheid en natuur des Driehoeks, ja, dat de noodsakelijkheid der wesentheid, en eigenschappen van de Driehoek, voor so veel sy ook als euwige waarheden begrepen worden, van de enige noodsakelijkheid, der Goddelijke natuur en verstand af hangt; en niet uit de natuur van de Driehoek, dan noemen wy dat geen, het welk wy Gods verstand geheten hebben, Gods wil of besluit. Waarom wy, ten opsichte van God, een ende het selfde bevestigen, als wy seggen, dat God van euwigheid heeft besloten, en gewilt, dat de Driehoeken van een Driehoek, met twe rechte hoeken, gelijk souden zijn, of, dat God dit selfde verstaan heeft. Hier uit volgt, dat Gods versekeringen, en ontkenningen, altijd een euwige noodsakelijkheid, of waarheid insluiten.
Chapter 4 (âOf the Divine Lawâ) of Van Blijenberghâs rejoinder De waerheyt van de christelijcken godts-dienst, page 109.
5 The Amsterdam Editions of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Final Conclusions
Summarized in the organogram below are my final research conclusions presented in this study in regard to the printing and publication history of the Latin Tractatus theologico-politicus, of their variant states, and of its French, Dutch, and English translations. Given are their intricate relationships in terms of their typography, textual misprints, and typeset corrections. Although the status of Een rechtsinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkunde, printed in 1694, is still rather undefined because of the lack of in-depth research, this edition is included in the chart, too. Dotted lines with black balls and those without indicate increasing uncertain interconnections.
The Amsterdam editions of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. Final conclusions: from Spinozaâs holograph to its Dutch translations.
6 A Cancelled Dutch Translation (1687): the âTractaet Theologi Politicy in tâDuijtsâ
Six years before âHenricus Koenraadâ published Glazemakerâs Dutch translation in De rechtzinnige theologant in âHamburgâ, someone further unknown from Delft made also an effort to put a Dutch translation of Spinozaâs treatise to press. Evidence for this is supported by the Amsterdam Reformed Consistoryâs acts. Unfortunately, both the Delft sponsorâs name and the translationâs origin and textual status are shrouded in mist. Because of this, no claims about a possible relationship between the foregoing âDelftâ translation and the Dutch text by Glazemaker, the revised second Dutch text redaction of a âsecondâ translator, or the newfound third text version presented in Van Blijenberghâs De waerheyt can therefore be made.
The (now-lost) âDelftâ manuscript, according to the proceedings of the Amsterdam Kerkenraad, had been conveyed for printing to the brother of Timotheus ten Hoorn, Jan Claesz ten Hoorn. The latter was a bookseller, publisher, and printer from Amsterdam who specialized in historical books and works with Cartesian contents and notions obviously taken from Spinozaâs writings as well as in trashy books sold by street vendors.56 During an assembly of the Amsterdam church council held on 9 January 1687, presided over by Henricus Rijnsdijk, it was reported the consistory had been warned, in one letter or more letters by someone unknown from Delft, that Jan Claesz ten Hoorn was busy printing a Dutch translation of Spinozaâs treatise on his presses.57 The account of the church council reads thus:
[In the external margin: The printing of Spinozaâs âTheological-Political Treatiseâ]. [It is] tabled that [efforts have been made] at Delft to prevent the printing of Spinozaâs treatise, called âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, in a Dutch [translation] by Jan ten Hoorn at the âHerenlogementâ at Amsterdam, said to be now in the press. Since this book in Latin is already proscribed by the States of Holland at the instigation of the Christian Synod, it is feared publication in Dutch will cause many more horrible results. [Therefore] it is resolved that the honourable brothers, together with the quarterâs elders, will make [some] penetrating inquiries and question Jan ten Hoorn about the matter themselves. After the investigation, the [outcome] shall be [first] discussed with the honourable chairman and, accordingly, the outcome will be reported to the Noble Great Powers with the objective to prevent [publication of] such a harmful work.58
Subsequently, members of the Kerkenraad, âColega la Mairâ and a certain âSr de Seuterâ among others, went to Ten Hoornâs bookshop âover het Oude Herenlogementâ to ask the latter book trader questions about the matter.59 When Ten Hoorn had been informed about this, according to a consistoryâs resolution (16 January 1687) detailing the conclusions of the Kerkenraad members, he had first denied âthat such a work was under his pressâ (âontkent dat sulcken boeck bij hem onder de pers wasâ). He had also boldly told the church councilâs representatives he had never received from a Delft client either letters or a manuscript of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs Dutch translation (ânoch nooyt van Delft yets sulcx ontfangen hadtâ).
When the Kerkenraadâs acting officers had confronted Ten Hoorn with some letters of complaint they had received from Delft (âconfrontatie van brieven uijt Delft geschrevenâ), the latter eventually confessed. He had, he admitted, received âsuch books and papersâ indeed (âbekent dat sulcke boeken en papieren te hebben ontfangenâ). Accordingly, Ten Hoorn had informed his bookshopâs visitors that he actually had never realized what evil was contained in the assignment (âsonder te weeten datter yets quaets in stackâ). He further told them that, after he had discovered the workâs blasphemous contents (âdat hij naderhandt de godloosheyt van tâschrift hem te weeten gecomen sijndenâ) he had torn up everything already printed and had burned the Dutch translationâs manuscript (âalles hadt verscheurt en verbrantâ) he had been asked to process.
Ten Hoornâs testimony, though, was severely doubted and he was subsequently accused of lying (ânotoire leugenâ, âsulcken godtloos leugen door Jan ten Hoornâ). In the end, the consistoryâs account concludes, they had decided to rebuke Ten Hoorn for his lies (âom hem over die leugen te bestraffenâ) and the consistoryâs acting officers told the Amsterdam bookseller he was to appear before the Kerkenraad for further questioning.60
On Thursday 23 January 1687, Ten Hoorn went to see the disconcerted church council. During interview, he assured its members once again he had destroyed the printed sheets of the Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, together with the manuscript (âal het ghedruckte van dat tractaet ghescheurt en het exempelaer selfs verbrant hadtâ). As a result, the Kerkenraad urged the Amsterdam printer to mention to them the name of âthe authorâ (i.e., the translator) and that of the Delft initiator who had commissioned the work (âom den autheur of aenrader tot het drucken van dat exempelaeren ons te openbarenâ).61 Ten Hoorn, according to the consistoryâs account of the 23th, had subsequently declared the identity of these two individuals (âbetuijcht noch autheur te kennen, noch aenrader gehadt te hebbenâ) was not known to him. Next, the Amsterdam church councilâs praeses brought the matter to a close. As a result, the Kerkenraad could do nothing more than reprimand Ten Hoorn for lying to the consistoryâs acting officers (âover zijn leugen bestraft worden tâgeen door dâE preses gedaen zijndeâ).62
7 De Rechtzinnige Theologant (Glazemaker/Theologant 1693, Text Version 1). Textual Characteristics
In this chapter it has already been previously stated that in the 1697 Vervolg, the sequel to Het leven van Philopater, the workâs anonymous author claimed that a âmedical doctor and an illustrious philosopherâ had obtained the now-lost manuscript of the original Dutch translation of Spinozaâs treatise made by Glazemaker. The latter, according to Vervolg, had edited the manuscript and also composed (in the style of the Zedekunst) its âkonstwoordenâ, the technical Latin glosses now printed in the external margins of De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693). In other words, Glazemaker made an independent Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus after a now-lost Latin manuscript by Spinoza, published in 1693 in De rechtzinnige theologant (siglum: Glazemaker/Theologant 1693). When the latter printed Glazemaker-redaction is set against the redactions of the late-seventeenth-century âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (the revised text of Glazemakerâs translation known as codex A), the Latin quartos, and Een rechtsinnige theologant (1694), it soon becomes apparent that De rechtzinnige theologant contains several notable textual dissimilarities.
It should be noticed in this context that the 1694 Dutch edition presents itself as a re-edition of De rechtzinnige theologant. In spite of this claim, Een rechtsinnige theologant lacks the technical Latin glosses present in the external margins of the Dutch Glazemaker-redaction published in 1693. According to Een rechtsinnige theologantâs editorial foreword, written in grammatically-corrupted Dutch, the lost manuscript which had served as printerâs copy had no explanatory glosses:
⦠[except that] the handwritten copy of the translator, which we used to set in type our [work], does not include such [glosses].63
According to Akkermanâs findings, the textual differences between Glazemakerâs text in De rechtzinnige theologant and codex A should be divided into two key categories. The first category concerns orthographical and grammatical differences which can be explained by the translation process itself. One such example can be found in the treatiseâs prologue. The text of the 1670 Tractatus theologico-politicus reads in the Preface: â[â¦] potius vellem, ut [â¦] negligent, quam [â¦] molesti sint, et [â¦] obsintâ.64 The author of âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (before 17 February 1671) faithfully translates the Latin in the following manner: âEn terwijl zij aan zigh zelven geen voordeel doen, aan andere hinderen, dieâ¦.â (fol. 111r).65
Nonetheless, Glazemakerâs text in De rechtzinnige theologant is a far freer translation (sig. ***3r): âen terwijl zy aan zich zelven geen voordeel doen, zijn zy ook hinderlijk aan die, dieâ [vrymoediger]. Another case in De rechtzinnige theologant is the Dutch translation in chapter 2 (p. 34, l. 33/p. 35, l. 1) of the Latin phrase â& nihil humani ab ipsis alienum existimandumâ. The text in codex A (fol. 141r, ll. 8â10) reads: â⦠di moet gedagt worden, dat al ât geen menschelyk is, van haar niet vreemd en is geweestâ¦.â66 Glazemakerâs text, De rechtzinnige theologant, has a far more freer translation: â⦠hebben ⦠en [geächt] dat hen alles, het welk menschelijk waar, kon overkomen.â67
The second category, distinguished by Akkerman, concerns translation variants related to intentional editorial interventions in Glazemakerâs original text.68 To put it differently, for philosophical key concepts Glazemaker principally prefers Dutch purist words. For instance:
âgeschiedenissenâ (historia: histories, stories, [historical] accounts or narratives).69
âgrondslagenâ (fundamentum: foundation, fundamental principle).70
âverbondâ (pactum: contract, covenant, agreement).71
âachtbaarheidâ (majestas: majesty).
The unknown âsecondâ editor of the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ in codex A, though, replaced those four key nouns with the following synonyms:
âhistorienâ.
âfondementenâ.
âtestamentâ.
