Joseph Solomon Delmedigo: Student of Galileo, Teacher of Spinoza

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹Biographical facts about Spinoza can be conveniently accessed in S. Nadler, Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Unless the reference is to some controversial or obscure matter, readers are referred to the Nadler book.

²Items 6, 20, 21, (66), (70), (76), and (77) in the posthumous inventory in J. Freudenthal, Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's (Leipzig, 1899), 162.

³R. Vermij, The Calvinist Copernicans: The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575–1750 (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 2002), 272–94.

⁴The main primary sources for Delmedigo's biography are in his own works, especially in the passages written by editors and others. The main secondary sources are A. Geiger, ‘Zum Verständnisse Josef Salomo del Medigo's’, in his Melo Chofnajim (Berlin, 1840), German section, ix–lvi; G. Alter, Two Renaissance Astronomers, Rozpravy Československé Akademie Vĕd, Řada Matematických a Přírodních Vĕd, 68:11, (Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1956); and I. Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Works and Times (Leiden: Brill, 1974). Yashar is an acronym of Yosef Shelomoh Rofe', i.e., Joseph Solomon, M.D.

⁵J.S. Delmedigo, Sefer ʼElim, edited by M. Ben Israel (Amsterdam, 1629; second edition, Odessa, 1864). All citations refer to the second edition, which (unlike the first) is paginated continuously. The first edition is available online at http://www.seforimonline.org/seforimdb/pdf/70.pdf. J.S. Delmedigo, Taʻalumot Ḥokhmah, edited by S. Ashkenazi, 2 vols (Basel, 1629). The latter is sometimes known by its Latin title, Abscondita Sapientiae. The first volume of Taʻalumot Ḥokhmah is an anthology of works, only some of which are by Delmedigo. The second volume contains his Novelot Ḥokhmah and Novelot 'Orah.

⁶M. David, ‘Critical Edition of Hippocrates’ Aphorisms translated into Hebrew by J. S. Delmedigo (1591–1655), sections IV, V', Korot, 7 (1979), 680–709.

⁷For a list of Delmedigo's unprinted works, see Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 328–37. A recently examined manuscript appears to contain two additional works by Delmedigo, hitherto presumed lost; see J.I. Pfeffer, ‘Authorship in a Hebrew Codex . . . MS 199: Tracing Two Lost Works by Delmedigo’, Christ Church Library Newsletter, 6:3 (2010), 1–6.

⁸T.M. Rudavsky, ‘Galileo and Spinoza: Heroes, Heretics, and Hermeneutics’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 62:4 (2001), 611–31 (618); A. Neher, ‘Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 38:2 (1977), 211–26 (214). When referring to an actual rabbi, Delmedigo uses such honorifics as morenu ha-rav rav or kevod ha-rav rav, i.e., ‘our teacher and master, Rabbi [so-and-so]’, or ‘his honor the rabbi, Rabbi [so-and-so]’. See Delmedigo, ʼElim, 131.

⁹It is so translated by Isaac Barzilay: see Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 151, 161; and by George Alter: see Alter, Two Renaissance, 64. The meaning of the word is made clear by a passage in Matsref la-Ḥokhmah, where Delmedigo uses the same word to describe Plato as the teacher – surely not rabbi! – of Aristotle: see Delmedigo, Matsref la-Ḥokhmah , in his Taʻalumot Ḥokhmah, vol. 1, part 1, 1a–36b. Cited here from the second edition (Odessa, 1864), 84.

¹⁰Delmedigo, ʼElim, 301, 417, 432. Galileo himself says that his telescope magnified 30 times; Van Helden says it was only 20. See G. Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius, translated by A. van Helden (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 9, 38.

¹¹It was constructed in November 1609 and then improved by January 1610; see the Introduction to Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius, 9, 14.

¹²J. Renn, Galileo in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 286.

¹³Renn, Galileo in Context, 308–10.

¹⁴Delmedigo, ʼElim, 432.

¹⁵Delmedigo, ʼElim, 432; Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius, 62–4. The discovery of the nature of the Milky Way is mentioned on the very title page of the first edition; see the translated title page in Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius, 35.

¹⁶Delmedigo, ʼElim, 433–4. Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius, 42–4.

