0,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Passerino
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
The Kabbalah, also spelled Kabalah or Qabalah, is a mystical and esoteric tradition within Judaism. It is often referred to as Jewish mysticism and is based on ancient Jewish texts, primarily the Zohar.
The word "Kabbalah" comes from the Hebrew root word "kabel," which means "to receive." The Kabbalah is concerned with understanding and interpreting the hidden meanings of the Torah and other Jewish religious texts. It seeks to explore the nature of God, the universe, and the human soul.
One of the key concepts in Kabbalah is the Tree of Life, which is a symbolic representation of the divine and the different realms of existence. It consists of ten interconnected spheres called sefirot, each representing different aspects of God and the universe.
The Kabbalah teaches that there are deeper levels of meaning and understanding beyond the literal interpretation of the Torah. It seeks to uncover the spiritual and mystical dimensions of Jewish teachings. The study of Kabbalah involves various methods such as meditation, visualization, and contemplation to gain insights into the divine mysteries.
Kabbalistic teachings cover a wide range of topics, including cosmology, metaphysics, ethics, and the nature of good and evil. It explores concepts such as the divine emanations, the soul's journey, the nature of God's attributes, and the interplay between the physical and spiritual realms.
Historically, The Kabbalah has been transmitted orally and through written texts. The Zohar, a key Kabbalistic work, is attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and is considered one of the foundational texts of Kabbalah. Other important Kabbalistic texts include the Sefer Yetzirah, the Bahir, and various commentaries and interpretations by Kabbalistic scholars throughout history.
While The Kabbalah originated within Judaism, its teachings and influence have extended beyond Jewish religious circles. Over the centuries, Kabbalistic ideas and practices have been embraced and studied by individuals from various religious and spiritual traditions, including Christianity, Hermeticism, and New Age movements.
It's important to note that the study of Kabbalah is traditionally reserved for individuals who have a strong foundation in Jewish law and teachings. In recent years, there has been a popularization of Kabbalistic ideas and practices, leading to the emergence of various Kabbalah centers and organizations offering teachings to a wider audience. However, interpretations and practices outside of traditional Jewish contexts may vary significantly.
Adolphe Franck (1809 – 11 March 1893) was a French-Jewish philosopher who specialised in Jewish mysticism.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Ähnliche
Adolphe Franck
The Kabbalah
The sky is the limit
Table of contents
Preface To The English Translation
Preface To The German Translation Of The First French Edition
Foreword To The Second French Edition
Preface Of The Author
Introduction
Part One
Chapter 1. The Antiquity Of The Kabbalah
Chapter 2. The Kabbalistic Books. Authenticity Of The Sefer Yetzirah
Chapter 3. The Authenticity Of The Zohar
Part Two
Chapter 1. The Doctrine Contained In The Kabbalistic Books. Analysis Of The Sefer Yetzirah
Chapter 2. Analysis Of The Zohar. Allegorical Method Of The Kabbalists
Chapter 3. Continuation Of The Analysis Of The Zohar. The Kabbalists’ Conception Of The Nature Of God
Chapter 4. Continuation Of The Analysis Of The Zohar. The Kabbalists’ View Of The World
Chapter 5. Continuation Of The Analysis Of The Zohar. View Of The Kabbalists On The Human Soul
Part Three
Chapter 1. Systems Which Offer Some Resemblance To The Kabbalah. Relation Of The Kabbalah To The Philosophy Of Plato
Chapter 2. Relation Of The Kabbalah To The Alexandrian School
Chapter 3. Relation Of The Kabbalah To The Doctrine Of Philo
Chapter 4. Relation Of The Kabbalah To Christianity
Chapter 5. Relation Of The Kabbalah To The Religion Of The Chaldeans And Persians
Appendix
Preface To The English Translation
It would be presumption on my part were I to follow the example of the German translator and write a lengthy preface on the merits of this book. It would be but a poor imitation, at best. Any one willing to take the trouble to study the biography of the author and his German translator will admit that the devotion to impassionate philosophy of the one and the intimate acquaintance with Talmudic lore and Jewish Religious Philosophy of the other justly grant them undisputed authority to speak on the subject treated of in this work, and entitle them to a respectful hearing by all those desiring an unalloyed exposition of the Kabbalah. I lay claim to none of these qualifications, and will therefore confine my remarks to the make-up of this translation.
My efforts have been directed primarily to a popularization of the subject treated here, and I have therefore avoided, as much as possible, any complicated phrases or obscure expressions often met with in works treating subjects of this or similar nature. My notes are rather of an explanatory nature and tend to enlighten the reader on some points he may not be familiar with. At times, though, I was compelled to take the part of a critic; especially where I met with discrepancies between the French original and the German translation. In such cases I was naturally compelled to look for arbitration in the original sources, and I had to venture my own opinion at times when neither the translation of the author nor that of the German translator seemed to render the true meaning of the original Hebrew or Aramaic text (as, for example, note 15 and note 46 in Part II, Chap. III).
I have translated all the notes made by Dr. Jellinek, and followed his example in omitting the translation of the Appendix. His reason for doing so seems to me to be justified. There are English translations of these extracts, and, besides, such diatribes do not contribute to the knowledge of and enlightenment on the Kabbalah with which this work is concerned. I have added, instead, an Appendix by Dr. Jellinek on the “Bibliographical Notices on the Zohar” which, I am sure, will amply repay the reader for my omission of the Appendix of the French text. I have also added an Index for the convenience of those readers who may wish to use this book as a reference.
For any inaccuracies and mistakes which may have crept into this translation I ask the indulgence of the kind reader and critic, and I shall ever be thankful for any corrections offered in good faith. The task of translating was to me by no means an easy one; for the work developed mostly during the minutes snatched from an often busy practice, and during the hours usually assigned to physical and mental rest--from midnight to dawn.
I. SOSSNITZ.
New York, May, 1926.
Preface To The German Translation Of The First French Edition
By ADOLPH JELLINEK
None of the gnostic systems has so often been compelled, under the hands of the critics, to change its birthplace as the so-called Kabbalah; no monument of Oriental Philosophy 1 has called forth such conflicting hypotheses as to the time and place of its composition, as the universal code of the Kabbalists, the Zohar; finally, no writer of the history of philosophy has until now undertaken to translate the picturesque, metaphorical language of Jewish gnosis into the reasoning mode of expression of abstract thinking.
I shall leave out of consideration the great array of Jewish and Christian disciples of the Kabbalistic system; it is too strongly dominated by the essential mysticism that prevails in all parts of the Kabbalistic system, to be able to reach the necessary sobermindedness. The opinion of a Pico de la Mirandola, of a Reuchlin, has as much critical value as that of an ordinary Zoharist or of a Hassid; the presumptive higher illumination does not permit the intellect to come to its senses.
