Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency, and Jewish Emancipation

Home , Giuseppe Veltri, Socrates (Voltaire), Thomas Abbt

Michela Torbidoni Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation: AComparison between Simone Luzzattoand Moses Mendelssohn

1Introduction

Since antiquity,the legendary figure of Socrates has embodied the human desire for knowledge,and since the earliest theological controversies, he has symbolised the first authentic freethinker as wellasavictim of social and religious intolerance. The role of Socrates as arepresentative of secular knowledge within the framework of the struggle between philosophyand revelation was greatlythematised during the eighteenth century,which celebrated him as aparadigmofreason, amodel of secular virtue, “certainlynot an atheist one, but one which was independent of the dogmas of the priests, […]the archetype of the free thinker in matters of faith.”¹ Forthis reason, the character of Socrates was imbued with anew secular pie- tas,which must be considered asignificant expression of the Enlightenment’scon- cerns about the question of religion. AccordingtoLeo Strauss, the Socratic philosophical method reflects the original meaning of the term as away of life devoted to the realm of knowledge and asearch for the truth. Strauss makes adistinction between this concept of philosophyand that of philosophyasamassofdoctrines and asystem established by history.² In his view,Socrates’sphilosophyembodies the term’soriginal meaning because it con- sists on the one hand of an awareness of human ignorance towards fundamental issues and on the other of the eros which prompts inquiry and the search for the truth. And indeed, an awareness of the uncertainty of anysolution and of our ignoranceof the main aspects of philosophicalinquiry is the main feature of the philosopher’s search for truth and his wayoflife; namely, away of life that is incompatible with the biblical one. As part of the great discussion of the opposition between Jerusalem and Athens within Strauss’sthought,thereisanambivalencebetween the Bible and Greek philosophyconcerning how to deal with morality and which is the best wayof life: philosophers attempt to answer to these questions by relying on their reason and not merelyobeying the laws of aparticular tradition, thereby opposing biblical hu-

 Raymond Trousson, Socrates devantVoltaire, Diderot et Rousseau:laconscience en face du mythe (Paris:Lettres modernes,1967), 18.  See LeoStrauss, “The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy,” Independent Journal of Phi- losophy 3(1979): 114.

OpenAccess. ©2020MichelaTorbidoni, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-004 12 Michela Torbidoni

mility,which is grounded in fear and piety.³ Strauss expounded the two different approaches to life through the story of Abraham and the example of Socrates in the following way: the former obeys an unintelligible command without hesitation; the lat- ter,Socrates,despite his belief that Apollo wascommandinghim, nevertheless did not react “in unhesitating obedience, but in examining an unintelligible saying of Apollo.”⁴ Socrates questions the truth of the Delphic oracle’sstatement that he is the wisest man and in doing so, his rational inquiry replaces the blind obedience to divine orders requestedbythe biblical tradition. In light of this example, the Soc- ratic form of inquiry must be interpreted as the authentic expression of human wisdom in opposition to the divine one. Despite the radical opposition between Jerusalem and Athens defended by Strauss’sview,his speculation about Socrateshas the merit not onlyofhaving high- lighted the secular tendency of Socratic philosophy—namely,Socrates’sattempt to free the mind from the fettersofdogmatism and his impact on the social order— but also, and even more surprising,ofhavinglinked Mendelssohn’senthusiasm for the figure of Socrates and Simone Luzzatto’s Socrates, Or On Human Knowledge (1651). In asmall passageinhis earlywriting on Mendelssohn’s Phaedon,Strauss quoted asentencewritten by Mendelssohn in aletter to his friend Thomas Abbt at atime whenhis Phaedon (1767) was almostcomplete:

Iamputtingmyreasons into Socrates’ mouth. […]Ineed apagan so as not to have to getin- volved with revelation.⁵

The abovesentencetaken from Mendelssohn’sletters is completed by ahandwritten marginal note in which Strauss adds areferencetoLuzzatto and his Socrates.⁶ The similarities that Strauss had perhaps seen between Luzzatto’sbook and Mendels- sohn’s Phaedon seem to be mostlyfound in Mendelssohn’sphilosophical decision to speak through Socrates’svoice. AccordingtoStrauss, this fact reflected not only Mendelssohn’sstruggle against the Scholastic tradition, but also his struggle against the very concept of tradition; namely, “prejudices,” especiallythose of the revealed religions. In Strauss’sopinion, Socrates and Plato attracted Mendelssohn’sinterest because they were philosophers who did not believeinrevelation; that is, they were “rational pagans.”⁷

 See Chiara Adorisio, Leo Strauss lettorediHermann Cohen: dalla filosofia moderna al ritorno agli antichi (Florence: Giuntina, 2007), 170–74.  LeoStrauss, JewishPhilosophyand the Crisis of Modernity:Essaysand Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought,ed. Kenneth Hart Green (Albany, NY:SUNY Press, 1997), 111.  Letter from Moses Mendelssohn to Thomas Abbt of July 22, 1766,inLeo Strauss, On Moses Mendels- sohn,ed. and trans. Martin D. Yaffe (Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2012), 34.  Yaffe mentionsthis handwritten note and directs the readertoLeo Strauss’s Gesammelte Schriften, Band II:Philosophie und Gesetz—Frühe Schriften,ed. Heinrich Meier (Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 1997). See Strauss, On Moses Mendelssohn,34n.40.  Strauss, On Moses Mendelssohn,33–34. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and Jewish Emancipation 13

Strauss’sinterpretation suggests that the choice of the pagan Socrates mayhave been methodological in order to fulfil Mendelssohn’swish to speak freefrom religious concerns and thus also to raise criticism of traditionalprejudices.This consid- eration, when viewed in connection with the marginalquotation, thus alsoinvites us to reflect on the role of the pagan Socrateswithin Luzzatto’sbook, and most of all to what extent this figure maybebound to the history of Jewish emancipation. The cases of Moses Mendelssohn and Simone Luzzatto, as representativesofthe German JewishEnlightenmentand Baroque Italyrespectively,provide meaningful evidence of the close connection between the use of Socrates and his critical approach and their struggle for the rights of Jews in society. The present comparison is apreliminary work aiming to provide some hints of a wider topic that will not be fullyrealised here. However,this brief overview of the Socratic impulses of Mendelssohn and Luzzatto maybeconsidered an interesting starting point in order to examine not onlytheir philosophical projects,but also the social and religious claims behind them. Starting from the better-known case of Mendelssohn’srational Socrates and proceeding to Luzzatto’ssceptical version of him, the great complexity of the Jews’ relationship to their surrounding culture will be explored. This will help to add some further considerations on the state of the Jews in earlymodern Italyand the German Aufklärung. As we will see, under Socrates’sflag,both Mendelssohn and Luzzatto pursue a common aim; namely, the foundation of auniversalistichuman community.Howev- er,what is interesting and more problematic in this respect is the different methodological approachestosuch afigure. While Mendelssohn uses Socrates as ameans of disseminating his original optimism and trust into the universalistic value of reason, careful to conform to the cultural tendencies of the Enlightenment,Luzzatto makes Socrates the mediator of his provocativesceptical pessimism towardshuman certainties. These two contrary methodological approaches inviteustoreflect on the free- dom of speech alreadyachieved by this earlymodern Venetian rabbi, on the multi-level challengeissued by his philosophical writing in which Socrates was the main character,and aboveall on the real status of the Jews in Venice, wherea rabbi could state that his book had been written by a “Venetian Jew.”

