the boisi center interviews no. 50: December 7, 2010

eric nelson is a professor of at . He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before delivering a presentation focused on his latest book, The Hebrew : Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Harvard/Belknap, 2010) at the Boisi Center.

owens: In your new book, the thrust the 16th and 17th centuries is virtually Hebrew Bible as a political constitution of your argument is that the traditional backwards. When you look at that God had designed and which was account of the relationship between reli- political thought, i.e. humanist political therefore perfect and authoritative. gion and in the crucial period of thought, it is very secular; it is classiciz- Suddenly the task of political science European political thought—the 16th and ing and they are all trying to revive Greek becomes the task of emulating, or even 17th centuries—is backwards or wrong. and Roman antiquity. Their sources are replicating, the crucial sort of institutions Could you give us a short account of that and practices of this perfect republic. conventional wisdom and what you argue Political science now has to focus on a is precisely backwards? divinely authorized constitutional form. nelson: I take the conventional view to This changes the character of the disci- be that Western modernity emerges out pline enormously. of a process of secularization. This story The question then becomes, how do you usually attaches enormous importance study this thing that they began to call to the period I study—early modern the Hebrew Republic, the Respublica Europe—particularly the 16th and 17th Hebraeorum? Since the Bible gives you centuries. The argument is that after very fragmented and often contradictory centuries in which Europeans thought information about it, they found that about moral and political questions by they had to turn to the rabbis. This is the asking what would God like us to do and moment in which the study of Hebrew how does God wish for us to live, a set is exploding in the Protestant world. of simultaneous forces—i.e. the rise of The Protestant theorists I have in mind new science, philosophical skepticism, turned to the rabbinic corpus for the the destruction wrought by the religious purpose of illuminating this pristine, wars— supposedly led early modern the ancient Greek and Roman philoso- perfect, divinely authorized republic. political theorists and moral philosophers phers and . They do not sup- to initiate something which has been My book is about the consequences of pose that one needs recourse to revelation called the Great Separation. That is, they that encounter for moral and political in order to think about politics. decided that it was necessary to seques- philosophy. ter political science from theology and In the wake of the Reformation this owens: What is the relationship be- to make it autonomous so that it did not changes dramatically, particularly in the tween the turn to these Hebraic sources have to rely for its foundations on these Protestant world. As Protestants are sent and the revival of in divisive and dubious religious claims. back to the text of the Bible— particularly this period? What is the cause and effect? the Hebrew Bible—to a new and unprec- My argument in the book is that this edented degree, they begin to see the characterization of what happened in

1 the boisi center interview: eric nelson nelson: I would say that it works in commentaries, that is, compendia, which terials and then turns them into so the direction of less to more. That is, the made the material readily available. that they are now available to everybody. first urgent requirement that is endorsed One of the most important texts, al- owens: Was there a conversation in by every Protestant—including Martin though virtually unknown today, is this that period among Jewish scholars and Luther who otherwise takes a very dim little book published in 1625 by a German the Protestants you are speaking of? view of rabbinic sources, and really has Hebraist named Wilhelm Schickard, who no interest in them, or rather has it out nelson: It is a fascinating question. has a plausible claim to being the inven- for them—is to learn Hebrew so as to The answer is sometimes yes and some- tor of the computer, in addition to being be able to study the Hebrew Bible itself. times no. —often converted Jews, a very accomplished Hebraist. He writes The need to study the Biblical text in the but not exclusively—were extremely this book which he calls Mishpat Hamel- original language produces the first wave important in this story insofar as they ech, which in Hebrew is “the law of the of professorships in Hebrew and makes were the ones initially teaching Hebrew king,” or laws pertaining to kingship, and Hebrew an essential part of the Protes- to the Christians in question. From the then gives the Latin subtitle, Jus Regium tant curriculum. point of view of a Christian Hebraist, the Hebræorum. best thing was to have a converted Jew It is then these Hebraists, once they teaching you this material. But partic- know Hebrew and are ensconced in their ularly when you are talking about, for universities, who began looking at the example, Amsterdam after the 1590s corpus of rabbinic literature. They begin “Hebraism relies when the Portuguese Jews settled, very to publish editions, commentaries and in part on Jewish learned Jews were consulted even though translations by the end of the period I am they had not converted to Christianity. talking about. The entire Mishnah, that conduits; it relies This was a very fraught issue. Hebraism is, the central component of the Talmud, relies in part on Jewish conduits; it relies had been translated into Latin. Most of on Jewish tutors on Jewish tutors to teach Christians the major texts in rabbinic literature had to teach Christians Hebrew. It also relies on Jewish printing either been translated into Latin entirely, of the rabbinic Bible, which contains all or excerpted in accessible editions: that Hebrew...but for these commentaries and so on. But for is, the professors who do this for a living the most part, the Christian Hebraists then make the fruits of their erudition the most part, were not very fond of Jews. They were available to the wider republic of letters. studying this material while, as it were, So you have people who do not know He- the Christian holding their noses. brew very well who are nonetheless fully Hebraists were capable of consulting the rabbis. owens: Before I circle back around to contemporary scholarly understandings owens: Is it fair to say that the initial not very fond of of this period, which I want to get back wave was a theological undertaking as Jews.” to, could you lay out what you argue in opposed to a political one? your book is the upshot of this Hebrew nelson: Yes, the first and the most revival? You offer three thrusts that are urgent kind of motive was the notion that crucial to understanding the shift of the It is a compendium of all of the material it was a Christian duty to study scripture modern world. that he can find in the corpus of rabbinic and that in order to study scripture one literature on kingship and on the laws nelson: I focus on three transforma- had to learn Hebrew. and obligations of kingship. But before tions that take place in the 17th century owens: The Mishnah was not therefore he gets into all that, he first asks what did that I regard as being extremely import- mined selectively, but rather read and the rabbis think about kingship per se? ant and straightforwardly motivated by translated for broader purposes? Did they think it was a good idea or bad this encounter, although in different idea? He acknowledges that, although he ways. nelson: I would say it depends. Vari- throws in his lot with the Talmudic tra- ous tractates of the Talmud were being The first is the emergence of what I call dition—that is, the tradition that regards turned into Latin relatively early and so “republican exclusivism.” That is the kingship as a requirement for Israel—he people were reading them. But the major idea that are the only legiti- acknowledges that there is another side texts, the ones that clearly got into the mate regimes and that is an to the debate. He excerpts all of these ma- bloodstream most directly did so via illicit constitutional form. This argument

