I would add that the Rabbi offered her a father’s love. I’d have to go back and reread the relevant bits, but I think he was genuinely worried about her soul. He didn’t want her to follow Spinoza’s path, but could see that she thought along the same lines.
I was not that fond of Dror, so it did not bother me that Helen left him. I think he was a black and white thinker who would have been like the guys at Masada. (I’m with Helen on that!) I’m sorry though that she ran away from love all together. That was a waste.
As for the book. I loved it. I don’t have any patience for most philosophy, but this was about as painless an introduction to Spinoza’s ideas I can imagine. Years ago I read A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell because I thought it would be good for me and remember nothing. On the other hand, I am very interested in the religious instinct and how people think about the deity so I found that part very interesting.
I took a British History course my junior year in high school and watched “The First Churchills” on Masterpiece Theater, so I was pretty familiar with the basic history of post Cromwell London, but I learned all sorts of things I’d really never paid attention to before.
Yes, of course! The Rabbi’s love is an essential part of Ester’s story. Personally, I’d bet a lot of his contemplative time was spent worrying about Ester and pondering her behavior rather musing about philosophy. He was a loving “father.”
Agreed – and not just that she ran away from love, but that she spent her life regretting (or insisting to herself that she didn’t regret) the outcome of her great love affair. If you’re right about Dror, then Helen was idealizing the relationship – a habit that probably worsened with time.
Rachel Kadish had to introduce herself to philosophy to write the novel:
Such bad timing we are off to our cabin in Vermont and I’ll only have internet access when I come down to the valley and check in at the local coffee house, can’t wait to see everyone’s thoughts and discoveries!
That jstor link is fascinating. I have a friend who also writes like that. A general sense of where she’s going, but no outlines or post-it note charts. She told me once that she put a character in mirrored sunglasses early on without realizing how important they would be to the plot much later.
Anyway, I loved the way the book jumped back and forth and the story slowly unfolded. And I really did love that Aaron, out of love, out of admiration, did not in the end obey Ester’s wish that her writing be destroyed. He knew the weight of that ink was gold and a gift to the future.
I too loved, loved, loved this book. And, like mathmom, I too am unavailable most of this weekend. But in the meantime, here I am.
This is absolutely my kind of book – rich, lots of story lines, different time periods, and I learned a lot from this book. I spent a lot of time googling stuff I didn’t know much (if anything) about – the Interregnum period, for example.
Helen left Dror because she thought he would never love her as much as he loved creating Israel. She thought she would always be second in his heart. IMO, that’s a very girlish reason to give him up, especially since she never moved on to Man #2, but I guess she was just as stubborn and focused as he was.
I found the relationship Ester ultimately had with Alvaro relaxed and mutually respectful. Each was able to give the other what he/she needed. And there was even one scene when they slept together, which was adorable and charming.
I don’t understand why Ester turned John down, however. Can someone explain that to me?
I found the details about the plague fascinating. They thought the plague was spread by cats, so they killed all the cats! – and, as e now know, the plague was spread by fleas on rats, which of course took over the city after the cats were gone!
When John comes to take Ester to safety (out of London), she refuses to go because the Rabbi is dying and she wants to stay with him. John says, “You’ll come to join me…Perhaps. After” (p. 402). Ester responds, “I’ll await word from you then,” but they both know at this point that it’s over.
She knows she can corral him by saying, I gave you my honor; now you know your duty to me, but she rejects “a love that must be purchased with pity.” And he tells her, “I haven’t your strength of heart,” which I think is his way of saying he can’t commit to their non-traditional relationship. Ester muses, “Their joining had carried him too far, to a territory where he didn’t recognize himself, or her.”
Unfortunately I forgot to take the book with me when I went on a trip and it expired while I was gone. DD took it back for me but I wasn’t done. Waiting for the ebook to finish.
It did strike me oddly the John never sent for Ester—guess his love for her wasn’t strong enough to be able to deal with her likely wanting to continue to write once he decided to become conventional like his dad. I think Ester was best off with Alvaro, whom she ended up with. They had mutual respect, love of life and derp abiding affection for one another.
I finished this as an ebook a couple of months ago and was hoping to read it hard copy (in ink) before the discussion but alas I’m only at #7 of 10 copies on the waiting list. So my memory is hazy. I don’t really remember this as a love story, though, but more of a mystery unraveling.
I loved the way the stories developed and intertwined - the back story kept filling in as the scholarly research uncovered more writings. The philosophy was a real challenge since I think I must use a different part of my brain in general. The depth of detail was wonderful - especially everyday life in the past, but also such information as how to handle old documents.
Overall, I thought the book was about expectations - by others and by self. If my memory is accurate, much of that was men’s expectations for women and women realizing they could have their own expectations. And whether fulfilling one set over the other would be worth the cost.
The writer was extremely engaging and gave a lot of detailed descriptions that helped explain the characters. I enjoyed this book a great deal though I would never have picked it up if was not a book club read. Thanks, Mary and others who introduced me to it
Like many books, this one could read and enjoyed at different levels. I found it very engaging, as it kept me up past 1am several nights, trying to find a good place to stop.
