This article was downloaded by:[Burmistrov, Konstantin] On: 31 July 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 780716028] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
East European Jewish Affairs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713720502 THE INTERPRETATION OF KABBALAH IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY
Online Publication Date: 01 August 2007 To cite this Article: Burmistrov, Konstantin (2007) 'THE INTERPRETATION OF KABBALAH IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY', East European Jewish Affairs, 37:2, 157 - 187 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/13501670701430404 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501670701430404
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 doctrine hadsignificantinfluenceonmanyEuropeanmystics andreligiousthinkers. elaborated bytheChristiankabbalistsandunderstanding oftheScripturesandChristian tion oftheDivinelightand,also,10attributes). Themethodsofinterpretation the namesofGod,conceptionemanationsephirot (the10stagesofemana- tant ideasoneshouldfirstofallmentionthedoctrine EinSof,theabsoluteFirstCause, Christian dogmas(suchastheIncarnation,Trinity,andSalvation). Amongthemostimpor- terpret thetextofBibleand,asaresult,foundnew,morecomplete,basisforsome the aidofideasfoundintextsandexegeticaldevices,attemptedtore-examinerein- Christian kabbalahstudiedkabbalistictexts,translatedandcommentedonthem,and,with (1465–1532), JohannesReuchlin(1455–1522)andGuillaumePostel(1510–81).Adeptsof Kabbalah onemaymention,forexample,PicodellaMirandola(1463–94),EgidiodaViterbo Taylor andFrancisLtdFEEJ_A_242924.sgm10.1080/13501670701430404EastEuropeanJewishAffairs1350-1674(print)/1743-971X(online)OriginalArticle2007&372000000AugustKonstantin [email protected] East EuropeanJewishAffairs,Vol.37,No.2,August2007 and wasfollowed bytherapidgrowthofoccult kabbalistictheories,which eventuallyledto they werecreatinganewquasi-scientific outlook. Furthermore, theywerelittleinterested inChristiantheologicalissuesaswellsince,basically, Kabbalah tobeanintegralpart oftheJewishtraditionanddetacheditfromitsroots. Masonic theosophyandthe “occultkabbalism.”Theoccultistsnolongerconsidered goals thattheoriginalChristiankabbalistssetforthemselves, andevolvedinthedirectionof magical practices.Thisbranchgraduallydivergedfromthe Jewishprimarytextsandthose began todevelop,whoseadeptscombinedkabbalisticideas withalchemy,astrologyand took final shapeduringtheeraofRenaissance. a certaintypeofconceptionJewishmysticismintheChristianconsciousness,onethat speak oftheexistenceasingletraditionChristiankabbalah—oneshouldratherreferto Christian cultureandJewishmysticismbecamepossible.Atthesametime,onecannotreally Essentially, itwaspreciselybecauseofthisphenomenonthatameetingbetweenEuropean ings begantobeformed,onethatinscholarshiptodayisreferredas“Christiankabbalah.” texts werewrittendown.ItwasthenthataparticularattitudetowardsJewishmysticalteach- acquaintance withKabbalahbeganasearlythe13thcentury,whenfirstkabbalistic DOI: 10.1080/13501670701430404 © 2007Taylor &Francis ISSN 1350-1674print/1743-971X online/07/020157-31 The epochofChristiankabbalah basicallyendedatthebeginningof18thcentury At thesametime,alreadyin16thcentury,aspecialbranch ofChristiankabbalah The JewishmysticaltraditionhaslongattractedtheattentionofChristianthinkers.Their Konstantin Burmistrov Soloviev, Bulgakov,Florenskii,Losev RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY IN EARLY20TH-CENTURY THE INTERPRETATIONOFKABBALAH 1
Among thebest-knownstudentsof 2 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 158 the “occultrenaissance”ofsecondhalf19thcentury. phers andreligiousthinkers. largely determinedthesubsequentreceptionofKabbalahbyEuropeanscholars,philoso- which branch—classicaloroccult—aparticularthinkerinclinedtowards,andthesemodels Christian kabbalistsintheRenaissancesignificantlydifferedfromeachother,dependingon only anumber ofpreliminaryobservationsabout thekabbalisticinterests ofsomeRussian all ofthesethingsstillremain inthecategoryofdesired.Thepresentarticleproposes that wasformedinRussianculture inthelate19thandearly20thcenturies.Unfortunately, ones relatedtotheattitudestowards JewsinRussiansociety)affecttheimageofKabbalah reception ofJewishmysticism butalsoawholerangeofexternal,socialfactors(including cal traditionwereformed.It isobviousthatnotonlyspecificsourcesandmodels of sis ofthehistoricalandculturalcontextinwhichvariousattitudes towardstheJewishmysti- certain philosophers. It isnotedepisodicallybyseveralwriterswhoanalysedGnostic elementsinthedoctrineof other “occult,”“esoteric”distractionsofeducatedRussiansociety oftheturncentury. tific analysis,scholarsusuallyseeinKabbalahonlyoneoftheelementsamonganumber philosophical systems.Althoughthistopicdidnotyetbecomethesubjectofspecificscien- Kabbalah thatRussianphilosophersofthistimeformedanditssignificancefortheirown “occult renaissance”hasonlyanindirectrelationtoourquestionabouttheimageof began toassumemorefantasticanddistortedforms. Kabbalah amongnon-kabbalistsbegantobewidespread,whileinterpretationof Masonic lodgesandpseudo-Masonicorganizations. dented interestinvarious“secretsciences”;thiswasthetimeofesotericgroupsandcircles, significantly. Infact,atthebeginningof20thcenturytherewasinRussiaanunprece- tual profileoftheepoch. ambiguity, thefamiliaritywithkabbalisticideashadanindubitableimpactonintellec- ganda. Theirpositionswerequitevariedandsometimesdiametricallyoppositebut,withits while othersturnedtoKabbalahinsearchoffurtherargumentsforanti-Semiticpropa- istic methodsofinterpretingtheScripturesintheirownreligiousandphilosophicalsystems, presented there.Someofthemattemptedtousespecifickabbalisticideas,aswellkabbal- and scientificstudies),astheyre-examinedreinterpretedtheviewsofKabbalah made useofvarioustypesWesternsources(worksbyChristiankabbalists,occulttreatises strated aparticularinterestinJewishmysticism,i.e.Kabbalah.Asrule,thisprocessthey Judaism, aswelltheroleofJewsinworldhistory.Sometheseintellectualsdemon- doctrines, ofre-examiningandre-evaluatingtheconnectionbetweenChristianity phers feltthenecessityofbecomingbetteracquaintedwithJudaism,itshistoryand of historicalcontinuitythantypologicalsimilarity). ophers ofthelate19thandearly20thcenturies(althoughoftenitappearstobelessamatter (1853–1900). sources thatmayhavebeenusedbythefamousRussian philosopherVladimirSoloviev Kabbalah bythesethinkers. hardly dealtwiththequestionofspecificsourcesthat influencedthereceptionof Unfortunately, whilepresentinggeneralizationsaboutmaterial thatisalreadyknown,she to analysekabbalisticelementsinSolovievandsome otherRussianphilosophers. KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV The mainmodelsofunderstandingJewishmysticismthatwereelaboratedby In recentyears,interestinthereceptionofKabbalahbyRussiancultureincreased In thelate19thandearly20thcenturies,manyRussianthinkersreligiousphiloso- 8
Recent articlesbytheAmericanresearcherJudithKornblatt haveattempted 7
Only asingleworkpresentspreliminaryanalysisofthekabbalistic 9 5 Furthermore,itwouldalsobeusefultomakeacomplexanaly-
In ourview,thesemodelswerealsofollowedbyRussianphilos- 4 6
However, thetopicofRussian 3
At thattime,interestinthe Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 hidden, absolutely inaccessibleGodhead.This mostimportantmystical intuitioncanbe late 18thcentury. Christian kabbalahofthe15th to17thcenturies,aswellintextsofRussianMasonrythe which theywereunderstood bytheJewishKabbalistsand,subsequently,classical very importantkabbalisticconcepts—that ofEinSofandAdamKadmon—withtheway in century. TheearlySolovievwasclosetothesetraditionsinboth hisviewsandsources. of theoreticalMasonryandthenewRosicruciansemerged inthesecondhalfof18th mystical doctrinesandtheviewsofChristianvisionaries theosophiststhatthedoctrines it werediscoveredtheworldofSefirothalloveragain.” mystic, showstheclosestaffinitytoKabbalismpreciselywhere heismostoriginal.Hehasas the greatestscholarofJewishmysticism,GershomScholem, “morethananyotherChristian especially theviewsofoutstandingGermanmysticJacobBoehme,who,inwords have haddirectacquaintancewithkabbalistictextsoranykabbalists.Thisconcerns of somethesemysticsandJewishkabbalisticconceptions,althoughtheydonotseemto writings isacomplexone,scholarshaveobservedprofoundsimilaritybetweentheintuitions others. WhilethequestionofroleandChristianinterpretationJewishmysticismintheir ature ofthe16thto18thcenturies,throughParacelsus,Boehme,Pordage,Swedenborg,and of Soloviev’sknowledgeKabbalah.HewasquitefamiliarwiththeEuropeanmysticalliter- ancient timesandhadnodirectconnectiontoJudaism. him, SolovievsawKabbalahasanoccult,secretsciencethatwastransmittedtoinitiatessince comprehend itthantohisspecificinterestsatthetime.LikesomeChristiankabbalistsbefore was hardlyinterestedingenuineJewishKabbalah.Thisduelesstohislackofability Sophia which SolovievderivedhisknowledgeofJewishmysticism. cially, toMasonickabbalahofthelate18thcenturyandpointstowardstraditionfrom some kabbalisticconcepts,buthetransformedtheminawaythatrevealssimilarity,espe- unstudied question. philosophers, withoutinanywaypretendingtopresentacompletepictureofthisalmost tradition, weshalllimitthisanalysistoanumberofbriefobservations. (like centuries. WhenlookingattheearlyworksofSoloviev,thosesecondhalf1870s student ofthismysticaltraditionas,forexample,theChristiankabbalists16thand17th mysticism. However,despitethiswidespreadbelief,onecanhardlycallhimasseriousa believed thatSolovievwasthefirstRussianphilosophertotakeaseriousinterestinJewish Pavel FlorenskiiandNikolaiBerdyaev). ries, andforRussianreligiousphilosophersoftheearly20th century(i.e.SergeiBulgakov, important notonlyforSolovievbutalsoRussianMasons ofthelate18thand19thcentu- Levi, H.P.Blavatskyand,possibly,someearlierChristiankabbalistictexts. its occultcomponent.Hissources,evidently,weretheworksofoccultists,suchasEliphas in KabbalahatthistimewasbasedontheparadigmoflateChristiankabbalah,particularly Sophia In Kabbalah,theterm As anillustrationonemightcompare,howeverbriefly,Soloviev’s interpretationoftwo At thesametime,itwouldnotbecorrecttoconsideroccultliteratureonlysource Since wehavealreadyhadoccasiontostudySoloviev’sfamiliaritywiththekabbalistic Vladimir Soloviev , andotherworksofthe1870searly1880s,thatduringthisperiodSoloviev
or Philosophical PrinciplesoftheIntegralKnowledge KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY Ein Sof
(Hebrew for“theinfinite”or“unlimited”) referstothe 14
It waspreciselyduetothissimilaritybetweenJewish 13
Boehme’s workswereextremely 12 ), itisevidentthathisinterest
It isclearfromhistreatise 11 10 Solovievdiduse
It isgenerally 159 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 160 Ein Sof,theLogosandHoly Spirit.AccordingtoSoloviev: called “thepositivenothingness.”Furtherinthesamework, he speaksaboutthreeprinciples: source ofallmultiplicity.EinSoforiginallyhasthepositive forceofexistence,andmaybe the absoluteprimarycauseofallthatexists,GodinHisspiritual nature,thecomprehensive idea isperfectlyexpressedbyReuchlin: of thesephirot. with kabbalisticdoctrine,containedideasabouttheEinSofassourceofemanation texts byRussianMasonsoftheperiodsCatherineIIandAlexanderI,whichwereconcerned kabbalistic cosmogony,recallingtheworksofearlierChristiankabbalists.Manymanuscript hypostases oftheTrinity. Keter, ChokhmahandBinah(Crown,SupernalWisdom,Understanding),withthethree Light fromEinSofintheformof10sephirot,andtheyidentifiedthreehighest Christian authorsborrowedfromtheKabbalahdoctrineofemanationDivine can onededucetheexistenceofEinSofasprimarycauseall. tions ordifferentiations.Onlythroughtheveryexistenceandfinitenatureofcreation found inmostkabbalistictexts.EinSofisabsoluteperfection,whichtherearenodistinc- Keter correspondedtoGodtheFather,they,too,referred EinSofas“theFather.” Sof withthefirstsephirah,Keter,andthen,followingclassicalChristiankabbalah,inwhich the understandingofEinSofinJewishandChristianKabbalah.TheMasonsidentified Asiatic Brethren. Golden andRosyCross,theFrenchOrderofElusCoens(ChosenPriests), and quasi-Masonicsecretsocietiesofthe18thcentury,especiallyGermanOrder as inexpressibleandunitingallwithinitself.ThisisthehiddenGod, whom ChristiankabbalistsunderstoodinthesamewayasdidJewishkabbalists. described itsinternalstructureindetailandattributedtoit many positiveattributes. (1725–93), referredtotheEinSofas“thedepthsofDivinity” and“theEternalEssence,” most significantfiguresinthehistoryofRussianmasonry the18thcentury,IvanP.Elagin of innerpowersthatinteract,constantlyappearinganddisappearing. Forexample,oneofthe view, withinEinSofonecandistinguishtheprototypesofall thingsandaninfinitequantity be definedonlyas“thenegationofallnegation.” Reality towhichitisimpossibleassignanypositiveattributes;accordingScholem,can perceptible tothegazeofmystic.Thus,accordingKabbalah,EinSofisAbsolute manifestation inCreation,throughtheemanationof10sephirot,thatGodbecomes KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV element orLogos istheeternalSon. Itself, it[EinSof]maybereferred toasitseternalFather,inrelationwhichthesecond Logos] thatItcontinuallyproduces orgeneratesfromItselfasaneternalmanifestationof [s]ince thePrimaryElement[i.e. EinSof]includesinItselfthepotentialsecondelement[i.e. In his The KabbalahplayedamajorroleintheteachingandritualofwholerangeMasonic uncomplicatedly bindingalltogether. seems contraryandself-contradictory.Heislikeabeingapart,untrammelledoneness, stood tocomefromhim[…].Heisbeingandnon-being—allthatourrationalminds His divinity,intotheunreachableabyssoffountainlight,sothatnothingisunder- Ein Sof,Infinity[…]isunknowableandunutterable,hiddenawayinthefurthestrecessesof In Christiankabbalah,inparticularthatofPicodellaMirandola,EinSofisalsoviewed Philosophical PrinciplesofIntegralKnowledge 22 21
At thesametime,viewsexpressedinthemdifferedsignificantlyfrom
In particular,Masonicliteraturespelledoutindetailversionsof 19 Ofcourse,nothingcouldbeidentifiedwiththeEinSofitself. 18 16
(1877) SolovievdefinedEinSofas 15
Deus absconditus It isthroughHis 23
24 In their 17
