Even though none of the figures converts to another religion, they all respect each other for their character, ethics, and idealism. Moreover, we never learn specifics about any of those three world religions and only see the respective representatives operate in a surprisingly and refreshingly open-minded manner and guided by high ideals. The only negative figure proves to be the Patriarch, who wants to see the destruction of Islam, who would like to see the Jew—who raised a Christian girl as his own—burnt at the stake, and would be delighted if he could instrumentalize the Templar for his own machinations, which seem rather less Christian than his office would require.16
There are, however, numerous problems within the play, especially concerning the concept of tolerance, which we should not ignore here either. The events take place in a military lull, between the Second and the Third Crusade; the Sultan Saladin appears to be a humanist in his heart, but he does not impress us at all as a decisive ruler, and he would certainly not be capable of defending Nathan or the Templar if counterforces emerged and threatened his government. In the historical background, we observe that Nathan’s entire family had been brutally murdered, and there are no indications that any operations have been undertaken since then to prevent such a massive crime again in the future.
Saladin would have been easily able to abuse Nathan if the latter had not come up with such a brilliant parable and if the Sultan did not possess such a good heart, believing, ultimately, in tolerance himself. Although an idealistic concept, Lessing here posits unequivocally that the literary discourse can have a deep impact on people by providing them with illustrations of human conditions and outlining ways of how to solve a deep dilemma by way of radically alternative thinking. Granted, even the ring parable contains some weakness insofar as the judge refuses to decide the case and refers it to an indeterminate future when the representatives of the three religions would have demonstrated who would be truly loved by all people. There is even the suggestion that the authentic ring might possibly have been lost in the course of time (559). What would that mean for the relationship between God and people? We also might be frustrated to learn that the two lovers, Recha and the Templar, ultimately are not allowed to marry because they are siblings, and an incestuous relationship would be entirely out of the question. Can they subsequently repress their strong erotic desires for each other and simply acknowledge the other as brother and sister respectively?
Setting all these questions aside for the moment, we can simply rely on this play as a fictional projection of what could constitute a truly tolerant situation, both in the political and in the private sphere, since the relevant characters are finally bonded by moral philosophy as developed by Kant.17 There are no detailed theoretical reflections on tolerance, apart from the ring parable; instead, the figures practice tolerance, so the play serves as a platform to illustrate how practical tolerance can be realized, even though some modern scholars have viewed the conclusion of the play in rather ironic light and have seriously questioned the validity of Lessing’s precept.18 There are many problems, indeed, with Nathan the Wise, if we measure it in light of modern conditions and judge it by our own standards. But he composed his play at the end of the eighteenth century, deeply influenced by important medieval/Renaissance texts, offering, thereby, a significant literary medium to reflect on the fundamental meaning of tolerance.19
Most importantly, each character is going through a significant learning process and has to jettison his or her previously rigid religious attitude. Nathan had been filled with hatred of the Christians after a pogrom had killed his family, but then he adopted the Christian girl Recha and relearned to love because the little girl simply needed him. The Sultan is a soft character and unstable in many respects, but he still intended to rob the Jew of the money, until he was confronted with the parable and thus had the opportunity to demonstrate his ability and willingness to learn, leading to his transformation into a benevolent, if not tolerant, ruler. The Templar is a haughty and recalcitrant young man, but love has its effect upon him as well and makes him accept Nathan and his daughter Recha as worthy individuals he himself wants to associate with. Those who are not prepared to learn and thus to change their mind, such as the Patriarch—but also the Christian nurse Daja—fall away into the background and are not relevant for the further plot development and the philosophical message conveyed by the play.
Lessing was not that ignorant and naïve simply to assume that tolerance was already at work in his time and just had to be realized through some prodding by enlightened authority figures. The struggle between the protagonists representing the three religions proves to be deadly and could have easily led to much more bloodshed. The Templar was taken as a prisoner of war by Saladin and would almost have been executed as a crusader, like all the other companions, if the Sultan had not suddenly been struck by the young man’s facial features that reminded him much of his long-dead brother. Nathan had been filled with utter rage and anger when he discovered that his family had been murdered by Christians. And Saladin himself was in full military mode and ready to defend himself with all his might against the Crusaders. Nevertheless, all three men begin to learn and to accept the basics of the human conditions, which are simply much more complex and interwoven than a straightforward worldview would normally assume. Particularly because Nathan the Wise represents a literary utopia on the stage, it powerfully mirrors the enormous struggles people always have to go through if they want to or have to embrace toleration or tolerance.20
Toleration or Tolerance in the Pre-Modern World?