Those critics who stand outside the sanctum of the Kabbalah have, indeed, brought to light wonderful conjectures bearing on the age and the origin of the same. Some (Buddeus, Kleuker, Osiander) set the Kabbalah in the age of the patriarchs, and let it march, side by side with the Mosaic teachings, on the road of oral tradition as an esoteric teaching, a Secret Doctrine. The Talmudic tradition (תורת שבעל פה) claims no less, indeed, for itself; it is maintained that this, too, is an oral part of the divine revelation descended from Moses (compare Maimonides, Introduction into the Mishnah). Yet, this tradition which bears only on the material, sensual side of the Law, could never have paved its way to the people, were it not sanctioned by descent and religious national custom.
Others, (Basnage, Brucker) believed they had found the cradle of the Kabbalah in Egypt. This opinion is, as it were, a continuation of the one which holds that the Mosaic Law and Mosaic Doctrine is a property pilfered from the Egyptian priesthood. Richard Simon and Berger let the founders of the Jewish gnosis, in company with the Greek creators of the doctrine of Numbers and Ideas, be schooled by the Chaldeans; Wachter, Joachim Lang and Wolf (author of Bibliotheca Hebraea) looked for the source of the Kabbalah in Pagan philosophy. Yet, these opinions lack a definite historic foundation, and have justly been rejected by the author of this work. (Compare Tholuck, “de Ortu Cabbalae,” p. 3-4.)
In company with another author of a French work (Matter, “Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme”) Franck defends the view that the Kabbalistic science evolved from the theology of the Parsees. 2 Against this opinion Gieseler (in the review of Matter’s work, theologic studies and criticisms, year 1830, I, 381-383) made some objections referred to also by Baur (p. 70). “Although,” says Gieseler, “we fully recognize the proven influence of Parseeism upon Judaism, yet we would not explain it by any syncretic inclination of the latter, in so far as syncretism refers to an external union of materials innerly strange to one another. Never, indeed, were the Israelite people further away from mixing strange opinions with their religious belief, nor of recognizing any relationship to any other religion, like the Persian for instance, as just since the exile. The influence of the Persian system upon the Jews consisted in that it induced them to a development of analogous seeds resting in their doctrine by representing itself to them as a complete system in some points; at which the Persian doctrine development, unknown to them, surely helped to influence as a pattern. It is always the more developed doctrinal system which acts upon the less developed one, even when the latter places itself to the former in the most decided contrast. . . . We first take side with Massuet against Buddeus by denying the pre-Christian origin of the Kabbalistic philosophy. The exegetic quibblings which developed later into the so-called Kabbalah Symbolica are older, it is true; but we are obliged to doubt that the philosophic system of the Kabbalists originated from such early times, because neither Josephus nor Philo mention it, because the system of Philo relates to the Kabbalistic system evidently as the earlier to the later, and because the historical traces of the Kabbalah are so very young. Accordingly, we can not consider the Kabbalah (which, by the way, does not seem to us of such close relationship to the Zoroastrian system) as a source of the Christian gnosis.”
It is indisputable that the Jews resisted the invasion of strange opinions into their religious belief, especially since the exile; yet, it can be proven to the contrary, that they looked for and found in the Bible every wisdom otherwise unknown to them or not indicated therein by clear words. Philo endeavored to prove in the Scriptures the wisdom of all peoples; the Talmudists (R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua ben Hananiah, R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yohai, R. Meir, R. Joshua son of Levi, R. Chiya son of Aba in the name of R. Johanan, Mar Sutra, Rabbina, R. Ashi.--See Babyl. Talmud, Tract. Sanhedrin, last chap.) demonstrated the resurrection from the Bible; the entire line of Jewish religious philosophers, from Saadia the Fayumite to Dr. Hirsch of Luxembourg, have piled upon the Bible strange elements in the endeavor to view it in the light of the prevailing philosophy of the times.
The influence of the Persian system upon the Jews must appear further on more powerful than any other. With the first cessation of political independence of the Jewish state, with the first exile, the Jewish spirit awakened; doubts arose, problems were created, the solution was attempted. The most important questions of the “when” and “how” of the genesis of beings, of the destiny of the universe were not satisfactorily answered by the simplicity of the Mosaic records; on the other hand, though, they clung still closer to the old belief. A new change of ideas took place in Babylon; every conflict with previous conceptions could be avoided by the use of the Kabbalah Symbolica. And what doctrine could better be brought in accord with the Mosaic tradition than the Persian? Johannsen (the Cosmogenic Views of the Hindoos and Hebrews, Altona, 1833) was really in earnest when he represented the Mosaic cosmogony as a system of emanation! The Hindoo designation of God before the creation of the world by svajambhu and tad, as given by Johannsen, p. 10, is, in fact, found with the Kabbalists in the explanation of the אהיה אשר אהיה--I Am that I Am.
The Kabbalist--to retain this term--had to shrink from the new and dangerous ideas easily exposed to misinterpretation, and which underwent considerable modifications at his hands and under the influence of Judaism; and it is only natural that the Kabbalistic doctrine, just because it is so similar to the Persian, should have become a secret instruction, did not press itself forward, and was known to only a few during its first stage. It originated gradually, however, and stayed free of the Greek elements that influenced Philo. With reference to the not very clear relationship of the Kabbalah to Parseeism, this counts as a merit of the Kabbalistic system; the Kabbalah is not a copy of Zoroastrism--as Mr. Matter maintains--but rather an evolution of the latter connected with various modifications.
The question of the origin and age of the Kabbalah is most closely connected with the inquiry as to the time and place of the composition of the Zohar. This question does not seem to us to have been sufficiently answered. The Zohar, in its entire range, contains no less than an uniform system; 3 repetitions are often found there; passages are met with which have been borrowed from the Talmud and Midrash; the language is of various coloring; 4 and because the system developed gradually, there must of necessity be found therein graduations. From the Zohar, then, we are to be shown what doctrines formed its original elements; how it developed under the hands of various teachers; what elements of other writings are found therein; in short, a criticism of the entire Zohar according to its individual passages would have to be given. This we shall attempt in a future work: “The Composition of the Zohar.” (Unpublished--Transl.)
I have now to say something about this work, my translation, correction and addition.
The source from which the historical writers of philosophy have until now drawn their knowledge of the Kabbalistic system, is Knorr v. Rosenroth’s “Kabbala Denudata;” “from this rich and voluminous work, though”--as Molitor (The Philosophy of History, II, 9) judges--”the reader will get only a hazy inkling but not a clear and distinct conception of the Kabbalah.” The real philosophic value of the Kabbalah is, on the whole, neglected in Rosenroth’s work. Moliter’s erudite work, “Philosophy of History or on the Tradition,” does not contain, as yet, in the three volumes which have appeared at this writing, an objective representation of the Kabbalistic system. The author himself says (II, 12) that “for the present the whole should be considered merely as a free philosophic attempt,” and promises to develop the Kabbalah with the Kabbalists’ own words in the fifth volume.
