ARIES
ARIES . () –
www.brill.nl/arie
Te Birth of Esotericism from the Spirit of Protestantism Wouter Wouter J. Hanegraaff University University of Amsterdam Amsterdam
Abstract
La naissance de l’ésotérisme à partir de l’esprit du protestantisme
Cet article traite de l’émergence et du développement historiques des manières dont nous entendons actuellement l’“ésotérisme occidental” compris comme domaine relativement autonome de la recherche universitaire. Il en traite en explorant un certain nombre de moments possibles de sa “naissance”, en partant du présent et, à partir de là, en remontant dans le temps. Déterminantes pour l’émergence de l’ésotérisme occidental en tant que concept sont les années ( L’ésotérisme , d’Antoine Faivre), (création de la première chaire d’Histoire de l’ésotérisme occidental, à l’E.P.H.E. [Paris]), (le début des confére férenc nces es Eran Eranos os), ), et (l’ (l’Histoire critique du gnosticisme , de Jacqu Jacques es Matter Matter). ). L’auteu ’auteurr pose qu’en définissant l’ésotérisme en termes de prétention à la connaissance (recherche de connaissa naissance nce secrèt secrète, e, cachée, cachée, dissim dissimulé ulée, e, sup supéri érieur eure, e, plus plus profon profonde, de, ou intéri intérieur eure), e), les approch approches es traditionnelles, religionistes, aussi bien que les approches discursives contemporaines de l’ésotérisme finissent par en faire un concept théorique aux applications potentiellement universelles et, du même coup, risquent de faire perdre de vue sa spécificité historique. A l’encontre de ces perspectives, l’auteur défend la manière dont Faivre conçoit l’ésotérisme, c’est-à-dire, comme une série de courants historiques ayant donné lieu à un corpus référentiel de textes. Il poursuit poursuit en posant que ce que ces courants courants et ces textes ont en commun n’est n’est pas, comme le dit Faivre, leur participation à une “forme de pensée”, mais leur exclusion, à caractère polémique, de la part d’un discours “anti-apologétique” dans le Protestantisme du ème siècle. Keywords
Esotericism; Antoine Faivre; Jacques Matter; Ehregott Daniel Colberg; Religionism; Antiapologeticism
With playful reference to Friedrich Nietzsche’ Nietzsche’s famous title, the question I woul wouldd like like to expl explor oree in this this artic article le conc concer erns ns the the emer emerge genc ncee and and deve develo lopm pmen entt of our curren currentt unders understan tandin dingg of “West “Western ern esoter esoterici icism sm”” as a relati relativel velyy autonom autonomous ous © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,
DOI: 10.1163/156798910X520593
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
field of academic research.1 My central thesis is that this origin is to be found in a heavily polemical Protestant discourse that developed in Germany in the second half of the th century. In line with the metaphor of “birth and development”, I will approach my topic genealogically: taking the contemporary situation as my starting-point, I will attempt to trace the “family tree” tree” of Western esotericism back into the past as far as possible. . From Faivre back to Corbin and Eranos
It could well be argued that the present study of Western esotericism as an academic pursuit was born sixteen years ago, in , with the publication of Antoine Faivre’ Faivre’s small but influential “Que-sais-je” volume called L’ésotérisme , which which by definin definingg Western estern esoter esoterici icism sm in terms terms of four four intrin intrinsic sic charac character terist istics ics,, plus two non-intrinsic ones, created a basic paradigm that was quickly taken up by a range of later authors up to the present. In previous publications I have referred to this as the “Faivre “Faivre paradigm”, paradigm”,2 and there can be no doubt that it has played a crucial role in getting the field established as a discipline with a distinct academic identity, and keeps playing a very important role to the present day. In proposing his novel definition, Faivre was, of course, attempting to specify and clarify an academic usage that was already in place before . “Wes “Weste tern rn esot esoter eric icis ism m” had had been been cons consid ider ered ed a field field of rese resear arch ch in its its own own righ rightt at least since the time of Faivre’s Faivre’s appointment as professor of “History of esoteric and mystical currents in modern and contemporary Europe” thirteen years previously, previously, in :3 a date that could therefore be seen as an earlier moment o prevent any misunderstandings: when I speak of the “birth of esotericism” I am referring neither to the historical origins of the various currents that are seen as belonging to the field of “Western esotericism”, nor to the historical origins of any purportedly esoteric “worldview”, “spiritual perspective”, “religious orientation”, “form of thought”, or the like. I am concerned simply, and exclusively, with the historical origins of a theoretical category ; or in other words, I am interested in the question of when intellectuals and scholars first began to conceive of a relatively autonomous “field of research” resembling the field that we now study under the label “Western esotericism”, and why this happened. 2) In his completely rewritten Introduction to the th edition [] of L’ésotérisme , Faivre himself briefly mentions this proposal, without further expressing an opinion about it (o.c., ). 3) Tere is no reason to attach any special significance to the fact that this title uses the adjective “esoteric” rather than the substantive. As for the combination of “esoteric” with “mystical”, this had to do mostly with matters of faculty politics internal to the E.P.H.E. If the “mysticism” candidate Michel de Certeau had not lost against the “esotericism” candi1)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
of birth. Tat year, however, however, is no absolute point of origin either, for the chair had in fact been created under a different title fourteen years earlier, in , as “History of Esoteric Christianity”. Christianity”. If this first academic chair for esotericism was was ther theref efor oree born born in Paris aris,, at the the Ecol Ecolee Prati ratiqu quee des des Haut Hautes es Etud Etudes es,, its its orig origin inal al conception must be attributed to one of the professors, Henry Corbin, since it was he who proposed the idea to his colleagues.4 Corbin, of course, was a central representative of the famous Eranos approach to the study of religion, and certainly had his own vision of esotericism in mind when he made the proposal. As emphasized by Tomas Hakl in his definitive history Der verborgene Geist von Eranos , the “Eranos spirit” implied a view of esotericism entirely different from Faivre’s Faivre’s later definition: Against the scholarly definition of Antoine Faivre, “esoteric” here means simply the conscious concern with a religiously motivated way “inwards”, with a “know thyself” (your “divine” self). Or formulated in different words, the “esotericism of Eranos” is concerned with “individuation”, the “descensus ad inferos = ascensus ad superos”, which takes places not in the rational and intellectual domain, but in the symbolic and spiritual domain of the soul, and nevertheless can be known by the intellect. Hence also the scepsis, which can time and again be noticed at Eranos, against a purely and exclusively rational attitude, and the deliberate inclusion of analogical “mythical” thought.5
Tis difference between an Eranos perspective and Faivre’s later definition is highly important, as will be seen. It closely parallels the basic opposition between a “religionist” concept of esotericism and a historical-empirical one: 6 an opposition that is present not only in the modern and contemporary study date Antoin Antoinee Faivre aivre (see (see Dosse Dosse,, Michel de Certeau, – –), ), perhap perhapss “West “Western ern esoteri esotericis cism m” would not exist as a field of research the way it exists today. 4) See Faivre, “La parola ‘esoterismo’”. My metaphor of “birth” and “conception” should not be understood as implying that the E.P.H.E. made any deliberate choice to start a new specialty called “esotericism”: instead, what happened is that almost by chance—simply by proposing this particular title—Corbin turns out to have “planted a seed” that would eventually blossom into the first academic chair devoted to a new academy field (and even that happened only because the second chairholder, Antoine Faivre, chose to interpret his assignment in a much broader and more comprehensive sense than his predecessor). It is only with the second academic chair (University of Amsterdam, ) that a university made a deliberate choice to create an academic setting for the study of Western esotericism (albeit under the title “History of Hermetic Philosophy and related currents”). 5) Hakl, Verborgene Geist von Eranos , –. 6) See e.g. Hanegraaff, ‘Beyond the Yates Paradigm’; id. ‘Study of Western Esotericism’, ; Faivre, L’ésotérisme (th ed.), –.