âmajesteitâ.72
A specific term also introduced by Glazemaker is the Dutch expression â(gemene) kundigheitâ, the technical equivalent for the Latin noun axioma. Contrariwise, the editor of âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ has translated that technical term as âgeloofsspreukâ.73
Akkerman refers to other examples which strongly seem to support the conclusion Glazemaker made an autonomous translation of Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico-politicus indeed. The first three printed Latin quarto editions (T.1, T.2/T.2a, T.4n/T.4) have in chapter 1 on page 12 the following phrase (ll. 26â27): âsunt ne haec (scaeva scilicet) ejus opera?â.74 Both the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (fol. 128v) and Een rechtsinnige theologant (p. 15, ll. 5â6) have in this same instance âverkeerde werkenâ and â(averechse) werkenâ, respectively. Glazemakerâs text in De rechtzinnige theologant seems to be a translation of the Latin adjective âsaevaâ, not of âscaevaâ. He translates thus (p. 18, l. 29): âzijn dit niet (te weten toornige) zijn werken?â. This corrupted and more simpler reading can also be found in the corrected Latin quarto edition T.5, set in type after T.4n/T.4, its immediate exemplar.75
Next, all printed Latin quarto editions have, in chapter 4 the phrase âex solo defectu cogitationisâ (p. 51, l. 29).76 Glazemakerâs translation in De rechtzinnige theologant reads (p. 78, l. 24): âby gebrek van kennisâ. Nevertheless, both âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (fol. 182v) and Een rechtsinnige theologant (p. 64, ll. 27â28) have the following Dutch phrase: âby gebrek van denkingâ.77
Another example occurs in the âTheological-Political Treatiseâ in its chapter 17. Latin quarto edition T.5 presents on its pages 190â191 (ll. 35/1) a correction of a quotation from the âHistories of Alexander the Greatâ, probably by the Roman historian Quinten Curtius Rufus, which has been mistakenly typeset in the first three printed quartos.78 In T.1, T.2/T.2a, and T.4n/T.4, this typesetterâs flaw reads: âMajestatis enim salutis esse tutelamâ. T.5 has the corrected version from Curtius: âMajestatem enim salutis esse tutelamâ. Still, both quotations are incomplete and lack the genitive case of the noun imperii. Glazemakerâs text in De rechtzinnige theologant (p. 292, ll. 17â18), quotes Curtius however correctly:
⦠dewijl dâachtbaarheit en ât gezach van de heerschappy, de beschutting en bescherming van de welstand was.
De rechtzinnige theologantâs two doublings are absent in a Dutch translation of Curtius, published in 1663 which was composed by Glazemaker.79 There, it reads in his translation the following: âdewijl dâachtbaarheid van de heerschappij de beschutting van de welstant was: â¦.â80
Since the mid-sixteenth century it was customary to divide each chapter of the Bible into verses of a few short lines or sentences. Most biblical quotations in the printed Latin editions, though, are indicated with references to a numbering of verses different to the current numbering now familiar to readers. Eighteen of those âotherâ references can be found in Glazemakersâs text printed in De rechtzinnige theologant of 1693. Only five of them present the âcorrectâ present-day numbering in Scripture.81
When the textual condition of the surviving Dutch redactions of the Tractatus theologico-politicus is examined in their minute details, Akkermanâs definitive conclusion is that the text of âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, as it is preserved in manuscript 75 G 15, does present the most superior state of the Dutch translation of Spinozaâs second work. In other words, the revised text redaction contained in codex A in the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, made by a âsecondâ translator/editor, is considered as the version most faithful to the original Latin text of Spinozaâs now-lost holograph, translated by Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker.
8 The Lexical Similarity of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicusâs Extant Four Dutch Redactions
Armed with the view Glazemaker has made an autonomous Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico- politicus, some conclusive remarks are finally to be made about the overall lexical similarities of all four surviving Dutch translations: (1) Glazemakerâs translation published in the 1693 De rechtzinnige theologant, (2) the improved redaction of Glazemakerâs lost manuscript in âGod- geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (codex A), (3) the fragmentarily translation in the De waerheyt (commonly following codex Aâs text) published by Willem van Blijenbergh in 1674, and, lastly, (4) Een rechtsinnige theologant, printed in 1694.
Traditionally, scholars have always collated larger text units by text sampling, i.e., systematic philological comparison of selected text portions considered to be representative for closer examination. With the increasingly-rapid pace of evolving research possibilities provided by present-day computational analysis, collation of fully-transcribed texts can now be automated in a thorough and most efficient way. Hence, technically spoken, old-fashioned sampling becomes unnecessary when comparing parallel texts. In digital transcripts, sentence pairs can now be automatically collated and subsequently analysed line-by-line with an algorithm, allowing to compute their very similarities. Such an automatic collation of the four surviving Dutch translations of Spinozaâs âTheological-Political Treatiseâ has been recently executed by Van der Deijl.82
In regard to the textual roots of these four Dutch translations and their highly-complex lexical similarity, the following conclusions can be drawn from Van der Deijlâs computational analysis:
The âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ, in codex A, has an independent translation of chapters 5 and 9 markedly different from Glazemakerâs translation printed in the 1693 De rechtzinnige theologant.
Both De rechtzinnige theologant and Een rechtsinnige theologant (1694) are different text versions. Yet, their lexical similarity rises after the Preface and then drops after chapter 4. This indicates chapters 1 to 4 of both printed editions share a common root.
In all of its chapters, Een rechtsinnige theologant is a text version not reliant on the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ (codex A), except for 5. Mutually independent are in Een rechtsinnige theologant its Preface and chapters 5 to 20, except for chapter 9 which appears to have been translated by three different translators.
Each text version of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs four surviving Dutch translations seems to contain an autonomous variant redaction of chapter 9.
The redactions of chapter 5 in Een rechtsinnige theologant and the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ overlap to a high degree, but chapter 5 in De rechtzinnige theologant and Een rechtsinnige theologant is not reliant on one another.
Traditional sampling by Van der Deijl of the translation now surviving in small text portions in the 1674 De waerheyt supports my earlier conclusion Van Blijenberghâs translation follows in all chapters the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ in codex A, especially in 5 and 9.
In regard to the complex lexical similarity and textual roots of the Tractatus theologico-politicusâs now-known Dutch translations, Van der Deijlâs suggestion is that several copies of one Dutch translation circulated in manuscript, either in separate chapters or in a completed full copy. This conclusion also furthers the distinct possibility that many more still unknown different intermediary versions in Dutch may have been produced in the period between the first Latin quarto edition T.1âs publication (late 1669 or early 1670) and the publication of Glazemakerâs Dutch translation in De rechtzinnige theologant, issued by the mysterious publisher âHenricus Koenraadâ in 1693.
9 The Trouhartige Waarschouwing (1704) about Den Hemel op Aarden (1703) and De Rechtzinnige Theologant
Almost ten years after publication of the 1697 Philopater sequel Vervolg, in which the bookâs author made claims about Glazemakerâs translation of De rechtzinnige theologant, the general reviling vituperation of Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico-politicus had not diminished. His adversaries would continue to assault the work in vitriolic pamphlets and books for many decades to come.83 Like its Latin and French editions, also the Glazemaker translation first printed in 1693 was considered a threat to the Christian faith and the piety of ordinary churchgoers, too. For, those who were not Latinate were now able to read Spinozaâs provocative treatise in the vernacular.
Conjointly with De rechtzinnige theologant, another work, called Den hemel op aarden (Heaven on Earth) was lambasted in a similar way. This work, heavily leaning on Spinozaâs Ethica and published by the liberal Dutch pastor Frederik van Leenhof (1647â1715) in Zwolle in 1703, also met with the strongest opposition. The bookâs contents were considered by its opponents a scornful blow to traditional Reformed theological doctrine.84 Van Leenhof in Den hemel op aarden maintained that everybody can live in a sacred âheaven on earthâ and also took up the view there was a necessary order of nature. In addition, Van Leenhof upheld, salvation can be obtained from the rational, secular knowledge of Godâs order only. Like Spinoza, he rejected a transcendental, personal God. Even God himself was unable to abrogate natureâs necessity.
Clerical reactions to Van Leenhofâs work were straightforwardly hostile. They were brought to a head in various publications which were put to press against Den hemel op aarden.85 Except for the Provincial Synod of Zwolle, all other Dutch Synods were shocked and condemned the book to be scandalous, irreligious, and misleading for its efforts propagating downright philosophical notions related to Spinoza overtly. Because of the bookâs striking parallels with expressions and definitions contained in Spinozaâs writings, it was heavily assailed in Trouhartige waarschouwing aan alle slag van menschen (Loyal Warning to All Kind of People), a work surreptitiously published in 1704. In the latter riposte, its disguised author sought to underline the dangers hidden in Den hemel op aarden and reverse them.86 According to the Trouhartige waarschouwing, Van Leenhof was openly and straightforwardly propagating Spinozaâs works and the radical doctrines contained in them.
In the same year the Trouhartige waarschouwing was published in Amsterdam, also the previously-mentioned Enkhuizen pastor Frans Burman fils launched an attack on Van Leenhof in print. Four years earlier, it has been pointed out in chapter 3, Burman fils had published Burmannorum pietas to defend his father Frans Burman against Philip van Limborchâs accusations the former Utrecht theologian had in his works expressed veiled sympathies for Spinozaâs metaphysical doctrines.87 In 1704, Burman fils in ât Hoogste goed der spinozisten, vergeleken met den Hemel op aarden this time accused his colleague Van Leenhof of heresy and besmirching Christianity with âthe bodily and dirty teachings of Epicurusâ. Moreover, he blamed him for reviving âSpinozisteryâ (âspinozismâ), an anachronistic Dutch term putting Van Leenhof on a par with virulent atheism, Spinoza in particular.88 For long, Van Leenhofâs Den hemel op aarden would be rated unceasingly in the Netherlands and beyond as one of the most influential forerunners of works in the vernacular popularizing Spinoza.
