(_a_) Three Mother Letters, namely, _Aleph_, _Mem_ and _Shin_; (_b_)
Seven Double Letters, being _Beth_, _Gimel_, _Daleth_, _Kaph_, _Pe_,
_Resh_, _Tau_; and (_c_) Twelve Simple Letters, or _He_, _Vau_, _Zain_,
_Heth_, _Teth_, _Yod_, _Lamed_, _Nun_, _Samech_, _Ayin_, _Tsade_,
_Quoph_.
[52] The _Sepher Yetzirah_ was first made known to Latin reading
Europe by William Postel. Publication took place at Bâle in 1547. It
is said to have been reissued at Amsterdam in 1646. The collection
of Pistorius, entitled _Artis Cabalisticæ Scriptores_, belongs to
1587. Later and modern editions of the _Book of Formation_ are fairly
numerous. It was translated into French, together with the Arabic
commentary of R. Saadya Gaon, by Mayor Lambert, in 1891. An English
version by Dr. W. Wynn Westcott will serve the purpose of the general
reader.
[53] The Tarots of this period belong to the year 1393, and it has
been suggested recently in France that the artist Charles Gringonneur
was really their inventor. It is useful to note this opinion, but I do
not think that any importance attaches to it. The extant Gringonneur
examples in the _Bibliothèque Nationale_ have also been said to be
of Italian origin and not therefore his work. The Venetian Tarots
have been sometimes regarded as the oldest known form. The historical
question is obscure beyond all extrication at present.
[54] In face of existing evidence, the description of the Tarot Trumps
Major as a Kabalistic alphabet has as much and as little to support it
as the claim that they constitute an Egyptian _Book of Thoth_. It has
been reported to me, however, that there is an unknown Jewish Tarot,
and it may interest students of the subject to know that before long
I hope to be able to give some account at first hand concerning it.
There is little reason to suppose that it will prove (_a_) ancient or
(_b_) Kabalistic; but as one never knows what is at one’s threshold,
I put the fact on record for whatever it may be worth in the future.
Meanwhile, it is quite idle to say that our popular fortune-telling
Tarots are of Jewish origin.
[55] The interpretation of Lévi seems to hesitate between several
fields of symbolism, and what follows at this point suggests that the
Golden Fleece is an allegory of metallic transmutation by means of
alchemy. It was so regarded by many of the later disciples of this
art. According to Antoine Joseph Pernety, the Golden Fleece is the
symbol of the matter of the Great Work; the labours of Jason are an
allegory concerning the operations therein and of the signs of progress
towards perfection. The attainment of this Fleece signifies that of
the Powder of Projection and the Universal Medicine. See _Dictionnaire
Mytho-Hermétique_ and _Les Fables Egyptiennes et Grecques_, both by
Pernety, and in particular vol. i. of the latter work, pp. 437-494.
[56] Among several bearers of this name, I suppose that the reference
is to him who, by tradition, was either the disciple or son of
Orpheus, commemorated by Virgil. None of his poems are extant,
so that the argument seems to fail. The antiquity of the Orphic
poems—_Argonautica_, Hymns, etc.—is another question, and the
conclusions of criticism on the subject are well known.
[57] Almost any of the demonologists will serve at need. The
Jesuit Martinus Delrio, who wrote _Disquisitionum Magicarum Libri
Sex_ has plenty to say about _Lamiæ_ and _Stryges_. There is also
Joannes Wierus, the pupil of Cornelius Agrippa, whose famous work
on the Illusions and Impostures of Sorcery—_Histoires, Disputes et
Discours_—was rendered from Latin into French, in 1885.
[58] I do not know how this fable originated and the question is
not worth the pains which would be necessary to elucidate it. It is
narrated by Éliphas Lévi as matter of historical fact; but there is
no question that M. Edouard Schuré, who owes so much to the occultist
who preceded him, would have been glad to include it in his romantic
biography of Pythagoras, if it had not been too mythical even for his
purpose. He is content as it is to suggest that the sage of Samos had
studied Jewish monotheism during a stay of twelve years at Babylon.
[59] The authorship of the _Golden Verses_ is of course a debated
point; and it is an old suggestion that their real writer was Lysis,
the preceptor of Epaminondas and an exponent of Pythagorean philosophy
about 388 B.C., his master being referred to the beginning of the sixth
century B.C. I should add that Éliphas Lévi has presented the Verses in
a metrical form of his own, which reflects the originals at a very far
distance. I have not followed this rendering but have had recourse to
that of Mr. G. R. S. Mead.
[60] Among the appendices to the second part of the _Zohar_ there is
a short section on physiognomy, and it embodies some very curious
materials. We learn, for example, that if a man who has certain
specified characteristics of colour and feature should turn to God, a
white blemish will form on the pupil of his right eye. He who has three
semi-circular wrinkles on his forehead and whose eyes are shining will
behold the downfall of his enemies. A man who has committed an adultery
and has not repented is recognisable by a growth beneath the navel, and
thereon will be found two hairs. Should he do penance, the hairs will
disappear but the swelling will remain. A man who has a beauty-spot on
his ear will be a great master of the Law and will die young. Two long
hairs between the shoulders indicate a person who is given to swearing
incessantly in an objectless manner. It will be seen that these details
belong to a neglected part of the science, and I am a little at a loss
to know how Éliphas Lévi would have pressed them into his service, if
he had been fully acquainted with the work which he quotes so often.
[61] It happens that the hypothesis of reincarnation was personally
unwelcome to Éliphas Lévi, and he did not know enough of Zoharic
Kabalism to realise that it is of some importance therein. The
traditions concerning the teaching of Pythagoras must be taken at their
proper value, but there is no question that, according to these, he
was an important champion of what used to be called the doctrine of
metempsychosis, understood as the soul’s transmigration into successive
bodies. He himself had been (_a_) Æthalides, a son of Mercury; (_b_)
Euphorbus, son of Panthus, who perished at the hands of Menelaus in the
Trojan war; (_c_) Hermotimus, a prophet of Clazomenæ, a city of Ionia;
(_d_) a humble fisherman, and finally (_e_) the philosopher of Samos.
[62] _In memoria æterna erit justus._
[63] Éliphas Lévi has forgotten that the word “ineffable” means
something which cannot be expressed; he intended to say that, according
to the Kabalists, the efficacious name was hidden.
[64] All later Kabalists agree that _Tetragrammaton_ is the root and
foundation of the Divine Names. In the Sephirotic system one of the
allocations makes _Chokmah_, or Supernal Wisdom, to correspond with the
_Yod_ of Tetragrammaton. _Kether_, which is the Crown, is said to have
no letter attributed thereto, because the mystery of _Ain Soph_, the
hidden abyss of the Godhead, is implied therein. However, the apex of
_Yod_ does in a sense intimate concerning _Kether_. _He_ is the second
letter in the Divine Tetrad, and it is ascribed to _Binah_, or Supernal
Understanding, wherein is all life comprehended. This is the abode of
the _Shekinah_ in transcendence. The third letter is _Vau_, and it
is said to contain the six _Sephiroth_ from _Chesed_ to _Yesod_. The
second _He_ is the fourth and last letter; it corresponds to _Malkuth_,
or the Kingdom, wherein is the mystery of the unity of God. This is the
abode of the _Shekinah_ in manifestation. Thus, _Yod_, _He_, _Vau_,
_He_, which we render Jehovah, contains all the ten _Sephiroth_. There
are, however, other allocations.
[65] Éliphas Lévi must have meant to say seven letters, but the point
does not signify. According to Rosenroth, the Tetragrammaton with
vowel-points is the eighth Divine Name— יֱהֹוִה. The points are those of
_Elohim_ and it is read as that Name. This signifies the concealment of
the “Ineffable” Name, on account of the exile of Israel.
[66] This is the Divine Name which is most in proximity to created
things. See the excursus thereon in _Kabbala Denudata_, vol. i. pp.
32-41.
[67] Cf. the _Zohar_, Part i. folio 15a, on Exodus iii. 14: “And God
said unto Moses: I am that I am”— אהיה אשר אהיה
[68] According to the Rabbinical Lexicon of Buxtorf, _Agla_ is
formed from the initial letters of the sentence אתה גבור לעולם אדני
= _Tu potens es in sæculum, Domine_. There seems to be no Kabalistic
authority for its explanation by Lévi, and the word occurs very seldom
in the _Zohar_.
[69] According to Petrus Galatinus, in _De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis_,
the word _Agla_ expresses the infinite power of the Divine Trinity.
Like Éliphas Lévi, he gives us the separate significance of each letter
and, like Buxtorf, he makes them the initials of the sentence already
quoted, his rendering being: _Tu potens in æternum Dominus_. He terms
_Agla Nomen Dei_, for which there seems to be as much and as little
authority as there is for the suggestion that the _Divina potentia_ is
that of the Trinity.
[70] A very full exposition of this Name will be found in
the section entitled _De Cabale Hebræorum_, forming part of Kircher’s
_magnum opus_, the _Œdipus Ægyptiacus_. It is curious that a tract
so important as this, within its own measures, and written with the
uttermost simplicity, does not appear to have been translated, even
into the French language.
[71] I must admit that this reference escapes me. The Tarot
consists of four suits of 14 cards each and there are 22 Trumps Major,
making 78 cards in all.
[72] The axiom has rather a convincing air, but the analogy
is wrong, and the word “return” is a blunder of popular speech. The
possibility of communication with those who have left this life is
a question of the interpenetration of worlds. To say that the human
spirit departs or comes back is a symbolic expression, like the
statement that heaven is above us.
[73] The analogy is again wrong and the creation of a
materialistic mind. The return of the soul to God is not annihilation
but life for evermore, and it is union with all life.
[74] The soul sheds one envelope, in which it has prepared
another.
[75] This expression may tend to confusion. The consciousness
and activity of the soul are manifested by means of that vehicle in
which it happens to reside. It is not they that belong to the vehicle,
but it is the vehicle that is used by them.
[76] There is no Kabalistic authority for the sun as the abode
of souls.
[77] Kabalism is silent on the question of communication
with those who have left this life, though tacitly it must admit the
possibility on the evidence of the case of Samuel. The axiom that the
spirit clothes itself to come down and unclothes itself to go up is one
of the so-called _conclusiones Kabbalisticæ_ of Picus de Mirandula, but
it is found substantially in the _Zohar_, and as regards the descent,
this is just what occurs _ex hypothesi_ in the phenomena of spiritistic
materialisations. As regards the parable of the rich man, it has
nothing to do with the question of so-called spirit-return; those who
were in the bosom of Abraham had as much left this life as those who
were in Sheol.
[78] It depends on those who have left us. What of the earthly
and the evil? Why should the bond between them and us—supposing that
there is a bond—be that of our highest feelings?
[79] The fact is that he was assassinated, the inference
is that it was by or at the instance of those whose secrets he was
supposed to have betrayed. The murderers, also by inference, were
said to be Brethren of the Rosy Cross. It may be mentioned that the
_Comte de Gabalis_ contains the theory of communication with elementary
spirits, being those of earth, air, fire and water; but the mode
of treatment suggests that it is a _jeu d’esprit_. The _Nouveaux
Entretiens sur les Sciences Secrètes_, _Génies Assistants_ and _Le
Gnome Irréconcilable_, which are supposed sequels, are forgeries, of
later periods.