2Mendelssohn’sSocrates of Reason

Within eighteenth-century Jewish thought, however,Socrates must be seen as an am- bivalent figure of reason, and MosesMendelssohn’scommitment to achieving atrue and coherent synthesis between rationalist philosophyand Jewish religion properly shows this ambivalence. We should not overlook the fact that within the framework of intellectual history, the figure of Socrates also embodied crucial religious and political issues duringthe earlyGerman Haskalah (1680–1720): in an eraofintense criticism of Lutheran orthodoxy and its relationship to the Aristotelian philosophicaltradition in Germanuni- 14 Michela Torbidoni

versities,⁸ Socrates had usually been taken into account independentlyofthe Platon- ic tradition and praised as the philosopher of moral questions who had turned his attention from the contemplation of natural thingstohuman customs and behav- iours.⁹ However,accordingtothe German Lutheran theologian Johann Franz Budde (1667–1729), “the figure of Socrates assumes an important role: his struggle against the Sophists more or less foreshadowed the struggle of modernphilosophy against the empty metaphysical debates and arroganceofthe Scholastics (supercili- um scholasticum).”¹⁰ Asimilar attitude mayalsobefound in Mendelssohn’sdecision to put his rea- soning into the mouth of Socrates,apagan, in his Phaedon (1767): this was meant to fulfil his wish to speak freefrom religious concerns and thus reflected his attempt to underline the universalistic foundation of philosophy, theology, and aboveall reason as the common ground of every religion. Phaedon was an essayabout what reason can know regarding the immortality of the soul when it is not guided by revelation; namely,bycountingonlyonits own capacities.Mendelssohn’sdecision to write such awork was prompted by his admiration for Platoand Socrates,which was root- ed in his opposition to the dogmatism and pedantic authority of Scholastic philosophy. In putting forth strictlyphilosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul, the dialogues contend that such reasonings must take place independentlyofthe demands of religion. Mendelssohn’sportrayal of Socrates greatlyidealised his wisdom,his patience and impartial philanthropy,his devotion to the laws of his homeland until his death, his liberal attitude towards religious traditions, and his decisive opposition to prejudices and superstitions.¹¹ Although Socrates livedinatime thatdid not share the oppressive theological circumstances of Mendelssohn’scentury,nevertheless Mendelssohn described him by focusingless on his personality and more on his culturalcontext,which seemed to reflectMendelssohn’sown dilemma:

He had on the one hand to conquer the prejudices of his own education, to enlighten the ignorance of others,torefutesophistry and calumnyofhis adversaries,tobear poverty,tocontend against established power,and, what was still morehardthan either,todissipatethe dark terrors of superstition. On the other hand, the feeble understandingofhis fellow citizens required

 From 1660 in Germany, and morespecificallyfollowingthe foundation of the University of Halle, areligious circle that was highlycritical of Lutheran orthodoxy began disseminatingits ideas:its pro- moters, such as Christian Thomasius, Johann Franz Budde, and some members of the Pietist community,challengedLutheran traditions and encouraged anew studyofthe relationship between Chris- tianity and classical philosophy. On this topic, see Guido Bartolucci, “Jewish Scepticism in Christian Eyes: JacobF.Reimmann and the TransformationofJewishPhilosophy,” in Yearbookofthe Maimo- nides Centrefor Advanced Studies 2018,ed. Bill Rebiger(Berlin: De Gruyter,2018), 145–64.  Gregorio Piaia and Giovanni Santinello, eds., Models of the HistoryofPhilosophy.Volume II:From the Cartesian Age to Brucker (Dordrecht and New York: Springer,2011), 357.  Piaia and Santinello, 357.  See Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: ABiographical Study (Philadelphia: Jewish Publica- tion Society of America, 1973), 157–58. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and Jewish Emancipation 15

to be managedwith great tenderness,that he might drawnoreproaches upon himself, or lessen the influencewhich the poorest religion has on the morals of weakminds.¹²

The goal of Mendelssohn’sSocrates is to eradicate “the dark terrors of superstition” in favour of abroader horizon made by an enlightened concept of auniversal God which unifiesreason and religion and thus maybeshared by different cultures. The philosophicalproject of Phaedo’sSocrates is thus intimatelylinked to Mendels- sohn’spersonal intellectual experience and desire for aspace in which speculative thoughtcould be independent from anyreligious group:

Wisdom knows auniversal fatherland,auniversal religion, and if it tolerates divisions,itdoes not toleratethe unkindness,misanthropy of such divisions,which youhavemade the foundation of your political institutions.—This is how,Ithink, aman likeSocrates would think in our days and seen from this angle, the mantle of modernphilosophy, which Ihavegiven him, would not seem entirelyunfitting.¹³

In his use of apagan speaker,Mendelssohn was attemptingtoovercome the partic- ularity of aspecific religious creed and to join Enlightenment’suniversalist project; however,the entire book must also be read as an answer to aChristian readership. AccordingtoMiriam Leonard, Mendelssohn engaged in this dialogue in order to ap- pease the long-standingChristian critique that accused the Jews of having neglected the immortalityofthe soul:

From the Christian perspective,the question of immortality was just one moreindication of the essential lack of Judaism. Paradoxically, immortality is aGreek not aJewish idea. Jewish philosophers likePhilo had to turn to Platotofill in the gaps of Jewish theology.Inthis version, Pla- tonism is not so much the antithesis as the supplementtoJudaism.Plato hardlyrepresented the dangerouslure of paganism. Jews needed Platotobecome betterJews.¹⁴

Socrates is anything but Mendelssohn’smouthpiece;heleads Mendelssohn’sopinion to the conclusion that this world has been conceivedsoastomake those of its in- habitants who are endowed with reason continue in theirprogress towards perfection and happiness.From this assumption, he deduced thatitwas impossible to conceive of adivine wisdom which would allow the interruption of this progress and cause them to lose the resultsoftheirefforts.¹⁵ Mendelssohn strengthensthis argu-