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
of esotericism, but—as I will argue below—was prefigured already at the time when esotericism was born from the spirit of Protestantism in the second half of the th century. Coming back to the creation of the chair, it is important to emphasize that no religionist or Eranos concept of “esotericism” was on the minds of the E.P.H.E. faculty members who adopted Corbin’s proposal. Most of them knew nothing about Eranos and even if they did they hardly cared about it. Tey were simply at a loss as to how to name the chair in a manner that would suit the specialty of the expected candidate, François Secret (whose work on Christian kabbalah was well known to them), and finally accepted Corbin’s title for want of anything better. 7 Secret himself, who indeed got elected, was not at all representative of the spirit of Eranos either; on the contrary, contrary, he was a typi typica call prod produc uctt of the the almo almost st posi positi tivi vist st hist histor orio iogr grap aphy hy of the the Ecol Ecolee Prati ratiqu quee des des Hautes Etudes. Only much later, with the appointment of Faivre in , did the two traditions really come together: the richness and complexity of Faivre’s Faivre’s oeuv oeuvre re as a whol wholee deri derive vess in no sm smal alll meas measur uree from from the the fact fact that that it comb combin ines es the the thorough text-critical historiography typical of the Ecole Pratique, in his great study of Eckartshausen of 8 and many later writings, and—particularly in his publicatio publications ns during the s and s—a mythical mythical// symbolic symbolic vision that that refle reflect ctss his his own own invo involv lvem emen entt in Eran Eranos os and and his his clos closee asso associ ciat atio ionn with with many many of its central figures, such as Corbin and Eliade. 9 Havi Having ng trac traced ed seve severa rall succ succes essi sive ve year yearss of birt birthh so far ( (,, ,, and and ), ), the next logical step would be to look for the birth of the Eranos approach. Tis, however, is far from easy. Te Eranos meetings began in , but the emergence of their characteristic vision cannot easily be linked to a date or a year—not inappropriately, one might say, for an approach that deemphasizes historiography in favor of the illud tempus of symbolism and mythology. If anything definite can be said in this regard, it is that the Eranos vision is clearly a reaction against certain dominant trends in the study of religion since the th th century century:: agains againstt Enligh Enlighten tenmen mentt ration rationali alism sm it emphas emphasize izess symbol symbolism ism,, mythology and religious experience; against both materialism and sociological reductionism it defends the autonomy and superiority of ideas; and against th-century historicism (and what Eliade called the “error of History”) it look lookss for for what what is univ univer ersa sall and and cann cannot ot be touc touche hedd by time time.. Hence ence,, of cour course se,, its its oft-noted affinities with such currents as Romanticism, German Idealism and 7) 8) 9)
Antoine Faivre, personal communication ( March ). Faivre, Eckartshausen. See See e.g. e.g. Hakl Hakl,, Verborgene Geist von Eranos , – –; ; McCal McCalla, la, ‘Antoin Antoinee Faivre aivre’,’, – –. .
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
raditionalism.10 If any origin of the Eranos vision should be given, we might ultimately have to look for f or reactions against the complex process referred to by Max Weber as the “disenchantment of the world”. . Jacques Matter’s “esotericism”
As far as I can see, the next indispensable year year in my genealogy prior to isis the year , when Jacques Matter introduced the substantive “esotericism” in his Histoire critique du gnosticisme et de son influence .11 Matter’s work would deserve some closer study, not least in view of the intriguing fact that he not only wrote a major work on gnosticism, but also published about Martinism and Swedenborg. It is not insignificant that Matter’s very definition of gnosticism in his book of might be applied without any trouble to Martinez de Pasqually’s vision as well: Te emanation of all spiritual beings out of God; the progressive degeneration, from emanation to emanation, of these beings; the redemption and return of all to the purity of the Creator and, after the re-establishment of the original harmony of all, the felicitous and truly divine condition of all in God: those are the fundamental teachings of gnosticism. A singular mixture of monotheism and pantheism, of spiritualism and materialism, of christianity and paganism, this system does not overlook anything. … Behold!, it says, behold the light that emanates from an immense source of light, that spreads its beneficent rays everywhere: this is how the spirits of light emanate from the divin divinee ligh light. t. Beho Behold ld,, agai again, n, they they cry out, out, all all the the sour sources ces that that feed feed the earth earth,, that that beau beauti tify fy it, that fertilize and purify it: they emanate from one single, immense ocean. Tis is how, how, from the center of divinity, divinity, emanate so many rivers ( genii pure like watery crystal) which shape and fill the world of intelligences. Behold, they finally say, the numbers, which all emanate from a first number, and which all resemble it, are made from its essence, and are nevertheless infinitely diverse; and behold the voices, which are made of so many syllables and elements, all enclosed in the original voice, and nevertheless of an unlimited variety: thus it is that the world of intelligences has emanated from the first intelligence, resembling it, and still results in an infinite variety of beings. 12
According to Matter, Matter, gnosis or gnosticism (the terms are used by him as interchangeable) emerged as a “third system” between the declining system Apart from Hakl, Verborgene Geist , see Wasserstrom, Religion after Religion. As documented in this very volume of Aries , it is only very recently that Monika Neugebauer-Wölk has discovered a yet earlier, German instance of the substantive “esotericism.” I will not discuss the implications of that discovery here, but refer the reader to her contribution. 12) Matter, Histoire critique , I, –. 10) 11)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
of polytheism on the one hand, and the Christianity that had emerged from Judaism on the other. other.13 It was essentially an eclecticism, described by him as ‘nothing but the introduction within Christianity of the cosmological and theosophical speculations that had formed the most important part of the ancient religions of the Orient, joined with those of the Egyptian, Greek and Judaic doctrines’ which had been accepted by the platonists.14 Like so many others in this period, Matter, too, believed that this new system owed its original impulse to Zoroastrianism, which by being assimilated into Judaism had given birth to the kabbalah.15 I have given some special attention here to Matter’s concept for three reasons. Te first one is simply that, although Matter has been quoted as the inventor of the term “esotericism” ever since Jean-Pierre Laurant called attention to the fact in , not much has been written about what he actually understood by it, and certainly not in English. 