Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Rise and Destruction of aConcept¹

Maimonides Lectureon6June, 2017

1Introduction: The Origin of Languageand the Shift of Credibility

The lingua Adamica seems, at first glance, to be astrangeand merelyacademic sub- ject.² However,one has to consider that the idea of the divineorigin of languagewas the common theory in the Western tradition from the first century CE until the first half of the eighteenth century.So, for 1700 years, the theory of the lingua Adamica was aremarkablystable view of the notion of languageand of its origin and poten- tial. Yetfrom 1740/50onwards, the question of how languages had emergedwas dis- cussed anew.Discussions of the genealogyoflanguageled into aset of complicated arguments. In particular, the question of whether logic—which is evidentlydepend- ent on languageand syntax—has atemporalindex provoked unsolvable paradoxes. It is obvious that the question of whether therewas atime when logic wasnot valid does not make anysense. Sensualist accounts of the origin of languages mayper- haps have been capable of explaining the origin and etymology of single words, but they wereunable to deliveraplausible account of how syntax and logic emerged. That is why, just at the apex of the discussions about the natural origin of language, the Berlin pastor Johann Peter Süßmilch (whose work on demographic statistics an- ticipated thatofMalthus)wroteabooklet in 1766 entitled Essay on aProof That the First Language Had Its Origin Not from Mankind, Butfrom the Creator.³ His argument was preciselythis: that there is no plausible argument that can explain how logic could develop naturally. And indeed, the discussion on the origin of languages ended without aresult:in1832, the ‘Société Linguistique’ in Paris declaredinits stat- utes that it would not permit anydiscussion of the origin of language.

 The first part of this lecturehas alreadybeen published;see Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, “Lingua Adamica and Speculative Philology: Philo to Reuchlin,” in Forthe Sake of Learning:EssaysinHonor of Anthony Grafton,eds.Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing (Leiden: Brill, 2016): 572–580.The English translation of this lecturewas aided by MillayHyatt and AndrewJohnston.  Allison P. Coudert,ed., TheLanguage of Adam – Die Sprache Adams (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999). Philologicallyand philosophically, this book (including my own paper in it) does not really achieveits goal.  Johann Peter Süßmilch, Versuch eines Beweises,daß die erste Sprache ihren Ursprung nicht vom Menschen, sondern allein vom Schöpfer erhalten habe (Berlin: Buchladen der Realschule, 1766;reprint- ed Köln: Themen, 1998).

OpenAccess. ©2017 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527971-018 248 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

Anydiscussion of the subject of the lingua Adamica inevitably leadstoasecond, even more intriguing question: how is it possiblethat philosophical and theological truths maylose their believability?Inwhat wayare they true? Is it plausible to say that Kant’stranscendental philosophy, Hegel’sobjective idealism, or Wittgenstein’s theory of Sprachspiele (‘languagegames’)istrue? Or is it more convenienttosay that they are plausible? But what can that mean?Plausibility does not mean any- thing more thanmeeting with approval.Isapproval sufficient for the claim of phil- osophical truth, which arguments had in the past?The question that is most intrigu- ing within the subject of the lingua Adamica can thus be phrased: how did the idea of the divine origin of languageachieve and lose its credibility?HereIpresent the first part of this history of truth claims: the rise of concessionstothe truth in philosophers from Philo to Reuchlin.

2The Rise of Credibility: from Philo to Reuchlin

2.1 Philo’sCosmic and Earthly Adam

Fewbooks have been provided with so manycommentaries as the Book of Genesis; I think it is by far the most discussed book in the world. The reason for this astonish- ing fact is possiblythatGenesis contains an account of the becomingofthe world, of the creation of men, of the beginning of human wisdom, and of the origin of evil. All this is told in abrief, concise story,without anyphilosophical pretensions. Yetno other story has provoked so manyphilosophicalinterpretations. One of them is the subject of this paper,viz.the idea of the lingua Adamica:can such adiscussion can be classified as philosophical at all, or is it merelyavain speculation? The Book of Genesis has two accounts of man’screation. The first is:

‘Letusmakeman in our image,after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,and over the cattle, and over all earth, and over every creepingthing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the imageofGod he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26f.)

The second account contains Adam’screation from dust and Eve’screation from Adam’srib:

Then the Lord God formed aman of dust fromthe ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became alivingbeing. (Genesis 2:7) […]

So the Lord caused adeep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its placewith flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had takenfromthe man he formed into awoman and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 249

flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man.’⁴ (Genesis 2:21–23)

In between standsthe passageconcerning the lingua Adamica in Genesis2:18 – 20:

And the LordGod said, it is not good that the man should be alone; Iwill makehim ahelp meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every livingcreature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to the cattle, and to the fowlofthe air,and to every beast of the field; but for Adam therewas not found ahelp to meet for him.

Philo of Alexandria conceivedthe first (and,moreover,avery long lasting) interpre- tation of these passages. In his commentary on the Book of Genesis, he interprets Adam in atwofold way. The Adam created in God’simageisidentifiedwith the Pla- tonic cosmic man, the androgynous macro-cosmos who is the archetype of the word; the spiritual Adam, ‘he that was after the imagewas an idea or type or seal, an object of thought,incorporeal, neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible.’⁵ In oppo- sition to this pure, spiritual, supra-individual, androgynous Adam, the individual Adam is composed of soul and body. His bodywas created, though Philo does not sayfrom where. The Adam who was made from dust and whose wife was formed from his rib is composed of bodilyand spiritual parts, and this bodilyAdam is the one who fell into sin. His soul, however,partakes of the eternal Father and Ruler of all:

Forthat which He breathed in was nothingelse than aDivine breath that migratedhither from that blissful and happy existencefor the benefit of our race, to that end that,evenifitismortal in respects of its visible part,itmay be in respect of the part which is invisible be rendered im- mortal.⁶

The earthlyAdam was created by the hand of God. Because of this immediate crea- tion, he is ‘aborn ruler and master’⁷ of all beings, and, before his fall, he named all things, thanks to divine grace. In the process of naming,Adam had insight into the inner essence of things. His names denote the signatures of the thingsand indicate the archetypes of creation before they werecalled into extra-mental existence. Their power can be evoked again by their Adamic names:

 ‘Man’ in Hebrew: ish; ‘woman’ in Hebrew: isha;Vulgate: vir, virago.  Philo, De creatione mundi. On the creation,inPhilo, Works,trans.Francis H. Colson and George H. Whitaker,vol. 1(London: Loeb Classical Library,1929): 134.  Ibidem,135.  Ibidem,83. 250 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

Forthe native reasoning powerofthe soul beingstill unalloyed, and no infirmity or disease or evil affection havingintruded itself, he receivedthe impressions made by bodies and objects in their sheer reality,and the titles he gave werefullyapposite, for right well did he divine the char- acterofthe creatures he was describing, with the result that their natures were apprehended as soon as their names were uttered.⁸

2.2 Dénis Pétau on Philo and Chrysostomus

Before the nineteenth century,Philo wasnot accepted as part of the Jewishtradition. Instead, from the time of St.Jerome onwards, he was counted as one of the Church Fathers, because he taught alogos theology that was close to the Gospel of St.John and to the spirituality of St.Paul. He was part of the Christian tradition, before the Hamburgphilologist Johann Albert Fabricius destroyed the pious myth,⁹ and so it is obvious whythe Jesuit Dénis Pétau(1583–1652), one of the great importanttheolo- gians, philologists,chronologists, and intellectual historians of the seventeenth cen- tury,summarised Philo’stheory in his Dogmata Theologica (1644). However,his in- terpretation gave Philo anew slant: it was not so much the participation in the divine wisdomthat he attributed to Adam, but rather the more rational interpretation that Adam had command over the animals.

