REVIEWS BOOKS
Paul Chacornac, Le Comte de Saint-Germain (Paris: Chacornac Frères). This new book from our Director is the result of many years of long and patient research. We are astonished at the prodigious quantity of works and documents of all kinds that were consulted in order to confirm each piece of information carefully, and we cannot adequately to pay tribute to the scrupulous integrity of such a work. If all points are not entirely clarified, which was doubtless impossible, there are at least a good number that are, and in a way which seems quite definitive. To have done so would have required above all dispelling the confusions that have been perpetrated regarding various other individuals, especially LieutenantGeneral Claude-Louis de Saint-Germain. The confusion regarding this latter is one of the most frequent, but, despite the similarity of name and title which explains it, it is no less astonishing, for it is a question of a man who played a perfectly known historical role having nothing either obscure or mysterious about it. There is also Prince Rakoczi, of whom certain people in our time have inferred a large part, but whose alleged history is only a web of improbabilities. What is most likely is that in certain circumstances this name has simply served to conceal the true origin of the Count of Saint-Germain. There are also a certain number of real or supposed individuals, some of whom must have a semblance of existence only in the imaginative fancies resulting from the names taken by the Count of Saint-Germain himself at various periods and in different countries. The ground being thus prepared, it becomes much easier to follow the hero from his first known appearance in London in 1745 to his 'official' death at the home of the Prince of Hesse in 1784. When he was able to refute the rumors of Casanova, and other untrustworthy 'memorialists', the hoaxes of the illusionist Gauve and of yet other stories which were falsely imputed to the Count of Saint-Germain, like the role that some attributed to him in the Russian revolution of 1762 , which certainly bears little resemblance to the 'adventurer' and 'charlatan' that so many
have depicted, we see in reality a man endowed with remarkable talents of various kinds, possessing little-known knowledge on many things from whatever source, and who, if he had friends and admirers wherever he went, also had, as so often happens in such cases, bitter enemies to ruin his enterprises, be it his diplomatic mission in Holland or the industry he later wished to set up in Flanders under the name of de Surmount... However, next to this strictly 'historical' life, or its sequel, there is also the 'legend', which has continued to grow up to our day, especially concerning the 'survival' of the Count of Saint-Germain and the appearances which have been attributed to him after the date of what, for precisely this reason, we just now called his 'official' death. There are surely many exaggerations in all of this, those which the Theosophists, taking responsibility for the identification with Prince Rakoczi, spread on the subject of their 'Master R', not being the least. But it also seems more difficult to reject purely and simply other things which, even if they have been misrepresented or wrongly interpreted, make one wonder if at the very least they do not contain a certain measure of truth. There remains an enigma here, and to tell the truth there is yet another of the purely historic order, for up to now the mystery of the birth of the Count of Saint-Germain has not been solved. On this latter point, the author envisages a solution that he presents only as a hypothesis, but which is in any case rendered very likely by a whole host of rather striking parallels. According to this hypothesis the Count of Saint-Germain would have been the natural son of Marie-Anne de Neubourg, widow of King Charles II of Spain, and the Count of Melgar, Amirante of Castille, whose immense fortune had earned him the name of 'the banker of Madrid', which could have caused the confusion that has made some people claim that he was the son of a Jewish banker. If this supposition is correct, many things are easily explained, especially the considerable resources which the Count of Saint-Germain evidently had at his disposal, the precious stones and paintings by masters which he owned, and also, what is still more important, the trust placed in him by sovereigns and illustrious people who, from Louis XVth to the Prince of Hesse, must have been aware of the origins that allied him to them, but which, constituting in a way a 'state secret' had to be carefully concealed from everyone else. As for the other enigma, that of the 'legend', it is explained as far as possible and interpreted in the light of traditional doctrines in the final chapter. As this chapter first appeared in this publication (issue of December 1945), we shall content ourself with recalling the great interest shown it without
dwelling further on it. We think that, at least if one does not want to continue hold on to the daydreams which until now have been used to excess in certain circles, it will henceforth no longer be possible to speak of the Count of Saint-Germain without referring to this work, for which we offer its author our hearty congratulations.
John Charpentier, L'Ordre des Templiers [The Order of the Templars] (Paris: 'La Colombe'). The author of this book has previously published novels in which he assigns to the Templars, or to their real or supposed successors, a role that seems to attest to rather remarkable ideas on this subject. We were rather afraid we would find further digressions of the kind here, but fortunately there are none, for this is a serious historical study, which is certainly much more valuable. We regret, however, especially as this is the most interesting aspect of the question, that it is nearly impossible to ascertain precisely what the author really thinks concerning the esoterism of the Templars. It seems that originally they possessed no 'esoterism' (but did not knighthood itself generally have a certain initiatic character?), so that esoterism would have had to have been introduced much later. But from where? No doubt from the East. Yet, from their contacts with the Ismailis, they would scarcely have inherited more than the idea of a certain hierarchy of grades (grades here appearing to be confused with functions) and that of a 'pacifist universalism' [sic] which in fact is possibly the idea of the Empire presented by Dante. In discussing the question of the alleged Templar 'heresy', Charpentier draws primarily on the articles of Probst-Biraben and Maitrot of the MotteCapron. Since we have already examined the articles in detail (issue of October-November 1945), we shall not revisit them here. The author does not believe the Templars were really heretics, but admits that they could have been 'gnostics', and rightly observes in this connection that 'under this label one meets many unusual ideas, ideas that are unrelated and sometimes even irreconcilable'; and that in addition, 'the only particulars we possess on gnosticism are those furnished by its adversaries.' At this point matters become strangely complicated: on the one hand, 'the Templars were distantly connected' to Valentinian gnosticism; on the other hand, 'in order to speak of the Templars' gnosticism, there must have been an active Gnosis at the time they lived,' which is not the case. In addition, it was not a question of a doctrine, for 'no convincing proof has been gathered,' and the Templars 'did not present themselves as propagandists(?) except for social and political ideas based on solidarity.'
However, they would have had among themselves an oral transmission (but founded on what?). And finally, it appears that they possessed an esoterism of Pythagorean origin, although we have no clue how they had received it. It is really very difficult to get one's bearings in all this! Nor do we understand how one can think that 'Johannism' proceeds, not from Saint John the Evangelist, but from Saint John the Baptist. As for what from Pythagorism comes from, the key to the enigma may perhaps be found in the relations of the Templars with the constructors' guilds (which are mentioned here only incidentally) In the final chapter the question of 'Templar' Masonry is 'settled' in rather a summary way (and in passing let us note the curious lapse that led the author to write 'Magnus Grecus' for 'Naymus Grecus', and then of the Neo-Templars of FabrePalaprat. And here we were greatly astonished to find ourself named among those who 'substantiated the thesis according to which Larmenius was actually Molay's legitimate successor'! Now, as far as we can remember, we have never written a word anywhere on this question, and in any case we were the less likely to remember any such thesis, as we are not even sure the said Larmenius actually existed, for we hold as extremely suspect anything that comes from a neo-Templar source (including the 'secret alphabet'). We hope that when the occasion arises, this correction can be made known.
G. de Chateaurhin, Bibliographie du Martinisme (Lyon: Derain et Racle). This bibliography (the author of which seems to have a very close relationship with Gerard van Rijnberk, whose own work on Martines de Pasqually we have also examined), in accordance with the usage established above all by contemporary occultists and their ignorance of eigh-teenth-century Masonic history, includes under the general term 'Martinism' several things that are in reality quite different: Martines de Pasqually's Order of the Elect-Cohens, with J.-B. Willermoz's Rectified Scottish Rite, L.-Cl. Saint-Martin's mysticism, and finally Martinism properly speaking, that is to say the recent organization founded by Papus. We think it would have been preferable to divide it into sections corresponding to these different subjects rather than into 'works particularly devoted to Martinism' and 'works in which Martinism is treated incidentally,' which would have been a simple subdivision of each of these sections. As to the 'doctrinal sources' mentioned separately, these are solely the writings of Martines de Pasqually and L. Cl. de Saint-Martin, and he could in fact hardly have cited others. It would also have been
advisable, above all for the recent works, to have made some kind of distinction between writings of a Martinist and those of a Masonic character, those which are on the contrary hostile (above all the anti-Masonic works), and those written from a 'neutral' and purely historic point of view, which would have helped the reader order things more easily. All in all, the list seems fairly complete, although Stanislas de Guaita's Discours d'Initiation, which deserves a place, is absent. But we do not really see the justification for including the improbable mystification called Le Diable au XIXe siècle [The Devil to the 19th Century] (not to mention the brochure Le Diable et l'Occultisme [The Devil and Occultism] that Papus wrote in response), seeing that he neglected to cite Jean Kostka's (Jules Doinel) Lucifer démasqué [Lucifer Unmasked], where Martinism is however much more directly endorsed.
W.-R. Chettéoui, Cagliostro et Catherine II (Paris: Éditions des Champs-Elysées). - Among the numerous plays written by Catherine II are three that are directed against what she called the 'visionaries', the term under which she included the Masons and members of various other initiatic organizations, as well as more or less independent 'visionaries' and 'mystics', Cagliostro in particular seeming to have attracted her hostility. These plays are translated here for the first time into French. The first, 'Le Trompeur' [The Deceiver], introduces a character who is obviously a caricature of Cagliostro; the second, 'Le Trompe' [The Deceived], is a violent attack against Masonic and similar organizations; as for the third, 'Le Chaman de Sibérie' [The Siberian Shaman], it contains no direct allusion to these latter, whatever the translator seems to think, but again obviously refers to Cagliostro. The volume also includes a short pamphlet entitled 'Le Secret de la Société Anti-Absurde dévoilé par quelqu'un qui n'en est pas' [The Secret of the Anti-Absurd Society revealed by someone who is not one of them], which parodies the Masonic rituals and catechisms while at the same time taking the counter view in the name of common sense. The whole thing testifies to incomprehension and is marked with the narrowest rationalist outlook, as might be expected on the part of a disciple of the 'philosophers'. We need not turn to these plays, therefore, for credible information on the subject, nor are these masterpieces from the literary point of view, but the book is incontestably a true historical curiosity.
The translation is preceded by a lengthy introduction providing interesting information on Masonry in Russia in the eighteenth century.