The Trouhartige waarschouwingâs disguised author in the workâs epilogue also brings up De rechtzinnige theologant to warn readers for the pernicious contents of this first Dutch edition of Spinozaâs treatise. De rechtzinnige theologant, it is contended in the Trouhartige waarschouwingâs epilogue, is nothing more than a Pandoraâs box, propounding a host of foolish misconceptions about the âpure truthâ (âzuivere waarheidâ) and the âholy wisdomâ (âgeheiligde wysheidâ) of Scripture and the Christian faith. Van Leenhofâs anonymous detractor cunningly remarks that, first and for all, Spinoza himself had prevented (1671) the printing of a Dutch rendering of his âTheological-Political Treatiseâ. He would have been well aware that the Dutch authorities would ban such a rendering in the vernacular, especially after repeated accusations of atheism levelled against the Tractatus theologico-politicus since it was first published. Because of the Latin workâs subsequent ban (19 July 1674), the Trouhartige waarschouwing further argues, for long no one had effectively had the courage to put to press a Dutch translation of the treatise. Only recently, the riposteâs cloaked author continues bitterly, âfree mindsâ (âvrye verstandenâ) had purposely violated the bookâs ban and boldly renamed this
⦠disastrous creature and child of darkness [from start to finish] as the âOrthodox Theologianâ with the aim of letting it look like an Angel of light. In this way, it came to light in the year 1693 as a white-painted whore who, because of her public ungodliness, was banned for ever from the fatherland, despite ban and fine. [It was published with the very objective] to kick in the reins of the genuine word of the living God (if this could be possible anyway) and cut off the arteries of the heart. It is meant to fool the world, which is submerged in evil and darkened by nature, [teaching] that there is actually no truth in [what] Holy Scripture teaches or is contained in itâ¦.89
The Trouhartige waarschouwingâs author further expresses his concern that De rechtzinnige theologant would call forth irreligious and immoral responses. It would deceive young ignorant readers and make them doubt, even reject, established theological doctrines and commonly accepted acts of worship. Worried, the author of the Trouhartige waarschouwing then warns for the nasty consequences which De rechtzinnige theologant could bring into effect:
Yes, after free spirits boldly entitled the G.S.V. [as the] âOrthodox Theologianâ and recommended this work regularly to young book lovers (even to young girls in whose houses and hands it was [already] present), it is obvious all should be warned for the deceit and poison. [Especially] the parents [who were] to keep [this book] from their childrenâs hands.90
Unclear is how many copies of De rechtzinnige theologant (1693) and of Een rechtsinnige theologant (1694) were eventually printed. Up to the present, twenty copies of the first Dutch edition and nine copies of the second are known to be extant in libraries holdings. In spite of these few surviving copies, there are indications one of the two editions remained in any case popular for several decades.
In 1714, the Leiden printer and bookseller Samuel I Luchtmans (1685â1757) published a catalogue of all the books (331 different book titles) held in stock by his firm, simply called Catalogus librorum.91 Tellingly, the latter catalogue also lists âSpinoza regtsinnige Theologant 4.â. Yet, it is uncertain whether the reference concerns the 1693 quarto edition or the one published one year later. According to a handwritten note scribbled by Luchtmans on a leafâs recto in an interleaved copy of Catalogus librorum preserved in Amsterdam, in 1714 he had still eleven copies of that Dutch translation in stock. Whether this number of copies is representational for the bookâs common availability in other bookstores at the start of the eighteenth century is unclear. In sum, all this however seems to add to the conclusion that, about twenty years after the Dutch translationsâ publication, the work was apparently in 1714 a book still sought after by readers.92
âµ
First Quarto Edition, First and Only Issue, One Single Print Run (ILLUSTRATION 7.5â7.14)
Short Title
Anon., De rechtzinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkundige verhandeling. âHamburgâ [Amsterdam], âHenricus Koenraadâ, printer: unknown, for: [Jan Rieuwertsz fils] (bookseller), 1693.
Dutch text; subsidiary languages: Hebrew and Latin.
Autonomous translation from the Latin by Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker.
Cover-up publication address in imprint: Hamburg (i.e. [Amsterdam]).
Fictitious publisher in imprint: âHenricus Koenraadâ (i.e. [Jan Rieuwertsz fils]).
Title-page has arabesqued ornaments.
Technical Latin glosses in external margins.
Contains table of contents (âDâinhout der hooftdelen dezes boeksâ, twenty chapters).
Contains list of errata.
Dutch booksellerâs price at publication not known.
Title-page of the first Dutch quarto edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. Independent translation by Glazemaker.
Exemplars
Possibly Spinozaâs lost Latin holograph and/or apograph of it; the autograph and/or an apograph of Glazemakerâs translation, which has served as printerâs copy, are no longer extant; perhaps also T.1.
Title-Page (on outer Forme of Gathering *)
De | RECHTZINNIGE | THEOLOGANT, | OF | GODGELEERDE | STAATKUNDIGE | VERHANDELINGE. | Uit (swash U) het Latijn (swash L) vertaalt. | (arabesqued ornaments) | Te HAMBURG, | By Henricus Koenraad. | MDCXCIII.
Language(s) and Typography
Dutch (incidentally printed in Fraktur typeface, p. 87), unpointed bold Hebrew (with translation into Dutch). Latin glosses in external margins (italic type, keyed to Dutch terms with superior letters), explanatory footnotes, keyed with typographical symbols. Old-style serif roman types from an otherwise unidentified Amsterdam printing firm. Normally thirty-three lines.
Pages 1 and 87 of main text.
Prime Literals/Misprints/Hanging Sorts
P. 13: sig. B3 (outer forme) misprinted as âA 3â.
Occurs in: Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, University Library, RON A-5815; Utrecht, University Library, F OCT 881; The Hague, KB, 3112 F 17, PH851.
P. 204 (page number): 204 misnumbered as â205â (outer forme of Cc).
p. 294 (page number): smaller 2 printed (hanging) beneath 94 (inner forme of Oo).
Occurs in: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Exeg. 858e.
Bibliographical Fingerprints of Separate Parts
169304 â a1 *2 eit$ : a2 ***3 ook$hind
169304 â b1 A er : b2 Yy3 jk$of$b
Collation
4o: *4 **4 ***4 ****2 AâZ4 AaâYy4 [$3, ****2 unsigned]
194 leaves = pp. [28] 1â360 [1]
Collation Variant
Stop-press correction of misprinted signature B3 on p. 13 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Exeg. 858e).
Direction Line
Signature and catchword(s), anticipating the first word on the next page, at the foot of each page.
Running Headlines
Running headlines of Preface printed in upper middle margin, larger upper-case letters (capital letters): VOORREEDEN.
Running headlines in main work in a combination of larger upper-case (capital letters) and smaller lower-case letters: De RECHTZINNIGE (verso), THEOLOGANT. 1. Hooftd. (recto, with subsequent chapter numbers).
Contents
*1r (title-page)
*1v (blank)
*2râ***3v VOORREDEN.
***3v DRUKFOUTEN. (list of errata, thirteen corrections, for pp. 11, 63, 71, 126, 158, 159, 190, 212, 264, 267, 276, 292, 315)
***4râ****2v DâINHOUT der HOOFTDELEN dezes BOEKS. (table of contents, six-page list indicating twenty chapters)
ArâC3v DE RECHTZINNIGE THEOLOGANT: Of GODGELEERDE STAATKUNDIGE VERHANDELINGE. ât EERSTE HOOFT-DEEL. Van de Prophetie.
C4râF3r ât TWEDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Propheten.
F3vâIv ât DARDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Roepinge der Hebreën: en of de Prophetische Gave, aan de Hebreën eigen, en bezonder is geweest.
IvâL2r ât VIERDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Goddelijke Wet.
L2râN3r ât VYFDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de réden waaröm de Kerkplichten zijn in gestelt, en van ât Geloof der Geschiedeniszen, namelijk waaröm, en wien ât zelve noodzaaklijk is.
N3râQ3r ât ZESDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Wonderdaden.
Q3vâV3r ât ZEVENDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Uytlegging, of verklaring der Schrift.
V3râY3v ât ACHSTE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in getoond word, dat Mozes vijf Boeken, en die van Jozua, der Richteren, Ruth, Samuël, en der Koningen, geen eige Handschriften zijn. Daar na word onderzocht, of âer meer Schrijvers van deze Boeken geweest zijn dan een, en wie.
Y4râBbr ât NEGENDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de voorgaande Boeken worden noch eenige andere dingen onderzocht, namelijk, of Esdra de laatste hand aan dezelve gelegt heeft: en daar na of de kanttekeningen, die in de Hebreeusche afschriften gevonden worden, verscheide lézingen geweest zijn.
BbvâDdr ât TIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in dâandere Boeken, van ât Oude Verbond op een zelfde wijze, als de voorgaande, worden onderzocht.
DdrâEe2v ât ELFDE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in ondersocht word, of dâApostelen hun brieven; als Apostelen en Propheten, dan of ze dezelve als Leeraars geschreven hebben. Daarna word de bediening der Apostelen getoont.
Ee2vâGgr ât TWAALFDE HOOFTDEEL. Van ât handschrift der Goddelijke Wet , en waaröm de Schrift gewijd of heilig, en waaröm zy Gods Woord wort genoemt: en eindelijk word getoont, dat zy, voor zo veel zy Gods Woord begrijpt: ongekreukt en onbedorven, tot ons is gekomen.
GgrâHhv ât DARTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in getoond word, dat de Schrift niet dan zeer eenvoudige dingen leert en onderwijst, en nergens anders na doelt.
HhvâIi3r ât VEERTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Wat ât Geloof is: wie Gelovigen zijn: de gronden van ât Geloof worden bepaalt: en de zelfden eindelijk van de wijsbegeerte afgescheiden.
Ii3vâLl2r ât VYFTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Dat de Godgeleertheit geen Dienstmaagd van de reden, en de reden geen Dienstmaagd van de Godgeleertheit is. Vorders word ook getoont de reden, door dewelke wy ons dâachtbaarheit en ât gezach der Heilige Schrift overréden.
Ll2râNn3r ât ZESTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Van de Grondvesten van een geménestaat: van yders Natuurlijk en Burgerlijk recht, en van ât recht der oppermachten.
Nn3vâRr3v ât ZEVENTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in getoont word dat niemant alles aan dâOppermacht kan overgeven, en dat het ook niet noodzaaklijk is. Van de geménestaat der Hebreën, hoedanig zy was terwijl Mozes leefde, hoedanig na zijn dood, eer de Koningen verkozen wierden, een van des zelfs voortreffelijkheit: en eindelijk van dâoorzaken, door dewelke de goddelijke geménestaat kon ondergaan, en naaulijks zonder beroerten heeft konnen bestaan.
Rr3vâTtr ât ACHTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Uit de geménestaat der Hebreën, en uit hun geschiedeniszen, worden enige staatkundige léringen besloten.
TtvâXxv ât NEGENTIENDE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in getoont word, dat het recht omtrent het gewijde gantschelijk by dâOppermachten is, en dat dâuitwendige oeffeningen van de Godsdienst naar de vrede en rust van de geménestaat geschikt moeten worden, zo wy God recht willen dienen.