[80] Elsewhere in his works Éliphas Lévi says that the Astral
Light is (_a_) the _Od_ of the Hebrews, (_b_) an electro-magnetic
ether, (_c_) a vital and luminous caloric, (_d_) the instrument of
life, (_e_) the instrument of the omnipotence of Adam, (_f_) the
universal glass of visions. It follows the law of magnetic currents, is
subject to fixation by a supreme projection of will-power, is the first
envelope of the soul, and the mirror of imagination. He terms it also
magnetised electricity. It would seem that his contemporary disciples
in France have abandoned the theory of their master, or perhaps I
should say rather its doctrinal part. On the other hand, it has perhaps
reappeared, under theosophical auspices, as the reservoir of the akasic
records.
[81] There are also references to Lilith, a demon-wife of
Adam, in the _Zohar_; she is called the instigator of chastisements
and was really the wife of Samael, the evil angel. It may be added
that, according to Paracelsus, the elementaries _non sunt progeniti ex
Adamo_. See _Liber de Nymphis, Sylphis, Pygmæis et Salamandris, Tract.
I, cap. 1._.
[82] In respect of male celibates, the physiological
particulars referred to are the blind yearning of Nature after the
nuptial state and, with a tentative reserve in respect of the life of
sanctity, it is shame to those who neglect the warning or turn it to
the account of sin.
[83] This is one construction of the symbol and is a little
tinctured by Éliphas Lévi’s sincere admiration for the understanding
which lay behind the _Romance of the Rose_. The text of Genesis says
that a river rose to water the Garden “and from thence it was parted
and became into four heads,” or four sources of rivers. These rivers
did not water the Garden but the world without, and their names are
familiar in the geography of the ancient world. The mystic pantacle
of Eden shews therefore an enclosure constituted by a ring or circle
of water, an island like that of Avalon, which is another Garden of
Apples, and the waters flow out therefrom towards the four points of
heaven: they form therefore a cross, and in the centre of that cross is
the Paradise. If the reader will bear in mind that, according to the
secret tradition, Adam was set to grow roses in the Garden of Eden, he
will understand at what place of the world the symbolism of the Rosy
Cross takes its origin.
[84] This is true, but it is only the science of this world
in the sense that the greater includes the lesser. It is really the
supernal knowledge which is called _Daath_ in Kabalism, arising from
the union of _Chokmah_ and _Binah_, or Wisdom and Understanding.
[85] The commentary of the _Zohar_ on Genesis, vi. 2—“the
sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair”—affirms that
the angels were cast out of heaven as soon as they had conceived the
desire therein suggested. Aza and Azael were the chiefs of these fallen
spirits. Subsequently they taught Magic to men.
[86] The design of the builders, according to the _Zohar_,
Part I, Fol. 75^a, was to abandon the celestial domain for that of
Satan. They desired to rebuild heaven, apparently in the likeness of
their own evil desires. They were the same quality of souls as the
“giants in the earth in those days” and “the mighty men which were of
old, men of renown.” See Genesis, c. vi. v. 4 and _Zohar_, Part I, Fol.
25^b.
[87] Zoharic Kabalism was dissatisfied with the visitation
of the offence of Ham on his apparently innocent son, Canaan, and it
accounted for the malediction pronounced upon the latter by the fact
that he had removed the _testes_ from the person of his grandfather
Noah. On the surface this is a ridiculous enormity, but it is a
concealed intimation that the whole Noetic myths is, like Paradise
itself, a mystery of sex shadowed forth in symbolism.
[88] It should be needless to say that this is a mere
presumption and is not even founded on any legend concerning the
travels of Plato. He is said to have been in Egypt for a period which
has been estimated at thirteen years.
[89] He was a disciple of Plato who is supposed not only to
have been illustrious for his knowledge of geometry but to have paid
the usual pilgrim’s visit to Egypt and to have returned an adept in
astronomy.
[90] We have, unhappily, to remember that Éliphas Lévi himself
wrote a great deal, and assuredly to little purpose, on the subject
of squaring the circle and on perpetual motion. Elsewhere he tells us
that the revolution of a square about its centre describes a circle,
and thus the circle is squared. He also invented, in imagination, a
clock which wound itself up in the process of running itself down, and
this was perpetual motion—presumably, unless the mechanism happened to
stop working or to wear itself out. The reader may settle for himself
whether in these phantasies he was in hiding like an adept or pursuing
like a fool.
[91] The only remark which is requisite on this chapter is
that it involves throughout an abuse of the word Mysticism, which has
nothing to do with religious anarchy, sects or magic. See, however, my
preface to the present translation.
[92] The history of persecution may be left to speak for
itself on the validity of this plea and the postulated principle
mentioned by Éliphas Lévi may even be thought to have concealed a stab
from behind in the dark. In any case, the alleged horror of blood is
best illustrated by the method of pyre and faggot.
[93] “Change not the barbarous names of evocation,” says
one of the oracles attributed to Zoroaster, as we have seen, and the
reason given is because of their “ineffable power.” This was the true
Zoroaster of Éliphas Lévi, and he was not, _ex hypothesi_, an exponent
of Black Magic. “Barbarian words and signs unknown” are not less in
favour with the so-called white variety.
[94] See my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, pp. 100-102, for a
study of this Grimoire.
[95] The reference is to a work entitled _Des Hallucinations,
ou Histoire raisonnée des Apparitions, des Visions, des Songes, de
l’Extase, du Magnétisme et du Somnambulisme_. It was first published
about 1850 and was of authority at its period. Its large array of
materials will be always valuable. I believe that it was translated
into English.
[96] There is no need to say that the Second Birth, to which
allusion is made by Christ, is not comprehended by any notion of a
moral change, though such change is involved. Morality is the gate of
spiritual life but is not its sanctuary.
[97] The point which escapes in this synopsis of Egyptian
initiation is that which distinguishes the official mysteries—like
Masonry—from vital initiation, and I mention it here because there are
memorials of Egyptian mysteries which suggest that they were no mere
symbolical pageants but did communicate—to those who could receive—the
life which is behind such symbolism.
[98] The analogy here instituted assumes in respect of the
Greek mysteries that which has been implied previously regarding
those of Egypt. The laws and by-laws of the schools of philosophy,
whatever they exacted from pupils, were not imitations of the grades
of initiation and advancement communicated in priestly sanctuaries,
if there was mystic life in those sanctuaries. Even if they were
merely pageants, the comparison does not obtain; for it is obvious
that Pythagoras and Plato did not confer degrees by way of ritual.
Matriculation and “the little go” are not ceremonial observances in the
path of symbolism.
[99] The truth is that in so far as the Jewish Kabalah
contains a _Logos_ philosophy, so far it embodies confused
reminiscences of Alexandrian schools of thought. Éliphas Lévi reminds
one of Jacob Bryant, Davies and the respectable Mr. Faber, who
explained the whole universe of history by the help of Shem, Ham and
Japhet, the deluge and the Ark of Noah. He saw the Kabalah everywhere;
had he spoken of a secret tradition subsisting in all times, of which
Kabalism is a part in reflection, he would have been less confused and
confusing; but he applied to the whole a term which is peculiar to a
part. It is said in the _Zohar_ that the Word which discovers unto us
the supreme mysteries is generated by the union of light and darkness.
Part I, Fol. 32a. It is said also that the Word dwells in the superior
heavens, Fol. 33b. And there are other references.
[100] Dacier was a translator in the latter part of the
eighteenth century, and his study on the _Doctrine of Plato_ appeared
in the third volume of a collection entitled _Bibliothèque des Anciens
Philosophes_, which began publication in 1771.
[101] Those who may wish to be acquainted with the sources from which
Lévi drew some of his materials may consult _Cœlum Sephiroticum_, by J.
C. Steebius, an old folio which appeared in 1679, as well as Reuchlin
and Rosenroth. They will see how things change in his hands. According
to the _Zohar_, _Ain Soph_ reflects immediately into _Kether_ on the
path of manifestation. It is not correct to say that the king is _Ain
Soph_ in Kabalism and the letter of Plato is devoid of sephirotic
analogies.
[102] It must be said that the Greek word θεοσοφια did not pass into
Latin in classical times and was unknown throughout the middle ages.
As an illustration of its occult prevalence, I cannot trace that it
was used by Paracelsus. In so far as it can be said to have become
prevalent, it was in a mystic sense only, as in the proper use of words
it could alone be. It was made familiar by Jacob Böhme.
[103] The classical authorities for the visitation of the cave of
Trophonius include Pausanias of Cæsarea, who wrote the history of
Greece, Cicero, Pliny and Philostratus, not to mention the allusion
found in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes. The account of Éliphas Lévi
must be taken with certain reservations, but it is not a matter in
which accuracy or its opposite is of any consequence outside scholarly
research. There were various sacrifices and other ceremonies prior to
the visitation, and the candidate for the experience usually descended
alone. It is not, I think, on record that the effect of the visit was
lasting.
[104] The actual formula seems to have been: “He has consulted the
oracle of Trophonius.”
[105] There is no question that, according to the _Zohar_, the sun is
the centre of the planetary system, of which planets the earth is one.
[106] There is extraordinary confusion, at the least by way of
expression, in this paragraph, which will inevitably create in the
reader a notion that the work of Cebes was a picture. As a fact, it is
a description of human life contained in a dialogue, to which the title
of _Tabula_ was given. It has been printed several times, and once, I
believe, at Glasgow, in 1747.
[107] I have intimated elsewhere that the _Zohar_ is in several
respects a work of high entertainment, and that its reading is much
more diverting than Arabian or Ambrosial Nights. But Éliphas Lévi is
right in saying that it calls for some preliminary training. He does
not quite mean, however, what I mean in making the suggestion. On the
serious side the _Zohar_ is assuredly a work of initiation and one of
the great books of the world, though Sir John Lubbock and others of
kindred enterprise did not happen to know of it. Lévi is substantially
right also in saying that it requires a key, though his meaning is
not expressed rightly. The explanation is that it is not a methodical
system and presupposes throughout, on the part of its readers, an
acquaintance with the tradition which it embodies in allusive form.
[108] It is difficult to say what authority was followed in producing
this account. Pentheus was the second King of Thebes, succeeding
Cadmus, who built the city. Bacchus was the son of Semele, the
daughter of Cadmus, by Jupiter, but he was never a candidate for the
Theban throne. The offence of Pentheus was not one of usurpation but
of refusal to recognise the divinity of Bacchus. He was not torn to
pieces by the daughters of Cadmus, but by a crowd of Bacchanals, among
whom was his own mother. It is impossible to turn this story into an
allegory of pantheism, as Lévi proceeds to do.
[109] The classical story is the very contrary of this. The effect of
his experiments with the serpents was like that of passing through
the foot of the rainbow; Tiresias was changed into a girl. He married
in this form; but having met a second time with some other interlaced
serpents, he again smote them and recovered his original sex. So far
from being unable to consummate marriage in either case, he became
an authority with the gods on the comparative extent of satisfaction
attained by the two sexes in the act of sex.
[110] The term geometrical scarcely applies to the figures of geomancy.
[111] The Bacchus who was depicted with horns was the son of Jupiter
and Proserpine. As regards the androgynous nature of Iacchos, I do
not know Lévi’s authority, but such a characteristic was ascribed to
several deities, though sometimes against general likelihood. It was
even said of Jupiter that he was a man but also an immortal maid.
[112] Lévi affirms elsewhere that the satisfaction of all the calls of
sense is required for the work of philosophy. In the present place he
confuses the issue by implying that chastity means either celibacy or
the virgin state. Yet he did not fail to understand that the nuptial
life is also a life of chastity; he speaks eloquently of the home and
its sanctity, and he alludes elsewhere to the chaste and conjugal Venus.