Besides, an impartial representation is hardly to be expected from Moliter, who “studio disciplinae Judaeorum arcanae ipse prorsus factus est Judaeus Cabbalisticus--himself became a Jewish Kabbalist through the study of the ancient doctrine of the Jews” (Tholuck, p. 4), and who had great faith in the younger Kabbalistic works and commentaries. The work of Mr. Franck, where the Kabbalah is developed impartially and commensurate with our times, from the oldest fragments of the Zohar, must be welcome to the writer of the history of philosophy and to all those who want to know the philosophy of the Kabbalah. The investigation on the age of the Kabbalah, the authenticity of the Kabbalistic main works, as well as the investigation on the relationship of the Kabbalistic system to other systems of philosophy and religion, is also given here for the first time in detail and complete.
In the translation of the French original I have endeavored to render its contents faithfully. The translated passages from the Sefer Yetzirah, the Zohar and the Talmud and the new-hebraic works I have always compared with the originals. The Spanish quotations from Jacob Abendana’s translation of the Cuzari by Judah-ha-Levi, as well as the appendix, have been omitted; the first ones are of no use to the German reader, the latter contains only a translation of Solomon Maimon’s report on the sect of the Hassidim (see Maimon’s biography, part I, ch. 19) and Peter Baer’s representation of the Zoharites (Peter Baer, History, Doctrines and Opinions of all past and present religious sects of the Jews and of the Secret Doctrine or Kabbalah II, 309 ff.).
The correction referred to, I would rather call an outward one. The quotations from the Kabbalistic works were so corrupt, 5 the reference to page numbers full of mistakes (at times absent altogether), the annotations were so often misplaced,6 that I was compelled to spend much time upon correction. Believe me, it is only necessary to look at the folio volume of the Zohar, edition Sulzbach, to see that it is no small trouble and loss of time to look there for a given passage.
Yet, in carefully comparing the translation with the original, other corrections will be found which I have not expressly indicated by a footnote. Thus, for example, there is nothing more contrary to the spirit of Kabbalism than to translate אוריתא with “Law” (loi). To the allegoric method of the Kabbalah even the Law is so familiar as to lose its inherent rigidity.
The annotations and the appendix make up the addition. For the completion of the “Biographic Notes on the Zohar” I have made use, besides the Kabbalah Denudata, also of “Die Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden” (Devotional Sermons of the Jews) by Zunz, the book ראביה by Milsahagi, and the seventh volume of the new-Hebrew annual כרם חמד. The representation of the so-called Kabbalistic tree was also added first to the translation.
AD. JELLINEK.
May 20th, 1844.
Foreword To The Second French Edition
It is almost half a century, in 1843, since this book saw the light for the first time. It is nearly as long since it was introduced into public and private libraries. This public eagerness to take notice of a metaphysical and religious work could but astonish us; it is explainable by the subject covered therein and by the very name of the Kabbalah. Since that time, long past, I have often been requested, in and out of France, to publish a second edition of my volume of 1843. For several reasons I refused to satisfy this desire. Compelled by circumstances, as professor of physical and international law, at the College of France, to devote all my activity to studies which are of general interest, it was difficult for me to return to a subject of research which did not seem to me to respond any more to the spirit of the times. Then again, I would have been obliged, because of the nature of the objections raised, to relegate to second place that which makes up the merit and charm of the Kabbalah, that is to say, the philosophic and religious system it contains, in order to discuss first certain bibliographical and chronological questions. I lacked the courage and did not consider it useful to impose upon myself this sacrifice.
The situation is quite different now. Disgusted with positivistic, evolutionistic and brutally atheistic doctrines which dominate our countries to-day, and which seek to domineer not alone science but society as well, many minds have turned to the Orient, the cradle of religions and the primitive fatherland of mystic ideas; and among the doctrines which they endeavor to restore to honor, the Kabbalah is not forgotten. I shall give several proofs.
We must know that under the name of the Theosophical Society, there exists a vast organization which, coming from India, passed to America and Europe, sending out vigorous ramifications into the United States, England, and France. This association is not left to chance; it has its hierarchy, its organization, its literature, its reviews and its journals. The principal organ in France is the Lotus. This is a periodical publication of very great interest, which borrowed from Buddhism the foundation of ideas, making no pretense to bind to them the minds by forbidding new researches and attempts at changes. Upon this Buddhistic foundation are often developed speculations and textual quotations borrowed from the Kabbalah.
There is even a branch of the Theosophic Society, a French branch by the name of Isis, which published during the last year a previously unpublished translation of the Sefer Yetzirah, one of the two Kabbalistic books considered the oldest and most important. What gives merit to this translation, or, above all, what makes valuable the commentaries that accompany it, I do not consider it my duty to examine here. I will only say, in order to give an idea of the thought that inspired the author of this work, that, according to him, “the Kabbalah is the only religion from which all other cults emanated.” (Preface, p. 4.)
Another Review, also consecrated to theosophical propaganda, and in which necessarily the Kabbalah occurs often is the one which was founded, and which is managed and edited, for the most part, by Lady Caithness, Duchess of Pomar. Its name is the same as the one given by the great German theosophist Jacob Boehm to his first work--”The Dawn.” The purpose of the Dawn is not entirely the same as that of the Lotus. Buddhism does not hold there first rank to the detriment of Christianity; but with the aid of an esoteric interpretation of sacred texts, the two religions are brought in accord and presented as the common source of all other religions. This esoteric interpretation is surely one of the principal elements of the Kabbalah; but this also is made to contribute in a direct manner, under the name of Semitic Theosophy. I do not undertake to guarantee the correctness with which it is expounded. I limit myself to point out the lively preoccupation of which it is the object in the very curious work of the Duchess of Pomar.
Why not speak also of the Magazine Initiation, although it is no more than four months in existence? The very name Initiation tells us a great deal, it puts us upon the threshold of a good many sanctuaries closed to the profane; and this young Review, which, in fact, bears upon its cover the title “Philosophic and Independent Review of the Higher Studies,” is dedicated exclusively to science, or, at least to matters of research, to subjects of curiosity and conjectures, suspected most in the eyes of established science and even in the eyes of that public opinion which passes as an organ of common sense. Among these figure, in a general manner, Theosophy, Occult Sciences, Hypnotism, Freemasonry, Alchemy, Astrology, Animal Magnetism, Physiognomy, Spiritualism, etc., etc.
