This book should be read in four interconnected contexts.
Firstly, as it is clear from the title and content, it is a short biographical narration of a free-thinker and a predecessor of Spinoza, Gabriel (Uriel) d’Acosta (da Costa, c. 1590-1640), a member of early rationalistic critical review of religion, whose views were close to deism. The interest of the author to the person of Acosta was manifested in a row of publications, and that one was the first book on the topic. The historian tells about the life of Acosta on the base of published data available by the mid twentieth century, and in some cases he uses a method of fictional reconstruction.
The second context of the book is in the interpretation of the person of Acosta which was not seen out of the literary tradition about him. The image of Acosta as a rebel and a spiritual thinker could be traced back to the play by C.F. Gutzkov of the same title (1847), where the main character was represented according to the canons of romantic drama. Gutzkov shown his support to the idea of emancipation of Jews in Germany; it was the first play translated into Idish, and for many years it became classics of the Jewish theatre, in Russia as well. In Russia that tragedy was published at least in three translations into Russian (1872, 1936, 1960) and into several languages of the U.S.S.R.; it became a part of the standard classical repertoire calling for humanism, enlightenment, and to the struggle against religious obscurantism. Among the other theatres, the State Jewish Theatre (GOSET) made that performance with Solomon Mikhoels starring.
The history of the GOSET makes the third context of the book and, in general, of the interest of B. to the person of Acosta. From 1932 and till the debacle of the GOSET in 1949, and up to his own following arrest, B. headed the theatre school of that theatre and took part in the preparation of the new performance of ‘Acosta’ which has never happened.
The fourth context of the book is connected with attempts to keep Jewish studies in the research field of the Soviet academic system, and as a result the necessity to use standard conventions ad limits of the Soviet censored public matters.