One could write a whole book about Lessing and his concept of religion and mutual respect, as many scholars have actually done already. But the present focus rests on another question, whether we can identify similar forms of tolerance, or at least toleration, already in earlier times in medieval and early modern literature and in some philosophical texts. This is not a completely new topic, and much metaphorical ink has already been spilled concerning this issue. While R. I. Moore had argued that the Middle Ages were determined by a global mindset bent on persecuting all minorities and repressing, if not eliminating, all infidels, heretics, and especially Jews,21 the contributors to Beyond the Persecuting Society (1998) take a much more balanced and complex perspective and point out that medieval authorities mostly lacked the systematic reach to control all their subjects and that much pagan (classical antique), Arabic, and Jewish knowledge entered the European discourses from early on and were never eliminated or even suspected of anti-Christian value.22
But there has not yet been a satisfying book-length study on this topic; or we could claim that at least the approaches previously pursued have not, in my estimation, done full justice to this question, either because they examined it mostly from a historical, or a religio-philosophical, perspective or because they embraced a strongly ideologized methodology and selected, or rather ignored, specific texts in support of their negative arguments.23 Considering how much sociologists and political scientists, historians, and religious scholars have grappled with this phenomenon as it emerged or developed throughout the ages clearly indicates the universal value that has been assigned to it. I will review some of the relevant studies below, but first, it would behoove us to gain a better understanding of the meaning of the two critical terms, tolerance and especially toleration. If we manage to distinguish more carefully between both, we will avoid many conceptual traps and overcome much ambiguity and ambivalence in modern, critical readings.
Lessing’s Nathan der Weise can be read as a perhaps overly optimistic, but certainly highly important, literary manifesto addressing tolerance as understood by Enlightenment philosophy. The main figures openly and respectfully engage with each other and recognize in the representatives of the other religions worthy human beings whom they can acknowledge happily as their neighbors and even friends. The friar recognizes in Nathan virtually a Christian, considering his ethical stance. The Templar finds the Jew Nathan to be a religiously and moral
ly kindred spirit. The Sultan Saladin quickly learns that no religion can be simply identified as the only true one because there is no way of proving to anyone the full truth and validity of the own faith. Moreover, he quickly learns to respect Nathan and even the Templar because of their idealism and honor. In fact, the Templar proves to be even his own nephew, although he is a Christian, and Recha, though raised as a Jew, turns out to be a Christian, whatever that might mean. After all, Nathan has not taught her to worship God in any specific way according to his traditional faith, but in a way in which his reason has taught him to do.
While tolerance, as outlined by Lessing in his last play, assumes that the various religions are, ultimately, very similar, all being expressions of human desires to reach out to the numinosum, a submission under God, which all leads to a deep form of love for mankind at large, toleration is more limited. In contrast to tolerance, toleration constitutes the attitude by an individual who accepts the other faith or ideology as something the fellow-beings embrace and firmly believe in, but who still is firmly convinced of the absolute truth of his/her own religion, or political position. It will be very hard to identify examples of tolerance in the Middle Ages and the early modern age, but we will find numerous cases of definite toleration.
Toleration/Tolerance in the History of Religion until Today
Boccaccio’s Sources and Other Documents
Religion is, in sum, a cultural construct and must be viewed in light of that historical dimension, irrespective of mystical, prophetic, or visionary experiences reflected upon by the founders of religions. Faith is a very personal matter and cannot be forced upon anyone, especially because there is no logical rationalism behind it requiring conversion. But the differences among religions have been and continue to be deadly forces, whether we think of the crusades or the jihad, Islamic terrorists or neo-Nazi terrorists. Violence continues to be one of the most striking forces used by those who feel disenfranchised and rejected by modern society and hence resort to suicide bombing, attacks with trucks, knives, poisonous gas, and other means. Intolerance and hatred are, tragically, very much alive even today, perhaps even more so than in the past, which strongly motivates us to examine the roots of tolerance/toleration, especially in the Middle Ages, which are so often identified as a ‘dark age’ in which people could not enjoy religious freedom and were allegedly entirely subject to the Inquisition.
As the contributors to Umstrittene Religionsfreiheit: Zur Diskussion um ein Menschenrecht now underscore, freedom of religion constitutes a fundamental human right, which Lessing already understood, but which was recognized also by some individuals in much earlier times such as in the Middle Ages.24 The present book will focus on the literary and philosophical-theological world of the pre-modern period, but the issues raised then continue to be of greatest relevance for us today, of course. Lessing’s Nathan the Wise can serve as a powerful benchmark in the discourse on tolerance, but we also must keep in mind that he drew the essential source material from Boccaccio’s Decameron (ca. 1350) and older texts. Hence, there is a direct line of ideas connecting the late Middle Ages with the late eighteenth century, and then us today, of course.