¹⁷Delmedigo, ʼElim, 432. The word occurs also in Francis Bacon's Instauratio Magna (London, 1620), 279, nine years before the publication of ʼElim, but Delmedigo may still be the inventor, on the assumption that he wrote these astronomical parts during shortly after his student days with Galileo. There is some reason to think that this may be the case. Delmedigo refers to Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius as ‘his book’, leading one to suppose that those words were written at a time when Galileo had not yet published anything further on astronomy. Galileo's next astronomical work to appear was the Letters on Sunspots (Augsburg, 1612)

¹⁸Sunspots: Delmedigo, ʼElim, 413; Saturn: Delmedigo, ʼElim, 301; Venus: Delmedigo, ʼElim, 300.

¹⁹Sunspots: G. Galilei, History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots and Their Phenomena (‘Letters on Sunspots’), translated by S. Drake in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 87–144. Venus: G. Galilei, Letter to Giuliano de' Medici (11 December 1610), excerpted in Sidereus Nuncius, 107–8. Saturn: G. Galilei, Letter to the secretary of Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, excerpted in Sidereus Nuncius, 102.

²⁰G. Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, 185–6. The Letter was written in 1615, but not published until 1636: see Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, 145, 171n.

²¹G. Galilei, Notes, cited in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, 161, ¶9.

²²Delmedigo, Matsref, 1a–36b. Cited here from the second edition (Odessa, 1864), 85. The first edition was in Spinoza's library; see J. Freudenthal, Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's (Leipzig, 1899), 161 item (56).

²⁴Delmedigo, Matsref, 58; as cited in Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 242.

²³Delmedigo, Matsref, 85. Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 178, overlooks the fact that Delmedigo is quoting someone else's words.

²⁵See Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 175–81 and the passages from Delmedigo's works cited there.

²⁶Hilary Putnam comes to mind as an example of this sort of thinker.

²⁷See L. Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).

²⁸G. Galilei, Operations of the Geometric and Military Compass, 1606, translated by S. Drake (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978), 48. Galileo is referring to Euclid's Elements of Geometry, Part 9, Prop. 19, which he more or less quotes. In the Elements it reads, ‘Given three numbers, to investigate when it is possible to find a fourth proportional to them’. Euclid, The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements, translated by T.L. Heath, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908), vol. 2, 409.

²⁹Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 78.

³⁰Freudenthal, Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's, 161, item (57). The word ‘rabbinic’ and its cognates were frequently used in the seventeenth century to refer to rabbinic (as opposed to Biblical) Hebrew. See, e.g., Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, 79.

³¹See the online catalog at http://melvyl.worldcat.org/title/elim/oclc/23176308&referer=brief_results, accessed 6 October 2010.

³²J. d'Ancona, ‘Delmedigo, Menasseh Ben Israel en Spinoza’, Genootschap voor de Joodsche Wetenschap in Nederland, Bijdragen en Mededeelingen, 6 (1940), 105–52.

³³See I.S. Révah, Spinoza et le Dr Juan de Prado (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1959), 17; T. de Vries, Baruch de Spinoza in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1970), 28–9, 35; Z. Levy, Baruch or Benedict: On Some Jewish Aspects of Spinoza's Philosophy (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 25–6, 48, 84; Y. Kaplan, An Alternative Path to Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 253; F. Mignini, editorial matter to Spinoza, Korte verhandeling van God, de mensch en deszelvs welstand (L'Aquila: Japadre Editore, 1986), 377.

³⁵‘Philosophization’: Heb. hitpalsefut. The Hebrew word may simply mean ‘philosophizing’, but it also can have a pejorative sense, implying that one is pretending to be a philosopher. My use of the odd word philosophization is intended to convey this pejorative meaning

³⁶Delmedigo, ʼElim, 85.

³⁴Delmedigo, ʼElim, xxv–xxvi. Page xxv is misnumbered ‘4’, and page xxvi bears no number at all. The four rabbis are Simh˙ah Luzzato, Leon Modena, Nehemiah Saraval, and Jacob Levi.

³⁷Delmedigo, ʼElim, 78–9.

³⁸G. Nuchelmans, Theories of the Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity, North-Holland Linguistic Series; 8 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973), 95–6; G. Nuchelmans, Late-Scholastic and Humanist Theories of the Proposition, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterunde, Nieuwe Reeks; 103 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1980), 23.

³⁹Nuchelmans, Late-Scholastic and Humanist Theories, 74–6.

⁴⁰Nuchelmans, Theories of the Proposition, 28–9.

⁴¹Spinoza, Ethics, Part 2, Prop. 49 and scholium thereto = G 1:130–6. The letter ‘G’ followed by a sequence of numbers indicates volume and page of the standard edition of Spinoza's works, Opera, edited by C. Gebhardt, 5 vols (Heidelberg: Im Auftrag der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1925). All translations of Spinoza's works are taken from B. de Spinoza, The Collected Works of Spinoza, edited by E.M. Curley, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).

