Originalverffentlichung in: Representations 56, 1996, S.

48-67

J A N A S S M A N N

The Mosaic Distinction:

Israel, Egypt, and the
Invention of Paganism
Draw a distinction. . . .
Call it the first distinction.
Call the space in which it is drawn the space severed or cloven by the distinction.'

IT SEEMS AS IF GEORGE Spencer Brown's "first Law of Construction"

does not apply solely to the logical and mathematical construction for which it is
meant. It also applies strangely well to the space of cultural constructions and
distinctions and to the spaces that are severed or cloven by such distinctions.
T h e distinction with which this essay is concerned is the one between true and
false in religion: a distinction that underlies the more specific ones between Jews
and Gentiles, Christians and pagans, Muslims and unbelievers. Once this distinc
tion is drawn, there is no end of reentries or subdistinctions. We start with Chris
tians and pagans and end up with Catholics and Protestants, Calvinists and Lu
therans, Socinians and Latitudinarians, and a thousand similar denominations
and subdenominations. These cultural or intellectual distinctions construct a uni
verse that is full not only of meaning, identity, and orientation but also of conflict,
intolerance, and violence. Therefore, there have always been attempts to over
come the conflict by reexamining the truefalse distinction, albeit at the risk of
losing cultural meaning.
Let us call the distinction between true and false in religion the "Mosaic dis
tinction" because tradition ascribes it to Moses. While we cannot be sure that Moses
ever lived, since there are no other traces of his earthly existence outside the
legendary tradition, we can be sure, on the other hand, that he was not the first
to draw the distinction. There was a precursor in the person of the Egyptian king
Amenophis IV, who called himself Akhenaten and instituted a monotheistic re
ligion in the fourteenth century B.C.' His religion, however, created no lasting
tradition and was forgotten immediately after his death. Moses is a figure of mem
ory, but not of history, whereas Akhenaten is a figure of history, but not of mem
ory. Since memory is all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctions and
constructions, we are justified in speaking not of "Akhenaten's distinction" but of
the Mosaic distinction. T h e space severed or cloven by this distinction is the space
of Western monotheism. It is the mental and cultural space constructed by this
distinction that Europeans have inhabited for nearly two millennia.

REPRESENTATIONS 5 6 Fall 1990 i nt. KKGENTS OF T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF C A L I F O R N I A

 T h i s distinction is not as old as religion itself, t h o u g h at first sight it m i g h t
seem plausible to say that every religion p r o d u c e s " p a g a n s " j u s t as every civiliza
tion g e n e r a t e s "barbarians." B u t c u l t u r e s a n d t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i o n s of identity n o t
only g e n e r a t e o t h e r n e s s but also d e v e l o p t e c h n i q u e s of translation. 3 O f c o u r s e ,
t h e "real o t h e r " is always t h e r e b e y o n d myself a n d my c o n s t r u c t i o n s of s e l f h o o d
a n d o t h e r n e s s . It is the "constructed o t h e r " that is, to a certain d e g r e e , c o m p e n
sated by t e c h n i q u e s of translation. Translation in this sense is not to be c o n f u s e d
with t h e colonializing a p p r o p r i a t i o n of the "real" o t h e r . Rather, it is a n a t t e m p t to
m a k e m o r e t r a n s p a r e n t the b o r d e r s e r e c t e d by cultural distinctions.
A n c i e n t polytheisms f u n c t i o n e d as such a t e c h n i q u e of translation within t h e
" a n c i e n t w o r l d " as a n e c u m e n e of i n t e r c o n n e c t e d nations.^ T h e polytheistic reli
gions o v e r c a m e t h e e t h n o c e n t r i s m of tribal religions by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g several
deities by n a m e , s h a p e , a n d f u n c t i o n . T h e n a m e s , t h e s h a p e s of t h e gods, a n d t h e
f o r m s of w o r s h i p d i f f e r e d . B u t the f u n c t i o n s w e r e strikingly similar, especially in
t h e case of cosmic deities: the sun g o d of o n e religion was easily e q u a t e d to t h e
s u n g o d of a n o t h e r religion, a n d so f o r t h . In M e s o p o t a m i a , t h e practice of trans
lating divine n a m e s goes back to the t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m . In t h e s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m
it was e x t e n d e d to m a n y d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s a n d civilizations of t h e N e a r East.
P l u t a r c h generalizes, in his treatise o n Isis a n d Osiris, that t h e r e a r e always c o m
m o n cosmic p h e n o m e n a b e h i n d the d i f f e r i n g divine n a m e s : t h e s u n , t h e m o o n ,
t h e h e a v e n , t h e e a r t h , the sea, a n d so o n . Because all p e o p l e live in t h e s a m e w o r l d ,
they a d o r e the s a m e gods, the lords of this world:

N o r d o w e r e g a r d t h e g o d s as d i f f e r e n t a m o n g d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e s n o r as b a r b a r i a n a n d
G r e e k a n d a s s o u t h e r n a n d n o r t h e r n . B u t j u s t as t h e s u n , m o o n , h e a v e n , e a r t h a n d s e a a r e
c o m m o n t o all, t h o u g h t h e y a r e g i v e n v a r i o u s n a m e s by t h e v a r y i n g p e o p l e s , s o it is w i t h
t h e o n e r e a s o n (logos) w h i c h o r d e r s t h e s e t h i n g s a n d t h e o n e p r o v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s c h a r g e
o f t h e m , a n d t h e a s s i s t a n t p o w e r s w h i c h ai e a s s i g n e d t o e v e r y t h i n g : t h e y a r e g i v e n d i f f e r e n t
h o n o u r s a n d m o d e s of address a m o n g different peoples according to custom, a n d they use
h a l l o w e d s y m b o l s . . . .5

T h e divine n a m e s a r e translatable because they a r e c o n v e n t i o n a l a n d because

t h e r e is always a r e f e r e n t serving as a tertium comparationis. T h e cultures, lan
g u a g e s , c u s t o m s may be d i f f e r e n t : religions always have a c o m m o n g r o u n d . T h e
g o d s w e r e i n t e r n a t i o n a l because they w e r e cosmic, a n d while d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e s
w o r s h i p e d d i f f e r e n t gods, n o b o d y contested t h e reality of f o r e i g n g o d s a n d t h e
legitimacy of f o r e i g n f o r m s of worship. T h e distinction in q u e s t i o n d i d n o t exist
in the world of polytheistic a n d tribal religions.
T h e space "severed o r cloven" by t h e Mosaic distinction was n o t simply t h e
space of religion in general, t h e n , b u t that of a very specific kind of religion. We
may call this a " c o u n t e r r e l i g i o n " because it not only c o n s t r u c t e d b u t r e j e c t e d a n d
r e p u d i a t e d e v e r y t h i n g that went b e f o r e a n d e v e r y t h i n g o u t s i d e itself as " p a g a n
ism." It n o l o n g e r f u n c t i o n e d as a m e a n s of i n t e r c u l t u r a l translation; o n t h e con

T h e Mosaic Distinction 49
trary, it f u n c t i o n e d as a m e a n s of i n t e r c u l t u r a l e s t r a n g e m e n t . W h e r e a s polytheism
o r r a t h e r , "cosmotheism," r e n d e r e d d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s mutually t r a n s p a r e n t a n d
c o m p a t i b l e , t h e new c o u n t e r r e l i g i o n blocked i n t e r c u l t u r a l translatability. False
g o d s c a n n o t be t r a n s l a t e d .
Usually t h e f u n d a m e n t a l distinction between t r u t h a n d falsity a s s u m e s t h e
f o r m of a " g r a n d n a r r a t i v e " u n d e r l y i n g a n d i n f o r m i n g i n n u m e r a b l e c o n c r e t e
tellings a n d retellings of t h e past. Books 2 t h r o u g h 5 of the P e n t a t e u c h u n f o l d
t h e Mosaic distinction in b o t h a n a r r a t i v e a n d a n o r m a t i v e f o r m . Narratively, t h e
distinction is p r e s e n t e d in the story of Israel's e x o d u s , w h e r e b y E g y p t c a m e to
r e p r e s e n t t h e rejected, t h e religiously false, the " p a g a n . " Egypt's most c o n s p i c u o u s
p r o p e r t y , t h e w o r s h i p of images, t h u s b e c a m e its g r e a t e s t sin. Normatively, t h e
distinction is e x p r e s s e d in a c o d e of Law that c o n f i r m s t h e n a r r a t i v e by giving t h e
p r o h i b i t i o n of "idolatry" first priority. T h e w o r s h i p of images c o m e s to b e re
g a r d e d as t h e absolute h o r r o r , f a l s e h o o d , a n d apostasy. Polytheism a n d idolatry,
in t u r n , a r e seen as o n e a n d the s a m e f o r m of religious e r r o r : i m a g e s a r e " o t h e r
gods" because t h e t r u e god is invisible a n d c a n n o t be iconically r e p r e s e n t e d . T h e
second c o m m a n d m e n t is h e n c e a c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e first:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

T h e E x o d u s story, however, is m o r e t h a n simply a n a c c o u n t of historical

events, a n d t h e Law is m o r e t h a n merely a basis f o r social o r d e r a n d religious
purity. In a d d i t i o n to what they overtly tell a n d establish, they symbolize t h e Mo
saic distinction. E x o d u s , t h e Law, Moses, t h e whole constellation of Israel a n d
Egypt a r e symbolic figures f o r all kinds of oppositions. 1 ' T h e l e a d i n g o n e , however,
is the distinction b e t w e e n t r u e religion a n d idolatry; in t h e c o u r s e of Jewish history
b o t h t h e c o n c e p t of idolatry a n d t h e r e p u d i a t i o n of it g r e w s t r o n g e r . T h e later
t h e texts, t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e t h e scorn a n d a b o m i n a t i o n they p o u r over t h e idol
aters. S o m e p o i g n a n t verses in D e u t e r o I s a i a h a n d Ps. 115 d e v e l o p into w h o l e
c h a p t e r s in t h e a p o c r y p h a l Sapientia SalomonLs, long sections in Philo's De decalogo
a n d De legibus specialibus, the Mishnaic tractate Avodah zarah, a n d Tertullian's b o o k
De idololatria.1
B u t t h e h a t r e d was m u t u a l a n d t h e "idolaters" d i d n o t fail to strike back.
R e m a r k a b l y e n o u g h , most of t h e m w e r e Egyptians. 8 T h e priest M a n e t h o , f o r
e x a m p l e , w h o u n d e r Ptolemy II wrote a history of Egypt, r e p r e s e n t e d Moses as
a rebellious Egyptian priest w h o m a d e himself t h e l e a d e r of a colony of lepers. 9
W h e r e a s t h e J e w s d e p i c t e d idolatry as a kind of m e n t a l a b e r r a t i o n o r m a d n e s s ,
t h e E g y p t i a n s associated iconoclasm with a very c o n t a g i o u s a n d d i s f i g u r i n g epi
d e m i c . T h e l a n g u a g e of illness has b e e n typical of t h e d e b a t e o n t h e Mosaic dis
tinction, f r o m its b e g i n n i n g u p to t h e days of S i g m u n d F r e u d . M a n e t h o writes
t h a t Moses a n d his l e p e r s f o r m e d an alliance with the Hyksos, t h e e n e m i e s of

REPRESENTATIONS
Egypt, and tyrannized Egypt f or thirteen years. All of the images o f the gods were
destroyed and the sanctuaries were turned into kitchens where the sacred animals
were grilled. We are dealing with a story of mutual abomination: the activities of
the iconoclasts are rendered with the same horror as those of the idolaters by the
other side. Moses' laws are thus reduced to two:

1. Thou shalt not worship any gods nor refrain from eating their
sacred animals.
2. Thou shalt not mingle with people outside thine own group.