20 The , Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 the prototypeofman. divine forms;itis“themysticprimordialimageoftheGodhead,” embracing10sephirotand as synonyms. Similarly, indraftsforthetreatise“Sophia”Solovievtreatsterms“EinSof’”and“Father” Many Christian mysticsandkabbalists,starting withPicodellaMirandola, drewaparallel Adam Kadmonwiththeeternal Christ,inwhoseimagetheworldandmanarecreated. ments ofthisideainChristian literature,themostsignificantaspectisidentification of in Christiankabbalahand European mysticismgenerally.Despitethevarietyoftreat- Keter). texts (e.g.theworksofEliphasLevi,whoalsoassociatedEinSofwithsephirah Soloviev withthisunderstandingoftheEinSof.Hemayhavebeeninfluencedbysomeoccult manifestation intheworld. distinguishes theGodas“No-Thing”ofnegativetheology,andatinitialstageHis and therefore—theirinterdependence.Solovievevidentlyconfusesoratleastinsufficiently with thefirsthypostasis.Hededucedinarationalway,relationofEinSoftoworld, tive (apophatical)theology,hethenerroneouslyandwithoutanyexplanationequatesit defines thetranscendentalabsoluteusingkabbalistictermEin-Sof,i.e.bymeansofnega- philosopher, SergeiBulgakov(1871–1944).AccordingtoBulgakov,althoughhe[Soloviev] to thatofthebranchlatterdevelopedintoMasonickabbalahandlateoccultism. Jewish andclassicalChristiankabbalah;atthesametime,hisapproachistypologicallysimilar out theSpiritthataffirmsIt[…].” Logos because“byItsverynatureItcannotbewithouttheWordthatexpressesIt,andwith- that “theexistenceisEinSofdeterminedbytheLogos.”Thus,mediated makes theveryexistenceofEinSofconditionalonLogos,claiming in EinSofandtheHolySpirit.”Finally,SolovievshiftstoaclearlyChristianterminology the beingarepresupposedbyLogos;theynotpresentinAbsoluteitself,thatis, (Logos): “Themostbasicdefinitionsordistinctionsoftheexistence,essence,and third elements(EinSof,andtheSpiritorSophia)and,onother,secondelement the emanationof10sephirot.In first formoftheemanationEinSof.However,sometimes thistermdenotesthetotalityof others aswell)wastheideaofAdamKadmon. interpretative generalprinciplesunderlyingtheirexplanationsofkabbalisticmaterials. phase oftheabsolutelyexistentisEinSof,orGodFather(thePrimevalGod).” iev’s presentation.Infact,hesimplyidentifiesEinSofwithGodtheFather,stating:“Thefirst product oftheself-limitation EinSof,canappearintheformofsephirot. Sof istotallyinaccessibleandcannotappeardirectlyviathe sephirot;onlyAdamKadmon,a accessible tothegraspofmystic.Accordingdoctrine ofIsaacLuria(1534–72),Ein Sof andtheworldofsephirot.Itisjustthisformdivine manifestationthatbecomes of theworld,whichfirstappearedoutEinSof,andisakind ofintermediarybetweenEin whole Universe.In16th-centuryLurianicKabbalah,AdamKadmon isperceivedasthelight During the16thto18thcenturies, AdamKadmonbecameoneofthemainconcepts It isimpossibletodiscoverpreciselywhichspecificsourcesmighthaveprovided Notably, Soloviev’streatmentoftheEinSofwasseverelycriticizedbyanotherRussian Thus, inhisChristianizinginterpretationsSolovievdiffersconsiderablyfromboth Soloviev proceedstopresentthedistinctionbetween,ononehand,firstand In KabbalahAdamKadmon—the“Primordial”or“Heavenly Man”—isthehighestand Another JewishmysticalconceptadoptedbySoloviev(and,asshallbeseenlater, 29
However, itmakesmostsensetospeakofatypologicalsimilaritybetweentheir 27 30
The terrestrialmanisareflectionoftheheavenlyoneandalso ofthe KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY 28 25 Aswecansee,theEinSoflosesitsabstractnessinSolov- Zohar
the heavenlypersonisincarnationofall 31 26 161 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 162 his ideasandtheKabbalah. Swedenborg asagreatmysticandvisionary,pointedto thesimilaritybetweensomeof commonplace amongEuropeanesotericists. be analogoustotheChristiandoctrineofeternalJesus,thisidentificationbecamea Athanasius Kircher(1601–80),whoconsideredtheJewishconceptionofAdamKadmonto between AdamKadmonandChrist.WiththeappearanceofworkslearnedJesuit of JacobBoehme. All ofthemweretoagreaterorlesserdegreeinspiredbythe Kabbalah.Thisisespeciallytrue Boehme, Paracelsus,AgrippaofNettesheim,JohnPordage,Eliphas LeviandHelenaBlavatsky. writings ofother European mystics,occultists andnaturalphilosophers,includingJacob of L.C.deSaint-Martinwhichhavesomekabbalisticassociations. Hewasknowntostudythe Kadmon, thePrimordialMan.ThisisindicatedinadraftofSoloviev’s vation fromEinSof.However,ChristdoesnotrefertotheGod-manJesusChrist,butAdam only ashis“hieroglyph”or“effectiverepresentation,”nottherealSaviour. with whomthePrimordialJesusisidentified:historicalofNazarethreferredto assumes anextremeform,wheretheroleofSaviourisascribedtoPrimordialAdam, whose imagemankindwascreated.Forexample,intheworksofIvanElaginthisidea a cleardistinctionbetweenthehistoricalJesusandAdamKadmonasPrimordialChrist,in fact that,unlikeearlierwritersonthesubject,RussianMasonsoflate18thcenturymade is beyondthescopeofpresentstudy.Whatparticularimportance,however, occupies acentralposition.AfullexpositionofthecomplexMasonicteachingonthisfigure century amongMasonsandRosicrucians. and universalbrotherhoodarepossible. Christ ispresentinthesoulsofallpeopleregardlesstheirreligion,anduniversalsalvation 17th centuryassumedthat,sinceallsoulswereoriginallycontainedinJesus-AdamKadmon, some important kabbalistictexts,including fragmentsofthe Kabbala Denudata were availabletoSolovievand someotherRussianthinkerswasthefamousanthology religious philosophers. and—through themorindependently ofthem—onVladimirSolovievandsomeother an obviousinfluenceontheteachingofRussian“theoretical” masonsinthelate18thcentury, to havebeenacquaintedwiththeJewishkabbalistictradition. Inanyevent,thesimilarityhad some otheresotericistsandJewishmysticaldoctrines,these Christianauthorswereunlikely its interpretationsinChristiankabbalahofthe16thand17thcenturies. borg’s doctrine,inturn,showsacloseaffinitytothekabbalisticconceptofAdamKadmonand of “theGrandMan,”inparticularthisconcernsSoloviev’sconceptGodmanhood.Sweden- Soloviev’s specificsources.ItisquitepossiblethathewasinfluencedbySwedenborg’sidea ical Jesus.However,asinthecaseofconceptEinSof,here,too,itisdifficulttodetermine Elagin, heidentifiesAdamKadmonwithChrist-Logoswhomdistinguishesfromthehistor- Kadmon, or“thesoulofhumanity,isthethinkingcentreandinternallinkallbeings.” beneath thisTrinity,thusdrawingadistinctionbetweentheminprinciple. refers tobythenames“Logos,”“Christ,”and“AdamKadmon.”HeplaceshistoricalJesus which heplacesthehighestTrinityattop,towhosesecondTrinitarianhypostasis KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV According toSoloviev,SophiaandChristappearintheprocessofemanationorderi- In theMasonicsystem,doctrineofAdamKadmon,primordialhumanbeing, Among themoreauthenticsources ofknowledgeabouttheJewishKabbalahthat Repeating theideasofMasonsandProtestantmystics,SolovievwritesthatAdam 39 , composedinGermanythe late17thcentury.Itcontainstranslationsof Notwithstandingthestrikingaffinitybetweenideasof Boehme and 38
The Russianphilosopherwasalsostronglyinspiredbytheviews 34 33
This ideagainedgreatpopularityinthe18th 32
Protestant pietistsandmillenariansofthe Zohar Sophia and writingsof Isaac 37 35
, byadiagramin Soloviev ranked 36
Like Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 Kabbalah arepresentedadequatelyenough. published bytheBrockhaus-EfronPublishingCompany,wherehistoryanddoctrinesof this area.Thisisparticularlyobviousinhisarticle“Kabbalah”theencyclopaedicdictionary Kabbalah thattheBaronrecommended,Solovievsignificantlybroadenedhisknowledgein Baron DavidGünzburg,anexpertinthefieldofJewishmysticism,andwithbooksabout works relatingto“theJewishquestion.” alien tothe“real”TalmudicJudaismand,therefore,sawnoneedreferKabbalahinhis scholarly worksabouttheKabbalah.Evidently,heconsideredkabbalistictraditiontobe studies andJewishhistorytradition,butthereisnotasinglereferenceinhiswritingsto Sophiology werebasedonthekabbalisticconceptof ular, M.FrenchassumedthatSoloviev’sviewsaboutSophia andallofsubsequentRussian with thisbook. Luria andMosheCordovero.ThereissomeevidencethatVladimirSolovievwasacquainted elements inSoloviev’s cosmogonyandinhis interpretationofthedivinehierarchy. Soloviev’s interestsincehisyouth. Atthesametime,wecandiscernevidentkabbalistic (1889) probablybearsanimprint ofGnosticism,whichhadbeenaconstantobject of description ofSophiainSoloviev’s works in Russiafromthelate18thcentury, whentheyweretranslatedbytheMasons.Besides, Pordage, GottfriedArnoldand JohannGeorgGichtel.Theirwritingsenjoyedwidepopularity some Europeanmysticsofthe16thto18thcenturies, including JacobBoehme,John Christian background,hisconceptofSophiaisprimarilya reinterpretation oftheviews stood itfarbetterthansomeofhisfollowers. this periodasonly“adilettanteinregardtoJewishmysticism,”itwasclearthatheunder- cism. the Jewishenlightenment(theHaskalah),whichwashostiletoallmanifestationsofmysti- read aboutJewishhistoryandthereligion,wereallcloselyconnectedtotraditionsof in thesestudies(FaivelGets)andotherJewsofhisacquaintance,aswellthebooksthathe him frombecomingacquaintedwithgenuineJewishmysticism.Thiswasbecausehisguide in hisarticlesrelatingtoJews.Asstrangeasitmayseem,Soloviev’sJewishstudiesprevented concept ofSophia,theWisdomGod,andonsubsequent RussianSophiology. specific conclusiontobedrawnontheirbasis. androgynism) haveparallelsinthekabbalistictradition,but thesearetoogeneralforany ences toJewishmysticism,whilesomeoftheideashe elaborates (e.g.theconceptof edge mayhaveinfluencedhislateviews.Inworksofthatperiodtherearenodirectrefer- anyone whotookthetroubletoreadherworks. said nothingaboutthepseudo-kabbalisticbasisofherdoctrines,whichwasobviousto groundlessness ofthetheosophists’“neo-Buddhism,”inhisarticlesonBlavatskySoloviev volume worksofH.P.Blavatsky.Nevertheless,itissignificantthat,whilehecriticizedthe Theosophist Kabbalah; hecontinuedtostudymysticalandoccultliterature,subscribedthejournal 1880s). Inthe1880stherewashardlyanysignificantchangeinhisattitudetowards early periodofhisliteraryactivity(thesecondhalfthe1870sandbeginning preceded thecreationofworld. 42 There aregroundstoassumethat,afterbecomingacquainted,intheearly1890s,with Most scholarsassertthatKabbalahexertedthegreatest influenceonSoloviev’s Unfortunately, itisdifficulttosaywhatdegreeSoloviev’snewlyacquiredknowl- Most ofthematerialsthatrevealSoloviev’sinterestinJewishmysticismrelateto
Of course,SolovievwasacquaintedwiththescholarlyliteratureofhistimeinBiblical
(the officialorganoftheTheosophicalSociety)andwasstudyingmulti- 40 KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY 47
My opinion,however,isthat,withitsspecifically Sophia 43 44 45
Although Solovievreferredtohimselfduring 41
(1875) and He alsosaidnothingabouttheKabbalah zimzum , God’sself-contraction,which La Russieetl’Egliseuniverselle 46
In partic- The 163 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 164 Schmidt), followedSoloviev’sapproachtwodecadesearlier. Yezirah kabbalistic doctrine,Bulgakovconsultedtranslationsoftraditionaltexts, the Father. of EinSof,andhisincorrectidentificationSofwiththefirsthypostasisTrinity,God standing ofthekabbalistictradition,stressing,inparticular,hisrationalizationconcept kabbalah. Asnotedabove,onmorethanoneoccasion,BulgakovcriticizedSoloviev’sunder- theosophical interpretationsofthesetexts,seeingthemasacleartravestytheJewish Bulgakov comes tothefollowingconclusion: “Theideaofthepersonasamicrocosm, which Zohar tree whichcontainsinitselfthe completefullnessofDivineenergies,orsephirot.”Citingthe “the LordJesusChristissucha totalorganism.”ForBulgakov,AdamKadmon“isthesephirotic the corpusofmystichuman organism[…]ofAdamKadmon,”and,aftertheincarnation standing ofhumanityasasingle being.Everypersonis“partofthewhole[…]hebelongs to Western Christiankabbalah.Alsocloselyconnectedwiththis doctrineisBulgakov’sunder- compares AdamKadmontotheHeavenlyManChrist,thus showingclearparallelswith the treeofkabbalisticsephirotwhichcontainsfullness ofDivineenergy.Bulgakov teaching abouttheHeavenlyMan,AdamKadmon.According toBulgakov,AdamKadmonis Bulgakov spokeofcreationnot thing aboutJewishmysticism(e.g.ProfessorM.Muretov). which tocriticizethosefewRussianauthorswhoendeavoured,atthattime,writesome- the worksofAdolfFranck,ErichBischoffandAugustWünsche);thisgavehimabasisfrom starting in1910(asreflected,mostofall, to Kabbalahwhile,inhisbook and P.A.Florenskii(1882–1937).tooktoitslogicalconclusiontheoccultapproach were heldbyphilosopherswhoconsideredthemselvesfollowersofSoloviev—S.N.Bulgakov Losev, wereinterestedinKabbalah.However,thetwotraditionalattitudestowardsKabbalah which it[Kabbalah]approachesbyitsownessentialteachings andaspirations.” whereby “kabbalisticteachingaboutEinSof[…]bringsKabbalahclosetoChristianity, conclusion thathadbeenreachedearlierbyPicodellaMirandolaandJohannesReuchlin, detail theconceptofEinSof,whichhecomparedtoChristianapophatism,reaching 17th centuries.Thus,inhisexpositionofnegativetheology,Bulgakovconsideredgreat theological system,inthissensefollowingtheclassicalChristiankabbalistsof15thto contribution tothehistoryofreligions.Heusedkabbalisticideasforelaboratinghisown edge thatBulgakovdrewfromtheJewishmysticaltraditionwassignificantbeyondits their pointofdeparturethefoundationthatVladimirSolovievhadlaid. ingly revivedtheclassicaldoctrineofChristiankabbalah.Nevertheless,boththemtookas of Sophia.”Hedirectlyreferredtothesourcethisinterpretation—as the was “createdoutsideofthesixdayscreation”andthatabsorbed intoitselfthe“pleroma KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV
No lesssignificantforBulgakov’sunderstandingoftheimage ofGodinmanisthe In elaboratinghisunderstandingofthecreationworld “inSophiaandviaSophia,” Bulgakov wasalsofamiliarwithmanyscholarlyworksaboutKabbalah(inparticular, One maysaythatBulgakov,whostudiedJewishmysticismseriouslyinthedecade Sergei Bulgakov Many Russianthinkersofthattime,forexampleV.Rozanov,L.A.TikhomirovandA.F. a numberoftimesandcomparing kabbalisticdoctrinewiththatoftheNewTestament,
(The BookofFormation)andthe 49 Svet Neverchernii ex nihilo
but fromsomekindof“ Zohar Svet Nevechernyii . Hehadaverynegativeopinionofoccultand
(The Non-EveningLight),Bulgakovsurpris- 50 48 , andinhisarticlesaboutAnna