Wherever the subject of Theosophy springs up, one is sure to see the Kabbalah appear. The Initiation does not fail to obey this law. The Kabbalah, “the Sacred Kabbalah,” as she calls it, is dear to her. She appeals often to its authority; but one notices, particularly in its second number, an article from the pen of Mr. René Caillé, on the “Kingdom of God” by Albert Jouney, where the doctrine of the Zohar, the most important of the two Kabbalistic works, serves as basis to a Christian Kabbalah formed from the ideas of St. Martin, styled the “Unknown Philosopher,” the unconscious renovator of the doctrine of Origenes. That which Abbot Roca proposes in one of the first numbers of the Lotus is also a Christian Kabbalah.
I shall be permitted also not to pass entirely in silence the Swedenborgian journals which appeared lately in and out of France, especially the “General Philosophy of the Students of Swedenborg’s Books.” 7 But the Church of Swedenborg, or the “New Jerusalem,” although represented by its adepts as one of the most important forms of Theosophy, can surely not join the Kabbalah simply because it leans upon an esoteric interpretation of sacred books. The results of this interpretation and the personal visions of the Swedish prophet resemble but little, barring a few exceptions, the teachings contained in the Kabbalistic books--the Zohar and the Sefer Yetzirah. I shall rather stop to consider a recent work of great erudition, a doctor’s thesis presented not long ago to the Faculty of Sciences of Paris, which did not receive the measure of attention of which it is worthy: “Essay on Egyptian Gnosticism, its development and its Egyptian origin,” by M. E. Amélineau (Paris, 1887).
This dissertation, written for an entirely different purpose, demolishes entirely the criticism which sees in the Kabbalah nothing but fraud hatched in the head of some obscure rabbi of the thirteenth century and continued after him by unintelligent and unscientific imitators.
Amélineau discovers for us in the fathers of gnosticism, who were absolutely unknown in the thirteenth century, mainly in Saturninus and Valentin, a system of theogony and of cosmogony identical to the one of the Zohar; and not only are the ideas alike, but the symbolical form of language and the manner of argumentation are also the same. 8
In the same year in which Mr. Amélineau, by his doctor’s thesis, delivered at Sarbonne, avenged the Zohar from the attacks delivered against it by the skepticism of our times, another German scholar, Mr. Epstein, restored to the Sefer Yetzirah, also a target for the objections of modern criticism, a part at least of its great antiquity. Although he does not permit it to go back to Akkiba, and still less to the patriarch Abraham, he establishes, at least, through decisive reasoning, that it is not any later than the fourth century of our era. 9
This is something already. But I do not doubt, that by paying more attention to the depth rather than the form of the book, and by searching for analogies in the most ancient products of gnosticism, it will be possible to go back still further. Do not numbers and letters to which the entire system of the Sefer Yetzirah is traceable, play just as great a role in Pythagorism as in the first system of India? It is the rage nowadays to rejuvenate everything, as though the spirit of the system, and, above all, the mystic spirit were not just as old as the world and will not last as long as human mind will last.
Here, then, we have reason to believe that the interest found in the Kabbalah during so many centuries, in Christianity as well as in Judaism, in the researches of Philosophy as well as in the speculations of Theology, is far from being exhausted, and that I am not entirely wrong in republishing a work which may serve to make it known. After all, if it only answers the wish of a few curious ones, it will suffice to dispute the right to count it among books entirely useless.
A. FRANCK.
Paris, April 9th, 1889.
Preface Of The Author
A doctrine with more than one point of resemblance to the doctrine of Plato and Spinoza; a doctrine which in its form rises at times to the majestic tone of religious poetry; a doctrine born in the same land, and almost at the same time, as Christianity; a doctrine which developed and spread during a period of more than twelve centuries in the shadow of the most profound mystery, without any supporting evidence other than the testimony of a presumptive ancient tradition, and with no apparent motive than the desire to penetrate more intimately into the meaning of the Sacred Books--such is the doctrine found in the original writings and in the oldest fragments of the Kabbalah 10 when shifted and purified of all their dross.
It occurred to me that, at a time, when all historical researches, and the history of philosophy in particular, have acquired so much importance; at a time when the belief is prevalent that the human mind may reveal itself in its entirety only in the totality of its works--that such a subject, considered from a viewpoint far above every sect or party spirit, may justly lay claim to participation. That even the difficulties which surround such a subject, and the obscurity offered in its ideas as well as in its language, may promise indulgence to one daring to treat it.
But this is not the only reason why the Kabbalah recommends itself to the attention of serious minds. It should be remembered that from the beginning of the sixteenth century until the middle of the seventeenth century, it exercised a considerable influence over theology, philosophy, natural science and medicine. It was the spirit of the Kabbalah which inspired a Pico de la Mirandola, a Cornelius Agrippa, a Reuchlin, a Paracelsus, a Henry Morus, a Robert Fludd, a Van Helmont, and even a Jacob Boehm, the greatest of all those who went astray in searching for an universal science, one science that would take upon itself to show us the very essence of the connection of all things in the very depths of divine nature. Less bold than a modern critic soon to be mentioned, I dare not now pronounce the name of Spinoza.
I do not pretend to have discovered an entirely unknown land. On the contrary, I must say that years will be required for a review of all that has been written concerning the Kabbalah, if it were only from the moment when the press first bared its secrets. But what contradictory opinions, what impassioned judgments, what fantastical hypotheses, and, taking it all together, what inassimilable chaos in that mass of Hebrew, Latin and German books published under all forms, and furrowed by citations in all languages! And mark well, that the discord shows itself not only in the appreciations of the doctrines to be made known, or in the so very complicated problem of their origin, but presents itself in no less a conspicuous manner in the very exposition of the doctrines. For that reason the more modern way of studying the matter is not to be considered useless if it bases its work upon original documents, upon the best accredited traditions, and upon the most authentic texts; and, if at the same time, it embraces all that is good and true in previous researches.
But before entering upon this plan of research, I deem it necessary to set before the reader a rapid review of the works which gave rise to this original idea, and which, in some measure, contain the elements of this work. It will thus be possible to have a more correct idea of how far science succeeded with this mysterious subject, and of what nature is the task endowed upon us by our predecessors. To accomplish that task is the aim of this preface.
I shall not speak of the considerable number of modern Kabbalists who wrote in Hebrew. Individually, their distinguishing features are of so little importance, and, save for a few exceptions, they penetrate so little into the depths of the system, that it would be very difficult and equally tedious to mention each one separately. Suffice it to know that they divide themselves into two schools, both founded in Palestine at about the same time, the middle of the sixteenth century. One was founded by Moses Corduero, 11 the other by Isaac Luria12 who was regarded by a few Jews as the forerunner of Messiah.