Philo Judaeus says in his De mundi opificio: God let Adam give perfect names to all the animals. These names encompassed wisdom and the dignity to rule. Adam was wise because he learned by himself and was not taught by anyone, onlyaccompanied by an act of divine grace, and that was the reasonwhy he was king. It is the task of leaders and princestogivepropernames to all their subjects.¹⁰

Pétaualso quotes the Church Father John Chrysostom,who shares Philo’s(and Pé- tau’s) interpretation of the lingua Adamica as wisdom and command over the ani- mals. He combines Genesis 1:26 (‘let man and woman have dominionoverthe fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,and over the cattle, and over all earth, and over every creepingthing that creepsupon the earth’)with the account of the divineorigin of Adam’slanguage, and thereforeemphasises that man was the ruler over all species of animal. Forhim, Adam was like an owner and masterof slaveswho changes the namesofhis servants afterhebuysthem. Chrysostom em-

 Ibidem,150.  Johann Albert Fabricius, De Platonismo PhilonisJudaei (1693), repr.inidem, OpusculorumHistor- ico-Critico-Literariorum Sylloge (Hamburg: Felginer,1738): 147– 160.  DionysiusPetavius (Dénis Pétau), Dogmata Theologica (Paris:Vives, 1866): T. IV.Theologicorum dogmatum De opificio sex dierum, Lib. II, Cap.VIII, 265b: ‘Philo Judaeus in libro de mundi opificio, Optime, inquit,etimpositionemnominum primo homini tribuit.Idenim opus est sapientiae, ac re- giae dignitatis.Porroille sapiens erat,qui aseipso didicerat,nec ab alio perdoctus fuerat,divina qua- dam id gratia consecutus;sed etiam praeterea rex erat.Est autemduci, ac principi consentaneum, unicuique subjectorum sibi proprium nomen assignare.’ Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Rise and Destruction of aConcept 251

phasises the forceofthe lingua Adamica to command, whereas the idea of participa- tion in the divinelogos evidentlydoes not playanimportant role for him. Of course, as aconsequenceofthe fall, Adam’sdominating power over the animals was lost for all mankind.¹¹ In anycase, the quotations in Pétauclearlyprovethat Philo was still counted as an authority of Christian Dogmatic until the seventeenth century.

2.3 Reuchlin: De Arte Cabalistica aLogos Theology In the earlymodern era, it was Reuchlin who renewed the Church Fathers’ theories and made the idea of the lingua Adamica akey concept of the Christian Kabbalah. Reuchlin shared Giovanni Pico’sconviction thatnoart ‘makesusmore certain of the divinity of Christ thanmagic and the Kabbalah.’ The divinity of Christ includes the doctrine of the HolyTrinity,the incarnation of the logos in Jesus Christ,and his resurrection.¹² To provethis theory,Reuchlin used the topos of the wonderwork- ing word, verbum mirificum:anintertwinement of logos theology, magic of the word, and Christological prophecy.Hemergedall this in the ArsCabalistica,and this Chris- tian Kabbalah had the aim of reconstructing the paradisiacal lingua Adamica lost with the fall. The real wonderworking wordwas the divine word, which created the world from nothing.The wonderworking wordencompassed two elements: the first was the es- sence of all things, which werepreconceivedinthe divine mind (the divineSophia); the second was the forcetomake these ideas of the divine Sophia extra-mentallyreal (fiat, vehementia essendi). The lingua Adamica revealed insight into the divine So- phia, i.e. into the essential conceptsofthings, and Adam’scommand over them was the shadow of God’spower to call thingsfrom mental into extra-mentalmaterial existence. God’sprimordial intellect and the might of His wordwereunited in the divinelogos in which Adam participated when he was granted the right to name God’screatures. This is how—accordingtoPhilo of Alexandria—the prologuetothe Gospel of St. John could and should be read. Obviously, the prologuebegins as an allusion to the

 Chrysostomos, Homilia XIVinGen. Pétau, Dogmata Theologica (Paris:Vives, 1866): T. IV., col. 265: ‘Hocimpus admirabilis cujusdam in Adamo sapientiae specimen praedicat Joannes Chrysostomus, sed et alteramcausam adjicit,dominatus in animantia caetera, ‚cujus argumentaum in illa nominum imposition praebuit.Nam et hominibus usitatum illud est,hoc uti signodominationis, ut cum servos emerint,eorum nomina commutent.’  JohannesReuchlin, Gutachten über das jüdische Schrifttum,ed. and trans. Antonie Leinz-v.Des- sauer,Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften 2(Konstanz: Thorbecke, 1965): 75: ‘There is no art that makes us morecertain of the divinity of Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.’ The quoteisfromPico’s Apologia, see Giovanni Pico, Operaomnia (Basel, 1557–1573; ND Hildesheim: Olms,1969): 166. 252 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

first words of the Hebrew Book of Genesis: bereshit baraelohim (‘In the beginning God created’). The beginning of St.John’sGospelisanalogous: ἐν ἀρχῇἦνὁ λόγος.The completeverse reads as follows: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God.’ ForChristians, this text could only, in the first instance, be read as a hint towardsthe HolyTrinity:Christ is God’sWord, by which God becomes aware and cognizant of himself, and this reciprocity was considered as Father,Son, and HolySpirit.Therefore, the ‘Word’ was intertwinedwith the inner-Trinitarian concept of the Deity.Secondly, the Word’spower became obvious in the creation of the world through the Word: ‘All thingsweremade by Him(i.e. the Word); and without Him was not anything made that was made.’ On the one hand,this verse shows the proc- ess of creation through the word, and this creating wordwas communicated to Adam when God revealed the names of the animalstohim (Genesis 2:19ff.). On the other hand, it is obvious thatthis logos is also the inner-Trinitarian one and therefore the logos of the Father.The prologuetoSt. John’sGospel has athird interpretation of the logos: ὁ λόγος ένσαρκóς: ‘Andthe Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the onlybegotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ (John 1:14)St. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians,corrobo- rated this interpretation and concentrated the whole process of logos theologyinthe name of Jesus: ‘WhereforeGod also hathhighlyexalted him, and givenhim aname which is aboveevery name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,of thingsinheaven, and thingsinearth, and thingsunder the earth. And thatevery tongueshould confess,that JesusChrist is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ (Philippians 2:9–11) So, it was obvious for Christian theologians how the ‘Word’ was intertwined with the Divine Trinitarian essence, with the process of the conceiving and becomingreal of the creation, with Jesus as the Christ,and Adam participated in this process when God revealed the divine languagetohim.