At thesametime,knowl- In hisattemptstounderstand Bogozemlia ” (God-earth)that Zohar 51 . 52 Sefer Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 which donotcontainthematallortobookshavenever existed.” adulterations, andaccompaniedbyagreatmanyfalsetextual references,oftentobooks this “oftenutterlyfantastic[i.e.unreliable]Frenchtranslation” was“fullofdistortionsand marred byanumberoffeaturesbetrayingitspoorquality. According toGershomScholem, A. Losev),aswellBulgakov,madeuseofthisopportunity. However,thetranslationwas main bookoftheKabbalahinitsentirety.AndotherRussian authors (suchasN.Berdyaevand the firsttimeeducatedEuropeanshadopportunityto gainsomefamiliaritywiththe century, oneneedstoconsiderthematteringreaterdetail. Asaresultofitsappearance,for influence thatthistranslationhadonthereceptionofKabbalah inEuropeearlythe “the secretdoctrine ofIsrael.”Asaresult,asScholem observed,Waite“read manythingsinto became popular,includingin Russia) reliedtotallyondePauly’stranslationforhisanalysis of 20th centuries,ArthurE.Waite, theauthorofanumberbooksaboutKabbalah(that on thetranslation’sreaders.For example,thewellknownoccultistoflate19thandearly only intheinexactitudeofhis translation,butalsointheimpressionthatKabbalahhadleft Scholem noted,thetranslator washardlyacquaintedwithKabbalahandthisresultednot ( mates,” aterrestrialwifeandheavenlyspouse,the female natureofthehumanbeing”andalsotothatmarriagemanwith“twohelp- ness ofsex”inKabbalah.BulgakovwasparticularlyattractedtotheZoharicidea“themale- towards womancontrastswith“thefeelingofprofoundrealityandprimordiality,”right- common) differedsignificantlyonthisissue.Boehme’sunambiguouslynegativeattitude Bulgakov notedthattheideasofBoehmeandKabbalah(whichhavesomanythingsin ing on“themysteryofsex”andthemysticalmeaningunionmanwoman,” made frequentuseofkabbalisticliteraturewhendiscussingthesignificancesex.Meditat- of thehumanbeing,divisionintotwosexes,Fall,andproblemmarriage.He Bulgakov constantlyreferredtotheKabbalahinhisanthropology,referencecreation and modern times,hasnowherereceivedsuchaprofoundinterpretationasinKabbalah.” has beenexpressedmanytimesinthephilosophicalandmysticalliteratureofancient ning ofthe20thcenturybyabaptizedGalicianJew,Jeande Pauly. dependent onthesix-volumeFrenchtranslationof like manyotherwriterswhowereinterestedinKabbalahduringthatperiod,hewasbasically clearly exceedsotherRussianthinkersofhistime.Atthesametime,itshouldbenotedthat, the tenthsephirah, tification bySolovievofSophiaeitherwiththesecondsephirahC explaining theOldTestamentdoctrineofSophia.” the world […]theKabbalahessentiallyapproachesChristianity,whileatsametime he states thatinits“originallyexpoundeddoctrineabouttheSophia-ness( Shekhinah (theDivinePresenceintheworld).Indescribingkabbalisticcosmology, Slava Bozh’ya In hisprofundityandtheextentoffamiliaritywithkabbalisticdoctrineBulgakov In expoundinghisdoctrineofSophia,Bulgakovagainavoidstheratherconfusediden- the heavenlyworld,withconsortingShekhinah. Inclination]. However,theesotericwisdomofKabbalahlinksthisecstasywithanascentto midrashic andkabbalisticunderstandingoftheFallasEve’sbeingseducedbyEvil seed, poisonedtheecstasyofflesh[hereBulgakovisonceagainreferringto connected …withthefeelingofdivision,sorrow[since]Snake,hisimpure The spiritualandphysicalunionoftwoinoneflesh,asitisgiventhenormcreation, ). AsBulgakovwrote: Malkhut KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY
(Kingdom). 54
According toBulgakov,SophiaisDivineGlory,the 55 Zohar Shekhinah 53 , whichwasmadeatthebegin- hokhmah -Sophia or“DivineGlory” 56
In ordertogaugethe 57
(Wisdom) orwith
Furthermore, as Sofiynost’ ) of 165 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 166 often citedthem. AsforPapus’sownknowledge ofJewishmysticism,he wasafollower Florenskii wasquitefamiliar also withmanyotherworksbyPapusandhisdisciples extremely illiterateRussian translation, wereveryfarfromtruekabbalisticdoctrines. of Papus’sbook,whileoftenprovidingincorrectreferences. ing occultinterpretationsastrue“kabbalistic”teaching,Florenskii citedtheRussianedition mysticism thatherepresentedhaddiedoutbythe18thcentury. as was prevalentinhistimes.Inthisrespectheunique,astherelationshiptoJewish Baroque periods.BulgakovwasremarkablyfreeofsuchoccultdistortionstheKabbalah our timeincontrasttotheirpredecessors,theChristiankabbalistsofRenaissanceand justified. Dependenceonbadtranslationsistheunfortunatelotofkabbalisticenthusiasts in dePauly’s and, often,alsothedesiretocheckaccuracyoftranslationkabbalistictexts,found to theMunichPsychological Society. who referredtoLeiningenas a “contemporarykabbalist.”Thelecturewasdeliveredin1887 paraphrasing alecturebythe occultistKarlW.Leiningen-Billigheim,publishedbyPapus, him viathelearnedoccultistPapuswouldagainhavebeen mistaken.Infact,Florenskiiwas assumed thatFlorenskiiwaspresentinggenuinelyancient Jewishteachingsthatreached is nothisnegligenceincitingsources,butthesourcestowhich herefers.Anyreaderwho nature oftheHebrewalphabetanddoctrinenamesGod. center fromwhichalldevelops.”OfparticularimportancetoFlorenskiiarethemystical doctrines ofEinSof,the10sephirot,primarypointor,asFlorenskiiputsit,“theontological He mentionsconceptsthatweregenuinelydrawnfromtheJewishKabbalah,suchas references canbefoundinsuchworksas the the Truth), Thought), alongwitharticlesonthetopicof triune natureofhumanexistence“accordingtotheteaching oftheKabbalah.” studies onthesetopicsarecited,particularlyinthenotestohis as inworksaboutmagic,demonology,astrology,etc.Longbibliographiesoftreatisesand Florenskii wasextremelywellreadinoccult,theosophicalandothersuchliterature,as “kabbalah” and“kabbalists.”Theseappearfirstinhisearlyworks,beginning1904. ered reliable.TheworksofFlorenskiicontainasufficientlylargenumberreferencesto understand thenatureofhisapproachsimplybyanalysingsourcesheusedandconsid- theosophical kabbalahwasthebook general occultattitudetowardsJewishmysticism.Thus,hismainsourceonspeculative, drew hisknowledgeaboutthemexclusivelyfromoccultsourcesandevidentlysharedthe While heundoubtedlywasawareoftheJewishoriginkabbalisticdoctrines,Florenskii either toanyrealkabbalisticworkorevenscholarlyaboutJewishmysticism. denie istiny century (whoseworksremainextremelypopulartothepresent day). Encausse) probablythemostimportantcodifierofoccult knowledgeintheearly20th KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV Zohar It wasthisworkthatFlorenskiireferredtowhenexplaining whathedescribedasthe What werethesourcesofhisknowledgeaboutthesematters?Itiswellknownthat We findquiteadifferentattitudetowardsJewishmysticisminFlorenskii.Onecan Pavel Florenskii
that aresimplynotthere.” . Surprisingly,however,throughouthisworksonedoesnotfindasinglereference Imena Zohar
(The Names),
the mostfantasticideas.Asweshallseebelow,thisassumptionisfully Ikonostas 58
It isverylikelythatRussianreaders,lackingtheability 65 Kabbalah
(Iconostatis) and Stolp iutverzhdenieistiny
Leiningen-Billigheim’s views, presentedinan imyaslavie
by thefamousoccultistPapus(Gérard
(the glorificationoftheholynames). Vodorazdely mysli 64 magnum opus
However, whatisimportant (ThePillarandGroundof 62 61
, (Watersheds of Stolp iutverzh- 63
59 Present-
These 60 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 “infinitesimal” andhisbooksas“supremecharlatanism.” Masonic tradition.GershomScholemcharacterizedPapus’sknowledgeofKabbalahas d’Olivet (1767–1825),LazareLenain,E.Levi,StanislasdeGuaita(1861–97),andtextsofthe those of histeacher,J.A.Saint-Yvesd’Alveydre(1842–1909),aswellworksFabre of the ratherlongtraditionofoccult Kabbalah,andhebasedhisideas,firstofall,on clear similaritytothoseofV.Rozanov. Florenskii’s intuitions,andhisinterestinJewishmysticismatthattime(1916),revealeda “subject” and“object”mightmeaninanyreligioustradition,itshouldbenotedthat elaborate aphilosophicalexplanationoftheirideas. this perspective iscompletelyinaccordwith thedoctrineofnamesinKabbalah. ontologically uniteallofthose whobearthem”as“ecclesiasticalanduniversal”and,indeed, ence.” Florenskiireferstothe“understanding ofnamesasform-creatingforcesthatactually, rules ofcounterpointandharmony.” revealed byitsname,alltherest isonlyasimpleelaborationofthisthemeaccordingtothe personality, a Florenskii referstoaperson’snameas“logosspermatikos,” themysticalcentreofhisorher energy thatwasorganizedinahierarchicalmanner.In1912, inalettertoV.A.Kozhevnikov, referred tokabbalisticdoctrine.Forhim,names,ingeneral, representedsomerepositoryof Christian doctrineofreverencefortheDivineName,which,during Florenskii’s philosophyoflanguage.Heattemptedtointerpretphilosophicallytheancient between wordandreality,theinternalexternalformsofwerebasicto the wholeKabbalah.” and object,butthereisonlytheconceptofhusbandwifeingnoseology.Andthat marriage, Florenskiiclaimsthat“inverylateJudaismthereisnoconceptatallofsubject Wife–Offspring”). Alludingtothemysticandecstaticsignificanceofcircumcision (“Father–Son–Spirit”) withthe“trinityofmarriage”“Semitictheosophy”(“Husband– ing andperceptionsoftheworld,hecontrasted“trinitybirth”“Aryantheosophy” when Florenskiiwasdiscussingdifferencesbetween“Aryan”and“Semitic”typesofthink- although inalllikelihoodtheytooweresimilartextsofanoccultnature.Thus,forexample, and “kabbalists.”Inparticular,hecomparedAdamKadmon,viaNietzsche’s Spiritual Academy,Florenskiireferredseveraltimesandfordifferentreasonsto“kabbalah” gians, PavelFlorenskicameoutinsupportofthename-glorifiers ( doctrine wascondemned.AlongwithsomeofRussianOrthodox philosophersandtheolo- removed fromMountAthostobescatteredthroughout theRussianEmpire,andtheir movement arousedthenegativereactionofchurchofficials. Themonkswereforcibly own interpretationofthedoctrineholynamesandtheirglorification.Fromoutsetthis atic philosophicalexpression.Atthattime,agroupofmonksinMountAthosproposedtheir the RussianChurchinseconddecadeof20thcentury,calledparticularlyforsystem- translation ofthe terms the mostimportantsourceofknowledgeaboutKabbalah,six-volumeDePauly theosophist andKabbalahhavealreadybeennoted).HereFlorenskiireferstowhathe the HeavenlyPersonofSwedenborg(theparallelsbetweendoctrinesSwedish In hislectures Every wordhasadirectlinkwith reality,withideasthatpossessa“hypostaticexist- In hisworksonlanguageandnames,Florenskiialso, more thanoneoccasion, Problems relatedtothenatureoflanguageandstatusnames,connection The sourcesofFlorenskii’sother“kabbalistic”constructsarenotsoobvious, res realior Zohar Smysl’ idealizma 67
, withwhichhewasmostprobablyfamiliar. , fullofpositiveenergies,notingthat“thethemeapersonality is Although itisnotentirelyclearwhatthephilosophicalconceptsof KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY
(The MeaningofIdealism),deliveredattheMoscow 69 66 68 imyavlavtsi imyaslavie Übermensch ) andtriedto 70
disputes in
Florenskii , to 167 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 168 the structureandinternaldynamicscharacteristicofnames. created synagoguepoetry. letter Hebrewrootswassharedbyamajorityoftheancient writersofHebrewhymns,who ity, [itis]knowledgeabouttheworldthatismanifestedinword.” mere label[…]notanarbitraryandrandomfabricationbutitisfullofthoughtreal- supplementing eachother.Henoted,inconclusion,that“forallpeoplesthenameisnota “knower” andrelatedtocognition.ThesetwowaysofknowingwereseenbyFlorenskiias related to“cognizablereality”andtheAryanname( tudes towardslinguisticrealityassuchor,inhiswords,betweentheJewishname( Florenskii attempts,inparticular,toexplainthedifferencebetweenSemiticandAryanatti- God isthelivingentryintoOneWhoIsNamed.” relationship” withGod;inotherwords,Florenskiibelievedthat“pronouncingtheNameof a personpronouncestheDivinenameinprayer,he“necessarilyentersintosomekindofreal noted thatDivineNamespossesthehighestlevelofenergy,i.e.theyaremostreal.When in theschoolofprophetic(ecstatic)kabbalahAbrahamAbulafia(13thcentury). ing-meditation” abouttheHolyNamehasdirectparallelsinJewishmysticism,particular, he attemptedtoreconstructtheoriginalmeaningofhumanity’sprotolanguage. ries, thefirstof which istheidea,“thesource of bothexistenceandcognition.” Fromtheidea Florenskii’s “systemofcognitive elements.”Heconstructedaparadigmofcognitivecatego- circles. Primaryamongtheseworkswasd’Olivet’s who wasquitepopularbothamongRussiantheosophistsandoccultistsinSymbolist names wastheworkoffamousFrenchoccultistandMason,AntoineFabred’Olivet, the Name.” Name “representstheconcentratedpowerofGodhimself,andthisisexpressedin general since,asScholemstates,allofGod’somnipotenceisconcentratedinHisName,the be notedthatsuchanattitudetothe[Divine]NameischaracteristicalsoofJewishmysticsin of letters. down usingtheHebrewalphabetanddividingthemintoseparateletterscombinations resorts tokabbalisticorquasi-kabbalisticmethodsofdeconstructingwords,writingthem istoricheskom osveshchenii Divine itself. rately, bythecombinationoflettersinbinarygroups. body—came intoexistenceasaresultoftheinteraction of the22lettersor,moreaccu- created. Alltherealbeingsinthreecosmicstrata—the world,timeandthehuman precisely bycombiningthe22 letters intotwo-letterpairs,thatthe material worldwas numbers, orsephirot,andthe22 letters oftheHebrewalphabet.Accordingtothis text,itis this workdescribesthelinguisticprocessofcreation theworldbymeansof10 from anancientJewishtraditionconnectedwiththe three, letters.Althoughmodernscholarshipdoesnotshare thisview,itevidentlystems traditional Hebrewgrammarians,heclaimedthattheseroots werecomposedoftwo,not discover thebasic,originalrootsofancientHebrewlanguage.Moreover,incontrastto considered thistobeoneofthestagesmessianicprocess.D’Olivetattempted tradition ofletter-mysticism. elements andtheninterpreting these,FlorenskiiwasalsofollowingtheancientJewish KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV The parallelwiththe For Florenskii,thebasicsourceforkabbalisticdeconstructionofwordsand When discussingthesemanticsofpropernamesinhiswork 74 73 Attributingtotheselettersspecificmetaphysicalfeatures,heattemptsreveal
The onewhocontemplatestheNamewithinnersightcommunicates
(Names: theMetaphysicsofNamesinHistoricContext),Florenskii 79 80
Following d’Olivet,andbreaking namesdownintotwo-letter Sefer Yezirah
is evenmoreapparentwhen oneconsiders 71 The RevivedHebrewLanguage
Such apracticeof“intellectualponder- 78 Sefer Yezirah
As Scholemnoted,theideaoftwo- nomen) , thatisconnectedtothe Imena: Metafizikaimenv . Asisgenerallyknown, 75 76
Using thismethod, , inwhich 72
shem It may 77
He ), Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 dangerous, formofpositivismandprofanation. his day,consideringthemtobechannelsofarefinedand,therefore,hundredtimesmore of occultismassuch:heoften,andveryharshly,criticizedocculttheosophicalideas symbolism ofKabbalah.Ofcourse,itwouldnotbecorrecttoconsiderFlorenskiiafollower d’Olivet copiously,hedeclaredanumberoftimesthatwasusingtherealmethodsand basically referredtooccultsourcesalthoughhedidnotadmitthis.Forexample,citing created things—thisisthe“innerworld.” this worldiscreatedbyletters,alloppositionsandlawsdefiningitsexistence,aswell dimensions oftheworld,i.e.worldspaceandtime,“externalworld.”Allthatfills The numbersarethefourbasicur-elements(thefirstisSpiritofLivingGod)andsix says thatGodcreated10primarynumberswithoutattributes,and22foundationalletters. he believedthat: attitude tocontemporaryoccultism,whichhecalls“falseoccultism.”Florenskiiwritesthat one ofFlorenskii’sletters,inwhichthephilosopherexplainsreasonsforhisnegative constructions. ThisconcernsKabbalahinparticular.Thus,V.Nikitincitesanexcerptfrom specific ideas(whichhebelievedtobeancientandauthentic)usedtheminhisown interest in“thesecretsciences”assuch,heratheroftenborrowedfromsuchsources late 18thandearly19thcenturies. with otherworksofthatkind, which weretranslatedandpublishedbyRussianMasonsinthe ing membersoftheRosicrucian movementoftheearly17thcentury,ChristophHirsch,and kabbalistic tradition,inparticular, withthetreatise and Saint-Martin.Hewasalsofamiliarwithtextsoftheearlier occult(magical-alchemical) respect andunderstandingtoearlierEuropeanmysticslike Boehme,Pordage,Swedenborg ciently Aryanforthem. kabbalah “withthesmellofgarlic.”Onemustassumethatthis kindofkabbalahwasinsuffi- As wesee,forFlorenskii“theoccultistsbythegraceofGod” didnotapproveoffindlinking element, theidea. two worlds(theexternalandtheinternal)thataresubordinatetohighestontological is importanttonotethatthereexist,accordingFlorenskii,twosupremeelementsofthe complex (fromeachoftheelementsapaircategorieswasderived,etc.).However,forusit while thenamereflectsidea“pneumatologically.”Florenskii’snextparadigmwasmore ant ofsubjectivity.Furthermore,numberiscosmologicallywhattheideaontologically, both numberandnamearederived;istheformofexternalorganization,invari- devoted particular attentiontotheso-called conceptofthe incense. and tosmelltheodourof of God,itisrepulsivetoseehowthestinkingmobpushesitself intothecavesofmystery— Thus, whenspeakingaboutkabbalisticlinguisticsandKabbalahingeneral,Florenskii Furthermore, whileFlorenskiicriticizedcontemporaryoccultists, herelatedwithgreat Yet anotheraspectofFlorenskii’s kabbalisticinterestsshouldbementioned.He ing withflirtingwomenpresent—thatis this atopicforsatiricalsketchreadovermorningteaorreportduringmusicalgather- be whisperedbyonepersonintoanother’sear,andwhichwaslistenedtowithfear,make talking inthoseareaswheresilenceisnecessary.Tomakeoutofkabbalah,whichusedto not becauseoftheircontents(whichisaseparatequestion),buttheretoomuch all theosophicaljournals,societies,andbrochuresareaprofoundlynegativephenomenon 83 81