 Mendelssohn, Phaedon,inSchriften zurPhilosophie und Ästhetik,ed. Fritz Bambergerand Leo Strauss,vol 3.1ofGesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe,ed. Alexander Altmann et al. (Berlin: Aka- demie Verlag,1972),15–16.From now on, Iwill refertothis edition as JubA. The English translation is takenfromWilli Goetschel, Spinoza’sModernity:Mendelssohn, Lessing,and Heine (Madison: Univer- sity of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 119–20.  JubA,3.1:151–2; Goetschel, Spinoza’sModernity,121.  Miriam Leonard, “Greeks, Jews,and the Enlightenment: Moses Mendelssohn’sSocrates,” Cultural Critique 74 (2010): 194.  See Mendelssohn, JubA,3.1:115. 16 Michela Torbidoni

ment,which is in itself sufficient to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul, and underlined that human beingshaveaneed to believeinthe existenceofalife after death.¹⁶ Based on Plato’s Phaedo,Mendelssohn’sdialogue on the immortality of the soul put forth apersuasive plea for the recognition that human individualityisgrounded in every person’sinalienable right.His use of Socrates to expound his philosophy— namely, aGreek philosopher who represented acommon universalpoint of reference in Western philosophy—was the key to the immense success of his Phaedon. Mendelssohn’sessayismorethan simplyevidence of the conflict between the Enlightenment and religion: on the one hand,the figure of Socrates reflected Men- delssohn’sphilosophical search for the acknowledgment of the universalvalue of reason, and through him, he was able to present his philosophical project to agreat- er public. On the other,the Socratic impulsewhich permeated Mendelssohn’slife and work was sometimes misinterpreted by the Christian side and seen as an attempt to distance himself from Judaism and come closer to Christianity.For this reason, behindthe epithet “the German Socrates,”¹⁷ which wasbestowed on him by his con- temporaries, there was not onlythe great acknowledgment thatMendelssohn re- ceivedfrom the Christian intellectual world, but also persistent prejudice concerning his Judaism and the expectation of his conversion. An example of this concern is the caustic letter exchangebetween Mendelssohn and Johann Kaspar Lavater.Assoon as Mendelssohn had established himself in the republic of letters,hewas obliged to face Lavater’spublic challenge, which had a devastatingeffect on his life. In his translation of Charles Bonnet’s La palingénésie philosophique,¹⁸ the Swiss philosopher and theologian addressed adedicatory epistle to Mendelssohn. Since Lavater had interpreted Bonnet’sarguments as ademonstra- tion of the truth of Christianitymeant for non-Christians,heinvited Mendelssohn to either refute these arguments or else to do “what Socrates would have done if he had read [Bonnet’swork]and found it irrefutable”;¹⁹ namely,toconvert to the religion of truth and in so doing,todowhat,inhis opinion, reason would demand. Mendelssohn, deeplyoffendedbythis publicprovocation, was alsocompelled to react,because his failuretoanswer to Lavater’sattack could have been seen as an incapacity to dismiss Bonnet’sarguments and could alsohaveraised suspicion to-

 See Allan Arkush, Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment (Albany, NY:SUNY Press, 1994), 57.  On this topic, see Christoph Schulte, Die Jüdische Aufklärung:Philosophie,Religion, Geschichte (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2002), 199–206.  Charles Bonnet’sbook, La palingénésie philosophique, ou, Idées sur l’état passé et sur l’état futur des êtres vivans,was published in Genevain1769byClaude Philibert and Barthelemi Chirol.  Mendelssohn, Zueignungsschreiben Johann Caspar LavatersanMoses Mendelssohn in Schriften zumJudentum I,ed. Simon Rawidowicz, vol7.1 of Gesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe,ed. Alexander Altmann et al. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,1930. The English translation is taken from Moses Mendelssohn, Writings on Judaism, Christianity,and the Bible,ed. Michah Gottlieb, trans.Curtis Bowman, Elias Sacks,and Allan Arkush (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press,2011), 3. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and Jewish Emancipation 17

wards his sincerecommitment to Judaism. At the same time,his denial of Bonnet’s arguments could have been interpreted as an implicit attack on Christianity. He was thus obliged to take apublic stand with regardtoJudaism, which was what he had aboveall wished to avoid. In this way, Lavater created asituation which undermined the openness and fairness of the free speech of the republic of letters.The solution that Mendelssohn devised masterfullyallowed him to avoid such an insidious trap. In an open letter to Lavater,hefocused on Judaism’stolerant attitude towards non- Jews by arguing thatitwas areligion basedonthe universal laws of rational morality,the Noahide Laws, which do not demand the conversion of others, contraryto Christianity.²⁰ Mendelssohn’sinvolvement in the emancipation of the Jews consisted, as is well- known, in his mediating role between twoapparent opposites, the Enlightenment and Judaism. His main goal was to createthe foundations for aJudeo-German literature by propagating an imageofJudaism that could suit the contemporary concep- tion of reason. The uneasy compromise between reason and revelation that preoccu- pies Mendelssohn in his Phaedon is alsoatthe heart of his most famous work, Jerusalem, Or On Religious Power and Judaism (1783), in which he attempted to show that Judaism was not onlyreconcilable to the Enlightenment,but also that it provided the most convincing model of alife ruled by reason. AccordingtoDavid Sorkin, Mendelssohn’swished-for synthesis maybesituated within what he calls the “religious Enlightenment,” aterm thatpoints out the complexity of his relationship to the largerculture.²¹ On the one hand, therewas his sup- port of an ideal compatibility between reason and divinerevelation basedonthe cul- tivation of intellectual perfection and the practice of universal ethics; an ideal prompted by “an egalitarian impulse, holding that all human beings(not just élite philosophers) could know metaphysical truth”²² and by the refusaltosearch for an ultimate truth. On the other,there was his relianceonwhat Bernard Septimus has defined as the “Andalusian tradition,”²³ meaning aflexible approach to Judaism within medieval Jewishphilosophywhich did not reject rationalism itself, but established boundaries to it by subordinating philosophytopiety and limiting the horizon of human knowledge.For this reason, accordingtoSorkin,Mendelssohn seems to use novel means to achieveconservative ends.