bKabbalahassymbolica receptio:JHSWH Reuchlin takes the consequences of the theologyoflogos even further; he alludes to St.Paul’stypologyofChrist and Adam¹³ and quotes Genesis 3:22,whereGod says: ‘Ecce, Adam sicut unus ex nobis.’ Thisverse corroboratesatypological correspond- ence between Christ and Adam. ForReuchlin, Adam thereforehas both acosmic and aChristological meaning,and he quotes the appropriate passagefrom Onqelos,the Aramaic (Chaldaic) paraphrase of the Book of Genesis: ‘Behold,Adam was my only begotten Son, the onlyone and in eternity from me.’¹⁴ In other words, prelapsarian

 1Corinthians 15:22: ‘ForasinAdam all die, even also in Christ shall all be made alive.’  Johann Reuchlin, On the Art of Kabbalah/DeArte Cabalistica,trans. Martin and Sarah Goodman (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1993): 70: ‘Ecce,Adam fuit unigenitus meus sive unicus meus in aeternitateexmeipso.’ Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 253

Adam, too, participated in this inner divinelogos of God. Human paradisiacal know- ledge culminated in the lingua Adamica,with which Adam, the ‘protoplast,’ named the animals (Genesis 2:18–20). ‘Anditwas incidentallythis singular and astute in- sight with which the protoplast himself, who alreadywas master of the world, gave a name to each and every thing that presented itself to him.’¹⁵ This human insight into the willand knowledge of God was lost with Adam’s fall. With the fall, the analogybetween the Christological cosmic and the earthly Adam takes on anew meaning.Christ,the cosmic Adam, sicut unus ex nobis,who was preferred to the angels, now has to be newlyrevealed as the comingredeemer to the fallen human souls by the angels:

Afterthis unhappy fall of the race of man, God taught his angels about redemption, ‘the coming salvation, and through whom it would come.’ Of course, he onlytaughtthem as much as the angels,with their status,could comprehend. He showed them the presenceofthe one who would redeem the human race,for man’ssalvation was completelypredestined. And so he said: ‘Behold, here is that Adam whonot onlyexisted in essenceafter youand the world came into existence, but whoalso was one of us in eternity beforeall creation and before time began.’¹⁶

Restoringthe knowledge of the redeemer is part of the divine project of the salvation of mankind after the fall. Thisknowledge has its magical focus in the saviour’sname, which is the coreofthe lingua Adamica;itisthe divine name in which all wisdom and might was united, and the aim of all the attempts of the Christian Kabbalah. It is participation in the logos, who is part of the life of the HolyTrinity, who created the word, and who became flesh.¹⁷ It is for this reason that the messianic Christological aspect is the dominant theme of Reuchlin’sKabbalah, and he has akey narrative for his accesstothe coreofthe lingua Adamica,the name of Christ.Inthe terms of his Kabbalah, this means that the Kabbalah of the name of God is basedonthe shin in the tetragramm- aton, which thereby becomes apentagrammaton.

 Reuchlin, On the Art of Kabbalah/DeArte Cabalistica,66: ‘Caeterum et hoc ingenii erat videlicet singularis et acerrimi cuique rei protoplastus ipse iam orbis dominus spontaneo positu nomen adder- et.’  Reuchlin, On the Art of Kabbalah/De Arte Cabalistica,70: ‘Postmiserabilemitaque generis hu- mani casum docuit angelos suos deus de restitutione aliquando futurasalutis, per quem nam ventura esset,etquidem docuit non quantumipse docere,sed quantum capere angelica conditio poterat, in praesentia demonstrans quis esse humanum genus redempturus,tunc enim praedestinataplane fuerat salushominum, quapropter Ecce inquit hic est ille Adam qui non tantum post orbis et uestri ortum essentialiter est,sed etiam ante omnem creationem in aethernitatefuit unus ex nobis ante- quam tempus fieret.’  This intertwinement of logosspeculation, Trinitarian theology,theology of creation, and Christol- ogyobviouslycannot be accepted by Jews.Rabbinic theology—if atheo’logy’ exists—can onlyaccept creation through the word; the rest of logosspeculation is suspicious. 254 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

Reuchlin begins the story of these kabbalistic revelations with the promise of the Messiah,impartedtothe fallen Adam by the angel Raziel. Thisisthe key story of his messianic Kabbalah:¹⁸

And so the angelRaziel was sent to fallen Adam, whowas filled with grief, in order to comfort him. The angel said: Do not succumb to excessive pain and grief, because under your guidance the human race was plunged into the worst perdition. Original sin will be atoned for likethis: from your descendants will be born ajust and peaceable man, aman of peace, ahero whose name exists in mercy and in the four letters i.h.u.h. He will extend his hand for the true faith and asacrificeagreeable to God and take from the woodoflife, and the fruit of that wood will be the salvationofall whohope.¹⁹

This is the messianic hope, fulfilled for the Christians in the wood of the cross,but still to come for the Jews. The following passageisproof of Reuchlin’sphilologyaswell of his speculative kabbalistic abilities.Itisalittle complicated;however,itmakes clear thatKabbalah, too, is philology, and thatitisalso the summitofspeculation. It is speculative phi- lology. (shem) םש Genesis 4:26 reports that Adam’sclan began calling on God’sname beginning with the birth of Adam’sgrandson Enosh. ‘God’ is written as atetra- . י והםשה :here. The key words are shem and the tetragrammaton(י הוה ) grammaton Reuchlin now highlights the special meaning of the shin in the word shem, which is speltwith the Hebrew letters shin and mem. He combines notaricon and gematria, the kabbalistic methods of interpretation.(Notaricon means thatthe letters of aword are read as the first letters of other words. Gematria is the interpretation of letters as מ shin)and) ש numbers.²⁰)Accordingtothe notaricon method,the Hebrew letters

 The survivingpart of the Book of Razi’el consists of mystical, cosmological, and magical texts. It has nothingincommon with Reuchlin’saccount.Itincludes writings from Merkavah and Heikhalot literatureand from the Sefer ha-Razim as well as aversion of the Sefer ha-Malbush. The title and the legend of the Book of Razi’el presumablyderive fromthe introduction to the Sefer ha-Razim. Ac- cording to this legend, the angel Razi’el revealed the secrets (of all ages) to Adam shortlyafter he was drivenout of paradise. In additiontothese earlywritings,the collection also includes literature by the thirteenth-century Ḥaside Ashkenaz,primarilyfromthe Sode Razayya by El‘azar ben Yehuda of Worms,aswellaskabbalistic texts on the Sefirot and interpretations of the name of God. The book was first published in Amsterdam in 1701 and, since owningitwas widelybelieved to keep fire and other dangers away from the home, it was reprintedmanytimes.  Reuchlin, On the Art of Kabbalah/De Arte Cabalistica,72: ‘Missus est igitur angelus Raziel ad Adam collapsum et moerore plenum, ut consolaret eum, cui sic dixit.Nesupra modum conficias gem- itu et molestia quod te ducegenus humanum in summa corruit perditionem. Quoniam originale pec- catum hoc expiabitur.Nam ex tua propagatione nascetur homo iustus et pacificus,uir heros, cui nomen continebit in miserationibus,etiam quas quatuor litteras i.h.u.h. et ille per rectam fidem et placidam oblationem mittet manum suam, et sumet de ligno uitae, et ejus lignifructus erit omnium sperantium salus.’  The word ‘notarikon’ derivesfromthe Latin and means ‘shorthand;’ it is also used as akabbalistic exegetical method. Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Rise and Destruction of aConcept 255