A verysimilarparadigmcanbefoundin KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY 84 garlic
that poisonsthesweetsmellofmostdelicate so unesoteric 82
At thesametime,havinganundeniable Gemma Magica
[…] Andtotheoccultistsbygrace The BookofFormation kelippot , byoneoftheoutstand- . IsaacLuriaand his , which 169 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 170 liberation wastoplayanimportantroleinuniversalRedemption. “Other Side”( kelim which emergedafterthecosmiccatastropheof“breakingvessels”( charge ofritualmurderAndriushaYushchinskyintheBeiliscase. murder. brought aboutbyJewsmurderingChristiansnotsimplyashomicidebutintheformofritual sparks whichwasnecessaryinordertobringclosertheadventofMessiahbe Pranaitis, A.S.Shmakov,N.ButmiandT.I.Butkevich.Intheirview,theliberationof connection withritualmurder. These kabbalisticideaswereknowntoRussiananti-Semiticauthorswhotriedusethemin Hallamish putsit Zohar, redemption willhappenonlyaftercompleteextermination ofAmalekim.AsMoshe Jews wagedagainstAmalekim(Christians?)inhabitedthekingdomofEdom.Accordingto and Persia orGreece;cf.Zohar1:25a–b),thekabbaliststoldaboutunceasingwar In view ofthezoharicidea“FourthCaptivity” Jews(afterEgypt,Babylonia, school ofKabbalahbelievedintheconcept“theshells”or“husks”( between them. and Rozanovbelievedinthe“kabbalistic” motivesforritualmurder,asisclearinotherletters pers,” i.e.theChristians,whom itisnecessary“toeliminatefromtheworld.”BothFlorenskii Rozanov, however,believesthat theJewsemployterm he usesintheRussianpluralform who havealreadysubmittedtopositivism.”Insummary,for Florenskiithese claims that“those”Jewsarepresentingcertain“vilethings”and his addresseefortoo“simplistic”anunderstandingofthepernicious plansoftheJews,and element ispresent,however,ina1913letterfromFlorenskii toRozanov.Florenskiicriticizes attitude tothesemattersisthatofanon-judgdmental,objective researcher.Asubjective anonymously for thecollection Thus, R.HayyimVitalclaimedthat“thesoulsof ists—especially thosewhobelongedtotheLurianschool—identifiedkellipotwithgentiles. the nationsarefromexternalforcesofhusks( Israel ( ness atall,becausetheydonothaveasoulfromthesideofholiness,butkelippot.” “the pagans,even[iftheyperform]allthesinsinworld,donotdamagerealmofholi- identifies the vation aboutshellsisfoundalsoinhis spond totheoccult“spiritists’spirits”(inregardwhichhe cites Blavatsky).Acuriousobser- Florenskii. Alreadyinhis between theobviousconceptualclosenessoftheseanti-Semiticviewsandideas Hayyim 49:3) people ofIsraelareemanatedfromholiness.” KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV , inHebrew).ThesekabbalistsidentifiedtheshellswithdarkforcesofEvilor We findsuchanideainthewritingsofideologuesRussianAntisemitismasI.E. Florenskii’s manifestmystical anti-Judaismwasexpressedinaprefacehepenned of vitality,theirexistencewouldtherebybedestroyed. responsibility tofreetheholysparksimprisonedamongnations;bereftoftheirsource the missionofJewishpeopleistorectifyworld,notnations.ItJew’s neshamot ummaisraelit 90
This ideaplayedanessentialroleintheattemptstofindakabbalisticbasisfor 86 kelippot sitra ahra , and,accordingtoR.SheftelHorowitzofPrague,“thesoulsthepeople 93
with “astralcorpsesanddemonic‘larvae’.” , inHebrew),which“imprisoned”thesparksofDivinelight,whose Stolp iutverzhdenieistiny ) aredivineintheiressence…whereasthesouls( Izrail’ vproshlom, nastoiashchemibudushchem klipoty ) aretheevilforcesbywhichJewscorruptChristians. Vodorazdeli mysli 87
R. MosheCordoveronotesonthispoint,that kelippot goyim , hementionssome“shells”thatcorre-
come from3kelippot…ofevil”(Etz )… andthesouls( 89 , aswell kelippot klipoty 92 85
It seemsthatFlorenskii’s to refer“idolworship- Moreover, somekabbal-
91 “as luresforChristians kelippot Ikonostas
There isanaffinity neshamot kelippot
, inHebrew), (Israel inthe nefashot , wherehe shvirat ha- ) ofthe (which ) of 88 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 cites theone-volumeabridgedversionthatappearedin 1926. by hiswife,ValentinaM.Loseva. means oftheDivinealphabet. doctrines ofEinSof,the[Divine]Nameandothernames,creationworldby Zohar about names,”buthelimitshimselftocitingextensivelyfromtheFrenchtranslationof He twicereferstohisintentionwriteaseparateworksettingout“theteachingofKabbalah cults” thatwere“thebasisforMasonry.” Past, PresentandFuture),inwhichhediscussesthe“Jewishorigin”of“satanicluciferian contained thesix-volumeeditionofDePauly’sFrenchversion. However,in former friendof Rozanov,whocompiledMarxist anthologiesinthe1920s onthehistoryof sources. Inparticular,inthefourthchapterofhisbook language anditsdoctrineofNames.IncontrasttoFlorenskii,heusedmoreauthentic interested intheKabbalahprimarilyconnectionwithmysticismofHebrew was ratherapartofJewishtradition.Atthesametime,incontrasttoBulgakov,Losev Losev wasnotinclinedtowardsoccultinterpretationsofkabbalisticideas.Forhim,Kabbalah acquainted withsomekabbalisticideasandtranslationsoftexts.Inallprobability, Jewish mysticism,fromhisworksofthelate1920sandearly1930sitisclearthathewas 19th centuries. clearly influencedbyanti-SemiticinterpretationsofKabbalahthatemergedinthe18thand initiates, whichhardlyhadanyconnectiontorealJews.Atthesametime,Florenskiiwas and Paracelsus.ForFlorenskii,Kabbalahwasatypeofsecretknowledge,transmittedby sic exampleoftheoccultapproachthathaditsrootsinAgrippaNettesheim(1486–1535) fragments fromthe Hebrew couldhardlyhaveinfluencedhiskabbalisticstudies. Inanycase,theselectionof he wasquoting.AsinthecaseofSoloviev,familiaritywith thefundamentalsofclassical although thiswasmostlikelypromptedbyhisdesiretounderstand theGermanHebraists second halfofthe1920s,LosevstudiedclassicalHebrew(with BishopVarfolomeiRemov), pre-revolutionary tions withthephilosopherBorisG.Stolpner(1871–1967),who wasoneoftheauthors Hasidism andKabbalahiswell known). second decadeofthe20thcentury (hisdisputewithShimonDubnowaboutthenature of in thediscussionsthattookplace amongtheJewishintelligentsiaatbeginningof Testaments, inthecontextofJewishtradition,primarilyKabbalah. written inthelate1920s,LosevspeaksaboutroleofDivinenamesOldandNew , accompanyingthesecitationswithshortcommentary.Theseexcerptspresentthe It isdifficulttosayjustwhatkind ofinfluenceonLosevwasextendedbyStolpner,a Losev usedthesame system ofhumanmysticism. In Kabbalah,thedoctrineofnamesispresentedperhapsmoreclearlythaninanyother most developedsystemofonomatologythathaseverexistedinthehistoryreligion…. The teachingofKabbalahabouttheDivinealphabetandnamesis,perhaps, Although wehaverelativelylittleevidenceofAlexeiLosev’s(1893–1988)interestin Alexei Losev To summarize,inhisattitudetowardsJewishmysticism,Florenskiirepresentedaclas- Evreiskaia entsiklopediia Zohar , andtheirtranslationintoRussianfromFrenchweremadefor him KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY 96 Zohar 98
Of greaterimportanceherewereprobablyhisconsulta-
translation asBulgakovandFlorenskii.Hislibrary 99 94
(Jewish Encyclopaedia)anda regularparticipant Veshch’ iimia 97
It isknownthatinthe 95
Losevwrote: (Thing andName), Veshch’ iimia he 171 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 172 consideration ofthefollowing: excerpts fromhiswork. camp. SinceLosev’sviewsarequiteremarkable,weshallcitesomeparticularlysignificant Absolute), writtenintheearly1930s,afterhisreleasefromimprisonmentaSovietlabour philosophy. that itwasStolpnerwhogaveLosev“theFrenchtranslationofKabbalah.” sions, especially“abouttheinfluenceofneo-PlatonismonKabbalah.”Takho-Godiclaimed individualism or “activenihilism.” distance betweenthem.Forhim, Kabbalahwasateachingthatproclaimedmilitantanti- Christianity mostcloselytogether, forLosev,onthecontrary,itrepresentedgreatest concept ofEinSof.Whilefor Bulgakov,thiswastheconceptthatbroughtKabbalahand names inRussianincorrectly, butwhatisespeciallyrevealinghisinterpretationofthe the Kabbalah. Hedid,however,returntoJewishmysticisminhistreatise the secondhalfof1920s. ing ofMarx,”mayhelpusunderstandtheoriginLosev’snotionKabbalah,formedin who subsequently,duringhiswanderingsinSwitzerlandandGermany,mastered“theteach- the uniqueunderstandingofKabbalahbyStolpner,“aproductrabbinicalyeshivas,” KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV In concludinga“shortoverviewofdoctrinesabouttheAbsolute,”Losevproposes Kabbalah wantstodestroyit. Cusa’s “Nonaliud”specificallywishestosaveandaffirmindividuality, whiletheNo-thingof Nothing or,forexample,likeNicholasofCusa,about“Non aliud” (theNon-otherness). nihilism inregardtopersonality,atthesametimeasotherapophatics speaksimplyabout impersonal condition.Alsotheveryterm“EinSof,”“theNo-thing,” suggestsacertainactive apotheosis of ity asthe nating doctrines)onecan,withcompleteconfidence,statethat EinSofhasitstrueoriginal- On thebasisoftheseteachingsKabbalah(weshallnotmention hereother,morefasci- Adam Kadmonproducesbyhisninesephirot. This Kingdom,thekabbalistic“Malkhut,”isfirstadequateexpressionofEinSof;itwhat tenth sephiracombinesandsynthesizesthepreviousninesephirotiscalledKingdom. second—Beauty, Mercy,andJustice;thethird—Foundation,Victory,Glory.The triads, plustheculminatingsephirah.ThefirsttriadisCrown,Wisdom,andIntelligence; Through him[i.e.AdamKadmon]thereemanatetensephirot,whicharedividedintothree The firstandbasicmanifestationofEinSofistheprimaryhumanbeing,AdamKadmon. material. manifestations andemanationsofit.Andinthisregard,the nature ofeverytranscendentalelementaccordingtothosecategoriesandthingsthatare etc. However,herethereisnotonlyageneralformalapophatism….Onehastojudgethe attribute caninanywaybepredicated.Itisinvisible,unimaginable,andunknowable,etc., the No-thing.Thisisthe,alreadyfamiliartous,absoluteunity,forwhichnotasingle Losev confusestheorderof theemanationsof Zohar larly fromtheperspectivethatinterestsus,andthisisKabbalah,especially yet onemoremonumentofworldthoughtthathasbeenratherpoorlystudied,particu- Unfortunately, Losevdidnotfulfilhisaspirationofwritingaseparateworkabout
100 […]. The
According toA.Takho-Godi,LosevandStolpnerengagedinlongdiscus- absolutization ofsocial,impersonal-social social Book oftheZohar
impersonality, theabsolutenessof 102 103
contains anumberoftextsabouttheso-calledEinSof,
existence… Transcendencehereisthe humanity sephirot Zohar , takeninthesenseof
and transcribestheir offers veryinteresting 101 Samoe samo
An analysisof Book ofthe
(the Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 association withtheJewshasalongtraditiontracedbacktoMiddleAges. description nottheJewishGod,andevenSatanbutChristianDevilwhose “god” is“incarnated”intheJewsand“becomes”them.Itnotdifficulttomakeoutthis Being butitstillneedstobesolvedwiththehelpof“chosenpeople.”Moreover,this undoubtedly, isanegativeone.AccordingtoLosev,“kabbalisticgod”nottheAbsolute Kabbalah availabletohim,whichhebelievednecessarypresentinhisbooks.Thisimage, context ofhisstatementandthenaturelanguagesuggestthatthiswasimage this allegedlyJewishconceptasoneofseveral“relativemythologies,”theimmediate statement ofFlorenskiiinhis From thisitisnotfartothenextthesisascribedLosev(which totallycoincideswiththe sion ofworldJewryastheabsoluterepresentationexistence.” This understandingoftheessenceKabbalahissimilartostatement“thisconfes- Talmudic literature,”mostlikelyStolpner,Losevconveyedtheideathat: Myth). Referringtoacertain“learnedJew,whowasquitefamiliarwithkabbalisticand during their“treatment” bythestateorgans, these fragmentsofLosev’stexts wereextracted from archivesreallywerepenned byLosev,andeveniftheywerenotradicallydistorted the followingaspectshouldbe takenintoconsideration:evenifthepublisheddocuments was expressedinmanyanti-Semitic worksofthe19thand20thcenturies.Atsametime, to bea image ofKabbalahthatLosevalreadydepictedinhis1929 Soviet secretpolice,knownbytheseinitials),whichisa mythology,” parallelswithLosev’sauthenticworkscometomind.This tion oftheviewsLosev.However,intermsitsportrayal“kabbalisticrelativistic one canhardlyconsiderthisproductoftheSovietpenalsystemtobeanauthenticexposi- this Dopolneniya kDialektikemifa Christian” collectivity.Thistextattributesthefollowingstatement toLosev: vidual” (i.e.Christian)andleadstheworldtoastateofcomplete“impersonality”“anti- similar viewoftheKabbalahasasupernaturalforcedirectedagainsteverythingthatis“indi- referat It isobviousthatonedealing herewiththeoldmythof“diabolickabbalah,”which The Jewisnotatallanti-moral.Heamoral.Therefore,the doesnotfeardemons. historical consequencestheJewsrepresentSatanism,bulwark ofworldSatanism[…]. The JewsarethehistoricalcarrierofspiritSatan[…].With alltheirdialecticaland ciple ofdefectionfromChristianityandthebulwarkallworld’s angeragainstChrist. Kabbalah isthedeificationandabsolutizationofIsrael[theJewish people].Israelistheprin- Kabbalah isaprincipleofhumannatureactivelydirectedagainst theelementofgrace[…] One cannothelprecallingatthispointarecentlypublisheddocument,whichpurports be theGod-manhypostasis. forever containedinGod,issonecessarydialectically…justasitforChristto pan-Israelitism who comparethedoctrineofEinSofandSephirotwithneo-Platonism,butrather the essenceofallKabbalah[…]doesnotatconsistinpantheism,asliberalscholarsthink, This viewoftheJewishKabbalahasattemptingtodestroyindividualityfitswith Israel and spravka
led toheatedpolemicsinthepressbothRussiaandabroad.
