The issue of censorship, taken strictly, seems to be of little interest if applied to the works of Spinoza in Germany. The reason is that the first book of Spinoza that was published in Germany, i.e. the German translation of the Ethics, came out as late as 1744. There was thus no opportunity for censorship of Spinoza’s works in Germany during the first ca. 75 years after the publication of the Tractatus theologico-politicus (hereafter TTP.)
If taken in a larger sense, i.e. comprising the reactions of the political authorities towards those books that were thought likely to spread the seeds of Spinozism in Germany, there is much more to say. One can, further, extend that study to the pre-censorship area, i.e. to the learned discourse on how to appropriately react to the flux of dangerous ideas (mainly those of Spinoza) coming into Germany from outside, especially from suspicious ‘Belgium’, i.e. the Netherlands.
This is a kind of public discourse on what the state should do—and it opens up a still larger field of study. I will therefore deal with three topics: a) The debate in theology and philosophy on how to appropriately react to dangerous ideas from abroad, especially those of Spinoza, starting immediately after the publication of the TTP in 1670.
b) The State reactions to the publication of those books which were held to contain Spinozism or at least Spinozistic ideas. I will consider as examples the two authors who, for a long time in the German history of ideas, were held to be the first ‘German Spinozists’, i.e. Friedrich Wilhelm Stosch and Theodor Ludwig Lau.
c) The circumstances and the publishing strategy of the first book of Spinoza published in Germany, the German translation of the Ethics by Johann Lorenz Schmidt in 1744. This will be dealt with in the last section.
In a final remark, I will try to explain why censorship against Spinoza and Spinozism finally failed, and remind the reader of the crucial role of Spinoza, both the person and his philosophy, for the further development of philosophy in Germany.
The Historia vitae et obitus Ludovici Fabricii of 1698 was written by Johann Heinrich Heidegger, who studied at Heidelberg at the same time as Johann Ludwig Fabricius and later became a professor at Zurich. Heidegger reported how Fabricius who, in his letter to Spinoza, offered him the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg in February 1673, reacted to the TTP when he first read it.
The account proceeds by means of verbal quotes from Fabricius: “All of this culminates in a certain way in the death of the church as well, and especially, of the state, which cannot be dangerously threatened as long as religion is firmly anchored.”
Against the importation of such dangerous writings into Germany he maintains that it is “more advisable to suppress them than to refute them,” because the force of a refutation is rarely acknowledged. But, Heidegger comments, this holds indeed only “as long as these writings can remain hidden when they are suppressed and damned to darkness without any danger of rebellion.”
But “as soon as they run through many hands and begin to corrupt the discernment of the simple minds,” it is appropriate “to subdue them with the truncheon of right reason.” And this “running through many hands” had apparently already begun in Germany.
If, on the one hand, Spinoza’s philosophy is judged to be the sum and summit of all heresies of all centuries (that is what the theologian Budde tried to show in his De Spinozismo ante Spinozam of 1701), undermining Church and State at the same time; and if, on the other hand, his pious language, especially in the TTP, is apt to mislead people who do not grasp the impact of its speculative foundations, then there is no alternative to refuting him.
As the TTP was already well known in Germany in 1671, the Dean of the philosophical faculty at Altdorf, Johann Conrad Dürr, saw “a new Hannibal threaten[ing] our Gates”. According to the Leipzig professor of philosophy, Jakob Thomasius, it is the duty “especially of those to whom the supervision of the academic youth is entrusted” to publicly reject that “pestiferous” booklet on the freedom to philosophize.
Thomasius speaks of an “academic youth that often sips the poison with eager desire”. In 1676, Gottlieb Spitzel is anxious that “that [. . .] impiety which is hostile to God and revealed truth tries to become rooted not only abroad but in our German soil” thus making “Italy, France and Belgium dwell very soon in our common fatherland.”
That is why “all scholars have to care most diligently not to be corrupted themselves by criminal preceptors of this kind and by their books or by dissertations full of such great impiety, and [thereby] finally succumb to the danger of disbelief.”
To sum up: The TTP was known at the University of Altdorf as early as June 1670. Now, since (1) Spinoza’s ideas destroy the very foundation of any order in the Church as well as in the State; (2) it is clear that suppressing them would be the best response.
This is, however, not possible since (3) the diffusion of those ideas is not restricted to the notoriously impious countries (Italy, France, Belgium), but they have invaded the German fatherland as well, and (4) are dangerous (a) not only for simple minds, but (b) for the academic youth and (c) for the scholars themselves. That is why (5) the TTP should be publicly refuted.
Concerning the strategy of combat for the ‘hereditary Germanic freedom’ and against ‘licentiousness (licentia)’, Dürr says that one has to let ‘the man’ be heard “in order to give him no reason for complaint of having been suppressed, unheard and unquoted.” Then he quotes Spinoza: “According to the right of nature, nobody is held to live according to another man’s mind, but everybody is the tutor of his own liberty” (TTP, preface).
What follows makes it clear that Dürr is convinced (to say it with Spinoza’s words) “that to state his view is sufficient to refute it”. There is such a gap and absolute contrast between Spinoza’s doctrine and Christian and rational common sense that as soon as Spinoza’s real doctrine is unmasked, one cannot but shrink from it!
But due to the fact that even scholars may be impressed by Spinoza’s way of arguing, there were a great number of refutations, that of Johannes Musaeus of 1672 being the outstanding and much praised example.
Musaeus’ work first recapitulates, with greater or lesser fairness, Spinoza’s doctrines and arguments before refuting them. However, these critics find themselves in a serious dilemma, for careful recapitulation of Spinoza’s reasoning, often accompanied by long quotations from the TTP, makes his thought accessible to a greater public which had no access to the original, thereby contributing to the spreading of his original opinions.
That is why, later on, this form of serious academic discourse becomes subject to attack itself. Stosch’s father was one of the leading preachers in Berlin, and Stosch was twice married to women descended from influential and highly regarded families in Brandenburg.
He studied philosophy, theology and medicine at Frankfurt an der Oder and made his academic tour through Italy, France and the Netherlands. In 1676, he became ‘Geheimer Staatssekretär’ (Secret Secretary of State) at the court of Friedrich Wilhelm.