16 Te second reason is that his “gnosis” or “gnosticism” turns out to be essentially what would be famously characterized, by Adolf von Harnack, as the “acute hellenization of Christianity”, and we shall see later how essential this concept is to the “birth of esotericism from the spirit of Protestantism” in the second half of the th century. Tirdly and finally, it is important to clarify what Matter meant by “esotericism”. For him it is concerned with “secret teachings” concerned with superior knowledge (gnosis), reserved for an elite and passed on from the ancient mystery traditions.17 When he speaks of ‘the ‘the esotericism of the gnostics’, gnostics’,18 it is this secret gnosis that he has in mind: hence “esotericism “esotericism”, ”, for him, is certainly not a label for a series of historical currents, but rather, rather, an important characteristic of a current (gnosis or gnosticism) defined as pagan/monotheistic syncretism. Matter simply adopted the long-standing use of the adjective “esoteric” as referring to such secret teachings; the only thing new was that he had the idea (or adopted adopted the earlier earlier German German idea) idea) of making making a substantive substantive out of it, and this this innovation was picked up by later authors, notably Eliphas Lévi, 19 who began Ibid., I, v. 14) Ibid, I, . 15) On the pervasive pervasive tendency tendency of seeing kabbalah kabbalah as having sprung from Zoroastrianis Zoroastrianism, m, see Hanegraaff, ‘Origins of Occultist Kabbalah’. 16) Laurant’s own brief discussion remains the longest of which I am aware (Laurant, L’ésotérisme chrétien, ). 17) Ibid., I, –. 18) Ibid., II, . 19) For more details about the career of the term between Matter and Lévi, cf. Hanegraaff, ‘Esotericism’. 13)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
to use it as a general label for much more than ancient gnosticism alone. In term termss of subs substa tanc nce, e, the the birt birthh of “esot esoter eric icis ism m” as unde unders rsto tood od by Matt Matter er ther theref efor oree certainly did not start with him: the adjective “esoteric” can be traced back to the second century 20 but the idea of a lineage of secret mystery teachings is certainly much older, and we shall see that the idea of a “hellenization of Christianity” leading to pagan/monotheistic syncretism goes back to the th century at least. . Secrecy and Inner Wisdom
Having reached this point in our genealogical investigation, we might notice a peculiar fact. I began my search for the birth-year of “esotericism” from Faivre’s booklet, which specifically described the field as consisting of a series of historical currents in Western culture, and argued that they are related because they share a certain “form of thought” that can be defined in terms of four characteristics (to which two further, non-intrinsic ones might be added). But while trying to discover when that idea was born, we have so far found something very different. On the one hand, we have encountered the religionist vision of Eranos, which may have influenced Faivre but is certainly not the foundation of his mature concept of esotericism; and on the other hand, we have encountered the notion of secret teachings reserved for an elite , which Faivre took pains to distinguish from his own understanding of the field.21 Tese two understandings of esotericism remain extremely influential up to the present day, day, and are often mingled with one another. another. Along the lines of Eranos religionism, esotericism is often understood as concerned somehow with the “inner dimension” dimension” of religion, in contrast with its “outer” dimensions represented by official institutions or doctrinal theology; 22 this approach relies Hanegraaff, ‘Esotericism’, , with reference to the extensive discussions by Riffard, L’ésotérisme . 21) See e.g. Faivre, Access , . 22) Such an understanding of Western esotericism as “inner Western traditions” is basic to Gnosis magazine, an influential popular journal founded by Jay Kinney, which appeared from to , and is linked in various ways to a network of likeminded organizations, publishers, journals and authors that emerged in the United States since the s. Its universalist/counterculturalist understanding of “Western esotericism” is grounded in the raditionalist notion of a universal “inner” or esoteric truth as opposed to the limited and merely “outer” visions of religious institutions and dogmatic theologies. theol ogies. It is mainly against this orientation that the modern study of Western esotericism had to demarcate itself from the early s on: a process that took place notably during the annual meetings of the 20)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
on distinctions or polarities such as myth versus history, symbolism versus doctrine, experiential versus rational knowledge, individual versus collective, and so on. And the notion of esotericism as concerned with secret teachings is often mingled with this religionist understanding to such an extent that they can can no long longer er be kept kept apar apart. t. A perf perfec ectt rece recent nt exam exampl plee is Arthu Arthurr Versl erslui uiss’s rece recent nt textbook Magic and Mysticism: An Introduction to Western Esotericism , which opens as follows: Strictly Strictly speaking, the term esoteric refers to knowledge reserved for a small group; it derives from the Greek word esotero, meaning “within” or “inner”. In our context, the word esoteric implies inner or spiritual knowledge held by a limited circle, as opposed to exoteric , publicly known or “outer” knowledge. Te term Western esotericism, then, refers to inner or hidden spiritual knowledge transmitted through Western European historical currents that in turn feed into North American and other non-European settings.23
Tis wholly religionist definition puts “knowledge” into the very center— something, incidentally, which Versluis has in common with the otherwise extremely different discursive approach to esotericism associated with Kocku von Stuckrad, who also considers claims of superior knowledge to be crucial to what the field is all about. 24 Here I do not mean to contest the centrality of claims for a special, superior “knowledge” or “gnosis” to the field of Western esotericism; on the contrary, I woul wouldd agre agreee that that they they are are amon amongg the the most most prom promis isin ingg cand candid idat ates es when when it come comess to selecting central components for a theoretical definition of Western esotericism.25 We We should be wary, wary, however, however, about the risk of conceptual slippage slippage that seems hard to avoid in any such approach. By this I mean that starting from the statement that claims of higher, deeper, or inner knowledge are central to Western Western esotericism as a field of research, one easily reverses the logical order American Academy of Religion (see Faivre, L’ésotérisme [th ed., ], –; Hanegraaff, ‘Te Study of Western Esotericism’, – nt ; and Hanegraaff, ‘Kabbalah in Gnosis Magazine’), where the basic “ Gnosis perspective” was represented by an organization which called called itself itself the “Herme “Hermetic tic Academ Academyy”. Te perspec perspective tive typical typical of Gnosis maga magazi zine ne can can also also be found in Kinney, Te Inner West , Smoley, Inner Christianity , and Smoley & Kinney, Hidden Wisdom. 23) Versluis, Magic and Mysticism, . 24) Von Stuckrad, Western Esotericism, ; idem, ‘Esoterik in der gegenwärtigen Forschung’; idem, ‘W ‘ Western Esotericism’, –. For a critical discussion, d iscussion, cf. Faivre, ‘Kocku von Stuckrad’. 25) Hanegraaff, ‘rouble ‘rouble with Images’. –; and cf. idem, ‘Reason, Faith, Gnosis’. Gnosis’.
