As far as I am aware, it has not previously been noted that a text by the Digger leader Gerrard Winstanley (1609–1676) was translated from English into a foreign language during the seventeenth century. This relatively brief post is about a Dutch manuscript version of Winstanley’s
Thanks for your kind and constructive comments Andrew and apologies for delay in responding (lots of necessary but enjoyable teaching preparation this past week on the Thirty Years' War).
Yes, more on Spinoza is always welcome. Here, like everyone else, I've followed Ernestine van der Wall's dissertation and subsequent articles. This is what she has to say in ‘Petrus Serrarius and Menasseh ben Israel’, in Yosef Kaplan, H. Mechoulan and Richard H. Popkin (eds.) Menasseh ben Israel and his World (Leiden, 1989) pp. 172–3
"After his separation from the Jewish community in July 1656, Spinoza moved for some time in the circle of the anti-confessional Collegiants ... to which Serrarius belonged, so they probably met there for the first time. It may very well have been Serrarius who, in 1657, introduced [Spinoza] to the Quakers, and in particular, to their leader William Ames, by whom Serrarius was befriended at the time. Spinoza translated some conversionist Quaker pamphlets into Hebrew [according to Richard Popkin, although other possible translators need to be considered as well], among which [was] Margaret Fell's letter to Menasseh ben Israel. In later years Serrarius cared for the transmission of Spinoza's manuscripts and letters to their common friend Henry Oldenburg, secretary to the Royal Society."
Fascinating. These networks make me wonder whether tendency to lump by emerging denominational networks within these islands is becoming just a bit too parochial! Another great article.
Thanks for kind words Crawford, much appreciated! I've been re-reading Jack Hexter's attack on Christopher Hill in preparatio for the forthcoming Hill conference and think his distinction between historians who are 'lumpers' and 'splitters' is still helpful. Hill was obviously a 'lumper' and as you note, that tendency is still present in some approaches to denominational history. But I think that the gains by using a 'splitting' method are almost equally offset by the losses. So at the moment, I'm inclined to just think of things in terms of contemporary fluidity that are given cohesion by certain contemporaries for various reasons and then likewise by certain modern scholars.
Thanks for your kind and constructive comments Andrew and apologies for delay in responding (lots of necessary but enjoyable teaching preparation this past week on the Thirty Years' War).
Yes, more on Spinoza is always welcome. Here, like everyone else, I've followed Ernestine van der Wall's dissertation and subsequent articles. This is what she has to say in ‘Petrus Serrarius and Menasseh ben Israel’, in Yosef Kaplan, H. Mechoulan and Richard H. Popkin (eds.) Menasseh ben Israel and his World (Leiden, 1989) pp. 172–3
"After his separation from the Jewish community in July 1656, Spinoza moved for some time in the circle of the anti-confessional Collegiants ... to which Serrarius belonged, so they probably met there for the first time. It may very well have been Serrarius who, in 1657, introduced [Spinoza] to the Quakers, and in particular, to their leader William Ames, by whom Serrarius was befriended at the time. Spinoza translated some conversionist Quaker pamphlets into Hebrew [according to Richard Popkin, although other possible translators need to be considered as well], among which [was] Margaret Fell's letter to Menasseh ben Israel. In later years Serrarius cared for the transmission of Spinoza's manuscripts and letters to their common friend Henry Oldenburg, secretary to the Royal Society."
I hope that helps!
Fascinating. These networks make me wonder whether tendency to lump by emerging denominational networks within these islands is becoming just a bit too parochial! Another great article.
Thanks for kind words Crawford, much appreciated! I've been re-reading Jack Hexter's attack on Christopher Hill in preparatio for the forthcoming Hill conference and think his distinction between historians who are 'lumpers' and 'splitters' is still helpful. Hill was obviously a 'lumper' and as you note, that tendency is still present in some approaches to denominational history. But I think that the gains by using a 'splitting' method are almost equally offset by the losses. So at the moment, I'm inclined to just think of things in terms of contemporary fluidity that are given cohesion by certain contemporaries for various reasons and then likewise by certain modern scholars.