Xx2râYy4v ât TWINTIGSTE HOOFTDEEL. Waar in word getoont, dat het in een vrye geménestaat aan yeder geörlooft is, het geen dat hy wil, te gevoelen, en ât dat hy gevoelt, te zeggen.
List of errata following the prologue.
Ornament on Title-Page
Small-arabesqued ornaments arranged in a V-shape, 3 piled-up rows, each row comprising 5, 4, and 3 small vignettes, respectively, copper engraving (?), 20Ã30 mm.
Decorated initials on signature *2r and pages 1 and 23.
Tailpiece vignette at the conclusion of the main text.
Decorated Initials
Two ornamented (acanthus) initials (I, P), plus one decorated factotum initial (U), relief woodcuts, employed to head the first letter of the first word of prologue and chapters of main work: sig. *2r (5 ll., 27Ã26 mm), pp. 1 (6 ll., 27Ã26 mm) and 23 (4 ll., 16Ã15 mm).
Simple Initials
Eighteen plain black capitals (pp. 46 [8Ã9 mm], 66, 83, 101, 126, 157, 175, 194, 209, 220, 234, 242, 254, 267, 286, 318, 330, 349), each constituting the first letter of each chapterâs first word.
Tailpiece Ornament
P. 360: imitation of small-arabesqued ornaments on title-page, same motives, 12Ã10 mm, copper engraving, 2 piled-rows, organized in the form of a letter V.
Copies (21)
Copies Examined
DRT#1 Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, University Library, RON A-5815
Digitized copy:
DRT#2 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Exeg. 858e
Few pages poorly printed (p. 87: first word of running headline [âTheologantâ]; pp. 262â263), p. 299: text leaning to the left, p. 324: notes heavily âfloatingâ in left external margin. Copy has stop-press correction of signature B3.
Digitized copy:
DRT#3 Utrecht, University Library, F OCT 881
Late-seventeenth-century plain vellum binding over pasteboard, round back, handwritten title in black ink on the top of spine (over an elder illegible ink title): âDe Rechtzinni[k]e Theologantâ. Publication date written by the same hand on the tail of the spine: â1693â.
Provenance: rectangular stamp (Utrecht, UL) in lower margin of title-page.
DRT#4 The Hague, KB, 3112 F 17
Late-seventeenth-century brown calf leather over pasteboard, gold-tooled oblong stamp within a similarly gold-tooled double rectangular rule on front and back.
Digitized copy:
DRT#5 The Hague, KB, PH851
Late-seventeenth-century vellum binding, one five raised bands, blind-tooled covering.
Provenance: Bob Luza, ex libris (Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica [Amsterdam]) on first pastedown, reading: âPhilosophia Hermeticaâ, below another ex libris reading: âInstituut Collectie Nederlandâ).
Non-Collated Copies
Netherlands (5)
DRT#6 Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, University Library, 516 E 36
DRT#7 Leiden, University Library, 546 F 1
DRT#8â10 Rijnsburg, Vereniging Het Spinozahuis (three copies)
Germany (1)
DRT#11 Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Fa 2749
Sweden (1)
DRT#12 Stockholm, Royal Library, 116 A
United Kingdom (1)
DRT#13 Cambridge, Newnham College, 113.2 (vellum, hand-lettering on spine, signature of Coenr. Hendricksz on flyleaf, note by Sir Herbert Thompson [1859â1944] on front inside cover: âThis is a translation into Dutch of Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico-politicus, made by Jan Hendrikz. Glazemaker in 1671, thoâ not published till 1693. The imprint is false; the book was really publ. at Amsterdam by Jan Rieuwertsz.â)
United States (8)
DRT#14 Cincinnati (OH), Hebrew Union College, University Library, Freidus SPINOZA
DRT#15 Ithaca (NY), Cornell University, Kroch Library Rare & Manuscripts, B3985.D5 G54 1693
DRT#16 Los Angeles (CA), University of California, University Library, barcode G0000526103 (modern quarter calf and brown cloth over boards).
DRT#17â18 New York (NY), Columbia University, University Library, SPINOZA 193Sp4 X6 1693, SPINOZA 193Sp4 X6 1693a
DRT#19 New York (NY), New York Public Library, YBGP D97 G5
DRT#20 Princeton (NJ), Institute of Advanced Study, Historical Studies-Social Science Library, Rosen wald 1 (contemporary vellum binding, wanting front free endpaper, collection Matthys de Jongh, Zutphen, sold to IAS in 2018).
DRT#21 Washington (DC), The Library of Congress, B 3985.D5 G5 Pre-1801 Coll.
Note
Chapters (except 1) separated by single rule (101 to 105 mm); high-quality laid paper, horizontal chain-lines. Three watermarks are visible: Seven Provinces (William A. Churchill, Watermarks in Paper in Holland, England, France, 1935, nos. 109â111); tumbler or âbirdâ figure in circle, 24 mm; large upper-case capital letters BS on top of L in circle, 24 mm.
References
Wolf, Bibliotheca, vol. 1, p. 240; Vogt, Catalogus, p. 640; Trinius, Freydenker-Lexicon, 1759, p. 421; Van der Linde, âNotizâ, p. 6, no. 17; Carl Gebhardt, âDie alten holländischen Ãbersetzungen des Tractatus theologico-politicusâ, Chronicon Spinozanum, 4 (1924â1926), pp. 271â278; Catalogue, no. 150 (Wolf), p. 33, no. 367; Catalogus van de bibliotheek, p. 35, no. 208; Kingma and Offenberg, âBibliographyâ, p. 24, no. 22.
âµ
Second Edition, First and Only Issue, One Single Print Run, in Quarto (ILLUSTRATION 7.15â7.20)
Short Title
Anon., Een rechtsinnige theologant, of godgeleerde staatkunde. âBremenâ [Amsterdam?], printer: âHans Jurgen von der Weylâ, for: an unidentified bookseller, 1694.
Dutch text, subsidiary language: Hebrew.
Edition purports to be a reprint of De rechtzinnige theologant, but lacks its technical Latin glosses in the external margins.
Translator is not known, translation made between 1677 and 1694 (writing period based on a few characteristic printing flaws).
Epigraph on title-page: 1 John 4:13 (also on: T.1, T.2/T.2a, T.4n/T.4, and T.5, T.3t as well as on the first full English translation [1689]).
Cover-up publication address in imprint: Bremen (i.e. [Amsterdam?]).
Title-page is graced by a small-arabesqued vignette.
Contains editorial foreword (sigs *2râ*3v: âDe drukker aan den leeserâ), signed by the bookâs putative printer âHans Jurgen von der Weylâ.
Contains preface.
Contains table of contents (âDâinhoud der hooftdelen deses boeksâ, twenty chapters).
Contains instruction for one text correction.
Dutch booksellerâs price at publication not known.
Exemplars
T.4n/T.4 or T.5; De rechtzinnige theologant cannot be entirely excluded; according to the bookâs foreword set in type on the basis of a manuscript without Latin glosses, the autograph and/or an apograph of the second Dutch edition, which served as printerâs copy, are no longer extant.
Title-Page (on outer Forme of Gathering *)
EEN | RECHTSINNIGE | THEOLOGANT, | OF | GODGELEERDE | STAATKUNDE. | BEHELSENDE (swash capital letters) | Eenige | REDENEERINGEN, | Met welke getoont word , dat de vriheid om te redenee- | ren niet alleen behoudens de GodÅ¿aligheid , en de | vrede des Gemeene-beÅ¿ts kan toegelaten, maar | ook dat deÅ¿elve niet, dan te gelijk met de | GodÅ¿aligheid en vrede des Gemeene- | beÅ¿ts kan weggenomen worden. | 1 Joh. 4: vers 13. Hier door weten wy , dat wy in God blijven , en | God in ons , dat hy ons van Å¿ijn geest gegeven heeft. | Uit het Latijn in ât Hollands vertaald. | En | Om Å¿ijn Voortreffelijkheid nu weer herdrukt. | (arabesqued ornament) | Tot BREMEN, | By HANS JURGEN von der Weyl (German fraktur typeface)/1694.
Language(s) and Typography
Dutch, occasionally printed unpointed Hebrew (footnotes and full text). Explanatory footnotes, keyed with typographical symbols (italic type). Old-style serifed roman types from an unidentified Amsterdam printing firm. Normally twenty-three lines (âDe Drukker aan den Leserâ); thirty-two (âVoorredenâ), and thirty-six lines; chapters (except 1) separated by single rule (107 mm [p. 1]); poor quality-laid paper.
Prime Literals/Misprints/Hanging Sorts
Sig. [Ii3] signed as â[Ii3â (inner forme).
P. 48 (page number): 8 printed above 4 (outer forme of [F]).
P. 54 (chapter numbering): âIV. HOOFTDEEL.â misprinted as âVI. HOOFTDEEL.â (inner forme of G).
P. 92, l. 11: reference to psalm 73 misprinted as â(besie Psalm 37)â.
P. 132, l. 14: the Latin phrase â22. hoc ipsum clare indicatur. Levitae, inquit Historicusâ, missing in T.4n/T.4 and T.5, has not been translated in the second Dutch edition.
P. 137: sig. [S] misprinted as S], [dislodged from outer forme.
Occurs in: Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, an Fa 2703 (1).
Illustration 7.15 Title-page of the second Dutch quarto edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus.
P. 191 (page number): 191 misnumbered as â199â (inner forme of Aa).
P. 193 (running headline): âDe Schrift leert niet als seer eenvoudige dingen, &c.â misprinted as: âDe Shcrift leert niet als seer eenvoudige dingen, &c.â (outer forme of Bb).
P. 209, l. 26: misprint of âExod. 34. vers. 14.â as âExod. 4 : 14.â (outer forme of Dd).
Bibliographical Fingerprints of Separate Parts
169404 â a1 *2 $en : a2 *3 ones$
169404 â b1 ** $,$m : b2 ***3 elve$ver
169404 â c1 [A] ds$eeu : c2 [Oo] N$
Collation
4o: (*)4 (**)4 (***)2 (****)2 [A]â[Z]4 Aa â Nn4 Oo2
156 leaves = pp. [20] 1â289 [3]
Signatures between square brackets (combination of capital letter in italics and signature number).
Collation Variant
No variant state found.
Misprint in running headline on page 193.
Direction Line
Signature and catchword(s), anticipating the first word on the next page, at the foot of each page.
