Letter to the Editor

154 SHOFAR Spring 1996 Vol. 14, No.3 LETTER TO THE EDITOR From Elliot Wolfson: In his review of Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in MedievalJewish Mysticism (henceforth Speculum) (in the Winter 1996 issue), Mark Vennan asserts that my interpretation of the visionary experience in Jewish mystical sources as phallocentric "is undeniably the most original and radical aspect of the book. Its audacity will probably attract the most attention and commentary, which is understandable but rather unfortunate. It is the weakest element of an otherwise solid and enriching presentation." Vennan fulfills his own prophecy by focusing principally in his review on this dimension of my work. While there were other questionable comments made by Vennan, I will concentrate only on his treatment of this issue. In response to Vennan's criticism, it is incumbent upon me to mention at the outset a critical claim that I made in the second chapter of the Speculum that has gone unnoticed, but it is the aspect of the book that holds the key to understanding my analysis ofgender and anthropomorphism in kabbalistic literature. What I have in mind is my discussion of the symbol and the imagination (pp. 61-67). Influenced in particular by Henry Corbin, Paul Ricouer, and Gilbert Durand, I have argued that the images produced by the imagination are symbolic representations through which the invisible becomes visible and the corporeal is spiritualized. The symbolic representation of the divine in the imagination is thus always embodied, i.e., the content of the symbol is experienced (and not merely described in a post-experiential account) in tenns of the body. What I tried to convey in the book is that the anthropomorphic representation of God in Jewish mystical sources, from the Hekhalot compositions to the Zohar, can be conceived of as an "imaginal body," and by this technical tenn I wish to convey the idea that the somatic fonn of God inheres in the human imagination as a symbolic configuration. This does not mean that the references to God's body are to be deciphered as merely allegorical or metaphorical. On the contrary, the language of the mystical texts points to an experience ofdivine embodiment, which is localized in the imagination. It should be obvious that since gender is an integral aspect of embodiment, the theoretical model that deals with embodiment will have something to contribute to the issue of the application of gender to God. The graphic and concrete language employed by the mystics does not Letter to tbe Editor 155 mean that they attributed a body offlesh and blood to God. What it means is that the intensity of the religious experience was such that God is rendered as a tangible, anthropomorphic presence in the imagination. This discussion is absolutely essential for understanding my analysis of gender symbolism, especially in my appropriation of the term "phallocentrism " to characterize the oculocentric tendency in the Jewish mystical sources. I will deal with some of the specific issues that Verman raised regarding my phallocentric interpretation, but in general it can be said that his comments do not indicate that he has considered my discussions on gender in light of the notion of the imaginal symbol that I develop. Thus, at one point Verman marvels at why I do not explain "what the mystics hoped to gain from witnessing a cosmic sex show featuring the disclosed Divine phallus." This trivialization of my argument with an obviously pejorative expression that calls to mind the world of pornography demonstrates that Verman did not relate my understanding of the kabbalistic use of phallic images to the discussion on the nature of the mystical symbol. I am here reminded of Erich Neumann's remark that those who refer to the ancient Egyptian myth of the genesis of the gods through masturbation as "obscene" are guilty of a "profound misunderstanding," for they personalize the transpersonal. The image of the divine phallus, wrote Neumann, "symbolizes the creative element, not personal genitality."1 This is an entirely apt description of the use of phallic symbolism in kabbalistic texts. Having made this general observation, I am prepared to deal more specifically with Verman's criticisms. Unfortunately, however, due to...