became (information) preparedfortheINFOOGPU(theinformationdivisionof : thekabbalisticGod
it. ThereforethemythofworlddominationadeifiedIsrael,whichis KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY Izrail’ vegoproshlom,nastoiashchemibudushchem
(Addenda to“TheDialecticsofMyth”). 104 needs
Israel forHisownsalvation,Hewas referat Dialektika mifa
(official review)ofLosev’s 105
107 Since Losevdiscussed
108 The appearanceof referat
(The Dialecticsof
It isobviousthat 106 incarnated ):
contains a 109
in 173 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 174 needs theJewishpeopleforitsimplementationandcompleteness.” mifa’ excerpts publishedfromtheundoubtedlygenuineLosevtext, may, however,besurmisedfromhisreferencestostill“absolute”mythology.Thus,in Kabbalah inLosev’sworkratherthanhispersonalattitudetowardsit.Hisposition Christianity. Itispreciselyforthisreasonthatweareinclinedtospeakabouttheimageof to showtheir“relativity.”Thus,notonlyJudaismisshowninanunfavourablelightbutalso author presentsdifferent“relativemythologies”andconfrontsthemwitheachotherinorder as avarietyofneo-Platonism,Gnosticism,oranyotherdoctrine extraneoustoJudaism. Hebrew. Kabbalah.” However,heprovidesnoexamples,referring tohislackofknowledge “points atwhichthereiscompleteoppositionbetweenSoloviev’s philosophyandmedieval misticheskaia filosofiiaevreev mistaken viewoftheKabbalah. InanintroductiontoDavidGünzburg’sarticle Furthermore, itshouldbenoted thatacenturyagoSolovievhimselfrejectedsuch a or thathisChristianity“wasneo-Platonism,”ashedid in regardtoJewishmysticism. Areopagite), Losevdidnotclaimthatneo-Platonismwasthe verybasisofhisphilosophy, When discussingneo-PlatonisminChristianity(e.g.regard toPseudo-Dionysiusthe the denunciatoryand,sometimes,evenvulgarstyleofpresentation.In compares thewaysinwhichdifferenttypesofworldviewsevaluateeachother.Thisexplains from thatpartof way “codifications”of“numerousmedievaltreatises.” reflected earlieroraltraditionorpersonalmysticalexperience.Inanycase,theywereinno kabbalistic textswerewrittendownintheearly13thcentury,althoughtheymayhave teenth-centuries intoonehugeworkentitledKabbalah.” of thosenumerousJewishmedievaltreatises,whichwerecodifiedinthetwelfthandthir- refers toJohannesReuchlinas“anadvocate[…]fortherecognitionofhugeimportance such questionableview,whenin scientific pointofview,hisviewsandevaluationsappearquitedebatable.Heexpressesone There Kabbalahassumesalessdemonizedor“mythologized”character,although,from “in need”ofsomethingexternaltoitselfinorderbe“fulfilled,”i.e.“saved.” standing of“Judaism,”LosevconcludesthattheJewish“god”isincomplete,imperfect,and Soloviev’s doctrinefromtheKabbalah. neo-Platonism, albeitnotanancientone,butamedieval Jewishone,”hedistinguishes that isusedforthepurposeofinterpretingBible.” expressed byothersaswell:“Kabbalahexpressesnothingmorethanneo-Platonicdoctrine myth, notscholarship. supposedly unifiedandsinglebooktitled ego vremia European outsider,”Losevpersistentlyrepeatsthisideaalsoinhisbook to his owndefinition,tospeak oftheneo-PlatonicrootsKabbalahis“avilehabita KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV , onefindsthefollowing:“Judaism[…]insistsonpointofviewthatAbsolute A greatdealhasbeenwrittenabouttheinappropriateness ofviewingtheKabbalah, unique world-view whichwasformedovercenturies. Althoughthisgigantic treeisover Kabbalistic theosophyisnotthe systemofasinglethinkerorseparateschoolbut Losev alsoreferstoJewishmysticisminhislateworks,writtenthe1970sand1980s. The followingviewexpressedbyLosevisalsodoubtfulalthoughithasoftenbeen
(Vladimir Solovievandhistime). Dopolneniya k‘Dialektikemifa’ (Kabbalah,themysticalphilosophy oftheJews),hewrote: Estitika Vozrozhdeniia 115
In theprocess,heclaimsexistenceofmany Kabbalah 114
In assertingthatKabbalah“isthemostreal
in whichthephilosopherdialectically
can onlyberelegatedtotherealmof 112 113
(Aesthetics oftheRenaissance)he It isequallyclearthattheideaofa 111
Despite thefactthat,according
It iswellknownthatthefirst Dopolneniya k‘Dialektike 110
Based onhisunder- Dialektika mifa Vladimir Solovievi Kabbalah, , the 116 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 kabbalistic doctrine. Thus, inSolovievandLosev,onecanseetwocompletelydifferenttypesofunderstanding the originalityand ing theirreligiousandphilosophical viewsintheirentirety,withdueconsiderationgiven to (which cannotbeidentifiedwith theirattitudetowardseitherJewsorJudaism)byconsider- reviewed. Rather,oneshouldattempttounderstandtheir attitudestowardsKabbalah should notdrawhastyconclusionsabouttheanti-Semitism ofanyonethethinkers tion. Nevertheless,itshouldbenotedthatfromsuchaninadequate imageofKabbalah,one determined theselectionofsourcescited,aswelltheir interpretation andimplementa- of worldhistory(orastrategytheseevilforces).Thesediffering viewsabouttheKabbalah a collectionofmagicalpractices,orassomeevil(“anti-Christian”) forcedirectingthecourse stood asaJewishmysticaltradition,anattemptbymystics toknowtheGodhead,as early 20thcentury.Anumberofwell-definedtendenciesemerged. TheKabbalahwasunder- Nikolai BerdyaevandLossky,aswellRussianmystics andoccultthinkersofthe range wouldbeevenbroaderifweincludedworksbyVassily Rozanov,LevTikhomirov, survey, itisclearthat,regardlessofthedifferencebetweentheirrespectiveapproaches, century RussianphilosopherstowardsJewishmysticism.However,evenfromsuchabrief that wascompletelyalientotheGreeks.Heassertedthisideawas: unique, absolute,andanall-encompassingformoftheuniverseasatypeconsciousness completion offullexistence.Moreover,Solovievperceivedtheideaindividualasa not inanywayafallordegeneration.ThismanifestationrevelationoftheAbsoluteis kabbalistic worldprocessisunderstoodastheofmanifestationAbsolute,and Kabbalah ofanydualism(whichischaracteristictheothertwophilosophies),since neo-Platonism. Themaindifferencebetweenthembeingthecompleteabsencefrom the contextin which thesephilosophersacquired theiracquaintancewith Kabbalah.This mythologies, requiresfurther clarification. Moreover,notenoughattentionhasbeenpaid to evaluating RozanovandLosev. TheroleofKabbalah,likethat“theJew”intheirpersonal This studypresentsonlypreliminaryobservationsontheattitudesofsomeearly20th- Conclusion systematic anthropomorphism—isitsculmination. entity, thisisthepointofdepartureorbasicprincipleKabbalah;consciousand […]. Therealandmysticallinkofallthatexists,asamanifestationthesingleabsolute a genuinelyBiblicaltruththatwastransmittedtotheChristianworldbyApostlePaul Soloviev distinguishedtheancientJewishKabbalahfrombothGreekphilosophyand Alexandrian thinking. and fourteenth-centuries. Infact,KabbalahisaproductneitheroftheMiddleAgesnor of kabbalisticdoctrinefromlateversionsbooksthethirteenth Platonism, wouldbealmostasgreatanerrorifoneweretodeducethemedievalorigin to these superficialbranches,andtoseeinKabbalah nomorethanavariantofneo- it is intertwinedwithGnosticandneo-Platonicspeculations.Buttopay attentiononly thought, whilethroughthoseofbranchesthatareperceptibletothehistoricaloutlook, branches. ItsrootsarehiddeninthedarkdepthsofJewishandJewish-Chaldeanreligious one thousandyearsold,untilrecenttimesitproduced,althoughnotalwayshealthy, Weltanschauung 117 KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY
of eachonethem.Thisisparticularly importantfor 118 175 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 176 of religious,philosophicalandmysticaltrendsinRussiatheearly20thcentury. climate oftheepochandthatthishasallowedustore-examinesomeaspectshistory it isapparentthattheencounterwithKabbalahhadasignificantimpactonintellectual Jewish intelligentsiaandofRussianoccultistsetc.However,alreadyatthisstageresearch, of thetime,aswelltointerestinKabbalahamongmemberscontemporary relates especiallytothe“kabbalisticstudies”ofanumberteachersatreligiousseminaries KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV 11. 10. 12. 6. 5. 2. 1. 9. 8. 7. 4. 3. Early XXCenturyandOccultism See: Serkov, Kabbalah: AnAttemptatTypologicalAnalysis,”180–96. NOTES selection ofkabbalstictexts,andsoon.Seeformoredetails:Burmistrov, called Christiankabbalah.Theydifferfromeachotherintheiraims,theprinciplesof Theoretically, onecandistinguishatleastadozenapproachestoKabbalahwithintheso- Burmistrov, “GershomScholemunddasOkkulte.” der Kabbala vonReuchlinbiszurGegenwart Renaissance On theChristianKabbalahsee:Blau, Kabbalah ofJohannesReuchlin,”55–96. Scholem, “ZurGeschichtederAnfängeChristlichenKabbala,”158–93;Dan,“The On Soloviev’sinterestinEliphasLevisee:Lukyanov, See: Burmistrov,“VladimirSolovievandKabbalah.” “Russian ReligiousThoughtandtheJewishKabbala.” See: Kornblatt,“Solov’ev’sAndrogynousSophiaandtheJewish Kabbalah”;Kornblatt, There isalsoadetailedbibliography. This topicisextensivelydiscussedin:Burmistrov,“VladimirSoloviev andKabbalah,”7–104. the CosmogonyofVladimirSoloviev,”49–67. and AnnaSchmidtExpectingTheThirdTestament,”23–41;Carlson,“GnosticElementsin Love inV.Soloviev’sPhilosophyandSomeGnosticParallels”;Kozirev,“VladimirSoloviev See, forexample,Kozirev,“ParadoxesofanUnfinishedTreatise”;“TheMeaning No ReligionHigherThanTruth See: ibid.;Scholem, rials passedonviaChristiankabbalisticchannels”(ibid.,644). reflect nofamiliaritywithJewishsourcesbutareentirelydependentonsecond-handmate- See Hanegraaff,“JewishInfluencesV,”644–47.Cf.:“…occultistideasabout‘kabbalah’ Conversion Wirszubski, “Vladimir Soloviev andRussianFreemasonry.” Seealsoontheinterestin Kabbalah in of thelate18thandearly19th centuriesandbyV.Solovievareexaminedin:Burmistrov, Parallels betweentheinterpretations ofsomekabbalisticdoctrinesbytheRussianMasons Soloviev studiednotonly collected andeditedbyC.KnorrvonRosenroth.Accordingto Paul Allen,whileinLondon, the famousanthology Burmistrov, “VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”64–67. wasprobablyfamiliarwith this information.SeeAllen, tise “SplendorSolis”(1582).Unfortunately, Allendoesnotprovideevidencetosubstantiate ; Burmistrov,“ChristianKabbalahandPerceptionofJewishMysticism.” ; Secret, Pico dellaMirandella’sEncounterwithJewishMysticism The HistoryofRussianMasonry Kabbalah Les KabbalisteschrétiensdelaRenaissance Kabbala Denudata Kabbala Denudata Vladimir Soloviev ; Carlson,“FashionableOccultism,”135–52. , 202–03;Scholem, ; Fedjuschin, The ChristianInterpretationoftheCabalain