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
of the argument, and ends up suggesting that anybody who claims a higher, deeper or inner knowledge of some kind therefore falls within the purview of the the stud studyy of esot esoter eric icis ism. m. All All cher cherri ries es may may be red, red, bu butt not not every everyth thin ingg red red is ther thereefore fore a cher cherry ry.. In the the case case of Versl erslui uis, s, he does does impl implyy that that “Wes “Weste tern rn esot esoter eric icis ism m” is merely the Western manifestation of something that can be found universally all over the world and in all periods of history. In the case of von Stuckrad’s discur discursiv sivee appro approach ach,, struct structura urall simila similarit rities ies with with the search search for “abso “absolut lutee knowlknowledge edge”” in scie scient ntifi ificc disc discip ipliline ness that that woul wouldd seem seem to be far far remo remove vedd from from anyt anythi hing ng “esoteric”, esoteric”, such as string string theory or the modern life sciences, sciences, might allow the latter to be discussed within the context of Western esotericism. 26 . Historical Currents Currents
I do not intend to discuss these approaches in further detail here, but rather wish to highlight what I see as their main disadvantage: a lack of grounding in history. Tis can conveniently be done with reference to Faivre. In his booklet of and in his later publications, Faivre has sought to describe the field of Western esotericism as based neither upon religionist perspectives, nor upon the notion of secrecy; and moreover, an emphasis on some kind of special “knowledge” is conspicuously absent from his approach. 27 What we find find inst instea ead, d, as alre alread adyy ment mentio ione nedd abo above, ve, is the the noti notion on that that Weste estern rn esot esoter eric icis ism m cons consis ists ts of a seri series es of spec specifi ificc historical historical currents currents ;andwhattheyhaveincommon, ; andwhattheyhaveincommon, according to Faivre, Faivre, is not some particular claim of knowledge knowledge but the fact that they share a certain air de famille which can be analyzed as a forme de pensée . Now what are the origins of that concept? When and where was it born? o address that question I wish to call special attention to two aspects of Faivre’s argument: first, his notion of an “air de famille”, and second, his emphasis on what he calls the “referential corpus” of Western esotericism. Faivr aivree’s appr approa oach ch is differ differen entt from from all all the the othe otherr ones ones we have have enco encoun unte tere redd so far, far, in that it does not start from any abstract notion or concept of “knowledge”— “knowledge”— whethe whetherr secret secret,, hidden hidden,, concea concealed led,, higher higher,, deeper deeper,, or inner— inner—but but from from concr concrete ete text textual ualre refer feren ence ces. s. His His clai claim m is that that,, star starti ting ng in the the Rena Renais issa sanc nce, e, one one can can obse observe rve the autonomization of a more or less coherent “referential corpus” 28 of textual Von Stuckrad, ‘Western Esotericism’, –. 27) Te closest Faivre Faivre comes to emphasizing a special kind of “knowledge” “knowledge” is in his reference to the imagination as a “cognitive faculty” as part of the rd characteristic of his definition of Western esotericism. 28) Te notion of a “referential corpus” was highlighted in Faivre, Access , () and in 26)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
sources, which constitutes a field in its own right because, as regards their contents, its components share a certain “air de famille”. At closer scrutiny, the latter turns out to be based upon a shared “form of thought”, which in turn can be analyzed, according to Faivre, in terms of his famous four/six characteristics. I have reservations about the notion of a “form of thought” 29—a term which, by the way, was suggested to him by his colleague Emile Poulat 30— and hence about the operational value of Faivre’s definition for defining and demarcating Western esotericism as a field. 31 However, in opposition to the “autonomization” taking L’ésotérisme (rd ed., ), . Faivre’s formulation of a process of “autonomization” place during the Renaissance was there from the beginning. Please note a bad translation erro errorr in Access , , whic whichh shou should ld have have read read ‘Tis ‘Tis auton autonom omiz izat atio ionn of a body body of know knowled ledge ge with with respect to [par rapport à] the official religion—increasingly considered “exoteric”—is truly, in the sixteenth sixteenth century, century, the point of departure departure for what will be called “esoteric “esotericism ism”” ’ (the published version misconstrues the sentence structure so that it ends up suggesting that the new referential corpus was “exoteric”!). 29) In my ‘Empirical Method’, –, I used the theoretical perspective of Arthur O. Lovejoy to interpret Faivre’s “form of thought” as referring to an “idea complex” in the sense of a cluster of related ideas recognizable over time by virtue of family resemblance. Although I would not consider such an approach wholly invalid, I have since then come to doubt its usefulness for historical research. My objection is that it runs the risk of creating artificial phenomenological continuities, by privileging similarities that exist only on a level of theoretical theo retical abstraction, thereby losing sight of historical specificity. specificity. For example, the worldviews of e.g. Pico della Mirandola, Emanuel Swedenborg and Aleister Crowley may all lay strong emphasis on o n “correspondences”, “correspondences”, but the differences between bet ween their understanding of that concept are far more interesting to the historian than the fact that they might be subsumed under one single category. Te latter may be possible theoretically, but results in a mere abstraction that teaches us more about the interests and agendas of the scholar doing the subsuming subsuming than about the ideas being studied; and moreover moreover,, it easily suggests suggests that their supposed “universality” is what matters most, and as a result tends to turn our attention attention away (certainly (certainly quite against Faivre Faivre’’s intentions) intentions) from historical historical specificity specificity and detail. 30) Antoine Faivre, personal communication ( March ). Faivre adds that he was never entirely satisfied by the term, but adopted it for want of having found a better way of referring to what he had in mind. Te term indeed seems to have taken on a life of its own, sometimes leading to connotations not intended by him. 31) See also Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, –; idem, ‘Te Study of Western Esotericism’, –. Part of the problem has to do with Faivre’s insistence (which is still there in the most recent version of his argument, L’ésotérisme [th ed., ], ) that the four basic elements all have to be present in order for something to fall under the rubric of “Western esotericism”. Te inevitable result is that, to give only one example here, a figure as important as Emanuel Swedenborg would have to be excluded from the field