 See Mendelssohn’sopen letter to Lavater,Mendelssohn, JubA,7.1:7–17.  David Sorkin,Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment (London: Halban, 2012), 25.  Sorkin, xx–xxi.  BernardSeptimus, “Nahmanides and the Andalusian Tradition,” in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban):Explorations in His Religious and LiteraryVirtuosity,ed. IsadoreTwersky (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1983), 34. 18 Michela Torbidoni

3Luzzatto’sSceptical Socrates

Little more thanacentury earlier,aVenetian rabbi, fullycommitted to the defence of the Jews, had adopted the figure of Socrates as aspokesperson for his philosophical, religious, and political ideas: Simone Luzzatto. One of the chief rabbis of Venice, Luz- zatto is known for having published aplea to prevent the expulsion of his people from the city, Discourse on the State of the Jews,in1638. Among the manyarguments put forth in this work, Luzzatto also underlined the universalistic foundation of Ju- daism. He stated that the human community must be grounded in the observance of the precepts of natural moralityand in some cognition of the superior cause;²⁴ in this way, he showed that he shared the widespread belief of his time that human- ity consisted in acknowledging the existenceofasuperior cause and in sharing the precepts of natural morality.²⁵ In this work, Judaism is presented as being deeply bound to this universal community thanks to its traditionalstruggle against misbe- liefs duetoits inner adherencetorational thinking:

No other precept is reiterated as frequentlyinthe Scriptureasthe prohibition against magic, the judicial magic of the times,necromancy, and all other vainobservancesand abominable idola- tries.For they are all the offshoots of superstition, which is nothingbut an abuse, or worse, a wasteproduct of true religion and the legitimateworship of God. Indeed, Moses was not so wor- ried about chasingimpiety from the world as he was aboutrootingout superstition. Forareg- ular series of events, achain of connected causes,oreventhe anatomyofabase, ugly little an- imal is proof of the existenceofGod and aconfutation of atheism.²⁶

In his response to Tacitus’sdenigration of Judaism, Luzzatto wants not onlytodem- onstrate that Scripture itself is against idolatry,but also to underline the rational nature of the Jewishreligion:

Icannot fullyunderstand what he wishes to infer when he statesthat the ancient Jews wereop- pressed by superstition,while he himself affirmsfirst that they “conceive of one godonly, and that with the mind alone.”²⁷

However,the idea of Judaism having auniversal rational foundation is onlybriefly mentioned in the Discourse. After all, how could this book,which was an official defence of the Jews in light of dangers to their livesinVenice, be the right place to un-

 See Simone Luzzatto, Discourse on the State of the Jews of Venice,ed. and trans. Giuseppe Veltri and Anna Lissa (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2019), 134.  See Alessandro Guetta, Italian Jewryinthe Early Modern Era: EssaysinIntellectual History (Brigh- ton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 97.  Luzzatto, Discourse,171–73.  Luzzatto, 172–73.The quotation fromTacitus is takenfromhis Histories,5.5.18–19,inTacitus, His- tories:Books 4–5. Annals: Books 1–3,trans. CliffordH.Moore and John Jackson (Cambridge,MA: Har- vardUniversity Press,1931), 183. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation 19

fold such aphilosophical argument?Luzzatto would onlyproperlyarticulate this idea more thanten years later in his second book, Socrates, Or On Human Knowledge, in which the famous Socrates and his critical attitude are allied to the pattern provided by sceptical philosophy. This combination of elements thus created the ideal premise for an inquiry able to delve into what Luzzatto defined as the “human community” described above. Mendelssohn’sSocrates is likeasaint,apositive character who entirelyrelies on the certainty of reason. His Phaedo amplydocumented Mendelssohn’sreliance on the abilities of reason, because it was an essaymeant to show what reason can know regardingthe immortality of the soul when it is not guided by revelation; namely, by countingonlyonits own capacities.Luzzatto’sSocrates is rather an anti-hero; he is insolent,restless in his inquisitive approach to life, and substantially sceptical. In the extended title of Socrates, Or On Human Knowledge,the premises of Mendelssohn’s Phaedon seem to be reversed,asitstates that it is “abook that shows how deficient human understanding can be when it is not led by revelation.” He be- longstothe sceptical tradition going backtoMichel de Montaigne’sphilosophy, with which Luzzatto was very conversant.Montaigne’suse of Socrates’sattitude and irony²⁸ was meant to overcome the borders established by rituals, superstitions, and prejudices.His goal was to discover the universality of rationalthinking and at the same time to build the autonomyofthe conscience, because accordingtoMon- taigne, every human being bears in himself the entire human condition.²⁹ Like Mon- taigne, Luzzatto, through the figure of Socrates,defines the guidelines of his philosophical project: the possibilityofovercoming the mere singularity of his Jewish identity and achieving universality through his speculative thought. The pattern followed by Luzzatto’sSocrates wasstrongly inspired by Sextus Em- piricus’s Outlines of Scepticism:the ten tropoi lead his inquiry through the subjectiv- ity of human perception, asourceofcontinual illusion, or the inconstancyofthe state of the whole up to the final acknowledgment of the inscrutability of anyobject by itself.³⁰ Like Sextus, Luzzatto’sSocrates is persuadedthatthe suspension of judgement (epochē)isthe correct attitude towards the world, because every statement is subjecttoirreconcilable conflicts (diaphōnia). Equipollence, which demands the suspension of judgement which they believerestores peace of mind or tranquil-

 See Alexander Nehamas, TheArt of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault (Berkeley, LosAngeles, and London: University of California Press, 1998), 101–27.  See Montaigne, TheComplete Essays,ed. and trans. M.A. Screech (London: Penguin, 2003), 3:2.  On the impact of Sextus Empiricus’s Outlines of Scepticism on Luzzatto’s Socrates,see Michela Torbidoni, “Il metodo del dubbio nel Socrate di Simone Luzzatto,” in Filosofo erabbino nella Venezia del Seicento:Studi su SimoneLuzzatto,ed. Giuseppe Veltri(Rome: Aracne, 2015), 183–245, and Giu- seppe Veltri, Alienated Wisdom: Enquiryinto JewishPhilosophy and Scepticism (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2018), 217–24. 20 Michela Torbidoni

lity (ataraxia), reigns in every inquiry that sceptics undertake.³¹ Socrates is here not onlymasterfullymanagingSextus’s Outlines,but he is also well acquainted with the Academic scepticism of Carneades, whereof Cicero’s Academics is the chief source. The “probable” (from the Greek pithanon)plays amajor role in Luzzatto’sbook, in which it is defined as the “North Star in his journey through life,” showing thus that it is consistent with the sceptic’sinstruction to follow the probable in the ab- sence of truth. Socrates here embodies the restless human curiosity which questions past and present beliefs without stoppingtowonder what the futurewill bring.Hequestions anthropocentric cosmology by recalling disrupting thinkers such as Lucretius or Bruno and referringtothe impioustheory of the existenceofaninfinite number of worlds or the idea of the eternity of the world. Through Socrates, Luzzatto aims to break the illusion of mankind’ssuperiority,and on the contrary,heupholds its marginalised position in the universe: this stance is also strengthened by his comparison between human beingsand animalsand the fact thathereducesthe gapbe- tween them. Luzzatto’sgoal is to show the miserable state of every human being who arrogantlyboasts of his wisdomorisabsolutelyconvinced that he is following the right belief or custom. Following modern scepticism, Luzzatto comes to acknowledge the relativity of the customs and beliefs of every civilisation to every epoch: his arguments lead to an unavoidable “isostheny” between all views, past and present.Luzzatto’sSocrates champions the idea that no certaintyexists, but rather thateverything is true relative to its eraand to the culturetowhich one belongs. An example of this is found in the following passage:

