Besproken door P.J.Barnauw in Thoth, april (1982),no.1,p.29 :
“Het boek…veroorzaakt een niet-bevredigende ‘opgeklopte’ indruk.

This book explains a lot about the modern world, both good and bad, but seriously we owe a lot to these thinkers, writers and publishers for freeing us from theocratic tyranny and absolutism. The author places Spinoza as the central figure.

Excellent book and ideas, with some flaws I found irritating. First, some quotes are provided without translations - I wish my French was better, and I have no real understanding of Dutch - and it would have been nice to link to the translation, if not had it displayed in the text. Second, the history is very detailed, a bit too much for my taste, and I would have preferred a somewhat higher-level view of the actions of the various actors in the enlightenment drama, although as I pored on, the complexity of the story was very engaging. ( )

Massief werk, enorm detaillistisch en belezen.
Slechts één grote these: de Verlichting begon veel vroeger dan altijd aangenomen, en Spinoza was de spil waaruit alles is voortgesproten! Dit wordt zo fanatiek aangevoerd op alle mogelijke plaatsen, dat het in deze vorm duidelijk overtrokken lijkt. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat er zeker een grond van waarheid in steekt ( )

"The Radical Enlightenment" is extremely interesting until the very end, but I suppose at the same time a book not every reader (I mean: reader of this kind of non-fiction) would like. One could remark that the quality of this work is also its weak side.
The central thesis: Spinoza and his circle (all Dutchmen) furnished the fundamental ideas of the Enlightenment in its strongest form. J.Israel, the author, defends his idea that neither England (Locke, Newton,&c.), nor France (Voltaire, Fontenelle, &c.), nor Germany (mainly Leibniz) were the real birthplaces of Enlightenment in its purest form ( absolute liberty of conscience and religion, rationalism, equality of the sexes, tolerance, &c.). The principal thinkers in these countries tried to conciliate traditional values (Christianity as a revealed religion with its dogmatic theology, absolute monarchy, male superiority, &c.) with new scientific ideas (empiricism in particular). French thinkers (in particular Voltaire) were the least prone to reconciliation, but even they didn't propose original ideas. The High Enlightenment (from about 1750) was only possibly because the most infuentious thinkers had by then integrated Spinoza's ideas. Israel proves his thesis so abundantly thatto attack him will be difficult for anyone who would feel the need.
But the abundance is also the problem of this book. There is such a proficiency in detail, so many -even very minor -contributions to Enlightenment are quoted at length, the lives of so many theologians, heretics, philosophers, editors, vicars, scoundrels or aristocrats (and some people were all of that at once) are minitiously rendered, that it is difficult at some moments to keep an eye on the general idea. However the book is conceived as a unity, attested by the fact that in every paragraph there are references to other parts, making it impossible to consider the book just as a kind of encyclopaedia, a companion to Enlightenment thought and historiography.
An occasional reader cannot dip into it without feeling lost. This is a book that should be read from page 1 to 720 (in small print!), which supposes a really motivated public.
But if you accept that, it is an extremely enriching experience, offering many insights even concerning recent events or discussions (e.g. the 'Intelligent Design' debate among American intelligentsia these last years).
private comment posted by Caroline ( )