In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Acknowledgments While my interest in the seventeenth-century German speculative mystic Jacob Boehme dates back to my undergraduate days in Dublin, and while I spent considerable time charting the relation between Boehme and Hegel in The Heterodox Hegel, at no time did I think that I would write a book on this figure . There was neither the time nor the need. Or so I thought. Need, however, gave birth to time. As the Gnostic return project got under way it became obvious that an examination of Boehme was inescapable, since, arguably, it is his discourse that represents the site of introduction of Gnosis into the field of modern discourse. In its birth I am grateful to a number of people. I owe much to two Irish friends, to John Doyle for first introducing me to a thinker whose opacity made Hegel and Heidegger look positively lucid, and to Brendan Purcell for his unfailing support for this strange interest. I am deeply indebted to Louis Dupré who encouraged my interest in the mystical traditions. My study with him, both as a student and colleague of his at Yale, of Eckhart, Cusa, and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as the Kabbalah and Eastern forms of mysticism not only proved illuminating and fruitful, it was also exciting, pursued as it was under the assumption that these discourses were both philosophically and religiously important. Such study created a space for reexamining even more marginal speculative mystics of the Christian tradition, as well as providing a vocabulary and the outlines of a syntax of the discourse of the Christian mystical tradition that if it could not fit all occasions, was appropriate to many. John Jones, editor at Crossroad, was an early cheerleader in my first attempts to write on Boehme in the Gnosticism project, although he had been equally enthusiastic about my earlier unpublished work. Denying anything like an elective affinity with speculative mysticism, colleagues at Yale such as David Kelsey, Wayne Meeks, and Gene Outka were deeply reassuring in their openness to entertaining a claim for importance that had little prima facie plausibility. As was the case with Gnostic Return in Modernity, Gene Outka was supererogatory ix in playing the role of grammatical steward to my latest raid on the inarticulate. I say thanks to him twice. At Notre Dame, where the final draft of the book was written, I am especially indebted to Cyril Gorman, O.S.B. He exemplified in the manner of the very best of monk-scholars the virtues of patience and attention to details of grammar and punctuation that I do not possess. I am grateful for his painstaking reading of the entire manuscript including the notes. My gratitude to the readers at State University of New York Press of the original manuscript of Gnostic Apocalypse is enormous. All three readers read the manuscript charitably as well as deeply. Their probing comments have helped in no small way to make this a much better book than otherwise it might have been. I am especially grateful to one of these readers, David Walsh, who voluntarily surrendered his incognito as a reader. He has continued to be a discussion partner with regard to the texts of Boehme in which he is expert. But he has also continued to be a discussion partner with respect to the entire project of mapping the return of Gnostic discourse in the modern period of which this is only the second installment.Throughout I have been marvelously treated by SUNY Press. Jane Bunker, the acquisitions editor could not have been more supportive; Judith Block, the production editor, could not have been more efficient; and Patrick Durocher, the marketing manager, could not have been more helpful. x Acknowledgments ...


Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.