However,inadditiontothis, is thereany opinion that,despitehavingstrongly persisted for a long time instead of endingits life and dyingout in accordancewith all other human things, turns out not to be temporary in relation to the infinite future and the undefined posterity to come? Rather,every day, we experiencethat manyopinions held in highesteem and consider- ation by antiquity nowadays turn into mere fabulous fantasies and ridiculous tales.³² The wor- shipped ox,deified by the Egyptians along with manyother brutes, alreadybegins to be consid- eredasfrenzied and mad by us Greeks.³³

Luzzatto’sSocrates fulfils adouble task: there is an evident parsdestruens meant to demolish traditionalcertainties in every field from astronomytoethics.This

 On the legacy of Pyrrhonism, see RichardH.Popkin, TheHistory of Scepticism fromSavonarola to Bayle,rev.ed. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2003) and TheHigh Road to Pyrrhonism,ed. Richard A. Watson and James E. Force, repr.ed. (Indianapolis:Hackett,1993).  Livingbyexperienceand without opinions plays arelevantroleinSextus’sarguments against dogmatic assertions;see Outlines of Scepticism 2.246.  The reference to the Egyptians’ worship of animals also occurs in Discourse,168–71,where Luz- zattoquotes Juvenal, Satires 15.1–4. The same topic, together with the same quotation, is found in Montaigne’s Essays in 2:11,462–64. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation 21

part,which is the most consistent in the whole of the Socrates,pursues the daring undertaking of underminingthe traditionalbodyofknowledge based on Aristotelian philosophy, because it is evidentlynolonger able to contain the immense changes and discoveries thatarose duringthe seventeenth century.The reader of this first part of Luzzatto’sbook willfind the Socratic celebration of ignorance—meant as an awareness of not knowing anything that mayclaim the name of truth and the critical use of reason—to be atool for refusing everythingdictated by tradition or blindly accepted as religious belief. Thankstohis Socrates,the rabbiexpounded arefined criticism of the alleged truths or dogmata of his time established by an authorial tradition which demanded to be obeyed and not questioned. This part of the book,as has been seen, was made possible thanks to Luzzatto putting ancientand modern sceptical strategies into the mouth of Socrates,the most restlessmind in Western culture. However,the long parsdestruens prepares the basisfor the parsconstruens:the uncertainty disseminated throughout the book generates asense of loss which cre- ates bonds between human beings rather than separating them. Doctrine, social wealth, beauty,custom, religious ceremonies—namely,the major sources of human division—are, in Luzzatto’streatise, all subjectedtodoubt,and the human being ends up being stripped of all his convictions that are opposed to God and Nature. Indeed, the universality that Luzzatto’sthinkingaims to achieveisnot atheistic, but is rather atheisticallyinspired religiosity which does not need anyparticular creed. Specifically, the final part of his Socrates shows that in his view,proper religious behaviour conforms to reason, is universal, and is against superstition and degenerate beliefs:

Foritissufficient for my defencethat youobservethe public and private reasonings that Ihave always deliveredconcerning the reverence duetothe first and worthiest cause, which moves and rules everything. Indeed, Ihavealways promulgated that the cognition that one has of it and the veneration that is due to it come not onlyfromsubtle and wide-rangingdeductions,but were also giventousalong with milk by Natureitself. Hence,itfollows that the human mind is so inclined and favourably disposed to religion and divine worship that if it weredeprivedof such apursuit,hewould not be very different from bruteanimals. Ihavenever despised or omitted[to perform] ceremonies or institutionsorderedbyour city for the observance of religion, but Ihavealwayspubliclyoffered sacrifices in accordance with the rites of my homeland, in appropriate places, at the right moment,and in alegitimateman- ner.And if Isometimes took aposition against the ignorant by reprehendingthem for their ridiculous superstition or degenerate religion, Iwas not then attempting, as the Giants did, to expel Jupiter fromthe sky,but rather tryingtoremove those despicable concepts which disfig- uredthe beauty and graceofthe true religion in their minds. Therefore, Ihaveoften solemnlysaid to those whoweretrulyprudent that they must pro- tect themselvesfromthe infection of superstition, an epidemic and serious disease of the people. They [must] be awarethat often the religion of the vile common people is abominable blas- 22 Michela Torbidoni

phemyfor wise men and that the true temple of God is in the wise man’smind, where He is ador- ed through offerings of loveand sacrifices of veneration.³⁴

Although Luzzatto’sopinion is presented very prudentlyinthis passage, it is nevertheless evident thathedeploys reason as the true temple of God. Onlythere, in his opinion, does true religion seem to find shelter from “the infection of superstition” and “abominable blasphemy.” Luzzatto’sconception of Nature is intended to increase this common ground shared by human beings: his sceptical Socrates promotes anaturalistic morality based on Nature as a “lover of equality” able to provide mankind with aprofitable tool thatshould be the onlyreliable guide through life; namely, the probable, described as comingdirectly “from the hands of Nature.” Luzzatto portrays asort of genealogyinwhich Nature must be considered the true sourceofmoral values:

Youmust not even doubt that in discreditingits own judgement and accusingitoffalsity,the court of conscience attended by the human mind would be debased and lackinginauthority, because it will be replaced by the majesty of Nature, which will lead the waymoredecorously towards the good and remove the evil.³⁵

Moral virtuesare indeed, according to Luzzatto’sSocrates, “daughters of the probable,” and thus “legitimate grandchildren of Nature itself.”³⁶ Nature is thus an imper- sonal entity freeofany traditional features,which thereforeoffers Luzzatto asolution to the dizzying resultsofhis free inquiry into dogmatic knowledge.Luzzatto’sfocus on Nature seems to continue to fulfilhis attempt to bring the discussion to auniversal level. According to him, humanitymust be conceived “not as something abstract- ed and excluded from universal Nature,but as something included in it that should complywith it and be ablyruled by it like the other mundane things.”³⁷ Luzzatto’sarguments concretelyerode dogmatic beliefs as asourceofsepara- tion and division in society and indirectlyput forth the premises of unity and equality among human beings; namely, the acknowledgment of what he had alreadyde- fined as the “human community” in his Discourse. In his view,this largercommunity shares the uncertainty of knowledge and beliefs as the onlypossiblecertainty and mayrelyonlyonanatural morality basedonthe probable and on the faith in God which dwells in the mind and not in religious ceremonies,securing itself from anyform of degeneration. In this way, Luzzatto constructed an indirect apolo- getic discourse which fosters tolerance and extends the borders of the concept of