[113] There were two pagan festivals which have a certain likeness
between them: (_a_) _Charisia_, which was in honour of Aglaia, Thalia
and Euphrosyne, the _Charites_ or Graces. It was celebrated by dances
at night, and the person who maintained the exercise longest was
presented with a cake, (_b_) _Charistia_, a Roman festival, for the
reconciliation of relations and friends, at which food was eaten. It
could be wished for the perpetuity and catholicity of the sacraments
that there were traces of an Eucharist in the Christian sense prior to
Christian times.
[114] It may be mentioned that 13 is also the number of resurrection,
or birth into new life.
[115] The Grimoire mentioned under the name of _Little Albert_ is
called in the Latin edition _Alberti Parvi Lucii Libellus_, and is “a
treasure of marvellous secrets.” The original intention was to father
it on _Albertus Magnus_, and in fact there is another collection which
is known as the _Great Albert_. It is of similar value.
[116] I have suffered these lines to stand as they are given by Éliphas
Lévi, following the French translation of Salomon Certon. Shelley, who
rendered Homer’s _Hymn to Mercury_ into verse which is unworthy of his
name, represented the Greek original by asterisks at this point, and I
have taken a lesson from the counsel. Lévi gives some further lines—I
scarcely know why, but they stand as follows in Shelley’s version:
“Phœbus on the grass
Him threw, and whilst all that he had designed
He did perform—eager although to pass,
Apollo darted from his mighty mind
Towards the subtle babe the following scoff:—
‘Do not imagine this will get you off,
“‘You little swaddled child of Jove and May!’
And seized him: ‘By this omen I shall trace
My noble herds, and you shall lead the way.’”
[117] We shall meet with this sect accordingly, and it will be found
that the present remark is either (_a_) not intended to justify the
alleged traditional interpretation or (_b_) that the initial reference
has to be qualified by its subsequent extension. Johannite Christianity
has been the subject of much romancing among the exponents of
High-Grade Masonry. Woodford’s _Cyclopædia of Freemasonry_ identifies
its followers with Nazarenes and Nasarites, and adds that they regarded
St. John the Baptist as “the only true prophet.” One order of Templar
Masonry, which is now extinct, seems to have claimed connection with
the Johannite sect.
[118] I have quoted elsewhere the previous remark of the author on the
same subject as a curious example of how things are apt to strike a
French exponent of occultism at different periods of time and in other
states of emotion. “St. Paul burnt the books of Trismegistus”—not
Göetic texts or works of necromancy; “Omar burned the disciples of
Trismegistus (?) and St. Paul. O persecutors! O incendiaries! O
coffers! When will you finish your work of darkness and destruction!”
This is from the _Rituel de la Haute Magie_, p. 327.
[119] In his _Fundamental Philosophy_, James Balmes seeks to shew
that the Eucharistic Mystery, understood in the literal sense of
transubstantiation, is not absurd in itself, that is to say, is
not intrinsically contradictory. To establish that it is, one
must demonstrate: (_a_) that to abstract passive sensibility from
matter is to destroy the principle of contradiction; (_b_) that the
correspondences between our sense organs and objects are intrinsically
immutable; (_c_) that it is absolutely necessary for impressions to be
transmitted to the sensitive faculties of the soul by those organs and
that they can never be transmitted otherwise. See Book III, _Extension
and Space_, c. 33, _Triumph of Religion_. I make this citation because
it seems to me that Éliphas Lévi acted incautiously in debating the
observation of Rousseau.
[120] The place of his birth is uncertain; Cyprus is one of the
alternatives.
[121] This is Dositheus of Samaria, who was contemporary with Christ.
There is an account of him by St. Epiphanius and he is also mentioned
by Photius.
[122] It is, I believe, one of the Christian apologists who mentions
that Helen was found by Simon in a house of ill-fame at Tyre. It is
said otherwise that she was Helen of Troy in a previous incarnation.
[123] Because they were both favourites of Nero, or because the
reference to a feast reminded Éliphas Lévi of the celebrated Banquet in
the _Satyricon_ of Petronius Arbiter. Sophronius Tigellinus was one of
Nero’s ministers.
[124] The dispute between St. Peter and Simon the Magician is not a
matter of popular rumour; it is a methodical account contained in
one of the forged _Recognitions_ ascribed to St. Clement. It will be
understood that the version presented by Éliphas Lévi is decorated by
his own imagination. It seems generally regarded as certain that Simon
visited Rome to enrol disciples, and there is the authority of Eusebius
for some kind of meeting with St. Peter.
[125] It might be more accurate to say that there were many successors,
of whom Menander was the chief. So also there were many Simonian sects,
including the school which followed Dositheus, described by Lévi and
others as the master of Simon. Menander claimed to be the envoy of the
Supreme Power of God.
[126] They were not included at the period—about 1865—in _La France
Mystique_ of Erdan, though it contained _choses inouies_; and
they are not found among _les petites religions de Paris_ at the
present day, though it contains a Gnostic church confessing to a
hierarchic government and, I believe, with an authorised branch at San
Francisco—perhaps less _in partibus infidelium_ than is the sect in its
own country.
[127] I have given Lévi’s version literally without pretending to
account for it. In the authorised version the passage reads: “If thou
doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his
desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Genesis, iv. 7.
[128] I suppose that reference is intended to _Epitome Delictorum, sive
de Magia, in qua aperta vel occulta invocatio Dæmonum_, &c., 4to. I
have no record of the first edition, but it was reprinted at Leyden in
1679.
[129] It has to be observed that the Hyphasis was a certain river of
India which is assigned by tradition as the boundary of Alexander’s
conquests. Had Éliphas Lévi been acquainted with this fact he might
have allegorised with success thereon.
[130] It is noticeable that the alchemists of past centuries, who were
so apt to see the Hermetic Mystery at large in all literature, and
who fathered many mythical treatises on the great and the holy men
of old, are silent regarding Apollonius. I am far from admitting the
interpretation of Éliphas Lévi, as Philostratus belongs to the dawn
of the third century, when alchemy may be said to have been unborn;
but I am sure that if the early expositors had known the life of
Apollonius, they might almost have suspected something. Even the Abbé
Pernety missed the obvious opportunity in his discourse on the Hermetic
significance of the Greek and Egyptian fables.
[131] It must be remembered that the Stone in symbolism is far older
than the particular symbol which is called the Philosophical Stone, or
Stone of Alchemy.
[132] The last statement obtains in respect of the Mystic Stone, as
understood, for example, by Zoharic writers.
[133] The introduction to the _Dogme de la Haute Magie_ says: (_a_)
That Julian was one of the illuminated and an initiate of the first
order; (_b_) That he was a Gnostic allured by the allegories of Greek
polytheism; (_c_) That he had the satisfaction of expiring like
Epaminondas with the periods of Cato.
[134] The _Golden Legend_ was compiled about 1275 by Jacobus de
Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa. His authorities were (_a_) Eusebius,
(_b_) St. Jerome, (_c_) legendary matter. I am sure that Kabalistic
mysteries and Johannite initiation must look elsewhere for their
records. The suggestion, however, is not worth debating.
[135] In the _Golden Legend_ the story is entitled “Of St. Justina,”
whose festival is on September 26. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, is
entirely distinct from the Cyprian of legend.
[136] This pictorial sign appears in an old Grimoire.
[137] With this reverie of Éliphas Lévi on the subject of the
mystic ass let us compare another which is of an entirely different
order, though it belongs to the same category, (1) It is recorded by
Josephus that a certain Jew named Onias obtained leave from Ptolemy
Philometor to build a temple in honour of God at a certain place in
Arabia which was subsequently called Onium, after the founder. (2)
This Onium was not Heliopolis, as supposed commonly. (3) The Temple
at Onium, on account of a similitude of sound, was connected with
the Greek word ονος, signifying Ass. (4) The Greeks in consequence
believed themselves to have discovered the secret object of Jewish
worship, being the animal in question. (5) It was asserted that there
was an ass’s head in the vestibule of every Jewish temple. (6) As the
Greeks did not closely distinguish between Jews and Christians, the
ass came also to be called the god of the Christians.—Jacob Bryant:
_Analysis of Antient Mythology_, 3rd edition, vol. vi. pp. 82 _et seq._
[138] The commentary of the _Zohar_ on Genesis ii. 22, says that
the words—“which the Lord God had taken from man”—signify that the
Tradition has issued from the Written Doctrine. The words “and brought
him to man” indicate that the Traditional Law must not remain isolated:
it can only exist in union with the Written Law. Part I, Fol. 48^b. It
follows, and is made plain elsewhere, that man is the Written Law and
woman the Secret Doctrine.
[139] In one of the pictorial symbols of Alchemy the head of the winged
solar man is represented rising from a chest. It is a recurring image.
[140] It is obvious that Éliphas Lévi pictures only the dark side of
Gnosticism; he says nothing and perhaps knew nothing of the higher
aspects. His stricture on the copulation of Eons reads strangely for a
defender of Kabalism, seeing that the _Zohar_ abounds in similar images.
[141] This statement requires to be checked by a French authority of
the period, with whom Éliphas Lévi could not fail to be acquainted. I
refer to Jacques Matter and his _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, a
second and enlarged edition of which was published in 1843. According
to the testimony of this writer: (_a_) Some Gnostics rejected the
Eucharist entirely; (_b_) Those who preserved it never taught the real
communication of man in the flesh and blood of the Saviour; (_c_) for
them it was an emblem of their mystic union with a being belonging
to the Pleroma; (_d_) The wonder-working Eucharist was particular to
Marcos, but according to St. Irenæus it was the result of trickery;
(_e_) He filled chalices with wine and water, pronounced over them a
formula of his own, and caused these liquids to appear purple and ruby
in colour. _Op. cit._, vol. ii. pp. 344-346.
[142] This assertion is merely a matter of inference.
[143] The materials here embodied come direct from Matter, and the
last sentence is almost in his own words. The earlier writer says
that he caused women to bless the chalice. Nothing is said as to the
intervention of men, other than Marcos, in the celebration.
[144] The dream ascribed to Marcos and his followers is that, however,
of the _Zohar_, the opening section of which describes the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet as coming before God in succession, praying to
be used in the work of creation which was about to begin. They were
set aside in their turn for the reason applying to each, with the
exception of _Beth_, which was taken as the basis of the work, while
_Aleph_ was installed as the first of all the letters, the Master of
the Universe affirming that His own Divine Unity was in virtue of this
letter. The meaning was that _Aleph_ corresponds to the No. 1. This,
says the _Zohar_, with ingenuous subtlety, is why the two first words
of Scripture have _Beth_ as their initial and the two next words have
_Aleph_.—_Zohar_, Part I, Fols. 2b-3b.
[145] It will be seen in a later section that this charge against
Vintras rests upon the evidence of persons expelled from the sect which
he founded, and, so far as I am aware, it has not been put forward
seriously.
[146] The question, however, stood over until the appearance of _La
Clef des Grands Mystères_, a considerable part of which is embodied
in the digest of Lévi’s writings which I published long since as _The
Mysteries of Magic_. The Astral Light is explained as “magnetised
electricity “—as already quoted.
[147] In my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ I have given full opportunities
for the judgment of this so-called occult ritual, which should
certainly have been kept in concealment, or better still allowed to
perish, not on account of its secrets but because it is in all respects
worthless, and its ascription to Leo III an insult to that pontiff.