Notwithstanding the superstitious veneration which these two instilled into their students, both were but commentators who lacked the gift of originality. Corduero, at least, kept close to the meaning of the original writings, although not entering deeply into their spirit; while Luria almost always deviated from the true text in order to give free rein to his reveries which, in reality, were dreams of a diseased mind--aegri somnia vana. I need not say which of the two I have consulted most frequently; but I can not refrain from remarking that the prevailing opinion places more importance with the latter.
I shall set aside those writers who made but a passing mention of the Kabbalah; writers like Richard Simon, 13 Burnet (Archaeologic Philosoph. ch. 4) and Huttingen; 14 or those who, confining their researches to biography, bibliography and history proper, do no more than indicate the sources where to look, as, for instance, to Wolf,15 to Basnage, 16 and to Bartolocci; 17 in a word, to writers who are content to sum up, sometimes to repeat what others have said. To the latter class belong, as far as our subject is concerned, the authors of the “Introduction to the Philosophy of the Hebrews,” 18 and the modern historians of philosophy who more or less, copied Brucker, as Brucker himself put under contribution the more neo-platonic and Arabic than the Kabbalistic dissertations of the Spanish rabbi Abraham Cohen Herrera.19 After all these eliminations I have still to put forth prominently a number of authors who have made a more serious study of the esoteric doctrine of the Hebrews, or to whom we must at least accord the credit of having drawn that doctrine from the profound obscurity where it had remained hidden until the close of the fifteenth century.
The first who revealed to Christian Europe the name and the existence of the Kabbalah, was a man who, despite the deviations of his ardent imagination, despite the dashing ardor of his enthusiastic mind, and perhaps even because of the force of these brilliant defects, gave vigorous impulsion to the ideas of his century, we mean--Raymond Lullus (Raimundus Lullus). It would be difficult to say just how far Raymond Lullus was initiated in this mysterious science, and what influence it exercised over his own doctrines.
Under no consideration will I affirm with a historian of philosophy 20 that Raymond Lullus drew from this science the identity of God and Nature. That much is certain, though, that he had a lofty idea of the Kabbalah, and that he regarded it as a divine science and as a true revelation, whose light shone for the illumination of the rational soul; 21 and it is permitted to suppose that the artificial methods used by the Kabbalists to link their opinions with the words of the Holy Writ, and their frequent use of the substitution of numbers and letters for ideas and for words, contributed a great deal to the invention of the Great Art (Ars Magna). It is worthy of note that Raymond Lullus has already made the distinction between ancient and modern Kabbalists more than two and a half centuries before the existence of the two contending schools of Luria and Cordovera, the period to which some modern critics wished to ascribe the birth of the entire Kabbalistic science. 22
The example given by the Majorcan philosopher remained unimitated for a long time; for after him the study of Kabbalah was forgotten until the time when Pico de la Mirandola and Reuchlin came to throw light again upon a science which, save to a circle of adepts, was until then known only by name and existence. These two men, who were equally admired by their century, for the boldness of their minds and for their extensive learning, were yet very far from entering into all the depths and into all the difficulties of the subject.
Pico de la Mirandola made efforts to reduce to a few propositions 23 --the sources of which he does not indicate and between which a connection can hardly be found--a system just as extensive, just as many sided and just as strongly built as the one which is the subject of our investigations. It is true that these propositions were originally intended for public discussion and for development by argumentation; but in the state in which they reached us they are unintelligible, not only because of their brevity, but also because of their isolation; and it is surely not in a few far-fetched digressions, scattered haphazardly through works of the most diverse character, that one would hope to find the unity, the development or the proofs of truth which we have a right to demand from a work of such importance.
The other one was not carried so far away by his imagination; he was more systematic and more lucid, but he was less learned and, unfortunately, had not the gift of drawing from the richest sources which were most worthy of his confidence. No more than the Italian author who, though born after him, was in advance of him on this road, 24 did Reuchlin cite his authorities; but it is easy to recognize in him the scant critical spirit of Joseph of Castile 25 and not of the spurious Abraham ben Dior,26 a commentator of the fourteenth century, who mingled Aristotelian ideas and all that he knew of the Greek traditions as interpreted by the Arabians, with his Kabbalistic knowledge. Besides, the dramatic form adapted by Reuchlin is neither precise nor serious enough for such a subject; and it is not without vexation that one sees him graze the most important questions in order to establish, by means of a few indefinite analogies, an imaginary affiliation between the Kabbalah and the doctrine of Pythagoras.
Reuchlin contended that the founder of the Italian school was a disciple of the Kabbalists, to whom he owed not only the foundation but also the symbolical form of his system as well as the traditional character of his teachings. Whence arise those subtleties and perversions which equally disfigure the two orders of ideas that one endeavors to mingle. Of the two works which have established Reuchlin’s fame, only one, “de Arte Cabbalistica” (published in Hagenau, 1517, fol.), contains an ordered exposition of the esoteric doctrine of the Hebrews; the other, (“de Verbo Mirifico”) which, in fact, was the first published, 27 is only an introduction to the first volume. This introduction, however, is conceived from a personal viewpoint, although it appears to be a simple development of a more ancient idea. It is in this book that the author, under pretence of defining the names consecrated to God, gives free course to his mystical and venturesome spirit; it is there that he makes efforts to prove in a general manner, that all religious philosophy, whether of Greece or of the Orient, originated in the Hebrew books; and it is here that he lays the foundation for that which later on is called the “Christian” Kabbalah.
Dating from that epoch Kabbalistic ideas became the object of more general interest, and they came to be regarded as serious and important not only in works of erudition, but also in the scientific and religious movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is at that time that there appeared successively the two works of Cornelius Agrippa, the learned and curious imaginations of Postel, the repertory of the Christian Kabbalists published by Pistorius, the translations of Joseph Voysin, Kirchner’s researches on Oriental Antiquity as a whole, and, finally, the résumé and perfection of all these works, the “Kabbalah Unveiled.”
In Cornelius Agrippa we find a dual personality; one, the author of “de Occulta Philosophia” (published in Cologne in 1533 and 1531), the enthusiastic defender of all the reveries of mysticism, the impassionate adept of all the fantastic arts; and the other, the discouraged skeptic who deplores the uncertainty and the vanity of the sciences.” 28 It is certainly not the first personality, as one might suppose, which rendered the most service to the study of the Kabbalah. On the contrary, by losing sight of the metaphysical side of the system, i.e., of its very essence and real source, and by adhering solely to its mystic form, developing the latter to its ultimate consequences--astrology and magic, he contributed not a little in turning away from the Kabbalah the grave and serious minds.
But Agrippa, the skeptic, Agrippa recovered from all his intoxications, and, so to speak, restored to the use of reason, recognized the rare antiquity of the Kabbalistic ideas and their relationship to the various sects of Gnosticism; 29 and it was also he who pointed out the resemblance between the diverse attributes recognized by the Kabbalists, otherwise called the ten Sefiroth and the ten mystic names spoken of by St. Jerome in his letter to Marcella. (De Occulta Philos., lib. 3, ch. 11.)