 Luzzatto, Socrates,OrOnHuman Knowledge,ed. and trans.Giuseppe Veltri and Michela Torbido- ni (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2019), 478–79.  Luzzatto, 470–71.  Luzzatto, 476–77.  Luzzatto, 306–7. Socratic Impulse,Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation 23

community by creating anew space for more acceptanceofsocial and religious plu- ralism. Luzzatto could develop this parsconstruens onlythanks to the Greek Socrates. After readingLuzzatto’s Socrates,one maynote thatmostofthe author’sspeech is delivered by Socrates himself. It mayfurthermorebeseen that the text displays a rich variety of classicaldoctrines, includinggnoseology, ethics, psychology, medicine, mathematics, geometry,and astronomy, embellished by passages and verses taken from classicalpoems and plays.With the exception of afew direct quotations from medieval and Renaissance Italian literature—such as Dante’s Divine Comedy, Ariosto’s OrlandoFurioso,and Tasso’s TheLiberation of Jerusalem,which were typical for alearned Italian Jew³⁸—and two from the Bible (Ecclesiastes and Proverbs), Luz- zatto’sbook openlyprefers the Greeks and Latins as speakers;namely,Greek philos- ophersand mythological and legendary figures or politicians from this ancient world, as well as Greek and Latin literature for the quotations between the para- graphs.Questioning Luzzatto’schoice of the classicalworld for the setting of his philosophical scepticism therefore requires us to engagewith the long-lastingrelation- ship between Jewish thought and religion and classicalphilosophy, which began duringthe Middle Ages thanks to Jewishencounters with textsfrom the Greek philosophical traditions³⁹ and was revivedduringthe Renaissance,strongly impacting the passagetomodernity.During the Middle Ages, when the teachings of the two tex- tual traditions seemed to contradict one another,avariety of methods for resolving contradictions and synthesising these traditions emerged, which spurred the development of medieval Jewish religious philosophyand gave rise to publiccontrover- sies. Ancient philosophy, which emergedasapolemical middle ground on which to engagecriticism duringthe Middle Ages, experienced arebirth during the Renais- sance, when manyclassical treatiseswereedited, translated, and commented on.⁴⁰ This revival was achallenging moment because it allowed atransition from aphilosophical setting shaped by Scholastic Aristotelian doctrine to modernity.Ancient wisdom(Platonism, Neoplatonism, Stoic ethics, Atomism, or Scepticism) continued to be examined for its “neutrality” in religious matters and theological controversies which were deeplyconnected to Aristotelianauthority and became extremelyimpor- tant during the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries. Classical philosophywas therefore seen as asafe zone for those intellectuals who were committed to freethinking or to the new experimentalscience, and for this reason, it was an excellent bridge of dialogue and comparison between Jews and Christians.

 See AsherSalah, “AMatter of Quotation: Danteand the Literary Identity of Jews in Italy,” in The Italian Judaica Jubilee Conference,ed. Shlomo Simonsohn and Joseph Shatzmiller (Leiden and Bos- ton: Brill, 2013), 167–96;Guetta, Italian Jewryinthe Early Modern Era.  See Adam Shear, “Science, Medicine,and Jewish Philosophy,” in TheCambridge HistoryofJuda- ism. Volume7:The Early Modern World, 1500–1815,ed. Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2017), 522–49.  See Michael Heyd, “Introduction,” Science in Context 15,no. 1(March 2002): 1–8. 24 Michela Torbidoni

As in Mendelssohn’scase, Luzzatto’serudition in secular and Christian learning also allowed him to engageinasolid dialogue with the learned people outside the ghettoand even to gain the respect and attention of thoseChristians with whom he was acquainted. There is indeedsome evidence which clearlytestifies to the regard in which he was held among non-Jewish Venetians and foreigners: the wayheargued in defence of the Jews in his Discourse inspired and constituted the pattern of another plea on behalf of the Jews made between 1659 and 1660 by aVenetian senator of the Loredan family, twenty-one years after the publicationofLuzzatto’sbook.⁴¹ Re- cent studies have furthermore shown that scientists likethe astronomer Ismaël Boulliau,who was in the service of the French librarian and erudite humanist Jac- ques Dupuy,enjoyed the companyofthe wisest rabbis of the Venice ghetto, such as Leone Modena and Simone Luzzatto, for book collection and theological debates.⁴² Furthermore, there is evidence in Giulio Morosini’swork Via della fede mostrata a’ gli ebrei (1683) thatLuzzatto was asked to be the arbitrator in apublic debate between two brothers concerning the prophecy of Daniel.⁴³ The celebration of Luzzatto’serudition and wisdomamong the Gentiles is evidence of the intense dialogue and intellectual exchangeheundertook with the Chris- tian world. However,asinMendelssohn’scase, this openness was sometimes misinterpreted by Christians: the Franciscan LuigiBenetelli, in his invective work Idardi rabbinici (Rabbinical Arrows)published in 1705,mentioned Simone Luzzatto and Leone Modena as being known for addressing their works onlytoaChristian readership. Benetelli interpreted Luzzatto’sbehaviour and work as awish to convert or an inclination to Christianity. It is not surprising indeed that Benetelli should have clas- sified Luzzatto and Modena among the so-called evangelical rabbis (rabbini evangel- ici), meaning thosewho follow the Gospel but do not do so openly in order to not offend theircoreligionists.⁴⁴ The Franciscan strengthened his statement by mention- ing some rumours thatCardinal Gregorio Barbarigoreportedtohim; namely, that Luzzatto wantedtoconvert to Christianityonhis deathbed, but that his coreligionists