2 the boisi center interview: eric nelson emerges for the first time in the middle of the 17th century, straightforwardly as a reflection of Protestant immersion in a particular tradition of rabbinic commen- tary that understood the famous instance in 1st Samuel where the people ask for a king as a sin. Not as any sin, but as an instance of the sin of idolatry, in that they were choosing to bow down to flesh and blood rather than God. They were replac- ing God with a human being. This is a sin and monarchy, per se, in all its forms, is therefore illicit. The Christian scholars whom I am talking about gain access to this view via the compendia of rabbinic material that I have been talking about, chiefly Schickard. The first person to make this in redistributing wealth. There were a which is our familiar perspective on the argument, so far as I can see, is Milton. few people that wanted to abolish private question. He makes it clear that he is arguing on property, but most people thought a re- My argument in the book is that both of the basis of this tradition of exegesis and public should be incredibly deferential to these claims are largely mistaken. First for exactly these reasons. He credits the private property and that defend- of all, most early modern defenders of rabbis for his view; it is not mysterious ing private property was an essential part toleration defended it on explicitly reli- at all. As soon as Milton makes this of defending liberty. gious grounds. Second, they were quite argument, it becomes a constituent part What everyone agreed on was that you opposed to the separation of church and of modern and obviously did not redistribute property. You either state. They saw the path to toleration via gives us something like our view in the had private property or not, but you did what tends to be called Erastianism, that modern world. Although very few people, not try to play around with it. It was, is the fusion of church and state—the I think, would recognize the pedigree. again, a meditation on the Hebrew Re- creation of the state church—under the The second is to do with the emergence public, in this case a text by an important control of the civil sovereign. of defenses of the redistribution of Dutch theorist named Peter Cunaeus, Again, they found authorization or wealth. That is, the idea that the state who in 1617 wrote his study of the He- support for this strategy in the model of should coercively redistribute property brew Republic. Using , he the Hebrew Republic, as described by Jo- for civic purposes. Again, before the looks at the land laws in ancient Israel, sephus and then illuminated by the writ- middle 17th century, this was virtually chiefly the Jubilee, and he says that these ings of the rabbis. The argument is that if anathema in European political thought. are agrarian laws. Well, if they are agrar- the civil sovereign is the exclusive source Theorists tended to see redistribution ian laws, then that means God endorses of law, both civil and religious, then the through the lens of a particular histori- them. If God endorsed them, that means question you ask about a religious law cal example, namely the Roman agrar- is wrong and suddenly you need to is why would a civil sovereign make ian laws. These were laws proposed by reconsider the whole question. it? The answer is: for civil reasons. But Roman tribunes to redistribute patrician The third is toleration. The standard what counts as a civil reason? In order land among the plebs. view of toleration is that it emerges out to answer that question you turn back to The Roman sources—chiefly Cicero, but of secularization. That is, it becomes the Hebrew Republic and to the writings also a whole range of other authors, phi- possible at the level of theory to tolerate of the rabbis. You ask: when God was losophers and historians—took the view religious non-conformity only when you civil sovereign, which religious matters that these were unjust measures that had stop taking religious claims very seri- did he criminalize? You extrapolate from provoked the civil war, and eventually led ously. Secondly, the standard view is that that set in order to get to a view of what to the collapse of the republic. It was just the form in which toleration emerges is counts as a legitimate civil reason. Using a rule of thumb in republican political that of the separation of church and state, these rabbinic sources they concluded theory that you should have no interest that God had actually understood civic