Running Headlines
Running headlines of Preface printed in upper middle margin, larger upper-case letters (capital letters, italic type): VOORREDEN.
Headlines in main work comprise a combination of larger upper-case (capital letters) and smaller lower-case letters (capital letters, italics): I. Hooftdeel, (verso, with subsequent chapter numbers), Van de Prophetie. (recto); II. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Propheten. (recto); III. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Roepinge der Hebreën, &c. (recto); IV. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Goddelijke Wet. (recto); V. Hooftdeel, (verso), Redenen om welke de Ceremonien ingesteld zijn, &c. (recto); VI. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Wonderdaden. (recto); VII. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Uitlegginge der H. Schrift. (recto); VIII. Hooftdeel, (verso), Wie de schrijver zy van de vijf boeken Mozes, &c. (recto); IX. Hooftdeel, (verso), Wie de schrijver zy van de overige boeken, &c. (recto); X. Hooftdeel, (verso), De overige boeken des O.T. werden ondersogt &c. (recto); XI. Hooftdeel, (verso), Of de Apostelen geschreven hebben als Leeraars, &c. (recto); XII. Hooftdeel, (verso), Op wat manier de Schrift heilig genaamt word, &c. (recto); XIII. Hooftdeel, (verso), De Schrift leert niet als seer eenvoudige dingen, &c. (recto); XIV. Hooftdeel, (verso), Wat het geloove zy, en desselfs bepalinge, enz. (recto); XV. Hooftdeel, (verso), De Godgel: niet dienstb: aan de Reden noch de Red: &c. (recto); XVI. Hooftdeel, (verso), Van de Gronden eens Gemeene-best, enz. (recto); XVII. Hooftdeel, (verso), Niemant kan alles op de Hoogste Magten overdragen, &c. (recto); XVIII. Hooftdeel, (verso), Uit ât Gemeene-best der Hebr. eenige leerst. besloten. (recto); XIX. Hooftdeel, (verso), ât Recht dat Hooge Magten omtrent ât heilgie hebb. (recto); XX. Hooftdeel, (verso), Vryheid van gevoelen in een Gemeene-best, &c. (recto).
Contents
*1r (title-page)
*1v (blank)
*2râ*3v DE DRUKKER Aan den LEESER: Wegens de Marginalen en Kantteykeningen. (signed by the bookâs putative printer: âVan uwen gants vrundlichen HANS JURGEN van der Weyl.â)
*4râ***2v VOORREDEN.
[A]râ[C]v DEN RECHTSINNIGE THEOLOGANT. I. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Prophetie.
[C]vâ[E3]r II. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Propheten.
[E3]râ[G3]r III. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Roepinge der Hebreën, en of de Prophetische Gave aan de Hebreën eigen en bysonder heeft geweest.
[G3]vâ[I2]v VI. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Goddelijke Wet. (chapter number misprinted, see: identification features)
[I2]vâ[L2]r V. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Reden om de welke de Ceremoniën ingesteld; en van ât geloof der Historien: namentlijk, om welke reden, en in welke dingen het selfde nootsakelijk is.
[L2]râ[N4]r VI. HOOFTDEEL. Van de Wonderdaden.
[N4]râ[R]r VII. HOOFTDEEL. Van de uitlegginge der H. Schrift.
[R]râ[S2]v VIII. HOOFTDEEL. In welke getoont word, dat de vijf boeken, en de boeken van Josua, Rechteren, Ruth, Samuëls, en der Koningen, niet en zijn door haar selfs geschreven. Daar na word onderzogt, of âer ook meer schrijvers van die alle geweest zijn, en wie die gene.
[S3]râ[U3]v IX. HOOFTDEEL. Aangaande de selve Boeken worden nog andere onderzogt, namelijk, of Hesdras met de selve opgehouden heeft, en daar na of de Kanttekeningen, welke in der Hebreuwsche Boeken gevonden werden, verscheidene leesingen zijn geweest.
[U3]vâ[Y]v X. HOOFTDEEL. De overige Boeken des ouden Testaments worden op gelijke wijse als de voorgaande, onderzogt.
[Y]vâ[Z]v XI. HOOFTDEEL. Word ondersogt of de Apostelen haar Brieven als Apostelen en Propheten, dan als Leeraars geschreven hebben. Daarna word het ampt eens Apostels getoont.
[Z2]râ[Aa3]r XII. HOOFTDEEL. Van de ware schrijvinge der Goddelijke Wet , en op wat manier de Schrift heilig genaamt word, en ten welken opsicht Woord Gods, en eindelijk word getoont, dat deselve, voor zo verre zy het Woord Gods begrijpt, onverdorven tot ons gekomen is.
[Aa3]râ[Bb2]v XIII. HOOFTDEEL. Word getoont, dat de H. Schrift niet als seer eenvoudige dingen leert, en niet anders als gehoorsaamheid te beöogen, noch niet van de Goddelijke natuur te leeren, als ât geen de menschen door sekere wijse van leven konnen navolgen.
[Bb2]vâ[Cc3]r XIV. HOOFTDEEL. Wat het geloove zy, welke de geloovige, de gronden des geloofs werden bepaalt, en deselve worden eindelijk van de Wijs-Begeerte afgescheiden.
[Cc3]vâ[Dd4]v XV. HOOFTDEEL. Dat de Godgeleertheid noch aan de Reden, noch de Reden aan de Godgeleertheid dienstbaar zy; ook word de reden getoont, door welke wy ons de geloofweerdigheit der H. Schrift voorstellen.
[Dd4]vâ[Ff4]r XVI. HOOFTDEEL. Van de gronden eens Gemeene-best: van het Natuurlijk en Borgerlijk recht eens ygelijks, en van het recht der Hooge Machten.
[Ff4]vâ[Kk]r XVII. HOOFTDEEL. Word getoont, dat niemand alles op de Hoogste Machten overdragen kan, mede sulx niet noodsakelijk te zijn: aangaande het Gemeene-best der Hebreën, hoedanig ât selve geweest zy ten tijde van Moses, hoedanig na deszelfs dood, voor al eer zy Koningen verkosen hebben, geweest zy, en van deses voortreflijkheit: en eindelijk van de oorsaken, waarom tâ Goddelijk Gemeene-best te ondergaan, en nauwlijkx sonder oproerigheden heeft konnen bestaan.
[Kk]vâ[Ll]v XVIII. HOOFTDEEL. Uit het Gemeene-best der Hebreën en de Historien, worden eenige rechtsinnige leerstukken beslooten.
[Ll2]râ[Mm3]v XIX. HOOFTDEEL. Word getoond, het recht omtrent de Godsdienst-saken ganschelijk omtrent de Hooge Machten te zijn, en dat de uiterlijke Godsdienst na de vreede des Gemeene-best moet gevoegt worden, indien wy Gode recht gehoorsaamen willen.
[Mm4]râ[Oo]r XX. HOOFTDEEL. Word getoont, het in een vrye Gemeene-best vry te staan en te gevoelen, wat yder wil en te seggen, ât geen hy gevoelt.
[Oo]vâ[Oo2]v DâINHOUD der HOOFTDELEN deses BOEKS. (table of contents, six-page list indicating twenty chapters)
[Oo2]v Pap. 213. lijnie 3. Filosophische lees Prophetische. (correction instruction)
Table of contents with instruction for correction on page 213.
Ornament on Title-Page
Small floral vignette, woodcut, 7Ã10 mm: 3 closed acorns, organized in the form of a capital letter T.
Simple Initials
Twenty-two plain closed black initials (woodcuts), employed to head the first letter of the first word of foreword (4 ll.), Preface (3 ll.) and chapters of main work (2 and 3 ll.), dimensions varying.
Copies (9)
Copies Examined
ERT#22 Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, an Fa 2703 (1)
Collation: 4o: (*)4 (**)4 (***)2 (****)2 [A]â[Z]4 AaâNn4 Oo2
Late-seventeenth-century plain vellum over pasteboard, laced-in vellum thongs. Fine copy, but minor brownspotting to leaves.
Provenance: older nineteenth-century shelf-mark in black ink (Hb 13a).
Digitized copy:
ERT#23 The Hague, KB, 3112 B 6
Light brownspotting and heavy brownspotting to leaves, nineteenth-century half binding over pasteboard on green linen, green paper on front and back, sprinkled with black ink, original brown calf leather spine pasted on linen back: gold-tooling (floral motives), one lettering black panel: âDE | RECHTZINNIGE | THEOLOGANTâ, red stained edge.
Digitized copy:
Non-collated Copies
Netherlands (3)
ERT#24 Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, OTM: RON A 5764 (nineteenth-century note on front endpaper opposite to title-page: âde schryver is B. de Spinozaâ).
ERT#25 Kampen, Theologische Universiteit, University Library, 78 K 17
ERT#26 Rijnsburg, Vereniging Het Spinozahuis, 209
Germany (2)
ERT#27 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, NI 13270
ERT#28 Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, 4 Phil I,4991
United Kingdom (1)
ERT#29 London, BrL, General Reference Collection, 3560.e.9
United States (1)
ERT#30 Ithaca (NY), Cornell University, Kroch Library Rare & Manuscripts, B3985.D5 G54 1694
References
Van der Linde, âNotizâ, p. 6, no. 18; Gebhardt, âDie alten holländischen Ãbersetzungen; Catalogus van de bibliotheek, p. 37, no. 209; Kingma and Offenberg, âBibliographyâ, pp. 24â25, no. 23.
âµ
For the travel journals of Stolle* and âHallmannâ: Chapter 2, A Book âNow in the Pressâ, there also at n. 75.
Rieuwertsz* père had passed away in 1687. Recently, I unearthed the notarial instrument with which he transferred (18 June 1686) his bookshop in the Beursstraat or Beurssteeg to his son Jan (5075: âArchief van de notarissen ter standplaats Amsterdamâ, 85: Van Loosdrechtâ, âMinuutactenâ, inv. no. 5696, 7 and 18 June 1686). He entrusted âthe entire shop including all that belonged to it, such as books, paper, tools, and everything else belonging to the propertyâ (âde gantsche winckel met alles wat daer toebehoort, soo boecken, papieren, gereetschappen, als andersints in eijgendom isâ). Shortly before, on 17 May, the banns of Jan Rieuwertsz filsâs upcoming marriage had been announced. The notaryâs deed suggests the father saw the marriage as a good opportunity to retire: âto quit from the aforementioned business and transfer it to his aforementioned son, [who] was to continue this business on his own costsâ (âom uijt de gem: neering te scheijden, ende selve aen sijn gem: soon over te geven, om deselve dan voortaen voor sijn eijgen reeckeninge te doenâ).