 See Giuseppe Veltriand Gianfranco Miletto, “Difesa inedita del senatore veneziano Loredan in favore degli ebrei nel 1659–60 basata sul Discorso di Simone Luzzatto,” in Filosofo erabbino,249–74.  See Giuseppe Veltriand Evelien Chayes, Oltre le muradel ghetto:Accademie, scetticismo etolleranza nella Venezia barocca (Palermo:New Digital Press, 2016), 121–46.  See Giulio Morosini, Via delle fede mostrata a’ gli ebrei (Rome: Stamperia della Sacra Congrega- zione de Propaganda Fide, 1683), 13–14.Morosini reportsthat Luzzattostated: “As youknow,the text we arecurrentlydiscussingleavesall the most excellent rabbisinastateofperplexity,and they are so upset that they almost do not know whether they areinHeavenoronearth.” Furthermore, Moro- sini wrote that after afew similar words,Luzzattoputs afinger to his lips and said: “Be quiet,ifImay ask, because if we continue speculating on the prophecyofDaniel, we should all become Christians. Icannot denythat it shows very clearlythat the Messiah arrivedsome time ago. However,whether this was Jesus of Nazareth or not,Ido not want to state my opinion toohastily” (mytranslation).  See LuigiBenetelli, Idardi rabbinici (Venice:DomenicoLovisa, 1705), 19. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation 25

did not allow anyChristian, regardless of their social standing,tobepresent during the last moments before he died.⁴⁵ Contrary to Mendelssohn’scase, the scant amount of information concerning Luzzatto’sintellectual life in Venice does not provide anyevidence concerning his opinions or reactions in this regard.However,this short overviewmay be considered helpfultoinitiate an exploration of the meaning of this Jewish Socratic impulse— namely, the critical and anti-dogmatic approach to established knowledge—and how it was perceivedfrom aChristian perspective.

4Conclusion

The comparison between Mendelssohn and Luzzatto is useful here to understand the many implications involved in the use of Socrates by Jewishauthors. Forboth of them, speakingthrough Socrates becomes away to make their philosophical views reach awider readership and reflectstheir wish to be seen onlyasfar as their intellectual value is concerned. Mendelssohn and Luzzatto share the portrait of Socratesasafree thinker and free speaker beyond anyboundaries; they both celebrate his critical attitude towards degenerated formsofbeliefs,against superstition, in favour of aspirituality deeplyrooted in reason and natural morality. Forbothof them, the figure of Socrates implicitlybecomes ameans of fosteringtheir struggle for Jewishemancipation: according to Mendelssohn, Socratesisthe mediator of his strongbelief in the power of reason to build acommunity of human beings as esti- mators of speculative thinking which overcomes religious, social,orethnic boundaries. As far as Luzzatto’sSocratesisconcerned, he embodies the sceptic who inquires and demolishesevery certainty,causing the apparentlysolid castle of beliefs established as undoubtable certainties over the centuries to collapse. From the ashes of this, his sceptical Socratesleads the wayfor acommon ground basedonnatural moralityand afaith in God which, in order to maintain its integrity and avoid blasphemy, can onlybecelebratedinthe mind and not with external ceremonies. Through the figure of Socrates and Socratic dialogue, the two philosophers ach- ievenot onlythe goal of saving religion from degenerated forms of beliefs, but also that of fosteringcritical and free inquiry into dogmatic traditional knowledge and furthering one’sself-knowledge in dialogue with others. Socrates therefore becomes ameans of overcomingthe borders of religious division and preparingthe ground for alargercommunity;hewas thus amedium for removingJudaism’sparticularistic features and instead stressingits universalcontent.Most of all, the Greek philosopher embodies the culturalrole of philosophyand “secular” knowledge within the framework of Judaism; namely, the emergence of agroup of intellectuals who gave

 Benetelli, 19. 26 Michela Torbidoni

priority to such study, at least in their privatelives, over the traditional Halakhic focus of the rabbinic élite. It is alsocrucial to underlinethe revival of Socrates’scritical spirit among Jewish thinkers because it maybeconsidered as apossiblebeginning of Jewishphilosophy, which maybeidentified in the very moment whenthe traditionalbonds holding the community together begin to collapse, occurringwhen tradition starts to be per- ceivedasthe antithesis to progress and progressive thinking.Jewishphilosophy maythereforebeinterpreted as aresponse to this perception and also as the emergence of new questions usually articulated by modern philosophersconcerning indi- viduality and community,the commensurability of reason and revelation, and the historisation of tradition.⁴⁶ In his great work on Jewish philosophy, Daniel Frank specified that “there are problems that arise at the end of the tradition, at atime when acertain distancing from the tradition has occurred”⁴⁷ and also that this was not an issue of interpreting or understanding tradition, but of questioning it.The use of Socrates maydocument the wayJewishphilosophyinterweavedwith emancipation: it refers to the intellectual experience of those Jewish thinkers who werechallenging the monolithic ground of tradition and inquiring into their own identity not onlyasacommunity, but as individual citizens in aChristian society.These Jews werethosewho devel- oped personal relationships with Christians through the medium of philosophy: by doing so, they began to emancipate the individual from the sole identity that the Jew- ish community offered to him and started to gain adouble acknowledgment. Finally, it must be pointed out that while Mendelssohn made Socrates the inter- preter of his ideas in search of away to find harmonybetween his religion and a more general education, Italian Jewish thinkers like Simone Luzzatto werealready able to link theirJewish religion to humanistic education and thus to express them- selvesvia the figure of Socratesand celebrate his genius.⁴⁸ The use of Socrates made by the Venetian rabbiLuzzatto substantiallysupports the thesis that earlymodern Italian Jewish culture must be exploredmorecarefullyasanimportant intellectual foundation of the programme to improvethe status of the Jews of Europe in the late eighteenth century.Ashas been underlined by Adam Sutcliffe, “in many different earlymodern European contexts, Jews found ways to establish themselvesona firmer footing in the communities in which they livedwithout making anyappeal to ideal of legal normalization or political equality,which would have been almost entirelyanachronistic until the 1780s.”⁴⁹ Through the maintenance of community

 Daniel H. Frank and OliverLeaman, eds., HistoryofJewishPhilosophy (London and New York: Routledge,1997), 4.  Frank and Leaman, 5.  See Jehuda Bergman, “Sokrates in der Jüdischen Literatur,” Monatsschrift fürGeschichte und Wis- senschaft des Judentums 80 (1936): 13.  Adam Sutcliffe, “Toleration, Integration, Regeneration, and Reform,” in TheCambridgeHistoryof Judaism,ed. Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2017), 1063. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and JewishEmancipation 27

concord, shared spaces,and inter-confessional interactions, the earlymodern period experiencedaconcrete Jewish–Christian coexistence in addition to the political and theological stances which onlyaffected these exchanges in acollateral way.⁵⁰ Fur- thermore, one should reconsider the paradoxicalimpact of ghettoisation on Jewish culture, because rather than “eroding its distinctiveness, it provided, behind the ghettowalls, asecure home for its autonomous development,influenced by the dominant culturewhile also to some extent sealed from it.[…]Far from making Jews and Christians invisibletoeach other,this in fact provided the basis for more robust and self-conscious encounters across this boundary of difference.”⁵¹