As far as I know, Postel was the first to translate into Latin the most ancient and the most obscure monument of the Kabbalah: “The Book of Formation” (Sefer Yetzirah), 30 a work ascribed at times by a fabulous tradition to the patriarch Abraham, at times even to Adam himself. As far as can be judged from this translation, which is as obscure as its text, it appears to us in general to be faithful. But nothing useful can be gathered from the commentaries which follow the text and in which the author, simulating the apostle of some new religion, uses his wealth of erudition to justify the deviations of an unruly imagination. Postel is also credited with an unpublished translation of the Zohar which we have searched for in vain among the manuscripts of the royal library.
Pistorius has set for himself a more useful and a more modest aim. He endeavored to unite in one single collection all the writings published on the Kabbalah or imbued with its spirit; but for unknown reasons he stopped his work when it was but half done. Of the two enormous volumes which were originally to comprise the work, one was devoted to all the Kabbalistic books written in Hebrew, and, consequently, under the influence of Judaism; the other was devoted to the Christian Kabbalists, or to use the words of the author, “to those who professing Christianity are always distinguished by a pious and honest life, and whose writings, therefore, no one would repulse as Jewish ramblings.” 31 This was a wise precaution taken against the prejudices of his age. But only the last volume appeared.32
This volume contains, besides the Latin translation of the Sefer Yetzirah and the two works of Reuchlin already mentioned, also a mystical, altogether arbitrary commentary on Pico de la Mirandola’s theses, 33 a Latin translation of the work of Joseph of Castile which served as basis for “de Verbo Mirifico” and, finally, different treatises of two Jewish authors, one of whom was led by the study of the Kabbalah to embrace Christianity; this one Paul Ricci (Paulus Riccius), the physician of Emperor Maximilian I; the other is the son of the renowned Abravanel, or Judah Abravanel, better known as Leon the Hebrew. 34 The latter doubtless merits a distinguished place in the general history of Mysticism by his “Dialogues on Love,” 35 of which there are several translations in French. 36 But, as his work bears but indirectly upon the Kabbalah, it will be sufficient to point out casually from one of the most important viewpoints the ideas whence similar conclusions were drawn.
Ricci, who paid more attention to the allegorical form than to the mystical foundation of the same traditions, contents himself by following Reuchlin’s lead at a distance; and like him, he tries to demonstrate, by Kabbalistic procedure, all the essential beliefs of Christianity. This is the character of his work “Of the Heavenly Agriculture.” 37 He is also the author of an introduction to the Kabbalah38 in which he confines himself to the summing up, somewhat briefly, the opinions expressed by his predecessors. But unlike them he does not date back the tradition which he explains, to the patriarchs or to the father of the human race. He is content in the belief that these traditions were already in vogue at the time when Christ began to preach his doctrine, and that they have paved the way for the new covenant; for, according to him, those thousands of Jews who adopted the Gospel without abandoning the faith of their fathers were no others but the Kabbalists of those days.39
I shall yet mention here Joseph Voysin, whose chief merit about the Kabbalah is that he faithfully translated from the Zohar several texts on the nature of the soul, 40 and then hasten to works more important at least because of the influence they exerted.
The name of Kirchner can not be spoken without deep reverence. He was a living encyclopedia of all the sciences. No science was entirely beyond his prodigious learning, and there are several, notably Archaeology, Philology and Natural Sciences, that are indebted to him for important discoveries. But it is also known that this remarkable scholar did not shine through those qualities which go to make up the critic and the philosopher, and that at times he exhibits even uncommon credulity. Such is the character he shows all through his exposition of the doctrines of the Kabbalists. 41 Thus, he does not doubt for a moment that the Kabbalah was first brought to Egypt by the patriarch Abraham, and that from Egypt it spread gradually through the remainder of the Orient, mingling with all the religions and all the systems of philosophy. But, while conceding this imaginary authority and this fabulous antiquity, he despoils the work of its real merits. The profound and original ideas, the bold creeds the Kabbalah contains, and the striking views it darts into the foundations of every religion and morality, escape entirely his feeble perception, which is struck only by the symbolical forms, the use and misuse of which seem to exist in the very nature of mysticism. The Kabbalah exists for him only in this gross envelope with its thousands of combinations of numbers and letters, its arbitrary ciphers, and, finally, its more or less fantastic procedure by means of which it forces the sacred script to lend such meaning as to find access to minds rebellious to all authority save the Bible. The facts and the texts which I have brought together in this volume aim to destroy this strange point of view and, therefore, I shall not dwell upon it any longer. I will say only that Kirchner, just like Reuchlin and Pico de la Mirandola, knew but the works of the modern Kabbalists, the majority of whom halted midway on the road to wisdom at the dead letter and senseless symbols.
On the subject occupying us, there is today no work more complete, more exact and more worthy of respect due to much labor and sacrifice, than that of Baron of Rosenroth or “the Kabbalah Unveiled.” 42 There are precious texts in that book which are accompanied by generally faithful translations, among them the most ancient fragments of the Zohar, the most important work of the Kabbalah; and where there are no texts it gives extensive analyses and very detailed tables. It contains also either numerous extracts or entire treatises from modern Kabbalists, a kind of dictionary which prepares us more for the knowledge of things than of words.
And, finally, under pretext, and perhaps in the sincere hope of converting the adepts of the Kabbalah to Christianity, the author collected all the passages of the New Testament which show any resemblance to their doctrine. Yet, there must be no illusion as to the character of this great work; like its predecessors it does not throw any more light on the origin, the transmission or the authenticity of the most ancient monuments of the Kabbalah. In vain, too, will one look there for a regularly ordered and complete exposition of the Kabbalistic system. It contains only such material which, perforce, must enter into a work of this nature; and, even when considered from this single point of view, it is not beyond the lash of criticism. Although much too severe in some of his expressions, Budde was not unjust when he said: “it is an obscure and confused work in which the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the superfluous, are thrown together pell-mell, in the same chaos.” 43
With a better choice, his work might have been richer and less extensive. In fact, why did he not leave the dreams of Henry Morus, which have nothing in common with the mystic theology of the Hebrews, in their proper place, that is in the collected works of this author? And I would say the same of the pretended Kabbalistic work of Herrera. This Spanish rabbi, remarkable for his philosophical erudition, was not content to substitute the modern traditions of the school of Isaac Luria 44 for the true principles of the Kabbalah; but he found also the secret of disfiguring these principles by mingling with them the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Avicenna and Pico de la Mirandola--in short, all that he knew of the Greek and Arabian philosophy.