â⦠wies er mir noch das Mssctum von der Niederländischen Version des Tractatus Theologico Politici, davon Er aber den Autorem gar heimlich hielt, und mir dieses sagte: dass Er viel andre dergl. Schrifften in diese Sprache vertiret hätte; Es war aber sehr klein und unleserlich geschrieben.â (S/H, ms. A, quoted in W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 92).
Glazemaker*, according to Rieuwertsz* filsâs testimony, wrote the TTPâs Dutch translation: âDieser Glahsemacker habe viel ins Holländische übersetzt, unther andrem auch die philosophiam scriptura interpretem, unter dem Titel de Philosophie de Uit legere, der Chrilare [!], wie auch die opera posthuma Spinozaâ¦.â (This Glazemaker has translated many [works] into Dutch, among others the âPhilosophia S. Scripturae interpresâ, under the title âDe philosophie dâuytleghster der H. Schriftureâ, and Spinozaâs posthumous writings; S/H, ms. A, W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 94). For his work as a translator (E/Zk): Akkerman, Studies, pp. 101â203. For his translation of Descartes*: Chapter 3, n. 48.
See for those works: Chapters 8 and 9. Balling: BL.
Michiel Wielema, Ketters en verlichters (1999), p. 45 (Word version). In Wielemaâs The March of the Libertines: Spinozists and the Dutch Reformed Church (1660â1750) (Hilversum, Verloren, 2004), the English translation of Ketters en verlichters, his earlier remark, that in the bookâs foreword âVon der Weylâ called himself a relative of âHendrik Koenraadâ, is missing. It is also stated that, although the 1694 Dutch edition is entitled Een rechtsinnige theologant, in its chapter 1, on page 1, the work is referred to there as âDEN RECHTSINNIGE THEOLOGANT.â This suggests âEenâ on the bookâs title-page is a printing flaw. Hence, the printerâs copy could have read âDeâ or âDenâ. Wielema also brings up a work by the Dutch libertine author Hendrik Wyermars (1685â1757): Den ingebeelde chaos, en gewaande werels-wording der oude, en hedendaagze wysgeeren, veridelt en weerlegt, Byzonder de gevoelens hier omtrent van T. Lucretius Carus en Dirk Santvoort, ⦠(Amsterdam: 1710). In it, Wyermars claimed it was the Mennonite physician Antonius van Dale* who had been involved in the publication of both the 1693 DRT and the 1694 ERT. Van Dale, Wyermars upheld, had invented the title of the TTPâs Dutch translation: â(⦠als Spinoza zeer wel heeft aangemerkt, in zijn Godgeleerde Staatkundige verhandeling, of gelijk het Antonius van Dalen zegt genoemt te hebben; de Rechtzinnige Theologant) â¦.â (as Spinoza has rightly remarked [about the Pentateuchâs Mosaicity] in his âTheological-Political Treatiseâ, which [work] Antonius van Dale gave as its title âDe rechtzinnige theologantâ¦.â; Den ingebeelde chaos, p. 164).
âDe hoogleraar â¦â¦ my onlangs bezoekende, zeide onder andere dingen, dat hy gehoort had dat mijn Godgeleerde Staatkundige Verhandeling in de Nederlantsche taal vertaalt was, en dat iemant, zonder te weten wie, voorgenomen had de zelfde te doen drukken. Ik verzoek dieshalven zeer ernstiglijk van u dat gy hier naar belieft te vernemen, om, indien het mogelijk is, het drukken daar af te beletten. Dit is niet alleenlijk mijn verzoek, maar ook dat van veel mijner goede bekenden, die niet gaerne zouden zien dat men dit boek zou verbieden, gelijk zonder twijffel geschieden zal, zo het in de Nederlantsche Taal uitgegeven word. Ik vertrou vastelijk dat gy dit my en de zaak te geval zult doen.â (1671.02.17, Ep 44, NS, âZevenenveertigste Briefâ, p. 591 [G 4/227; CW, vol. 2, p. 390]). The editors of the 1677 posthumous writings deliberately suppressed the professorâs name in the correspondence section.
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 234. In the TTPâs Preface, Spinoza announces he was prepared to submit his treatiseâs claims âto the examination and judgment of the supreme Powers of my Country. For if they judge that any of the things I say are in conflict with the laws of my country, or harmful to the general welfare, I wish to withdraw it.â (G 3/14.23â24; CW, vol. 2, p. 76).
Cf. Spinoza, Briefwisseling, p. 485.
Craanen: BL.
The note for Leibniz* was enclosed in a letter of Friedrich Walther (1649â1718), tutor to the Danish Crown Prince Christian V, who had visited the Netherlands and had made inquiries about the TTP.
âTractatus Theologico politicus, quem Spinozae nonnulli adscribunt, nullum hactenus refutatorem habet, nisi epistolam aliquam, cujus Maresii filium auctorem autumant: propediem prodibit liber in eundem Tractatum posthumus Mansfeldii, Professoris Philos. Ultrajectini, sed cui authorem non puto responsurum nisi dissertatione Epistolica ad amicum aliquem suum. Authorem quod attinet libri: Philosoph. S. Script. Interpres, non est Spinoza; sed ut opinor Medicus aliquis Amstelodamensis.â (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series IâVIII, 1:1, p. 202, no. 131). Referred to by Craanen* are the following two refutations of the TTP: Van Mansveld*, Adversus; anon., [Meyer*], Philosophia. The said letter, by legal scholar Henri des Marets (c.1628â1725), is now lost. The latterâs father was the Groningen theologian Samuel Maresius (1599â1673). In his 1670 Vindiciae dissertationis, Maresius disclosed (p. 4) the TTP had been composed by âSpinoza, a lapsed Jew and blasphemer and a formal atheistâ, aligning the treatise with generally retorted works like Machiavelliâs Il Principi and Hobbesâs Leviathan. The Groningen theologian also accused Spinoza of having intentionally misused the Cartesian method.
For the Collegie, see: Chapter 3, Publication and Immediate Reception.
J.M. V.D.M. (Melchioris), Epistola ad amicum.
Deurhoff/Monnikhoff: BL.
Van Blijenbergh*, De waerheyt. For an overview of the history of TTPâs Dutch translation, see: Jeroen M.M. van de Ven, ââVan bittere galle by een gebondenâ. Over de laat zeventiende-eeuwse Nederlandse vertalingen van Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico- politicusâ, in Henri Krop (ed.), Spinoza en zijn kring. Een balans van veertig jaar onderzoek (Rijnsburg: Uitgeverij Spinozahuis, 2019 [Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis, no. 116]), pp. 106â118.
Wolf, Bibliotheca, vol. 1, p. 240 (âtranslatus a Joanne Hendriksenâ); Trinius (Freydenker-Lexicon, 1759, p. 421) mentions Bremen as the second Dutch editionâs place of printing. About the redaction by Glazemaker*, Akkerman (âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 227) notes: âLa preuve interne est livrée par la façon de traduire, qui dans le Tractatus theologico-politicus ressemble tant à celle que nous avons dans lâEthica, que déja une lecture de quelques pages suffit pour obtenir la conviction que la traducteur doit être la même personne: on remarque le même choix des mots, les même purismes, la même grammaire, et avant tout le même genre de fautes et négligences.â See for background on his work as a translator: Chapter 7, Glazemakerâs Dutch Translation.
Ibid., pp. 225 and 234â235.
J. Rodenpoort, Gedragh en naam des schryvers van Philopater stukx wijse geschetst (âs-Hertogenbosch: n. d. [1697]), p. 9. Duijkerius* has always denied having been the Vervolgâs author, a repudiation possibly being the plain truth.
Anon. (Johannes Duijkerius*), Het leven van Philopater, opgewiegt in Voetiaensche talmeryen, en groot gemaeckt in de verborgentheden der Coccejanen (Groningen [Amsterdam]: 1691); [id.?], Vervolg van ât leven van Philopater. Geredded uit de verborgent- heeden der Coccejanen, en geworden een waaragtig wysgeer (Groningen [Amsterdam]: 1697). Critical edition: Johannes Duijkerius, Het leven van Philopater & Vervolg van ât leven van Philopater, Gerardine Maréchal (ed.) (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991). The printerâs name (cf. ibid., p. 16) of the two Philopater novels, âSieuwert van der Brugâ, is fictitious and an alias for Amsterdam publisher Aart Wolsgryn (c.1657â1697). According to Colerus* (W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 136), the latter had a bookstore âat the corner of the Rosmarijnsteegâ (âop den hoek van de Rozemaryn-steegâ). On 14 May 1698, Wolsgryn was arrested for the illegal printing the pro-Spinoza novels. He was severely punished and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment. A copy in Ghent (University Library, A 790â) of the âPhilopaterâ novel contains an eighteenth-century âkeyâ, disclosing the names of several individuals cloaked in the work.
âLees eens op mijn Heer was het zeggen van Philologus, op dat we eens horen wat de Tytel zeid. Hier op zig weer na de zelve wendende las hy: DE RECHTZINNIGE THEOLOGANT, of Godgeleerde Staatkundige verhandelinge. Uit het Latijn vertaalt. Te Hamburg, by Henricus Koenraad. MDCXIIIâ¦. âIk zal ât dan zeggen, zeide Philopater, ât is het Tractatus Theologico Politicus van Benedictus de Spinoza, ons allewel bekent. Maar, zig wendende na Physiologus, vroeg hy: Hoe komt dit werk in de Nederduitsche taal? Dat komt, repliceerde deeze, om dat het uit de Latijnsche in de Nederlantsche is getranslateert, gelijk je zien kunt: dog om u evenwel regt te antwoorden, zoo gelieft te weten dat de Oude Jan Hendrikze Glazemaker, wiens naam befaamt genoeg is door ât vertaalen der Werken van de Heer Cartesius en verscheiden anderen, ook de werken van dezen Auteur vertolkt heeft: nu weetje dat de Zedekunde, Staatkundige verhandeling, Verbeetering van ât verstand en verscheiden Brieven van geleerde Mannen in ât Neerduits gedrukt zijn. Dit werk is dan ook door den zelfden J.H. Glazemaker vertaalt en dus in geschrift by den geen die de Vertaaler te werk gestelt, blijven leggen. Het had voor lange jaaren al gedrukt geweest, maar de ecclesiastijke, die hun gezag hier door oordeelden benadeelt te konnen worden, hebbender zoo nu en dan wat tegen gewoelt: tot dat eindelyk, en nu het vergeten scheen, dit evenwel het licht ziet. Wijders weet ikâer u Heeren nog dit van te zeggen dat âer een afschrift van ât origineel buiten twijffel aan een singulier goed vriend en die weer aan een ander was gegeven, geboren wierden dat de laatsten by ât eerste te confronteren door veelvoudig en kreupel uitschrijven tot weinig respect van den Vertaaler zou geweest zijn, indien het op zijn naam, of ten minste indien men geloofde dat zodanig een laatste afschrift ook van Glazemaker dus vertaalt was, was uitgekomen.â (account of Physiologus on the TTP in: anon. [Duijkerius*?] Vervolg, pp. 194â195).
