Jonathan Israel

British historian

Jonathan Irvine Israel (born 22 January 1946) is a British historian specialising in Dutch history, the Age of Enlightenment, Spinoza's Philosophy and European Jews. Israel was appointed as Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, in January 2001 and retired in July 2016. He was previously Professor of Dutch History and Institutions at the University College London. In recent years, Israel has focused his attention on a multi volume history of the Age of Enlightenment. He contrasts two camps. The "radical Enlightenment" was founded on a rationalist materialism first articulated by Spinoza. Standing in opposition was a "moderate Enlightenment" which he sees as weakened by its belief in God.

Israel's career until 2001 unfolded in British academia. He attended Kilburn Grammar School, and like his school peer and future fellow historian Robert Wistrich went on to study History as an undergraduate at Queens' College, Cambridge, graduating with a first class degree in Part II of the Tripos in 1967. His graduate work took place at the University of Oxford and the El Colegio de México, Mexico City, leading to his D. Phil. from Oxford in 1972. He was named Sir James Knott Research Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1970, and in 1972 he moved to the University of Hull where he was first an assistant lecturer then a lecturer in Early Modern Europe. In 1974 he became a lecturer in Early Modern European History at University College London, progressing to become a reader in Modern History in 1981, and then to Professor of Dutch History and Institutions in 1984. In January 2001, Israel became a professor of modern European history in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. In 2007, the 375th anniversary of the birth of Spinoza, he held the Spinoza Chair of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam.

Israel has defined what he considers to be the "Radical Enlightenment," arguing it originated with Spinoza. Israel is sharply critical of Jean Paul Marat and Maximilien de Robespierre for repudiating the true values of the Radical Enlightenment and grossly distorting the French Revolution. He argues, "Jacobin ideology and culture under Robespierre was an obsessive Rousseauiste moral Puritanism steeped in authoritarianism, anti intellectualism, and xenophobia, "and it repudiated free expression, basic human rights, and democracy." Anthony J. La Vopa makes a comprehensive analysis of Jonathan Israel's interpretation of the Enlightenment. The analysis challenges Israel's binary classification of the Enlightenment into a cohesive "radical" faction and a purportedly disjointed "moderate" counterpart. He contends that Israel's dichotomy oversimplifies the intricate intellectual landscape of the Enlightenment, failing to appreciate the subtleties and diverse perspectives of individual thinkers. A central argument revolves around the idea that Israel's approach lacks the necessary nuance to capture the complexity of Enlightenment thought. He questions the validity of reducing the rich tapestry of ideas to a binary framework, arguing that this oversimplification neglects the diversity of intellectual currents within the Enlightenment. He highlights the inadequacy of Israel's method in dealing with the dense interplay of content and form, particularly in rhetorical practices and imaginative literature. He argues that Israel's methodology struggles to accommodate the intricate relationship between content and form, thought and representation, particularly in texts relevant to the remapping of the Enlightenment. He also challenges Israel's emphasis on a Spinozist, foundationalist rationalism as the singularly modern legacy of the Enlightenment. The author argues that Hume's approach to social and political issues, often considered conservative by Israel, actually offers a different perspective on modernity. Instead of embracing a rigid, systematic rationalism, Hume advocates for a more pragmatic and uncertain approach, which the author sees as a vital aspect of the Enlightenment's philosophical modernity. Anthony J. La Vopa cautions against accepting Israel's dichotomous classification, asserting that it imposes an artificial divide on the historical movement of the Enlightenment. By adhering to this binary framework, the opportunity to learn from the Enlightenment's efforts to explore human consciousness and expand spaces for human freedom is forfeited. Samuel Moyn evaluates Jonathan Israel's perspective on the Enlightenment, focusing on Israel's assertion that Spinoza played a central and overlooked role in shaping the era. Moyn challenges Israel's approach, pointing out several limitations in his analysis. A primary criticism is Israel's oversimplification of the Enlightenment, reducing it to a binary classification between radical and moderate thinkers. Moyn argues that such a simplistic framework overlooks the diversity and complexity within the Enlightenment, where different intellectuals held diverse views and priorities. Moyn also critiques Israel for excluding alternative perspectives and for lacking social depth in his explanations of historical events. Moyn introduces Dan Edelstein's perspective, offering a contrasting view on Enlightenment ideas and their impact on the French Revolution. Moyn raises questions about Israel's justification for the success of emancipatory values during the Enlightenment, suggesting that attributing their triumph to inherent truth is an insufficient historical explanation. Moyn contends that Israel's insistence on a clear moral horizon for today's proponents of Radical Enlightenment is overly optimistic. Moyn argues that the Enlightenment's legacy is ambiguous and subject to various interpretations, cautioning against treating it as a monolithic, unchanging entity. A Marxist defense of Israel against Samuel Moyn appeared in 2010 on the World Socialist Web Site, particularly in the article, "The Nation, Jonathan Israel and the Enlightenment". The two defenders also criticize Israel, saying:
There are problems in his argument. The dichotomy between a radical and moderate Enlightenment, however suggestive and stimulating, tends at times to overly simplify complex and contradictory processes in the development of philosophical thought. It is not always the case, as Professor Israel seems to suggest, that the most significant advances in philosophical thought were made by individuals who held the most politically radical views. In 2004, in response to a Historisch Nieuwsblad survey, which asked members of the Royal Netherlands Historical Society what were the classic works about Dutch history, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall, 1477–1806 came in second place.

He was made a Fellow of the British Academy in 1992, Corresponding Fellow of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) in 1994, won the American Historical Association's Leo Gershoy Award in 2001, and was made Knight of the Order of the Netherlands Lion in 2004. In 2008, he won the Dr A. H. Heineken Prize for history, medicine, environmental studies and cognitive science. In 2010 he was awarded the Benjamin Franklin Medal by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) for his outstanding contribution to Enlightenment scholarship. In 2015 he was awarded the PROSE Awards in European & World History by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) for professional and scholarly excellence. In 2017 Israel received the Comenius Prize by the Comenius Museum for his work on the Age of Enlightenment, Dutch history, and European Jewry and his ability to connect economic and intellectual history with the history of politics, religion, society, and science.