Modern historians of philosophy have taken chiefly Herrera for their guide in the interpretations of the Kabbalah, probably because of the didactic order of his dissertations and the precision of his language. And as such a guide has been accepted, no wonder that quite recent origin has been ascribed to this science, or that it was looked upon as a faint imitation, a badly disguised plagiarism of the other well known systems! Finally, since the author of the “Kabbalah Denudata” was not willing to adhere to the most ancient sources and to acquaint us through more numerous quotations with the originality and interesting facts hidden in the Zohar, why this predilection for the commentaries of Isaac Luria, which no one in possession of his reason can stand reading? Would not the sacrifices and the laborious vigils which, by the author’s own avowals, it cost him to bring to light those sterile chimeras, have been better employed upon the long chain of Kabbalists still too little known, beginning at Saadia, around the tenth century, and ending with the thirteenth century at Nachmanides? In this way, by including all the traditions composing the Zohar, we would have had before our eyes the entire chain of Kabbalistic traditions, starting with the moment when they were first written down until the point when their secret was completely violated by Moses de Leon. 45 Had this task been too difficult, it would, at least, have been possible to have devoted some space to the esteemed works of Nachmanides, 46 the defender of the celebrated Moses hen Maimon, and whose Kabbalistic knowledge inspired admiration so intense that it was said to have been brought to him by the prophet Elijah from heaven.
Despite its gaps and its numerous imperfections, Rosenroth’s conscientious labor will stand forever as a monument of patience and erudition, and it will be consulted by all who will want to know the products of thought among the Jews, or by those who wish to observe mysticism in all its forms and in all its results. It is owing to his deeper knowledge of the Kabbalah, that this doctrine has ceased to be studied exclusively either as an instrument of conversion or as an occult science. It has taken a place in philosophical and philological research, in the general history of philosophy and in rational theology which has attempted by its light to expound some of the difficult passages of the New Testament.
The first whom we see taking this direction is George Wachter, theologian and distinguished philosopher, who, because of the independence of his mind, was falsely accused of Spinozaism, and who was the author of an attempt to reconcile the two sciences to which he had consecrated equal devotion. 47 Wachter’s attention was first turned to the Kabbalah in this way: A protestant of the confession of Augsburg, seduced by this system to which he was otherwise a stranger, converted himself publicly to Judaism, discarded his real name (Johann Peter Speeth) and took the name of Moses Germanus. He foolishly challenged Wachter to imitate him and engaged with him in a correspondence from which sprang a little book entitled “Spinozaism in Judaism.” (Amsterdam, 1699, 12mo, in German.)
The book does not throw much light upon the nature or upon the origin of the Kabbalistic ideas, but it raises a question of the highest interest: Was Spinoza initiated in the Kabbalah, and what influence did this doctrine exert upon his system? Until then it was the almost general opinion among scholars that there is quite a close affinity between the most important points of the science of the Kabbalists and the fundamental dogmas of the Christian religion. Wachter undertook to demonstrate that these two orders of ideas are separated by an abyss; for, in his opinion, the Kabbalah is nothing but atheism, the negation of God and the deification of the world, a doctrine which he believed to be that of the Dutch philosopher and to which Spinoza gave a more modern form.
We need not investigate here whether the two systems, per se, are well or ill-judged, but whether there is some ground for the theory of their affinity or for their historical succession. The sole proof given (for I do not count more or less far-fetched analogies and resemblances) consists of two very important passages, indeed, one drawn from “Ethics,” the other from Spinoza’s letters. The last named reads: “When I affirm that all things exist in God, and that in Him all things move, I speak like St. Paul, like all the philosophers of antiquity, although I express myself in a different way, and I even dare to add: like all the ancient Hebrews, as far as can be judged by certain of their traditions which have been altered in many ways.” 48 Evidently, nothing but the Kabbalistic traditions are referred to in these lines; for those which the Jews collected in the Talmud are either recitals (Haggadah) or ceremonial laws (Halakah).
The passage from “Ethics” is still more decisive. Having spoken of the unity of substance, Spinoza adds: “It is this principle which some of the Hebrews seem to have perceived as through a cloud when they thought that God, the Intelligence of God and the objects under the action of that intelligence, as of one and the same thing.” 49 The historical sense of these words can not be mistaken if we juxtapose them with the following lines translated nearly literally from a Kabbalistic work, the most faithful commentary to the Zohar: “The knowledge of the Creator is not like the knowledge of the Creatures; for with the latter the knowledge is apart from the known subject. This is designated by the following terms: the thought, he who thinks and that which is thought of. The Creator, on the contrary, is Himself the Knowledge, the One who knows, and the One known. God’s way of knowing does not really consist in applying His thought to things outside of Himself. It is by cognizing and knowing Himself that He also cognizes and knows all that exists. Nothing exists that is not united with Him and which He could not find in His own substance. He is the prototype of all Being, and in Him all things exist in the purest and most accomplished form; so that the perfection of the creatures is in this very existence by virtue of which they find themselves united with the source of their being; and in measure as they deviate from it, they sink from that sublime and perfect state.” 50
What conclusion can be drawn from these words? Is it that the ideas and the Carthesian method, that the altogether independent development of reason, and above all, that individual estimates as well as the errors of genius, count for nothing in the most audacious conception of which the history of modern philosophy can give an example? This would be a strange paradox which we would not even attempt to refute. Moreover, it is easy to see by the very citations given as authority, that Spinoza had but a very summary and uncertain idea of the Kabbalah, the importance of which he could have recognized only after the creation of his own system. 51 But, strangely, having stripped Spinoza of all originality for the benefit of the Kabbalah, Wachter turned that doctrine itself into a miserable plagiarism, a characterless compilation to which have contributed all the centuries during which it remained unknown, all the countries where the Jews were dispersed, and, consequently, the most contradictory systems. How could such a work be more atheistic than theistic? Would it not teach pantheism rather than one God distinct from the world? Above all, how had it taken in the “Ethics” the form of severe unity, the inflexible vigor of the exact sciences?
But we must do Wachter the justice to say that he modified his opinions considerably in a second volume on the same subject. (Elucidarius Cabbalisticus, Rome, 1706, 8 vo.) Thus, according to him, Spinoza is no longer the apostle of atheism, but a true savant who, enlightened by a sublime science, recognized the divinity of Christ and all the truths of the Christian religion. 52 He naively confesses that he judged him previously without having known him, and that he was influenced against him by prejudices and excited passions when he recorded his first impressions.53 He makes equally an honorable apology to the Kabbalah by distinguishing two essentially different doctrines by that name: the modern Kabbalah lies under the weight of his scorn and anathema; but the ancient Kabbalah which, according to him, lasted until the council of Nice, was a traditional science of the highest order, the origin of which loses itself in mysterious antiquity. The first Christians, the oldest fathers of the Church, had no other philosophy; 54 and it is this philosophy which led Spinoza upon the road of Truth. The author stubbornly insists upon this point and makes it the centre of his researches.