In Tacitus, the characterization of Jewish monotheism as a counterreligion is

already complete. Moses f o u n d e d a religion opposed to the rites o f other people:
the Jews "consider everything that we keep sacred as profane and permit every
thing that for us is taboo" [profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra, rursum con
cessa apud illos quae nobis incesta]. In their temples they consecrate a statue o f a
donkey and sacrifice a ram in contumeliam Ammonis, "in order to ridicule the g o d
Amun." For the same reason, they sacrifice a bull because the Egyptians worship
Apis. As the inversion of Egyptian tradition, Jewish religion is totally derivative
of and d e p e n d e n t on Egypt."'
It is important to realize that we are dealing here with a mutual loathing
rooted not in some idiosyncratic aversions between Jews and Egyptians but in the
Mosaic distinction that, in its first occurrence, was Akhenaten's distinction. It is
true that many arguments of the "idolaters" have lived on in the discourse o f anti
Semitism." In this sense, the struggle against the Mosaic distinction had anti
Semitic implications. However, it is also true that many of those (such as John
Toland or Gotthold Ephraim Lessing) who in the eighteenth century attacked the
distinction f ought for tolerance and equality for the Jews; in this sense, the strug
gle against the Mosaic distinction assumes the character of a struggle against anti
Semitism. T h e most outspoken destroyer of the Mosaic distinction was, after all,
a Jew, Sigmund Freud. Moreover, in the debate between iconoclasts and idolaters,
the Christian church sided with the Jews and inherited the repudiation of idolatry
by continuing to denigrate pagan religion. Attacks, therefore, against the Mosaic
distinction concerned the Christian church as well as Judaism and Islam.' 2
T h e s e attacks took the form of a redefinition that attempted to relativize or
minimize the distinction. "Normative inversion," which explains o n e field as just
the inverted reflection of its opposing field, is the earliest of these redefinitions.
Strangely e n o u g h , however, the principle of normative inversion is not only
evoked by "pagan" writers who had their reasons to destroy the distinction. It also
recurs about a millennium later in the exact center of the Jewish tradition, as an
element of Jewish selfdefinition and selfinterpretation. Starting from this sur
prising reemergence of the principle of normative inversion, the f ollowing para
graphs outline some o f the more important redefinitions to which the Mosaic

The Mosaic Distinction

distinction was e x p o s e d in t h e history of E n l i g h t e n m e n t f r o m Moses M a i m o n i d e s
to F r e u d .

Normative Inversion

T h e principle of n o r m a t i v e inversion provides t h e m a i n m e t h o d of

legal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r M a i m o n i d e s in his Guide of the Perplexed.13 M a i m o n i d e s d i d
n o t speak of Egypt. I n s t e a d , h e i n v e n t e d a c o m m u n i t y called t h e Sabians. It is
m e n t i o n e d twice or t h r e e times in the Koran, b u t n o b o d y knows exactly to which
g r o u p this text r e f e r s . " Maimonides' Sabians a r e a n i m a g i n e d c o m m u n i t y t h a t h e
c r e a t e d by a p p l y i n g M a n e t h o ' s principle of n o r m a t i v e inversion in t h e o p p o s i t e
direction. If t h e Law prohibits an activity x, this is because t h e Sabians practiced
x; a n d vice versa, if t h e Law prescribes an activity y, this is because y was a t a b o o
a m o n g the Sabians.
M a i m o n i d e s w h o lived in Egypt a n d w r o t e his b o o k in A r a b i c h a d excel
lent r e a s o n s f o r c h o o s i n g t h e Sabians instead of t h e historically m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e
a n c i e n t Egyptians in his r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a historical c o n t e x t f o r Mosaic Law. It
is precisely t h e c o m p l e t e insignificance of t h e Sabians that serves his p u r p o s e . H e
figures t h e m as a o n c e p o w e r f u l c o m m u n i t y t h a t h a d since fallen into almost
c o m p l e t e oblivion. H e explains t h e f u n c t i o n of n o r m a t i v e inversion as a kind of
"ars oblivionalis"',13 a withdrawal t h e r a p y f o r Sabian idolatry, which h e u n d e r s t a n d s
as a k i n d of collective o r e p i d e m i c addiction. T h e most efficient way to e r a s e a
m e m o r y is to s u p e r i m p o s e a c o u n t e r m e m o r y ; h e n c e , t h e best way to m a k e p e o p l e
f o r g e t a n i d o l a t r o u s rite is to replace it with a n o t h e r rite. T h e C h r i s t i a n s followed
t h e s a m e principle w h e n they built t h e i r c h u r c h e s o n t h e r u i n s of p a g a n t e m p l e s
a n d o b s e r v e d t h e i r feasts o n the d a t e s of p a g a n festivals. For t h e s a m e r e a s o n ,
Moses (or divine " c u n n i n g a n d wisdom," m a n i f e s t i n g itself t h r o u g h his agency) 1 6
h a d to install all kinds of dietary a n d sacrificial p r e s c r i p t i o n s in o r d e r to o c c u p y
t h e t e r r a i n held by t h e Sabians a n d their idolatrous ways, "so t h a t all t h e s e rites
a n d cults t h a t they practiced f o r the sake of t h e idols, they now c a m e to practice
in t h e h o n o r of god." 1 7 T h e divine strategy was so successful t h a t t h e Sabians a n d
t h e i r o n c e m i g h t y c o m m u n i t y fell into c o m p l e t e oblivion.
M a i m o n i d e s was n o historian. H e was i n t e r e s t e d in t h e historical c i r c u m
stances of the Law only i n s o f a r as they elucidated its m e a n i n g , that is, t h e i n t e n t i o n
of t h e legislator. 1 8 H e c o n t e n d s that t h e original i n t e n t i o n of t h e Law was to d e
stroy idolatry a n d d e m o n s t r a t e s this by r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e historical circumstantiae
of t h e Sabians. T h e n h e generalizes the c r i m e of idolatry to fit metahistorical
p r o b l e m s a n d arrives at his wellknown, purely philosophical, a n d ahistorical con
c e p t of idolatry. For M a i m o n i d e s , t h e Law r e m a i n s e n f o r c e d , d e s p i t e its historical
circumstances, because of t h e timeless d a n g e r of idolatry.

REPRESENTATIONS
 Translation: Hieroglyphs into Laws

Five h u n d r e d years a f t e r M a i m o n i d e s , his project of a historical expla

n a t i o n of t h e Law was explicitly taken u p by t h e Christian scholar w h o o p e n s t h e
s e c o n d section of o u r story. J o h n S p e n c e r ( 1 6 3 0 9 3 ) was a scholar of H e b r e w
a n d , a f t e r 1667, m a s t e r of C o r p u s Christi College at C a m b r i d g e . In his b o o k o n
t h e Ritual Law, S p e n c e r m e n t i o n s M a i m o n i d e s always with t h e g r e a t e s t a d m i r a
tion. 1 9 H e fully a g r e e s with M a i m o n i d e s in seeing the p r i n c i p l e a n d overall p u r
pose of the Law as the d e s t r u c t i o n of idolatry, which h e also views as a n a d d i c t i o n
to b e c u r e d by a withdrawal p r o g r a m . H e even applies M a i m o n i d e s ' principle of
n o r m a t i v e inversion in a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r of cases. B u t h e deviates f r o m
M a i m o n i d e s in two respects. First, h e d r a w s a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t conclusions f r o m
this k i n d of historical e x p l a n a t i o n , since h e m a k e s his m e t h o d t h a t of historical,
n o t legal, r e a s o n i n g . For him, not only t h e circumstances, b u t also t h e i n t e n t i o n s
o r r e a s o n s of t h e Law a r e historical a n d b e l o n g to t h e past. M a i m o n i d e s took t h e
Law's d e s t r u c t i o n of idolatry to be a timeless (or metahistorical) task; only t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s of its first f o r m u l a t i o n a n d application w e r e historical. For S p e n c e r ,
t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e Law is historical as well. 20 W i t h t h e cessation of idolatry, t h e
Law lost its validity a n d the Mosaic distinction c h a n g e d its c h a r a c t e r . T h i s is, of
c o u r s e , t h e Christian idea of p r o g r e s s .
T h e second d i v e r g e n c e f r o m M a i m o n i d e s is m u c h m o r e r e v o l u t i o n a r y a n d
d e p e n d s o n the principle of translation. 2 1 T h i s p a r a d i g m shift s h a t t e r e d t h e f o u n
d a t i o n of t h e Mosaic distinction between t r u e a n d false in religion. Like M a i m o n
ides, S p e n c e r held that God did not inscribe his Law o n a tabula rasa b u t , r a t h e r ,
t h a t h e carefully o v e r w r o t e an existing inscription. Unlike M a i m o n i d e s , however,
S p e n c e r takes this original inscription to be Egyptian r a t h e r t h a n Sabian: it is m o r e
of a n i n t e n d e d subtext, o r even a kind of " g o l d e n g r o u n d , " f o r t h e Law, t h a n a n
antitext to b e w i p e d o u t o r covered u p . T h e idea is that G o d intentionally b r o u g h t
Israel into Egypt in o r d e r to give His p e o p l e an Egyptian f o u n d a t i o n , a n d t h a t
H e chose Moses as His p r o p h e t because h e was b r o u g h t u p in all t h e w i s d o m of
t h e Egyptians. 2 2 Moses " t r a n s l a t e d " a g o o d deal of E g y p t i a n w i s d o m into his laws
a n d institutions, which can only be e x p l a i n e d if r e i n t e g r a t e d into t h e i r original
context. Translatio ("transfer," "borrowing") r e f e r s not to texts, b u t to rites a n d
c u s t o m s that a r e received f r o m Egypt in o r d e r to be p r e s e r v e d as c o n t a i n e r s of
original wisdom, r a t h e r t h a n to be s u p p l a n t e d a n d eventually o v e r c o m e . S p e n c e r
subscribed to t h e conventional t h e o r y about h i e r o g l y p h i c writing based o n H o r
apollon's two books o n h i e r o g l y p h s , 2 ' a n d especially o n A t h a n a s i u s Kircher's "de
c i p h e r m e n t s . " 2 4 A c c o r d i n g to this theory, h i e r o g l y p h s w e r e iconic symbols t h a t
r e f e r r e d to concepts. T h e y w e r e u s e d exclusively f o r religious p u r p o s e s , such as
t r a n s m i t t i n g t h e "mystic" ideas that w e r e to be k e p t secret f r o m t h e c o m m o n
p e o p l e . Similarly, f o r Spencer, a g o o d m a n y of t h e laws, rites, a n d institutions t h a t

