1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy. [137] 1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of the Sohar. [138] Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine. 1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique. [139] We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine. Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.