Unfortunately, Chettéoui's knowledge of Masonic history does not seem perfectly sure, for he makes certain mistakes of the kind commonly made in the profane world: thus, contrary to what he claims, even if it recruited its members from among the Masons, the Golden Rose-Cross was not itself Masonic. As for the mixture of very different things brought together under the common appellation 'Martinism', this is certainly not his doing, although he does not seem to have known how to unravel the matter. And does he not really believe that there were initiates of St Martin? He makes a more surprising and quite inexplicable error when he says that the Strict Observance is a 'form derived from the Templar Order destroyed forty years before'! Let us add that after the Freemasons' Wilhelmsbad Lodge Meeting the Strict Observance no longer existed but was replaced by the Rectified Scottish Rite. It is rather curious that this rather important distinction is almost never made. . . . There follows an account of Cagliostro's career, which takes its inspiration above all from Marc Haven, and tends to present Cagliostro as a true 'Master'. We have somewhat the impression that under the cloak of Cagliostro the author perhaps had in view other individuals, as did Marc Haven himself did when he wrote his Unknown Master. We shall not dwell on various other details, such as the accounts of healers who are far from having the 'spiritual' importance attributed to them, or again the quite unjustified belief in the authenticity of certain pseudo-Gospels recently spread about by the Theosophists and their 'Liberal-Catholic Church'. But we must take up a point that concerns us directly, one which recent events have rendered rather amusing for us, if not for everyone.
Chettéoui felt the need to slip the following note into his book: 'Whether it pleases or displeases the negative intellectualism of a René Guénon, France has the distinguished privilege of having the highest Initiatic School of the Western world. This School, with its well-tested methods, is destined to wield an immense influence throughout the world.' And, in order that no one be in any doubt as to what he is referring, the passage is immediately followed by a long quote from the founder of a so-called 'Divine School', which, unfortunately(!), has subsequently experienced misfortunes on which it is better not to dwell, so that rather than an 'immense influence', the said School has left behind it only the most unfortunate memories. It must be noted that there was no plausible motive for involving us, for we have never had occasion to say, publicly at least, anything at all on the pseudo-initiation in question. But we acknowledge quite willingly that our attitude toward him could not
have been anything other than that he imputes to us, and will have to be admitted that events would only have borne us out in a most telling and complete way. Will Chettéoui believe us if we tell him that precisely when we spoke of his book we were only waiting for such an ending, already anticipated by us some time ago! Moreover, from what we have heard from various sources, we think that he himself must now have abandoned the illusions he entertained on this subject, while waiting (at least we wish it for him) for him to likewise cast aside those he retains on some other things! Sic transit gloria mundi [so passes away the glory of the world]....
Dr R. Swinburne Clymer, The Rosicrucian Fraternity in America, Vol. I (Quakertown, Pennsylvania: The Rosicrucian Foundation) - This thick volume comprises several sections that seem initially to have been published separately, some relating to the history of 'Rosicrucian' organizations, or supposedly such, in America, others providing a typical example of the quarrels that sometimes occur between these organizations, and to which we referred in a recent article. Moreover, we may wonder why the author restricts himself to denouncing only a single organization that rivals his own-the one known as A.M.O.R.C. - when there are certainly more than a dozen others that he should logically consider as equally 'illegitimate' since they also use a title whose monopoly he claims. Is this because in this case the 'competition' is more complicated from the fact that the two rivals both claim to constitute under their auspices a 'Universal Federation of Initiatic Orders and Societies', which obviously means there is one too many? Whatever the case may be, it is hard to understand how associations that claim to be initiatic can be registered or incorporated, and bring their differences before profane tribunals, or how certificates issued by the State can establish anything other than the mere 'priority' in the public exercise of a denomination, which definitely has nothing to do with the proof of its legitimacy. All this attests to a rather strange mentality, and one that is wholly 'modern'... That said, it in no way justifies Dr Clymer's own claims to recognize that he furnishes highly edifying documentation on the 'plagiarism' of his adversary, especially by showing that his so-called 'secret teachings' are taken word for word from published and known books like those of Franz Hartmann and Eckartshausen. Concerning the latter, here is something rather amusing: the author says that he 'carried out careful research, but he was unable to find any writer, recognized as an authority or not, who quotes
or classifies Eckartshausen as a Rosicrucian.' We gladly provide him the 'source' that eluded him: in the Histoire des Rose-Croix by Sédir, among biographical notes on various alleged 'Rosicrucian' characters, we come across a note-the last of the series-dedicated to Eckartshausen (First edition, pp 159-160; 2nd edition, p 359). Here again, the Imperator of A.M.O.R.C. cannot even take credit for invention! Moreover, being in the know regarding certain things, we could point out yet other 'plagiarisms' of a slightly different kind. Thus, we see the reproduction of a diploma certificate under the heading of a so-called 'Grand College of Rites', whereas this title has in fact always belonged to the Grand-Orient de France alone. Knowing exactly under what circumstances the Imperator discovered its existence, and noticing that the diploma in question is dated later, we have no doubt that it is 'borrowed', not to speak of certain very significant details in this respect concerning a more or less cleverly modified seal.... There are things of a more fanciful nature also, like the diploma of a non-existent 'Rose-Cross of Egypt', although in truth, the 'Libyan chain' he wears seems to be inspired by some pre-existing model. In this connection, why would Dr Clymer, in an inscription written in French (which moreover is approximate), prefer that one say Rose-Cross 1 and not Rose-Croix? It is true that one cannot expect much linguistic knowledge from someone who writes the titles of his own organization in a Latin which we believe it more charitable not to reproduce!
Let us pass on to something more important, the quite apparent fact that the Imperator fabricated his A.M.O.R.C. from start to finish, despite the fantastic story of a charter he is supposed to have received in Toulouse in 1915 and whose alleged signatory has never been found. Later on he came in contact with the many organizations run by the famous Aleister Crowley one of whose lieutenants he in some way became, which shows clearly that the passage from 'pseudo-initiation' to 'counter-initiation' is often only too easy... Calling Crowley a 'black magician' certainly does not amount to 'defamation', since he was in fact 'officially' recognized as such in a judgment delivered against him in London a few years ago. Nonetheless, from a completely impartial standpoint let us say that this charge would only be supported by more solid arguments than those put forth by Dr Clymer, who even displays a rather surprising ignorance of symbolism. We have often explained that the same symbols can be taken in an opposite sense; what matters in such cases is the intention
1. In English in the original text. Ed.
behind their use and the interpretation given them, but obviously that could not be recognized from their external aspect, which does not change; it is even an elementary skill on the part of a 'black magician' to make the most he can from such ambiguity. The downright 'plagiarisms' abundant in Crowley's writings, as, for example, his emblem of the dove of the Grail, which comes directly from Péladan, must also be taken into account. What is especially curious about Dr Clymer is what could be called an obsession with the inverted triangle. He does not seem to suspect that in the most orthodox symbolism this image has important meanings, which we may perhaps explain one day; and how is it that he does not at least know that this triangle figures in the high ranks of Scottish Masonry, where there is most certainly no trace of 'black magic'? One problem we admit we are unable to resolve is that of knowing how a sash worn 'around the neck' could possibly not be pointing downward; but we do not think that anyone before Dr Clymer had ever thought of seeing the figure of an inverted triangle in the form of such a sash (or of a canon's vestment, if one prefers). Neither need one draw much of an inference, except as an example of 'forgery', from the fact that the leaders of pseudo-Masonic organizations draw a triple cross before their signature solely to imitate the members of authentic Supreme Councils; this has nothing to do with a 'symbol of the Antichrist'! Crowley, and later the Imperator, use a cross overloaded with various signs, but a closer examination reveals on the whole only Hebrew letters, alchemical and astrological symbols, all things that are neither original nor characteristic; and since the signs of the four elements appear among them, how could one not find inverted triangles? There is also a so-called 'black cock', the appearance of which may seem more 'sinister' at first sight, but this too is quite simply... the rather faithful reproduction of one of those strange composite figures that archeologists call 'gryllus', of which the origin is rightly or wrongly attributed to the Basilidian Gnostics. Let us point out that the 'gryllus' in question was published in the collection of Rossi and Maffai, Gemme antiche, vol. I, no. 21, and reproduced in Matter's Histoire critique du Gnosticisme, plate if, figure 2b. All this proves only one thing: that one should always make sure of knowing exactly what one is talking about, and that it is imprudent to let oneself be led by the imagination. But enough on these 'curiosities'... As for certain more or less bogus methods of 'advertising' denounced by Dr Clymer, it goes without saying that we fully agree with him on that point; but does he himself remember-although this was around a quarter of a century ago-a little
journal entitled The Egyptian, containing announcements of which the style hardly differed from this?
We shall dwell more briefly on the 'historical' aspect of the book, at least for the time being. Let us note first of all that the Militia Crucifera Evangelica, which is one of the 'origins' Dr Clymer relies on, was a specifically Lutheran, and not a Rosicrucian or initiatic organization. Furthermore, it is doubtful that its recent American 'reconstitution' could claim a genuine filiation, for between 1598 and 1901 there is a break which seems rather difficult to fill... Georges Lippard, a little-known author of certain works of fiction with almost solely political and social themes, is included among the authorities cited, some chapters of whose works are reproduced here, and in which he presents would-be members of the Rose-Cross, concerning whom all one can say is that they appear much less as initiates than as simple conspirators. Yet this is the basis for the entire history of an introduction of the Order in America in the eighteenth century. Without meaning to appear too difficult, one could certainly hope for something better! As a more certain 'connection', what finally remains after all this are the ties binding Dr Clymer and his organization to P. B. Randolph and his successors. Can this be considered as constituting a sufficient and truly valid guarantee, especially from the Rosicrucian point of view, which is what it is supposed to be? We shall not answer this question now, although our readers can easily guess what we really think. To end, we shall simply mention a chapter dedicated to Randolph's relationships with some of his contemporaries (and incidentally let us note a rather remarkable error: the work on Eliphas Lévi by our director Paul Chacornac is attributed here to... Paul Redonnel), and as this story is not without a certain interest, we shall perhaps come back to it on another occasion.