⁴² Ethics, Part 2, Prop. 49, scholium = G 2:132.

⁴³Cf. A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (London: Gollancz, 1936), 35.

⁴⁴For a more detailed account of this subject, see J. Adler, ‘Epistemological Categories in Delmedigo and Spinoza’, Studia Spinozana, 15 (1999): 205–30.

⁴⁵ TDIE §19 = G 2:10.

⁴⁶ KV Part 2, Chapter 1 = G 1:54.

⁴⁷B. de Spinoza, The Collected Works of Spinoza, edited by E.M. Curley, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 102, n. 4

⁴⁸Spinoza, Collected Works, 1:80, n. 2.

⁴⁹Ancona, ‘Delmedigo, Menasseh Ben Israel en Spinoza’, 136–47.

⁵⁰ TDIE §19 = G 2:10. Curley points out that the text of the TDIE as found in the Dutch translation of 1677 reads ‘three main kinds’ rather than ‘four main kinds’ .Very likely Spinoza here, too, had in mind the three/four-fold categorization. See Spinoza, Collected Works,1:12 n. 13.

⁵¹ KV Part 2, chapter 1 = G 1:54.

⁵²Delmedigo, ʼElim, 111–13.

⁵³Delmedigo, ʼElim, 109–16.

⁵⁴Delmedigo, ʼElim, 222–3, 356–7, 364–7.

⁵⁵See Adler, ‘Epistemological Categories’, 212–14.

⁵⁶Juan de Prado and Franciscus van den Enden have been suggested. See Adler, ‘Epistemological Categories’, 216–18.

⁵⁷See T. Sorell, G.A.J. Rogers, and J. Kraye, Introduction to Scientia in Early Modern Philosophy (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), xi, and Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, translated by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 1:16–17.

⁵⁸With reference to Descartes, it should be noted that Descartes offers no comprehensive taxonomy of kinds of knowledge other than that found in the Preface to the French translation of the Principles of Philosophy; see Les Principes de Philosophie, translated by Claude Picot (Paris, 1647), fol. b iv r–v. This taxonomy differs significantly from what we find in both Delmedigo and Spinoza: in particular, we do not see the 3/4-part division. Nor do we find, either there or elsewhere in the writings of Descartes, the emphasis on experience in the sense of knowledge gained by repeated encounters with a subject matter (Erfahrung rather than Erlebnis).

⁵⁹Delmedigo, ʼElim, 87, 365. Spinoza, TDIE §§23–24 = G 2:11–12. In KV Part 2, Chapter 1, Spinoza uses the example of the Rule of Three, without mentioning any specific numbers. In Ethics 2:40 Sch. 2 = (G 2:122) Spinoza gives the same example but with different numbers (1, 2, 3, 6). In the cited passage from ʼElim, Delmedigo refers only to ‘Proposition 19’, without mentioning which book of Euclid's Elements it is from. The book can, however, be identified by Delmedigo's internal cross-references. On page 365 Delmedigo notes that this proposition is known as ‘the Golden Proposition’ (or ‘Golden Theorem’; limud ha-zahav). On page 367, §16 begins with the words, ‘You expressed regret concerning the Golden Proposition, that it is not reliable’. The ‘you’ is Zeraḥ ben Natan, to whose questions Delmedigo is replying. Turning to Zeraḥ's question (34, § 16), we see that he begins, ‘My heart melts like wax within me concerning Proposition 19 of Book 7 of the Elements.’ Thus the ‘Golden Proposition’ is Bk. 7, Prop. 19. But Delmedigo has evidently forgotten Galileo's use of the term, since Galileo clearly refers to Proposition 19 of Book 9.

⁶⁰Book 9, Prop. 19 of the Elements reads, ‘Given three numbers, to investigate when it is possible to find a fourth proportional to them’. Euclid, The Thirteen Books, 2:409.

⁶¹Delmedigo, ʼElim, 80.

⁶²M. Frede, ‘Introduction to Galen’, Three Treatises on the Nature of Science (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1985), ix. There seems, unfortunately, to be no comprehensive or even general study of medical epistemology. Perhaps the reason is, as Frede suggests (x), that historians of philosophy see it as a medical matter, and hence outside their purview. The interested reader can begin with Frede's introduction and with several of the papers in the collection edited by V. Nutton, Galen: Problems and Prospects (London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1981). There are also some useful papers in Knowledge and the Scholarly Medical Traditions, edited by D.G. Bates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), but the general orientation of the book is more sociological than philosophical.