The Mosaic Distinction

G o d , by t h e m e d i a t i o n of Moses, gave to his people, show this h i e r o g l y p h i c c h a r
acter. T h e Law a p p e a r s h e r e as a "veil" (velum), a "cover" (involucrum), o r a "shell"
(cortex) t h a t t r a n s m i t s a t r u t h by h i d i n g it. In this s a m e context, S p e n c e r a d d u c e s
o n e of those passages f r o m C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a t h a t b e c o m e crucial to Karl
L e o n h a r d Reinhold's a n d Friedrich Schiller's view of Egypt:

In adyto veritatis repositum sermonem revera sacrum, Aegyptii quidem per ea, quae apud ipsos vo-
cantur adyta, Hebraei autem per velum significarunt. Occultationem igitur, quod attinet, sunt He-
braicis similia Aegyptiorum aenigmata.

[ T h e E g y p t i a n s i n d i c a t e d t h e really sacred logos, which they k e p t in t h e i n n e r m o s t sanc

t u a r y of T r u t h , by w h a t they called Adyta, a n d t h e H e b r e w s by m e a n s of t h e c u r t a i n (in
t h e t e m p l e ) . T h e r e f o r e , as f a r as c o n c e a l m e n t is c o n c e r n e d , t h e secrets (aenigmata) of t h e
H e b r e w s a n d t h o s e of t h e E g y p t i a n s a r e very similar to e a c h other.] 8 5

T h e s e sentences o p e n t h e d o o r to a totally d i f f e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e rela

t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n E g y p t a n d Israel.

Mystery: Nature into Scripture

At t h e s a m e time a n d even at the s a m e place that S p e n c e r d i d his re

s e a r c h o n Egyptian rites, Ralph C u d w o r t h , Regius P r o f e s s o r of H e b r e w , p u b
lished his True Intellectual System of the Universe.2* T h e r e is every r e a s o n to s u p p o s e
t h a t S p e n c e r a n d C u d w o r t h knew each o t h e r well, b u t t h e i r books a r e w o r l d s
a p a r t . S p e n c e r w o r k e d o n the Mosaic distinction as a historian. H e w a n t e d to show
how m u c h is d e r i v e d f r o m Egypt a n d , in d o i n g so, h e r e d u c e d revelation to t r a n s
lation a n d t r a n s c o d i h c a t i o n . C u d w o r t h was a C a m b r i d g e N e o p l a t o n i s t w h o s e
t h i n k i n g t r a n s c e n d e d t h e Mosaic distinction in its biblical e x p r e s s i o n . His g o d was
t h e g o d of t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n d his e n e m y was n o t idolatry b u t a t h e i s m o r
materialism.
C u d w o r t h wants to conf ute atheism by p r o v i n g that t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of o n e
S u p r e m e B e i n g constitutes "the t r u e intellectual system of t h e u n i v e r s e " be
c a u s e a s L o r d H e r b e r t of C h e r b u r y h a d already s h o w n in 1 6 2 4 t h e n o t i o n
"that t h e r e is a S u p r e m e G o d " is t h e most c o m m o n notion of all. 27 Even a t h e i s m
c o n f o r m s with this n o t i o n : the god whose existence it n e g a t e s is precisely this o n e
S u p r e m e G o d a n d not o n e o r all of the g o d s of polytheism. This n o t i o n , c o m m o n
to theists a n d atheists alike, can be d e f i n e d as: "A Perfect Conscious Understanding
Being (or M i n d ) Existing of it self from Eternity, and the Cause of all other things."28
Especially i n t e r e s t i n g f o r o u r c o n c e r n is C u d w o r t h ' s claim that t h e idea of o n e
S u p r e m e B e i n g is also s h a r e d by polytheism. In this context, Egypt b e c o m e s im
p o r t a n t f o r t h e simple reason t h a t it was by f a r t h e best k n o w n polytheistic religion
at t h e time. Even t h o u g h t h e h i e r o g l y p h s were n o t yet d e c i p h e r e d a n d t h e m o n
u m e n t s not yet excavated a n d p u b l i s h e d , t h e body of G r e e k a n d Latin s o u r c e s

REPRESENTATIONS
 (including the Corpus Hermeticum and the writings of" Plotinus, Porphyry, Iam-
blithus, Proclus, and Horapollon, which were believed to be firsthand Egyptian
sources) easily outweighed the available information about other religions.
Cudworth distinguishes between self-existing gods and gods whose existence
is d e p e n d e n t on other gods. N o polytheism, he concludes, ever believed in the
existence of several self-existent gods. T h e r e is always only o n e from whom all
the other gods derive. Every polytheism thus includes a monotheism. T h e form
of inclusion is mystery or secrecy: polytheism is for the many, while monotheism
is for the few. This unequal distribution of knowledge does not follow from some
malicious strategy of the priests w h o wanted to keep their knowledge secret for
their agrandissement, but from the difficulty of monotheism and the natural dif
ferences in mental capabilities. Truth, by this reasoning, is a natural mystery that
can only be approached by the very few. Cudworth accordingly reconstructs what
he calls the "arcane theology" of ancient Egypt and shows that it is the theology
of the O n e and the All, hen kai pan. H e takes his evidence f r o m a n u m b e r of
sources, but especially from the Corpus Hermeticum, which he holds to be a late
but authentic codification of ancient Egyptian wisdom and theology.
T h e chapter of Hermes Trismegistus seemed closed once and for all in 1614,
when Isaac Casaubon exposed the Corpus Hermeticum as a late compilation and
a Christian forgery.' 9 Since then, the Hermetic tradition survived only in occult
undercurrents such as Rosicrucianism, alchemy, theosophy, and so forth. This, at
least, is the picture Frances Yates has drawn of the Hermetic tradition. 50 Indeed,
Yates proclaimed the year 1614 "a watershed separating the Renaissance world
from the m o d e r n world" because Casaubon's dating of the Hermetic texts "shat
tered the basis of all attempts to build a natural theology in Hermeticism."' 1 It
was no easy task to vindicate the Corpus Hermeticum against so devastating a
verdict. Cudworth, however, did so with such brilliant success (although with not
altogether valid arguments), that natural theologies built on the Hermetic texts
continued to flourish. Hermes Trismegistus had, in fact, a triumphant comeback
in the eighteenth century due to Cudworth's rehabilitation, which inaugurated a
new phase o f the Hermetic tradition coinciding in Cermany with a wave o f
Spinozism.
Cudworth showed that Casaubon made two mistakes. First, he was wrong in
treating the whole corpus as o n e coherent text. His criticism affected only three
of the seventeen independent treatises and his verdict of forgery applied at most
to these three, but not to the corpus as a whole. Second, he was wrong in equating
text and tradition. T h e text is late, that much Cudworth is ready to admit. But
according to him, this must be taken as a terminus ad quern and not a quo; the text
shows only how long the tradition was alive, not how late it came into being. A n d
even the three "forgeries" must contain a kernel of truth; otherwise they would
not have been successful. In this way, Cudworth was able to represent the doctrine

T h e Mosaic Distinction
of A l l - O n e n e s s o r hen kai pan as t h e q u i n t e s s e n c e of E g y p t i a n a r c a n e theology.
O r p h e u s , Pythagoras, Plato, a n d o t h e r s initiated into t h e Egyptian mysteries
b r o u g h t this d o c t r i n e to Greece; Stoic a n d N e o p l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y t r a n s m i t t e d it
to t h e Occident.
Sixty years later, William W a r b u r t o n , a well-known S h a k e s p e a r e scholar, a n
Anglican bishop, a n d a f r i e n d of A l e x a n d e r Pope, c o m b i n e d t h e ideas of S p e n c e r
a n d C u d w o r t h in his Divine legation of Moses, which a p p e a r e d in t h r e e v o l u m e s
b e t w e e n 1738 a n d 1741. 3 2 W a r b u r t o n i n t e g r a t e d C u d w o r t h ' s ideas into his r e f o r
m u l a t i o n of t h e Mosaic distinction, which a p p e a r s now as "mystery" versus "rev
elation." T h e t r u t h is p r e s e n t o n both sides: q u i t e a r e v o l u t i o n a r y a d m i s s i o n f o r
a bishop. B u t the Egyptians a n d all t h e o t h e r religions d e r i v i n g f r o m E g y p t w e r e
able to recognize a n d to t r a n s m i t this t r u t h only in t h e f o r m of mystery, t h a t is, as
s o m e t h i n g r e s e r v e d f o r t h e very few w h o w e r e d e e m e d able to g r a s p i t n o t as a
p e r m a n e n t possession but as a quality k n o w n t h r o u g h rites t h a t w e r e b o u n d to
c a l e n d a r i c observances. Moses, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m a d e t h e t r u t h t h e possession
of t h e whole p e o p l e a n d cast it in the f o r m of a p e r m a n e n t S c r i p t u r e . 3 3
W a r b u r t o n ' s parallel to Giambattista Vico is striking. Vico, who, like W a r b u r
ton, w a n t e d to p r e s e r v e the Mosaic distinction, i n t e r p r e t e d it in t h e t e r m s of sa
c r e d a n d p r o f a n e history. H e asked how p r o f a n e society a n d history w e r e possible,
a n d even w o r k e d well, w h e n t h e various Gentile p e o p l e s w e r e g u i d e d by r e a s o n
(or " n a t u r a l law") alone a n d w e r e not g r a n t e d t h e g u i d a n c e of revelation. 3 4 B o t h
r e a s o n a n d revelation m u s t t h e r e f o r e contain t h e t r u t h . Reason, however, was
insecure, always e n d a n g e r e d by e r r o r , a n d t h e result of a l o n g a n d w i n d i n g p r o
cess of evolution, w h e r e a s revelation was pristine, p e r m a n e n t , a n d s e c u r e . B e y o n d
p r e s e r v i n g t h e Mosaic distinction, t h o u g h , Vico a n d W a r b u r t o n h a d still a n o t h e r
trait in c o m m o n : t h e i r interest was f o c u s e d o n the " p a g a n " side, p r o f a n e history
a n d mystery religion. T h e first step of secularization was n o t t h e abolition of t h e
distinction, b u t a shift of e m p h a s i s f r o m the sacred to t h e p r o f a n e .

