Scripture itself also establishes that ceremonies contribute nothing to blessedness, but only concern the temporal prosperity of the state [imperii temporaneam foelicitatem]. For it promises nothing in return for ceremonies except the comforts of the body and its promised delights [corporis commoda, et delicias promittit,], and promises blessedness only in return for following the universal divine law. For in the five books commonly attributed to Moses nothing else is promised (as we have said above) than this temporal prosperity [foelicitas], i.e., honors or reputation, victories, wealth [divitiae], delights and health.---Spinoza, Theological Political Treatise [hereafter TTP], chapter V.6, [p. 139-140; translated by Curley with modest changes. Page-numbers refer to Collected Works.]
Lurking in the quoted passage is the controversy over the identity of the author of the Hebrew Bible, which is one of the main themes of the TTP. But here I want to focus on Spinoza's analysis. Not unlike Al-Farabi (recall), Spinoza treats what we would call religion in sociological, that is, functional terms. In particular, he ascribes to the elaborate rituals of the Hebrew Bible a this worldly-end. In particular, it supports the prosperity, to use Hobbes' phrase, the commodious living of and within the state. As Spinoza puts it a few lines below: "the whole law of Moses, was
concerned with nothing but the Hebrew state, and consequently, with nothing but corporeal advantages," (V.31, p. 146; this point is repeated throughout chapter V.)
Of course, part of the point is a critical one:the ritials contribute nothing to blessedness, which is the only authentic or true form of happiness. So, from Al-Farabi's (and, it seems, Spinoza's) perspective this means it is not a true religion. And indeed, while the Old Testament does teach true religion, it is not located in the Hebraic ceremonies, which, and here Spinoza is explicitly siding with the New Testament (V.14), are dispensable once the Jewish state collapses: "there is no doubt that after their state was dissolved the Jews were no more bound by the law of Moses." (V.15, p. 142) For
Now, Spinoza's account is sociological in another sense. For Spinoza inserts his account into what we may call a stadial theory of history. For, he contextualizes even historicizes* the period in which the Jews accept the Covenant with God and receive their ceremonies as follows: "they were quite incapable of establishing legislation wisely and keeping the sovereignty in their own hands, as a body. Almost all of them were coursened in their dispositions [rudis fere ingenii] and weakened by wretched bondage." (V.27; this recalls Thomas More's analysis in Part I of Utopia ( also, here] and here).+ The underlying idea is that after a period of slavery, the Jews were mentally incapable of wise self-government.
From a political perspective, the significance of this passage is (and this looks forward to Montesquieu) that Spinoza thinks a constitution must fit the material and social circumstances of a people. But for present purposes what matters is that the rituals are, in part, a means toward cultivating better dispositions in order to secure the survival even flourishing of the polity. Let's grant Spinoza this reading of the Hebrew Bible. Here I am interested in the connection between the religion and their economic prosperity. Spinoza explains this in a passage that has, naturally, attracted attention from those (see, for example, Beth Lord's paper, which also makes the point above context noted above) with an interest in egalitarianism and debt jubilees:
There was something else very unyielding in this state, which must have been the most important factor to prevent its citizens from thinking of defection or wanting to desert their country: the principle of advantage/interest [ratio utilitatis], the mainstay and life of all human actions. That force was exceptionally strong in this state. Nowhere did the citizens possess their property with a greater right than did the subjects of this state, who, with the leader, had an equal share of the lands and fields. Each one was the eternal lord of his own share [suae partis aeternus dominus erat]. If poverty compelled anyone to sell his estate or field, it had to be restored to him once again when the jubilee year came. They instituted other similar practices, so that no one could be alienated from his real property. XVII.84-85, p. 315
Spinoza introduces the claim in this passage as a contrast to opinion [opinione], and the implication is that the mechanism he is describing is a part of solid [solidissimum] knowledge. And the reason for this is that is ground in an enduring feature of human nature that exerts a powerful pull over us, our pursuit of interest [ratio utilitatis]. Spinoza's phrase here is striking because reason of public utility [ratio Publicae Utilitatis] was supposed to govern the state's dealing with its citizens (and with other state authorities). This notion of utility, as public interest, was re-interpreted in the eighteenth century (e.g., in Hume, Beccarria, and Adam Smith). But here Spinoza ascribes a notion of interest to the individuals as the most powerful human motive, and, thereby, secure a public flourishing.
What he is describing involve secure property rights, where land remained inalienably within a family, that is, a system of entails.** And these lots, in turn, are equal, just as the division of tribes had been equal. It is noticeable that such a system is understood to be unstable. For in addition to the Jubilee, multiple (unnamed) other institutions are required to prevent property from accumulating in some and others losing their family possessions.** Lurking here are claims about the role of debt, the effects of bad harvests, and prudent/imprudent and lucky/unlucky behavior in human affairs.
This setup created a fundamental equality centered on perpetual land-ownership. Obviously, the fact that a jubilee was necessary meant that one could through life without enjoying its fruits. But one could live in hope that one, or one's offspring, would return to it. And because the religion preaches charity to the poor "Nowhere could poverty be more bearable." (XVII.87) Another key feature is that such a system would promote long-term investment in one's family land because one could assume that one's family would reap the rewards. This created an attachment to land and fatherland, which prospered.
This naturally raises the question why this was not enduring. Lord suggests, not implausibly, that Spinoza thinks the system was undermined when inequality was allowed to enter in, first by the institution of the Levites, a parasitic elite class living of taxes and donation, and then, ultimately, by the institution of a King. But while this is well grounded in the text, I do not think this is the whole story. (In particular, Spinoza is explicit that the Levites could have been accomodated in this order (17.102, p. 319) In particular, Spinoza suggests that luxury is if not the source of corruption, then a hallmark of its impending arrival:
And that’s what happened, as everyone knows. That’s why there were great changes, and a great license to do anything, and extravagant living, and negligence [magnaque ad omnia licentia, luxus et socordia], with everything going from bad to worse, until, having often been subjugated, they completely broke away from the divine law, and wanted a mortal king. XVII.106, p. 320.
It's true that Spinoza does not mention luxury [luxus] very much in the context of the first Hebrew state (and it is easy to miss in Curley's translation). But he also attributes the decline of the Canaanites (III.49, p. 123) and Tartars (III.56, p. 125) to the embrace of luxury. And Spinoza presents it as the general source of decline (XVII.14, p. 299). In the latter context it is clear he has the Roman Republic in mind.
So, to sum up: lurking in Spinoza, is a traditional republican suspicion of luxury as a source of corruption and decay. The property arrangements of the Hebrew State were fundamentally unstable not just because people could be (temporarily) indebted, impoverished, and enslaved, but also, and more importantly, because it created the conditions of accumulation and the sort of prosperity that leads to ruin. So, while much of the TTP is naturally read as an attack on the pretensions of theology and dangerous fanaticism, there is a clear warning to the merchants of Holland. Next week (but recall here), I'll explore Spinoza's proposed solutions to the dangers of luxury.
*In the latin the contrast is between the universal considerations (universaliter consideratis) that precede it; these are an abstract philosophical perspective. He then descends to the local Hebraic context. Political philosophers tend to be interest in the passage in virtue of its description of the state of nature.
+That is compatible with Spinoza making fun of Part II of Utopia. In the modern era, stadial theories were developed by Grotius and Pufendorf.
**Obviously, this is not exactly a system of entails (which by definition cannot be sold, even temporarily).
Comments