3 the boisi center interview: eric nelson purposes very narrowly and that ancient tional pluralists anymore. This is a very It turns out that there is a way of retelling Israel had practiced widespread tolera- important shift. the story of Roman decline such that is tion. consistent with the principles of a divine When it comes to something like redis- political science. In that case, it is not a owens: I have two other thematic ques- tribution, it is a much more complicated rejection of the classical tradition. It is tions for you. One involves what I am story. It is not so much the rejection of just a shift from Roman to Greek sources. hearing as a struggle between a Biblicist the classical tradition outright, as the political understanding and a classicist rejection of a part of it in favor of another owens: That actually leads to my other understanding. The way you are de- part. Once you have said that you have thematic question: What is the relation- scribing it makes it seems as if there is a used your understanding of the Hebrew ship of the republican exclusivism that return of Biblicisms of a certain sort and Republic to vindicate redistribution, that you are talking about here as anti-monar- that it is overcoming a classicist view, a means you have to part with the Roman chial and the Greek model, specifically pagan sort of understanding. Is that a fair tradition, with the Ciceronian tradition. the Greek model of republicanism as an generalization in this period and, if not, To this degree, we have a rejection of understanding of the necessary linkage why not? If so, what happens later when between individual virtue and goodness classicism reemerges? to the common good? Where does your story fit in that transmission in relation nelson: In some cases that is a better “Constitutional to Machiavelli or whomever else? characterization than in others. When we are talking about, for example, republican pluralism... nelson: It is a very big question. In exclusivism, there is a sense in which the general, the way to approach it is this. classical understanding of political sci- is the crucial When we talk about the term respublica, ence is being upended. That is, classical or republic—and I should say my col- political science, first of all, gets by with- commitment that league Jim Hankins at Harvard has done out recourse to revelation. Once you start is set aside in the some very important work on this earlier turning to revelation for the principles of part of the story—the term respublica in your politics, you have left the classical rise of republican the Roman sources and in early modern tradition behind. Europe before the 15th century did not exclusivism. This have the connotation of non-monarchical But there are also particular points of constitution. Respublica did not carry consensus among classical authors in marks a leap from that meaning. Respublica meant state, or respect of how to think about political sci- in the highly charged sense of the term, ence and political constitutions that are the early modern the good state, the virtuous state, the set aside during this period. Classical po- into the modern state virtuously governed. For example, litical thought is characterized first and talking about Rome in terms of republic foremost by what you might call “consti- world.” and then empire is not present in the tutional pluralism.” This is the idea that ancient Roman sources at all, nor is it there are several correct constitutional present in Europe until really the end of forms. famously tells you there the 15th century and so on. The Romans are six forms, the rule of the one, the few, at least part of the classical corpus. But still talked about the Respublica Romana the many, each having a correct and a these Hebraizing authors immediately even after Actium, including people like degenerate form. Any of the good forms turned to Greek sources, and particularly Tacitus, whom you would not necessarily is legitimate. You might take the view, as to Greeks who wrote Roman history, like expect to talk that way. certainly people did, that one was better (who was after all a Platonist). than the others, or that one was even the Plutarch gives you a story of Roman The key point is that respublica in this best, either the best absolutely or the best decline that makes sense in light of your earlier period is not restricted to non- under particular circumstances. But this new commitment to redistribution. That monarchical forms. It can apply to any basic pluralism was a constitutive part is, because Plutarch is a Platonist, he virtuous constitution. In a sense, they of classical political thought. It is the disagrees with Cicero, Livy, Lucan and all were reading this Roman idea back into crucial commitment that is set aside in the others. Plutarch tells you that Rome Aristotelian categories. Any of Aristot- the rise of republican exclusivism. This fell because it failed to enforce agrarian le’s correct forms could be described as marks a leap from the early modern into laws and institute the equality that Lycur- respublica. the modern world; we are not constitu- gus would have recommended.

