Baruch Spinoza's Defense of Common Schools was published in
June 1692. Common Schools was one of a number of pamphlets on
practical government and religion written by Spinoza between 1692
and 1694, informed by his experience as governor of the Rational
millet and minister of education to the Sublime Porte. Although
Spinoza had often discussed practical politics in correspondence
with other philosophers, these were his first attempts at
political commentary outside the context of the Jewish question.
The great majority of these pamphlets are regarded today as
minor, even pedestrian works, mere rehearsals for The State.
Whatever his other talents, Spinoza was not a good practical
politician, and these works betray a lack of understanding of
the behavior of human beings in organizations. Although
Spinoza's political treatises of the mid-1690s show a remarkable
degree of idealism for someone who had spent a decade navigating
the tricky waters of the Ottoman court, they added little to the
political knowledge of the day.
The exceptions, as may be expected, are the two pamphlets that
concern education, a field in which Spinoza's practical talents were
considerably greater than in other areas of government. Of these, the
most often recalled today is The University,
published in early 1693. This treatise originated as a long letter
addressed to Gottfried von Leibniz, refuting some of his arguments
against academic specialization. Among the great polymath's
peculiarities was a dislike of universities and the
compartmentalization of knowledge that came with them. Spinoza's
response was a gentle reminder that the sum of human knowledge was
rapidly growing beyond the capacity of a single mind, and that
scholars could often advance learning better as masters of a single
field than jacks of them all. Moreover, at a university, great minds
could be concentrated so that it would be possible for them to
exchange ideas through conversation rather than correspondence, and
benefit more easily from advances made by others.
In the published volume, an edited version of this letter was
accompanied by an essay on the structure of the ideal institute
of higher learning. This essay was noteworthy for its advocacy
of academic freedom, arguing that universities should be
completely secular institutions and that the research and writing
of professors should be restricted by neither church nor state.
He was also one of the first to articulate the concept of the
research university, stating that the ideal university would set
aside modest facilities for natural philosophers to experiment,
build machines and advance the useful arts. During Spinoza's
tenure as rector of the University of Constantinople, he lacked
the resources to do so in any but a minor way, but the concept
would influence the programs of the great European universities
in the centuries after his death.
Common Schools was also an advanced work for
its time. It is little quoted today, both because more comprehensive
arguments for public education were made by later educators and
because it became a victim of its own success; it is unnecessary to
make the case for public schools when nobody argues against
them. Nevertheless, at the time of its publication, Common Schoolswas among the most forceful works
that had yet been written in support of free public education. Common
schools, according to Spinoza, made students more capable of
participating in affairs of government and religion, and strengthened
their faith by bringing its principles within their understanding.
They would also instill in the youth the values of the state, make
students more useful in their craft, and render them less vulnerable
to the wiles of "Frauds, Quacks, Sophists and Demagogues."
Possibly the most unique aspect of Common
Schools was its relation of public education to the position of
the Jewish people, both in its historical background and its
arguments. In support of his contentions about the benefits of common
schools, Spinoza traced the history of public education, mentioning
not only the public schools of the Carolingian Bishop Theodulf of
Orleans and contemporary New England but also the primary schools of
Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach in Hasmonean Judea and the boys' academies
that existed in nearly every contemporary Jewish quarter. [FN1] It was
these schools, he argued, that accounted for the fact that Jews were
tolerated and even courted in lands that despised them. "The Jew has
no natural advantage over the Christian or the Muslim in mental
faculty or the capacity to invent," he wrote. "It is his learning
that has won him a place at the courts of sultans and kings."
If Christians and Muslims established public schools, Spinoza
argued, many more of their children would become famous doctors
and philosophers. Although court Jews would no longer be needed
in this event, the result would nevertheless be beneficial for
the Jewish community, because education would "eliminate the
unnatural Prejudices that men hold against their Neighbors."
Although the hypothesis that public education would destroy
prejudice against Jews would ultimately prove, at best, half-
true, it had the effect of turning Jews into the strongest
advocates of free public education for all. This tendency,
which marked Jewish communities for the next two centuries, would
display itself as early as the New York Common Schools
Controversy a decade later, in which several of the pro-education
candidates were elected by Jewish votes.