⁶³A. Castiglioni, ‘Life and Work of Sanctorius’, translated by E. Recht, Medical Life, 38.12 (n.s., no. 135) (1931), 727–85; R. Major, ‘Santorio Santorio’, Annals of Medical History, 10:5 (1938), 369–81.

⁶⁴Santorio's discussion of medical epistemology may be found in his modestly titled work, S. Santorio, Methodi Vitandorum Errorum Omnium, Qui in Arte Medica Contingunt [Methods for Avoiding All the Errors that Occur in the Art of Medicine] (Venice, 1603); I consulted the Venice, 1660 edition. Books 11, 12, and part of 13 (348–403) are devoted to a discussion of medical epistemology.

⁶⁵‘I sought to gain a thorough knowledge of all these [sciences] directly from the lips of outstanding practitioners, [. . .] each of whom is an expert in his own field. [. . .] I clung to them in every city and state.’ Delmedigo, ʼElim, 117.

⁶⁶Delmedigo, ʼElim, 111–13. This discussion is part of Delmedigo's Commentary on the first two Aphorisms of Hippocrates, ʼElim, 109–16.

⁶⁷Delmedigo, ʼElim, 113.

⁶⁸Delmedigo, ʼElim, 112–13; Frede, ‘Introduction to Galen’, xxiii; Santorio, Methodi, 349, 381.

⁶⁹Frede, ‘Introduction to Galen’, xxiii.

⁷⁰Santorio, Methodi, 383–5.

⁷¹Curley translates ‘Empiricists’, but the original has Empiricorum, which dictionaries of the time translate as ‘Empirical Physicians’. See, e.g., Dictionarium Tetraglotton (Antwerp, 1567), s.vv. empirice, empiricus; F. Gouldman, A Copious Dictionary (London, 1664), s. vv. empirice, empiricus; L. Meijer, L. Meijers Woordenschat (Amsterdam, 1688), 381, s.v. empirici. I have found no sixteenth- or seventeenth-century dictionary that defined ‘empiricus’ as anything other than a kind of physician.

⁷²Spinoza, TDIE §27, note = G 2:13.

⁷³Spinoza, KV Part 2, Ch. 3, §10 = G 1:58; my translation. Curley has ‘the practice of Doctors. When they have found a certain remedy to be good in some cases, they usually regard it as something infallible.’ The original reads ‘de practyk van de doctors, die zeeker remedie eenigemaalen goet gevonden hebbende, hetzelve als een onfeylbaar dink gewoon zijn te houden’. I take the relative clause (‘die [. . .] hebbende’) as a restrictive clause. Obviously not all doctors, then or now, are as rash in prescribing medications as those described in this sentence.

⁷⁴Santorio, Methodi, 379.

⁷⁵Spinoza, Ethics 2, Prop. 40, scholium 2 = G 2:122.

⁷⁶Spinoza, TDIE §19 = G 2:10.

⁷⁷Spinoza, Ethics 2 Prop. 29, scholium = G 2:114.

⁷⁸‘Autopsy’ not in the sense of post-mortem examination, but in the etymological sense: knowledge based on what one has seen with one's own eyes.

⁷⁹Frede, ‘Introduction to Galen’, xxvi–xxvii. Santorio, Methodi, 249. The connection between experience and report in empirical medicine is made explicitly, though obliquely, by the Spinozistic writer Petrus van Balen. See his De Verbetering der Gedagten [excerpts], edited by M.J. van den Hoven (Baarn: Ambo, 1988), Part 1, ch. 1.

⁸⁰See, e.g., A. Gilead, ‘The Indispensability of the First Kind of Knowledge’, in Spinoza on Knowledge and the Human Mind (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 209–21; I. Franck, ‘Spinoza's Logic of Inquiry: Rationalist or Experientialist’, in The Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, edited by R. Kennington (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1980), 247–72; R. Kennington, ‘Analytic and Synthetic Methods in Spinoza's Ethics’, in Kennington, Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, 293–318.

⁸¹See my article ‘Spinoza's Physical Philosophy’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 78:3 (1996), 253–76.

⁸²G 2:10.

⁸³This suggestion thus goes against Curley's translation of the definition of random experience as found in the TDIE. Curley translates, ‘There is the Perception we have from random experience, [which] has this name only because it comes to use by chance, and we have no other experiment [experimentum] that opposes it.’ I would understand experimentum as ‘experience’ rather than ‘experiment,’ in consonance with Ethics 2:17.

⁸⁴Delmedigo, 112–13.