[148] It is laid down in the work of Synesius (_a_) that chastity and
temperance are indispensable for the knowledge of divination by dreams;
(_b_) that these being granted, divination by dreams is both valuable
and simple; (_c_) that all things past, present and future convey their
images to us; (_d_) that there is no general rule of interpretation;
(_e_) that each should make his divinatory science for himself, by
noting his dreams. The philosopher gives some account of the profit
which he had derived personally from a study of the images of sleep.
Divination also preserved him from the ambushes laid by certain
magicians, so that he suffered no harm at their hands.
[149] Éliphas Lévi’s knowledge of the works attributed to Dionysius is
doubtless derived from the translation of Monsignor Darboy, Archbishop
of Paris, which appeared in 1845. There is an elaborate introduction
designed to establish the authenticity of the texts and this is
excellent, at least for its period, as a piece of special pleading.
The reader who refers to the treatise on Divine Names need not be
distressed when he finds that it embodies no mysteries of rabbinical
theology. To many of us at the present day the most important of the
Dionysian writings is that on Mystical Theology, which is omitted
in the enumeration of Lévi and not perhaps unnaturally, as it is a
_pelagus divinitatis_ over which he would not have ventured to sail.
[150] Goethe.
[151] This explanation is not in accordance with the recorded facts for
which Phlegon and Proclus are the authorities. The works of Phlegon
were published at Leyden in 1620, under the editorship of Meursius
and again in 1775 at Halle, by Franzius; they contain the story of
Philinnion—as the name is spelt by Phlegon. Machates was a foreign
friend of Demostratus from Pella, not an innkeeper. Philinnion appeared
to him after her death in the house of his parents and declared her
love. Her intercourse with Machates was discovered accidentally by a
servant, and the _denouement_ is much as it is given in the present
place. Philinnion said, however, that she acted with the consent of
the gods. Éliphas Lévi accounts for his discrepancies by an appeal to
the narratives of French demonographers, but he makes no references by
which we can check him. He states, however, that they are answerable
for the alleged fact that Machates was the keeper of a tavern. The date
of the actual occurrence is the reign of Philip II of Macedon, and the
“Emperor” referred to should be King Philip. Lévi confuses the date of
Phlegon (Hadrian’s reign) with the date of the incident. Phlegon was
merely a collector of curious stories, and could not, of course, have
witnessed an incident which took place 500 years before his birth!
[152] It will be understood at the present day that this is reverie
and only serves to remind us that Aristotle ascribed the philosophy
of Greece to a source in Gaul, while it is affirmed by Clement of
Alexandria that Pythagoras derived therefrom. It is thought now, on
the other hand, that Druidism in its later developments may have been
influenced not only by Greek but also by Phœnician ideas.
[153] In Druidic mythology, Belen, otherwise Heol, was the sun-god;
Camael was god of war. The highest divinity is believed to have been
that Esus who is mentioned by Lucan. He is represented by the circle,
as a sign of infinity, and all fate was beneath him. The most important
goddess was Keridwen, who presided over wisdom. The conclusion of
Lévi’s enumeration is like the beginning—a dream.
[154] A note by Éliphas Lévi says that a Druidic statue was found at
Chartres, having the inscription: VIRGINI PARITURÆ. It is curious that
Druidic inscriptions should be in the Latin tongue.
[155] It was supposed to increase the species by preventing sterility,
and it was dignified by other ascribed virtues; it was the ethereal
tree and the growth of the high summit. It was included among the
ingredients of the mystical cauldron of Keridwen, in which genius,
inspiration and serenity were said to dwell.
[156] The same occult importance attaches to this statement as to
another in the _Dogme et Rituel_, where Éliphas Lévi, explaining the
superstitions of the past, affirms for those who can suffer it that the
toad is not poisonous but is a sponge for poisons. I suppose, however,
it is obvious that if “popular confidence” can render mistletoe
magnetic, popular distrust may instil poison into toads.
[157] The floating traditions and _chansons_ concerning Melusine were
collected by Jean d’Arras into a beautiful romance of chivalry, at the
close of the fourteenth century.
[158] Whether this hypothesis of antiquity is warranted or not, the
fact that it is adopted should have prevented Éliphas Lévi from
characterising the romance of Melusine as an imitation pf the fable of
Psyche: it is obviously the reverse side. The allegory in the latter
case is that of the assumption of the soul by the Divine Spirit, so
that all which is capable of redemption in our human nature, its
emotion, its desire and its love, may enter into the glorious estate
of the mystic marriage. The allegory in the former case is that of the
union instituted between the psychic part and all that is of earth in
our nature; but this earth is not capable of true marriage, and whereas
the other experiment ends in the world of unity, this terminates, as it
can only, in that of separation.
[159] See Jules Garinet: _Histoire de la Magie en France_, 1818, pp.
11, 12.
[160] The story of Fredegonde and her connection with sorcery is told
by Gregory of Tours, but Éliphas Lévi derived it from Jules Garinet,
already cited. The particulars concerning Klodswinthe appear to be his
own invention, of which her imputed discourse bears all the marks.
[161] See Garinet, _Histoire de la Magie en France_, pp. 14-16, and
Th. de Cauzons, _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, vol. ii. p.
100. The original authority is again Gregory of Tours: _Histoire des
Francs_, Book VI, c. 35. The account of Lévi is rather incorrect,
for after unheard-of tortures, the life of Mummol was spared, but he
died on the way to Bordeaux. It does not appear that he defied his
executioners and the renewed torture was ordained by Chilperic.
[162] The work in question is called _Acta Disputationis cum quodam
Nicolai_.
[163] A story of the days of St. Louis is obviously not Talmudic and
the antiquity of the idea of immortality among the Jews fortunately
rests on a better foundation than this. The criticism exposes the
carelessness of Lévi if he is regarded as a man of learning. Some will
think that he traded on the ignorance of his readers.
[164] What was actually intended by the expression _amatores diaboli_
should have been perfectly well understood by Éliphas Lévi. It
corresponds to the legends concerning _incubi_ and _succubi_. For a
specific example see Brierre de Boismont, _Des Hallucinations_, p. 151
_et seq._
[165] The story comes from Gregory of Tours.
[166] The account of Zedekias and the atmospheric marvels is taken from
Garinet, pp. 34 _et seq._
[167] See pp. 34-37 of his History. But the account in Garinet is
derived from the _Cinquième Entretien_ in the romance entitled _Le
Comte de Gabalis_.
[168] It is not in reality an occult tradition; it is simply the
unauthorised claim of the grimoire.
[169] It should be mentioned that this enumeration of assumptions
expressed or implied in the claims of occult tradition, by the
hypothesis of its present exponent, has nothing to do with the
_Enchiridion_, which makes only two claims, and these are particular
to itself. They are (_a_) that it was sent to Charlemagne by Pope
Leo and (_b_) that certain prayers, which rank as its chief feature,
possess mysterious power. The suggestion of Lévi’s next paragraph
notwithstanding, there is no other point of view from which the book
can be regarded.
[170] It is said elsewhere by Éliphas Lévi that the _Enchiridion_ has
never been published with its true figures, and one is led to suppose
that a more important MS. copy may have been in his possession. The
plates which he describes belong to a printed edition, but there are no
particulars concerning it. Most of the symbols are perfectly well known
otherwise, and I have given them in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_,
where they were taken from examples with which I am acquainted. Some of
them correspond to the description of Lévi.
[171] _Adonai_ according to the _Zohar_ is one of the titles of
_Shekinah_.
[172] He has said elsewhere (_a_) that to pronounce the word _Agla_
Kabalistically is to undergo all the trials of initiation and fulfil
all its works; (_b_) that the occult forces which comprise the empire
of Hermes are obedient to him who can pronounce, according to science,
the incommunicable name of _Agla_; _(c_) and that its letters represent
(1) unity, (2) fecundity, (3) the perfect cycle, and (4) the expression
of the synthesis.
[173] He means that it symbolises the Creative Intelligence rising
over the waters of creation. It is not, strictly speaking, Zoharic
symbolism, but it corresponds to his own construction of one of the
sections, namely, the _Book of Concealment_.
[174] It is more especially a Rosicrucian number, and its importance in
Kabalism arises from its frequent recurrence in the scriptures of the
Old Testament. When the days of the greater exile draw to their close,
and judgment is coming upon all the peoples and all the kings of the
world who have oppressed Israel, it is said that a pillar of fire shall
be raised from earth to heaven and shall be visible to everyone for a
period of forty days. The King Messiah will leave that place which is
called the Bird’s Nest in the Garden of Eden and will manifest in the
land of Galilee. At the end of the forty days a splendid star of all
colours will appear in the East, &c. _Zohar_, Part II., fol. 7b.
[175] A reference to Plate III in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ will
shew that the emblem in question is not the Labarum. For a design which
is intended to represent the latter, see Plate IV, Fig. 2. There is
really no connection between the Sigils of the _Enchiridion_ and the
text of the work.
[176] Éliphas Lévi wrote and published much after the _History of
Magic_, but the intention here expressed did not pass into realisation.
[177] At the period in question Westphalia comprehended the region
between the Rhine and the Weser. Its southern boundary was the
mountains of Hesse; its northern the district of Friesland, which at
that time extended from Holland to Schleswig.
[178] No secret mission in the sense intended by Éliphas Lévi was ever
entrusted by Charlemagne. He had overcome the Saxons of Westphalia
after a thirty years’ war, had enforced the religion of the conqueror
upon them, and had established a Frankish system of government therein.
[179] The origin of the Secret Tribunal is clouded, like all the
history of its period, but it is quite certain that it is referable
to the middle of the thirteenth century. It should be added that
Éliphas Lévi was by no means author of the Charlemagne hypothesis,
which had been advanced many years previously. The competitive views
are numerous. It will be seen directly that a document of the Tribunal
claims that it originated in the days of Charlemagne, supposing that it
has been quoted correctly. Jules Garinet supported the claim without
shewing any knowledge on the subject.
[180] The meetings of the Tribunal were frequently held in the
town-house and the castle, sometimes in the market-place, and on rare
occasions in churchyards. There is only one record concerning a session
underground. The general place was under trees in the open air.
[181] An accused person had the right to conduct his own defence, or he
could bring an advocate with him. There were also certain circumstances
under which there was the right of appeal.
[182] The evidence is wanting for this extraordinary statement. Éliphas
Lévi seems to have been under the impression that the Tribunal was
like a Masonic Grand Lodge, with one mode and place of meeting. It was
naturally composed of many tribunals and met, as we have seen, in all
kinds of places.
[183] That this statement is amply justified may be seen by a reference
to _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, by T. De Cauzons, a work of
considerable research published within the last few years in 4 vols.
The section entitled _La Magie sous les premiers Capétiens_ is a record
of trivialities concerning diabolical manifestations and can have been
included only for the sake of chronological completeness.
[184] The story of Rabbi Jechiel’s device of self-protection is told
by Bartolocci, _s.v._ R. Jechiel de Parisio, in the _Magna Bibliotheca
Rabbinica_, vol. iii. pp. 834, 835. It is on the authority of R.
Ghedalia ben David Iacchia. But although Jechiel is supposed to have
been a magician there was neither electricity nor magic in his process,
only a kind of trap at his own door step or threshold.
[185] It so happens that he went to see him and fell into the trap of
the Jew. Garinet is the authority for the imaginary visit to the court
of St. Louis. He follows Sauval.
[186] This paragraph is adapted from Garinet, _Hist. de la Magie en
France_, p. 76.