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
various approaches mentioned earlier, I would like to insist on the validity of Faivre’s understanding of esotericism as consisting first and foremost of a series of historical currents , which have resulted in a referential referential corpus of texts, the relative coherence of which derives from a shared “ air de famille ”. ”. In this rega regard rd I have have to part part comp compan anyy with with the the disc discur ursi sive ve appr approa oach ch defe defend nded ed by Kock Kockuu von Stuckrad, who explicitly sets up his own view of esotericism as a ‘structural element of Western culture’ against the notion of esotericism as referring to a ‘selection of historical “currents”’. 32 of Western esotericism (see Williams-Hogan, ‘Te Place of Emanuel Swedenborg’, who points out that the notion of “living nature” runs counter to Swedenborg’s worldview; personally I would go even further, and also emphasize the difference between Swedenborg’s post-Cartesian understanding of correspondences [cf. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, –] and earlier Renaissance concepts, as well as the fact that although Swedenborg claimed to travel to heaven and hell, he did not claim to do so by means of the imagination but purely by divine grace). In terms of definition theory, this problem derives from the fact that Faivre’s definition results in the construction of what is technically known as a “monothetic class” (see Snoek, Initiations , –). Some might wish to find a solution by dropping the requirement that all four characteristics must be present, thereby turning it into a “polythetic class” or a “fuzzy set” (ibid.), as recently proposed by Marco Pasi (‘Il problema della definizione’), but in that case one will have to deal with the theoretical disadvantages of those particularly types of classification: as formulated by R. Needham (see Snoek, o.c., ), members of polythetic classes have the worrying feature that they ‘do not in all cases possess any specific features such as could justify the formulation of general propositions about them’. My suggestion at this point is that Faivre’s definition might perhaps remain valid for pointing out something like a “core esotericism” (or esotericism in a strong or classical sense), but does not work as a sharp principle of definition and demarcation. Unfortunately, in quite a number of publications Faivre’s definition has already been used (or rather, misused) as a simple “checklist” or lithmus test for deciding whether something “is esoteric” or not (see Hanegraaff, ‘Te ‘ Te Study of Western Esotericism’, Esotericism’, ). 32) Von Stuckrad presents this as his ‘main argument’ in ‘Western esotericism’, . Te ‘vagueness’ (o.c., ) which he perceives in my approach, and against which he opposes his own alternative, is explained by him with reference to a formulation from my entry ‘Esotericism’ in the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Hanegraaff, Dictionary , ). But that vagueness seems to exist only because von Stuckrad has lifted the formulation out out of its its cont contex ext, t, wher wheree it did did not not stan standd for for my own own appr approa oach ch or ‘depi depict ctio ionn of the the field field’’ at all, all, but merely served to explain the general distinction I was making between typological and historical constructs. I had written that such historical constructs are characterized by the fact fact that that they unders understan tandd the term term “esoteri esotericis cism m” ‘as a genera generall label label for certai certainn specifi specificc curren currents ts in Western culture that display certain similarities and are historically related’. Te double “certain” to which Von Stuckrad objects so much therefore needed to remain unspecified, not because of any “vagueness” on my part, but because I was making the point that each
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
In defending these elements of Faivre’ Faivre’ss approach (I repeat: minus his notion of a “form form of thou though ghtt” defin defined ed by four four basi basicc elem elemen ents ts), ), I will will go beyo beyond nd his his own own formulations by arguing that the notion of an “air de famille” need not remain something vague and intuitive, but has a specific background and historical orig origin in that that can can be prec precis isel elyy defin defined ed.. My clai claim m is that that the the basi basicc refe refere rent ntia iall corp corpus us which is nowadays taken for granted as central to Western esotericism was first conc concep eptua tualilize zedd as a more more or less less autom automou ouss doma domain in by Prote rotest stan antt theo theolo logi gian anss in the the seco second nd half half of the the th th cent centur uryy,33 as part part of thei theirr effor effortt to shar sharpl plyy dema demarc rcat atee certain34 historical currents from biblical Christianity on the one hand, and from rational philosophy on the other. What we now refer to as “Western esotericism” is essentially the very same collection of historical currents that these theologians had in mind (plus, of course, their further development and their complex Wirkungsgeschichte since the th century). Tat we nowadays see see them hem as shar haring ing an “air air de fam famill ille” does does not not real eally have ave to do with with a “for form of thought” but with two other things. On the one hand, largely mediated by the Enlightenment, much of the Protestant Protestant polemical discourse was inherited as a largely unexamined and almost unconscious set of assumptions by modern scholars: the demarcations that they were drawing now seem so natural to us that we tend to take them for granted. And on the other hand, these Protestant theologians really did perceive something real, which I believe is essential to the very nature of Western esotericism but the relevance of which has been remarkably overlooked: I am referring to the process known as the Hellenization Hellenization of Christianity (with its parallels in Judaism35) and the effects that this process has had in Western culture up to the very present.
such historical construct (whether mine or anyone else’s) else’s) is based upon different ideas about which currents and similarities are most important. In short, Von Stuckrad is setting up a straw man here, and as a result his argumentation fails to address the theoretical validity of “historical constructs” as such. 33) It would go beyond the scope of this article to discuss the reasons why I do not believe believe these origins origins can be found in the Roman Catholic prisca theologia discourse of the Renaissance, which is grounded in the hellenization of Christianity and therefore represents the logical antithesis of the protestant protestant position under discussion discussion here. Tis argument will be developed in detail in a forthcoming monograph. 34) Referring to note : I can assure the reader, and Von Stuckrad in particular, that the word “certain” will be given a specific content! 35) Even though—surprisingly, to me—in the Jewish context this process was never conceptualized as such, nor became a topic of discussion or controvery as has happened in Christianity (Elliot R. Wolfson, personal communication, March , ).