Dr R. Swinburne Clymer, The Rosicrucian Fraternity in America, Vol. II, (Quakertown, PA: 'The Rosicrucian Foundation'). We previously reviewed (April 1937) the first volume of this work, but until now circumstances have prevented us from reviewing the second volume, which is truly enormous (almost a thousand pages!). Dr Clymer's main adversary, the Imperator of A.M.O.R.C., has died meanwhile, but clearly this in no way decreases the interest this work presents from a particular point of view, since it is a question of a typical case of pseudo-initiatic charlatanism, to which also have been added influences of a still more suspect character, as we have already explained. As others before us have noted, Dr
Clymer does great harm to his cause by too often using an 'argotic' and abusive language, of which the least one can say is that it lacks dignity, but this is no concern of ours, for we are not at all inclined to take part in such a quarrel. Whatever one may think of the merits of its claims, Dr Clymer's account is in any case 'instructive' in many respects. We see for example how, among other things, a lawyer can reach an agreement with his opponent for the purpose of settling a matter unknown to his client, and to the detriment of the latter's interests. Unfortunately, it is likely that such morals are not peculiar to America! Let us repeat that it is really difficult to understand how organizations claiming to be initiatic can carry their disputes before a secular jurisdiction in this way. Even if they are not really initiatic, the case does not change, for in all logic they should at least behave as if they indeed were what they wish to appear. One of two things necessarily happens: either the judge is himself secular and so incompetent by definition, or he is a Mason, and, since Masonic questions are themselves implicated, he finds himself in a rather false and singularly embarrassing position between his obligations of initiatic discretion and the duties of his public charge.... Concerning the questions just mentioned, we should say that Dr Clymer has quite peculiar ideas regarding Masonic regularity. Of two equally irregular organizations, both of the same origin, he has only praise for one, while heaping abuse and denunciations on the other, his reason quite simply being that the first has adhered to his own 'Federation' and the second to the rival 'Federation'. But such contemptible motives do not prevent the documentation concerning the latter, the F.U.D.O.S.I. (or Federation Universalis Dirigens Ordines Societatesque Initiatis [what Latin!]), from being one of the most interesting parts of the book-always from the same point of view. The intrigues of these so-called 'fraternal' circles are most edifying! The book also contains old knowledge, including some survivals from the old French occultist movement, that seems bent on not disappearing altogether... Naturally, we again find Theodore Reuss, alias 'Frater Peregrinus', Aleister Crowley, and their O.T.O, not to mention many other no less strange individuals (real and imaginary), and groups that are no less strange. We cannot summarize everything found here, but taken in its entirety it constitutes an important collection of documents that should be consulted by anyone who proposes to detail the fantastic history of modern pseudo-initiations.
Emile Dermenghem, Joseph de Maistre mystique [Joseph de Maistre Mystic] (Paris: 'La Colombe'). A new revised edition of this book has just come out, to which have been added numerous notes clarifying certain points and indicating works devoted to related questions that have appeared since its first publication. For those of our readers who still do not know this work, we would say that it summarizes as completely as possible Joseph de Maistre's Masonic career, his links with initiatic organizations connected to the Masonry of his time and with various individuals belonging to these organizations, and the considerable influence that the doctrines exercised on his thought. The whole is very interesting, and all the more so given that de Maistre's religious and social ideas have most often been very poorly understood, indeed sometimes even entirely misrepresented and interpreted in a sense in that in no way corresponds to his true intentions. Knowledge of the influences in question could alone set the record straight. Our main criticism is in short that which bears on the title itself, for in truth we see nothing 'mystical' in all this, and even when de Maistre held himself aloof from all activity of the initiatic order, it does not appear that he ever turned to mysticism as others sometimes did. It does not even appear that he had a real change of orientation, but a simple attitude of reserve that he considered, rightly or wrongly, to be imposed on him by his diplomatic functions. But dare we hope that the confusion between the initiatic and mystic domains may ever be entirely dispelled in some minds?
Pierre de Dienval, La Clé des Songes [The Key to Dreams] (Paris: Imprimerie Centrale de la Bourse). - 'The world we live in is much more deceptive than a stage set.' Indeed, nothing is more true, but is it so in precisely the way the author contends? According to his theory there exists a certain 'monetary secret', which in his opinion is the true 'philosopher's stone' held simultaneously by two groups of 'initiates', one English and the other Jewish, who contest for occult domination of the world, although they occasionally enter into alliance against a third party. This secret is supposed to be that of Masonry, taken to be nothing essentially but an instrument created by the English group to ensure its influence in all countries. Oddly enough, tat first glance these ideas remind us of those expressed earlier in the works of the Hiéron of Paray-le-Monial and Francis André (Mme Bessonnet-Favre). This similarity extends to more particular points, including many historical or so-called historical considerations: the role attributed to the Templars and to Joan of Arc, the
self-styled 'Celtism' represented by the 'French'(?) race, and so on. There is an essential difference however, for this book, far from being Catholic in spirit, is quite explicitly irreligious. Carried away by his anti-Judaism, not only does the author furiously deny the divine inspiration of the Bible (which, he says, 'is not in the least a religious book in the sense that the French attach to this word'... as though there could be a specifically 'French' conception of religion!), but it is also quite obvious that for him all religion is wholly human... and political. Furthermore, he coolly considers the hypothesis that the role which until now has been played by Masonry is to be imparted to the Catholic Church, thanks to the 'domestication of the Pope' [sic]. Moreover, judging from what he says, this is already supposed to have partially realized. Thus he denounces the canonization of Joan of Arc (which, according to him, wrongly deprives her of 'her character as a national heroine), as 'a maneuver carried out with the hateful assistance of the official leaders of the Catholic Church, who have progressively defected to serve the occult masters of England.' But let us leave this aside and rather than waste time pointing out the all too numerous pseudo-historical fantasies the book contains, instead focus on the essential. First, it is obvious that the author has not the slightest notion of what initiation is. If the 'high initiates' (whom he imagines as forming a 'superior committee', probably on the pattern of the administrators of a financial firm) had no concerns other than those he ascribes to them, they would simply be completely profane. Furthermore, the socalled 'secret', as he describes it, is of childish simplicity, as he himself recognizes. If this were indeed the case, how could this 'secret' have been so well kept and how is it that many others through the ages did not discover it just as he did? For in fact it is only a matter of an elementary law concerning modifications. The author even gives a graphic picture of it in which, amusingly enough, he tries to find the explanation of the 'equilateral triangle intertwined with a compass'(?) which he believes to be 'the emblem of Masonry' (which, by the way, was not 'founded by Ashmole in 1646')-here is something which is hardly ordinary as symbolism, to say the least! We are far from contesting that there is, or was, a traditional 'monetary science' and that this science has its secrets, but these secrets have nothing to do with the 'philosopher's stone' and are of an entirely different nature than what we see here. Moreover, by endlessly repeating that money is a purely 'material' and 'quantitative' thing, one adopts precisely the same outlook as those one imagines one has targeted, and who in reality destroy both this traditional science as well as
any other kind of knowledge having the same character, since it is these very people who have deprived the modern mentality of any notion going beyond the field of 'matter' and 'quantity'. Even though they are not 'initiates' (for they in fact belong to the domain of 'counter-initiation'), these people are in no way fooled by the 'materialism' which they have imposed upon the modern world for ends having nothing to do with 'economics'. Whatever instruments they may use according to the circumstances, they are slightly more difficult to detect than any 'committee' or a 'group' composed of Englishmen or Jews... As for the real 'monetary science', we shall simply say that if it were of a 'material' order it would be perfectly incomprehensible that for as long as it had a real existence the questions pertaining thereto were not left to the discretion of the temporal power-how could it ever have been accused of 'altering the currencies' if it had been sovereign in this respect?-but, on the contrary, subject to the control of a spiritual authority (we have addressed this point in Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power). This control was manifest in the mark of which one can find a last misunderstood vestige in the inscriptions that figured not so long ago on the rim of coins. But how to explain this to someone who pushes 'nationalism' (yet another of those suggestions aimed at the systematic destruction of all traditional spirit) to the point of indulging in a pompous eulogy of Philip the Fair? Furthermore, it is a mistake to say that the 'monetary' metals do not have an intrinsic value in themselves; and if their value is essentially symbolic (gold and silver, Sun and Moon), it is only so much the more real, for it is only through symbolism that things in this world are connected to the higher realities. To these fundamental objections we must add some rather odd observations: the chapter dedicated to the 'Intelligence Service' is extremely disappointing, not to say disturbing, for although it contains some clever but nonetheless hypothetical constructions, especially as regards the Dreyfus affair, there is no mention of one single precise and certain fact, even those of public notoriety, although there is no dearth thereof, and despite a vast array of choices... On the other hand, the author refers us to an earlier study that he devoted to related questions. How is it that this fierce anti-Mason brought out this study in a publication of which the Masonic connections are perfectly well-known to us? We do not mean to impugn anyone's sincerity here, because we only know too well how many people are 'led' without their knowledge. But we must consider this book as yet another of those more likely to mislead than enlighten. From our entirely impartial point of view we
cannot but acknowledge the fact that books of this sort are on the increase these days, and in abnormal and rather disturbing proportions... Whatever the case may be, the best proof that the author never really laid his hands on the 'great arcanum' that he believes he is revealing, is the simple fact that his book could appear without hindrance!