shin)and ) יש ן shem, ‘name’)stand for the spelled-out letter) שם mem)ofthe word) ,mitokh, ‘in the middle’). Thus, following the notaricon method,Genesis4:26 ) מ ות ך can be read: ‘Shin is in the middle of the tetragrammaton.’ So much forם י והשה shin ש Accordingtogematria,the letter.שם the notaricon explanation of the word -be-raḥa ) ברח ימ ם has anumerical value of 300.This is alsothe numerical value of mim, ‘in mercy’).²¹ The prophecy the angel Raziel revealedtoAdam was: ‘Ahero ש whose name exists in mercy and in the four letters i.h.u.h.’ So, when the shin is introduced into the tetragrammaton, youhavethe solution to the riddle. With the shin in the middle of the tetragrammaton, which means ‘in mercy,’ the tetra- grammaton can be pronounced as Jehoshua; Jesus. So the shin makes the tetra- grammaton pronounceable, which means that the shin,the symbol of Jesus Christ, reveals the divine mercy, הי הוש when positioned in the middle of the divinename and grace, because through the shin God’sname is pronounceable. The sensus ana- gogicus thus is: Jesusisthe waytothe otherwise unpronounceable God. Divine might and wisdom are focused in the name of God, thus the newlyinvent- -is the kerneland centreofthe magic of the lingua Ada הי הוש ed pentagrammaton mica;this is the name before which ‘every knee should bow,ofthingsinheaven, and thingsinearth, and thingsunder the earth.’ (Philippians 2:9–11) Reuchlinwas con- vinced here that he had found the keytouniversal wisdom and magic. So if one tries to find acombination of lingua Adamica and philology—viz.speculative philology— one has it here with Reuchlin, and on aremarkable level. What truths does Reuchlin tell?What kind of philological proofsdoes he pres- ent?Hetransferred Philo’sconcept of lingua Adamica into Christian Kabbalah. Reu- chlin does not copyPhilo’sinterpretation at all. He has his own much more compre- hensive approach to explain the lingua Adamica. His theologyoflanguageelevates speculative philologyinto the onlytruth thatmatters,the name of God himself, of which everything else is aderivative,such as the naming of the animalswhich Adam then does. Reuchlin is abeliever in the truth of the Bible as well as in the truth of the divine ideas directlycommunicated to human minds. Histheological speculations and his philological skills laid the ground for the credibility of kabbal- istic exegesis in the earlymodernera.With this exegesis, he set the standards of an- agogical interpretations, which founded the fruitful development of Christian Kabba- lah for 200years. It took until the eighteenth century for critical philologytomurder her speculative sister.But that is another story.

.(40 =) מ ,(10 =) י ,(40 =) מ ,(8 =) ח ,(200 =) ר ,(2 =) ב : In detail 256 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

3The Destruction of the Lingua Adamica. The Process of Discrediting Theories

Discreditingsomething is in manycases asilent, but very effective process; it works like calumny.²² Such adecrease in credibilityand credit can also be observed in the- ories and in varieties of speculation. However,itisdifficult to understand this proc- ess. It constitutes something likeamiracle in the histories of philosophy, philology, and the humanities that certain theories lose their credibility,although it cannot be said that their arguments become explicitlywrong; however,they lookincreasingly aged, no longer seem up to date,become dull and finally are considered absurd. This was also the case with the lingua Adamica,and the process of its discreditingisrath- er long.Ishalltry to sketch some of the stages of this process of disillusionment. Forthe Jewish tradition, Philo was no authority,and for good reason. His theol- ogyoflogos was tooclose to Christian Trinitarian theologyand Christology,and this was of course unacceptable for the Jewish rabbis. Even though the Jewish theologyof creation highlighted the wordthrough which the world was made,Jewishtheolo- gians (if one can speak of ‘logians’ at all) did not follow the Greek speculations on logos. The platonic interpretation of the lingua Adamica which Philo, aGreek Jew, offered them, was too close to Trinitarian and Christological trains of thought. Consequently, the idea of the lingua Adamica became aChristian rather than aJew- ish doctrine. So it is hardlyastonishingthatcompetinginterpretations of the passage Genesis 2:18–23 which proved the idea of the lingua Adamica first came from Jewish exegetical traditions. Just to recall: the passagewhich Philo first interpreted as an account of the lin- gua Adamica began with God’sdeliberation in Genesis 2:18–20: ‘And the LordGod said, it is not good thatthe man should be alone; Iwill make him ahelp meet for him.’ The following verse is the passagewhich triggered the interpretation of the lin- gua Adamica:

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and broughtthem unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every livingcreature that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to the cattle and to the fowlofthe air and to every beast of the field; but for Adam therewas not found ahelp to meet for him.

So much for the account of Adam’snaming of the animals. The biblical text contin- ues:

So the Lord caused adeep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its placewith flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had takenfromthe man he formed into awoman and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and

 Cf. the aria ‘La calunnia èunventicello’ in GioachinoRossini’sopera Il barbierediSiviglia. Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 257

flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man.’ (Genesis 2:21–23).

3.1 Naḥmanides (1195 –1270) and Isaac Abravanel (1437–1508):NoHelp for Adam Which He Would Be Able to Call ‘aLiving Soul’ Like His Own Name

It was Naḥmanides (aka Ramban) who took into consideration thatAdam’snaming of the animalshad nothing to do either with the divine creating wordorwith the philosophical speculationsofhuman insight into the divine logos embracing the es- sence of things. In his commentary on Genesis 2:19,Naḥmanides writes:

It is possible that the phrase be explained in connection with the matter of ‘the help’ that God gave to Adam, and the meaningisthe ha’adam nefesh ḥayyah (‘the man is aliving soul’), as is said, And man became aliving soul [Genesis 7], and it is as Ihaveexplained it there: ‘And He broughtbeforehim all species so that every one of them untowhich Adam would give a name and sayitisalivingsoul likehimself, that would remainits name and be ahelp to him. So Adam gave names to all, but as for himself he found no help which he would be able to call ‘alivingsoul’ likehis own name.²³

The interpretation is obvious: nefesh (‘soul’)and shem (‘name’)are connected, and the name is the expression of the soul. Therefore, the meaning of the biblical passage is that Adam did not find aliving being that had asoul like his own. Since Adam had no help and companion who had the same kind of soul as him, Evewas to be made from Adam’ssubstance. Consequently, the story of Evecontinues with her creation from Adam’srib. The whole account receivesits meaning without anymentionof the lingua Adamica with all its Platonic implications. This is not alengthyand ela- borated interpretation like Philo’sorReuchlin’s, but it conciselymakes sense of the whole difficult account of Eve’screation. Preciselythis exegesiscould be found about threehundred years laterinIsaac Abravanel’s(1437–1508) Commentaryonthe Book of Genesis (c. 1505)—that is, just to recall, exactlythe time when Reuchlin conceivedhis ideas of the lingua Adamica and the wonderworking word. Abravanel writes:

Comme il est dit ensuite: ‘Et l’hommenetrouvapoint d’aide qui luicorresponde’.Iln’apas trou- vé parmi les animaux, en face et devant lui, une femelle capable de luiêtre une aide qui le serve alors que tel était le but de ce rassemblement.Eneffet,D.n’apas volu luidonner une femme avant qu’il en ressente la nécessité, qu’il la recherché, et qu’il ne trouvepas de femelle qui lui convienne parmi toutes les espèces animals.C’est alos qu’Il la lui afaite,desachair et de sa substance.²⁴

 Naḥmanides, Commentaryonthe Torah: Genesis,trans. Charles B. Chavel(New York: Shilo Pub- lishingHouse, 1971): 77.  Isaac Abravanel, Commentaire du rècit de la creation (Genèse 1:1a6:8), trans. Yéhouda Schiffers (Paris:Verdier 1999): 350f. 258 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

So here, at least for more prosaic philological and hermeneutical minds with no in- terest in logos theology, it became obviousthat the lingua Adamica was mainlya Christian speculation or—in Jewisheyes—rather aphantasm.

3.2 Marin Mersenne

Marin Mersenne, aFrench Franciscan monk, astronomer,philologist,and mathema- tician and one of the best and busiest networkers in the seventeenth century,afriend of Gassendi and Descartesand an avid anti-kabbalist,wroteahugecommentary on the Book of Genesis with the title Quaestiones celeberrimaeinGenesim,which was printed in 1623.The book has achapter entitled “De scientia Adami, &intellectus or- namentis.”²⁵ Mersenne comments on Genesis 20:2,which in Latin reads: ‘Appellavit Adam nominibus suis cunctaanimantia, &universa volatiliacoeli, &omnes bestias terrae. Adae verò non enveniabatur adiutor similis eius.’²⁶

aQuotation of Naḥmanides It is importantthatMersenne cites the lastverse of this famous biblical passage, since it is here that the germ of the destruction of the concept of the lingua Adamica lies hidden. Mersenne does not openlydrawthe hermeneutical conclusions of the last sentence. However,hequotes Naḥmanides as the best commentary on this pas- sage: Adam did not find anyanimal to whom he could have givenaname corre- sponding to his own as ish (‘man’)until he sawawoman, whom he called isha (‘woman’), because she wasobviouslysuited to him.²⁷ He evidentlyknew the scep- tical and dry elimination of the lingua Adamica by the Jewish exegete, but that did not prevent him from giving an explicit explanation of how Adamicwisdom could be imagined and explained in terms of the Aristotelian theory of knowledge.

bPhilosophicalConsiderationsabout the Adamic Language 1The Limits of Adam’sKnowledge: Hebrew Grammar Sufficient for the Explanation of the Holy Scriptures Firstly, he dealswith the philosophical question of whether the namesofthe things are imposed on thosethingsorwhether they derive ab ipsa natura. Evidently, he be- lieves that Adam was giveninsight into the essence of the thingsbyGod. It is remark- able that the sceptical Mersenne concludes: ‘It is not dangerous if we concede to

 Marin Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim (Paris:Cramoisy,1623): col. 1201–1221.  Ibidem,col. 1201.  Ibidem,col. 1201: ‘Ramban ait nullum animal reperissse Adamum, cui nomen ex proprio suo no- ,isha]nomen inderet] השא ish]deductum imponereposset,donec foeminam videret,cui ] שיא mine quia solumsibi convenireperspexit.’ Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Rise and Destruction of aConcept 259

Adam the knowledge of all thingscorporeal and elementary,aswell as the know- ledge of the stars and the sciences.’²⁸ His proof is biblical; he quotes Ecclesiasticus (Jesus Sirach) 17:3.4.6:

He gave him the number of his days and gave him poweroverall things, that areupon the earth. He put fear of him upon all flesh, and he had dominion over beasts and fowls. […]Hecreated in them (scil. Adam and Eve) the scienceofthe spirit,hefilled their heart with wisdom, and showed them both good and evil.²⁹

It seems that one has to conclude from this that the first parents omni decore, virtute atque scientia ornatos fuisse. Mersenne offers some critical objections; it is, however,not completelyclear whether he does so in order to destroy or to corroborate the biblical passage. On the one hand, he argues thatAdam onlyhad sufficient knowledge to explain the HolyScriptures and the veneration of the godhead. It was not aknowledge of all par- ticulars, but aform of wisdom which derived from optimum ingenium &maximam aetatem.³⁰ HereMersenne again drawsonevidence from Jesus Sirach 17:11: ‘And their eyes sawthe majesty of his glory,and their ears heard his glorious voice, and he gave them aheart to understand.’ These were practical abilitieswhich mostly concerned voluptas animi—the ‘joy of the soul.’ This knowledge did not deal with theoretical subjects such as mathematicsand the liberal arts. On the other hand, he seems convinced thatAdam was able to answer questions about astronomy and grammar,particularlythe latter as he gave names to the animals. God gave him the Hebrew languagewhich he handed down perfectly to Eveand their descend- ants. Moreover,whenthe discussion turns to these encyclopaedic questions, Mers- enne seems to lose his sceptical attitude completely. He is sure that Adam mastered the problems of metaphysics,angelic knowledge,and all the secret sciencesofthe wise men from the Orientbefore the fall: ‘IndorumGymnosophistae, Sacerdotes Ae- gyptorum, Prophetarum Cabalistae, Chaldaei Babyloniorum […]Adamus omnibus Philosophis hic enumeratis doctior.’ Additionally, he had aperfect knowledge of nat- ural magic. It is hard to decide whether Mersenne is being ironic with this list from asecret Adamic encyclopaedia. It is preciselythe list of magic sciencesherejects in his acrid polemics against Robert Fludd which feature in this very same volume on the Book of Genesis.