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
. Colberg’s “Hermetic-Platonic Christianity”
Te birth of Western esotericism understood as a series of specific and related historical currents took place, I would argue, as a result of what has been called the “anti-apologetic” tradition in Protestant theology, founded by the Lutheran historian of philosophy Jacob Tomasius (–). 36 His central thesis, developed most explicitly in his Schediasma historicum (), was that Christianity had been infected not just since the Renaissance, but already since the first centuries by pagan philosophies that were in fact alien to and incompatible with the biblical faith. In other words, Tomasius exposed the hellenization of Christianity as a perversion, and argued for a strict separation of Christian theology and the philosophies of the pagan nations. Tomasius’ approach has been called “anti-apologetic” “anti-apologetic” because it attacked the “apologetic” tradition of Roman Catholicism, based upon the concept of a translatio sapientiae that allowed for a “concordance” (to use Faivre’s term) between pagan and Christian traditions. For Tomasius and his followers, the very idea of such a concordance was the essence of heresy: paganism and God’s Word can have nothing in common. Te eventual result was a sharp distinction between three domains: () Christian faith based exclusively on the pure biblical message, () rational philosophy based upon the legitimate but limited capacities of the human intellect, and () everything else —which —which in practice meant not only any kind of pagan religion but, most seriously, seriously, also any kind of infiltration of such pagan religion within the domain of the religions of the book. 37 Jacob Tomasius focused on exposing Roman Catholicism as a cryptopagan perversion of the biblical faith, but that the logic of anti-apologeticism could also be used for a different purpose was demonstrated by the Lutheran theologian Ehregott Daniel Colberg, in his Platonisch-Hermetisches Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum of /, which must be recognized, in my opinion, as the landmark book that gave birth to the study of Western esotericism as a specific domain domain of resear research. ch.38 Colber Colberg’ g’ss centra centrall concer concernn was the fight fight agains againstt Prote Protesta stant nt For the concept of “anti-apologeticism” and a very important discussion of its main representatives starting with Jacob Tomasius, see Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in de Welt geschichte . 37) For the later development of this triad in the work of Jacob Brucker, see Hanegraaff, ‘Western ‘Western Esotericism in Enlightenment Historiography’. 38) Faivre seems to have been the first to call attention to Colberg’s importance in this context, in an article co-published with Karen-Claire Voss (Faivre & Voss, ‘Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion’, ); but it is thanks to the brilliant work of Sicco 36)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
heterodoxy in his own time, particularly the theosophical teachings linked to Paracelsus, Weigel, Böhme and Rosicrucianism. Debating with heretics and reading their books, he discovered that their theology was ‘nothing but a wicked mixture of Christian faith with the Platonic and Hermetic philosophy’. 39 o demonstrate this, he sketched the outlines of a homogeneous heretical tradition based upon the attempt by the weak and imperfect human intellect to perceive and understand the mysteries of divinity, which in reality can never be discovered by man but have to be revealed by the Son of God. … the mingling of Teology and Philosophy happens mainly in two ways. First, if one tries to be smarter than Scripture, that is, if with the help of philosophy one tries to fathom the nature of the revealed mysteries about which God’s Word keeps silent. Second, if one tries to be smart against Scripture, that is, if one refuses to accept what does not accord with the blind intellect and its invented axioms. 40
Te second error was represented particularly by Aristotelian philosophy; but this was not Colberg’s focus. He concentrates on the first error—trying to unde unders rsta tand nd the the myst myster erie iess of Reve Revela lati tion on by mean meanss of the the weak weak huma humann intellect—which is represented mainly by the Platonic tradition, significantly expanded by Colberg so as to include the teachings of Hermes and the kabbalah. Te human attempt to transcend its own limitations and understand the divine leads first of all to a focus on “inner knowledge” of the self and of God: a search for gnosis that should lead to the soul’s restitution and return to the divine source. Tis “way inwards” Colberg associates mostly with Platonism, and in the important third chapter of his book he refers to it generally as “kab “kabba bala lahh”. In the the same same chap chapte terr he dist distin ingu guis ishe hess it from from the the seco second nd main main manmanifestation of heresy: the “way inwards” inwards” of platonism and kabbalah k abbalah turns out to have its counterpart in the “way outwards”, which seeks knowledge and domination of the external world. Tis second domain is associated mostly with the Hermetic radition, and referred to as “magic”. In this manner, Colberg managed to describe “platonic-hermetic” Christianity as one single heretical tradition with a double face: the one focused on mystical interiority and “enthusiasm “enthusiasm”, ”, the other focused on the occult sciences such as alchemy, alchemy, astrolLehmann-Bra Lehmann-Brauns, uns, which includes the best and most detailed discussion discussion of Colberg Colberg so far (Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit , –), that his work can now be seen in its proper p roper context. 39) Colberg, Platonisch-Hermetisches Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum, . 40) Colberg, Platonisch-Hermetisches Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum, –.