Alfred Dodd, Shakespeare, Creator of Freemasonry (London: Rider and Co.) - A few years ago the author of this book published an edition of Shakespeare's sonnets with the aim of restoring their initial order and proving that they are in fact the 'personal' poems of Francis Bacon, who, according to the author, was Queen Elizabeth's son. Furthermore, Lord Saint-Alban, that is to say this same Bacon, was said to have been the author of modern Masonic ritual and the first Grand-Master of Masonry. This book, on the other hand, no longer deals with the question of Shakespeare's identity, which has and still does provoke so much controversy; rather, it concentrates on showing that, whoever he may have been, Shakespeare introduced numerous references to Masonry into his works in a more or less hidden manner that is sometimes completely cryptographic. In truth, this is not surprising to those who do not accept the very 'simplistic' opinion according to which Masonry is supposed to have been wholly created at the beginning of the eighteenth century, but the author's 'decipherings' are not equally convincing, particularly the initials, except when they are clearly presented in groups forming abbreviations whose Masonic usage is well-known and which can of course be understood according to more or less plausible multiple interpretations. Yet even when the dubious cases are discarded a sufficient number still seem to remain to prove that the author is right concerning this specific part of his thesis. Unfortunately, the case is entirely different when it comes to the excessive consequences he wishes to draw in believing that he has thereby discovered the 'founder of modern Masonry'. If Shakespeare, or the character known under this name, was a Mason, he must necessarily have been an operative Mason (which in no way means a worker), for the foundation of the Grand Lodge of England really marks the beginning, not of Masonry without epithet, but of the 'lessening'-if one may put it so-that is modern or speculative Masonry. However, in order to understand this we should not set out with the peculiar preconceived idea that operative Masonry was something quite similar to our present-day 'trade unions' and that the sole preoccupation of its members was 'matters of wages and working-hours'! Obviously, the author
has not the least idea of the mentality and knowledge of the Middle Ages, and what is more, he goes against all the historical facts when he declares that operative Masonry ceased to exist as early as the fifteenth century and accordingly could not have maintained any continuity with speculative Masonry, even if according to his hypothesis the latter dates back to the end of the sixteenth century. We fail to see why certain edicts would have been more effective against Masonry in England than similar edicts were in France against the Guilds, and whether one likes it or not the fact remains that operative Lodges have existed before and even after 1717. This way of looking at things leads to many other improbabilities. Thus, the manuscripts of the Old Charges are said to be fakes fabricated by the same persons who are supposed to have composed the ritual so as to mislead investigations and lead us to a belief in a nonexistent filiation, so as to conceal their real aim of reviving the ancient mysteries under a modernized form. The author does not realize that this opinion, which amounts to denying the existence of a regular transmission and admitting in its place only an 'ideal' reconstitution, would thereby deprive Masonry of all true initiatic value! We pass over his remarks regarding the 'illiterate workers' who would have exclusively made up the membership of the old operative Masonry, whereas in reality the latter always 'accepted' members who were neither laborers nor illiterates (in each of the Lodges, it was in any event obligatory to have at least an ecclesiastic and a doctor). Moreover, how could the fact of not knowing how to read or write (understood literally and not symbolically, which is of absolutely no importance from the initiatic point of view) possibly keep someone from learning and practicing a ritual which clearly was never meant to be committed to writing? If we are to believe the author, it would seem that the medieval English builders did not even possess any kind of language through which they could communicate! Even if it is true that the terms and the phrases of the ritual in its present form carry the mark of the Elizabethan period, this in no way proves that it is not simply a new version made at the time from a much more ancient ritual, and subsequently preserved just as it was, because the language has not undergone any notable changes since that time. To claim that the ritual does not go back any further is a little like trying to uphold that the Bible also dates from the same period by citing as a support the style of the 'authorized version' which, by a curious coincidence, is also attributed by some to Bacon, who, let it be said in passing, would have had to live a very long time to write everything attributed to him. The author is perfectly right
in thinking that 'Masonic questions ought to be looked into masonically', but it is precisely for this very reason that he himself should above all have avoided the prejudice about 'great men', which is essentially profane. If Masonry is really an initiatic organization, it cannot have been 'invented' at a given moment and its ritual could not possibly be the work of one particular individual (or for that matter of a 'committee' or any group whatsoever); that this individual is a renowned writer and even a 'genius' makes absolutely no difference. As for saying that Shakespeare would not have dared insert Masonic references into his plays had he not as founder been above the obligation of secrecy, this is a very poor reason, especially if one reflects that many others besides Shakespeare have done the same thing and even more openly: the Masonic character of Mozart's Magic Flute, for example, is certainly much more obvious than that of the Tempest... Another point on which the author seems to entertain a number of illusions is the value of the knowledge the founders of the Grand Lodge of England could have possessed. It is true that Anderson took care to conceal many things, and perhaps 'by order' rather than on his own initiative, and for ends that were assuredly not initiatic; and if the Grand Lodge really kept certain secrets concerning the origin of Masonry, how can we explain that numerous historians, who were its distinguished members, showed such complete ignorance in this regard? Moreover, two or three remarks on details will succeed in showing how wrong it is not to be sufficiently wary of the imagination (and perhaps also of certain 'psychic' revelations to which the former work of the same author discreetly seemed to refer). Thus regarding a passage by Anderson there is no need to wonder 'what is the degree that makes an Expert Brother' as though some mystery were involved (the author's ideas about the high grades are quite fanciful moreover), for at the time the expression Expert Brother was simply used as a synonym for Fellow Craft; the Companion was an 'expert' in the Latin sense of the word, whereas the Apprentice was not yet. The 'extraordinarily talented young man' Thomas de Quincey refers to is not Shakespeare or Bacon, but quite clearly Valentin Andreae, and the letters A. L. and A. D., followed by dates, figuring on a Royal Arch jewel, were surely not put there to form the words a lad, which would apply to the 'young man' in question. How, especially when one makes a 'specialty' of interpreting initials, can one not be aware that these letters mean nothing other than Anno Lucis and Anno Domini? We could point out many other things of the same kind, but we believe it is of little use to dwell on them. Let us just add that it is
rather difficult to know exactly what the author means by Rosicrosse Masons; he speaks of them as of a 'literary society', which, even were it secret, is something hardly initiatic. It is true that for him Masonry itself is only an 'ethical system' which scarcely goes any further and is not of a much more profound order. Can an organization whose biggest secret is nothing other than its founder's identity be taken seriously? Surely it is not by the name of any individuality whatsoever, even that of a 'great man', that any valid answer will ever be given to the question raised by a 'word' that has been distorted in so many different ways-a question which, curiously, reads even more clearly in Arabic than in Hebrew: Mâ al-Banna?
Mark Haven (annotated by), Rituel de la Maçonnerie Egyptienne de Cagliostro [Ritual of Cagliostro's Egyptian Masonry], including an introduction of Daniel Nazir (Nice: Éditions des Cahiers Astrologiques). Dr Marc Haven long intended to publish a complete edition of this Ritual, which constitutes an interesting document for the history of Masonry. Circumstances never allowed him to realize this project, nor to write the commentaries that should accompany it. His notes, which amount to very little indeed and hardly provide clarification, are in fact only pointers that he noted down for himself in planning this work. As to the introduction, it contains nothing new for those who know Marc Haven's works, consisting as it does entirely of extracts drawn from them, so that in the final analysis it is the text of the Ritual itself which provides all the interest of this volume. In sum, it is a matter of a whole 'system' of high grades insofar as they existed in the second half of the eighteenth century, and its division into three degrees, introducing a kind of parallelism with those of symbolic Masonry, arising from a conception of which one could find other examples. We need hardly add that in actual fact there is nothing 'Egyptian' there that could justify its name, unless we consider as such the pyramid figuring in certain paintings, without the least explanation being given as to its symbolism. We do not even come across a few of these pseudo-Egyptian fantasies found in other Rites, and which, around this time, were especially made fashionable, if one may say so, by Abbé Terrasson's Séthos. 2 Basically, the invocations contained in this Ritual, and
2. Jean Terrasson (1670-1750) was a Philosopher and Professor of Greek and Latin at the Collège Royal, as well as a Member of the Académie des Inscriptions. He published a philosophical novel Séthos. Ed.
especially the use made of the Psalms as well as the Hebraic names found there, give it a clearly Judeo-Christian character. What naturally presents itself in particular are the 'operations' which it would be interesting to compare with those of the Elect Cohens. The objective at which they aim is apparently quite similar, but the processes used are in many respects different. Here is something which is above all seems to be derived from 'ceremonial magic', and which, through the role that 'subjects' play therein (the children were designated 'Doves'), is also related to magnetism. From the strictly initiatic point of view, all this could certainly occasion serious objections. Another point calling for some comment is the character of the feminine grades: for the most part they retain the customary symbolism of the Masonry of adoption, but in truth this latter represents a mere pretence of initiation meant to give a semblance of satisfaction to the women who reproached Masonry for neglecting them, and in general it was hardly taken seriously, its role being limited to things of the wholly outward order, such as the organization of 'semi-profane' holidays and charitable work. It seems clear that, on the contrary, Cagliostro may have intended to confer a proper initiation on women, or at least what he considered to be such, for he had them participate in 'operations' quite similar to those of the masculine Lodges. This is not only an exception, but also, insofar as it concerns a Masonic Rite, a real 'irregularity'. If we wished to go into detail, other strange facts could be found, even in the masculine grades, for example the peculiar way in which the legend of Hiram is modified and explained, all of which would quite naturally lead to a question: like many others, Cagliostro obviously wanted to establish a particular system, whatever its proper value, basing himself on Masonry, but did he ever really have a sufficiently deep knowledge of Masonry to adapt it correctly? Perhaps Cagliostro's enthusiastic admirers would be indignant at such a doubt being raised, whereas his detractors would probably seek to infer excessive consequences against him. In our opinion, no one would have more grounds than the others, and there are many probabilities that the truth about this enigmatic character is not to be found in any of these extreme opinions.
Alice Joly, Un Mystique lyonnais et les secrets de la Franc-Maçonnerie (1730-1824) [A Mystic from Lyons and the Secrets of Freemasonry (17301824)] (Mâcon: Protat Frères) - This thick volume is a comprehensive biography of Jean-Baptiste Willermoz, very conscientiously done and seriously documented. However, it is not devoid of certain shortcomings
that are probably inevitable when one attempts to study matters of this kind from a purely profane point of view, as is the case here. To achieve true understanding in this order of things, it is certainly not enough to have a kind of outer sympathy, or a curiosity extending as far as the search for minute anecdotal details. We admire the patience involved in thus treating a subject for which one does not feel a deeper interest, but we admit that in place of an accumulation of pure and simple facts we would prefer a more 'synthetic' view enabling the meaning to be brought out, and also avoiding many errors and confusions. One such confusion is present in the title itself, which defines Willermoz as a 'mystic' whereas nothing of the sort emerges from what has been expounded in the book, and in any case the truth is that he was no 'mystic'. If one can blame him for seemingly abandoning the Elect Cohens, it is not at all because he turned toward mysticism like Saint-Martin, but only because he developed a more active interest in other initiatic organizations. Moreover, the author shows an obvious lack of 'technical' knowledge concerning the things of which she speaks, whence some peculiar errors. Thus, for example, she mistakes the different Masonic rites for so many 'societies'. She is unaware of the difference between a 'Grand Lodge and a Grand-Orient'. She designates 'rectification' as the connection of a Lodge to the Strict Observance, whereas this term on the contrary designates the change undergone by the Lodge of the Strict Observance itself, when the latter ceased to exist as such and was replaced by the one which, precisely for this reason, was called (and is still being called) the Rectified Scottish Rite, in the development of which Willermoz played a leading role. That said, we readily admit that this work contains a mine of information that will always come in handy when one wants to study the organizations in which Willermoz played a role. However, in our opinion the most important part concerns his interest in magnetism and the rather unfortunate consequences that resulted therefrom, for this was surely not the happiest episode of his career. Moreover, there is something remarkable in this story which calls for deeper reflection. Whatever one might think of Mesmer's character, on which the most contrasting opinions have been expressed, there is no doubt that he appears to have been deliberately 'instigated' to provoke a deviation among the Masonic organizations which, in spite of all they lacked in terms of effective knowledge, were still continuing their work seriously and doing their best to renew the link with the true tradition. Instead of that, the greatest part of their activity then came to be taken up by rather childish experiments which in any
case had nothing initiatic about them, not to mention the discords and dissensions that followed. The 'Society of Initiates' organized by Willermoz had no Masonic character as such, but due to the quality of its members, it nevertheless exercised a kind of guiding influence on the Lodges of Lyons, which influence was finally nothing but that of sleepwalkers who were consulted on everything. Under these circumstances it should come as no surprise that the results were so deplorable! It has always been our belief that the famous 'Unknown Agent' who dictated so many confused and often quite unintelligible lucubrations, was simply one of these sleepwalkers, and we recall having written this about Vulliaud's book in this same publication quite a few years ago. Mrs Joly brings further confirmation of this which can leave no room for any doubt, for she has succeeded in uncovering the identity of the person involved, Mrs de Vallière, sister of Commander de Monspey, through whom these messages were transmitted to Willermoz. The author's research will certainly not have been in vain even if it serves only to bring to light the final solution to this mystery and thereby puts a halt to certain 'occultist' legends. - Let us also add in passing that certain proper names are distorted in a rather curious way. We do not mean to speak of certain eighteenth-century characters, for we know the difficulties involved in establishing their exact spelling. But why are Vulliaud and Dermenghem constantly called 'Vulliand' and 'Dermenghen' in the references? Doubtless this is of no fundamental importance, but in the work of an 'archivist' it is nevertheless somewhat embarrassing...