[187] Many treatises on alchemy have been fathered on Albertus Magnus,
including _Libellus de Alchymia_ and _Concordantia Philosophorum_.
[188] According to the _Zohar_, Adam was formed of earth brought from
the four quarters, and this is really an allusion to the symbolic
correspondence between the parts of his personality and the four
elements of ancient physics.
[189] The universal secret which was sought by mystic Alchemy was more
truly that of the life of life; it was the quest of transmutation in
God.
[190] The thesis of physical Alchemy was that Nature always intended
to produce gold but was thwarted by the impurity of the _media_ amidst
which she worked under the earth. The inferior metals resulted. The end
of Hermetic art was to complete the design of Nature and raise what is
base to perfection.
[191] St. Thomas Aquinas wrote eight treatises on alchemy, if the
ascriptions of the literature could be trusted. They are of the same
authenticity as those of Albertus Magnus.
[192] The study in question was enjoined in a particular manner by Leo
XIII.
[193] I do not know or have forgotten how this legend originated, but
in any case no works on transmutation have been imputed to St. Dominic,
which leads me to think that the story of his adeptship did not attain
any considerable currency.
[194] A fragment of Ostanes is included in the Byzantine collection
of ancient alchemists. Romarius should read Comarius, whose tract in
the same collection is supposed to be addressed to Cleopatra. Salmanas
wrote on the fabrication of artificial pearls and was supposed to be an
Arab. A treatise on weights and measures is attributed to Cleopatra and
there are also some Latin forgeries. The other names are well known in
the literature of Alchemy.
[195] This must be understood in the general sense of the Secret
Tradition perpetuated in various forms through Christian times. The
Templars had no concern in the secret schools of Jewry. On the basis of
the official process which resulted in their condemnation, they have
been accused of Black Magic, Sorcery and of entering into a league with
the Order of Assassins.
[196] I have dealt with the claims of this speculation in my _Secret
Tradition in Freemasonry_, vol. i. p. 300 _et seq._
[197] The reference is really to the fourth chapter of the apocryphal
_Book of Nehemiah_, which is the _Second Book of Esdras_, and to the
Masons of Nehemiah, not of Zerubbabel. The latter was concerned with
the building of the Second Temple and the former with that of the walls
about Jerusalem. Half of the young men did the work of restoring the
fortifications and half stood in readiness to fight. The builders also
were girded with a sword about the reins. The sword in one hand and
trowel in another is a symbolical expression.
[198] It is obvious that the arrangement of four triangular blades
in a cruciform pattern would constitute an ordinary Maltese cross
or cross of the Knights of St. John. This was an Assyrian emblem in
pre-Christian times.
[199] The blasphemous fiction is well known and its root is in the
_Sepher Toldos Jeshu_; it is inaccurate to call it a tradition; more
properly it is a lying invention. I have failed to discover a source
for the Theoclet story, but it is barely possible that it may have
risen up within the circle of Fabré Palaprat’s _Ordre du Temple_.
[200] In the year 1844 Jacques Matter made a special study of the
accusations against Knights Templar in his _Histoire Critique du
Gnosticisme_, vol. iii. p. 315 _et seq._ He states that the alleged
preference of the Templars for St. John’s Gospel is nowhere attested
by the history of the Order. They were not therefore tinctured by
remanents of Paulician Gnosticism, as it is not likely that they would
be.
[201] Elsewhere Éliphas Lévi says: (_a_) That the hypothetical idol
Baphomet was a symbolical figure representing the First Matter of the
_Magnum Opus_, which is the Astral Light; (_b_) That it signified
further the god Pan, which may be identified with “the Christ of
dissident sacerdotalism”; (_c_) That the Baphometic head is “a
beautiful allegory which attributes to thought alone the first and
creative cause”; and finally, (_d_) That it is “nothing more than an
innocent and even a pious hieroglyph.”
[202] The suggestion is that they were summoned by Jacques de Molay
to appear before the Divine Tribunal within a year and a day, there
to answer for their injustice, and that they died within the time
mentioned, which does not happen to be true.
[203] The revision of the process which condemned the Maid of Orléans
was begun by Charles VII himself in 1449. In 1552 twelve articles
were drawn up, designed to exhibit its illegality and injustice. For
political reasons, meaning the relations between France and England,
the mother and brothers of Joan were made plaintiffs at Rome, and Pope
Callixtus V appointed a commission. In 1456 the commission pronounced
its judgment, reversing and annulling the first process on the ground
of roguery, calumny, injustice, contradictions and manifest error in
fact and law.—_La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, vol. ii. pp.
514-518.
[204] It has been suggested that the charge of sorcery covered a
political conspiracy for his destruction and was of the same value as
the same charge in respect of the Knights Templar.
[205] Francesco Prelati seems to have been a magician by profession and
as regards Gilles de Sillé, it is said otherwise that he was a priest
of St. Malo.
[206] This was Catherine de Thouars, and it was to her that the bulk of
his fortune was due. He is said to have been one of the richest nobles
in Europe.
[207] It will be understood that what follows is merely romantic
narrative. See _Gilles de Rais, dit Barbe Bleue_, by Bossard et Maulde.
[208] The account at this point represents the admixture of the
Blue-Beard or folk-element and may be read in conjunction with Perrault.
[209] It does not appear that Francesco Prélati and Gilles de Sillé
were brought to account subsequently.
[210] He was really cited to appear before Jean de Malestroit, Bishop
of Nantes and Chancellor of Brittany. He obeyed this summons.
[211] The records say that he was insolent at the beginning but soon
changed his methods, and the confession which he made involved two of
his servants, named Henri and Poitou.
[212] It was the servants of Gilles de Rais who accused him under
torture.
[213] This explanation is absolutely supposititious, there being no
tittle of evidence for the existence of such a process in the records
of Black Magic. It is of course possible that some readers may ascribe
secret sources of information to Éliphas Lévi. Speaking generally,
Black Magic and the synonymous white variety were concerned little
enough in alchemical processes, good or bad. Their amateurs and adepts
sought enrichment by the discovery of buried treasures with the
assistance of demons; they sought also to communicate with evil spirits
who could bring gold and precious stones from the mines, or who could
themselves accomplish transmutation.
[214] It is just to say that Gaffarel wrote in defence of the Jews and
to clear them of many accusations besides those made by Philo. His
thesis was that many things were falsely imposed upon them.
[215] His fate was shared by the servants already mentioned, who are
said to have been his accomplices.
[216] The Marquis Eudes de Mirville wrote _Des Esprits et de leurs
Manifestations Fluidiques devant la Science Moderne_, 1858, and other
large books, which were highly recommended by ecclesiastical authority
of the day. He saw the intervention of Satanism everywhere in psychic
and occult phenomena. Remove the personality of Satan and Éliphas Lévi
says exactly the same thing.
[217] The reference is to _La Réalité des Esprits et le Phénomène
Merveilleux de leur Écriture Directe_. It appeared in 1857 and is a
very curious collection of materials. Long after, or in 1875, the same
writer published _La Morale Universelle_, which seems to be a plea for
secular education.
[218] The reader should understand that Éliphas Lévi is only giving
expression to a point of view; it must not be supposed that there were
adepts—either true or false—who said or thought the things which are
here set down at the period in question, or indeed at any other period.
[219] See Gabriel Naudé: _Apologie pour les Grands Hommes faussement
accusés de la Magie_.
[220] Bartholemæus Platina was assistant-librarian of the Vatican, and
his _Opus in Vitas Summorum Pontificum_ appeared at Venice in 1479, two
years before his death.
[221] “Let the popes see to it,” he remarks, according to a Note of
Lévi; “it is they who are concerned in the question.”
[222] Éliphas Lévi, in his defence of the Catholic Religion, by
which he means that of Rome, reminds one of Talleyrand proceeding to
consecrate and entreating his familiars about him not to make him
laugh: in the symbolic language of the man in the street, his tongue
is so evidently in his cheek. An open enemy of Rome would think twice
before saying that the pope who authorised the instruments which were
used in the execrable massacres of Albigensians and Vaudois was “so
eminently catholic.”
[223] I refer the readers of this section to my _Book of Ceremonial
Magic_, where the content and history of this Grimoire are considered
with special reference to the criticism of Éliphas Lévi.
[224] I have mentioned in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ that the first
edition of the _Grimoire of Honorius_ is referred to 1629, being about
900 years after the death of its alleged author. I have also referred
it to its proper source in the _Sworn Book of Honorius_, which belongs
to the fourteenth century. The Honorius here in question was the
spokesman of magicians assembled at a mythical place. He is described
as the son of Euclid and Master of the Thebans.
[225] This is another way of stating that it is precisely of the same
character as the _Key of Solomon the King_, the _Keys of Rabbi Solomon_
and the _Magical Elements of Peter de Abano_, which correspond to the
description given.
[226] The Grimoire is, on the contrary, a Ritual for the evocation of
evil spirits and, granting only the legality of this operation, it is
conformable in all respects to the doctrine of the Latin Church. Now,
it is idle to say that this Church substitutes the passive for the
active principle, the cultus of the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding.
[227] I am not acquainted with this frontispiece, but I have seen a
copy having a design on the title-page representing the sun within an
inverted triangle.
[228] This exegesis is personal to Éliphas Lévi and has no authority in
Kabalism, as there is no need to say, seeing that the Secret Tradition
in Jewry did not maintain the hierarchy of the Latin Church. In the
_Zohar_, Adonai is a title of _Shekinah_, as already stated.
[229] On the assumption of course that the letter _Aleph_ stands for
_Adam_, while _Cheth_ and _Vau_ are the first letters in the name of
_Eve_. The interpretation throughout is of the same value and Éliphas
Lévi was not more serious in expressing it than I am in translating it.
The _Grimoire of Honorius_ is no such abyss of decorative philosophical
iniquity.
[230] I have used the translation made from the Grimoire itself,
published in my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, p. 107.
[231] It affirms that the power to command demons is resident in
the Seat of Peter and then proceeds to communicate that power by
dispensation to “venerable brethren and dear sons in Jesus Christ,”
being those comprised in the ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
[232] It must be explained that the oration in the Grimoire is not
rhythmic, but the “when I shall impose my will upon them” recurs
several times, literally or in substance. In this manner Éliphas Lévi
gets the refrain of his verses: _Je leur imposerai ma volonté pour
loi_. His metrical rendering is well conceived and executed.
[233] I have rendered in prose that which is given by Lévi in
verse, which is anything but in the words of the Ritual. Compare my
translation of the prayer taken from the Grimoire in the _Book of
Ceremonial Magic_, pp. 280-282.
[234] The Ritual proceeds to the conjuration of the Kings presiding in
the four quarters of heaven and the evil angels who rule over the days
of the week.
[235] The presence of the gipsies in Europe can be traced prior to the
fifteenth century.
[236] The authority of George Borrow is quoted for this statement.
[237] Long before Vaillant, this Chinese inscription was described by
Court de Gebelin, who also believed that it was a form of the Tarot.
[238] If certain beautiful Tarot cards preserved in the Bibliothèque du
Roi and at the Musée Carrer are the work of Jacques Gringonneur, which
is disputed, as we have seen, then the Tarot is first heard of in 1393
and as it was in 1423 that St. Bernardin of Sienna preached against
playing cards, which were no doubt Tarots, it is probable that they
were put to the same use at the earlier date that they were put to at
the later.
[239] The romantic history of Raymund Lully on which Éliphas Lévi
worked was written by Jean Marie de Vernon.