It deserves mention that Boccaccio in turn relied on an old literary tradition, or at least we can be sure that the motif itself of the three rings was known already much earlier, such as by the Nestorian Patriarch Timotius who told a fairly similar story to the Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi during a debate concerning the right religion in 782. In his case, it is a pearl that had fallen into a dark room, which several people tried to find without having a light. Only one discovered the pearl, whereas the others mistook small stones for the true one, and they all learned the fact only when the morning came, i.e., the Day of Judgment. This literary rendition is known under the English title Timothy’s Apology for Christianity, and the conclusion of the tale deserves to be quoted at length25:
And I replied to his Majesty: “O our victorious King, in this world we are all of us as in a dark house in the middle of the night. If at night and in a dark house a precious pearl happens to fall in the midst of people, and all become aware of its existence, every one would strive to pick up the pearl, which will not fall to the lot of all but to the lot of one only, while one will get hold of the pearl itself, another one of a piece of glass, a third one of a stone or of a bit of earth, but every one will be happy and proud that he is the real possessor of the pearl. When, however, night and darkness disappear, light and day arise, then every one of those men who had believed that they had the pearl, would extend and stretch his hand towards the light, which alone can show what every one has in hand. He who possesses the pearl will rejoice and be happy and pleased with it, while those who had in hand pieces of glass and bits of stone only will weep and be sad, and will sigh and shed tears…”26
The historian and physician Solomon Ibn Verga (ca. 1460–1554) related in his famous, highly popular Shevet Jehuda—a fairly similar account from much earlier times. This anthology, which presents sixty-four accounts of persecutions, traces the history of pogroms against Jews from antiquity to the fifteenth century (published ca. 1500, first printed in Hebrew in Adrianople [later Edirne] in 1554). This collection of narratives was translated subsequently into many languages and can be regarded as a masterpiece of Jewish literature.27 Here we learn that Ephraim ben Sancho (1094–1104), in an exchange with King Pedro of Aragon (1178–1213), had identified Judaism and Christianity with two gems the father had left for his two sons. Only the father would know the true value of those gems, and if one wanted to learn which one had a greater value, it would be necessary to send a messenger to heaven and to inquire with the father about his true intentions. In other words, people would not be able here on earth to distinguish between the two religions and should practice toleration toward each other.28
To switch to the other side of the broad religious spectrum, the Dominican preacher Étienne/Stephen of Bourbon (d. 1260/61) relates in his handbook for preachers, his De septem donis Spiritus Sancti, or Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus,29 of a magical ring a father had given to his legitimate daughter as a sign of her full privilege to claim her full inheritance rights. But there are also illegitimate daughters who also would like to gain control over the family estate and who have copies of the ring created to make false claims. Most significantly, there is a gem in the true ring that gives it the attribute of healing sick people miraculously. The other rings do not have that property and thus fail to prove their authenticity. For Stephen, who worked also as an inquisitor, this was a convenient literary allegory to demonstrate that Christianity was the only true religion. There is no indication of toleration or tolerance here; rather the opposite is the case because the illegitimate daughters—the non-Christians—thus emerge as liars and deceivers.30
Other early versions of the ring parable can be identified in the thirteenth-century Gesta Romanorum, the contemporary collection of verse narratives, the Novellino, and then in the chivalric romance L’avventuroso Ciciliano by Busone de’ Raffaelli da Gubbio from 1311. Furthermore, there are a number of parallel literary accounts in which the decision regarding the one true religion is simply deferred as an issue that people cannot determine with all the desired or necessary evidentiary strength.31 Even Lessing might not have found the perfect solution and only presented, as we are forced to admit in light of the present world situation, an ideal image of how people of different faiths could live together and tolerate each other as equal partners of the one and same human kind. As Steven D. Martinson poignantly formulates now, “If there is rivalry, then it must be in achieving the highest virtues of what the ring symbolizes. Humility, forbearance, and benevolence will aid them in this and submission to the will of God.”32 In his conclusion, he expands on this considerably and applies this insight to the global perspective toward humanity:
At the end of Nathan the Wise, the characters embrace each other as members of an extended family. While in this piece recipients consider the re
lations between world religions, the same kind of structure can adhere in relations between cultures and nations, at which point the transcultural and the transnational share common ground.
In his book-length study on Lessing’s work, Martinson goes so far as to highlight: “Lessing stresses the fact that the truth cannot be possessed. The important point is that what the individual holds to be the truth of his or her religion is exhibited not in one’s convictions but in one’s actions.”33
Here I will explore this issue approaching it from many different perspectives, including philosophical, theological, and literary voices, some of which targeting the topic directly, others reflecting upon it more indirectly. Chronologically, the book will take us from the late twelfth through the late sixteenth century, exploring a large variety of texts in several forms of discourses. Admittedly, we will always face the specific concern of how to protect Christianity, how to convince the Muslims or Jews to convert, or at least to acknowledge the absolute superiority and complete truth of the Christian faith. That paradigm could not be broken and held fast well into the late eighteenth century. Nevertheless, within that framework, as we will observe, numerous writers, thinkers, poets, and authors came forth and addressed alternative points-of-view and ventured to accept alternative approaches to the one and same universal quest for God. Many times the focus will not rest on an explicit discourse of toleration and/or tolerance but simply on how to get along with other people and how to acknowledge their character as honorable individuals.
Toleration and Tolerance in Medieval European Literature Page 3