Albert Lantoine, Les Sociétés secrètes actuelles en Europe et en Amérique [Contemporary Secret Societies in Europe and America] (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). This little volume, ready for publication in 1940 but delayed by circumstances for five years, belongs to a collection obviously intend for the 'general public', which explains its somewhat superficial character. It does have the merit of drawing an important distinction between 'initiatic secret societies' and 'political secret societies', whence its division into two parts that 'have nothing in common between them but the similarity of their names.' As for saying that the first are distinguished from the others in that 'the solidarity is not of the sentimental, but of the spiritual order,' this is certainly correct, although inadequate, seeing that here 'spiritual' seems to be conceived as a simple matter of 'thought', which is far from being the true initiatic point of view. In any case, the question is actually far more complex, and we take
the liberty of referring the reader to what we have said in our Perspectives on Initiation (chap. 12). On the other hand, it is quite impossible for us to share certain views on an alleged opposition between religion and anything that has a secret character in general, or an initiatic character in particular. A clear distinction between exoterism and esoterism suffices to put each thing in its place and does away with all opposition, for the truth is that two entirely different domains are involved. - The first part opens with a short chapter on 'minor initiatic societies', which the book could have done without, for the few particulars it contains are taken from very secular sources, and moreover it includes a rather unfortunate statement that seems to accept the claims of pseudo-initiatic organizations of all kinds. It is certainly not because a group enacts a sham or parody of initiation that it has 'the right to call itself initiatic'! Let us immediately add that the chapter on the Compagnonnage, although containing nothing incorrect, is regrettably insufficient. Is it because it is looked upon rather as a 'thing of the past', and therefore 'not current', that it is not granted more space in the book? What is more interesting and better done is the summary of Masonry in Europe and especially in France, no doubt because it is the author's 'speciality' as it were; but as regards the origins, it is terribly simplified. And why always the fear of going back beyond 1717? As for American Masonry, the author clearly has inadequate knowledge: concerning the high grades, in particular, he seems ignorant of the very existence of everything that is not the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, which however is very far from being the most widespread in the Anglo-Saxon countries. . . . Concerning America, we also find also some historical information on the Odd Fellows and the Knights of Pythias, as well as of certain Negro associations of which the character is poorly defined. Here again we encounter the regrettable tendency to believe that it is permissible to speak of initiation merely because admission is accompanied by 'ceremonies'. - The second part is devoted to 'political secret societies'. As regards Europe, the Irish societies, the Macedonian Comitajis, and the Croatian Ustashis are mentioned; for America, the 'Knights of Colombus, the 'Order of Hibernians', the Ku-Klux-Klan (about which he says very little), Jewish societies, and various other organizations of lesser importance. - The conclusion has a 'detached' tone, indeed even a slightly skeptical one, which is rather deceptive; but on the whole it is perhaps almost inevitable that this be so for those who, under the present state of Western initiatic organizations, which have not succeeded in discovering what initiation truly is.
André Lebey, La Vérité sur la Franc-Maçonnerie par des documents, avec le Secret du Triangle [The Truth about Freemasonry from some documents, with the Secret of the Triangle] (Paris: Editions Eugène Figuière) - This book is a collection of speeches given at the Grand ChapterHouse of the Grand-Orient of France. By simply gathering them together in this way with no added commentary the author's aim was to show what constitutes the works of the high grades, and in so doing correct the misconceptions that prevail among the general public. It would be out of the question to summarize or even enumerate here all the questions this book raises, but let us just point out that among the questions the author proposes as particularly important for the study of the Workshops of the high grades is that concerning the relations between East and West. He develops some interesting points on this question, even though one may find it regrettable that his knowledge of the East, which is so indirect, led him to attach excessive importance to certain contestable Western views, such as those of Spengler and Keyserling for example, or to the statements of a few Easterners who are much less 'representative' than he seems to believe. In this connection we may add that the idea of an entente between different civilizations based on the constitution of a 'new humanism' stretching far beyond the narrow limits of 'Greco-Roman culture' alone, albeit no doubt very laudable, will always appear as absolutely insufficient from the Eastern point of view, just as with anything referring to elements of a purely 'human' order. - The last chapter, 'The Secret of the Temple', is a reminder to Masons, who are too forgetful of these matters today, of links that are certainly more than 'ideal' (despite what certain people might say) connecting them with the Templars. This is only an abbreviated historical outline but it is nonetheless very much worthy of interest. As the author says (and even if there may have been something else of which this was merely a consequence), there seems to be no doubt that the Templars did indeed possess a 'great secret of reconciliation' between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As we have already said on another occasion, is it not true that they drank the same 'wine' as the Kabbalists and the Sufis, and that Boccacio, their heir as the 'Faithful of Love', did he not assert through Melchizedek that the truth of the three religions is indisputable... because they are but one in their deepest essence?
Giuseppe Leti and Louis Lachat, L'Êsotérisme à la scène: La Flûte Enchantée; Parsifal; Faust (Lyons: Derain et Raclet). Esoterism on Stage: The Magic Flute; Parsifal; Faust. - The title of this book is perhaps not
sufficiently precise, for the three plays studied are considered (or at least such was the author's intention) from the point of view of Masonic symbolism in particular rather than that of esoterism in general. Moreover, we see something that can immediately give rise to an objection, for if the Masonic character of the Magic Flute is well-known and incontestable, such is not the case with the other two plays; and if we can at least assert that, like Mozart, Goethe was a Mason, the same cannot be said of Wagner. It seems that if Parsifal contains points of comparison with Masonic symbolism, this derives from the legend of the Grail itself, or from the mediaeval 'current' to which it is connected, much more than from Wagner's adaptation, for Wagner was not necessarily conscious of its original initiatic character, which he is sometimes even blamed for having altered by replacing it with a nebulous mysticism. In short, all the similarities the authors indicate can be explained by what they call the 'Hermetic heritage', of Masonry, which fully corresponds with what we have just said. Besides, they too often mix together vague considerations unrelated to symbolism or esoterism, but only to an 'ideology' which, even if it represents their conception of Masonry, is certainly in no way inherent to Masonry itself, even having been introduced in certain of its branches as a result of the degeneration of which we have often spoken. As for Goethe's case, it is rather complex. There is good reason to consider more closely to what extent his poem Faust is really 'marked with the Masonic spirit', to use the words of a critic here cited, for whom the 'Masonic spirit' was ultimately probably nothing more than the public generally believes it to be. It is surely more questionable than in the case of the other works by the same author, such as Wilhelm Meister or the enigmatic tale of the Green Snake. Strictly speaking, Faust as a whole is a somewhat 'chaotic' work, containing parts that show a rather anti-traditional inspiration. The influences at work on Goethe were doubtless not exclusively Masonic, and it would certainly be worthwhile to try to determine them more precisely... As for the rest, the present book contains many interesting observations, but all this needs to be clarified and put in order, and that can only be done by someone not affected, as the authors obviously are, by 'progressivist' and 'humanitarian' modern ideas that are the exact opposite of all true esoterism.
Pierre de Lhermier, Le mystérieux Comte de Saint-Germain, Rose-Croix et diplomate [The Mysterious Count of Saint-Germain, Rosicrucian and Diplomat] (Paris: Editions Colbert). This book, published posthumously, is a
rather superficial historical study which in truth sheds little light on the 'mystery' in question. Lhermier summarizes the many hypotheses which have been put forward regarding the Count of Saint-Germain; while he does not decide in favor of any of them, he nevertheless seems inclined to the view that he may have belonged to the Stuart family, or at least to their entourage. One of the reasons he gives rests on a rather astonishing confusion: 'Saint-Germain was a Rosicrucian, he writes verbatim, that is to say he belonged to Scottish Rite Freemasonry with Catholic and Stuartist tendencies. . . .' Need we add that 'Jacobite' Masonry was in no way the Scottish Rite and did not involve any Rose-Cross grade, and, moreover, that in spite of its title this grade has nothing to do with the Rosicrucianism of which Saint-Germain would have been one of the last known representatives? The greater part of the volume is devoted to an account sprinkled with various anecdotes of travels during the course of which the hero is said to have carried out various secret political and financial missions on behalf of Louis XV. Again, there are many doubtful points in all of this, and in any case, it represents only the most exterior aspect of this enigmatic life. Let us also note author's belief that certain extraordinary claims made for Saint-Germain, especially the age attributed to him, should really be attributed to an impostor called Gauve, who passed himself off as Saint-Germain, it seems at the instigation of the Duke of Choiseul, who thereby wished to discredit a man whom he saw as a dangerous rival. But let us pass over the identification of Saint-Germain with various other mysterious individuals, as also over many other more or less hypothetical matters. But we must at the very least point out that on the strength of rather vague information, a kind of 'pantheist' and 'materialist' philosophy that would certainly have nothing initiatic about it, is attributed to him! In the final pages the author returns to what he calls the 'Rosicrucian sect', in a way that seems in sort to contradict the assertion noted above, and since he invokes such 'sources' such as Mrs Besant and F. Wittemans, indeed even Spencer Lewis, Imperator of A.M.O.R.C. (not to mention a certain 'Fr Syntheticus, occultist writer whose work was law'[!]), we certainly need not be astonished at the above incredibly confused ideas above, nor at the fact that even from the historical point of view to which he wishes to adhere, what he says hardly respects the truth. This proves yet again that a measure of skepticism is not always the best protection against the danger of too easily accepting the worst of fantasies, and that traditional knowledge, even if only of an elementary order, is assuredly much more efficacious in this respect.