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
ogy and magic. His historical overview led from Pythagorean and Platonic ideas through the various gnostic sects, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, manichaeism, Dionysius Areopagita and various medieval heresies, to Ficino and Agrippa, and from there on to his main targets, to which he devoted entire chapters: Paracelsianism, Weigelianism, Rosicrucianism, the Quakers and Böhmian theosophy, as well as the anabaptists, Antoinette Bourignon, Labadism, and Quietism. Colberg’s book is the very first one, to my knowledge, that includes essentially all the historical currents nowadays regarded as central to “Western esotericism”; tericism”; and at least as important is the fact that it does so not randomly, randomly, but on the basis of a clear theoretical concept. Anti-apologeticism has a compelling internal logic, according to which large areas of Western religion have to be defin defined ed as mani manife fest stat atio ions ns of paga pagann / bibl biblic ical al sync syncre reti tism sm.. If, If, with within in that that doma domain in,, one then makes the choice of giving mainstream Roman Catholic theology a status apart, simply because it is mainstream and therefore “respectable”, “respectable”, one is left with a domain which contains everything ever ything (obviously, (obviously, up to Colberg’s Colberg’s own time) that we now study under the rubric of Western esotericism. Such uch a move move was was inde indeed ed made made by the the gene genera rati tion onss afte afterr Colb Colber erg, g, and and nota notabl bly y by the virtual founder of the history of philosophy Jacob Brucker, whose appro approach ach became became basic basic to Enligh Enlighten tenmen mentt histor historiog iograp raphy hy all over over Europ Europe. e. 41 Te resu result lt was was a new new prin princi cipl plee of divi divisi sion on,, cate catego gori rizat zatio ionn or depa departm rtmen enta taliliza zati tion on,, in which “philosophy”, “science”, and “theology” each came to inhabit their own clearly demarcated spaces, whose right to exist and participate in intellectual debate was generally recognized. But as a side-effect of this new situation, what we now now call call “Wes “Weste tern rn esot esoter eric icis ism m” was was left left to its its own devi device ces, s, to inha inhabi bit, t, as best best as it could, a no-man’ no-man’s land or liminal conceptual space beyond the boundaries of polite society: here could be found “all that other stuff” which clearly did not belong to official philosophy, philosophy, science and theology. theology. Seen from such a perspective, one understands that if scholars are now beginning to recover that domain as an object of serious research, this can have disconcerting implications. Should we be content merely to create a new, separate space for it, next to the traditional ones of philosophy, science and theology? Or should we be more radical, and challenge the very principle of demarcation and compartmentalization that has caused this field to be set apart in the first place? Personally I believe that we must opt for the second possibility, but it is true that such a choice has far-reaching implications that 41)
Hanegraaff, ‘Western Esotericism in Enlightenment Historiography’.
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
might ultimately undermine not only the concept of Western esotericism as a separate category of research, but even our most basic understandings of “Western identity”.42 . Gottfried Arnold and Esoteric Religionism
My argument implies that Faivre’s understanding of “Western esotericism” as consisting of a specific series of historical currents, reflected in a “referential corpus” of texts, has a solid historical foundation. Tis concept of what the field is all about was born in , with the first volume of Colberg’s Colberg’s polemic, and was consolidated due to the work of a series of later authors, notably Jacob Brucker. Brucker. Tis is what I mean with the birth of esotericism from the (anti-apologetic) spirit of th-century German Protestantism. Te further implication is that not the concept of some esoteric “form of thought”, but rather, the polemical discourse about paganism and all that it implies must be given a central place in our understanding of the field. o this conclusion, one important further observation must be added, which leads us back to the crucial distinction between religionist and historical/empirical understandings of Western esotericism. Less than ten years after Colberg, another German Protestant published a massive opus, which might likewise claim (and in fact, has been claimed) to be a pioneering work in the history of Western esotericism. I am referring, of course, to Gottfried Arnold’s Arnold’s Impartial History of Churches and Heretics of . It seems to me that the actual relevance of this work to the historical study of Western esotericism has been greatly exaggerated, and is in fact very minor. minor. If one actually tries to study the work, one quickly discovers that Arnold makes no attempt to delineate anything that resembles our modern concepts of Western esotericism: his only concern is with showing that, through the centuries, the “true Christian message” as he sees it has been preserved in so-called heresies as well as in the established churches. Extremely interesting from our present vantage point, however, is the remarkable similarity between Arnold’s approach and that of religionism along the the line liness of Eran Eranos os.. Cent Centra rall to the the enti entire re work work is the the true true Chri Christ stia iann’s inne innerr expe expe-rience rience of illumi illuminat nation ion,, which, which, Arnold Arnold believ believes, es, may be docume documente ntedd histor historica ically lly but cannot itself be traced historically. As formulated by Lehmann-Brauns: Hanegraaff, ‘Forbidden Knowledge’; and cf. ‘Western Esotericism in Enlightenment Historiography’. Tis theme will be developed fully in my forthcoming monograph (cf. note ). 42)
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
Te decisive point is not the proof provided by historical materials, but the evidence of inner illumination. Where this is experienced, all historical-critical objections become irrelevant. … Te goal of Arnold’s historiography was that of expounding a “historical truth” which might be discoved by the criticism of prejudice [ Vorurteilskritik ] and by collecting sources, but any adequate evaluation of which remained dependent on the inner illumination of the historian. 43
As a result, Arnold’s Arnold’s great book is based upon the same paradox that is found so frequently in religionism: that of a “history of esotericism” grounded in a denial of the historicity of esoteric experience. Accordingly, although Arnold was aware of Colberg and politely quoted him here and there, he refused to respond to him, or to be drawn into any historical-critical discussion of mystical theology and its relation to pagan philosophy: 44 in fact, it is amazing to see how utterly and completely Arnold ignores paganism even in his discussion of the the first first cent centur urie iess of Chri Christ stia iani nity ty.. His His lead leadin ingg assu assump mpti tion on was was a pu pure rely ly theo theolo loggical one: since paganism is obviously something different from the Christian faith, it is completely irrelevant to a history of Christianity. Christianity. As a result, he presented the reader with a wholly decontextualized description of the supposedly “real” and “pure” Christian faith, and of its many degenerations, which never result from pagan influence (or from any other historical influence, for that matter) but must be explained exclusively from the human tendency to sin. Edifying though such an approach may be for those who share or sympathize with Arnold’s Arnold’s pietist beliefs, clearly it has nothing to do with historiography or scholarship. . Conclusion
I have argued that the concept of Western esotericism as a field of critical historical research, concerned with a specific series of historical currents and their referential corpus of texts, was born from the “anti-apologetic” “anti-apologetic” spirit of Protestantism in the work of Ehregott Daniel Colberg. Te competing religionist understanding of esotericism, as grounded in a fundamentally ahistorical (or, as some prefer, transhistorical) experience of illumination paradoxically presented as a historical phenomenon, may well have been born from the spirit of Protestantism Protestantism as well, in the work of his counterpart Gottfried Arnold. o o borrow Russel McCutcheon’s terminology here, Colberg was a “critic” and Arnold 43) 44)
Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit , . Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit , , –.
