1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of theSohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, orJabez(יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitledThe Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of theSoharall the rest is of a late origin.40He shows that (1) TheSoharmisquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses[224]the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, withSohar, iii, 221b, 161a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expressionEsnoga.1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of theSohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work onthe Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from theSoharto shew that the Hebrew vowel points were knownA.D.120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of theZohar.”411830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in hisModern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of theSohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominatedGematria,Notaricon,Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy.421843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent workLa Kabbale(Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between theBook Jetziraand theSohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains[225]that theSoharconsists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are theBook of Mysteries(ספרא דצניעותא),the Great AssemblyorIdra Rabba(אדרא רבא), andthe Small AssemblyorIdra Suta(אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of theSoharis Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of theSephirothupon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here.43Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of theSoharwill always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the[226]study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in theAlphabet of R. Akiba(אותיות בר׳ עקיבא),the Dimensions of the Deity(שיעור קומה),the Heavenly Mansions(היכלות), and eventhe Book of Jetzira(ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-calledSephirothand about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described asHagadaand not as Kabbalah.”44As to theSohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of theSohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’sReligious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though theSoharin its present form[227]could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral.451851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’sla Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of theSohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of theSohar.46Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of theSohar.1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of theSohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitledContributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of theBook Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with theSohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with theSohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah.471853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published,[228]twelve months afterwards, the first part of aSelection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1)The Treatise on the Emanations(מסכת אצילות), (2)The Book of Institutions(ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3)The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitledKether Shem Tob(כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor.48May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitledJerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of theBook Jetzira, theMaase Bereshith(מעשה בראשית) and theMaase Merkaba(מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to theBook Jetziraand to theSoharan antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—“To the authenticity of theZohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as apseudofabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the[229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time inthe pseudofabrication of theSoharby Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz,50Geiger,51Sachs,52Jellinek53and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there arereferences to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared inErsch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information.541858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of theSoharappeared in a Jewish periodical, entitledBen Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55This analysis was[230]made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of theSoharwhich are calledthe Book of Mysteries,the Great Assembly, andthe Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to theSohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of theSohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of theBen Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy.561863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of theSohar.57Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion[231]of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique.58We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given acompletehistory of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59Basnage’sHistory of the Jews,60where a very lengthy account is given of the[232]Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors;61and Molitor’sPhilosophy of History.62We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and theSoharwithout deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.
1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of theSohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, orJabez(יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitledThe Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of theSoharall the rest is of a late origin.40He shows that (1) TheSoharmisquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses[224]the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, withSohar, iii, 221b, 161a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expressionEsnoga.1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of theSohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work onthe Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from theSoharto shew that the Hebrew vowel points were knownA.D.120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of theZohar.”411830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in hisModern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of theSohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominatedGematria,Notaricon,Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy.421843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent workLa Kabbale(Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between theBook Jetziraand theSohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains[225]that theSoharconsists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are theBook of Mysteries(ספרא דצניעותא),the Great AssemblyorIdra Rabba(אדרא רבא), andthe Small AssemblyorIdra Suta(אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of theSoharis Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of theSephirothupon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here.43Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of theSoharwill always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the[226]study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in theAlphabet of R. Akiba(אותיות בר׳ עקיבא),the Dimensions of the Deity(שיעור קומה),the Heavenly Mansions(היכלות), and eventhe Book of Jetzira(ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-calledSephirothand about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described asHagadaand not as Kabbalah.”44As to theSohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of theSohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’sReligious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though theSoharin its present form[227]could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral.451851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’sla Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of theSohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of theSohar.46Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of theSohar.1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of theSohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitledContributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of theBook Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with theSohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with theSohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah.471853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published,[228]twelve months afterwards, the first part of aSelection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1)The Treatise on the Emanations(מסכת אצילות), (2)The Book of Institutions(ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3)The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitledKether Shem Tob(כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor.48May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitledJerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of theBook Jetzira, theMaase Bereshith(מעשה בראשית) and theMaase Merkaba(מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to theBook Jetziraand to theSoharan antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—“To the authenticity of theZohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as apseudofabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the[229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time inthe pseudofabrication of theSoharby Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz,50Geiger,51Sachs,52Jellinek53and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there arereferences to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared inErsch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information.541858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of theSoharappeared in a Jewish periodical, entitledBen Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55This analysis was[230]made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of theSoharwhich are calledthe Book of Mysteries,the Great Assembly, andthe Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to theSohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of theSohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of theBen Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy.561863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of theSohar.57Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion[231]of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique.58We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given acompletehistory of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59Basnage’sHistory of the Jews,60where a very lengthy account is given of the[232]Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors;61and Molitor’sPhilosophy of History.62We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and theSoharwithout deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.