Identity: Jehovah sive Isis

T h e step f r o m mystery to identity m i g h t seem slight, because a l r e a d y

in t h e p a r a d i g m of mystery, t h e t r u t h is recognized o n b o t h sides of t h e Mosaic
distinction. T h e new p a r a d i g m of identity d o e s not claim that t h e r e is revelation
o n b o t h sides, b u t that t h e r e is secrecy on both sides. Secrecy persists; even Moses
did n o t reveal t h e full t r u t h . H e n c e Lessing's idea of universal f r e e m a s o n r y : t h e r e
h a v e always b e e n a few initiates or illuminates w h o s o u g h t t h e t r u t h , which could
be u n c o v e r e d even a f t e r Moses' revelation, b u t only t h r o u g h a secret quest. 3 5 T h e
t r u t h is t h e s a m e o n b o t h sides, b u t it is t h e possession of n o o n e .
Karl L e o n h a r d R e i n h o l d published his book o n The Hebrew Mysteries, or the

REPRESENTATIONS
 Oldest Freemasonry first in 1786 in two issues of t h e Journal fiir Freymaurer a n d t h e n
as a m o n o g r a p h in 1788 at Leipzig.' 6 At the age of 25, h e e n t e r e d t h e f a m o u s
V i e n n e s e lodge True Concord (1783). Still a J e s u i t , h e passed all t h r e e g r a d e s b u t
fled in t h e s a m e year f r o m t h e J e s u i t o r d e r to Leipzig, w h e r e h e c o n t i n u e d his
philosophical studies. H e m a r r i e d a d a u g h t e r of C h r i s t o p h M a r t i n W i e l a n d ,
j o i n e d h i m in e d i t i n g the j o u r n a l Teutscher Merkur, b e c a m e well k n o w n f o r his
Letters on Kant's Philosophy, a n d was a p p o i n t e d p r o f e s s o r of p h i l o s o p h y at J e n a in
1787. T h e r e h e b e f r i e n d e d Schiller, w h o m h e i n d u c e d to r e a d I m m a n u e l Kant. 3 7
I n his book o n t h e H e b r e w mysteries, R e i n h o l d identifies t h e G o d of t h e Bible
as Isis, t h e Egyptian S u p r e m e Being, by c o m p a r i n g God's s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n in
E x o d u s 3.14 ("I a m w h o I am") a n d Isis's s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n o n t h e veiled i m a g e at
Sais: " B r e t h r e n ! " R e i n h o l d exclaims, " W h o a m o n g us d o e s n o t know t h e a n c i e n t
E g y p t i a n inscriptions: t h e o n e o n t h e p y r a m i d at Sais: 'I a m all that is, was, a n d
will be, a n d n o m o r t a l has ever lifted my veil,' a n d t h a t o t h e r o n t h e statue of Isis:
'I a m all t h a t is'? W h o a m o n g us d o e s n o t u n d e r s t a n d as well as t h e a n c i e n t Egyp
tian initiate himself did t h e m e a n i n g of these w o r d s a n d d o e s not know that they
e x p r e s s t h e essential Being, the m e a n i n g of t h e n a m e Jehova?" : , s While t h e saitic
inscription is r e p o r t e d by Plutarch a n d (in a slightly d i f f e r e n t , t h u s i n d e p e n d e n t ,
version) by Proclus, they speak only of o n e such inscription. T h e s e c o n d o n e was
p r o b a b l y i n v e n t e d by Voltaire, w h o m R e i n h o l d is closely p a r a p h r a s i n g in this pas
sage. 1 9 It serves Reinhold's p u r p o s e because it m a k e s the e q u a t i o n m o r e striking:
"I a m all that is" a n d "I a m who I am."
T h e e q u a t i o n , however, does not seem so c o n v i n c i n g to us. O n t h e c o n t r a r y ,
o n e p r o p o s i t i o n negates t h e other. W h e n Isis says "I a m all that is," she identifies
herself with t h e world a n d abolishes the distinction b e t w e e n G o d a n d world.
W h e n Yahveh says "I a m w h o I am," h e explicitly d r a w s t h e distinction b e t w e e n
himself a n d t h e world a n d forecloses every link of identification. B u t R e i n h o l d
r e a d t h e Bible in G r e e k . T h e S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s t h e divine n a m e as "go eimi ho
on" [I a m t h e B e i n g one], which R e i n h o l d u n d e r s t a n d s ( a n d which has always b e e n
u n d e r s t o o d ) as m e a n i n g "I a m essential Being." 4 0 R e i n h o l d was, in fact, following
a n a n t i q u e tradition; in o n e of t h e socalled Sibyllinian Oracles, t h e biblical G o d ,
with his selfpresentation "I a m w h o I a m " ['ahjeeh asher 'cehjeeh], is i n t e r p r e t e d in
t h e sense of the cosmic G o d of the H e r m e t i s t s : "I a m t h e b e i n g o n e (eimi d'egoge
ho on), recognize this in y o u r spirit: I d o n n e d h e a v e n as my g a r m e n t , I c l o t h e d
myself with the o c e a n , t h e e a r t h is g r o u n d f o r my feet, air covers m e as my body
a n d t h e stars revolve a r o u n d me." 4 1
T h i s is a l r e a d y Isis. But the point that R e i n h o l d wants to m a k e is t h a t t h e t r u e
G o d has n o n a m e s , n e i t h e r "Jehovah" n o r "Isis." B o t h t h e saitic f o r m u l a a n d t h e
H e b r e w f o r m u l a a r e to be u n d e r s t o o d not as t h e revelation of a n a m e , b u t r a t h e r
as its witholding, o r as the revelation of anonymity. G o d is all; every n a m e falls s h o r t
b e c a u s e it distinguishes G o d f r o m s o m e t h i n g t h a t is not G o d . B e i n g all, G o d can

T h e Mosaic Distinction
n o t h a v e a n a m e . With this, we c o m e back to H e r m e s Trismegistus. T h e p e r t i n e n t
f r a g m e n t is p r e s e r v e d in Lactantius. Nicholas of Cusa q u o t e s this passage in De
docta ignorantia s o m e d e c a d e s b e f o r e Marsilio Ficino's edition of t h e H e r m e t i c a :

It is o b v i o u s t h a t n o n a m e c a n b e a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e G r e a t e s t O n e , b e c a u s e n o t h i n g c a n b e
d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m h i m . All n a m e s a r e i m p o s e d by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g o n e f r o m t h e o t h e r .
W h e r e all is o n e , t h e r e c a n n o t b e a p r o p e r n a m e . T h e r e f o r e , H e r m e s T r i s m e g i s t u s is r i g h t
in s a y i n g : " b e c a u s e G o d is t h e totality of t h i n g s [universitas rerum], h e h a s n o p r o p e r n a m e ,
o t h e r w i s e h e s h o u l d b e called by e v e r y n a m e o r e v e r y t h i n g s h o u l d b e a r his n a m e . F o r h e
c o m p r i s e s in his simplicity t h e totality of all t h i n g s . C o n f o r m i n g w i t h his p r o p e r n a m e
w h i c h f o r u s is d e e m e d i n e f f a b l e a n d w h i c h is t h e t e t r a g r a m m a t o n . . . h i s n a m e s h o u l d
b e i n t e r p r e t e d as ' o n e a n d all' o r 'all in o n e , ' w h i c h is e v e n b e t t e r ['unus et omnia sive 'omnia
uniter,' quod melius est]."42

I n this text, written in t h e m i d d l e of t h e fifteenth century, we a l r e a d y find t h e

e q u a t i o n of t h e H e b r e w t e t r a g r a m m a t o n with H e r m e s Trismegistus's a n o n y m o u s
g o d , w h o is unus et omnia, " O n e a n d All," o r hen kaipan, as this idea will b e r e f e r r e d
to by C u d w o r t h a n d Lessing.
Nil novi sub sole? It is t r u e that we will find most of t h e l e a d i n g ideas of t h e
e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y c o n c e r n i n g the Mosaic distinction, n a t u r e a n d revelation,
t r u t h a n d religious tolerance, already p r e s e n t in t h e fifteenth a n d s i x t e e n t h cen
turies. B u t we a r e n o t asking f o r first o c c u r r e n c e s . T h e p o i n t is t h a t t h e s e ideas
did n o t d i s a p p e a r in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h century, as is generally believed. A l t h o u g h
t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y was a n age of o r t h o d o x y t h a t d e s t r o y e d t h e h a r m o n i s t i c
a n d eclectic d r e a m s of t h e Renaissance, a n d a l t h o u g h most of this p e r i o d ' s reli
gious a n d philosophical m o v e m e n t s went occult o r d i s a p p e a r e d u n d e r t h e p e r
secution of o r t h o d o x c e n s o r s h i p , Spencer's, G e r a r d u s Vossius's ( 1 5 7 7 1 6 4 9 ) , 4 3
J o h n M a r s h a m ' s ( 1 6 0 2 8 5 ) , 4 4 a n d C u d w o r t h ' s r e i n v e n t i o n s of E g y p t led to a
s t r o n g a n d mostly u n k n o w n revival of H e r m e t i c i s m , p a n t h e i s m , a n d o t h e r f o r m s
of Egyptophilia. T h e s e rehabilitations of t h e Egyptian t r a d i t i o n , f u r t h e r m o r e ,
h a d t h e i m m e n s e a d v a n t a g e of a n s w e r i n g o r t h o d o x a n d historical criticism.
T h e e n l i g h t e n e d Egyptophilia of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r e a c h e d its climax
a r o u n d 1780 w h e n it m e r g e d with t h e ideas of nature a n d t h e sublime. D u r i n g
t h e s e years L a m o i g n o n des Malesherbes coined t h e t e r m cosmotheism to d e s c r i b e
t h e Stoic w o r s h i p of cosmos as a god. C o s m o t h e i s m m o r e o r less explicitly abol
ishes t h e distinction b e t w e e n God a n d world. Friedrich Jacobi a p p l i e d it to B e n
edict Spinoza's deussive natura a n d Lessing's hen kaipan4'" a f o r m u l a that C u d w o r t h
(1678) h a d s h o w n to be the quintessential expression of a n c i e n t Egyptian theol
ogy. T h e a n c i e n t Egyptians w e r e t h u s cosmotheists j u s t as t h e Stoics, t h e N e o p l a
tonists, t h e Spinozists were. T h i s idea, always p r e s e n t , r e t u r n e d in t h e years be
tween 1785 a n d 1790 with a n o v e r w h e l m i n g force.
I n this new cosmotheistic m o v e m e n t , Isis was generally i n t e r p r e t e d as "Na
tur e . " H e r e is how I g n a z von B o r n , the G r a n d Master of True Concord a n d t h e