 Ibidem,col.1211: ‘nullum esse periculum si rerumomnium corporearum, atque elementorum, quam syderum cognitionem, atquescientiarum Adamo tribuamus.’  Ibidem: ‘Numerum dierum et tempus dedit illi (viz. Adam). Et dedit illi potestatem eorum quae sunt super terram. Et deinde: &disciplina scientiae replevit illos (viz. Adam and Eve). Creavit illos scientiam spiritus,sensu implevit corillorum, &mala &bona ostendit illis.’  Ibidem. 260 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

2PhilosophicalTheoryofKnowledge: Species Infusa (How is it possible to know what aspecies is without having sense perception of an individual of this species? Godpresented the individual animaltoAdam in the moment when he infused him with the knowledge of the species.) Be that as it maywith the encyclopaedia of magic and secret sciences, Mersenne’s substantial considerations concerning the concept of the lingua Adamica are philo- sophical. His question is: what kind of knowledge could Adam have had?How can infused empirical knowledge be possible?³¹ Mersenne’sfirst rather sceptical question is: is it possible to know particular thingswithout having achieved ahabitus thatadministrates the species deriving from sensual experience with the extra-mental things? Knowledge of extra-mental thingsisalways knowledge of species, and thereforeabstract.Itisabstracted from the extra-mentalthings, represented spirituallybyanabstract phantasma which is givenaname. Aphantasma, viz. aspecies or scheme,can be givenaname, and with the combination of scheme and name one can communicate knowledge and identify an individual extra-mentalthing.This is the Aristotelian theory of science: giving aspecies aname is creatingaconcept of an individual, extra-mental being. The second question is how an intra-mentalspecies can correspond to an extra- mental object without previous experience and withoutamental habitus of epis- teme. It is not at all clear how it is possiblethat infused knowledge of species, prior to anyexperience, can meet the external individual object.Inorder to produce empirical knowledge,one must always compareexternal individual thingsand men- tal species. But this was preciselynot the casefor the namesAdam gave the animals. Mersenne solvesthis difficulty as follows: he suggests that God conceded his pe- culiar knowledge of things, namelythe lingua Adamica,toAdam in this way: at the very moment when God infused the cognition of all thingsinto Adam’smind, he showed the animalstohim physically. Therefore, the divinelyinfused species perfect- ly corresponded to the thingspresented to him.³² Through this construction, the cor- respondence between the species infusa and empirical knowledge wasgranted. Adam thereforeknew the essential divine language, since the knowledge of the species infusa which God concededtoAdam entailed more than the empirical know- ledge of species achievedbythe habitus of abstraction.³³ He was giventhe verbum mentis mediante specieintelligibili (‘the mental wordthrough the medium of the in- telligible species’). The essential wordwhich corresponded to the divine logos of the

 Ibidem,col. 1215: ‘Itaque primò videndum est,anquis aliquo habitu scientiae infuso peraeque uti valeat,acsiillum proprio labore comparasset; 2quomodo novit Adamus scientias praedictos ibi di- vinitus concessas fuisse.’  Ibidem,col. 1216f.: ‘Existimo autem Deum tantam rerum omnium cognitionem Adamo conce- disse, ut statim atque occulos aperiret, viderit hanc &illam plantam, astra &quaecumquesubjecerit occulis, perfectecorrespondereilli cognitioni, quam habeat àDeo.’  This question is discussed in Articulus VI: Quomodo potuit Adamus de rebus,quas agnoscebat, edissere, cùm loqui nusquam didicisse? Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 261

creation entailed the knowledge of the proprietates rerum and their substance. This languagewas the original divine Hebrew,lost with the fall. But before this misfor- tune, Adam taught the original Hebrew,his lingua Adamica,toEve in paradise.

3.3 Samuel Bochart (1599–1667): Hierozoicon

Samuel Bochart was one of the outstanding Calvinistic philologists of the seven- teenth century;his Hierozoicon,anencyclopaedia of all known animalscompared with those mentioned in the Bible, was the reference dictionaryofseventeenth- and eighteenth-century biblical exegesis.³⁴ Bochart,amodel Calvinist,was adry phi- lological positivist.Heasks three questions concerning the lingua Adamica:1.What is aspecies of animal?Accordingtothe biblical account,wereanimalsalso presented to Adam that derivedfrom mixtures of species, like mules or amphibiouscreatures? And what about the species of animalsinthe waters,³⁵ which do not feature in the biblical account?2.The second question is even more positivistic: how could one re- construct the situation when God presented the train of animalstoAdam?ToBo- chart,itisawonder thatthe crowdofanimalsproceeded peacefullyinaline before Adam, justasall animalslived peacefullytogetherinNoah’sark. 3. Afurther ques- tion is how so manyanimals could come to aplace whereAdam could imposenames on them. Wasthis possible through the might of angels or arcano Dei impulsu?³⁶ Bo- chart leavesthese questions open and fleesinto exegetical obedience:itissufficient that we know that God, who has absolutemastery over the creatures, has means by which he can arbitrarilyrealise whatever he decided needed to be done.³⁷ Quimovent quaestiones tam superfluas should recall that nobodyknows whystorks and cranes flytoEgypt in the autumn and return to Europe in spring. Facing all these problems of biblical realism, Bochart onlyallows one interpre- tation of the lingua Adamica: ‘Itaque in servitutis notam Adam illis omnibus nomina imposuit,nempe ut domni servis solent.’³⁸ Before the fall, the animalswereobedient to Adam and Eve; after the fall, most of the animalsbecame wild and disobedient, although there weretracesofthe original obedience in dogsand horses. As aphilologist,Bochartisinterested in the history of the Hebrew namesAdam gave to the animals. He also argues that Adam transmitted the animals’ names to later generations, which giveshim the opportunity to list avast number of animal names that can etymologicallybetraced backtotheirHebrew origin.

 Samuel Bochart, Hierozoicon sive bipartitum opus de Animalibus S. Scripturae,ed. quarta (Leiden and Utrecht: Guillielmus vandeWater,1712):vol. 1, lib. 1, Cap.IX.  The question of fish was alreadyasubject of discussion in St.Augustine’s De Genesi ad literam.  Bochart, Hierozoicon,vol. 1, col. 56.  Ibidem: ‘Sufficit enim ut sciamus,Deo, qui absolutam habetincreaturas dominium, non deesse rationes,quibus eas pro arbitrio suo impellatquaecunquedecrevit et destinavit.’  Ibidem,col. 57. 262 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

3.4 Hermann von der Hardt and Johann Albert Fabricius

JohannAlbert Fabricius was the chief lexicographer of Latin and Greek philologyof the late seventeenth and the earlyeighteenth centuries. His Bibliotheca Graeca, Bib- liotheca Latina and Bibliotheca Mediae et InfimaeLatinitatis werethe key reference works/dictionaries/encyclopaedias of classical philologythrough the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, until the Realenzyklopädie fürklassische Philologie und Al- tertum,the so-called Pauly-Wissowa,replaced them. Fabricus’ philologyalsoinclud- ed theological philology. Therefore, he collected dates and texts concerning the pseu- depigraphyofthe New and Old Testaments.³⁹ Important for the subject of the lingua Adamica is his Codex pseudepigraphicus Veteris Testamenti;⁴⁰ here, under the lemma ‘Adam,’ he discusses: 1. ‘Adamus Litterarum Inventor’;2.‘Adami Commentarius de Nominibus Animantium’;and 3. ‘Adamus edoctis ab angelis.’ Fabricius, like Bochart,was adry character.Inmost cases, he onlycites others’ opinions; however,concerning the first section, the invention of the script and pecu- liarlythe revelation of the Hebrew letters and their punctuation, he is ironic and shows clear judgement.⁴¹ He quotes the Calvinistic polyhistor Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Imperial librarian Peter Lambeck, who wereconvincedthat Adam handed over the completeknowledge of the Hebrew languageincludingits punctuation. As aphilologist who knew the state of the art,hewas of course convinced that the punctuation of the Hebrew letters was arabbinicinvention. Therefore, he ridi- cules all attemptstoelaborate this thesis and denotes it as ‘nugae’ (‘cloudy’). Al- though he insists that he wants to save money and time since otherwise he would have to report too manyridiculous opinions, he nevertheless quotes alot of literature concerning this subject.⁴² The second section comes to the heart of the problem, viz. Adam’snaming of the animals; this is the famous locus Genesis 2:19.Infact,Fabricius quotes works by some very well-known authors who argued in favour of the lingua Adamica:Petavius’