[240] What is certain historically is as follows: (_a_) That the story
of Ambrosia di Castello, so far as regards its root-matter, concerns
the original and only Raymund Lully, who was the author of the _Ars
Magna_; (_b_) That it is in all probability fictitious; (_c_) That it
has been decorated and dramatised by Éliphas Lévi, who has done his
work admirably; (_d_) That concerning the father of the illuminated
doctor we know only that he was a great soldier; (_e_) That the author
of the alchemical treatises was not the author of the _Ars Magna_;
(_f_) That the alchemical writer is said to have been (1) another
Raymund Lully, which, I think, means only that he assumed the name in
order to father his works upon a celebrated person, and (2) a proselyte
of the gate, being a person who becomes a Jew, but this is manifestly
contradicted by the evidence of the alchemical texts; (_g_) That when
the works of Raymund Lully were collected, at the end of the eighteenth
century, into eight enormous folio volumes, we find, as I have said
elsewhere, a third Raymund Lully, who was a mystic; but as to his real
identity we know nothing.
[241] Rose Nobles were replaced by Angels in 1465, _temp._ Edward IV.
[242] Louis Figuier wrote occult romances under the guise of history,
and did not know what he was talking about in respect of the _Ars
Magna_. There is no reason to suppose that it had even passed through
his hands. It was otherwise as regards the little alchemical texts; and
there is no reason to question what he says concerning them.
[243] The story of a transmutation performed by some one called Raymund
Lully in England depends from the alchemical texts mentioned, and is
therefore no evidence, and from a forged Testament of John Cremer, who
called himself Abbot of Westminster, but no person of this name filled
the office in question, either at the supposed period or any other.
[244] The tracts extant under the name of the alchemical Raymund
Lully are enumerated by Lenglet du Fresnoy in connection with those
attributed to the author of the _Ars Magna_. Mangetus printed sixteen
in his _Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa_, 1702. The _Codicillus_, _Vade
Mecum_, or _Cantilena_ is a considerable work, divided into 74 chapters.
[245] The reader may consult at this point my study of the life and
writings of Raymund Lully in the _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_,
pp. 68-88.
[246] There is no reference to a title in the original text.
[247] It is stated once only in the Apocalypse that “there was silence
in heaven about the space of half an hour.” See Chapter VIII, verse 1.
[248] The _Book of Nicholas Flamel_ describes the symbols as follows:
(1) A Wand and serpents devouring one another; (2) a Cross, on which
a serpent was crucified; (3) Deserts, in the midst of which were many
fair fountains, whence issued a number of serpents that glided here and
there.
[249] Mercury and Saturn—as Flamel supposed them to be—were depicted
on the obverse side of this leaf and the symbolic flower was on the
reverse side. It is not said to be a rose, but simply a fair flower.
The rose-tree was on the obverse side of the fifth leaf.
[250] The original has no reference to solidified air.
[251] Otherwise, Arisleus, who figures prominently in the discourses of
the _Turba Philosophorum_.
[252] There is an old story that he translated the _Sepher Ha Zohar_
into Latin, but the manuscript has never been found.
[253] It was first published at Basel and afterwards at Amsterdam in
1646. In 1899 the second edition was rendered into French. It deserves
and will repay careful reading from the mystic point of view.
[254] This promise represents another unfulfilled intention of Éliphas
Lévi.
[255] See _Les Six Voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier, en Turquie, en
Perse et aux Indes_, Paris, 1676. There were five French editions, and
the work was also translated into English.
[256] This is really the title of a particular treatise, but as it is
exceedingly long and may be said to be _de omnibus rebus_, it may not
be taken unjustly to represent his philosophy at large.
[257] The latest and most successful apologist of Paracelsus says that
the charge of intemperance was invented by his enemies. See the _Life
of Paracelsus_, by Miss Anna M. Stoddart, 1911.
[258] Éliphas Lévi, who rather misquotes Dante, held that he had
performed the same kind of mental pilgrimage, and had escaped in the
same manner—by reversing dogma. He says elsewhere: “It was after he had
descended from gulf to gulf and from horror to horror to the bottom of
the seventh circle of the abyss ... that Dante ... rose consoled and
victorious to the light. We have performed the same journey, and we
present ourselves before the world with tranquillity on our countenance
and peace in our heart ... to assure mankind that hell and the devil
... and all the rest of the dismal phantasmagoria are a nightmare of
madness.”
[259] The interpretation of the _Divine Comedy_ as embodying an act
of war against the papacy was begun by Gabriele Rossetti, about 1830,
in his _Disquisitions on the Anti-Papal Spirit which produced the
Reformation_. For the obscure and dubious tenets to which Éliphas
Lévi gives the name of Johannite, he substitutes the doctrines of
Albigenses and Waldenses. The same thesis, taken over from its Italian
deviser, was maintained in the same interest by Eugène Aroux, firstly
in _Les Mystêres de la Chevalerie_, and afterwards in the great body
of annotation attached to his translation of Dante. The latter work
appeared in 1856. The interpretation of Lévi is a variant of that of
Aroux. The disquisitions of the French writer are a fountain of joy for
criticism. He produced yet another monument, being _Dante, Hérétique,
Revolutionnaire et Socialiste_, 1854. He was a devoted member of the
Latin Church, though I think that there would have been joy among the
faithful had his books been burnt at Rome.
[260] The authority is the demonographer Bodin. Trois-Échelles
confessed to the King that he had given himself over to a spirit who
enabled him to perform prodigies. He was forgiven on condition that he
denounced others who were guilty of sorcery. It is supposed that his
subsequent condemnation was the consequence of new operations on his
own part.
[261] That is, Pierre de l’Étoile. See _Véritable Fatalité de Saint
Cloud_, art. 8.
[262] This account is drawn from Garinet, who cites two pamphlets
of the period: (A) _Les Sorcelleries de Henri de Valois, et les
Oblations qu’il faisait au Diable dans le Bois de Vincennes_, 1589; (B)
_Remonstrances à Henri de Valois sur les choses horribles envoyées par
un enfant de Paris_, 1589.
[263] Compare Aroux: _La Comédie de Dante_, vol. ii., p. 33 of his
_Clef de la Comédie_. The Rose is “the Albigensian Church and its
doctrines ... transformed into a mystic flower.” Hence the immense
vogue of the romance of William of Lorris, despite the anathemas of
Gerson.
[264] The words of Flamel are as follows: “On the fifth leaf was a fair
rose-tree, flowered, in the midst of a garden, growing up against a
hollow oak, at the foot whereof bubbled forth a fountain of pure white
water, which ran headlong down into the depths below. Yet it passed
through the hands of a great number of people who digged in the earth,
seeking after it, but, by reason of their blindness, none of them knew
it, except a very few, who considered its weight.” _Le Livre de Nicolas
Flamel._
[265] It will be seen that this is the counter-thesis to the
explanation of the spiritual world by means of natural law; it is the
explanation of the natural world by means of spiritual law. So also
Éliphas Lévi is right when he goes on to affirm in substance that the
religion of supernatural grace is the font of natural religion. It is
in the light of the instituted sacraments that we find the hidden grace
of those in Nature.
[266] “We do now securely call the Pope Antichrist, which was formerly
a capital offence.... We do hereby condemn the East and the West,
meaning the Pope and Mahomet.... He (the Pope) shall be torn in pieces
with nails, and a final groan shall end his ass’s braying.... The
judgment due to the Roman impostor who now poureth his blasphemies
with open mouth against Christ.... The mouth of this viper shall be
stopped.” See _Confessio Fraternitatis_, R.C., 1616.
[267] The Masonic title of Sovereign Princes Rose-Croix ascribed in
France to the members of the Eighteenth Degree, under the obedience of
the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, has been changed in England to
Excellent and Perfect Princes. The old Rosicrucian title was that of
_Frater_, and the head of the Order was termed _Imperator_.
[268] I have let this date stand, as it is difficult to say what
Éliphas Lévi is driving at. Khunrath was born in 1559 or 1560, and he
died early in the seventeenth century.
[269] This is a mistake. The _Amphitheatrum_ appeared in 1609, the
licence having been obtained previously.
[270] The work contains (_a_) 365 versicles drawn from _Proverbs_ and
the apocryphal _Book of Wisdom_, the Latin Vulgate being printed side
by side with a new translation by Khunrath. These versicles are divided
into seven grades. (_b_) An interpretation at length of each versicle.
(_c_) An introduction to the first engraved plate; (_d_) to the second;
(_e_) to the third; (_f_) to the fourth; and (_g_) an epilogue or
conclusion to the whole work.
[271] Éliphas Lévi has misplaced most of the plates, and it is
difficult to follow his descriptions. No. 1 is the laboratory and
oratory of the adept. No. 2 is apparently that which he calls the Path
of Wisdom. No. 3 is the Philosophical Stone. No. 4 is that which Lévi
describes as the Dogma of Hermes, because the sentences of the Emerald
Tablet are inscribed on a Rock of Ages or Mountain of Initiation. No. 5
is the Gate of the Sanctuary, but it is enlightened by three rays. No.
6 is that which Lévi terms a Rose of Light, but it is really the sun
with Christ in the centre. Nos. 7 and 9 correspond to the descriptions
given; but No. 8 is scarcely a doctrine of equilibrium: it is the
doctrine of regeneration through Christ, in Whom the law is fulfilled.
[272] The _Basilica Chymica_ was translated into French by J. Marcel
de Boulene and published at Lyons in 1624. It was reprinted at Paris
in 1633. The third part is the _Book of Signatures_. The Latin edition
appeared at Frankfort in 1608.
[273] Some of these names are exceedingly obscure, and no importance
attaches to their literary remains. Philip Muller wrote _Miracula
et Mysteria Medico-Chymica_, 1614. It was printed eight times at
various places. Of John Torneburg I have no record. Ortelius was a
commentator on Sendivogius; Michael Poterius or Potier was the author
of ten alchemical tracts, but I have never heard that they were in
estimation among lovers of the art. The Baron de Beausoleil was still
more voluminous and is better known. The works of David de Planis Campe
were collected into a folio in 1646; he is regarded as an alchemical
dreamer. Duchesne was _Sieur de la Violette_, and his writings are in
six volumes. Benjamin Mustapha, or rather Mussaphia, wrote on potable
gold. The other names are known to science, as Lévi would express it,
and are famous therein.
[274] The sum of this intimation is a little obscure. See my _Real
History of the Rosicrucians_, pp. 388-390, for various versions of the
proclamation.
[275] I have been unable to find the authority for this discourse, as a
whole, but some fragments of it are cited by Gabriel Naudé.
[276] There does not appear to be a story with this title either in
_The Phantasus_ or elsewhere in the works of Tieck.
[277] See Pierre De Lancre: _Tableau de l’Inconstance des Démons_, Book
VI., Discourse 4. But Éliphas Lévi seems to have followed the summary
account of Garinet.
[278] The account is in Bodin and in the record of Henri Boguet. Her
physical peculiarity is described as _un trou qu’elle avait au dessous
de sa parti gorrière_. The work of Boguet is entitled _Discours
Exécrables des Sorciers_, 1602. It is exceedingly rare.
[279] The prosecution and execution of secular priests and monks recur
frequently throughout the annals of sorcery.
[280] The names appear to have been Madeleine de Mandol, daughter of
the Seigneur de la Palud and Louise Capel.
[281] The actual charges were (_a_) that Madeleine was seduced by
Gaufridi when she was nine years old, (_b_) that he had taken her to
the Sabbath, (_c_) that he had sent her 666 devils. To Louise he had
sent four only.