(Sulzbach, 1677–78—FrankfurtamMain,1684) Russlands SehnsuchtnachSpiritualität , 67–126;Bogomolov, , butalsoSolomonTrismosin’salchemical trea- , 100. ; FaivreandTristan, Major TrendsinJewishMysticism On V.S.SolovievinHisYouth ; Scholem, Russian Literatureofthe Kabbalistes Chrétiens ; Hames, Die Erforschung “ The Christian The Artof , 172,247; ; Carlson, , 2.Cf.: ; Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 13. 15. 14. 31. 30. 18. 17. 16. 21. 20. 19. 25. 24. 23. 22. 26. 29. 28. 27. Leibniz als QuellezumGottesbegriffJakobBoehmes Jacob Boehme’sviewssee:Schulze,“JacobBoehmeunddieKabbala”;Huber, Scholem, Endel, “ThePlaceofKabbalahintheDoctrineRussianMasons.” Russian Masonry:BurmistrovandEndel,“KabbalahinMasonry”; see ibid.,88–96;Scholem, Scholem, Boehme onRussianReligiousThought.” See: Burmistrov,“VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”45–63;David,“TheInfluenceofJacob Scholem, On AdamKadmon,seeScholem, See Scholem, “Vladimir SolovievandKabbalah,” 64–67. of theTalmudandrabbinicalJudaism wastypicalofboththem.SeealsoBurmistrov, the worksofthisrenownedFrench occultist.AnappreciationnotonlyofKabbalahbutalso Wirszubski, Reuchlin, Encounter withJewishMysticism Christian neoplatonistJohannesScotusEriugena.See:Wirszubski, Kabbalah—combined theapophaticformulaeofR.AzrielGeronawiththose when discussingtheinscrutabilityofEinSof,andFlaviusMithridates—Pico’smentorin on theirinterpretationsofKabbalah.Thus,JohannReuchlinreferredtoNicholasCusa At thesametime,Christianapophatictraditionof“negativetheology”alsoleftamark Scholem, Europe On theplaceofKabbalahindoctrinelatter,see:Katz, Jakob BoehmeunddieKabbalah On theinterpretationofEinSofinChristianEsotericismandKabbalah,seealsoSchulitz, See, forexample,Coudert, Soloviev, Burmistrov, “ChristianOrthodoxyandJewishKabbalah.” Russian Freemasons,”48–53.FormoreonIvanElagin’sinterpretation ofEinSofsee Kabbalistic studiessee:BurmistrovandEndel,“ThePlaceofKabbalah intheDoctrineof Russian StateArchivesofAncientActs[RSAAA],F8,N216,PT6, F61V-62V.ForIvanElagin’s 1116, pp.7–8. See, forexample,DivisionofManuscriptstheRussianStateLibrary[DMSRSL],F14,N unique. Fordetailssee:BurmistrovandEndel,“KabbalahinRussianMasonry,”24–30. related toKabbalah—nomorethanfivesevenpercent.Someofthemareprobably It shouldbenotedthatonlyasmallproportionoftheextantMasonicmanuscriptsare doctrine oftheGoldundRosenkreuzsystem). Cross andtheAgeofReason Burmistrov, “KabbalahintheTeachingofOrderAsiaticBrethren”;McIntosh, Soloviev, See: Lévi, Bulgakov, Soloviev, , 26–53;Scholem,“EinverschollenerjüdischerMystikerderAufklärungszeit,”247–78; ; Schulitz, Collected Works Collected Works Vladimir Soloviev Dogme etRitueldelaHauteMagie Kabbalah On theMysticalShapeofGodhead On theArtofKabbalah Kabbalah Major TrendsinJewishMysticism The Non-EveningLight Pico dellaMirandola’sEncounterwithJewishMysticism On theMysticalShapeofGodhead Jakob BoehmeunddieKabbalah , 137–40. , 89.OnthedifferentinterpretationsofEinSofinkabbalistictradition, KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY , vol.1,320;329;330;331. , vol.3,88(cf.alsop.95);347. On theKabbalahandItsSymbolism , 130. The ImpactoftheKabbalahinSeventeenthCentury , 161–77(cf.alsopp.73–76,onkabbalisticelementsinthe , 100–05. , 129–30. On theKabbalahandItsSymbolism , 121.Cf.:Scholem, , 74–82;Häussermann,“TheologiaEmblematica”; , 233.Ontheputativekabbalisticinfluenceson , 109;98–101.Solovievwaswellacquaintedwith ; Edel, , 38. . Die individuelleSubstanzbeiBoehmeund , 60(seealsopp.46,229–32). Origins oftheKabbalah , 103. , 235–38. Jews andFreemasonsin , 104,112–15,128;and Pico dellaMirandola’s , 440. Die Kabbala , 125–26. The Rose 177 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 178 KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV 34. 33. 32. 36. 35. 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. 41. 40. 39. 38. 37. See, forexample,theRussiantranslationofL.C.deSaint-Martin’s Universalism,” 52–78. Burmistrov, “ Seventeenth Century Some oftheseconceptsareanalysedinCoudert, Paradise Mythin18thCenturyRussia “The Masonic ComponentinEighteenth-CenturyRussianLiterature,”121–39;Baehr, Adam KadmoninRussianRomanticliteratureinspiredbyMasonicideology,seeBaehr, RSL, F.14,N992,ff.3–4,8,14–15;“OnTenSephirot,”DMS1116,pp.23–24.On Kadmon inRussianMasonicmanuscriptsofthe1780s:“AShortNotiononKabbalah,”DMS O zabluzhdeniiahiistine See Scholem, Soloviev, RSAAA, F8,N216,Pt.6,f.67v. Concept ofFemininity inRussianSymbolism.” “Solov’ev’s AndrogynousSophia andtheJewishKabbalah”;Bar-Yosef,“Sophiology 51; Kornblatt, “RussianReligiousThoughtandthe Jewish Kabbala,”75–95;Kornblatt, See, forexample:Carlson,“Gnostic ElementsintheCosmogonyofVladimirSoloviev,” On someoftheseconceptssee Burmistrov,“VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”96–99. stand andevaluateascholarlywork madebysomebodyarefew”(Soloviev, in Jewishmysticismareabsentbutevenamateurslikemewho arecompetenttounder- Soloviev wrotetoBaronDavidGünzburgin1896:“InRussiansociety, notonlytheexperts See Soloviev, Judentum,” 21–36. On Soloviev’sacquaintancesamongtheJewssee:Belkin,“Vladimir Solov’evunddas and Kabbalah,”67–69. See Soloviev, See Burmistrov,“VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”32–34. “The InfluenceofJacobBoehmeonRussianReligiousThought.” Boehme undLeibniz Boehmes “Jacob BoehmeunddieKabbala”;Huber, See note11.OntheputativekabbalisticinfluencesonJacobBoehme’sviewssee:Schulze, Briefe I acquainted withJewishKabbalah.SeehislettertoJosephL.Blau(1945):Scholem, ate tomentionherethatGershomScholemalsodoubtedSwedenborgwasreally Kabbalah.” See:Soloviev,“IntroductiontoDavidGünzburg’spaper,”279.Itisappropri- system absolutelycoincidesinitsbasicandinterestingpartswiththedoctrineof “Although he[Swedenborg]wasseeminglynotacquaintedwithkabbalisticwritings,his He thought,however,thatSwedenborgdidnotdirectlyadoptkabbalisticconcepts: Schuchard, “Dr.SamuelJacobFalk,”203–22. Abelson, “SwedenborgandtheZohar”;Schuchard,“EmanuelSwedenborg,”177–207; Swedenborg’s conceptoftheGrandManiscomparedwithkabbalisticAdamKadmon); “Emanuel SwedenborgandtheKabbalisticTradition,343–60(especiallypp.353–59,where On thesimilaritybetweenideasofSwedenborgandKabbalah,seeWilliams-Hogan, supervisor ProfessorP.D.Yurkevich(1826–74)wasaconvincedfollowerofSwedenborg. Soloviev becameacquaintedwiththeworksofSwedenborgatanearlyage;hisuniversity , 294. ; Schulitz, Collected Works Kabbala Denudata Collected Works Kabbalah Collected Works . Seealso:Burmistrov,“‘VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”45–63; David, Jakob BoehmeunddieKabbalah , 120–32(aswellasincertainworkstowhichCoudertrefers); , 200.Seealso:Häussermann,“TheologiaEmblematica,”304–16. , 1785,35,70–71,aswellinterpretationsoftheideaAdam , vol.2,57. , vol.9,111–16. , vol.6,261–66,359–63.AlsoBurmistrov,“VladimirSoloviev
Rediscovered”; Burmistrov,“ChristianKabbalahandJewish , 107–09;Schneider, Die KabbalaalsQuellezumGottesbegriffJakob ; Edel, The ImpactoftheKabbalahin Quest forMysteries Die individuelleSubstanzbei Des ErreursetdelaVérité , 103–04. Letters , 140). The : Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 60. 59. 58. 57. 56. 55. 54. 53. 52. 64. 63. 62. 61. 65. 66. 49. 47. 51. 50. 48. 69. 68. 67. See, forexample,Florenskii, Florenskii, Scholem, Scholem, 462, 476;vol.3,part2,61,108,176,278,490;Florenskii, Scholem, Sepher ha-Zohar Bulgakov, For moredetails,seeBurmistrov,“VladimirSolovievandKabbalah,”78–87. Kabbalah as“atreasuryoftheage-oldmysticalwisdom.” Thoughts 258. Onthekabbalisticinterpretationofmarriageseeibid.,257.Cf.:Bulgakov, Bulgakov, See Scholem, concept of“creatioexnihilo,”contrastingitwiththedoctrineemanationSephirot. everything—ex nihilonihilfit.”Sincethe13thcentury,manykabbalistsarguedagainst Ibid., 209.Heaffirmsovertlyelsewhere(226)that“nothing[…]cannotbethesourceof 136–37. 731; vol.2,149,310,359–62;Florenskii, Papus, See Florenskii, Papus, biographie his knowledgeabouttheKabbalah(realandoccult).AboutPapus, see:AndréandBeaufils, The workofPapus(1865–1916),translatedintoRussian,wasprobably themainsourceof 37; Burmistrov,“PavelFlorenskiiasaHebraist.” “Christian OrthodoxyandJewishKabbalah”;Burmistrov,“Imyaslaviye andKabbalah,”34– language andnamesinRussianphilosophyoftheearly20thcenturysee:Burmistrov, For thesimilaritybetweenlinguistictheoryofKabbalahanddoctrine See Leiningen-Billigheim, See Saunier, See Bulgakov, Victoria Kravtchenko:Kravtchenko, See Frensch,“‘WisdominPersonality”; Bulgakov, The Non-EveningLight pretation givenbyMuretovtotheroleofangelMetatroninCreation.SeeBulgakov, Muretov, Nikolaevna Schmidt her own publishedwritingsin:BulgakovandFlorenski, One canfindbiographicaldataontheRussianmysticAnnaN.Schmidt(1851–1905)and Among therecentpublications onthe Florenskii, Light sion byFlorenskiiascomparedwith thatinSergeiBulgakov,see Florenskii, also: Bezlepkin, Holy MysteryoftheChurch , 258. Kabbala: theTeachingonGod,UniverseandMan , 96,whereBulgakovcriticizesSoloviev’s“mysticalerotic”andcontrastsitwith The DoctrineofLogosinPhiloandJohntheTheologian On theMysticalShapeofGodhead Bibliographia Kabbalistica On theMysticalShapeofGodhead The Non-EveningLight The Non-EveningLight The Non-EveningLight Collected Works Collected WorksinFourVols Collected WorksinFourVols Saint-Yves d’Alveydre Kabbalah The Non-EveningLight Collected WorksinTwoVols Philosophy ofLanguage inRussia ( Le LivredelaSplendeur ; Laurant,“Papus,”915. ; cf.:Soloviev, KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY , 121–22. , 88–105. L’âme d’aprèslaQabalah , vol.1,96. ; Borshch, Collected Works , 190.FormaterialaboutSophia,seeibid.,185–201. , 137.OntheconceptofEinSof,seeibid.,120–22,129–30, , 345,247,246–50,247–53,256–61,237,252,259,252–54, Vladimir Soloviev ; Lenain, , 120;andScholem, Vladimir SolovievandSophia , 129–30. Imyaslayiye , vol.3,part2,108,114. , vol.3,part2,61.Ontheinterpretationofcircumci- Names ). imyaslaviye , vol.1,731(n.462). Doctrine ésotériquedeIsraélites La sciencecabalistique , vol.2,435,582,720,725,727;3,part1,445, , 18–20,178–79. , 298. , 324–80. ; Leskis, , 298;Scholem, Weisheit inPerson 399–401. .