Jean Mallinger, Pythagore et les Mystères [Pythagoras and the Mysteries] (Paris: Editions Niclaus). Once we know that the author of this book was one of the promoters of the F. U. D. O. S. I., which we discussed recently (issue of May 1946), certain things become clear which might otherwise have remained rather enigmatic. Thus the dedication to the memory of the chief of the 'Pythagoreans' of Belgium is easily understood; the latter, in fact, form an 'Order of Hermes Trismegistus' (a denomination which certainly has nothing specifically Pythagorean) which was one of the first to join the aforesaid F. U. D. O. S. I. Thus, what is normally called the 'primordial state' is here called the 'ancient and original state'; now this is no mere oddity of language, as an uninformed reader might believe, but a discreet way of referring to the title of an irregular Masonic organization of which Mallinger is one of the dignitaries. If he had belonged to another such organization, he would doubtless also say 'ancient and original state'! A curious diatribe against the 'Freemason's apron', which moreover is based on a confusion between two quite different things from the symbolic point of view, also seems due in reality to no more than a desire to make oneself stand out with regard to regular masonry... As for the very heart of the work, the properly historic part, that is to say the biography of Pythagoras according to known 'sources', all in all contributes nothing new. The facts are sometimes presented a little 'tendentiously', for example in assigning Pythagoras a very modern concern for 'propaganda', or in describing the organization of his Order in a way that makes one think that the social viewpoint was the result as it were of all the rest. The second part deals first with a question of the different kinds of mysteries that existed in Greece and elsewhere at the time of Pythagoras, and then with the Pythagorean mysteries. Here again, we suspect that to a certain extent the account is influenced by the idea that the author has formed of initiation, an idea strongly tinged with 'humanitarianism' and in which 'powers' also play an important role. And in spite of what he says elsewhere of the 'apostolic chain' [sic] and of the necessity of an 'immutable and traditional rite,' it is to be feared from the way he speaks of a 'return to Pythagoras' that he may still be one of those who believes a continuous and uninterrupted transmission is not indispensable to the validity of initiation. When he speaks of the 'permanence of the Order' and of 'its still perceptible heartbeat today', we may well wonder what exactly he means, especially when we know of so many occultists who think an initiatic 'chain' can be perpetuated wholly 'in the astral'!
Henri-Félix Marcy, Essai sur l'origine de la Franc-Maçonnerie et l'histoire du Grand Orient de France, vol. 1. Des origines à la fondation du Grand Orient de France (Paris: Éditions du Foyer Philosophique,). This is a conscientious work, but makes exclusive use of secular historical methods, which particularly in such a case cannot give entirely satisfactory results, if only because of the almost complete absence of written documents. The author's cast of mind is obviously quite 'rationalist', doubtless owing to his university education. Many things escape him, especially anything pertaining to the initiatic aspect of a question, and this is undoubtedly why the bond uniting Operative to Speculative Masonry appears very 'loose' to him, as he says at the outset. However, what follows in his exposition hardly justifies this assertion, for is he not at least one of those who, against all evidence, deny the existence of a direct filiation between the two, even if he underestimates the importance of the very effective-we could even say the quite essential-link constituted by symbolism. Having voiced these reservations, we should acknowledge that within the limits of the point of view adopted, this work carries a good deal of interesting information, especially in the chapter devoted to the history of medieval architecture, more precisely that of the period from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. A curious point to note is that the French 'masters of the work' [maitres d'oeuvre] seem to have had a leading part in the construction of the great cathedrals of other countries, whence the author believes he can conclude that Operative Masonry originated in France. This is certainly only a hypothesis, but it finds confirmation in the similarity shown between the organization of the German Hütten and the English and Scottish Lodges, whereas it is unlikely they had had direct links between them. There is perhaps some exaggeration here owing to a too exclusively 'national' perspective, but it is no less true that the 'legendary' account contained in certain English manuscripts of the Old Charges itself seems to suggest something of this kind, while dating it back to a period well before that of the 'Gothic' cathedrals. We shall add only that, even if one accepts that Operative Masonry was imported into England and Germany from France, this says nothing as to its very origin, since according to the same 'legends' it is said to have first come from the East to France, where it would presumably have been introduced by Byzantine architects. In this connection one could raise an important question that the author does not consider, and that no Masonic historian has tried to explain: this question is that of the possible 'survival' of operative Masonry in France
itself toward the end of the seventeenth century or the start of the eighteenth. In fact, given certain particularities by which the French rituals differ from the speculative English rituals and which can obviously come only from a 'source' prior to 1717 , one might wonder whether they have a direct operative origin or whether, as some think, they are attributable to a Scottish importation during the closing years of the seventeenth century. Both hypotheses are plausible, and there is an enigma here that has in fact never been resolved.
The following chapter first retraces, rather too briefly perhaps, what is known of the history of Operative Masonry in Scotland and England, where its traces are at least not lost at the end of the Middle Ages as they are on the Continent. It seems moreover that to the end it remained more 'alive' in Scotland than anywhere else. The author then explains how the supremacy acquired by the 'accepted' Masons, at least in certain Lodges, leads to the Constitution of Speculative Masonry in 1717, when four London Lodges combined to form the Grand Lodge of England, the Scottish Lodges remaining alongside them together with those in England which came under the ancient Lodge of York. Here the author must be specially commended for not being duped by the way the destruction in 1720 of the documents gathered over the previous years is usually presented. He observes that Anderson 'avoids giving full particulars on the destroyed manuscripts' and that 'his explanation of the causes of the destruction is obscure.' Without expressly saying so, he obviously thinks Anderson himself, along with his 'associates' Payne and Désaguliers, had something to do with this 'act of vandalism', to use Thory's expression. As he goes on to show, it is in fact quite clear that in acting thus the aim of the founders of speculative Masonry was not to prevent 'these papers falling into the hands of strangers' as has been claimed rather naively, but to dispose of everything that could furnish proof of the changes they had brought to the ancient Constitutions. And they have in any case not entirely succeeded, for there are presently a hundred known manuscripts on which they were unable to lay their hands and which thus escaped destruction.
To return to Anderson, in announcing his death 1739, a journal in described him as a 'very facetious companion,' which can be justified by the suspicious role he played in the speculative schism and by the fraudulent way he presented his drafting of the new Constitutions as conforming to documents 'extracted from the ancient archives.' A.E. Waite wrote of him that 'he is especially very capable at corrupting everything he
touches.' Is it known that at the conclusion of these events, some operative Lodges went so far as to decide henceforth not to admit anyone bearing the name of Anderson? When we realize that this is the man whose authority is cited by so many present-day Masons who consider him almost as the true founder of Masonry, or accept all the articles of his Constitutions as more or less authentic landmarks, we cannot help but find a certain irony in all this... If the author has seemed more clearsighted than many others concerning the Andersonian falsification, it is to be regretted that he has not been equally so regarding the origin of the grade of Master, which, following the commonly held opinion, he believes to be an innovation introduced only between 1723 and 1738. Doubtless one cannot demand too great a competence for things touching directly on ritual and symbolism from a pure historian.
The final chapter contains the history of the French Masonry that stemmed from the Grand Lodge of England, from its first appearance around 1725 or 1726 up to the death of the Count of Clermont in 1771. Naturally, the early days are the most obscure, and we find here an excellent explanation of the very controversial question regarding the first Grand-Masters. Ever since the astronomer Lalande published his 'Mémoire historique' in 1773, this question became so confused that it appeared insoluble. However, the succession seems definitely established at last, except that we should perhaps still add another name to the head of the list, that of the Duke of Wharton, who, between 1730 and 1735, appears to have exercised the functions of provincial Grand-Master for France in the name of the Grand Lodge of England, of which he had formerly been the Grand-Master. It is a pity that the author has not related the circumstances that led the Grand Orient in 1910 to suppress the first two names which until then had figured on the list of Grand-Masters, when a simple correction would have sufficed. What is rather amusing is that this suppression had no other cause than the pamphlets of a learned occultist adversary, who particularly excelled in 'faking' historical documents to have them say all he wanted. We observed this affair rather closely, and in spite of the time that has since elapsed, we have good reasons for never forgetting it, having ourselves had the privilege of being a target of hostility for the same person! As for what follows in the history of Masonry, the importance attributed to Ramsay's famous discourse is perhaps excessive, and in any case it is certainly incorrect to say that he 'expounds Masonic doctrine.' He expresses in fact only the particular conception formed of it by the author, concerning whom, let us note in
passing, he has given some very curious biographical details. What is true is only that this discourse subsequently exercised an incontestable influence on the formation of the high grades, but of course (and despite the fanciful legends spread in certain milieus) Ramsay himself and Fénelon had no hand in them. With regard to the high grades, we should say that in spite of the explanations given on some points, especially concerning dates, the history as a whole, which is sketched very briefly, remains confused; it is moreover extremely complicated, and it is quite possible that we may never succeed in clarifying it. Besides, when it is known that the first mention of such a grade is found in a document dated from such and such a year, are really much more knowledgeable as to its genuine origins? We shall not dwell on the other points, which are far more generally known, such as the harassment from government authorities to which the Masons had to submit on various occasions, the refusal in France to take notice of the condemnations issued by Rome, which the ecclesiastics themselves treated as non-existent, or the split brought on in the Grand-Lodge by the nomination of Lacorne as special substitute for the Count of Clermont, which leads us to the end of the period studied in this first volume. It is to be hoped that the second part of this work, which should contain the history of the Grand Orient, again brings a serious contribution to the study of these questions that have often been treated in so partial a way, in one sense or another, and sometimes also too imaginatively.
G. Persigout, Rosicrucisme et Cartésianisme: 'X Novembris 1619', Essai d'exégèse hermétique du Songe cartésien [Rosicrucianism and Cartesianism: 'to November 1619', An Hermetic Interpretation of the Cartesian Dream] (Paris: 'La Paix' Publications) - This booklet, representing only a fragment of a much longer work, is related to a question we have already discussed (April 1938 issue, pp155-156), in connection with an article of another author published in Mercure de France, and thus we need not repeat all the reasons which render inadmissible the hypothesis that Descartes received a Rosicrucian initiation. Besides, the author of the present study is not as emphatic as certain others, for he sometimes speaks merely of a 'Rosicrucian atmosphere' existing in Germany which could have influenced Descartes at a particular moment, the very one when he had his famous dream. Reduced to these proportions, the matter is surely much less unlikely, especially if one adds that on the whole this influence would have been only transitory and thereby very superficial.
However, this would not explain the different phases of the dream corresponding to initiatic ordeals, as these are matters that cannot be uncovered through mere imagination, except in occultists' reveries; but does such a correspondence really exist? In spite of all the ingenuity the author displays in his interpretations, we have to say that it is not very striking and even presents a regrettable omission, for with the best will in the world one really fails to see how the presentation of a melon can take the place of the ordeal by water. . . On the other hand, it is very unlikely that this dream is a mere fiction, which in fact would be more interesting since it would at least indicate a conscious symbolic intention by Descartes, imperfectly as he may have expressed it; in this case, he would have tried to give a disguised description of initiatic ordeals under this form-but again, what kind of initiation could it have been? Strictly speaking, the only thing that can be admitted with certainty is that he had been received-as was Leibnitz later on-into an organization of more or less Rosicrucian inspiration, from which he had subsequently withdrawn (and if such was the case, the rupture must have been rather violent, to judge by the tone of the dedication of 'Polybius the Cosmopolitan'). Still, it would be necessary that such an organization had already reached a very degenerate level for it to accept so unwisely such poorly 'qualified' candidates... However, all things considered, and for reasons that we have already expounded, it is our firm belief that in terms of Rosicrucian concepts, Descartes-whom it is really far too paradoxical to wish to defend against the imputation of 'rationalism'-probably knew nothing other than the ideas then current in the profane world, and that if he came under certain influences in a different way, either consciously or more likely unconsciously, the source of their emanation was in reality something quite different from an authentic and legitimate initiation. Is it not true that the very place held by his philosophy in the history of the modern deviation is ample indication to justify such a suspicion?