REPRESENTATIONS
m o d e l of Sarastro in W o l f g a n g A m a d e u s Mozart's Magic Flute, s u m m a r i z e d t h e
u l t i m a t e aim of t h e Egyptian mysteries a n d of f r e e m a s o n r y :

T h e k n o w l e d g e of n a t u r e is t h e u l t i m a t e p u r p o s e of o u r a p p l i c a t i o n . We w o r s h i p this
p r o g e n i t o r , n o u r i s h e r , a n d p r e s e r v e r of all creation in t h e i m a g e of Isis. O n l y h e w h o
k n o w s t h e w h o l e e x t e n t of h e r p o w e r a n d f o r c e will be able to u n c o v e r h e r veil w i t h o u t
punishment.46

T h i s passage c o m b i n e s Plutarch with C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , w h o says: " T h e

d o c t r i n e s d e l i v e r e d in t h e G r e a t e r Mysteries c o n c e r n t h e universe. H e r e all in
struction e n d s . T h i n g s a r e seen as they a r e ; a n d N a t u r e , a n d t h e w o r k i n g s of
N a t u r e , a r e to be seen a n d c o m p r e h e n d e d . " 4 7 O n t h e last step of initiation, t h e
a d e p t is speechless in t h e face of n a t u r e . T h i s idea inspired Schiller's ballad " T h e
Veiled I m a g e at Sais" a n d his essay " T h e Legation of Moses." 4 8 Like W a r b u r t o n
a n d R e i n h o l d , Schiller c o n s t r u c t e d the Mosaic distinction as t h e antagonistic re
lationship b e t w e e n official religion a n d mystery cult. In his o p i n i o n , secrecy was
necessary to p r o t e c t b o t h the political o r d e r f r o m a possibly d a n g e r o u s t r u t h a n d
t h e t r u t h f r o m v u l g a r a b u s e a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . For this r e a s o n , h i e r o g l y p h i c
writing a n d a c o m p l e x ritual of cultic c e r e m o n i e s a n d p r e s c r i p t i o n s w e r e i n v e n t e d
to shield the mysteries. T h e y w e r e devised to create a "sensual solemnity" (sinnliche
Feierlichkeit) a n d to p r e p a r e , by e m o t i o n a l arousal, t h e soul of t h e initiate to receive
the truth.
At this p o i n t Schiller i n t r o d u c e d t h e notion of t h e "sublime," associating it
with t h e H e r m e t i c idea of God's namelessness: " N o t h i n g is m o r e sublime t h a n t h e
simple g r e a t n e s s with which the sages speak of t h e creator. I n o r d e r to distinguish
h i m in a truly d e f i n i n g f o r m , they r e f r a i n e d f r o m giving h i m a n a m e at all." 49
A p p e a r i n g in the s a m e year (1790), Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft associates t h e
idea of t h e sublime with the second c o m m a n d m e n t , that is, with t h e idea of God's
imagelessness: " T h e r e is p e r h a p s n o m o r e sublime passage in t h e lawcode of t h e
J e w s t h a n t h e c o m m a n d m e n t ' t h o u shalt not m a k e u n t o t h e e any g r a v e n im
age. . . .'" s " B u t in a f o o t n o t e Kant m e n t i o n s the veiled i m a g e at Sais a n d its in
scription as t h e highest expression of t h e sublime:

P e r h a p s n o t h i n g m o r e s u b l i m e was e v e r said o r n o s u b l i m e r t h o u g h t e v e r e x p r e s s e d t h a n
t h e f a m o u s inscription o n t h e t e m p l e of Isis ( m o t h e r n a t u r e ) : "I a m all that is a n d t h a t shall
be, a n d n o m o r t a l has lifted my veil." S e g n e r availed himself of this i d e a in a suggestive
v i g n e t t e p r e f i x e d to his Natural Philosophy, in o r d e r to i n s p i r e b e f o r e h a n d t h e a p p r e n t i c e
w h o m h e was a b o u t to lead into t h e t e m p l e with a holy awe, which s h o u l d d i s p o s e his m i n d
to s o l e m n attention.'' 1

Kant uses Schiller's l a n g u a g e of initiation in d e s c r i b i n g S e g n e r ' s vignette:

"holy awe" (heiliger Schauer), "solemn a t t e n t i o n " (j'eierliche Aufmerksamkeit). T h e
m a i n p o i n t of Kant's observation is to e m p h a s i z e t h e initiatory f u n c t i o n of t h e
sublime. T h e sublime inspires in h u m a n s a holy awe a n d t e r r o r t h a t only t h e

T h e Mosaic Distinction 59
s t r o n g e s t a r e able to withstand, so as to p r e p a r e soul a n d m i n d f o r t h e a p p r e h e n
sion of a t r u t h t h a t can be g r a s p e d only in a state of exceptional f e a r a n d a t t e n t i o n .
S u b l i m e secrets r e q u i r e a sublime e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e c o n n e c t i o n of t h e sublime
with wisdom, mystery, a n d initiation occurs again a n d again in t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n
t h e E g y p t i a n mysteries. 5 2 B u t I would like to q u o t e a text to which C a r l o G i n z b u r g
d r e w my a t t e n t i o n : t h e Athenian Letters, a n o n y m o u s l y p u b l i s h e d in L o n d o n ( 1 7 4 1
43). T h e following is a description of t h e " H e r m e t i c cave" at T h e b e s , w h e r e t h e
Egyptian initiates w e r e s u p p o s e d to be t a u g h t the d o c t r i n e s of H e r m e s T r i s m e
gistus as inscribed o n the pillars of wisdom:
T h e strange solemnity of the place must strike everyone, that enters it, with a religious
horror; and is the most proper to work you up into that frame of mind, in which you will
receive, with the most awful reverence and assent, whatever the priest, who attends you,
is pleased to reveal. . . .
Towards the f arther end of the cave, or within the innermost recess of some prodigious
caverns, that run beyond it, you hear, as it were a great way off, a noise resembling the
distant roarings of the sea, and sometimes like the fall of" waters, dashing against rocks with
great impetuosity. T h e noise is supposed to be so stunning and frightful, if you approach
it, that few, they say, are inquisitive enough, into those mysterious sportings of nature. . . .
Surrounded with these pillars of lamps are each of those venerable columns, which I
am now to speak of, inscribed with the hieroglyphical letters with the primeval mysteries
of the Egyptian learning. . . . From these pillars, and the sacred books, they maintain, that
all the philosophy and learning of the world has been derived. 53

T h i s is t h e p r o p e r setting f o r the storage a n d transmission of secret w i s d o m .

T h e m o r e welltodo a m o n g the F r e e m a s o n s of t h e time even tried to c o n s t r u c t
such a n a m b i a n c e in t h e i r p a r k s a n d g a r d e n s . T h e s c e n o g r a p h y f o r t h e trial by
h r e a n d w a t e r in t h e h n a l e f r o m t h e second act of Mozart's Magic Flute envisages
such a cave, w h e r e water gushes o u t with a d e a f e n i n g r o a r a n d fire s p u r t s f o r t h
with d e v o u r i n g t o n g u e s . It is m o d e l e d not only u p o n A b b e Terrasson's d e s c r i p t i o n
of Sethos's s u b t e r r a n e a n trials a n d initiation b u t also u p o n m a s o n i c g a r d e n ar
c h i t e c t u r e , such as t h e g r o t t o in t h e p a r k at Aigen, n e a r Salzburg, o w n e d by Mo
zart's f r i e n d a n d fellow m a s o n , Basil von A m a n n . 5 ' T h e idea of t h e s u b l i m e s o
i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e aesthetics of the t i m e a n d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a n c i e n t Egyp
tian art a n d a r c h i t e c t u r e w e r e practically i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m n o t i o n s of mystery a n d
initiation.
A c c o r d i n g to R e i n h o l d a n d Schiller, n a t u r e was t h e g o d in w h o s e mysteries
Moses was initiated d u r i n g the c o u r s e of his Egyptian e d u c a t i o n . B u t this was n o t
t h e G o d Moses revealed to his people. In the school of t h e E g y p t i a n mysteries,
Moses n o t only l e a r n e d to c o n t e m p l a t e t h e t r u t h b u t also "collected a t r e a s u r e of
h i e r o g l y p h s , mystical symbols a n d c e r e m o n i e s " with which to build u p a religion
a n d to cover t h e t r u t h u n d e r t h e protective shell of cultic institutions a n d p r e
scriptionssub cortice legis, as S p e n c e r h a d already f o r m u l a t e d it. Schiller r e p l a c e d
M a i m o n i d e s ' a n d Spencer's idea of God's a c c o m m o d a t i o n of t h e Law with the idea

REPRESENTATIONS
of Moses' a c c o m m o d a t i o n of G o d . Religion a n d revelation, in this s c h e m e , a r e
only f o r m s of a c c o m m o d a t i o n .
A m o n g t h e r e a d e r s of Schiller's essay was Ludvvig van B e e t h o v e n , w h o w r o t e
o u t t h e two "saitic inscriptions" a n d a q u o t a t i o n f r o m t h e O r p h i c h y m n o n a leaf
of p a p e r a n d h a d this p u t u n d e r glass a n d in a f r a m e . It stood o n his writing table
d u r i n g t h e last years of his life:

I am all that is.

I am all that was, is, and will be; and no mortal has ever lifted my veil.
H e is the O n e who exists by himself, and to this single O n e all things
owe their existence."