[282] See _L’Histoire Admirable de la Possession et de la Conversion
d’une Pénitente séduite par un Magicien_, by the Inquisitor Michaëlis,
1612.
[283] He was a priest of Marseilles and curé of Accoules.
[284] The confession included: (1) Visions of Lucifer, (2) compact
with him, (3) obtaining the love of women by breathing upon them, (4)
visiting the Black Sabbath, (5) celebration of Black Masses, &c.
[285] Louise is heard of no further in the history of the period.
Madeleine was cast out by her family and lived on alms at Avignon, till
in 1653 the Parliament of Aix condemned her to perpetual seclusion.
[286] The historical facts are that Grandier insisted on one occasion
in taking precedence of Richelieu, then Bishop of Luçon and in disgrace
at Coussay. It is not even quite clear that the priest appealed to the
King, but he was involved in much litigation on charges of immorality.
It is just, however, to add that, according to Garinet, Grandier went
to Paris and pleaded his cause before the King.
[287] The first victim of the phenomena appears to have been the Lady
Superior.
[288] The director of the convent was named Mignon, and he called to
his assistance not only certain Carmelites but a secular priest of the
district, who was a great believer in diabolical interventions.
[289] This letter is quoted by Garinet, pp. 218, 219.
[290] Notwithstanding the application of what was called the ordinary
and extraordinary torture, no confession of guilt in respect of the
charges was ever extracted from Grandier, who indeed refused to reply.
Éliphas Lévi’s picture of his deportment is throughout accurate as well
as admirably told.
[291] This took place as stated and, moreover, the inhabitants of the
town, after a meeting in the town hall, wrote to the King complaining
of the pretence, absurdity and vexation of the process. See Garinet,
_Pièces Justificatives_, No. XVI.
[292] This remark, in which I concur unreservedly, may be noted by
students of Masonic history as an offset against the pretentious
nonsense which has been talked on the subject by French makers of fable
and especially by J. M. Ragon, the dullest and most imbecile of all.
[293] This opinion is showing signs of recrudescence at the present
day, and it is well to say that there is no evidence to support it.
[294] It may be mentioned that Masonry, wheresoever established, is
elective and not hierarchical.
[295] The Legend of Hiram has been told after several manners. English
Masons will see that the present version is utterly incorrect, and it
may be added further that it incorporates reveries borrowed from old
High Grades.
[296] The names ascribed to the three assassins are High Grade
inventions, and so also is all that follows concerning them.
[297] It is understood that Éliphas Lévi entered Masonry in the
ordinary way, but it is quite true that vital integration therein and
real understanding thereof are consequences of personal work.
[298] It has been called the most ancient of all the Chinese books,
being ascribed to the year 3468 B.C. It consists of 10 chapters.
[299] See my translation of this work: _Transcendental Magic: Its
Doctrine and Ritual_, 1896.
[300] It will be observed and appreciated at its proper value that
Éliphas Lévi does not attempt to elucidate the Chinese puzzle of which
he claims to possess the key, and the explanation is that if he had
known his subject critically he would not have attempted to create
Zoharic analogies which in the nature of things are non-existent.
[301] The _Book of Concealed Mystery_ is not a key to the _Zohar_; it
is one of the tracts inserted therein and its influence on the text at
large is almost _nil_.
[302] It will be noticed that this remark is not borne out by the
instance which is supposed to illustrate it and that the lucubration
on China is a curious preamble to a study of remarkable authors of the
eighteenth century, who had nothing to do with China.
[303] Emmanuel Swedenborg never gave expression to this view, and in
respect of the criticism as a whole, it must be remarked that the
communications which came to him came unawares, his psychic states not
being self-induced.
[304] The Kabalah has no principle of the hierarchy; its one counsel is
the study of the Doctrine and that study continually brought forward
new developments of the deep meanings which lay behind (_a_) the Law,
(_b_) the prophets and (_c_) the historical books of the Old Testament.
The _Zohar_ presupposes throughout a widely diffused knowledge of its
Secret Doctrine, as already intimated.
[305] He was the recipient of a revelation and was not concerned with
assisting those whom he addressed to attain the interior states into
which he entered himself. He was bent only on delivering the message
which he had received.
[306] Éliphas Lévi refers to a work entitled: _Mesmer—Mémoires et
Aphorismes Suivis des Procédés d’Eslon_, 1846. The Aphorisms of Anton
Mesmer have been frequently reprinted.
[307] The reference is probably to a French work, which in the absence
of date and fuller description cannot be identified with certainty.
[308] The writer in question certifies (_a_) that the Comte de Gabalis
was a German, (_b_) that he was a great nobleman and a great Kabalist,
(_c_) that his lands were on the frontiers of Poland, (_d_) that he
was a man of good presence who spoke French with a foreign accent.
Saint-Germain testified on his own part to Prince Karl of Hesse that
he was the son of Prince Ragoczy of Transylvania. Perhaps the latter
place will be regarded as sufficiently in proximity to Poland to make
the story of Éliphas Lévi a little less unlikely than it appears on
the surface. But the prince in question was Franz-Leopold Ragoczy,
who spent his life in conspiracies against the Austrian Empire, “with
the object of regaining his independent power” and the freedom of his
principality. No more unlikely person can be thought of as the original
of the ridiculous Comte de Gabalis, and the Comte de Saint-Germain
never intimated that he belonged to a line of Kabalists, least of all
such a Kabalist and occultist as is depicted by the Abbé de Villars.
See Mrs. Cooper Oakley’s _Monograph on the Comte de St. Germain_,
Milan, 1912.
[309] See Madame la Comtesse de Genlis: _Mémoires Inédites pour servir
à l’Histoire des XVIII^{me} et XIX^{me} Siècles_.
[310] See the _Essai sur la Secte des Illuminés_, which appeared
anonymously in 1789, the author being the Marquis de Luchet. The
story here reproduced is given in Note XV to the essay in question.
It affirms that the Order of Initiated Knights and Brethren of Asia
became the Order of St. Joachim about 1786. There is no mention of
Saint-Germain in this Note.
[311] Éliphas Lévi explains in a note that the neophyte whose
experience is related, and who was mistaken for a corpse, was in
a state of somnambulism induced by magnetism. In respect of the
green arbour, and the effects produced by the harmonica, he refers
to Deleuze: _Histoire Critique du Magnétisme Animal_, 2nd edition,
1829. It contains curious accounts of the magnetic chain and trough,
magnetised trees, music, the voice of the mesmerist and the instruments
employed by him. Lévi adds that the author was a partisan of mesmerism
which does not leave his opinions open to suspicion. I do not know what
this is intended to convey, but the work of Deleuze was of authority in
its own day and is still worth reading.
[312] It will be observed that Éliphas Lévi is taking the story more
seriously than he proposed to do at the beginning. If therefore I may
on my own part take the Marquis de Luchet for a moment in the same
manner and assume that he was right in saying that the Order of Saint
Joachim was a transformation of the Knights and Brethren of Asia, it
seems certain that the latter did not owe their origin to Saint-Germain
and that their connection with Rosicrucianism was of the Masonic kind
only, members of the fifth degree being called True Brothers Rose
Croix, otherwise Masters of the Sages, Royal Priests, and Brothers of
the Grade of Melchisedek.
[313] Compare the ribaldries of the Marquis de Luchet respecting the
Harmonica and his supplementary account of its use in the evocations of
Lavater.
[314] _Jachin_ is connected in Kabalism with the _Sephira Netzach_,
because it is the right hand pillar, and on account of _Netzach_,
_Jachin_ is in correspondence with צבאוה ידוד and צבאוה. The Divine
Name _Tetragrammaton_ cannot be said on Kabalistical authority to
be veiled in _Netzach_. It was really veiled in Adonai because of
_Shekinah_, and the cohabiting glory between the cherubim was the
manifestation, vestment and concealment of Jehovah.
[315] There is no secret as to the authorship of the tract on
Illuminism, and Lévi could have been enlightened on the subject by his
friend, J. M. Ragon. So far from being imbecile, the monograph of the
Marquis de Luchet is entertaining if it is not brilliant. As to the
transmutations of Saint-Germain, it is meant that there is no evidence
of gold being produced by his methods, but it is otherwise in respect
of precious stones. For the exoneration of De Luchet it does not
signify that the evidence is bad.
[316] See _L’Alchimie et les Alchimistes_, by Louis Figuier, pp. 320
_et seq._ I have intimated that it is very difficult to trust this
writer in matters of historical fact, but he represents Lascaris as
appearing in Germany at the end of the seventeenth century, being then
about fifty years old, and in any case it is a mistake to say that he
was in evidence when the Comte de Saint-Germain was making a sensation
in Paris. Lascaris had long since vanished from the theatre of Hermetic
events.
[317] It was in the presence of the rack that the testimony of his wife
was extracted, and I suppose that there is no one at this day who will
count it as infidelity on her part.
[318] This device is inscribed on the symbolic bridge which is
mentioned in the Grade of Knight of the East, or of the Sword.
[319] According to the account of himself which Cagliostro gave at the
famous trial arising out of the Diamond Necklace affair, Acharat was
the name which he bore in the years of childhood which he spent at
Medina. His “governor” was Althotas, who has been sometimes identified
with Kölmer, the instructor of Weishaupt in Magic.
[320] In his _Lexicon Alchimiae_, 1612, Martinus Rulandus explains
that, according to the system of Paracelsus, Azoth was the Universal
Medicine, though for others it is one of the names ascribed to
the Philosophical Stone. It was evidently neither in the process
of Cagliostro, but—if questioned—he might have identified it with
Philosophical Mercury, a substance which can be extracted from any
metallic body.
[321] It is interesting to note that Mr. W. R. H. Trowbridge, who
has made the latest attempt to exonerate Cagliostro, has omitted all
reference to the regeneration processes and the alleged attempt to
renew thereby the youth of Cardinal de Rohan.
[322] As seen already, Menander was the successor of Simon Magus, and
the baptism which he performed was claimed to confer immortality.
[323] This story has been altered from the original narrative to make
it appear that Cagliostro escaped. He did nothing of the sort, for the
monk proved the stronger of the two. Prince Bernard of Saxe-Weimar is
the authority for the account, and he is said to have guaranteed its
accuracy.
[324] Saint-Martin did not continue the school of theurgic Masonry
founded by Martines de Pasqually. He abandoned the school and all
active connection with Rites and Lodges. The evidence for his
acquaintance with the Tarot rests on the fact that his _Tableau Natural
des Rapports qui existent entre Dieu, l’Homme et l’Univers_ happens
to be divided into 22 sections, and there are 22 Tarot Trumps Major.
On the same evidence the same assertion is made in respect of the
Apocalypse. That which seemed adequate for Éliphas Lévi continues to be
found sufficient for the school of Martinism to-day and for its Grand
Master, Papus.
[325] See Deleuze: _Mémoires sur la Faculté de la Prévision_, 1836.
[326] The reader who is in search of romances may also consult P.
Christian: _Histoire de la Magie_, published about 1871. It pretends
that Court de Gebelin left an account in MS. of the interrogation of
Count Cagliostro in the presence of many Masonic dignitaries, including
Cazotte, at the Masonic Convention of Paris. The date was May 10, 1785.
Cagliostro on that occasion predicted the chief events of the French
Revolution, and, at the suggestion of Cazotte, gave the name, then
unknown, of the Corsican, Napoleon Bonaparte.