To me, the book was partly a biography, a love story, and some historical fiction and philosophy. I admit I let most of the philosophy drift by, but still found the book enjoyable.
I agree that’s a great way of looking at it. I just wish Ester hadn’t felt so guilty about her need to think and write and question. In our world what she is doing is so obviously right, it’s hard not to shake her. Alvaro in some ways was more modern than she was. Maybe because he was also pursuing a non-traditional path, he could see more clearly?
Note that I already needed coffee! Hosting a small party and had to go into town for stuff!
Yes but of all four men in Ester’s life (including the Rabbi), he understands her least - if at all. Ester tries to tell him her “secrets” and he won’t listen. He loves the Ester he wants to love, not the woman standing in front of him. It makes it easier to leave her in the end.
Manuel and Ester would have had an interesting marriage. He knows the woman standing before him, her what-he-views-as-flaws and all. Her strength attracts him. He loves her and has enough social standing and fortune to marry Ester should he want - and a certainty that he will prevail in the end. Except … the plague. Note that he was right about Ester surviving what life throws her way… I found it touching that he supports the Rabbi’s household during the plague while he waits for Ester to acknowledge the inevitable. He sends the last bag of coins with no note. I assume he knew at that point that he himself wouldn’t survive the illness. If so, how kind.
True and also the freedom of financial stability. I think that Ester has that particular freedom in mind when she makes the deal with his father. Alvaro has been gone for years; he has no idea she writes. She gambles with that when she chooses to marry him. In many ways he becomes the brother she lost - I think she senses that in him from the beginning.
And, of course, the Rabbi takes on the role of father, both physical and, in many ways, spiritual.
Would Ester and Dror have been happy? Actually she reminds me of John as he “runs” from Ester. Helen simply doesn’t have the strength it takes to step into Dror’s life and live it beside him. She simply leaves. Unfortunately she never comes to terms with her decision.
It does take a very strong person to stay in a relationship with a person who will inevitably face considerable criticism, violence, etc. due to their beliefs. I’m not sure many of us could live such a life.
I agree that Helen never came to terms with having left Dror but their relationship was doomed due to this unwillingness to be in such a relationship long term. John made a similar choice when he fled Ester. The choices made sense for the individuals involved and allowed them to see something that they could all live with.
I think Aaron benefits from seeing what happened to many who chose to run and I think this is one of the strong reasons that he seems to have decided he will be a father to the baby and be a couple with Marisa. Being given the huge gift Helen gave him when he was gifted the portfolio with the most important documents gave him a nest egg and his dissertation. It allowed him to move forward. It was a tremendous gift Helen gave him.
So did I. And I agree with @Marilyn that watching the mystery unravel was part of the enjoyment. I liked the fact that the reader wasn’t strung along. A question raised in one chapter was often answered in the next one, as the story moved back and forth in time.
Aw, I never thought of that. Manuel was thoughtful, despite his swagger. And Ester was aware of it, even though she rejected him:
Manuel was an interesting character we never got to know very well. He did try to be kind to Ester, even though he knew that she was a very different and strong person that he admired and feared. I think Ester was much better off with Alvaro, who allowed her to flourish and have intellectual freedom.
The philosophy was interesting. The rabbi, obviously, believed in God and lost his eyesight because he wouldn’t forsake his God. Ester ultimately argues and agrees with the various philosophers that there is no God. This is the way she betrays the rabbi. Obviously she loved him and appreciated him as a father and as someone who let her do what she wanted – scribe, and read, and study – but she ultimately betrayed him.
I didn’t come away with the sense that Ester was an atheist; rather, I felt she had come to the conclusion that God existed, but did not intercede on behalf of humans, and did not mete out either reward or punishment (“I believe in no heaven nor hell, nor any world to come,” p. 530).
Ester (as Thomas Farrow) writes to Spinoza:
I think Ester’s faith is a mix of pantheism and panentheism:
Ha, I just went to Wikipedia to find out if the word "pantheism” existed during Ester’s time — figuring that, if not, that is why she didn’t have a word for it. And I read:
(This is probably all common knowledge to you philosophers out there, but I am learning a lot!)
But back to the rabbi and Ester: Even if not strictly atheism, this form of thinking would still be a betrayal, but even more of a betrayal would be her belief that martyrdom is not a thing of value. The rabbi believed that not allowing himself to be martyred was his greatest sin.
Finished reading on August 1, but no time to post until now.
I “liked the book a lot,” but didn’t necessarily “love” it. IMO the plot was somewhat weighed down by all the philosophy. I get that it was integral to the book, but perhaps a tad less? Although I didn’t skip reading through those sections, I also didn’t linger trying to piece it all together. It bothered me that John walked away from Ester so easily/quickly, and that Helen did the same with Dror. I’m not sure I’d completely agree with @Mary13 that “John is a good man.”
Why did Alvaro & Manuel’s father write Manuel’s name as the groom? Alvaro didn’t have to masquerade as Manuel his whole life, right? Didn’t the rabbi know who the groom was?