1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of theSohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, orJabez(יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitledThe Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of theSoharall the rest is of a late origin.40He shows that (1) TheSoharmisquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses[224]the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, withSohar, iii, 221b, 161a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expressionEsnoga.1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of theSohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work onthe Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from theSoharto shew that the Hebrew vowel points were knownA.D.120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of theZohar.”411830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in hisModern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of theSohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominatedGematria,Notaricon,Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy.421843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent workLa Kabbale(Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between theBook Jetziraand theSohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains[225]that theSoharconsists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are theBook of Mysteries(ספרא דצניעותא),the Great AssemblyorIdra Rabba(אדרא רבא), andthe Small AssemblyorIdra Suta(אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of theSoharis Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of theSephirothupon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here.43Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of theSoharwill always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the[226]study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in theAlphabet of R. Akiba(אותיות בר׳ עקיבא),the Dimensions of the Deity(שיעור קומה),the Heavenly Mansions(היכלות), and eventhe Book of Jetzira(ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-calledSephirothand about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described asHagadaand not as Kabbalah.”44As to theSohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of theSohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’sReligious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though theSoharin its present form[227]could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral.451851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’sla Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of theSohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of theSohar.46Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of theSohar.1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of theSohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitledContributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of theBook Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with theSohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with theSohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah.471853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published,[228]twelve months afterwards, the first part of aSelection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1)The Treatise on the Emanations(מסכת אצילות), (2)The Book of Institutions(ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3)The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitledKether Shem Tob(כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor.48May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitledJerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of theBook Jetzira, theMaase Bereshith(מעשה בראשית) and theMaase Merkaba(מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to theBook Jetziraand to theSoharan antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—“To the authenticity of theZohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as apseudofabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the[229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time inthe pseudofabrication of theSoharby Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz,50Geiger,51Sachs,52Jellinek53and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there arereferences to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared inErsch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information.541858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of theSoharappeared in a Jewish periodical, entitledBen Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55This analysis was[230]made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of theSoharwhich are calledthe Book of Mysteries,the Great Assembly, andthe Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to theSohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of theSohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of theBen Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy.561863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of theSohar.57Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion[231]of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique.58We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given acompletehistory of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59Basnage’sHistory of the Jews,60where a very lengthy account is given of the[232]Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors;61and Molitor’sPhilosophy of History.62We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and theSoharwithout deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.
1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of theSohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, orJabez(יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitledThe Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of theSoharall the rest is of a late origin.40He shows that (1) TheSoharmisquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses[224]the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, withSohar, iii, 221b, 161a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expressionEsnoga.
1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of theSohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work onthe Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from theSoharto shew that the Hebrew vowel points were knownA.D.120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of theZohar.”41
1830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in hisModern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of theSohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominatedGematria,Notaricon,Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy.42
1843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent workLa Kabbale(Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between theBook Jetziraand theSohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains[225]that theSoharconsists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are theBook of Mysteries(ספרא דצניעותא),the Great AssemblyorIdra Rabba(אדרא רבא), andthe Small AssemblyorIdra Suta(אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of theSoharis Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of theSephirothupon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here.43Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of theSoharwill always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.
1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the[226]study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in theAlphabet of R. Akiba(אותיות בר׳ עקיבא),the Dimensions of the Deity(שיעור קומה),the Heavenly Mansions(היכלות), and eventhe Book of Jetzira(ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-calledSephirothand about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described asHagadaand not as Kabbalah.”44As to theSohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of theSohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)
1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’sReligious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though theSoharin its present form[227]could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral.45
1851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’sla Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of theSohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of theSohar.46Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of theSohar.
1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of theSohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitledContributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of theBook Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with theSohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to theSohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with theSohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah.47
1853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published,[228]twelve months afterwards, the first part of aSelection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1)The Treatise on the Emanations(מסכת אצילות), (2)The Book of Institutions(ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3)The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitledKether Shem Tob(כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor.48May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.
1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitledJerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of theBook Jetzira, theMaase Bereshith(מעשה בראשית) and theMaase Merkaba(מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to theBook Jetziraand to theSoharan antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—
“To the authenticity of theZohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as apseudofabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the[229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49
“To the authenticity of theZohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as apseudofabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the[229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49
Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time inthe pseudofabrication of theSoharby Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz,50Geiger,51Sachs,52Jellinek53and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there arereferences to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.
1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared inErsch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information.54
1858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of theSoharappeared in a Jewish periodical, entitledBen Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55This analysis was[230]made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of theSoharwhich are calledthe Book of Mysteries,the Great Assembly, andthe Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to theSohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of theSohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of theBen Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.
1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy.56
1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of theSohar.57Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion[231]of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.
1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique.58
We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given acompletehistory of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.
Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.
Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59Basnage’sHistory of the Jews,60where a very lengthy account is given of the[232]Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors;61and Molitor’sPhilosophy of History.62
We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and theSoharwithout deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.