5 THE SIPHRA DI-TZENIUTHA
AS THE FIRST OF A SERIES of 'fundamental texts of the Kabbalah', Paul Vulliaud has just published a translation of the Siphra di-Tzeniutha[1] preceded by a long introduction, much longer than the translation itself, or rather the two translations, for there are two successive versions of the text in this volume, one literal and the other paraphrased. This introduction seems intended especially to demonstrate that such a work is far from being useless, even after the Zohar of Jean de Pauly; thus, the greater part of it is devoted to a detailed account of the said French translation, an account containing, it seems, almost everything it is possible to know about the translator himself, a truly enigmatic personage whose origins are not yet fully clarified. This whole story is very curious, and it is not beside the point, in order to explain the gaps and the imperfections of this work, to know under what conditions it was realized and what strange difficulties the editor had with the unfortunate Jean de Pauly, who was afflicted by a persecution mania. Nevertheless, we feel that such details have been given too great a place; on reading them, one begins to regret that Vulliaud did not devote himself entirely to what can be called the lesser details of the story, for he surely would have brought to them an unusual zest; but the Kabbalistic studies would have lost a great deal had he done so.
Concerning the present state of these studies, this same introduction contains general considerations in the course of which Vulliaud attacks, as only he knows how, the 'Doctors', that is, the 'officials'
about whom he had already spoken some harsh truths in his Kabbale juive, and then a Jesuit priest, Fr. Bonsirven, whom some it seems are now trying to present as an incomparable authority on the subject of Judaism. This discussion is the occasion for some very interesting remarks, especially on the methods of the Kabbalists and on the manner—adjudged 'astounding' by the critics—in which they cite scriptural texts; in this connection Vulliaud adds:
Contemporary exegesis has shown itself particularly incapable of adequately analyzing Gospel 'quotations' because it is determined to ignore the procedures of Jewish hermeneutics; one must take oneself to Palestine, since the evangelical works were elaborated in this region.
This seems to accord, at least in tendency, with the works of another Jesuit Father, Marcel Jousse, and it is a pity that he is not mentioned, for it would have been interesting to have him thus confront his colleague... On the other hand, Vulliaud very properly points out that Catholics who scoff at the magic formulas, or what are called such, contained in Kabbalistic works, and who hasten to label them as superstitious, ought really to notice that their own rituals are filled with things of the same kind. Likewise for the accusation of 'eroticism' and 'obscenity' brought against a certain type of symbolism:
Catholic critics might reflect, before adding their voices to those of rationalist Jews and Protestants, that Catholic theology is susceptible, like the Kabbalah, of easily becoming an object of derision regarding what occupies us at present.
It is good that these things are said by a writer who himself professes Catholicism, and certain fanatical anti-Semites and anti-Masons ought to take profit from this excellent lesson.
There are also many other things to point out in the introduction, notably regarding the Christian interpretation of the Zohar. Vulliaud makes some apt qualifications regarding certain rather forced comparisons made by Drach and accepted by Jean de Pauly. He also returns to the question of the antiquity of the Zohar, which the adversaries of the Kabbalah are bent on challenging for very poor reasons. But there is something else that is a pleasure to point out: Vulliaud states that 'to properly translate certain essential passages, it is necessary to be initiated into the mysteries of Jewish esoterism', and that 'de Pauly undertook the translation of the Zohar without having this initiation'; further on he notes that the Gospel of St John, as well as the Apocalypse, was 'addressed to initiates', and we could find still other similar statements. There is thus a certain change of attitude with Vulliaud for which we can only congratulate him, for until now he seemed to have a strange reluctance to utter the word 'initiation', or at least if he did, it was really only to mock certain 'initiates' whom he ought rather, to avoid all regrettable confusion, to have qualified as pseudo-initiates. What he writes now is the exact truth; it is indeed 'initiation' in the proper sense of the word that is in question, both in the Kabbalah and in every other esoterism worthy of the name; and we must add that this goes much further than the deciphering of a sort of cryptography, which is what Vulliaud seems to have especially in mind when he speaks as we have just seen. Doubtless this too exists; but this is still only a question of outward form, though the outward form is far from being negligible since one must pass through it to arrive at an understanding of the doctrine. But one must not confuse the means with an end nor place them on the same plane. However that may be, it is quite certain that most often the Kabbalists may really be speaking of something very different from what they appear to be speaking of, and this is not peculiar to them, far from it, for one finds it also in the Western Middle Ages. We had occasion to examine this subject in connection with Dante and the 'Fedeli d'Amore', and we noted then the principal reasons for it, which do not all reduce to mere prudence as the 'profane' may be tempted to suppose.[2] The same thing also exists in Islamic esoterism, developed to a point that no one, we believe, could suspect in the Western world; moreover, the Arabic language as well as the Hebrew language lends itself to this admirably. Here we find not only the usual symbolism, which Luigi Valli has shown in the work we spoke of to be common to both Sufis and the 'Fedeli d'Amore', but much that is better still. Is it conceivable to Western minds that a mere treatise on grammar or geography, or even on commerce, should at the same time possess another meaning that makes it an initiatic work of great importance? So it is nonetheless, and these are not chance examples; these three cases are from books that very really exist and that we actually have in our hands. This leads us to express a slight criticism concerning Vulliaud's translation of the title Siphra di-Tzeniutha. He writes 'Secret Book', and not 'Book of the Secret', and the reasons he gives seem rather inconclusive. It is indeed puerile to imagine, as some have done, that 'this title recalls the flight of Simeon ben Yohaï, during which time that rabbi is said to have composed this opuscule in secret'; but this is hardly what is meant by 'Book of the Secret', which really has a much higher and deeper meaning than that of 'Secret Book'. Here we allude to the important role played in certain initiatic traditions, precisely those which interest us now, by the idea of a 'secret' (in Hebrew sod, in Arabic sirr), which has nothing to do with discretion or dissimulation but is thus by the very nature of things;[3] must we recall in this connection that the Christian Church itself in its first days had a 'discipline of the secret', and that the word 'mystery' in its original sense properly designates the inexpressible? As for the translation itself, we said there were two versions, and they are not redundant, for the literal version, useful as it may be for those who wish to go back to the text and follow it closely, is often unintelligible. It is always like this, as we have said many times, in the case of sacred books or other traditional writings, and if a translation had to be 'word for word' in the scholarly and academic fashion, one would have to declare them really untranslatable. In reality, for us who place ourselves at a completely different point of view from that of the linguists, it is in truth the paraphrased and annotated version that constitutes the meaning of the text and allows it to be understood, while the literal version sometimes has the effect of a sort of 'word-puzzle', as Vulliaud says, or an incoherent rambling. We only regret that the commentary is not more extensive and explicit; the notes, although numerous and very interesting, are not always sufficiently 'illuminating', so to speak, and it is to be feared that they may not be understood by those who do not already have a more than elementary knowledge of the Kabbalah; but doubtless we must await the sequel of these 'fundamental texts', which, it is to be hoped, will felicitously complete this first volume. Vulliaud owes it both to us and himself to provide a similar work on the Iddra Rabba and Iddra Zuta which, with the Siphra di-Tzeniutha, are as he says far from being simply annexes or appendices of the Zohar, but 'are on the contrary its central parts,' those which contain as it were in the most concentrated form all the essential part of the doctrine.
REVIEWS
Le Scorpion, symbole du peuple juif dans l'art religieux des XIVe, XVe, XVIe 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!