Léon de Poncins, Refusé par la Presse [Refused by the Press] (Editions Alexis Redier). - This volume is a sequel to Les Forces secrètes de la Révolution, which we previously reviewed here. Its title can be explained by the fact that its chapters, initially presented as separate articles to various journals and reviews, were not accepted by any of them. It would not be gracious on our part to criticize a work in which we ourselves have been quoted at length concerning the 'crisis of the modern world' and the problems pertaining thereto, and which even bears an epigraph taken
from our Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion. Let us only say that the author's special concerns, too exclusively political in our opinion, on occasion drive him to present passages from our writings in a way that does not exactly reflect our own intentions. Thus, in the passage he quotes on page 55 , we were in no way speaking there of Masonry.... However it is no less true that these quotations, made in a sympathetic spirit, are for us a pleasant change from the insults and heinous remarks of certain other 'anti-Masons'!
Léon de Poncins, La Mystérieuse Internationale Juive [The Mysterious Jewish International Society] (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne). - What we recently said here concerning La Guerre occulte [The Occult War], of which Léon de Poncins is one of the co-authors, regarding certain exaggerations about the role of Jews in the world and the necessity of making certain distinctions, is also valid for this new book. There is certainly much truth in what is expounded here regarding two 'Internationals', one revolutionary and the other financial, that in reality are probably much less opposed than a superficial observer might believe. But is all this, which is in any case part of a far vaster picture, really under the direction of Jews (it would be more accurate to say of certain Jews), or is it not rather used in reality by 'something' that goes beyond them? Moreover, we feel that it would be interesting to undertake a rather curious study on the reasons why a Jew, when unfaithful to his tradition, becomes more easily than anyone else the instrument of the 'influences' presiding over the modern deviation. In a way, it would be the reverse side of the 'Jewish mission', and this might lead quite far... The author is absolutely right to speak of a 'silent conspiracy' as regards certain questions. But how would it be if he came directly into contact with matters that are even much more truly 'mysterious' yet and to which, let us say in passing, the 'anti-Judeo-Masonic' publications are the first to be careful never to make the least reference?
J.-H. Probst-Biraben, Les Mystères des Templiers [The Mysteries of the Templars] (Éditions des Cahiers Astrologiques). For the most part the author of this volume reworks the contents of articles on the same subject which appeared some years ago in Mercure de France and which we previously discussed (see issue of October-November 1946). He makes every effort to define certain points and gives to the properly historic account a more 'consistent' development. And he does not seem disposed to relate
everything back to questions of financial operations (perhaps this way of looking at things was above all the fact of his departed colleague), but between the role of the Templars in the East and certain modern ideas of 'colonial politics' he draws a connection that seems to us quite deplorable, all the more so since he has gone so far to recall in this connection the case of European agents who entered into contact with Islamic turuq in order to devote their attention more thoroughly and with less risk to what we can only consider a common and contemptible work of espionage! It is also regrettable (not to mention the rather strange transcription of the Arab words) that he has not corrected various incorrect or contestable assertions. Thus he continues to take quite seriously the famous 'secret alphabet', without noticing the grave objection to its authenticity constituted by the distinction of the letters 'U' and 'V', as we have pointed out. And we cannot understand why he persists in calling the neo-Templar Maillard de Chambure a 'disinterested author'! Almost no changes have been made regarding the alleged idols and 'Baphomet', nor have the unusual explanations of von Hammer been further clarified; we shall content ourself with returning to what we have already said on all that. A more current section which is in our opinion perhaps the most interesting in the book, concerns the relations of the Order of the Temple with the workers' guilds, both eastern and western, and especially with the building guilds. Here are things which no doubt necessarily remain hypothetical to a certain extent but which are nonetheless quite plausible, and we think there would be every advantage in encouraging more thorough research in this direction. For reasons that we have pointed out elsewhere, it is above all in the realm of Hermeticism and the traditional sciences of the same order that chivalrous initiation and trade initiations quite naturally find themselves on common ground. With regard to Hermeticism, the author explains some symbols rather superficially, and as regards the 'graffiti' of the chateau of Chinon, despite some reservations, he really gives too much importance to the more or less bizarre interpretations of Paul le Cour. However we must at least commend him for having passed over in silence a certain inscription that the latter believed he had found there, and which, as we were able to observe ourselves on the spot, was entirely imaginary... A final chapter is devoted to the real or supposed 'inheritors and successors of the Temple'; we shall not go back over what is already sufficiently known on this subject, noting only the rather enigmatic history of the 'Gentlemen of the Temple' (this designation itself sounds somewhat strange and seems rather profane), whose
existence from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century is proved by the documents of various proceedings where they occurred. The fact that they were officially recognized makes unlikely the supposition that they had constituted a kind of 'third order' of authentic Templar filiation, and we confess we do not see what suggested the idea of a possible connection with the hypothetical Larmenius. Would it not simply be a question of some outer association, religious brotherhood or other, which would have been charged with administering certain goods having belonged to the Order of the Temple, and which would have taken the name by which it was known? As to the documents written in Latin and dating from the beginning of the nineteenth century of which the author had been informed, it seems quite clear to us from various details that they can only have originated from the Neo-Templars of Fabre-Palagrat (the mention of Cape Vert and other places in certain titles is pure fancy), and we do not see how there could be any doubt about it. Let us add that the initials V.D.S.A. do not mean Victorissimus Dominus Supreme Aulce(?), but Vive Dieu Saint Amour, the war cry of the Templars, appropriated by their alleged successors along with everything of which they could have had knowledge, in order to give themselves some appearance of authenticity. Having clearly mentioned this war cry elsewhere, how can one not see that the same thing is in question here? Be that as it may, this book certainly contains information interesting from more than one point of view, but much still remains to be done, even supposing it possible, to explain the 'mysteries of the Templars' definitively.
J.-H. Probst-Biraben, Rabelais and the Secrets of the Pantagruel. 3 (Nice: Éditions des Cahiers Astrologiques). - Rabelais' esoterism has often been discussed, though generally in rather vague terms, and we have to recognize that the subject is far from easy. Indeed, many passages in his works give the strong impression of a 'secret language' more or less comparable to that of the Fedeli d'Amore, but different in kind, so that a 'key' is necessary to translate it, although till now one has not been found. This question is closely related to that of the initiation Rabelais might
3. Rabelais (1483-1553)was a monk, physician, and humanist, whose satirical folk epic recounts the adventures of two giants, Gargantua and Pantagruel, who are father and son. They parody the vices and foolishness of people and institutions. His humor is at times so bawdy and his criticism of the Roman Catholic church so telling that it is difficult to believe that for most of his life he was a priest. Ed.
have received. That he was connected to Hermeticism does not appear to be in doubt, for the esoteric knowledge of which he gives proof obviously belongs to the 'cosmological' order and never seems to go beyond it, and so corresponds well to the specific domain of Hermeticism. But it would still be useful to know more exactly what current of Hermeticism is involved. This is a complex question, for at the time Hermeticists were divided into different schools, some of which had already deviated in a 'naturalist' direction. Without wishing to delve further into this question, we must say that opinions are rather divided precisely on the question of Rabelais' initiatic orthodoxy. Be that as it may, Probst-Biraben has shown himself very prudent, and as often happens in similar cases, one must know that his preference is not to be rushed into excessively hypothetical speculations. He has certainly not claimed to resolve all the enigmas, which would probably be impossible, but he has at least gathered many facts and evidence of all kinds in writing a book very worthy of interest. We shall say at once that the part we find least convincing as regards the esoteric provenance Rabelais' ideas is that concerning his social ideas, for we see no clear mark of an influence of this kind, and it is possible that they derive from an exoteric source, such as his Franciscan origins, so that his views on education may very well have been inspired for the most part by his worldly relations with contemporary 'humanists'. On the other hand-and this is much more important from our point of view-there appear his writings numerous symbols clearly deriving from Hermeticism, and the enumeration thereof is most curious and could lead to many comparisons. There are also scattered allusions to astrology, but, as one would expect, especially to alchemy, without taking into account everything that made the Pantagruel a veritable 'repertoire of conjectural sciences.' Let us observe in this regard that if one knew precisely to which schools the various individuals ridiculed by Rabelais belonged, we could perhaps to some extent ascertain, through contrast, that to which he himself could be linked, for it does seem that behind these criticisms there must be rivalries among esoteric schools. In any case, it is incontestable that he was very well able to distinguish between the common alchemy of the 'transmuters of gold' and true spiritual alchemy. One of the most extraordinary things, but also the most openly visible, are the descriptions of a clearly initiatic nature met with in the fifth book of the Pantagruel. It is true that certain people claim he did not write this book, because it was only published ten years after his death, but what is most likely is that he left it unfinished and that disciples or
friends completed it according to instructions received from him before his death, because it truly represents the normal crowning achievement of the entire body of work. Another particularly interesting question is that of the ties Rabelais had with 'craftsmen' and their initiatic organizations. His works contain many more or less disguised allusions to certain rites and signs of recognition, which are nonetheless quite clear to anyone who knows about these things, and which can hardly have any other provenance, for they have a very marked 'guild' character. And we shall add that it may very well also be from this quarter that he gathered the knowledge of the Pythagorean tradition, that seems to be indicated by the use he very frequently made of symbolic numbers. That he had been affiliated with some of these organizations in the role of chaplain is a very likely hypothesis, and it should not be forgotten moreover that there were always close links between the Hermetic and Craft initiations, which, despite differences of form, refer specifically to the same domain of the 'lesser mysteries'. On all such points Probst-Biraben's work contains extensive detailed information impossible to summarize here. This book will certainly not be read without great profit, and through its very moderation and the caution shown regarding rash interpretations, it should give food for thought to the university critics who deny esoterism, or at least to those among them whose prejudice in this respect is not quite irremediable.