Bibliography

Adorisio,Chiara. LeoStrauss lettorediHermann Cohen: dalla filosofia moderna al ritorno agli antichi. Florence: Giuntina, 2007. Altmann, Alexander. MosesMendelssohn: ABiographical Study. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973. Arkush, Allan. MosesMendelssohn and the Enlightenment. Albany,NY: SUNY Press, 1994. Bartolucci, Guido. “JewishScepticism in Christian Eyes:JacobF.Reimmann and the Transformation of Jewish Philosophy.” In Yearbook of the MaimonidesCentre for Advanced Studies 2018,edited by Bill Rebiger, 145–64. Berlin: De Gruyter,2018. Benetelli, Luigi. Idardi rabbinici. Venice:DomenicoLovisa, 1705. Bergman, Jehuda. “Sokrates in der Jüdische Literatur.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 80 (1936): 3–13. Bonnet, Charles. La palingénésie philosophique, ou, Idées surl’état passé et surl’état futur des êtresvivans. Geneva:Claude Philibert et Barthelemi Chirol, 1769. Frank, Daniel H., and Oliver Leaman, eds. History of JewishPhilosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Goetschel,Willi. Spinoza’sModernity: Mendelssohn, Lessing, and Heine. Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 2004. Guetta, Alessandro. Italian Jewry in the Early ModernEra:Essays in Intellectual History. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press,2014. Heyd, Michael. “Introduction.” ScienceinContext 15, no. 1(March 2002): 1–8. Israel, Jonathan. European Jewryinthe Age of Mercantilism,1550–1750. 3rded. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1998. Kaplan, Benjamin J. Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the PracticeofToleration in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2007. Leonard, Miriam. “Greeks, Jews, and the Enlightenment: Moses Mendelssohn’sSocrates.” Cultural Critique 74 (2010): 183–99. Luzzatto,Simone. Discourse on the Stateofthe Jews of Venice. Edited and translated by Giuseppe Veltriand Anna Lissa.Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter,2019.

 See Benjamin J. Kaplan, Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press,2007).  Sutcliffe, “Toleration, Integration, Regeneration, and Reform,” 1064.See also Jonathan Israel, Eu- ropean Jewryinthe Age of Mercantilism, 1550–1750,3rd ed. (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civ- ilization, 1998), 67–98. 28 Michela Torbidoni

Luzzatto,Simone. Socrates, Or On Human Knowledge. Editedand translated by Giuseppe Veltri and Michela Torbidoni. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter,2019. Mendelssohn, Moses. Phaedon. In Schriften zur Philosophie und Ästhetik. Edited by Fritz Bamberger and Leo Strauss.Volume 3.1 of GesammelteSchriften. Jubiläumsausgabe,edited by Alexander Altmann et al. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann, 1972. Mendelssohn, Moses. Writings on Judaism, Christianity,and the Bible. Edited by Michah Gottlieb. Translated by CurtisBowman, EliasSacks, and Allan Arkush. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UniversityPress, 2011. Mendelssohn, Moses. Zueignungsschreiben Johann Caspar Lavaters an Moses Mendelssohn in Schriften zum Judentum I. Edited by Simon Rawidowicz. Volume 7.1ofGesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe,edited by Alexander Altmann et al. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann, 1974. Montaigne, Michel de. The Complete Essays. Editedand translated by M.A. Screech, London: Penguin, 2003. Morosini, Giulio. Viadelle fede mostrata a’ gli Ebrei. Rome:Stamperia della Sacra Congregazione de Propaganda Fide, 1683. Nehamas, Alexander. The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault. Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1998. Piaia, Gregorio, and Giovanni Santinello, eds. Models of the History of Philosophy. Volume II: From the Cartesian Age to Brucker. Dordrecht and New York: Springer,2011. Popkin, RichardH.The High Road to Pyrrhonism. Edited by RichardA.Watson and James E. Force. Reprint ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. Popkin, RichardH.The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle. Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003. Salah, Asher. “AMatter of Quotation: Danteand the LiteraryIdentity of Jews in Italy.” In The Italian Judaica Jubilee Conference,edited by Shlomo Simonsohn and Joseph Shatzmiller, 167–96. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013. Schulte, Christoph. Die Jüdische Aufklärung: Philosophie, Religion, Geschichte. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2002. Septimus, Bernard. “Nahmanides and the Andalusian Tradition.” In Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and LiteraryVirtuosity,edited by Isadore Twersky, 11–34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1983. Shear, Adam. “Science,Medicine, and Jewish Philosophy.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 7: The EarlyModern World,1500–1815,edited by Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe, 522–49. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2017. Sorkin, David. MosesMendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment. London: Halban, 2012. Strauss, Leo. GesammelteSchriften, Band II: Philosophie und Gesetz—Frühe Schriften. Editedby Heinrich Meier.Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 1997. Strauss, Leo. Jewish Philosophyand the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern JewishThought. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green.Albany,NY: SUNY Press,1997. Strauss, Leo. On Moses Mendelssohn. Edited and translated by Martin D. Yaffe. Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press, 2012. Strauss, Leo. “The Mutual InfluenceofTheology and Philosophy.” Independent Journal of Philosophy 3(1979): 111–18. Sutcliffe, Adam. “Toleration, Integration, Regeneration, and Reform.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 7: The EarlyModern World,edited by Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe, 1058–88. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2017. Tacitus. Histories: Books 4–5. Annals: Books 1–3. TranslatedbyClifford H. Mooreand John Jackson. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1931. Socratic Impulse, Secular Tendency,and Jewish Emancipation 29

Torbidoni, Michela. “Il metodo del dubbio nel Socrate di Simone Luzzatto.” In Filosofo erabbino nella Venezia del Seicento. Studi su Simone Luzzatto,edited by GiuseppeVeltri, 183–245. Rome:Aracne, 2015. Trousson, Raymond. Socrates devant Voltaire, DiderotetRousseau:laconscienceenface du mythe. Paris: Lettres modernes,1967. Veltri, Giuseppe. Alienated Wisdom: Enquiryinto JewishPhilosophy and Scepticism. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter,2018. Veltri, Giuseppe,and Evelien Chayes. Oltrelemuradel ghetto: Accademie, scetticismo etolleranza nella Venezia barocca. Palermo: New Digital Press, 2016. Veltri, Giuseppe,and GianfrancoMiletto. “Difesa ineditadel senatore venezianoLoredan in favore degli ebreinel 1659–60 basatasul Discorso di Simone Luzzatto.” In Filosofo erabbino nella Venezia del Seicento. Studi su Simone Luzzatto,edited by GiuseppeVeltri, 249–74.Rome: Aracne, 2015.