 The best monograph on Fabricius is Erik Petersen, Johann Albert Fabricius:EnhumanistzinEuro- pa (in Danish) (Copenhagen: Museum TusculanumForlag, 1998).  Johann Albert Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphicus Veteris Testamenti (Hamburgand Leipzig: Lie- benzeit,1713): 1.  Ibidem: ‘Litteras Hebraicas una cum punctis vocalibus ab Adamo repertas &Setho traditas non dubitant Henricus Alstedius in Chronologia p.253.&Petrus Lambecius quem vide sis in Prodoromo Hist.literariae p.5. Alii diversa longe&mirifica plane Alphabeta tribuunt Adamo, quae velabipso excogitate, velabAngelo Raziel ille tradita nugantur,quae hic descxribi aere curassem, nisi in ridi- culis commentis ac per tot alios jam explosis voluissem opera et sumptui parcere.’  Cf. ibidem;hementionsThomas Bangius, Toumakaritou coelo Orientis,100 –101;Giulio Bartoloc- ci, Bibliotheca Rabbinica,vol. 1, 80;Scipio Sgambati, ArchivaV.T.,28ff.; Paul Christian Hilscher, Bib- liotheca Adami (Dresden, 1703,17114°); Gottfried Volkerot, De societatibus literariis antediluvianis,14; AngelusRoccha, Commentarius de Bibliotheca Vaticana,79, 82, 88, 295; Theseus Ambrosius in Appen- dice introductionis ad Varias linguas,and manyothers. Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 263

Theologia dogmatica,⁴³ Johann Heinrich Heidegger’s Historia patriarcharum,⁴⁴ and Samuel Bochart’s Hierozoicon.⁴⁵ But his most important sourceisthe Helmstedt pol- yhistor Hermann vonder Hardt, who doubted the whole theory concerning the lingua Adamica. In aletter to Paul Martin Nolte, printed in Helmstedt in 1705,von der Hardt states thatheshares Isaac Abravanel’sopinion⁴⁶ thatMoses did not intend to say anything about Adam giving names to the animals, but that he merelywanted to ex- press that Adam did not find abeing among the animalsthat wassuitable to become his wife. The story in Genesis 2:19 was also told, as Abravanel explains, as an alle- gorical example for the Jews that they should guard against the infamyofthe hea- thens who, like beasts, often violate their contracts.⁴⁷ In his letter to Paul Martin Nolte, vonder Hardtstates:

Adam carefullyexaminedall livingbeings,saysMoses,ofwhatevername, for he should judge himself in God’smandatewhether therewas one among them whocould become his desired partner,who could nourish him and establish afamilywith him.⁴⁸

 Denis Pétau, Dogmata Theologica,ed. Nova(Paris:Vives, 1866): T. IV.Theologicorum dogmatum De opificio sex dierum, Lib. II, Cap.VIII, 265b.  Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Historia sacraPatriarcharum. Exercitationes selectae,ed. Secunda (Amsterdam:Abraham àSomeren, 1688): 148(the passagedeals with the essential names Adam gave the animals): ‘Quippe quae jamjam impositumnomen fuerat,idem multò ante in ipsa natura inclusum fuisse, adeóque suam illam in appellatoquoque appellationem antegressum esse declar- ant,quam deinde vir ille divino afflatus vi quadam superioreimposuit. Quod etiam secundum natur- .isha] vira, quae ejus originem plane pandit ] השיא am imposita sint nomina, arguit appellatoconiugis Et animalium nomina Hebraica, quae in Sacris occurrunt,naturam ipsam animalium aperiunt.’  Bochart, Hierozoicon,vol. I, lib. 1, Cap.IX.  Abravanel, Commentaire du rècitdelacreation,350f.: ‘Commeilest dit ensuite: “Et l’hommene trouvapoint d’aide qui luicorresponde.” Il n’apas trouvéparmi les animaux, en face et devantlui, une femelle capable de luiêtreune aide qui le servealors que tel était le but de ce rassemblement.En effet,D.n’apas volului donner une femme avantqu’il en ressente la nécessité, qu’il la recherché, et qu’il ne trouvepas de femelle qui luiconvienne parmi toutes les espèces animals.C’est alos qu’Il la luiafaite, de sa chair et de sa substance.’  Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphicus Veteris Testamenti,3:‘Nuper tamen ViracutissimusHerman- nus ab Hardt universum hoc vocavit in dubium, Epistola ad Paulum Martinum Noltenium Helmstadii 1705.8 edita, &cum Arbabanele sentit Moysen nihil eo loco dicere de animantibusabAdamo nomine donatis,sed tantum voluisse docere quod Adamus considerata quorumcunque animantium natura, nullum offenderit aptumadvitae &coniugii consuetudinem, ut adeo Adami exemplo Judaei moner- entur cavere sibi ab Ethnicorum turpidine, qui brutis bestiis quandoque foede sunt abusi.’  Hermann vonder Hardt, Ad Clarissimum virum Paulum Martinum Noltenium … in Mosis Gen. II, 18.19.20,inBochartumEpistola (Helmstedt, 1705): 25: ‘scopus erat,Adamo divinitus destinatam fuisse sociam;’ 29: ‘Omnia, inquit Moses,vivaanimantia, quocunque veniant nomine, attente consideravit et expendit sedulo, prodivino nutu &instinctu ipsemet ingénue judicaturus,analiquod illorum ess- set,quod ad auxilium desideratum societatemque ineundam,alendam,remque familiarem conser- vandam facereposset.’ But he did not find any, and this was reason whyGod made Evefrom Adam’srib, ‘flesh frommyflesh and bone frommybone,’ as his companion and helper: isha. 264 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

However,hedid not find any, and this was the reason whyGod made Evefrom Adam’srib ‘flesh from my flesh and bone from my bone’ as his companion and help- er: the isha for the ish,the fe-male as the partner of the male. Fabricius confesses that he finds this opinion the onlyplausible interpretation of the biblical passage.⁴⁹ With this statement from aleadingphilologist in the first decade of the eighteenthcentury, it finallybecame obvious that the idea of the lingua Adamica had lost its credibility.