Possibly, âPhysiologusâ refers to a didactic Christian Greek work compiled between the second and fourth century CE by an unknown author from Alexandria.
âHierom moet ik zeggen dat dien Heer, my zeer wel bekent, Doctor in de Medicynen en illuster Philosooph, wien het Origineel van J.H. Glazemakers hand onder zig had, zijn bezondere yver en liberaliteit suffisant getoont heeft in ât bezorgen, dat de ware Copie dus curieus gedrukt door den liefhebberen nu kan universeel gemaakt worden: en op dat dit werk zijn volslagen aanzien zou hebben, heeft hy, conform Cartesius werken en de Zedekunst van Spinosa, het zelve verrijkt met konstwoorden, op de kant, ât geen yder die zelfs de Latijnsche taal kundig is, kan dienen in opzigt van ât welvertalen.â (Physiologusâs account on the TTP in: ibid., p. 195).
âIk verhaal dit u hierom alleen Heeren, vervolgde hy, om dat ik weet dat âer een stuk of twee vertaalingen die ik geloof uit eigen liefhebbery geschied te wezen gevonden worden, daar zekerlijk ook afschriften onder deze en gene van zullen berusten: daarenboven heb ik informatie dat âet misschien kon gebeuren, dat âer nog een tweede druk na een van die afschriften gedrukt in de wereld zal komen, want my is van zeker Heer verhaalt die nu eerst uit Vriesland is gearriveert, dat hy daar een gedrukt blad of twe, zijnde het begin van dit werk gezien heeft, maar hy wist te zeggen, behalven dat âet maar slegjens wierd uitgevoert ten opzigt van papier en letter, dat het geen uniformiteit had met het ware afschrift van Glazemaker.â (Physiologusâs account on the TTP in: ibid., pp. 195â196).
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 232.
See for this: Chapter 2. Meyer: BL.
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, pp. 234â235. Bouwmeester: BL.
For the Utrecht jaunt: Chapter 3, n. 115.
< 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28 (G 4/162â163). The letter, surviving in an ADf version, was rejected for inclusion in the posthumous worksâ correspondence section. Although for long Bouwmeester* has been considered in Spinoza scholarship its recipient, tangible historical evidence supporting this claim is missing. Because of their Neo-Latinist expertise, other candidates for being the letterâs addressee are, in my view, Lodewijk Meyer* and Pieter Serrarius. Simon Joosten de Vries* can be excluded because in the aforementioned letter of [June 1675] Spinoza mentions him as another candidate for authoring the Dutch translation of E3. For background: Mertens, âVan den Enden and Religionâ, pp. 74â75. There, at n. 43.
29 December 1671: âBouwmeester [is charged] to translate a certain Arabic book from the Latin; [it should be finished] before May on the fine of one ducatonâ (âBouwmeester zeker Arabisch boek uit het latyn vertaalen; tegen Mey op boete van een dukatonâ); 26 April 1672: âBouwmeester, Vincent, and Lingelbach submit what had to be ready before May on the fine of one ducaton: the first history of âHai Ebn Yokdhanââ (âBouwmeester, Vincent en Lingelbach leveren in âtgeen op de boete van 1 dukaton voor Mey moest klaar zyn: de eerste Historie van Hay Ebn Yokdhan, â¦.â); 11 October 1672: âBouwmeester [presents each member of the society with a copy of:] the aforementioned life of âHai Ebn Yokdhanâ, translated by him from the Latinâ (âBouwmeester als boven het Leeven van Hay Ebn Yokdan, door hem uit het Latyn overgezetâ; ibid., p. 93). (All quoted in: Dongelmans, Nil volentibus arduum, pp. 79â80, 85, no. 126, and 93, no. 109).
Edward Pococke, Het leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhan, â¦, Johannes Bouwmeester* (ed.) (Amsterdam: 1672). Pocockeâs Latin exemplar is: Abu Jafaar Ebn Tophail, Philosophus autodidactus, sive Epistola Abi Jaafar, ebn Tophail de Hai ebn Yokdhan, â¦, Edward Pococke (ed.) (Oxford, 1671). The Latin rendition by Pococke is listed in the auction catalogue of Bouwmeesterâs private reference library: Catalogus variorum ⦠librorum ⦠Joannis Bouwmeesteri, p. 10, no. 196. For Tophail: Hendrik Lagerlund, Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Philosophy between 500 and 1500 (2 vols., Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), vol. 1, pp. 531â533. Stanislaus von Dunin-Borkowski claims a copy of the OP, bound with Het leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhan, was kept in the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana in Amsterdam (Der Junge De Spinoza. Leben und Werdegang im Lichte der Weltphilosophie [Münster: Assendorffschen Buchhandlung, 1910], p. 237). I was however unable to trace this very copy. Pococke père and fils: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
âTot Amsterdam, by Jan Rieuwertsz. Boeckverkoper, werdt uytgegeven: het Leven van Hai ebn Jokhdan, in het Arabisch beschreven door Abu Japhar ebn Tophail, en uyt de Latijnsche Oversettinge van Eduard Pocock A.M. in het Nederduyts vertaelt: waer in getoont werdt, hoe iemant, buyten eenige omgangh met Menschen ofte onderwysinge, kan komen tot de kennisse van zig selven en van Godt: also dese Philopsooph, door sekere toeval, eerst geboren zijnde, in een Kisje geleyt en in Zee geset, door de Vloet aen een Eylandt geworpen wierdt, daer geen Menschen woonden, en door een Geyt opgevoet en tot sijn 50 Iaren geen Mensch gesien en had. In 4.â (Oprechte Haerlemse Dingsdaegse Courant, 8 November 1672).
See further: Chapters 8 and 9.
For the KV, see: Chapter 5, n. 55.
For the Adnotationes: Chapter 5, Spinozaâs Presentation Copy and Other Sources.
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 232.
Ibid., p. 231. For background on proofreading and compositors practice: Chapter 2, n. 40.
â⦠le compositeur avait calculé que six lignes du manuscrit occuperaient quatre lignes du livre imprimé.â (Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 232).
Ibid., p. 233.
For their exchange: Chapter 2, Ballingâs Translation.
Van Blijenbergh*, De waerheyt. I am indebted to Albert Gootjes who has kindly pointed out to me De waerheyt contains a series of quotations from the TTPâs Dutch translation.
Willem van Blijenbergh*, De kennisse Godts en godts-dienst, beweert tegen dâuytvluchten der atheisten, ⦠(Leiden/Amsterdam: 1671). Van Hoogstraten, in a letter of September 1663, claims Van Blijenbergh sent him a copy of De kennisse Godts. The remark suggests that that was the workâs first edition. This 1663 copy seems not to have survived. Cf. further: Thijs Weststeijn, The Visible World. Samuel van Hoogstratenâs Art Theory and the Legitimation of Painting in the Dutch Golden Age (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008), p. 340.
For the Utrecht Cartesian network and their efforts to demolish the TTPâs arguments with theological counterarguments: Chapter 3, Publication and Immediate Reception. Burman père: BL.
Johannes Casearius*, Positiones philosophiae miscellanea (Utrecht: 1665). Supervisor was a member of the Utrecht Collegie der Scavanten, the professor physics and mathematics Johannes de Bruyn. Another disputation on a theological subject defended by Casearius at Utrecht University during the same year and published by Van Dreunen was: Disputationum theologicarum de Sacra Coena. De nostri cum Christo unione (Utrecht: 1665). The latter disputation was supervised by Burman* père.
âUEd. aangenamen is my, tot Leiden synde, wat laat nagesonden. Thuis komende hebbe ik met Mr van Dreunen gesproken, die my seide, dat syn koffer, daar UE schrift in is, tot Amsterdam, by seker Heer, my geroemd, in goede bewaringe was; ende dat UE schrift bysonderlik in syn schuld-boek lag. Soo dat hy meind het soo wel bewaard is, als ergens konde syn. Altijd hy konde het nu niet magtig worden. Hy vertrouwde UE soud daar in gerust syn. Soo niet, ik sal sien, of het nog verder mogelik is iets daar in te doen. Alsoo ik soo ongeerne als UE soude sien, dat dien schat, die velen nog soo voordeelig sal syn, soo ongelukkiglik soude ankomen.â (Leiden, University Library, BPL 246; quoted in: Gootjes, âSpinoza between French Libertines and Dutch Cartesiansâ, there at n. 58). Another now-lost letter by Burman* père to Van Blijenbergh* of 26 November 1671 also concerned the TTP and in all likelihood also Van Blijenberghâs 1674 De waerheyt. See for this: Catalogue dâune riche et très intérresante collection de manuscrits, livres dâheures, autographes et albums; ⦠délaissés par mr. Jean Henri van Swinden, ⦠(Amsterdam: F. Muller, 1866), p. 53, no. 545: âBurman, Franc., Théologien renommé. Lt. aut. sig. en Holl., à W. van Blyenburg à Dordrecht, dâUtrecht, 26 Nov. 1671. Lettre très-remarquable sur lâEthica de Spinoza, qui fut refutée par Blijenburgâ. Meant is of course not the E, but the TTP. Reported in: Gootjes, âSpinoza between French Libertines and Dutch Cartesiansâ, there at n. 55.
See: Chapter 3, Publication and Immediate Reception.