Dr Gérard van Rijnberk, A Thaumaturge in the 18th century: Martines de Pasqually, His Life, His Work, His Order (Lyons: P. Derain and L. Raclet) - We gave an extensive review of the first volume of this work at the time of its publication; the second volume is on the whole a supplement deemed necessary by the author because of certain facts that subsequently came to his attention. He took this opportunity to complete the bibliography and reproduce in their entirety Martines' letters to Willermoz, currently preserved at the Lyons Library, of which only various fragments had so far been published. He cites articles in which we spoke of his book, but hardly seems to have understood our position, for he quite incredibly calls us an 'essayist', claiming that we 'strive to express original ideas and personal views'-the exact opposite of our intentions and our strictly traditional point of view. He finds 'astonishing' our remark that 'the Rectified Scottish Right is not a metamorphosis of the Elect Cohens, but really a derivation of the Strict Observance.' However, that is the simple truth, and anyone with even a vague idea of the history
and the constitution of Masonic rites cannot entertain the least doubt about this. Even if Willermoz, in drafting the instructions of certain grades, introduced some ideas more or less inspired by the teachings of Martines, this makes no difference as to the filiation or the general characteristic of the Rite involved. Moreover, the Rectified Right is in no way 'Templar Masonry', as van Rijnberk says, since on the contrary one of the main points of the 'rectification' consisted precisely in the repudiation of the Templar origin of Masonry.
In another rather strange chapter the author tries to clarify the filiation of 'Martinism', which in spite of everything still remains rather obscure and doubtful on certain points. Besides, aside from a purely historical point of view, the question does not have the importance some wish to ascribe to it, for it is in any case quite clear that what Saint-Martin could have transmitted to his disciples outside a regularly constituted organization should in no way be considered as having an initiatic character. On the other hand, an interesting point is made concerning the significance of the letters S. I.-usually interpreted as 'Unknown Superior' [Supérieur Inconnu]-which in fact had many usages: we have already remarked that in particular these are the initials of the 'Society of Independents' mentioned in the Crocodile, as well as Willermoz's 'Society of Initiates'. As van Rijnberk says, one could provide many examples of this kind; he himself notes that they are also the abbreviation of 'Sovereign Judge', the title of the members of the 'Sovereign Tribunal' of the Elect Cohens. We may add that in another Rite of the same period there was a grade of 'Enlightened Sage', and that in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite itself there is one of 'Intimate Secretary', which happens to be the sixth-which is a rather curious connection with the 'six points' (incidentally, amateurs of 'coincidences' may like to know that in the 'Strict Observance' the act of obedience to the 'Unknown Superiors' was also in six points!). But why did these two letters enjoy such privilege? The author is quite right in thinking that this is owed to their own symbolic value, which he glimpsed in reference to one of Khunrath's illustrations; but he forgot to make a distinction between two connected symbols that are nonetheless somewhat different: that of the 'bronze snake', which in fact gives the letters 'S. T.' (which are also the initials of 'Sovereign Tribunal'), and that wherein the tree or the stick around which the snake is coiled is represented solely by a vertical axis; it is this last that gives the letters 'S. I.' which figure in a different form in the snake and the arrow found on Cagliostro's seal. Since we have been led to speak of this subject,
we may add that fundamentally the letter 'S' represents multiplicity and the letter 'I' unity; and it is obvious that their respective correspondence with the snake and the axial tree are in perfect harmony with this meaning. It is quite true that there is something here that 'comes from a profound esoterism,' far deeper and more genuine than the Martinist 'Holy Initiation', which is definitely no more entitled to claim ownership of this ancient symbol than of the number 6 and the Seal of Solomon!
Dr Gérard van Rijnberk, Episodes de la vie ésotérique (1780-1824) [Episodes in the Esoteric Life] (Lyon: P. Derain). - This book includes many previously unpublished and very interesting documents that throw an interesting light on certain Masonic circles of the end of the eighteenth century, and on the way in which many ideas and practices spread which in reality had very little in common with true esoterism infiltrated these circles, and one might even wonder if perhaps they were not launched precisely in order to divert the attention of these circles from true esoterism in just the way we have already noted, particularly regarding magnetism, which certainly played a dominant role in all this. The main section of the book consists of extracts from the correspondence between J.-B. Willermoz and Prince Charles de Hesse-Cassel, both holders of the highest grades of various masonic Rites, and who both took an active interest, in slightly different but fundamentally equivalent ways, in these things which we have just mentioned. First of all, with regard to masonic Rites, van Rijnberk's commentaries contain some inaccuracies: thus he does not seem to know that the Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité Sainte [Merciful Knights of the Holy City] is the highest grade of the Rectified Scottish Rite, whose name he does not even mention (which is common to other authors who have spoken of Willermoz). Moreover, he seems to believe that Swedenborg, who in all probability was never a Mason, personally exerted an influence in Swedish Masonry, whereas all one can actually say in this respect is that some of his disciples spread certain of his ideas, and that by way of simple individual views. However, these questions have little place in the book, the most important part of which relates to magnetism, to 'revelations' by hypnotic subjects, and other things of this kind; it is naturally impossible to examine all this in detail, and we shall content ourselves with some general remarks.
Some comparisons clearly show that on many points, and especially as regards their descriptions of posthumous states, the hypnotic subjects were influenced, very likely unconsciously, by several contemporary
'mystical philosophers'. This certainly does not surprise us, for in our opinion it is rather the contrary that would have been surprising, but it is an observation that always bears noting. In addition to hypnotic subjects, and perhaps not always so clearly distinguishable from them, are what the author calls 'writer mediums', This is an anachronistic expression here, since it belongs to the vocabulary of spiritualism which only originated much later, and van Rijnberk sometimes uses the word spiritualism itself in a way that is obviously quite improper. What is true is that in a way magnetism prepared the way for spiritualism (it is even one of the reasons that renders it clearly suspect), and that hypnotic subjects were in a way the precursors of mediums; all the same there are notable differences which should be taken into account. Among these 'writer mediums', the one who no doubt played the most important role was Willermoz's 'Agent', on whom the occultists pin so many baseless legends and whose true identity Alice Joly has already discovered and made known. There were also other much less well-known cases of 'automatic writing', including that of Prince Charles of Hesse himself, which, contrary to those of Mme de Vallière, were produced independently of all hypnotic practice. Another point possibly closely connected with the former is that, according to certain passages in his writings, the Prince of Hesse admitted a kind of 'reincarnation', at least in specific cases. How he conceived this is not entirely clear however, so that it would be difficult to say whether it was really a question of reincarnation in the strict sense of the word, such as the spiritualists and Theosophists would later teach, but it is any case beyond doubt that it was at this time and in Germany, precisely, that this idea started to emerge. We shall not attempt to clarify van Rijnberk's own views on this subject, for he clearly shows the effect of 'neo-spiritualist' ideas, but we cannot help noting the rather amusing error that led him to confuse nirmāna with nirvāna! Again as to the Prince of Hesse, he performed bizarre phenomena, visions, or luminous manifestations (especially in connection with an image of Christ), to which he attributed an 'oracular' character and of which one can hardly determine to what extent they were 'objective' or merely 'subjective', to use the actual terminology.
Be that as it may, these phenomena, which seem to have been produced by 'works' accomplished according to the ritual of the Brother Initiates of Asia, call to mind rather closely the 'passes' of the Elect Cohens, among whom, it must be said, these things were also given an excessive importance. That they be taken, when they appear more or less accidentally, as
outward 'signs' of the acquisition of certain results is still admissible, but what is not in any way admissible, is to consider their achievement as the very aim of an initiatic organization, for it is quite impossible to see what real interest all this can have from the spiritual point of view. There would be much to say on this, for it is quite certain that the taste for extraordinary phenomena, to which is also connected the passion for hypnotic experiments, was then and subsequently remained for Westerners one of the principal stumbling-blocks for Westerners, diverting certain aspirations and preventing them from achieving their normal outcome. We shall add only that at the home of the Prince of Hesse the phenomena in question sometimes took on an extravagant aspect that at least they seemed never to have had among the Elect Cohens. And in the same order of ideas let us again mention the conjuring performances of von Wächter, whom the more accentuated allure of 'ceremonial magic' makes more particularly suspect, not to speak of the fabulous stories surrounding them, concerning which it is hard to know what they could serve to conceal.
The second section deals with certain 'enigmatic and mysterious individuals'. One chapter is devoted to the Marchioness of the Cross, who above all gives the impression of an unbalanced person, and another chapter deals with some aspects of the life of the Count of Saint-Germain, and more particularly his relationship with Prince Charles of Hesse. The most curious chapter retraces the turbulent career of Master Bernard Müller, an alchemist (or allegedly such) who assigned himself the mission of 'mouthpiece', to use his own expression, of a fantastic 'premillenniarism'. Having won the confidence of the celebrated Professor Molitor, he was introduced into German Masonic circles. He took advantage of this to establish relations with several princes, and was for a long time protected by Prince Charles of Hesse. Then, following various misadventures, he ended by emigrating with fifty disciples to America, where descendants of this group still remained a few years ago. - Van Rijnberk's conclusion seems to call for some reservations: like him, we think that men such as Willermoz and the Prince of Hesse were serious, sincere, and well-intentioned, but when he begins to 'follow their example,' it seems to us that this example should above all serve rather as a lesson to avoid committing the same faults as they did and not to let oneself be led astray from the straight initiatic path and authentic esoterism in order to embark on the pursuit of vain phantasmagorias.
Camille Savoire, Regards sur les Temples de la Franc-Maçonnerie [Concerning the Temples of Freemasonry] (Paris: 'Les Editions Initiatiques') - This book contains chapters of rather diverse character, some being 'autobiographical', where the author notably explains how he was slowly led to modify his ideas in a direction which brought them very much closer to the traditional spirit, others being more general in tenor, where he explains his way of considering Freemasonry from different points of view. The intention behind all this is surely excellent, but from a purely initiatic and symbolic point of view the reflections developed here remain somewhat 'external'. At the end of the book are reproduced various documents meant to give a more accurate idea of Masonry than the one generally in vogue in the profane world. An appendix indicates the reasons behind the awakening of the 'Reformed Regime', of which the author is the main promoter. 'A Masonic center preserved from all political influence,' as he puts it, is surely something extremely desirable in the present circumstances, if the last remaining vestiges of Western initiation are to be saved from irremediable loss... - And we take the liberty of pointing out a rather peculiar historical error (p282): L.-Cl. de Saint-Martin was never the 'canon of the Collegiate church' (of Lyon?), but an officer, and if he was a member of various Masonic rites, he did not found one himself. Moreover, there was never a 'Masonic system' under the authentic name of 'Martinism', the truth being that when Saint-Martin withdrew from the various organizations of which he had been a member it was in order to adopt an attitude that was much more mystical than initiatic, and certainly incompatible with the constitution of any 'Order' whatsoever.