T h e s e sentences w e r e held to be quintessential e x p r e s s i o n s of e n l i g h t e n e d reli

gion a n d , at t h e s a m e time, of ancient Egyptian wisdom a n d theology. Equally
e m b l e m a t i c of Egyptian theology was t h e G r e e k f o r m u l a hen kai pan t h a t Lessing
w r o t e as his p e r s o n a l religious m a n i f e s t o in t h e guestbook of a f r i e n d o n 15
A u g u s t 1780. W h e n Jacobi p u b l i s h e d his conversations with Lessing in 1785, h e
l a u n c h e d t h e " p a n t h e i s m d e b a t e " that held sway in G e r m a n y f o r almost fifty
y e a r s . " C u d w o r t h could have l a u n c h e d t h e s a m e d e b a t e a h u n d r e d years earlier.
B u t it was only o n t h e eve of Napoleon's e x p e d i t i o n to E g y p t t h a t t h e r e t u r n
of Egyptian c o s m o t h e i s m a n d t h e abolition of t h e Mosaic distinction a s s u m e d
t h e d i m e n s i o n s of a sweeping revolution. O n e m i g h t call it t h e " r e t u r n of t h e
repressed."

Latency, or the Return of the

Repressed

S i g m u n d F r e u d was a n o t h e r r e a d e r of Schiller's essay. Its i m p a c t o n his

Moses and Monotheism is evident.''" B u t f o r all t h e stillgrowing l i t e r a t u r e o n this
book, n o b o d y seems to notice that Freud's work o n t h e Mosaic distinction contin
u e s t h e discourse of t h e e i g h t e e n t h century. 551 It is, of c o u r s e , i m p o r t a n t to r e a d
F r e u d ' s book in t h e context of his o t h e r scientific writings. Nevertheless, t h e full
i m p o r t of t h e book only becomes clear w h e n seen in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e Enlight
e n m e n t tradition.' 1 0 W h e n , u n d e r the p r e s s u r e of G e r m a n antiSemitism, F r e u d
s t a r t e d to write his book, r e m a r k a b l y e n o u g h , h e d i d not ask "how t h e G e r m a n s
c a m e to m u r d e r t h e Jews," b u t "how t h e J e w s c a m e to attract this u n d y i n g h a t r e d . "
H e s o u g h t t h e a n s w e r in t h e Mosaic distinction a n d in Moses himself, who, by
d r a w i n g this distinction, F r e u d believed h a d c r e a t e d t h e Jews. Freud's p r o j e c t was
t h u s to dissolve o r " d e c o n s t r u c t " t h e Mosaic distinction by historical analysis: p r e
cisely t h e project of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h a n d e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s . Freud's Moses was
an Egyptian w h o b r o u g h t to t h e J e w s an Egyptian religion. Every a t t e m p t , how

T h e Mosaic Distinction
ever, to abolish t h e Mosaic distinction h a d similarly f o c u s e d o n t h e E g y p t i a n back
g r o u n d of Moses. Already in 1709, J o h n T o l a n d , basing himself o n Strabo, even
w e n t so f a r as to m a k e Moses an Egyptian a n d t h e p r i n c e of t h e p r o v i n c e of
G o s h e n , w h o f o u n d e d a new religion in t h e spirit of Spinoza, a n d left E g y p t to
g e t h e r with t h e H e b r e w s in o r d e r to realize it. 61
W h e n F r e u d r e s u m e d , in the 1930s, the discourse o n Moses a n d Egypt, h e
was able to avail himself of a n archaeological discovery that was inaccessible to all
p r e v i o u s a u t h o r s f r o m M a n e t h o to Schiller: t h a t is, t h e discovery of A k h e n a t e n
a n d his m o n o t h e i s t i c revolution. H e was s p a r e d t h e t r o u b l e of i n v e n t i n g E g y p t i a n
mysteries in o r d e r to project H e r m e t i c o r Spinozistic theology back into Moses'
times, a n d instead could point to a n Egyptian m o n o t h e i s t i c c o u n t e r r e l i g i o n as a
historical fact. B u t even in his r e c o n s t r u c t i o n secrecy r e t u r n s , namely, in t h e f o r m
of latency. Freud's Moses did not translate o r a c c o m m o d a t e his t r u t h to t h e ca
pacities of t h e p e o p l e b u t i m p o s e d it without c o m p r o m i s e . T h e r e f o r e h e was m u r
d e r e d . Yet it was precisely by b e i n g m u r d e r e d a n d by b e c o m i n g a t r a u m a t i c a n d
e n c r y p t e d m e m o r y that h e was able to create t h e Jewish p e o p l e . T h i s c r e a t i o n was
a slow process, t a k i n g c e n t u r i e s a n d even millennia. His t r u t h w o r k e d f r o m within
a n d m a n i f e s t e d itself as a r e t u r n of t h e r e p r e s s e d . In Freud's w o r d s , it " m u s t first
have u n d e r g o n e t h e f a t e ol being r e p r e s s e d , t h e c o n d i t i o n of l i n g e r i n g in t h e
u n c o n s c i o u s , b e f o r e it is able to display such p o w e r f u l effects o n its r e t u r n a n d
f o r c e t h e masses u n d e r its spell."''' 2 In this way, Moses t h e E g y p t i a n a n d his m o n o
theism " r e t u r n e d to t h e m e m o r y of his people." T h i s r e p r e s s i o n is how F r e u d
explains t h e coercive p o w e r that religion has over t h e masses. For F r e u d , religion
is a c o m p u l s o r y n e u r o s i s that can only be t r e a t e d by " r e m e m b e r i n g , r e p e a t i n g ,
w o r k i n g t h r o u g h " Freud's version of Baal S h e m Tov's f a m o u s s e n t e n c e : t h e secret
of r e d e m p t i o n is r e m e m b e r i n g . In the case of t h e Mosaic distinction, this r e m e m
b e r i n g has always t u r n e d toward Egypt.
In this situation, it may be i m p o r t a n t to rediscover t h e E g y p t of t h e e i g h t e e n t h
c e n t u r y r e p r e s s e d by n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y positivism a n d h i s t o r i c i s m j u s t as t h e
Egypt of t h e Renaissance h a d b e e n rediscovered by t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y a f t e r
a p e r i o d of s u p p r e s s i o n , a n d as t h e fifteenth a n d sixteenth c e n t u r i e s r e d i s c o v e r e d
prisca theologia in the Egypt (and its syncretistic c o s m o t h e i s m ) of late antiquity.
T h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r e o p e n e d a d i a l o g u e with an a n c i e n t E g y p t i a n (or g e n
erally "pagan") c o s m o t h e i s m that h a d b e e n s u p p r e s s e d by o r t h o d o x a n d ratio
nalistic f u n d a m e n t a l i s m . In t h e n i n e t e e n t h century, this d i a l o g u e was again, a n d
a p p a r e n t l y forever, b r o u g h t to a n e n d by the d e c i p h e r m e n t of h i e r o g l y p h i c writ
ing a n d t h e rise of m o d e r n Egyptology, which r e l e g a t e d all Egyptophilic ideas to
t h e m u s e u m of inventions a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . O n l y recently has it b e c o m e
clear that t h e r e is a g e n u i n e Egyptian cosmotheistic tradition that has b e e n o p
p o s e d by t h e Mosaic distinction b u t has persisted as a c o u n t e r c u r r e n t t h r o u g h all
t h e d i f f e r e n t stages of Western m o n o t h e i s m until t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d be

REPRESENTATIONS
yond. Those who referred to ancient Egypt in combating orthodox and f unda
mentalist distinctions were not completely mistaken. And many of those who en
gaged in the project of a scientific discovery of ancient Egypt and who opposed
Egyptophilic traditions were ultimately, and more or less unwittingly, following
the same agenda of natural religion and reason. It is always good to remember.
Perhaps, however, this remembrance is not, after all, "the secret of redemp
tion," but rather a technique of translation. I think that our aim cannot be to
abolish distinctions and to deconstruct the spaces that were severed or cloven by
them. What we need instead is the development of new techniques of intercultural
translation, not in order to appropriate "the other," but to overcome the stereo
types of otherness that we have projected onto the other by drawing distinctions.
We are no longer dreaming of returning to Egypt or to the eighteenth century,
with its ideas of tolerance. While this concept of tolerance was based on integration
or generalization, what we need is a tolerance of recognition, which depends upon
what is still beyond our reach: a real understanding of those religions that were
rejected as "idolatry" by the Mosaic distinction.

Notes

T h e following essay is based o n research completed during my stay at the J. Paul Getty
Center for the History o f Art and the Humanities at Santa Monica in 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 . T h e
results o f this research will be published in a book titled Moses the Egyptian: An Essay in
Mnemohistory, forthcoming from Harvard University Press.
1. George Spencer Brown, Laws of Form (New York, 1972), 3.
2. See, e.g., Erik H o r n u n g , Echnaton: Die Religion des Lichtes (Zurich, 1995); Jan Assmann,
"Akhanyati's T h e o l o g y o f T i m e and Light," Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities,
Proceedings 7 (1992): 1 4 3 - 7 6 .
3. See, e.g., Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, eds., The Translatability of Cultures: Figu
rations of the Space Between (Stanford, 1996).
4. Peter Artzi, "The Birth o f the Middle East," Proceedings of the 5th World Congress of Jewish
Studies ( Jerusalem, 1972), 1 2 0 - 2 4 . For polytheism, see my contribution, "Translating
Gods: Religion as a Factor of Cultural (Un)translatability," in Budick and Iser, Trans
latability, 2 5 - 3 6 .
5. Plutarch, De hide and Osiride, trans. J. G. Griffiths (Cardiff, 1970), 2 2 3 f.
6. See Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York, 1985).
7. See Moshe Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York, 1992); Moshe
Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry (Cambridge, Mass., 1993).
8. T h e sources have been collected by M e n a h e m Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews
and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 4 ) .
9. W. G. Waddell, ed. and trans., Manetho (Cambridge, Mass., 1940).
10. Stern, Jews and Judaism, 2:1763. A. M. A. Hospers-Jansen, Tacitus over de Joden (Gro-
ningen, 1949); Heinz Heinen, "Agyptische Grundlagen des antiken Antijudaismus:

T h e Mosaic Distinction
 Z u m J u d e n e x k u r s d e s Tacitus, H i s t o r i e n V. 213," Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 101,
n o . 2 (1992): 1 2 4 - 4 9 .
11. See, e.g., J o h n G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1983); Pier C e s a r e
Bori, " I m m a g i n i e stereotipi del p o p o l o e b r a i c o nel i n o n d o antico: asino d ' o r o , vitello
d ' o r o , " in L'estasi del prof eta (Bologna, 1989), 1 3 1 - 5 0 (with rich b i b l i o g r a p h y ) . For t h e
polemical i m p a c t of this t r a d i t i o n , see especially Peter S c h a f e r , Judaeophobia: The Atti
tude Towards the Jews in the Ancient World ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass., 1997).
12. See Silvia Berti, // trattato dei Ire impostori: La vita e lospirito delsignor Benedetto de Spinoza
( T u r i n , 1994).
13. Moses M a i m o n i d e s , The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S h l o m o Pines (Chicago, 1963).
S p e n c e r q u o t e s M a i m o n i d e s in H e b r e w a n d only occasionally in t h e o r i g i n a l Arabic.
14. K o r a n 2.59, see also 5.73 a n d 22.17. S o m e t h o u g h t of t h e M a n d a e a n s o r a similar
m o v e m e n t ; A m o s F u n k e n s t e i n sees in t h e m t h e "small r e m n a n t s of a gnostic sect of
t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d c e n t u r y A.D.; see his Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1993),
144. F r o m A.D. 8 3 0 o n , t h e t e r m r e f e r s to t h e p e o p l e at H a r r a n w h o h a d m a n a g e d to
r e m a i n p a g a n s a n d w h o still a d h e r e d to t h e cult of Sin, t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n m o o n g o d .
T h r e a t e n e d by p e r s e c u t i o n , they claimed to be Sabians, a n d r e f e r r e d to t h e H e r m e t i c
writings as t h e i r sacred b o o k ; see Walter Scott, e d . a n d trans., Hermetica: The Ancient
Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes
Trismegistus (1929; r e p r i n t , Boston, 1993), 9 7 - 1 0 8 . In t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e
Sabians w e r e generally i d e n t i f i e d with t h e Z o r o a s t r i a n s ; see, e.g., E d w a r d Stillingfleet,
Origines sacrae, or a rational account oj the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine
authority of the scriptures, and the matters therein contained (1662; r e p r i n t , O x f o r d , 1797),
1 : 4 9 - 5 1 . T h e o p h i l e Gale h e l d that " t h e Rites of t h e Zabii a r e t h e s a m e with t h o s e o f
t h e C h a l d a e a n s a n d Persians, w h o all a g r e e d in this w o r s h i p of t h e S u n , a n d o f Fire,
&C."; see The Court of the Gentiles, 2 vols. ( O x f o r d , 1 6 6 9 - 7 1 ) , 2:73.
15. U m b e r t o Eco, "An Ars Oblivionalis? Forget It!" PMLA 103 (1988): 2 5 4 - 6 1 . U m b e r t o
Eco m i g h t be r i g h t in p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t t h e r e is n o possible a r t o f oblivion o n t h e level
of i n d i v i d u a l m e m o r y . B u t Eco's a r g u m e n t s d o n o t a p p l y o n t h e level of collective
memory.
16. Talattuf alallah wahakhmatah, " t h e c u n n i n g (or 'practical reason') of G o d a n d his wis
d o m , " an e x p r e s s i o n t h a t F u n k e n s t e i n very interestingly links with Hegel's c o n c e p t o f
" t h e c u n n i n g of r e a s o n " ; see F u n k e n s t e i n , Perceptions, 1 4 1 4 4 , e s p . 143 n. 38, r e f e r r i n g
to M a i m o n i d e s , Guide of the Perplexed; a n d G. W. F. H e g e l , Philosophic der Geschichle
( S t u t t g a r t , 1961), 78 ff. J o h n S p e n c e r s p e a k s of G o d ' s u s i n g " h o n e s t fallacies a n d tor
t u o u s steps," methodis honeste fallacibus et sinuosis gradibus, q u o t e d a f t e r G o t t h a r d Victor
Lechler, Geschichle des englischen Deismus (1841; r e p r i n t , H i l d e s h e i m , 1965), 138.
17. Ut omnes isti cultus aut ritus, qui fiebant in gratiam imaginumjierent in honorem Dei: S p e n c e r ' s
t r a n s l a t i o n of Rabbi S h e m Tov b e n J o s e p h ibn S h e m Tov's c o m m e n t a r y o n M a i m o n
ides' Guide of the Perplexed.
18. H e was following a p r i n c i p l e of R o m a n legal exegesis. T h e R o m a n s s t u d i e d t h e his
torical circumstantiae of a law with t h e s a m e p u r p o s e of f i n d i n g o u t a b o u t its o r i g i n a l
i n t e n t i o n . T h e s e c o n d step t h e n was to g e n e r a l i z e t h e i n t e n t i o n in such a way t h a t it
c o u l d be a p p l i e d to t h e case in point. History was s t u d i e d in o r d e r to save t h e law, n o t
to abolish it. A law was saved by g e n e r a l i z i n g t h e original i n t e n t i o n , o r t h e set of facts
to which it was originally a p p l i e d , a n d by f i n d i n g o u t t h e i r timeless r e l e v a n c e . T h i s is
also t h e m e t h o d of M a i m o n i d e s .
19. J o h n S p e n c e r , De legibus hebraeorum ritualibus el earum rationibus, libri tres ( T h e H a g u e ,
1686).

REPRESENTATIONS
20. S p e n c e r s p e a k s of t h e cessation of t h e r e a s o n of t h e Law, De legibus, 3 : 1 2 : "(Christus)
Mosis Leges, earum ratione iam cessante, penitus abrogaverit [{Christ} abolished t h e Law o f
Moses, b e c a u s e its r e a s o n h a d b e c o m e inexistent].
21. Translatio in Latin m e a n s " t r a n s f e r , " n o t " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " S p e n c e r conceives of a " t r a n s -
latio Legis" o n t h e m o d e l of "translatio i m p e r i i " a n d "translatio studii." Yet " t r a n s f e r "
implies, of c o u r s e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Besides translatio, S p e n c e r uses mutatio, " b o r r o w i n g , "
a n d derivatio, "derivation."
22. Acts 7.22. N o t e t h a t this i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Moses is given only in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t .
It n e v e r occurs in t h e H e b r e w Bible.
23. G e o r g e Boas, The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo (New York, 1950); Erik I v e r s e n , The Myth
of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphs ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1961), 4 7 - 4 9 .
24. O n A t h a n a s i u s Kircher, see Liselotte D i e c k m a n n , Hieroglyphics: The History of a Literary
Symbol (St. Louis, 1970); I v e r s e n , Myth of Egypt, 9 2 - 1 0 0 .
25. S p e n c e r c o m b i n e s two distant passages f r o m C l e m e n t ' s Stromata (5.3.19.3 a n d 5.4.41.2);
see C l e m e n s A l e x a n d r i n u s , Stromata Buch 1-6, e d . O t t o Stahlin (Berlin, 1985), 338,
354.
26. R a l p h C u d w o r t h , The true Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein All the
Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted and its Impossibility demonstrated (1678; r e p r i n t ,
L o n d o n , 1743).
27. E d w a r d , L o r d H e r b e r t of C h e r b u r y , De veritate (Paris, 1624).
28. C u d w o r t h , Intellectual System, 195.
29. Isaac C a s a u b o n , De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI. Ad Cardinalis Baronii
prolegomena in annates ( L o n d o n , 1614).
30. F r a n c e s A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964).
31. Ibid., 398.
32. William W a r b u r t o n , The divine legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious
deist, from the omission of the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment in the Jewish
dispensation, 2 vols. ( 1 7 3 8 - 4 1 ; r e p r i n t , L o n d o n , 1778).
33. For this i n t e r e s t i n g t h e o r y of writing, W a r b u r t o n r e f e r s to Elavius J o s e p h u s as his
s o u r c e : " [ J o s e p h u s ] tells A p p i o n (sic) t h a t t h a t high a n d s u b l i m e k n o w l e d g e , which t h e
Gentiles with difficulty a t t a i n e d u n t o , in t h e r a r e a n d t e m p o r a r y c e l e b r a t i o n of t h e i r
Mysteries, was habitually t a u g h t to t h e Jews, at all times." See W a r b u r t o n , Divine legation,
1:192-93.
34. See also J o h n Selden's distinction b e t w e e n "ius naturale" (the N o a h i d i c laws) a n d "dis-
ciplina Hebraeorum"; J o h n S e l d e n , De iure naturali et gentium iuxta disciplinam hebraeorum
libriseptem ( L o n d o n , 1640); Friedrich N i e w o h n e r , Veritas sive Varietas: Lessings Toleranz-
parabel und das Buch von den drei Betriigern ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1988), 3 3 3 - 3 6 . T h e discovery
of t h e " n a t u r a l law" of n a t i o n s is t h e object of Giambattista Vico's "new science." Vico
m e n t i o n s H u g o G r o t i u s , J o h n S e l d e n , a n d S a m u e l P u f e n d o r f as t h e l e a d i n g t h e o r i s t s
of n a t u r a l law. See L e o n P o m p a , e d . a n d trans., Vico: Selected Writings ( C a m b r i d g e ,
1982), 8 1 - 8 9 .
35. G o t t h o l d E p h r a i m Lessing, " E r n s t u n d Ealk: F r e i m a u r e r g e s p r a c h e " [1778], in Ges-
ammelte Werke (Leipzig, 1841), 9 : 3 4 5 - 9 1 .
36. Karl L e o n h a r d R e i n h o l d [ B r ( u d e r ) Decius, p s e u d . ] , Die Hebraischen Mysterien, oder die
dlteste religiose Freymaurerey (Leipzig, 1788).
37. O n R e i n h o l d , see G e r h a r d W. Fuchs, Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Illuminat und Philosoph:
eine Studie iiber den Zusammenhang seines Engagements ah Freimaurer und Illuminat mil
seinem Leben und philosophischen Wirketi ( F r a n k f u r t a m Main, 1994) w h e r e , however,
R e i n h o l d ' s b o o k o n t h e H e b r e w mysteries is not m e n t i o n e d .

