A new translation of the Treatise on the Reintegration of Beings, by Trevor Stewart
23/04/2007 Filed in: Reviews
Trevor Stewart has just published*1* an English translation of
Martines de
Pasqually’s Traité de la réintégration des
êtres*2*. This is a major
event for English-speaking martinists and
followers of Willermoz’s rectified scottish
Masonic rite (rite
écossais rectifié), and more widely for all
those interested in Christian theosophy. This text
is the condensed summary of the doctrine of the
Ordre des Chevaliers Maçons des Elus Coëns de
l’Univers. Not only that; this text was intended
for the highest degree of the Order, the
Réaux-Croix, and although it was never finished it
is a major source for those attempting to grasp
what Martines was transmitting to his disciples
during the second half of the eighteenth century.
Trevor Stewart spent seven years working at this translation. A great difficulty, he acknowledges, is the source material itself: the way in which it was written, and the lack of an authoritative version even in French. The former is attributed to Martines’ own poor mastery of the French language. One may mention also that in style, it resembles more a midrash, or a biblical or para-biblical text*3*, which is quite unlike the usual philosophical or theological productions of 18th century France. The latter alleged difficulty is only partly true: although seven manuscripts have been localised*4*, they all belong to two families named A and B. No known version was written by Martines himself, as it appears that he relied on his secretaries, first the Abbé Fournié, then Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, to write down what he was dictating, presumably. The B manuscripts are shorter, harder to read, and incomplete. The A versions are in a much better French, and are the result of Martines’ collaboration with Louis Claude de Saint-Martin. The original version A manuscript is the one we’re interested in, as it is the one from which Robert Amadou established what one may arguably consider the definitive version of the Treatise. It is, indeed, Saint-Martin’s own copy, written in his own hand and further amended by himself and annotated by at least three more recent readers. Robert Amadou has published the fac-simile of the manuscript*5* in addition to a fully annotated edition with numbered paragraphs and chapters, concordance, names and topics indexes, and analytic table*6*.
Trevor Stewart’s translation therefore benefited from a rich background of French editions of the Treatise, thanks mainly to the work of Robert and Catherine Amadou. He mentions previous “tentative and literal” attempts at English translations of the Treatise, which he judges “somewhat obscure and vague throughout, repetitious and illogical”. As unsatisfactory as those translations may be, they were all an English-only readership could hope to find—with great difficulty at that. Thus Trevor’s translation aims to fill a huge gap for all those English readers interested in martinism, martinesism, and indeed Christian esoterism. And I believe that he succeeds in reaching his target audience.
In his foreword note, Trevor Stewart stresses that his translation is not intended to be authoritative or scholarly. He wishes that it will provide a wide readership with a preliminary guide to Martines’ work, and the introduction goes a long way in that direction. However, the analytical tools provided by Robert Amadou have not been transported over to his translation. The numbering of the paragraphs is less finely graded and therefore less informative than RA’s, and more importantly, this is not, indeed, a literal translation. Trevor Stewart has chosen clarity over precision, which does make a much easier read. Certain notions are simplified, such as quatriple, which is plainly translated as quadruple.*7*
More generally, in the most technical sections, simplification prevails, sometimes cutting out two or three sentences at a time, sometimes summarising, or interpreting others, I can only assume in order to avoid repetition.*8*
Would I recommend this translation? The answer is a “yes, but…”, rather than a plain “yes”. In truth, it may well be the best we have in English, and Trevor Stewart has provided a very useful tool, which—and I agree with Trevor’s foreword here—is an introduction more than an authoritative version of the Treatise. I would therefore urge the most serious students of martinesism to use Trevor’s version as a steppingstone on their way to understanding the subtleties of the Elu Coën doctrine. This translation may not be sufficient, and can sometimes be misleading, if one wanted to discuss the finer points of coën numerology*9* and cosmogony*10*
So yes, the investment of reader’s time and money in this translation is absolutely worth it unless they can read French. Trevor Stewart, as I said, has provided a very useful tool, that polishes and rounds some of the edges of the coën ‘textbook’. I hope this will produce a new generation of admirers of the coën teachings and wisdom, as well as a better understanding of the origins of saint-martinism and the rectified scottish rite. I look forward to future publications from Septentrione Books.
*1* Martinez De Pasqually, Treatise on the Reintegration of Beings, Septentrione Books, 2007-01
*2* Martines de Pasqually, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995
*3* Robert Amadou recommends comparing it to Jude and James; “Martines is neither absurd nor isolated”, in "Introduction", Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Le Tremblay, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995, p.26.
*4* Martines de Pasqually, Traité de la réintégration, Paris R. Dumas, 1974, p.11-109 gives details about five versions, to which must be added the manuscript of Solesmes and that of the Fonds Z, see version A infra.
*5* Martines de Pasqually Robert Amadou, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine [Fac-similé], Diffusion Rosicrucienne, December, 1993
*6* Martines de Pasqually, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995
*7* Note that in French, “quatriple” does not exist either, and if you consider that Saint-Martin himself never opted for “quadruple” instead of “quatriple”, this terminology must obviously not be trivial.
*8* An example of this is the omission of the original’s introductory questions that signal new topics or sections.