3.5 Zedler’s Universallexikon/PierreBayle/Hermann Samuel Reimarus: “Adam”

Acouple of years later, this opinion shared by the philological elite had become com- mon. In the article entitled “Adam,” which was printed in Johann Heinrich Zedler’s Universallexikon in 1732, all the elements of the spiritual tradition are still mentioned; however,they are all rejected. Onlythe post-paradisiacal biblical story of Adam re- mainedaccepted as historical truth. Zedler—or whoever the author of the article was—writes:

Adam, the first man, whom God has created after His image. […]His ageamounted to 930years, and he begot Cain, Abel, Seth, and additionalsons and daughters whom we do not know by name. One honestlycannot relateanythingelse about him on the basis of scripture. All other stories about him arebased on conjectures which areatbest likelyorevidentlyfabulous and absurd,e.g.one knows so much about Adam’speculiar physical beauty and his magnificent knowledge.Some saythat the angel Raziel was his teacher.They attributetoAdam different books,one on the names of the animals,anapocalypse, Psalm 92 and other psalms,the kabbal- istic book Raziel, the book Yeṣirah, likewise one on alchemy, and others.Amongthe Jews,there aremanywho pretend that Adam was abeingofagigantic size, also that he was created circum- cised. And it is also aproduct of absurd fantasy if some, and especiallythe well-known Lady Bourignon, believed that Adam was bisexual and that,beforethe fall, he could procreatethe human race without woman.⁵⁰

 Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphicus Veteris Testamenti,3:‘Fateor non destitui ingenio quae àViro praestantissimo disputantur &communi sententiae objiciuntur,sed ab tota antiquitatecui ratio & verba Moysis apertevidnetur favere,ideo neutiquamrecesserim.’  Zedlers Universallexikon,vol. 1(Leipzig, 1732): s.v. Adam: ‘Adam, der erste Mensch, welchen Gott nach seinem Ebenbilde erschaffen.[…]Erhat sein Alter auf930 Jahre gebracht,und ausser Cain, Abel und Seth, noch andereungenannteSöhne und Töchter gezeuget. Ein mehrereslässet sich vonihm mit Wahrheits-Grunde und nach der heiligen Schrifft nicht melden. Denn was man sonsten von ihm erzehlet, beruhet entweder auflauter Muthmassungen, die aufeine Wahrscheinlichkeit gegrün- det sind, oder ist offenbarlichfabelhaft und ungereimt.Also weiß man viel vonseiner sonderbaren Leibes-Schönheit und grosserWissenschaft zu sagen, wobey einige den EngelRaziel vorseinen Lehr- meister ausgeben, ihm auch ein und andereSchrifften, als ein Buch vondenen Namen der Thiere, eine Apokalypsin, den 92.und andere Psalmen, das cabbalistische Buch Raziel, das Buch Jezira, im- gleichen eines vonder Alchemie, und noch anderemehr andichten. Unter denen Jüden werden viele gefunden, welche vorgeben, er sei vonungeheurer Riesen-Grösse gewesen, auch beschnitten erschaf- fen worden. So sind auch ungereimte Phantaseyen, wann einige,und sonderlich die bekannteBour- ignon, gemeinet,daß in Adam beyderley Geschlechtvereinigt gewesen, und daß er bis aufseinen Fall das menschliche Geschlechtallein, und ohne Weib hättefortpflanzenkönnen.’ Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 265

Although the article in Zedler’sbook widelydepends on Pierre Bayle’s Dictionnaire HistoriqueetCritique,itisalso much more sceptical thanit. Whereas Bayle still ac- cepts Adam’svastknowledge as legitimate biblical exegesis accordingtothe analogy of faith,⁵¹ the article in Zedler doubts this. It looks as though it had been written by Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Fabricius’sunbelievingson-in-law. The credibility of Adam’suniversal knowledge is completelyabandoned here. The doctrine of the di- vine origin of the human languageand its implication that the divine logos opens an insight into the essence of the thingscreated is drawninto serious doubt.The ter- rain is pavedfor new naturalistic theories of the origin of languages which, from the 1750s on, grew like mushrooms from the earth. In the 1730s, the samedecade in which “Adam” appearedinZedlersUniversal- lexikon,Hermann Samuel Reimaruswrote his Schutzschrift fürdie vernünftigen Ver- ehrer Gottes (‘Apologyfor God’sReasonable Venerators’), an acrid criticism of the Old and New Testaments which remained unpublished until 1972. Lessingknew the manuscript and publishedparts of it in the 1770s. Reimarus was abrilliant Hebraist,virtuoso student of Johann Albert Fabricius and Johann Christoph Wolff, the author of the famous Bibliotheca Hebraea. During his workinglife, he was aprofessor of Oriental languages at the HamburgGymnasi- um Johanneum. In the 1730s, he conceivedhis clandestine magnum opus,the afore- mentioned Schutzschrift fürdie vernünftigenVerehrer Gottes,and here the historicity of the whole paradisiacal story,and with it the historical Adam, were taken apart. Reimarus still seems to believethatAdamwas ahistorical figure; however,the onlyAdam he acceptsisthe one after the fall and the expulsion from paradise.⁵² Forhim, the whole paradisiacal story is dubious.His doubts especiallyconcern the question of original sin and its relationship to Adam and Eve’sknowledge and wisdom. Hiscrucial question is: if Adam was created in God’simageand was so wise by God’sinstruction, and if he taught the divine languageand wisdom to Eve, how could one imagine thatthis wisdom did not include the distinction be- tween good and evil?Why did Evetrust the serpent rather than God’swise com- mand?And how was it possiblethat the wise Adam was seduced by Eveinthe ridic- ulous manner of eating an apple?And alittle later,the scripture says that ‘the eyes of the first parents wereopened’ with this act of the disobedient eating of an apple—

 PierreBayle, Dictionnaire,s.v.Adam: Bayle first tells the biblicalfacts about Adam; this is then takenoverbythe Zedler article. Bayle continues: ‘Voilà tout ce que nous savons de certain sur son Chapitre. Uneinfinitéd’autreschoses,que l’on adites de lui, sont,outrèsfausses,outrèsincer- taines:ilest vrai qu’on peut jugerdequelques-unes,qu’elles ne sont point contraires àl’analogie de la foi, ni àlaprobabilité. Je mets en ce dernierrang ce que l’on dit de sa vastescience.’ This positive judgement is not takenupbythe Zedler article.  Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift fürdie vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes,ed. GerhardAlexander,vol. 1(Frankfurt: Insel 1972): 193–195. 266 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann

what was this new kind of wisdom?Reimarus comments sarcastically: ‘Nobodyisso foolishthat he thinks he can become adoctor by consumingfruits.’⁵³ Here, the paradisiacal Adam, and with him the lingua Adamica,was dissolved into vapour.Adam became amythic figure, and the question of the origin of languag- es washenceforth discussed naturalistically, withoutany reference to divine inter- vention. From the 1750s on, naturalistic theories of the origin of languages sprang up like mushrooms.But that is another story.

 Ibidem,758: ‘Dann aber sieht Eva den Baum an, daß gutdavon zu wäre, weil er klugmache. […] Sollte die Klugheit im Apfel stecken, und als eine Quintessenz durch die Verdauungdes Magens her- ausgezogen werden, damit sie so ins Geblüt treten,und in die Seele übergehen könnte?Welche Vor- stellung!Soalbern denkt jetzt niemand, daß er sich im Obst zum Doktor fressen könnte.’