T h e Mosaic Distinction
38. R e i n h o l d , Hebrdischen Myslerien, 54.
39. Voltaire, Essay sur le moeurs des peuples, in Oeuvres de Voltaire, e d . M. B e u c h o t ( F a n s ,
1829), 15:102106; "II se serait f o n d e s u r l ' a n c i e n n e inscription d e la s t a t u e d'lsis, 'Je
suis ce q u i est'; et cette a u t r e , 'Je suis t o u t ce q u i a et et q u i sera; mil m o r t e l n e p o u r r a
lever m o n voile'" (103).
40. Vico also p a r a p h r a s e s t h e divine n a m e as "what I a m " and "what is"; Vico. Selected
Writings, 53 (On the Ancient Wisdom of the Italians, c h a p . 2).
41. R. M e r k e l b a c h a n d M. Totti, Abrasax: Ausgewdhlte Papyri religiiisen nnd magischen Inhalts
( O p l a d e n , 1991), 2:131.
42. Nicolaus C u s a n u s , De docta ignorantia, e d . Paulus W i l p e r t ( H a m b u r g , 1967), 9 6 9 7 .
B e r n h a r d i n e von O l f e n a n d Aleida A s s m a n n d r e w my a t t e n t i o n to this i m p o r t a n t
text.
43. G e r a r d u s J o a n n i s Vossius, De theologia genlili et physiologia Christiana: sive de origine ac
progressu idololatriae, ad veterum gesta, ac rerum naturain, reductoe; deque naturae mirandis,
quibus homo adducitur ad Deum ( F r a n c f o r t , 1668).
44. J o h n M a r s h a m , Canon chronicns aegyptiacus, hebraicus, graecus ( L o n d o n , 1672).
45. E m m a n u e l J . B a u e r , Das Denken Spinozas und seine Interpretation durch Jacobi ( F r a n k f u r t
a m M a i n , 1989), 2 3 4 ff.
46. I g n a z von B o r n , " U b e r d i e Mysterien d e r A e g y p t i e r , " y u r a a / fur Freymaurer 1 (1784):
1 7 1 3 2 , e s p . 22. H e q u o t e s P l u t a r c h as his s o u r c e .
47. C l e m e n s A l e x a n d r i n u s , Stromata, cited in W a r b u r t o n , Divine legation, 1:191.
48. Friedrich Schiller, Die Sendung Moses, e d . H . K o o p m a n n . Siimtlirhe Werke IV: Historische
Schriften ( M u n i c h , 1968), 7 3 7 5 7 .
49. Nichts ist e r h a b e n e r , als d i e e i n f a c h e GroBe, mit d e r sie v o n d e m W e l t s c h o p f e r
sprachen. U m ihn a u f e i n e r e c h t e n t s c h e i d e n d e A r t a u s z u z e i c h n e n , g a b e n sie i h m g a r
k e i n e n N a m e n ; Schiller, Die Sendung Moses, 745.
50. I m m a n u e l Kant, Critique of Judgment, trans. J . M. B e r n a r d (New York, 1951), 115.
T r a n s l a t i o n a l t e r e d slightly a f t e r Kant, Kritik der Urteihkraft in Werke, e d . W. Weischedel
( D a r m s t a d t , 1968), 8:417.
51. Ibid., 160. T h e German r e a d s : "Vielleicht ist nie etwas F . r h a b e n e r e s gesagt o d e r ein
G e d a n k e e r h a b e n e r a u s g e d r i i c k t w o r d e n als in j e n e r A u f s c h r i f t ttber dem 1cmpel der
Isis ( d e r M u t t e r N a t u r ) : 'Ich bin alles was d a ist, was d a war u n d was d a sein wird, u n d
m e i n e n Schleier h a t kein Sterblicher a u f g e d e c k t . ' S e g n e r b e n u t z t e diese I d e e , d u r c h
e i n e s i n n r e i c h e , s e i n e r N a t u r l e h r e vorgesetzte V i g n e t t e , u m s e m e n L e h r l i n g , d e n e r
in d i e s e n T e m p e l e i n z u f i i h r e n bereit war, v o r h e r mit d e m heiligen S c h a u e r zu e r f u l
len, d e r d a s G e m u t h zu feierlicher A u f m e r k s a m k e i t s t i m m e n soil."
52. See, e.g., A b b e J e a n T e r r a s s o n , Sethos. Histoire ou vie, tiree des monuments, Anecdotes de
l'ancienne Egypte: Ouvrage dans lequel on trouve la description des Initiations aux Mysterts
Egyptiens, traduil d'un manuscrit Grec (1731; r e p r i n t , Paris, 1707).
53. Athenian letters or, the Epistolary Correspondence oj an Agent of the King / Persia, residing at
Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Containing the Histoiy of the Times, in Dispatches to the
Ministers of State at the Persian Court. Besides Letters on various subjects between I Inn and His
Friends, 4 vols. ( L o n d o n , 1 7 4 1 4 3 ) , 1 : 9 5 1 0 0 (letter 2 5 by O r s a m e s , f r o m T h e b e s ) .
C a r l o G i n z b u r g d r e w my a t t e n t i o n to this e x t r a o r d i n a r y history of t h e E a s t e r n Medi
t e r r a n e a n at t h e e n d of t h e fifth c e n t u r y B.C. The letters by O r s a m e s a d d u p to a fair
s u m m a r y of t h e k n o w l e d g e of t h e time c o n c e r n i n g Ancient Egypt.
54. M a g n u s O l a u s s o n , " F r e e m a s o n r y , Occultism, a n d t h e P i c t u r e s q u e G a r d e n T o w a r d s
t h e E n d of t h e E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y , " Art History 8, n o . 4 (1985): 4 1 3 3 3 . I owe this to
Annette Richards.

REPRESENTATIONS
5 5 . S e e A n t o n F. S c h i n d l e r , The Life of Beethoven, e d . a n d t r a n s . I g n a c e M o s c h e l e s ( M a t t a -
p a n , Mass., 1966), 2 : 1 6 3 :
If m y o b s e r v a t i o n e n t i t l e s m e t o f o r m a n o p i n i o n o n t h e s u b j e c t , I s h o u l d say
h e [ B e e t h o v e n ] i n c l i n e d to D e i s m ; in so f a r as t h a t t e r m m a y b e u n d e r s t o o d
to i m p l y n a t u r a l r e l i g i o n . H e h a d w r i t t e n with his o w n h a n d t w o i n s c r i p t i o n s ,
said to b e t a k e n f r o m a t e m p l e o f Isis. T h e s e i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h w e r e f r a m e d ,
a n d f o r m a n y y e a r s c o n s t a n t l y lay b e f o r e h i m o n his w r i t i n g - t a b l e , w e r e as
follows:
I . " I AM THAT WHICH I S . I AM ALL THAT IS, ALL THAT WAS, AND ALL THAT
SHALL B E . N O MORTAL MAN HATH MY VEIL UPLIFTED!"
I I . " H E IS O N E ; SELF-EXISTENT, AND TO THAT O N E ALL THINGS OWE THEIR
EXISTENCE."

B e e t h o v e n ' s G e r m a n text is s h o w n in f a c s i m i l e a n d r e a d s : " I c h b i n , was d a ist / / I c h

b i n alles, was ist, was war, u n d was seyn w i r d , kein s t e r b l i c h e r M e n s c h h a t m e i n e n
S c h l e y e r a u f g e h o b e n / / E r ist e i n z i g v o n i h m selbst, u. d i e s e m E i n z i g e n s i n d alle D i n g e
i h r D a s e y n s c h u l d i g . " T h e s e n t e n c e s a r e s e p a r a t e d f r o m e a c h o t h e r by d o u b l e s l a s h e s .
T h e t h i r d s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a d d e d l a t e r ; t h e w r i t i n g is s m a l l e r a n d m o r e d e v e l o p e d .
S e e also E. G r a e f e , " B e e t h o v e n u n d d i e a g y p t i s c h e Weisheit," Gbttinger Miszellen 2
(1971): 1 9 - 2 1 .
56. T h e i n s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h is n o w lost, h a s b e e n s e e n by J o h a n n G o t t f r i e d v o n H e r d e r ; see
E r i c h S c h m i d t , Lessing: Geschichte semes Lebens und seiner Schriften, 2 vols. ( B e r l i n , 1 8 8 4 -
86), 2 : 8 0 4 ; Gotthold Ephmitn Lessings Samtliche Schriften, e d . Karl L a c h m a n n , vol. 22, b k .
1 ( B e r l i n , 1915), ix; Karl C h r i s t , Jacobi und Mendelssohn: Erne Analyse des Spinozastreits
( W u r z b u r g , 1988), 5 9 f.
57. S e e G e r a r d Vallee et al., t r a n s . , The Spinoza Conversations Between Lessing and Jacobi: Texts
with Excerpts from the Ensuing Controversy ( L a n h a m , M d . , 1988).
58. S i g m u n d F r e u d , Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion ( 1 9 3 9 ) , vol. 16, Gesam-
melte Werke, e d . A n n a FYeud ( F r a n k f u r t a m M a i n , 1968); in F.nglish: Moses and Monothe-
ism, in Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 23, t r a n s ,
fames Strachey ( L o n d o n , 1959). E. B l u m , " U b e r S i g m u n d F r e u d s : D e r M a n n M o s e s
u n d d i e m o n o t h e i s t i s c h e R e l i g i o n , " Psyche 10 ( 1 9 5 6 - 5 7 ) : 3 6 7 - 9 0 , h o l d s t h a t FYeud
k n e w Schiller's t e x t , e v e n if h e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n it (375). S e e Yozef H a y i m Y e r u s h a l m i ,
Freud's Moses: Judaism Terminable and Interminable ( N e w H a v e n , 1991), 114 n. 17.
59. S e e B r i g i t t e S t e m b e r g e r , ' " D e r M a n n Moses' in FYeuds G e s a m t w e r k , " K a i r o s 16 ( 1 9 7 4 ) :
1 6 1 - 2 2 5 ; M a r t h e R o b e r t . D'Oedipe ii Moise: Freud et la conscience juive (Paris, 1974); E.
A m a d o Levy-Valensi, Le Moise de Freud ou la reference occultee ( M o n a c o , 1984); P i e r
C e s a r e B o r i , "II M o s e di F r e u d : P e r u n a p r i m a v a l u t a z i o n e storico-critica," in L'estasi,
1 7 9 - 2 2 2 , e s p . 1 7 9 - 8 4 ; Use G r u b r i c h - S i m i t i s , Freuds Moses-Studie als Tagtraum ( W e i n -
h e i m , 1991); FYnanuel Rice, Freud and Moses: The Long Journey Home ( N e w York, 1990);
Y e r u s h a l m i , Freud's Moses; B l u m a G o l d s t e i n , ReinscribingMoses: Heine, Kafka, Freud, and
Schoenberg in a European Wilderness ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass., 1992); C a r l E. S c h o r s k e ,
" F r e u d ' s E g y p t i a n Dig," New York Review of Books, 2 7 M a y 1993, 3 5 - 4 0 ; P . C . B o r i ,
" M o s e s , t h e G r e a t S t r a n g e r , " in From Hermeneutics to Ethical Consensus Among Cultures
( A t l a n t a , 1994), 1 5 5 - 6 4 .
60. S e e P e t e r Gay, " T h e Last P h i l o s o p h e : O u r G o d L o g o s , " in A Godless Jew: Freud, Atheism,
and the Making of Psychoanalysis ( N e w H a v e n , 1987), 3 3 - 6 8 .
61. J o h n ' P o l a n d , Adeisidaemon sive Titus Livius a superstione vindicatus ( H a g a e - C o m i t i s ,
1709), 9 9 - 1 9 9 .
62. F r e u d , Standard Edition, 2 3 : 1 0 1 .

T h e Mosaic Distinction