Apart from his friendship with his nephew Van Hoogstraten, the (Dordrecht?) network of Van Blijenbergh* included: â⦠Mons. van der Geest, van groeningen, bax, Do bebber, bosschaart, besius, van Kapel, Sasboutâ¦.â (Van Hoogstraten to Van Blijenbergh*, 14 September 1674, postscript, letter dispatched from London to Dordrecht). Quoted in: anon., âTwee brieven van Samuel van Hoogstratenâ, Rotterdamsche librije, 8 (1891), pp. 62â64, there at p. 64. Another contact may have been the Cocceian Dordrecht minister David Flud van Giffen (Chapter 9, n. 62): Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. 3, pp. 138â139. In the same letter, also a certain Mr Sonneman is mentioned who, apparently, was one of Van Blijenberghâs acquaintances. Tellingly, the former is said in it to have read âmet groot vermaak uE principiaâ (with great pleasure your âPrinciplesâ). Van Blijenbergh did not publish any work with that title or wrote a manuscript about Cartesian physics. Thus, the reference must be to a copy of Spinozaâs 1663 PP/CM, or to its Dutch 1664 rendition, apparently borrowed by Van Hoogstraten from Van Blijenbergh.
Cf.: Offenberg, Spinozaâs Library, p. 319, no. 45.
Van Blijenbergh*, De waerheyt, p. 121: â⦠hetgeen L. Meyer in de voor-reden van B. de Spinosa over de beginselen der Philosophie van Des-Cartes belooftâ¦.â (⦠what L. Meyer promises in the Preface to B. de Spinozaâs âPrinciples of Philosophyâ of Descartesâ¦.). CM 2, ch. 10, is brought up on: pp. 172â173 and 183. CM 1, ch. 6, on: p. 379. Meyer: BL.
For the trip: Chapter 3, n. 115. Graevius/Bouwmeester: BL.
See for this: Chapter 3, n. 114.
Cf. Ursula Goldenbaum, Zwischen Bewunderung und Entsetzen. Leibnizâ frühe Faszination durch Spinozaâs Tractatus theologico-politicus (Delft: Eburon, 2001).
âWhatever we honourably desire is related above all to these three things:
[i] understanding things through their first causes;
[ii] gaining control over the passions, or acquiring the habit of virtue; and finally,
[iii] living securely and healthily.
The means which lead directly to the first and second of these, and can be considered their proximate and efficient causes, are contained in human nature itself. So acquiring them depends chiefly on our power alone, or on the laws of human nature alone. For this reason we must maintain, without qualification, that these gifts are not peculiar to any nation, but have always been common to the whole human raceâ¦.â (G 3/46â47; CW, vol. 2, pp. 113â114).
âWe can easily deduce what we must maintain in answer to the first question from the nature of Godâs will, which is distinguished from his intellect only in relation to our reason. That is, in themselves Godâs will and Godâs intellect are really one and the same; they are distinguished only in relation to the thoughts we form about Godâs intellect. For example, when we attend only to the fact that the nature of a triangle is contained in the divine nature from eternity, as an eternal truth, then we say that God has the idea of a triangle, or understands the nature of the triangle. But afterward we may attend to the fact that the nature of the triangle is contained in the divine nature solely from the necessity of the divine nature, and not from the necessity of the essence and nature of the triangle â indeed, that the necessity of the essence and properties of the triangle, insofar as they are too conceived as eternal truths, depends only on the necessity of the divine nature and intellect, and not on the nature of the triangle. When we do that, then, the same thing we called Godâs intellect we call Godâs will or decree. So in relation to God we affirm one and the same thing when we say that from eternity God decreed and willed that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, or [when we say] that God understood this. From this it follows that Godâs affirmations and denials always involve eternal necessity or truth.â (G 3/62â63; CW, vol. 2, p. 131).
Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ (pp. 227â230). See further in this chapter: Manuscript The Hague 75 G 15.
Timotheus ten Hoorn* and Jan Claesz ten Hoorn* (âbeyde Ten Hoorensâ) and their âdirty trash boothâ (âvuyle Prullekraamâ) are lambasted for having put to press an edition by Glazemaker* of Descartesâs âPrinciplesâ by a fictitious character called âApolloâ in the following pamphlet: anon., Relaas van de beroertens op Parnassus. Ontstaan over het drukken van de Beginselen van de wijsbegeerte van den heer Renatus Descartes (Amsterdam: 1690), p. 4. In the pamphlet, Lodewijk Meyer* and other Cartesians are also ridiculed, too (ibid.). Rieuwertsz* and Glazemaker* are also referred to (ibid.), but they are treated with respect for being the loyal publisher and translator of the âPrinciples of Philosophyâ. The edition discussed is: René Descartes*, Principia philosophiae: of Beginselen der wysbegeerteâ¦. (Amsterdam: 1690). See further for this: Van Otegem, A Bibliography, vol. 1, pp. 325â331.
For the auction catalogue of the private library of Rijnsdijk*: Catalogus ⦠rarissimorum librorum ⦠Henrici Ryndyk, ⦠(Amsterdam: n.d. [1689]). The catalogue lists no works by Spinoza.
âât drucken van Spinoose traact theolog. & politigh. Text:â Wort Ingebracht dat tot Delft onderlaten zijnde het drucken van het extractaat van Spinosa genoemt tractaet theologi, politicy In tâ duijts tâ amsterdam, by Jan ten hoorn bij tâ heere logement soüde onder de parsen sijn en dewyl dit boeck reets bij de heeren staaten van hollant op de Instantie vande Christelycke Synodus, In tâ latyn is verboden en der selfs uytgeven in tâ duyts van noch meer schadelycke gevolgen gelijck te vreesen is, soo is geresolveert dat dâE. broederen met dâouderlingen van het quartier alder naeuwst en selfs by Jan ten hoorn nae de saeck sal informeeren, en nae bevint van saecken sulcx met dâ EE praeses comuniceeren om sulcx dan vorder aen dâtafel van haer Ed. groot achtbaarheden over te brengen op dat een soo schadelycken werck mocht verhindert werden.â (376: âArchief van de Hervormde Gemeente; Kerkenraadâ, âAlgemeenâ, ms. âProtocolboekenâ, inv. no. 15, p. 164, 9 January 1687; quoted in Gerardus F.L. Peeters, âJan Claesz ten Hoorn and Spinozaâs Tractaetâ, Quaerendo, 13 [1983], pp. 239â240, there at p. 239).
âSr de Seuterâ: perhaps Nicolaas le Seuter. Cf.: Jan Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe (7 vols., Amsterdam: 1760â7), vol. 2, p. 166.
376: âArchief van de Hervormde Gemeente; Kerkenraadâ, âAlgemeenâ, ms. âProtocolboekenâ, inv. no. 15, p. 165, 16 January 1687.
Ibid., p. 167, 23 January 1687; Peeters, âJan Claesz ten Hoornâ, p. 239.
376: âArchief van de Hervormde Gemeente; Kerkenraadâ, âAlgemeenâ, ms. âProtocolboekenâ, inv. no. 15, p. 167, 23 January 1687; Peeters, âJan Claesz ten Hoornâ, p. 240.
â⦠; behalven dat de geschrevene Copie van den oversetter, daar wy het onse na geset hebben, de selve niet en heeft.â (ERT, sig. *2v).
G 3/12.17â18.
Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 224.
Ibid., p. 229.
G 3/37.6â8.
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 227.
Cf. CW, vol. 2, p. 634.
Ibid., pp. 631â632.
Ibid., pp. 621â622.
Ibid., p. 228.
Cf. Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 228. For a preliminary list of minor mistakes by Glazemaker* corrected in the âGod-geleerde Staat-kundige Verhandelingeâ: ibid., p. 229. For those made in the latter manuscript: ibid., pp. 229â230.
G 3/26.26â7.
Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 224.
G 3/65.29.
Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 225.
Quintus Curtius Rufus, De rebus gestis Alexandri Magni, bk 8, ch. 5 (G 3/205.2).
Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historie, van ât leven en bedrijf van Alexander de Groot, â¦, Jan H. Glazemaker* (transl.) (Amsterdam: 1663), p. 528.
Akkerman, âTractatus theologico-politicusâ, p. 229.
Ibid., p. 225.
Lucas van der Deijl, âThe Dutch Translation and Circulation of Spinozaâs Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in Manuscript and Print (1670â1694)â, Quaerendo, 50 (2020), pp. 207â237.
Glazemaker: BL.
Frederik van Leenhof, Den hemel op aarden; of een korte en klaare beschrijvinge van de waare en stantvastige lydschap, ⦠(Zwolle: 1703). For Van Leenhof and the controversy about Den hemel op aarden: Israel, Radical Enlightenment, pp. 406â435; Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 590â596.
Cf. for a list of refutations of the book: ibid., pp. 595â596.
Anon., Trouhartige waarschouwing aan alle slag van menschen: wegens de over-eenstemminge tusschen Den hemel op aarden, ⦠en de schriften van den Godverzaker Benedictus de Spinoza, ten opsigte van verscheidene stellingen en spreekwyzen (Amsterdam: 1704).
For Burman* filsâs defence in Burmannorum pietas of his late father: Chapter 3, Publication and Immediate Reception.
Frans Burman* (II), ât Hoogste goed der spinozisten, vergeleken met Den hemel op aarden van den heer Fredericus van Leenhofâ¦. Waar in de vergelijkinge word opgemaakt uyt de Tractatus theologico- politicus van Spinoza, ⦠(Enkhuizen: 1704).
â⦠dit rampzalige wanschepsel en kind der duysternisse, op dat het soude scheynen een Engel des lights te zyn van vooren tot agteren herdoopt met de naam van de Regtzinnige Theologant: en zo is het eerst Anno. 1693. als een geblankette kamer-hoer die om haar openbaare Goddeloosheid voor eeuwig het Vaderland uitgebannen was boven ban en boet te voorscheyn gekomen: om het waaragtige woord van den levendigen Godt (indien het mogelyk waare) de lendenen in te trappen en de hard-aders af te steken; dat is om de waerelt die dog in het booze ligt en van naturen verduistert is wys te maken datâer eigentlyk geen waarheid in de H. Schrift geleert wordt of te vinden is: â¦.â (anon., Trouhartige waarschouwing, p. 93).
âJa nadien die schriften ât zederd men aan de G.S.V. den naam van Rechtzinnige Theologant heeft derven geeven van de Vrye Geesten hier en daar aan de leesgraage jeugd zelfs aan Jufferen zyn aangepreezen en in der zelver huyzen en handen gevonden moet elk dus voor ât bedrog en ât vergift gewaarschuwt zyn en de ouderen om die uit de handen hunner kinderen te weeren.â (ibid., p. 96). The abbreviation âG.S.V.â patently stands for: âGodtgeleerde Staatkundige Verhandelingâ.
Catalogus librorum quos Samuel Luchtmans vel ipse typis mandavit, vel quorum major ipsi copia suppetit (Leiden: 1714), p. 24.
Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, University Library, Special Collections, âArchief van de firma Luchtmans (1697â1848)â, stocklists of Luchtmans publications, no. 665.