movement seeHylarion(Alfeev), . Von BerlinnachJerusalem Collected WorksinTwoVols Dispute OvertheNameofGod. From theManuscriptsofAnna . Bulgakovcriticizestheinter- , 301–06. ; Scholem, Kabbalah . Hisideaissharedby . The Non-Evening Kabbalah , 240.Cf.also: , 149–50. , vol.1, Gentle , 203. The
Cf. 179 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 180 KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV 72. 71. 70. 74. 73. 76. 75. 77. 86. 80. 79. 78. 87. 85. 84. 83. 82. 81. 88. 90. 89. 91. See Idel, Florenskii, Florenskii, Moscow in1993,andlaterwasincludedFlorenskii, The finalversionofthisworkwasappearedin1923–26.Itpublishedforthefirsttime Wolfson, Idel, “DefiningKabbalah,”97–122;Katz,“MysticalSpeechandMysticalMeaning,”3–41; Idel, linguistic conceptsofKabbalahseealso:Idel, Scholem, “TheNameofGodandtheLinguisticTheoryKabbala,”79.Ondifferent Florenskii, was firstpublishedrecently:Florenskii, Vols the deepspiritualchangeinsoulofapostle.SeeFlorenskii, for example,hediscussesthepairSaul/Paul,assertingthatchangeofnamessymbolizes Florenskii analysesnotonlyordinarynamesbutalsothefromNewTestament; 2, 169–358. Fabre d’Olivet, ra ve-ha-kelippahbe-kabbalatha-Ari Zalman ofLyadi,“LikkuteiAmarim(Taniya),”1:1).Formoreexamples see:Tishby, Jews comefrom…totallyimpurekelippotwhichdonotcontain anygood.”(R.Shneur “Nishmatan shelha-goyimhemmi-gimelklippot…shekulamra”.Cf.:“Thesoulsofnon- Hebraist N.Pereferkovitch(publishedasanappendixtoPapus, Florenskii wasknowntoreadtheRussiantranslationof Scholem, “TheNameofGodandtheLinguisticTheoryKabbala,”75. Paradigma See Scholem, his “Sha’areOrah.”See:Gikatila, Shefa Tal,Brooklyn,1960,f.1a–4c.R.YosefGikatila(XIIIc.)held quitethesameopinionin Scholem, Florenskii, of garlic”alludestoJews. ously reckonedhimselfamongthe“theoccultistsbygraceofGod,”whereasodour Nikitin, “GnosticMotivesinPavelFlorenskii’spoetry,”74.Italicsaremine.Florenskiiobvi- See, forexample,ibid.,453,463;Andronik, Florenskii, R. MosheCordovero, Mystical ShapeoftheGodhead See Butmi, Judaism andChristianity,”81–86. ummot ha-olam”;Turov,“OntheAttitudeofHasidstoNon-Jews”; Endel,“Between the non-Jews:Hallamish,“Aspectimachadimbe-sheilatyachasam shelha-mekubbalimle- Hallamish, See Uranus, Burmistrov, “BloodLibelinRussia,” 16–37. World,” 277–81.Ontheplaceof kabbalistictextsintheBloodLibelliteratureRussiasee Among theJews , Vol.3,part2,309.Abookdevotedtothistopic,writtenbyFlorenskiiasearlyin1907, Enchanted Chains Language, TorahandHermeneuticsinAbrahamAbulafia Language, Eros,Being Kabbalah Collected WorksinFourVols Collected WorksinFourVols Collected WorksinFourVols Collected WorksinFourVols Collected WorksinFourVols , 66. An IntroductiontotheKabbalah Kabbalah, Heresies,andSecret Societies The MurderofA. YushchinskyandKabbalah La languehébraïquerestituée , 21,25;Butkevich,“OntheMeaning ofBloodySacrificesinPre-Christian Kabbalah , 135–40;Tishby, Shiur Koma , 76–121;Idel,“ReificationofLanguageinJewishMysticism,”42–79; , 25;Kilcher, , 239). , 190–260. Sha’are Orah , Warsaw:I.Goldman,1883,f.19d(citedinScholem, , 105–06. Torat ha-rave-ha-kelippahbe-kabbalatha-Ari , vol.3,part1,293,362. , vol.3,part2,333,188. , vol.3,part1,277–81. , vol.3,part2,139–40. , vol.3,part2,221–22. Sacred Renaming Die SprachtheoriederKabbalaalsästetisches , 269.Cf.alsoontheattitudeofJewishmysticsto Theodicea andAnthropodicea . AboutFabred’Olivet,seeCellier, , 49–52. Absorbing Perfections , 32;Pranaitis, Collected WorksinFourVols , 9–15. . Sefer Yezirah Kabbala . , 314–52(esp.319–20); The “MysteryofBlood” Collected WorksinFour
made bytheRussian , 337–52). , 126. Fabre d’Olivet , vol.3,part , 62–90. Torat ha- On the . Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 103. 100. 102. 101. 107. 106. 105. 104. 109. 108. 92. 93. 94. 96. 95. 97. 98. 99. Florenskii, Rozanov, vol. 2,435. energy Ifeltforseveraldays[afterthevisit]”(Florenskii, morals thanChristians,Ifeltdevastatedandsuckeddryafterleavingthem;thislackofvital families whichwerewelldisposedtowardme,andmorehonestinrespectto suffer acertaindamage,regardlessofwhetherweknowitornot.WhenIwasvisitingJewish close relationswithpeopleofdefectivespiritualquality;theyemitdirectinfection,andwe 07. SeealsoaninterestingconfessionmadebyFlorenskiiin1921:“Itisveryharmfultohave Sergiev Posad,1915,5–7;republishedinFlorenskii, Losev, theory ofSephirothetc.Unfortunatelysomepartsthisworkhavebeenlost. quotations fromtheZoharandsomeotherkabbalistictexts,lengthyexpositionsof Absolute only recently:Losev, Name Losev wasarrestedin1930andsentencedto10yearsofimprisonment, “Harmonieangst,” 142–59. der Ritualmordwurf,”59–74;Ullmann,“HeidentumundChristentum,”116–41;Kuße, Hagemeister, “WiederverzauberungderWelt,”21–41;“PavelFlorenskijund part 2,424.Ontheanti-SemitictrendsinworldviewofRussianphilosophersseealso Pauly, Russkaya Mysl’ See transcriptsofinterrogationValentinaLoseva(1930)publishedinthenewspaper of historicalmaterialismandmysticalspiritualism.”See:Dubnov, ings,” hewas“astrangemixtureofacasuistandmystic,”hisviewsweremishmash to ShimonDubnov,Stolpnerwas“typical‘permanentopponent’oneveryJewishmeet- problems oftheKabbalahwithLosev.See:Takho-Godi,“FromArcheology.”According Valentina LosevatestifiedduringherinterrogationthatonlyBorisStolpnerdiscussedthe with herhusbandin1930andwassentencedtofiveyearsimprisonment. Losev’s emphasisinitalics;Losev, Jews,” 259–330. salvation oftheworldandGodheadbyhumanbeing”(Losev, is theaimofKabbalahnotasalvationhumansoul,asin Christiangnosticism,buta interpretation ofKabbalahinthelate1920s.Thus,accordingtoStolpner, “redemptionwhich Some ofStolpner’sideas,presentedasearly1914,bearevidentsimilaritiestoLosev’s Dubnov, Myth totheAbsoluteMythology,”175. In otherwords,theFrenchtranslationofZohar.SeeTakho-Godi, “FromtheDialecticsof This documentwasfirstpublished in Cf., forexample,Trachtenberg, Ibid. Losev’s emphasis;Losev, lute anarchismwhich isthefinaloffspringofKabbalah.” Losev, “ThisIstheWay,”121;117ff. EinSofiscalledherean“apophaticmonster,”“anabso- see Hagemeister,“Apocalypseof theOurTime.” For adetailedbibliographyonthis topicseeKatsis,“A.F.Losev,V.S.Soloviev,MaximGorky”; wasconfiscatedtogetherwithsomeothersofLosev’smanuscripts.Itpublished Le livreduZohar Personality andAbsolute , 306–76;thischapter,entitled“FromtheHistoryofName,”containsnumerous Book ofLife Sakharna Collected WorksinTwoVols
(Russian Thought),1996,no.4150,12.V.M.Losevawasarrestedtogether , 367,382,438. , 32;onBorisStolpnerandhisviewsseealsoKatsis,“Stolpner onthe KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY The Name.WorksandTranslations ; Losevquotedpages29–51and62–70. From theEarlyWorks , 308–09,310–21. The DevilandtheJews Myth, Number,Essence , vol.1,219,14;Florenskii, Istochnik , 594. ; seeLosev,“ThisIstheWay.” Collected WorksinFourVols . , 383–84. Collected WorksinFourVols , 168–245;Losev, Collected WorksinFourVols Book ofLife Dialectics ofMyth Personality and , 326,353–54. , vol.2,705– Thing and , vol.3, , 523). , 181 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 182 Allen, P. M. Allen, P. “SwedenborgandtheZohar.” J. Abelson, 110. André, 111. 113. Baehr, S. L. “TheMasonicComponentinEighteenth-CenturyRussianLiterature.”In L. S. Baehr, Andronik (Trubachev). 112. —. 114. Bulgakov, “SophiologyandtheConceptofFemininityinRussianSymbolismModern H. Bar-Yosef, KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV 118. 117. 116. 115. Burmistrov, K. “BloodLibelinRussia:TheProblemofTextual Sources.”In K. Burmistrov, L. Blau, J. Bulgakov, S. A. Bogomolov, N. “VladimirSolov’evunddasJudentum:NeueFragenzueinemaltenThema.” D. Belkin, Bulgakov, S. N. Bulgakov, S. Borshch, K. I. Bezlepkin, N.
The ParadiseMythin18thCenturyRussia:UtopianPatternsEarlySecularRussianLiteratureand REFERENCES Losev, Losev, Losev, Vodolei, 1998. See Scholem, 1976. Literature intheAgeofCatherineGreat, ( Culture. Losev, Books, 2003. Ideology, Politics Anni NikolaevniShmidt Hebrew Poetry.” Ibid, 279. Soloviev, “IntroductiontoDavidGünzburg’spaper,”277. 319–86. Kabbalah. SeeIdel,“JewishKabbalahandPlatonismintheMiddleAgesRenaissance,” of thesedoctrines,butitwouldbehardlyrighttodeclarethemtheveryessence thought, aswellinmedievalJewishphilosophy.Somekabbalistsusedseparateelements Of course,onecanspeakaboutthe“Gnostic”and“neoplatonic”trendsinkabbalistic Losev, Iskusstvo-SPb., 2001. Press, 1944. Beiträge zumVerstehendesJudenthums Moscow: IolantatrestLtd,2003–05. Sbornik bogoslovsko-publitsisticheskichstatey,dokumentov i kommentariyev i okkultizm). Teoditseya iantropoditseyavtvorchestvesvyashchennikaPavlaFlorenskogo M.-S.,
The ChristianInterpretationoftheCabalainRenaissance. S.,
VladimirSoloviev:RussianMystic. Collection ofTheological,PublicisticPapers,DocumentsandCommentaries GentleThoughts Personality andAbsolute Aesthetics oftheRenaissance Aesthetics oftheRenaissance From theEarlyWorks Vladimir SolovievandHisTime and P. Florenskii,ed. and P. and C. Beaufils. and C. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1991. TheNon-EveningLight
Philosophy ofLanguageinRussia
Moscow:NLO,1999. Russian LiteratureoftheEarlyXXCenturyandOccultism Kabbalah
JournalofModernJewishStudies
(in Russian), edited by K. Burmistrov etal.Moscow:TheHouseofJewish (in Russian),editedbyK. Theodicea andAnthropodiceaintheWorksofPriestPavelFlorenskii Papus,biographie. ). Moscow:1916. ( , 42–61. Tikhie dumi , 594.
From theManuscriptsofAnnaNikolaevna Schmidt , 464. ( Svet Nevetscherniy ). Moscow:Leman&Sakharov,1918. Quest , 372. , 372. , 251. Blauvelt(NY):SteinerBooks,1978. 59(2003):204–18;60(2004):21–36. 13(1922):145–65. Paris:BergInternational,1995.
edited by A. G. Cross.Oxford:Meeuws, G. edited byA. ( Filosofiya yazikavRossii 2,no.1(2003):62–65. ). Moscow:Respublika,1994.
New York:ColumbiaUniversity ( Russkaya literatura20v.
Xenophobia: History, ). StPetersburg: ( Imyaslaviye. ( Iz rukopisei ), 2vols. ). Tomsk:
Judaica: Russian Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 Cellier, L. —. “FashionableOccultism.Spiritualism, Theosophy,Freemasonry,andHermeticismin M. Carlson, Butmi, N. —. “VladimirSolovievandRussianFreemasonry:SomeKabbalisticParallels”(inRussian). Butkevich, T. I. “OntheMeaningofBloodySacrificesinPre-ChristianWorld,andonSo-Called I. T. Butkevich, —. “ThePlaceofKabbalahintheDoctrineRussianMasons.” Burmistrov, —. “GnosticElementsintheCosmogony ofVladimirSoloviev.”In —. “Imyaslaviye[worshipoftheHolyNames]andKabbalah:OnOnomatologyPavel —. “GershomScholemunddasOkkulte.” —. “VladimirSolovievandKabbalah:APreliminaryAnalysis”(inRussian).In —. “KabbalahintheTeachingofOrderAsiaticBrethren”(inRussian). —. “ —. “ChristianOrthodoxyandJewishKabbalah:RussianMysticsintheSearchforPerennial —. “ChristianKabbalahandPerceptionofJewishMysticism”(inRussian). —. “PavelFlorenskiiasaHebraist”(inRussian). —. “TheChristianKabbalah:AnAttemptatTypologicalAnalysis”(inRussian).In —. “ChristianKabbalahandJewishUniversalism.”In
No ReligionHigherThanTruth: A HistoryoftheTheosophicalMovementinRussia,1875–1922. Kabbala Denudata Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1993. Gustafson.Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress,1996. Kornblatt,andR. edited byJ. Fin-de-Siècle Russia.”In Petersburg, 1914. St Petersburg:Sophia,1995. Kolerov. Moscow:OGI,1998. and Superstitions of theMankind Ritual Murders”( Western Esotericism, Kabbalah: JournalfortheStudyofJewishMysticalTexts, Studies inJudaica Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress, 1997. of RussianThought.Yearbookfor1998 Florenskii andGershomScholem”(inRussian).In (2006): 23–34. Hammer.Leiden:Brill,2007. Stuckrad, andO. 212–18. Judaica Universiteta Sources” (inRussian). November 2001.Moscow:Eco-Press, Proceedings oftheVIIthSymposiumHistoriansRussianPhilosophy,Moscow,14–17 Wisdom.” In 2 (1998):31–44. on JewishStudies,Part1.Moscow:Sefer,1999. Jewish Thought. 2005. Jewish Identity Fabred’Olivet.Contribution àl’étudedesaspects duromantisme.
Kabbalah, Heresies,andSecretSocieties K., 3(1999):42–52. and M. Endel.“KabbalahinRussianMasonry:SomePreliminaryObservations.” and M. ) 3(2000):25–75.
Polemical Encounters:EsotericDiscourseandItsOthers,
(in Russian), edited by K. Burmistrov, and Y. Militarev.Moscow:Natalis, Burmistrov,andY. (in Russian),editedbyK.
Proceedings oftheSixthInternationalInterdisciplinaryAnnualConference
Rediscovered: TheChristianKabbalahofCh.KnorrvonRosenrothandIts 6(2003):33–50. O znacheniikrovavikhzhertvoprinosheniy… 4,no.1(2004):27–68.
KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY International JournalforJewishStudiesinRussian
The OccultinRussianandSovietCulture, ( Krov’ vverovaniyakhisueveriyakhchelovechestva
Gnostika: ZeitschriftfürWissenschaft&Esoterik, ( Issledovaniya poistoriirusskoymisli
Solnechnoe Spletenie BetweenMythandReality.CollectedWorkson ( Kabbala, eresiitaynieobshchestva
Russian Philosophy:DiversityinUnity. 4(1999):9–59.
Aries: JournalfortheStudyof
Russian ReligiousThought, ). In edited by B. G. Rosenthal. G. edited byB. (Solar Plexus)5–6(2005):
Paris:Nizet,1953. Tirosh: StudiesinJudaica,
The BloodinBeliefs Studies intheHistory
( edited by K. Von edited byK. Vestnik Evreiskogo
Tirosh: Studiesin
), editedbyM. Biblical Studies.