4 the boisi center interview: eric nelson nelson: I think there are a number of answers to that question. The first thing that I should make clear is that I would want very much not to be understood as saying that everybody who has written on the subject before me has been complete- ly wrong. I think my work builds in lots of different ways on excellent scholarship by other people. To the extent, though, that the dominant view is the dominant view, the question is why? I think there are a number of reasons for that. One is that we live, in some sense, in a secular age, and I think people have an interest in establishing a secular provenance for the philosophical and moral commit- ments that they take most seriously. I think there is a real interest in trying to insist on a kind of respectably secular What changes this is actually the new It is that story that Machiavelli comes pedigree for ideas that secular theorists translation of Aristotle’s Politics, the into because he make this famous claim do not want to relinquish and take very, humanist, Ciceronian translations by at the beginning of The Prince that there very seriously. people like Leonardo Bruni, who depart- are two forms of constitution: there are The thought that these ideas might have ed from the first Aristotelian translators. principalities and there are republics, been justified in the first instance on re- In the first Latin translations of Aristotle, and they are mutually exclusive. He is ligious grounds, not on secular grounds, people tended to just transliterate the not the first to have said that, but this does not of course show at all that they Greek titles of the different regimes. You tradition, which is about 100 years old cannot be defended on secular grounds, would talk about, in Aristotle’s typology, at that point, is reflected in The Prince. but it raises the question. It insists that the good rule of one as “monarchy.” The But the important thing to remember is we think about the grounding of these good of the few is “aristocracy.” The good even once you have said that, you are not claims once we recognize that a particu- rule of the many they just called politeia, a republican exclusivist. You have just lar commitment of ours has a religious because Aristotle uses the term politeia said that “republic” is a term that refers provenance and depended in the first in two senses. On the one hand, it means to a constitutional form without a king. instance on a set of religious claims that constitution in general, and on the other It might be the constitutional form we people in the here and now might not it is this specific kind of constitution ought to prefer. It might be the best. It want to accept. Then we have to ask new which is the virtuous form of the rule of might be always the best, it might be the questions. We have to say well, all right, the many. best under most circumstances or some that being the case, can we substitute a circumstances, and so on. Bruni swaps in the term respublica in different foundation for the same claim? both senses so that respublica can mean By making that move you are not com- Or, do we have to relinquish the claim? constitution in general, but it can also mitting yourself at all to the view that That is a tough business. I think that mean the virtuous form of the rule of the republics are the only legitimate regimes people who understand the great achieve- many. In that sense it excludes monarchy, and that principalities are illicit. No one ment of western modernity to consist in and particularly the Florentines, as they in the 16th century says that. This is an secularization and in the cluster of moral are having their debate with monarchial artifact of the moment I am talking about and philosophical commitments that we Milan, begin exploiting that sense of the in the 17th century. take most seriously have an interest in term and arguing that they are the only owens: How did most scholars who put seeing a secular route to these commit- true respublica. Although other people a lot of elbow grease into this story—his- ments. argued that you could perfectly well have torians and contemporary thinkers about a prince in a respublica, the Florentines Another part of it is that not a lot of contemporary separation of church and said that is not true. Respublica is a king- people know Hebrew. We no longer live state alike—get it wrong? And where did less form. in the world of the 16th and 17th century they go wrong?

5 the boisi center interview: eric nelson in which it was just expected that people ke came to my office. He came in and he the 17th century would have been some doing political science would know their sat down at my computer, he started to bit of rabbinica. Hebrew, or at least know people who play around with it. He looked down on In a sense, I think this is partly a knew their Hebrew or had meditated on my desk and he saw that I had a copy of a casualty of the intense compartmen- these sources. We train a lot of people Talmudic tractate sitting there. He looked talization of the modern academy and in Latin, we train some people in Greek. at me and he said, “oh, you’re Jewish?” also just an example of the degree to We do not train a lot of people who do Because my name is not a Jewish sound- which the study of Jewish text has been this kind of work to think about Hebrew ing name, he had not supposed that I restricted to Jewish studies, as if it is a sources, or to be able to read them. was Jewish. But when he looked down kind of hermetically sealed discipline and saw this book, that convinced him I remember when I was working on this that does not impinge on the others. that I must be Jewish. I thought, well, book, I had this very funny experience. I gosh, this is exactly the point. In the 17th Those are just two reasons. I think you was working in my office and my comput- century, this conversation would never can talk about a lot of others. er went on strike. After I tried unplug- have happened. The most natural object ging it and smacking it and doing all of to find in the study of a respectably ortho- those things, I called down to technical dox Protestant scholar named Nelson in [end] support. This very nice man in a yarmul-

The Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life Boston College 24 Quincy Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

tel 617-552-1860 fax 617-552-1863 [email protected] Visit bc.edu/boisi-resources for a complete set of the boisicenter Boisi Center Interviews and audio, video, photographs, @boisi_center and transcripts from our events.

6 the boisi center interview: eric nelson