For the time being, though, the public schools of Constantinople
were fostering prejudice against one particular Jew: Spinoza
himself. Although Spinoza and Saltiel endeavored to operate the
schools as cheaply as possible, the expense still resulted in an
increased tax burden for the Ottoman subjects. Many provincial
citizens were, quite naturally, displeased at paying additional
taxes for a program that only benefitted the residents of the
capital and might never come to them.
This discontent was only fueled by the general malaise that
seemed to overcome the empire. The cultural flowering in
Constantinople could not hide the fact that, during the last two
years of Ahmed II's reign, the Ottoman realm went from disaster
to disaster. The fortunes of war, both against the Austrians
and the Venetians, took a turn for the worse, and the Turkish
armies were again driven from Hungary and a number of Greek
islands. Pestilence swept through several major cities. And
disaster struck even in the capital, in the form of the fires of
1693.
There were two of these, and they struck one after the other, the
second raging just as the city began to clear the damage from the
first. In all, five thousand homes were destroyed and tens of
thousands of people killed. The Rational Jewish community was
not spared; hundreds perished, and at the height of the second
fire, the Rational Synagogue went up in flames.
Much of the remainder of 1693 and 1694 was spent in rebuilding.
The site of the Rational Synagogue was cleared, but the house of
worship was not rebuilt; in a rare exercise of his power over
millet funds, Spinoza decreed that the synagogue would not be
restored until pensions had been paid to the widows and orphans
and housing had been found for all the families made homeless by
the fire. In a community whose funds were already depleted by
war taxes and the decline of trade, this took many months.
The sense of impending disaster was, however, broken by a few bright
spots. One of these was the marriage of Naomi in January 1695 to
Yonatan ben Mordecai Adi. [FN2] Her wedding was remarkable not only as
an excuse for celebration in the midst of crisis but for the unusual
marriage contract signed by the newlyweds. Not only did the ketubah contain the standard monogamy clause
[FN3], but it forbade the husband from interfering with his wife's
education or pursuit of employment. It was clear that Sarah had played
a part in drafting the contract, although there was some speculation
about whether Adi had agreed willingly or whether he had simply been
too scared of Sarah to object.
But all the dancing and celebration at the wedding could not
stave off catastrophe much longer. As 1694 turned to 1695, the
grumbling of the Janissaries grew louder, and reactionary imams
increasingly preached against the public schools and the
influence of modernity and rationalism. Matters came to a head
soon after the death of Ahmed II in February 1695. The
immediate catalyst was a rumor that the Grand Vizier was plotting
to take advantage of the new Sultan's inexperience by concluding
a humiliating peace with the Venetians and Austrians. The rumor
was untrue - the new monarch, Mustafa II, had done nothing more
than order the vizier to open negotiations - but it spread like
wildfire through the capital and the Janissary regiments.
Had Ahmed II still been on the throne, he might have been able to
quash the sedition, but the new Sultan was still untried and not
yet able to command the loyalty of the troops. Within two
months of his accession, rioting broke out in Constantinople, and
many of the troops sent out to suppress the rioters went over to
their side. On the first of May - the fourth day of the riots -
a coalition of Janissary generals and radical preachers took
power in a bloody palace coup. Mustafa was allowed to remain on
the throne, but the Grand Vizier was beheaded, and many senior
counselors also lost their lives.
Fortunately, Spinoza was not one of them. Like many other
Rational leaders, he had taken the onset of rioting as a signal
to flee the city. By the time the Grand Vizier's head was
displayed atop the gate of the Topkapi Palace, he was well away
from Constantinople. By the end of the month, he had arrived at
Smyrna, but he would not stay there long. With their goal
accomplished, the new powers at the Sublime Porte had no desire
to spread the bloodshed outside the palace precincts, but they
could not tolerate such a powerful and articulate Rationalist in
the empire. On the fifteenth of June, a message reached Spinoza
informing him that he and his family, along with thirty other
prominent Rational Jews and neo-Mu'tazilites, were banished from
the Ottoman realm.
|