[327] _The Tractatus de Revolutionibus Animarum_ was the work of R.
Isaac de Loria, a German Kabalist. It is contained in the second volume
of _Kabbala Denudata_. It is not allegorical and it has no Talmudic
or Zoharic authority. As it was translated into French in 1905, most
people can judge for themselves on the subject.
[328] The reference is here to the latest development of Templary under
the ægis of Fabré-Palaprat. It came into public knowledge about 1805,
and its invention is not much earlier. Its documents were fictitious,
like its claims.
[329] Éliphas Lévi mentions in a note that he quotes these words as
they were given to him by an old man who heard them. They are cited
differently in the _Journal_ of Prudhomme.
[330] I have failed to trace this story to its source, but Éliphas Lévi
was curiously instructed in the byways of French occult history, and
though he could seldom resist the decoration and improvement of his
narratives, they had always a basis in fact.
[331] Christian Antoine Gerle was born in 1740 and died in 1805. He
was a Carthusian, who came into some prominence under the Constituent
Assembly. On April 10, 1790, Dom Gerle proposed a decree that “the
Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church was and should remain always
the religion of the nation, and that its worship should be alone
authorised.” See Albert Sorel: _L’Europe et la Révolution Française_,
vol. ii. p. 121. He was imprisoned at the Conciergerie but was
liberated, and during the reign of Napoleon he was appointed to an
office in the Home Department.
[332] She is said to have been imprisoned in the Bastille, but
this seems to be an error, for it is certain that she died in the
Conciergerie at the age of 70. She called herself the mother of God,
prophesied the speedy advent of a Messiah and promised that eternal
life would then begin for the elect.
[333] See my _Studies in Mysticism_, pp. 99-111, for a summary account
of the Saviours of Louis XVII.
[334] St. Hildegarde died in 1179 at the age of 81. She wrote three
books of Revelations, which were approved by the Council of Trèves, and
Latin authorities have termed her one of the most illustrious mystics
of Germany. In the fifteenth century the Council of Basle approved the
Revelations of St. Bridget, who was born about 1307 and she died on
July 23, 1373. A translation in full of her memorial was published at
Avignon in four small volumes, dated 1850.
[335] Out of a great body of claimants, computed by one writer to have
been forty, and by another two hundred in number, there are four who
may rank as competitors at least one with another for recognition as
the escaped Dauphin: they are the Baron de Richemont, Augustus Mèves,
Eleazar Williams and Naündorff.
[336] The work of De Luchet is quite worthless from the evidential
standpoint, but the so-called correspondence is cited in a Note on
pp. 182-186 of the essay. It appears that the House Magical had been
sold to King Frederick William, but the person who assisted at the
evocations is called _un grand Seigneur_, which may or may not veil
the royal identity. Moreover, Steinert was the adept who compounded
the “magical elixir,” and was pensioned on this account; but it is not
stated that he was the magus of the ceremonial proceedings. I have been
unable to check the recital of Eckartshausen, which is very difficult
to meet with in England.
[337] In the _Secret Tradition in Freemasonry_ I have indicated that
Schroepfer is, on the whole, rather likely to have possessed some
psychic powers, which notwithstanding his story ran the usual course of
imposture. As he practised evocation perpetually, his suicide can be
accounted for owing to the conditions which supervened on this account.
There seems no real reason to suppose that he killed himself because he
doubted his powers; however, the question does not signify.
[338] It is just to say that another side of Lavater is shewn in
his _Secret Journal of a Self-Observer_, which is a very curious
memorial—or human document, as it would be termed in our modern
language of inexactitude. It contains no suggestion of evocations and
dealings with Jewish Kabalists, in or out of the flesh.
[339] Cahagnet is the author of the following works: _Arcanes de la
Vie Future_, 3 vols., 1848-1854; _Lumière des Morts_, 1851; _Magie
Magnétique_, 2nd Edition, 1858; _Sanctuaire du Spiritualisme_, 1850;
_Révélations d’outre Tombe_, 1856.
[340] This account is taken from Note XV. appended to the _Essai
sur la Secte des Illuminés_, but the Marquis de Luchet depended on
another writer, the latter drawing from Lavater’s _Spiritus Familiaris
Gablidone_, published at Frankfort and Leipsic in 1787.
[341] It is suggested by Clavel that when Charles VI suppressed
Masonry in Austria, owing to a Bull of Pope Clement XII, the brethren
of certain lodges instituted the Order of Mopses to fill the gap. See
_Histoire Pittoresque de la Francmaçonnerie_, 3rd edition, 1844, p.
154. Ragon reproduces the opinion in his _Manuel de l’Initié_, 1861, p.
88.
[342] _Liber Mirabilis: qui Prophetias: Revelationesque: nec non res
mirandas: preteritas: presentes: et futuras aperte demonstrat_, 1522.
The work is in two parts, of which the first is in Latin and the second
in French.
[343] I have used the seventeenth century English translation. The
original says: _En l’Eglise au plus pire, traiter les prêtres comme
l’eau fait l’éponge_. I do not quite see how Lévi’s explanation
follows, but the point is not worth discussing.
[344] _Les Dernières Prophéties de Mlle. Lenormand_ appeared in 1843
and are joyful reading. She was born at Alençon in 1772 and died on
June 25, 1843.
[345] I have failed to verify the statement that this person had access
to the Emperor Alexander.
[346] It should be understood that _Valérie_ appeared at Paris in
1803, when the writer was thirty-nine years old. Her acquaintance with
the Russian Emperor was eleven years later, and it was during the
intervening period that her spiritual development took place. She was
no longer an amiable coquette, though the description may once have
applied to her. There is no question that the portrait of _Valérie_
was, and was intended to be, her own portrait. As to the identity of
her hero, he was her husband’s secretary and there was no intimacy
between them in the evil sense of the term, though she was not of
unblemished reputation in other respects.
[347] It was the Empress Elizabeth, wife of Alexander, who first
brought Madame de Krudener to the notice of her husband. She shewed him
some of her letters to draw him under religious influence. The King and
mystic met, under singular circumstances, on June 4, 1815. Madame de
Krudener was 13 years older than the Emperor, with pale, emaciated and
drawn features. The story repeated by Éliphas Lévi, whencesoever it may
come, is an execrable calumny. The acquaintance began at Würtemberg and
continued during the Emperor’s residence in Paris, or till September
28, 1815. Those were the days which ended in the proclamation of the
Holy Alliance, and Madame de Krudener’s part in that work is a matter
of history.
[348] Thomas Ignatius Martin is said to have foretold the revolution
of 1830, but the fact is dubious. In his interview with Louis XVIII he
is said also to have told the French King that he was not the rightful
occupant of the French throne, but this is more than dubious. The
particular legitimacy which he supported was that of Naündorff.
[349] See _La France Mystique_, by Alexandre Erdan, vol. ii. p. 135 _et
seq._ for notices of four chief disciples of Fourier, the maddest being
Victor Hennequin.
[350] He was the prophet of a third and final alliance between God and
man.
[351] It is said that after the rupture of his relations with Wronski,
M. Arson instituted a kind of humanitarian religion on his own account,
and combined it with some aspect of metempsychosis speculations.
[352] The discourses of St. Michael with Vintras are said to have
concerned (_a_) the destinies of France, (_b_) the future of religion,
(_c_) the reform of the clergy. The Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph and
Christ Himself also visited the seer, according to his own testimony.
[353] _L’Œuvre de la Miséricorde prit une teinte fleur-de-lys très
prononcée._—Alexandre Erdan.
[354] See my _Mysteries of Magic: a Digest of the Writings of Éliphas
Lévi_.
[355] The charges are contained in a pamphlet entitled _Le Prophète
Vintras_, published by Gozzoli in 1851. I do not think that Geoffroi
wrote anything.
[356] Vintras was arrested at Tilly-sur-Seules in 1842 on a charge
of roguery; he was tried at Caen and condemned to five years’
imprisonment. After his release in 1848, he found an asylum in England.
[357] See _La France Mystique_, vol. i. p. 36 _et seq._ for a
contemporary account of Du Potet and of the periodical magnetic
_séances_ which took place _au dessus du restaurant des Frères
Provençaux, au Perron du Palais-Royal_.
[358] According to another account, the Magic Mirror was an ordinary
circle of evocation drawn with charcoal. Wandering spirits were
supposed to be conjured therein.
[359] His madness is said otherwise to have been partial, or
characterised by many lucid intervals. His second work was _Religion_,
and it preached the doctrine of reincarnation, with periodical changes
of sex. It described the Deity as an infinite substance in which
circulated myriads of soul-entities.
[360] His other works include the _Gospel of the People_, 1840, to
which Éliphas Lévi refers subsequently. For this he was imprisoned.
In 1847 he published a _Histoire des Montagnards_. At the end of 1851
he was compelled to leave France, and seems to have lived in England.
Henri Alphonse Esquiros was born in 1814.
[361] Henri Delaage seems to have taken the question of physical
beauty rather seriously to heart. In 1850, under the title of
_Perfectionnement physique de la Race Humaine_, he made a collection of
processes and methods for acquiring beauty, drawn—as he claimed—from
Chaldean Magi and Hermetic Philosophers.
[362] The Église Française was forcibly closed about 1840, but in 1848
an attempt was made to reopen it in a small room. A particular kind
of Mass was celebrated in the French language, and it appears that
the church had fixed festivals of its own. In doctrinal matters, Abbé
Châtel regarded the relation between God and the universe as comparable
to that between the soul and body, “but in an infinitely more excellent
manner.” Paradise, Purgatory and Hell were alike abolished, and in
their place two states were substituted, one of glory and felicity, the
other of reparation.
[363] See the appendix to _Essai sur le Secte des Illuminés_, by the
Marquis de Luchet, already quoted.
[364] Joseph Pitton de Tournefort: _Relation d’un Voyage du Levant_,
1717, 2 vols. It was translated into English and published in 3 vols.,
1741.
[365] I wish that it were possible to quote the moving panegyric on
Ganneau in a letter addressed by Éliphas Lévi to Alexandre Erdan and
printed by him in _La France Mystique_, vol. ii. p. 184-188. He is
described as one of the _élite_ of intelligence, an artist, a poet of
original and inexhaustible eloquence. He was sometimes bizarre but
never absurd or wearisome. He was, finally, one of those hearts under
the inspiration of which the zealous will crucify themselves with joy
for the ungrateful. Erdan once saw Ganneau addressing a crowd in the
Place de la Concorde, “uplifting his great arms and raising to heaven
his beautiful Christ-like head.”
[366] I suppose that this would be a St. Andrew’s cross with the
addition of a vertical branch, on which would rest the head of the
crucified person.
[367] There was a son of this marriage, and in 1855 M. Alexandre Erdan
was inquiring what had become of him.
[368] To suggest that the _Zohar_ exists to propound and interpret a
thesis of equilibrium is like saying that the vast text is written
about the legend of the Edomite Kings or that it is a violent attack on
Christianity, because there is a reference to each of these subjects.
The symbolism of the Balance is practically confined to a single tract
imbedded in the _Zohar_.
[369] “God stretched forth His right hand and created the world above,
and He stretched forth His left hand and created the world below....
God created the world below on the model of the world above, for the
image is found beneath of all that abides on high.”—_Zohar_, Part II.,
fol. 20a.
[370] Joseph de Maistre: _Soirées de St. Pétersbourg_, 1821, p. 308.
[371] For the sake of completeness, I have included this preface,
though from some points of view it might have been reasonably omitted
altogether.