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
a “caretaker”.45 Te conflict between biblical and pagan traditions in antiquity, antiquity, and their long-term historical results, was basic to Colberg, and I suggest it should be recognized as central to the contemporary study of Western esotericism as well: the dynamics of this conflict is what constitutes the very core, or driv drivin ingg ener energy gy,, cent centra rall to our our field field of study study.. In cont contra rast st,, the the great greates estt weak weakne ness ss of the religionist school (including its theological predecessors, such as Arnold) lies in its remarkable lack of interest in analyzing the historiography of that same conflict. Bibliography Arnold, Gottfried, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, von Anfang des Neuen estaments bis auff das Jahr Christi , Frankfurt a.M.: Tomas Fritsch . ———, Fortsetzung und Erläuterung der unpartheyischen Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, bestehend In Beschreibung der noch übrigen Streitigkeiten im XVIIden Jahrhundert . Franckfurt am Mayn, bey Tomas Fritsch . Colberg, Ehregott Daniel, Das Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum, Begreiffend Die Historische Erzehlung vom Ursprung und vielerley Secten der heutigen Fanatischen Teolo gie, unterm Namen der Paracelcisten, Weigelianer, eigelianer, Rosenkreutzer, Rosenkreutzer, Quäcker, Quäcker, Böhmisten, Wiedertäu Wiedertäuffer ffer,, Bourignis Bourignisten, ten, Labadisten Labadisten,, und Quietisten Quietisten, Franckfurt/Leipzig: Moritz
Georg Wiedmann . Dosse, François, Michel de Certeau: Le marcheur blessé , Paris: Paris: La découverte / . Faivre, Antoine, Eckartshausen et la théosophie chrétienne , Paris: Klincksieck . ———, L’ésotérisme (Que sais-je? ), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: (st ed.), (nd ed.), (rd ed.), (th ed.). ———, Access to Western Esotericism, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press . ———, ‘Kocku von Stuckrad et la notion d’ésotérisme (review article of Kocku von Stuckrad, Was ist Esoterik? )’, Aries : (), –. ———, ‘La parola “esoterismo” e i suoi usi: Presentazione di bouquets variopinti di significati’, in: Alessandro Grossato (ed.), Forme e correnti dell’esoterismo occidentale , Milano: Medusa , –. Faivre, Antoine & Karen-Claire Voss, ‘Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion’, Numen (), –. Hakl, Hans Tomas, Der verborgene Geist von Eranos: Unbekannte Begegnungen von Wissenschaft und Esoterik. Eine alternative Geistesgeschichte des . Jahrhunderts , Bretten: Scientia Nova . Hanegraaff, Wouter J., New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Tought , Brill: Leiden /Albany, NY: State University of New York Press . ———, ‘Beyond ‘Beyo nd the Yates Paradigm: Te Study of Western Esoteri E sotericism cism between bet ween CounterCo unterculture and New Complexity’, Aries : (), –. 45)
McCutcheon, Critics not Caretakers .
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
———, ‘Te Study Study of Western Esotericism: Esotericism: New Approaches Approaches to Christian Christian and Secular Secular Culture’, in: Peter Antes, Armin W. Geertz & Randi R. Warne (eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Religion I: Regional, Critical, and Historical Approaches (Religion and Reason ), Berlin & New York: York: Walter de Gruyter , –. ———, ‘Esotericism’, in: Hanegraaff et al, Dictionary , –. ———, ‘Forbidden ‘Forbidd en Knowledge Know ledge:: Anti-Esoteri Anti-E sotericc Polemics and Academic Academi c Research’, Aries : (), –. ———, ‘Te ‘T e rouble rouble with Images: Ima ges: Anti-Imag An ti-Imagee Polemics and an d Western Esotericism’, Esot ericism’, in: Olav Ol av Hammer & Kocku von Stuckrad (eds.), Polemical Encounters: Esotericism and its Others , Leiden/ Leiden / Boston: Boston: Brill , –. –. ———, ‘Reas ‘Reason, on, Faith, aith, and Gnosis Gnosis:: Potentia otentials ls and Probl Problemat ematics ics of a ypologi ypological cal Constr Construct uct’,’, in: Peter Meusburger et al. (eds.), Clashes of Knowledge , Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media . ———, ‘Te ‘ Te Origins of Occultist Kabbalah: Adolphe Franck and Eliphas Lévi’, in: Marco Pasi & Kocku von Stuckrad (eds.), Kabbalah and Modernity , Leiden/ Leiden / Boston: Brill Brill . . ———, ‘Kabbalah in Gnosis Magazine (–)’, forthcoming in: Boaz Huss (ed.), Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival , Beer Sheeva: Te Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press . ———, ‘Western ‘Western Esotericism in Enlightenment Historiography: Te Importance of Jacob Brucker’, forthcoming in: Andreas Kilcher (ed.), Constructing radition: Means and Myths of ransmis ransmission sion in Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill . Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.) in collaboration with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach, Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism , Leiden: Brill . Kinney, Jay, Te Inner West , New York: Jeremy P. P. archer archer// Penguin . Laurant, Laurant, Jean-Pi Jean-Pierre, erre, L’ésoté Lausanne: L’Âge ’ésotéris risme me chréti chrétien en en Franc Francee au XIXe XIXe siècle siècle , Lausanne: d’Homme . Matter, Jacques, Histoire critique du gnosticisme, et de son influence sur les sectes religieuses et philosophiques des dix premiers siècles de l’ère chrétienne , e éd., revue et augmentée, Strasbour Strasbourgg / Paris Paris . McCalla, Arthur, ‘Antoine ‘Antoine Faivre and the Study of Esotericism’, Religion : (), – . Pasi, ‘Il problema della definizione dell’esoterismo: Analisi critica e proposte per la ricerca futura’, futura’, in: Alessandro Grossato (ed.), Forme e correnti dell’esoterismo occidentale , Milano: Medusa , –. Riffard, Pierre, L’ésotérisme , Paris: Robert Laffont . Smoley, Richard, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric radition , Boston/London: Shambhala . Smoley, Richard & Jay Kinney, Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner raditions , rev. ed. Wheaton: Quest Books . Stuckrad, Kocku von, Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge , London/ Oakville: Equinox . ———, ‘Western ‘Western Esotericism: Esotericism: owards owards an Integrative Integrative Model of Interpretat Interpretation ion’,’, Religion : (), –. ———, ‘Die Esoterik E soterik in der gegenwärtigen Forschung: Überblick und Positionsbestimmung’, Zeitenblicke , April , www.dipp.zeitenblicke.de www.dipp.zeitenblicke.de
Wouter J. Hanegraaff / ARIES . () –
Versluis, Arthur, Arthur, Magic and Mysticism: An Introduction to Western Esotericism Esotericism,Lanham,MD.: Rowman & Littlefield . Wasserstrom, Wasserstrom, Steven M., Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem, Mircea Eliade, and Henry Corbin at Eranos , Princeton: Princeton University Press .
