REVIEWS
Le Scorpion, symbole du peuple juif dans l'art religieux des XIV, XV, XVI siècles, by Marcel Bulard (Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1935). Starting with an examination of paintings in the Chapel of St Sebastian de Lans-le-Villard in Savoy, the author has collected all the relevant documents he was able to discover and has made a very detailed study of them, accompanied by many reproductions. Under discussion are representations of the scorpion, either on the standard carried by the personified Synagogue, or more frequently in the representations of certain scenes of the Passion. In this last case, the scorpionic standard is generally associated with standards bearing other emblems, and especially the letters S P Q R, obviously to indicate the participation of both the Jews and the Romans. A rather curious thing that seems to have escaped the author's attention is that these same letters, arranged in another order (S Q R P), evoke phonetically the very name of the scorpion. As for the interpretation of this symbol, the author, basing himself on the 'Bestiaries' as well as on the dramatic poetry of the end of the Middle Ages, shows that it especially signifies falsity and perfidy; he quite rightly remarks, moreover, that during the period in question symbolism, far from being 'dogmatic' as it was previously, became principally 'moral', which amounts to saying that it was on the verge of degenerating into mere 'allegory', a direct consequence of the weakening of the traditional spirit. Be that as it may, we think that, originally at least, there must have been something more, perhaps an allusion to the zodiacal sign of Scorpio, to which the idea of death is attached; besides, we may note in this regard that without such an allusion the very passage of the Gospel
where the scorpion is opposed to the egg (Luke 11:11-12) remains perfectly incomprehensible. Another interesting and enigmatic point is the attribution of the same symbols, in particular the scorpion and the basilisk, to the Synagogue and to Dialectic. Here the explanations considered, such as the reputation for dialectical skill that the Jews had, seem to us truly insufficient to explain such an association; and we cannot help but recall a tradition according to which the works of Aristotle, who was considered the master of Dialectic, must have contained a hidden meaning that cannot be penetrated and applied except by the Antichrist, who on the other hand, it is said, must be of Jewish descent. Is there not something to look for in this direction?
Sir Charles Marston, La Bible a dit vrai, tr. Luce Clarence (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1935) [orig. English, The Bible is True: the Lessons of the 1925-1934 Excavation in Bible Lands Summarized and Explained (London: The Religious Book Club, 1934)]. First and foremost this book contains, if one may put it so, an excellent criticism of biblical 'criticism', bringing out perfectly all that is partial in its methods and mistaken in its conclusions. Moreover, it seems that the position of this 'criticism', formerly so self-assured, is today seriously compromised in the eyes of many, for all the recent archeological discoveries only bring more refutations. Perhaps this is the first time that such discoveries serve for something that goes beyond mere erudition... It goes without saying moreover that those who truly know what tradition is have never had any need for this kind of proof; but it must be recognized that, being based on facts that are as it were 'material' and tangible, they are especially fitted to appeal to the modern spirit, which is sensitive only to things of this order. We will note in particular that the results obtained go directly against all the 'evolutionist' theories, and that they show 'monotheism' at the very origins and not as the final outcome of a long development starting from a so-called primitive 'animism'. Another interesting point is the proof of the existence of alphabetic writing at the time of Moses, and even earlier; and texts almost contemporaneous with him describe rites similar to those of the Pentateuch, which the 'critics' claimed to be of late institution. Finally, numerous historical facts reported in the Bible, the authenticity of which was challenged, are now found to be entirely confirmed. Of course, there still remain besides this many more or less doubtful points; and what we must be wary of is not to go too far
in the direction of a narrow and exclusive 'literalism', which, whatever one might say, has absolutely nothing traditional about it in the true sense of the word. It is questionable whether one may speak of a 'biblical chronology' when one goes back beyond Moses. The epoch of Abraham might well be more remote than is supposed. And as for the Deluge, the date that some assign to it would oblige us to reduce its importance to that of a local and very secondary catastrophe, comparable to the floods of Deucalion and Ogyges. As to the origins of humanity, it is necessary to be wary of the obsession with the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, which also has nothing traditional about it and arose solely from interpretations formulated when certain things were no longer understood in their true sense. We can hardly dwell here on certain more particular points, but let us nonetheless note this: how, while recognizing that 'Melchizedek was regarded as a very mysterious personage' in every tradition, can one bring oneself to make him merely the king of some small city, which moreover was not called Salem, but Jebus? And furthermore, if one wishes to place the country of Midian beyond the Gulf of Akaba, what does one do with the tradition that the location of the Burning Bush is to be found in the crypt of the monastery of Saint Catherine, at the very foot of Sinai? But of course, all this in no way diminishes the value of the really important discoveries, which will doubtless continue to multiply, all the more, since, after all, their first appearance goes back only some ten years; and we can only recommend the reading of this clear and conscientious account to all who wish to find arguments against this destructive and anti-traditional 'criticism'. But we are obliged to end with a 'warning' against another point of view: the author seems to rely on modern 'metapsychics' to explain miracles or at least to have them accepted, along with the gift of prophecy and in general links with what he rather unfortunately calls the 'Invisible' (a word which occultists of every category have used and abused all too much); moreover, he is not alone in this, and we have become aware recently of other examples of a similar tendency. This is a regrettable illusion, and there is even, from this perspective, a danger that is all the greater as one is less aware of it. It must not be forgotten that 'diabolical ruses' take all forms, according to circumstances, and attest to almost inexhaustible resources!