*9* A mistranslation of “denaire” gives “2” instead of “denary” or “10” in chapter XV, §4; a careful reader would easily notice the mistake.
*10* In some instances, “universal, general, and particular” are summarised by “all creation”, whereas the use of the word creation by Martines is usually to denote emancipation or the combination of emanation and emancipation. See these two posts.
Trevor Stewart spent seven years working at this translation. A great difficulty, he acknowledges, is the source material itself: the way in which it was written, and the lack of an authoritative version even in French. The former is attributed to Martines’ own poor mastery of the French language. One may mention also that in style, it resembles more a midrash, or a biblical or para-biblical text*3*, which is quite unlike the usual philosophical or theological productions of 18th century France. The latter alleged difficulty is only partly true: although seven manuscripts have been localised*4*, they all belong to two families named A and B. No known version was written by Martines himself, as it appears that he relied on his secretaries, first the Abbé Fournié, then Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, to write down what he was dictating, presumably. The B manuscripts are shorter, harder to read, and incomplete. The A versions are in a much better French, and are the result of Martines’ collaboration with Louis Claude de Saint-Martin. The original version A manuscript is the one we’re interested in, as it is the one from which Robert Amadou established what one may arguably consider the definitive version of the Treatise. It is, indeed, Saint-Martin’s own copy, written in his own hand and further amended by himself and annotated by at least three more recent readers. Robert Amadou has published the fac-simile of the manuscript*5* in addition to a fully annotated edition with numbered paragraphs and chapters, concordance, names and topics indexes, and analytic table*6*.
Trevor Stewart’s translation therefore benefited from a rich background of French editions of the Treatise, thanks mainly to the work of Robert and Catherine Amadou. He mentions previous “tentative and literal” attempts at English translations of the Treatise, which he judges “somewhat obscure and vague throughout, repetitious and illogical”. As unsatisfactory as those translations may be, they were all an English-only readership could hope to find—with great difficulty at that. Thus Trevor’s translation aims to fill a huge gap for all those English readers interested in martinism, martinesism, and indeed Christian esoterism. And I believe that he succeeds in reaching his target audience.
In his foreword note, Trevor Stewart stresses that his translation is not intended to be authoritative or scholarly. He wishes that it will provide a wide readership with a preliminary guide to Martines’ work, and the introduction goes a long way in that direction. However, the analytical tools provided by Robert Amadou have not been transported over to his translation. The numbering of the paragraphs is less finely graded and therefore less informative than RA’s, and more importantly, this is not, indeed, a literal translation. Trevor Stewart has chosen clarity over precision, which does make a much easier read. Certain notions are simplified, such as quatriple, which is plainly translated as quadruple.*7*
More generally, in the most technical sections, simplification prevails, sometimes cutting out two or three sentences at a time, sometimes summarising, or interpreting others, I can only assume in order to avoid repetition.*8*
Would I recommend this translation? The answer is a “yes, but…”, rather than a plain “yes”. In truth, it may well be the best we have in English, and Trevor Stewart has provided a very useful tool, which—and I agree with Trevor’s foreword here—is an introduction more than an authoritative version of the Treatise. I would therefore urge the most serious students of martinesism to use Trevor’s version as a steppingstone on their way to understanding the subtleties of the Elu Coën doctrine. This translation may not be sufficient, and can sometimes be misleading, if one wanted to discuss the finer points of coën numerology*9* and cosmogony*10*
So yes, the investment of reader’s time and money in this translation is absolutely worth it unless they can read French. Trevor Stewart, as I said, has provided a very useful tool, that polishes and rounds some of the edges of the coën ‘textbook’. I hope this will produce a new generation of admirers of the coën teachings and wisdom, as well as a better understanding of the origins of saint-martinism and the rectified scottish rite. I look forward to future publications from Septentrione Books.
*1* Martinez De Pasqually, Treatise on the Reintegration of Beings, Septentrione Books, 2007-01
*2* Martines de Pasqually, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995
*3* Robert Amadou recommends comparing it to Jude and James; “Martines is neither absurd nor isolated”, in "Introduction", Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Le Tremblay, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995, p.26.
*4* Martines de Pasqually, Traité de la réintégration, Paris R. Dumas, 1974, p.11-109 gives details about five versions, to which must be added the manuscript of Solesmes and that of the Fonds Z, see version A infra.
*5* Martines de Pasqually Robert Amadou, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine [Fac-similé], Diffusion Rosicrucienne, December, 1993
*6* Martines de Pasqually, Traité sur la réintégration des êtres dans leur première propriété, vertu et puissance spirituelle divine, Diffusion Rosicrucienne, 1995
*7* Note that in French, “quatriple” does not exist either, and if you consider that Saint-Martin himself never opted for “quadruple” instead of “quatriple”, this terminology must obviously not be trivial.
*8* An example of this is the omission of the original’s introductory questions that signal new topics or sections.
*9* A mistranslation of “denaire” gives “2” instead of “denary” or “10” in chapter XV, §4; a careful reader would easily notice the mistake.
*10* In some instances, “universal, general, and particular” are summarised by “all creation”, whereas the use of the word creation by Martines is usually to denote emancipation or the combination of emanation and emancipation. See these two posts.