⁸⁵‘[By random experience] I know almost all the things that are useful in life’ – TDIE § 20 = G2:11.

⁸⁶Spinoza, Ethics, Part 4, Preface = G 2:208 (emphasis added).

⁸⁷Spinoza, Ethics 2, Prop. 40, scholium 2.

⁸⁸Compare Frede's remarks on Galen in Frede, ‘Introduction to Galen’, xvii–xviii.

⁸⁹In Freudenthal, Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's, 201. It is also of interest that Leibniz, in writing to Spinoza (Ep. 45), addresses his letter to Monsieur Monsieur SPINOSA[,] Medecin tres celebre et philosophe tres profond (G 4:231; orthography as in original).

⁹⁰ See my article, ‘The Education of E.W. von Tschirnhaus’, Journal of Medical Biography, forthcoming.

⁹¹E.W. von Tschirnhaus, Medicina Mentis (Amsterdam, 1687); E.W. von Tschirnhaus, Medicina Corporis (Amsterdam, 1686); both reprinted from the second edition of 1695 under the title Medicina Mentis et Corporis (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964). The edition dated 1687 actually appeared in 1686. See the translator's preface to Tschirnhaus, Médecine de l'Esprit, translated by J.-P. Wurtz (Paris: Éditions Ophrys and Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1980), 14–15. On the comparison of philosophy and medicine, see Tschirnhaus, Médecine de l'Esprit, 19–20.

⁹²In the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) one finds, among the meanings of the verb emendo, the definition (3c): ‘To cure or relieve (a disease or its victims)’.

⁹³J. Basnage, Histoire des Juifs (The Hague, 1716), 9:1040; J. Basnage, The History of the Jews, translated by T. Taylor (London, 1708), 743.

⁹⁴Spinoza, TDIE § 16 = G 2:9.

⁹⁵For the medical significance of the verb expurgo, see the Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v., def. 1b.

⁹⁶Van Balen, De Verbetering der Gedagten, Part 1, chapter 1–3, 1–21 of the first edition 54–63 of Van der Hoven's edition. Van der Hoven has some illuminating remarks on the history of the metaphor of philosophy as medicine of the mind; see 26–27 of his Introduction.

⁹⁷David Savan, ‘Spinoza: Scientist and Theorist of Scientific Method’, in Spinoza and the Sciences, edited by Marjorie Grene and Debra Nails (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986), 95–123. David Savan (118–21) also discusses the role of models or exemplars in Spinoza?s epistemology. As Savan points out, such a model is of use even in purely descriptive-theoretical science. Nonetheless, it is far more at home in the practice-oriented science under discussion here.

⁹⁸Such a model or exemplar is discussed in Spinoza, TDIE §13 = G 2:8, Spinoza, KV Part 2, chapter 4, ¶¶ 7–8 = G 1:60–1, and Spinoza, Ethics 4, Preface = G 2:208. This model or exemplar is evidently the same as the ‘free man’ discussed in Spinoza, Ethics 4, Prop. 66, scholium, and Propositions 67–P73.

⁹⁹Spinoza, Ethics, Part 5, Prop. 2 = G2:534–6.

¹⁰⁰Spinoza, Ethics, Part 4, Prop. 7 = G 2:214.

¹⁰¹Santorio, Methodi, bk. 6, ch. 4, cited in Ian Maclean, Logic, Signs, and Nature in the Renaissance: The Case of Learned Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 301.

¹⁰²Spinoza, Ethics, Part 5, Prop. 4 = G 2:282.

¹⁰³Compare Maclean, Logic, Signs, and Nature, 167–70.

¹⁰⁴See C.H. Cosgrove, Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 122–3.

¹⁰⁵K. Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology, translated by J. Bowden (London: SCM Press and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 64 (word order changed).

¹⁰⁶ See, for example, Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:1 in Metsudah Chumash/Rashi (New York: Ktav, 1991).

¹⁰⁷Spinoza, TTP, Chapter 13, G 3:167–8.

¹⁰⁸Spinoza, TTP, Chapter 5, G 69–76; J. Brun, La veritable religion des Hollandois [sic] (Amsterdam, 1765), 158–9.

¹⁰⁹Spinoza, TTP, Chapter 5, G 69–76.

¹¹⁰See A. Ravitzky, ‘“Waymarks to Zion”: The History of an Idea’ (in Hebrew) in The Land of Israel in Medieval Jewish Thought, edited by M. Hallamish and A. Ravitzky (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991), 1–39, esp. 8–13.

¹¹¹Spinoza, TTP, Chapter 3, G 57.