and productivity. Almost 20 years ago,nas a graduate student at Yale, I heardnhim give a lecture which has nownbecome a special subtheme of Antigones,nHolderlin’s creative adaptation ofnSophocles’ play. Steiner lectured withnfew notes and quoted his sources in thenoriginal languages. Curiously, mynMarxist classmates who had gone tonhear the lecture were as satisfied withnSteiner as I was. They noted that henhad filled his comments on literaturenwith generous references to Marx andnto Marxist intellectuals. Such a ten­n121 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnThe Mystery of the TrinitynFor several centuries, Christianitynin the West has been fragmented.nThe disintegration is more than anmatter of competing creeds or theninvention of novel heresies. Withinnmany “denominations”—what anchilling word!—there are foundnsacramentalists, evangelicals, andncharismatics. Myshcism, in the fewnscattered places where it has takennrefuge, has become an almost purelynspiritual enterprise in whichnChristian theology plays little part.nTo many people, it comes as nonsurprise to discover that ThomasnMerton turned increasingly to Buddhism:nwhen mysticism is seen primarilynas an escape from reality,nany avenue will do.nThe problem with Western mysticismnis neglect of the Trinity, asnLouis Dupre explains in The CommonnLife: The Origins of TrinitariannMysticism and Its Development bynJan Ruusbroec (Crossroad; NewnYork). The Greek Church nevernlost sight of the biblical order ofnsalvation, in which “Cod is the onenwho has saved us in Christ throughnthe Spirit.” God is, therefore, thenrevealer and the revealed. However,nin the West, we begin with thenidea of unity and somehmes do notnprogress much beyond it. The Trinitynis almost an incidental piece ofntheological baggage. “Even with respectnto the Incarnation, Christiansnrarely realize the significance of thenidentity of the divine persons. Itnhappens to be the Son who becamenREVISIONSndency, I have since learned, is characteristicnof Steiner’s commentaries.nThough there is nothing intrinsicallynMarxist or Freudian about his interpretahonsnof literature and though therenare few writers today who are morensensitive than he to religious valuesnand the strengths of the Western religiousnheritage, he pays lavish tribute tonMarx, Freud, and Trotsky. All of themnare seen as idealistic cosmopolitesn(Steiner refers to Trotsky as a “Luftmenschnlike myself”) who tried tonuniversalize the practice of justice.nflesh. But this theological distinctivenessnplays no role in popularnpiety.”nThe Greek Fathers — Origen,nAthanasius, Gregory of Nyssa—nprovide a secure foundation fornTrinitarian mysticism. But, Duprenargues, Augustine also saw the soulnas “an image of the divine Trinityn. . . already united with the Trinity.”nBut this “identity” was forgottennthroughout much of the MiddlenAges. There does exist a genuinenWestern tradition, and in these simplynwritten and sometimes radiantnlectures, delivered originally atnGethsemane Abbey, Dupre’ expoundsnthe Trinitarian mysticismncontained in The Spiritual Marriagenof Jan Ruusbroec.nThere is no way to condensenDupre’s account—which is only 89npages. Perhaps the most interestingnaspect of Ruusbroec’s mysticism isnthe dynamic rhythm of contemplationnand activity, a dialectic “thatnfollows the rhythm of the Trinitynitself”nMystical writings are always difficultnbecause they are attempts tonexpress the ineffable. Critical andninterpretive works are usually nonhelp: they either oversimplify andnensnare us into false confidence, ornelse they add one more level ofncomplexity to our confusion. LouisnDupre, T.L. Riggs Professor in thenPhilosophy of Religion at Yale, hasnthe rare combination of scholarship,nhumility, and piety to bringnoff a success. ccnnnSteiner is certainly not a consistentnleftist: the essay “A Kind of Survivor,”nin which he predicates his Jewish faithnupon the teachings of Marx andnFreud, also warns American Jews (asnearly-as 1965) that “among urban Negroesnanti-Semitism is often open andnraw.” Steiner’s affinity for Jewish “radicalnhumanism” is related to a correspondingnrevulsion for the “poison” ofnJewish nationalism. He views the Jewishnconcept of being a chosen peoplenas a prime source of modern, particularlynanti-Semitic, nationalist hysteria.nHis controversial novel, The Portage tonSan Cristobel of A.H., which depictsnthe capture and, finally, self-defense ofnan aged but highly articulate Hitler,nhas the central figure scolding his captorsnas hypocrites. Why should Jews,nwho exterminated other tribes in takingnpossession of their land and whonproclaim themselves God’s chosen nation,nobject to Germans for imitatingntheir example? Though much of thenrhetoric that Steiner puts into Hitler’snmouth is quintessentially Nietzscheannbut incongruous for a philosophicallynnaive rabble-rouser like Hitler, there isnno doubt that anti-Semites have beennimpressed by the intensity of Jewishnethnic cohesion. Edward Drumont,nAlfred Rosenberg, and Karl Marx (asnwell as Hitler) commented on Jewishnethnocentricity with a mixture of admirationnand loathing. Moreover, Hitler,nas Steiner correctly suggests, attemptednto mold the ethos of hisnpurified Aryan race by reproducing thensense of nationhood that he foundnpresent among the Jewish “antirace.”nActually, Steiner exaggerates thenuniqueness of Jewish ethnic claims.n(Are the Armenians, Parsees, or Chinesenany less ethnocentric than Jews?)nHe overreacts to the aggressive behaviornof the ancient Hebrew tribes whondisplaced the Canaanites, Jebusites,nand Amorites. The ancient Jews werenno more brutal as conquerors thannwere other ancient Near Eastern peoples.nUnlike their neighbors, however,nonce they had settled their land, theyninstituted humane treatment for slavesnand foreigners, impartial justice fornrich and poor alike, marital fidelity fornboth sexes, and an end to the practicenof human sacrifice.nSteiner’s distaste for modern nationalismnis understandable. Unlike patriotsnand regionalists, nationalists aren