Though in its entirety very superficial, and at times far from accurate, this parallel between the doctrine of Spinoza and that of the Kabbalists contributed not a little to the enlightenment of the minds as to the true significance of the Kabbalah; I speak of its character and its metaphysical principles. That parallel led to an examination which proved that the theory which had caused so much surprise and scandal, the theory that God is an unique substance and the immanent cause and real nature of all that is, was not new, that it appeared already before, at the cradle of Christianity, under the very name of the religion. But this idea is also met with somewhere in a no less remote antiquity. Where, then, is the origin of this idea to be looked for? Is it Greece, or Egypt of the Ptolomaeans that have given it to Palestine? Is it Palestine which found it first? or is it necessary to go back still further into the Orient?
Such are the questions which occupied the minds primarily, and such also is the meaning attached to the Kabbalistic traditions since that time by all save a few critics who are peculiarly attentive to nothing but form. It is no longer a question of a certain method of interpretation applied to Holy Writ, nor of mysteries far beyond reason, which God Himself revealed whether to Moses, to Abraham or to Adam, but it is a question of a purely human science, of a system representing within itself the entire metaphysics of an ancient people, and, therefore, of great interest to the history of the human mind, once more a philosophical viewpoint that dislodged Allegory and Mysticism.
This spirit is shown not only in Brucker’s exposition, where it is perfectly in place, but it seems also to be generally prevalent. Thus, in 1785 a learned association, the Society for the Investigation of Antiquities at Cassel, opened an academic competition on the following topic: “Does the doctrine of the Kabbalists, according to which all things are engendered by the emanation of the very essence of God, come from the Greek philosophy or not?” Unfortunately, the answer was much less sensible than the question. The work which carried off the prize--very little known and not deserving to be known--certainly does not cast any new light upon the very nature of the Kabbalah and what concerns the origin of this system, it contents itself with reproducing the most defaced fables. 55 It shows the Kabbalistic ideas in the hymns of Orpheus and in the philosophy of Thales and Pythagoras; it makes them contemporaries of the patriarchs, and, without any hesitation it hands them to us as the ancient wisdom of the Chaldeans. It is less surprising when it is known that the author was of the sect of the Illuminati who, following the example of all such associations, dated its annals back to the very cradle of humanity. 56
But Rational Theology--as it is called in Germany--that is that absolutely independent method of expounding the Holy Scriptures, of which Spinoza gave an example in his Theologic-Political tractat, made frequent use of the Kabbalah. As I said before, it made use of it for the purpose of explaining divers passages in the letters of St. Paul which referred to the heresies of that day. It desired also to find therein the explanation of the first verses of the Gospel of St. John, and tried to make it useful either for the study of Gnosticism or for the study of ecclesiastic history in general. 57 Tiedemann and Tennemann, at the same time, had given the Kabbalah a kind of deed of possession in the history of philosophy, which was at first consecrated to it by Brucker. There soon appeared the school of Hegel which could not fail to make use of a system wherein it found, under another form, some of its own doctrines.
A reaction against this ever famous school was surely not slow in coming, and it is evidently under this sentiment that the useless work “Kabbalism and Pantheism” was written. The author of that little book strives to prove, at the expense of the evidence, that there is no resemblance between the two systems which he undertakes to compare; for it often happens that the passages which he uses as bases of his arguments are diametrically opposed to the deductions he draws from them. Besides, as far as erudition is concerned, he is far inferior to most of the writers who preceded him; and does not surpass them either by criticism of the sources or by philosophic appreciation of the ideas, not-withstanding the pedantic attire and luxury of citations with which he pleases to surround himself.
Finally, Herr Tholuck, a man who is justly entitled to eminent rank among the theologians and orientalists of Germany, recently also desired to contribute to this subject his knowledge and skilled criticism. But as he concerns himself with one particular point, the origin of the Kabbalah, and as any appreciation of his opinions would demand profound discussion, I have reserved comment of him for the body of this work, as a more opportune time. This refers also to all the modern writers, whose names, although deserving a place here, have as yet not been mentioned.
Such are, in substance, the efforts made until now for the discovery of the meanings and the origin of the Kabbalistic books. I do not wish to have the conclusion drawn that all must be started anew again because one is struck only by those books which are incomplete. On the contrary, I am convinced, that the labors and even the errors of such distinguished minds can not be ignored without punishment to those wishing seriously to study the same subject. Even were it possible, in fact, to approach the original monuments without any aid, it would, nevertheless, always be necessary to know beforehand the various interpretations which have been given to them to the present day; for each one of these correspond to a viewpoint well founded in itself, but which becomes faulty when one sticks to it exclusively.
Thus has the Kabbalah--to corroborate what has just been said and to sum up briefly the foregoing--been accepted by some who had in view only its allegorical form and mystical character, with mystic enthusiasm as an anticipated revelation of Christian dogmas; others took it as an occult art, struck by the strange figure, the queer formulas under which it loves to hide its real intention, and by the relations it incessantly establishes between man and all parts of the universe; others, finally, took hold above all of its metaphysical principles and tried to find therein an antecedent, either honorable or dishonorable, of the philosophy of their times.
It is easy to understand that with partial and incomplete studies governed by various prejudices, one can find all this in the Kabbalah without necessarily contradicting the facts. But, in order to have an exact idea and to find the place which it really holds among works of intelligence, it should be studied neither in the interest of a system, nor in the interest of a religious belief; on the contrary, one will endeavor for the sake of truth only, to furnish to the general history of human thought some elements as yet too little known.
This is the aim I desire to reach in the following work for which I spared neither time nor research.
AD. FRANCK.
Introduction
Although one finds in the Kabbalah a complete system on things of a moral and spiritual order, yet it can not be considered either as a philosophy or as a religion; I mean to say, it rests, apparently at least, neither upon reason nor upon inspiration or authority. Like most of the systems of the Middle Ages, it is the fruit of the union of these two intellectual powers. Essentially different from religious belief, under the power, and one can say, under the protection of which, it was born, it introduced itself, thanks to peculiar forms and processes, unnoticed into the minds. These forms and these processes would weaken the interest of which it is worthy, and would not always permit conviction of the importance which we believe to be justified in attributing to it, if, before making it known in its different elements and before attempting the solution of questions incident thereto, we do not indicate, with some precision, the place it occupies among the works of thought, the rank it should hold among religious beliefs and philosophic systems, and, finally, the requirements or laws which could explain the peculiar means of its development. It is this we shall attempt to accomplish with all possible brevity.
