Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment (review)

182 SHOFAR Fall 1996 Vol. 15, No.1 The former quietly abandoned their maskilic mission and, in the case of Perets and Nevakhovich, went as far as seeking personal salvation by converting to Lutheranism. The latter underwent a pietistic metamorphosis which took them on aliya to the Land of Israel, with Shklov soon becoming a predominantly Hasidic town. Unfortunately, Fishman's conclusion is a weak ending to an otherwise excellent book. Instead of an unimaginative summary of its basic themes, he could have applied his considerable analytical skills to interpret these themes in the light of his own claim that the significance of the Shklov Haskalah "lies not in its legacy or impact on subsequent events, but in its paradigmatic anticipation of them" (po 136). Erich Haberer Centre for Russian & East European Studies University of Toronto Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment, by Allan Arkush. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. 304 pp. $21.95. This book is an attempt to answer the question whether Mendelssohn constructed "a coherent synthesis of rationalist philosophy and Jewish religion," or whether"his theory of]udaism [was] not only an ephemeral solution but an unstable one as well" (po xiii). Arkush's answer-perhaps not surprisingly, given the way the question is phrased-is that he did not succeed in providing a coherent synthesis, and that his theory remained unstable. He thinks that Mendelssohn's defense of]udaism "was in crucial respects more rhetorical than real" (po 230). Mendelssohn did not really attempt to give a solid foundation for his religion in reason. Being motivated ultimately by political concerns, he just wanted to give the appearance ofdoing so-or so Arkush thinks he can show. Accordingly, he sees Mendelssohn as close to Spinoza and Locke in his social and political aims, and he argues that Mendelssohn saw himself as part of a struggle for "a new, more rational, and freer world" (po 241) in which religion and politics were clearly separated. Talking to an audienct: composed ofJews as well as Christians, he tried to show that the reforms which he envisaged were compatible with biblical and rabbinic traditions. Arkush argues that Mendelssohn, though a genuine theist in believing that the doctrines of "the universal religion" were both true and indispensable, was not really a faithful Jew. For Arkush, it is Mendelssohn's liberalism that is the key to Book Reviews 183 understanding him. Though Mendelssohn insisted on "the validity of Mosaic law," he "succeeded in depoliticizing it or ... in showing that it could be made fully compatible with a detheologized politics" (p. 271). Though Arkush argues for this view most explicitly in the last two chapters, entitled "Mendelssohn's Defense ofJudaism" and "Refashioning Judaism," the preceding five chapters are clearly also informed by it. However, it would be. a mistake to reduce the book to an argument for just this thesis. In preparing for the defense of it, he not only offers much background material that is of great interest, but also provides an interesting interpretation of Mendelssohn's philosophy and its Sitz im Leben. Thus the first chapter deals with the Leibniz-Wolffian background of his thought, the second gives an account of his natural theology, and the third deals with the crisis of confidence that the Leibniz-Wolffian approach experienced after the middle of the eighteenth century and which motivated much of Mendelssohn's writing. Chapters four and five deal with his views on religion, morality, and politics, as well as with his relationship to Spinoza and other adversaries. These earlier chapters provide a well-rounded and balanced account of Mendelssohn's thought. I am not sure whether Arkush's thesis about Mendelssohn's intentions is correct. Though he makes a good case for it, there is room for doubt. I do not think that Mendelssohn was as cool and calculating as he appears from this book. I do not think that political and religious liberalism were his overriding concern. He was much more theoretical (especially in his early years), and the Jewish tradition was more important to him than Arkush seems to be willing to admit. Furthermore, I believe a case can be made for the view that he was serious...