Tirosh: ). St
33 ). 183 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 184 Huber, W. “DieKabbalaalsQuellezum Gottesbegriff JakobBoehmes.”Diss.,Universityof W. Huber, “Theologia Emblematica.KabbalistischeundalchemischeSymbolik beiFr. F. Häussermann, “JewishInfluencesV:OccultistKabbalah.”In J. W. Hanegraaff, —. Hames, H. J. Hames, H. Hallamish, M. “Aspectimachadimbe-sheilatyachasam shelha-mekubbalimle-ummotha-olam” M. Hallamish, —. —. —. Florenskii, P. B. Fedjuschin, V. Faivre, Frensch, M. A. Fabre d’Olivet, “BetweenJudaismandChristianity:OnFrankists’Self-Identification”(inRussian).In M. Endel, Edel, S. —. “WisdominPersonality”(inRussian). M. Dubnov, S. “TheInfluenceofJacobBoehmeonRussianReligiousThought.” V. Z. David, “TheKabbalahofJohannesReuchlinandItsHistoricalSignificance.”In J. Dan, P. Coudert, A. Hagemeister, M. “ApocalypseoftheOurTime”(inRussian). M. Hagemeister, Gikatila, Yosef. —. “WiederverzauberungderWelt:PavelFlorenskijsNeuesMittelalter.”In —. “PavelFlorenskijundderRitualmordwurf.”In KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV AnIntroductiontotheKabbalah. Names CollectedWorksinFourVols
Sacred Renaming:ChangingofNamesasanExternalSignChangesinReligiousConscious- Salzburg, 1964. Kirchengeschichte Chr. OetingerundderenAnalogien beiJacobBoehme.” Esotericism, 2000. (1992/93): 49–71. (in Hebrew;Someaspectsoftheattitudekabbaliststo nations). Frankfurt amMain:PeterLang,2001. dam, 5–9April2000,editedbyNorbertFranz,MichaelHagemeister, andFrankHaney. prouvé parleuranalyseradicale, tion undModerne. 2006. ness Militarev. Moscow:Natalis,2005. Between MythandReality.CollectedWorksonJewishIdentity, eine rezeptionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung. Schaffhausen: NovalisVerlag,2000). 1962): 43–64. Kabbalah, 111. Francis MercuryvanHelmont(1614–1698). by M. Hagemeister.Berlin&Zepernick:Kontext,2001. by M. A.,
Die individuelleSubstanzbeiBoehmeundLeibniz.KabbalaalsTertiumComparationisfür and F. Tristan,eds. and F. ( Imena (
Svyashchennoe Pereimenovanie
Weisheit inPerson.DasDilemmaderPhilosophieunddiePerspektiveSophiologie. CollectedWorksinTwoVols The ArtofConversion:ChristianityandKabbalahintheThirteenth Century. BookofLife Sha’areOrah.
The ImpactoftheKabbalahinSeventeenthCentury.LifeandThought edited by J. Dan.Cambridge(MA):HarvardUniversityPress,1997. editedbyJ. RusslandsSehnsuchtnachSpiritualität. ). Kostroma:Kupina,1993. Vol. 2, edited by W. J. Hanegraaff.Leiden:Brill, 2005. J. Vol.2,editedbyW.
La languehébraïquerestituée,etlevéritablesensdesmotshébreuxrétabli 2(1968/69):281–93.
Proceedings oftheInternationalenSymposiumanderUniversität Pots- ( Kniga Zhizni Jerusalem:Yaridha-Sfarim,1994. KabbalistesChrétiens. ( Sobranie sochineniy Albany:SUNYPress,1999. 2Bde.Paris:BarroisetEberhard,1815–1816. ). Moscow:Gesharim,2004. ( Sobranie sochineniy
Philosophic Magazine ). Moscow:ChurchofStTatianaPublishingHouse, Leiden:Brill,1999.
Stuttgart:Steiner,1995. Appendix. MaterialienzuPavelFlorenskij, Paris:A.Michel,1979. ). Moscow:Misl,1994–1999. Schaffhausen:NovalisVerlag,1988. Stranitsi, ). Moscow:Pravda,1990.
Dictionary ofGnosisandWestern (
edited by K. Burmistrov,andY. edited byK. Voprosi filosofii
Blätter fürWürttembergische 4,no.3(1999):412–14.
Pavel Florenskij—Tradi- SlavicReview
Filosofiah Israelit ) 4(2000):80–
The Christian
Leiden: Brill, (March
edited Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 Lévi, Éliphas. Lenain, L. W. Leiningen-Billigheim, K. —. F. Losev, A. Leskis, D. Laurant, —. —. Kuße, H. “Harmonieangst.AnmerkungenzurdunklenSeitePavelFlorenskijs.” In H. Kuße, Kilcher, A. Katz, J. Katz, S. “MysticalSpeechandMysticalMeaning.” S. Katz, —. Kravtchenko, V. “RussianReligiousThoughtandtheJewishKabbala.”In D. J. Kornblatt, Kozirev, A. P. “TheMeaningofLoveinV.Soloviev’sPhilosophyandSomeGnostic Parallels”(in P. A. Kozirev, —. “Solov’ev’sAndrogynousSophiaandtheJewishKabbalah.” —. “StolpnerontheJews”(inRussian).In “A.F.Losev,V.S.Soloviev,MaximGorky:ARetrospectiveViewfromtheYear1999.” F. L. Katsis, —. “ReificationofLanguageinJewishMysticism.”In —. Idel, M. —. “JewishKabbalahandPlatonismintheMiddleAgesRenaissance.”In —. “DefiningKabbalah:TheKabbalahoftheDivineNames.”In —. “VladimirSolovievandAnnaSchmidtExpectingtheThirdTestament.”In —. “ParadoxesofanUnfinishedTreatise”(inRussian). Hylarion (Alfeev). DialecticsofMyth FromtheEarlyWorks Myth,Number,Essence
Language,TorahandHermeneuticsinAbrahamAbulafia. Enchanted Chains.TechniquesandRitualsinJewishMysticism. Petersburg: Aleteiya,2004. Hanegraaff. Leiden:Brill,2005. hommes…. rialien zuPavelFlorenskij, Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1992. 1970. 1999 and Typologies, Rudomino, 1996. Petrov.Moscow: Vsekhsvyatskaya,andA. Proceedings oftheConference,editedbyT. Russian). Soviet Culture, Logos, Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1992. Aleteiya, 2002 Jewish Thought, 2005. Press, 2002. Name-Glorification Controversy
Jews andFreemasonsinEurope,1723–1939. Absorbing Perfections.KabbalahandInterpretation. J.-P.
Lasciencecabalistique,ouL’artdeconnaîtrelesbonsgéniesquiinfluent surladestinéedes Dispute OvertheNameofGod:PhilosophyinRussia DieSprachtheoriederKabbalaalsästetischesParadigma. AestheticsoftheRenaissance ( Issledovaniya poistoriirusskoymysli 4(1999):68–95. DogmeetRitueldelaHauteMagie, “Papus.” In VoprosiFilosophii VladimirSolovievandSophia.
Amiens,1823. The HolyMysteryoftheChurch.AnIntroductiontoHistoryandTheory edited by B. G. Rosenthal.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1997. G. editedbyB. ( Dialektika mifa edited by R. A. Herrera.Bern:PeterLang,1992. A. editedbyR. edited by Lenn E. Goodman.Albany:SUNYPress,1992. E. editedbyLenn ( Iz rannichsochineniy
( Mif, chislo,sushchnost’ Dictionary ofGnosisandWesternEsotericism, L’âmed’aprèslaQabalah. KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY edited by M. Hagemeister.Berlin&Zepernick:Kontext,2001. editedbyM. 7(1995):59–78. ). Moscow:Mysl’,2001. ( Svyashchennaya tainatserkvi ( Estetika Renessansa
Studies intheHistoryofRussianThought.Yearbookfor Moscow:Agraf,2006. ). Moscow:Pravda,1990. ), edited by M. Kolerov.Moscow:OGI,1999. ), editedbyM. t. 1: ). Moscow:Mysl’, 1994.
Mysticism andLanguage, Dogme.
Cambridge (Mass.):HarvardUniversityPress,
Mysticism andLanguage, Paris,1888. Logos
New Haven&London:YaleUniversity Albany:SUNYPress,1989. Paris:FélixAlcan,1903. 2(1991):152–70. ). Moscow:Mysl’,1982.
SlavicReview Mystics oftheBook.Themes,Topics Stuttgart:J.B.Metzler,1998.
Los Angeles:CherubPress, ( ), 2vols.StPetersburg: Spor obImeniBozhiem
The OccultinRussianand
vol. 2, edited by W. J. vol. 2,editedbyW.
50(1991):487–96. edited by S. T. Katz. T. edited byS.
edited by S. T. Katz. T. edited byS.
Russia andGnosis. Neoplatonism and
Appendix. Mate- ). St 185 Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 186 Nikitin, V. “GnosticMotivesinPavelFlorenskii’s poetry” (inRussian).In V. Nikitin, Muretov, M. McIntosh, C. M. Lukyanov, S. —. —. “ThisIstheWayThatTruthTormentedandCrucified”(inRussian). Pauly, Jeande,trans. Papus (Encausse Reuchlin, J. E. Pranaitis, I. —. Scholem, G. —. —. “EinverschollenerjüdischerMystikerderAufklärungszeit,E.J.Hirschfeld.”In —. Schneider, H. Saunier, J. V. Rozanov, V. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. “EmanuelSwedenborg:Deciphering theCodesofaCelestialandTerrestrialIntelligencer.” In —. “TheNameofGodandtheLinguisticTheoryKabbala.” —. “ZurGeschichtederAnfängeChristlichenKabbala.” Schulitz, J. “Dr.SamuelJacobFalk:ASabbatianAdventurer in theMasonicUnderground.” K. M. Schuchard, Secret, F. “JacobBoehmeunddieKabbala.” A. W. Schulze, KONSTANTIN BURMISTROV VladimirSolovievandHisTime BriefeI,1914–1947.
PersonalityandAbsolute Kabbalah.
OriginsoftheKabbalah. OntheMysticalShapeofGodhead. OntheKabbalahandItsSymbolism. MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism. VonBerlinnachJerusalem. Die ErforschungderKabbalavonReuchlinbiszurGegenwart. The Name.WorksandTranslations Ioanna Bogoslova Moscow: Kniga,1990. Boge, Vselennoyicheloveke Proceedings oftheConference,Moscow,25–26March1997.Moscow:Rudomino,1998. Europe anditsRelationshiptotheEnlightenment. on RussianHistory, Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress,1947. the LeoBaeckInstitute. 1969. 1997. (1972): 164–194. Rending theVeil, Dordrecht: KluwerAcademicPublishers, 2001. In East andWestLibrary,1954.
LesKabbalisteschrétiens delaRenaissance. Jewish MessianismintheEarlyModernWorld, Saint-Yvesd’Alveydreouunesynarchiesansenigma. JakobBoehmeunddieKabbalah. OntheArtofKabbalah—DeArteCabbalistica. BibliographiaKabbalistica.
Jerusalem:Keter,1974. The DoctrineofLogosinPhiloandJohntheTheologian The“MysteryofBlood”AmongtheJews The RoseCrossandtheAgeofReason.Eighteenth-CenturyRosicrucianisminCentral
Quest forMysteries:TheMasonicBackgroundLiteraturein18th-CenturyGermany. Sakharna.
On V.S.SolovievinHisYouth G.-A.-V.). LelivreduZohar;pagestraduiteschaldaïque. Munich:C.H.Beck,1994. edited by E. R. Wolfson.NewYork,London, 1999. R. editedbyE. ). Moscow,1885. 4(1996):115–29. Moscow:Respublika,1998. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987.
( Kabbala: theTeachingonGod,UniverseandMan Lichnost’ iAbsolyut London,1962. FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,1977. ). Moscow:V.L.Bogushevskiy,1910. ( Vladimir SolovievIegovremya Jerusalem:Schocken,1941. NewYork:Schocken,1965. Leipzig:W.Deugulin,1927. ( NewYork:Schocken,1991. Imya. Sochineniyaiperevody FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang, 1993. ( ). Moscow:Misl,1999. O V.S.Solovievevegomolodiegodi Judaica Paris:Dunod,1964. ( “Tayna krovi”uevreev Leiden,NewYork,Köln:E.J.Brill,1992.
11(1955):12–29. edited by M. Goldish, and R. Popkin. Goldish,andR. edited byM.
Essays PresentedtoLeoBaeck. Lincoln:BisonBooks,1993. Paris:Dervy-Livres,1981.
Pforzheim: SelbstverlagderStadt, ). Moscow:Progress,1990.
Diogenes Paris:F.Rieder,1925. ( Uchenie oLogoseuFilonai ). StPetersburg:Aleteya, ). Moscow,1913. Istochnik:Documents
79 (1972):59–80;80
Russia andGnosis. ( Kabbala: Naukao
), vol.3,part1. Yearbook VIIof
London: Downloaded By: [Burmistrov, Konstantin] At: 00:02 31 July 2007 Wirszubski, C. Takho-Godi, A. A. “FromtheArcheology.” A. A. Takho-Godi, Tishby, Y. —. —. “IntroductiontoDavidGünzburg’spaper‘Kabbalah,theMysticalPhilosophyofJews’”(in Wolfson, E. “EmanuelSwedenborg andtheKabbalisticTradition.”In J. Williams-Hogan, —. “FromtheDialecticsofMythtoAbsoluteMythology”(inRussian). Ullmann, W. “HeidentumundChristentum.FlorenskijsPositionimrussischenRitualmordstreit W. Ullmann, “OntheAttitudeofHasidstoNon-Jews”(inRussian). I. Turov, S. Soloviev, V. Sepher ha-Zohar. Soloviev, S. M. Soloviev, S. I. Serkov, A. Trachtenberg, J. Uranus. Konstantin Y.Burmistrov Letters Peeters, 2001. Imaginaire Symbolique:MélangesoffertsàAntoineFaivre, Dvizheniya, (1997): 167–80. 277–79. Russian). pol’za, 1902–07. of SciencesandHumanities,1989. Petersburg, 1913. dukhovnaya evolutsiya Fordham UniversityPress,2005. Kelippa 1911–1913.” In Modern Antisemitism. Petersburg: N.I.Novikov’sPublishingHouse,1997. 1906–1911. Zepernick: Kontext,2001.
The MurderofA.YushchinskyandKabbalah Kabbalah. cism. Heistheauthorofaboutforty papersonthehistoryofChristianandJewish 17th century;andtheproblem of nameandlanguageinJewishChristianmysti- Christian Alchemy;Kabbalahand Freemasonry;EuropeanChristianKabbalahofthe include: theplaceofKabbalahin Russianculture;JewishKabbalahand Christian KabbalahattheJewishUniversityinMoscow.Themain fieldsofhisresearch Centre, RussianStateLibrary,andLecturerintheHistoryofJewish Mysticismand Institute ofPhilosophy,RussianAcademySciences,ChiefLibrarian oftheOriental
( Torat ha-rave-ha-kelippahbe-kabbalatha-Ari Pis’ma
Language, Eros,Being:KabbalisticHermeneuticsandPoeticImagination. inLurianKabbalah).Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1992.
Pico dellaMirandola’sEncounterwithJewishMysticism.
Collected Works The HistoryofRussianMasonry,1845–1945
Journal ofPhilosophyandPsychology Vladimir Soloviev,HisLifeandSpiritualEvolution
). Vol.4.Peterburg:Vremya,1923.
The DevilandtheJews.MedievalConceptionofJewItsRelationto Le LivredelaSplendeur.DoctrineésotériqueIsraélites. 182(2001):151–52. Appendix.MaterialienzuPavelFlorenskij, Philadelphia:JewishPubl.SocietyofAmerica,1961. KABBALAH INEARLY20TH-CENTURYRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY ) isresearchassistantinJewishPhilosophyandMysticismatthe . Bruxelles:Zhizn’sBogom,1977. ( Sobraniye sochineniy
Le Messager:VestnikRusskogoKhristianskogo ), 9vols.StPetersburg:Obshchestvennaya ( Ubiystvo A.YushchinskogoiKabbala (
Voprosi filosofiiipsichologii (in Hebrew;Thedoctrineofevilandthe edited by M. Hagemeister.Berlin& editedbyM. ( Istoriya russkogomasonstva Paralleli,
( Vladimir Solovyov,egozhizn’i edited by R. Caron.Leuven: edited byR.
Jerusalem: IsraelAcademy
Vols 1–6.Paris:E.Leroux, 2–3(2003),53–78.
Ésotérisme, Gnoses&
Voprosi Filosophii ), 33(1896),
New York: ) ) . .
5 St St 187