Mercure de France
July 15, 1935 - This issue of contains an article entitled 'L'Infidélité des Francs-Maçons' [Masons' Unfaithfulness], under the pseudonym 'Inturbidus'. It offers some considerations which, while interesting, are not always entirely clear, especially regarding the distinction between sacerdotal, princely, and chivalrous, and finally craft, initiations, which generally correspond to the traditional organization of Western society during the Middle Ages and to the castes in India. It is not clear what exact place is assigned to it within Hermeticism, and it should be explained why, in spite of its craft forms, Masonry also carries the appellation 'royal art'. On the question of craft or guild initiations, the author cites at length Matila Ghyka's Nombre d'Or, but unfortunately the portion of this work dealing with the subject under consideration is certainly the one which calls for the most reservations, and the information it offers does not all come from the most reliable sources... Be that as it may, the question of taking the expression 'Masonic operative' in an exclusively guild sense is perhaps much too limited; the author, who nevertheless recognizes that this ancient Masonry has always admitted members who were not workers (which we would not necessarily render as 'non-operatives'), does not really appear to understand what they could do therein; does he know, for example, what a L'. of J.'. was? In truth, if Masonry has really degenerated into something merely 'speculative' (note that we say 'merely' in
order to indicate clearly that this change implies a diminution), it has done so in another sense and way than he thinks, which moreover does not preclude the correctness of certain of his reflections pertaining to the constitution of the Grand Lodge of England. In any case, by very definition Masonry, whether 'operative' or 'speculative', consists essentially in the use of symbolic forms used by the builders. 'To suppress the ritual of craft initiation,' as the author recommends, thus amounts quite simply to suppressing Masonry itself, which however he denies 'wanting to destroy,' while recognizing that it 'would thus break the initiatic transmission'really a bit of a contradiction. We understand clearly that in his opinion it is thus a question of substituting another initiatic organization; but first why would the latter, no longer having any real link of filiation with Masonry, recruit its members from among the Masons rather than from another milieu altogether? And then, since such an organization does not invent itself, at least humanly, and cannot be the product of merely individual initiatives (even if they came from persons 'finding themselves in an orthodox initiatic chain'), this would obviously not suffice to legitimize the creation of new ritualistic forms by the latter, whence would this organization come and to what would it effectively attach itself? Brief reflection on all this suffices to show how it gives rise to difficulties that are probably insoluble. We also remain skeptical about the realization of such a project, which is really not to the point... The true remedy for the present degeneration of Masonry, and doubtless the only one, would be quite different. It would be, supposing this were still possible, to alter the mentality of the Masons, or at least of those among them who are capable of understanding their own initiation, but to whom, it must be said, the opportunity has not been given up till now. Their number would matter little, moreover, for in the presence of a serious and really initiatic work, the 'non-qualified' elements would soon eliminate themselves, and with them, by very force of circumstance, the agents of the 'counter-initiation' whose role we have mentioned in the passage from Theosophy cited at the end of the article, would also disappear, for nothing could then set them in action. To implement a 'reform of Masonry in the traditional sense' is not a question of 'shooting for the moon,' despite what 'Inturbidus' says, or of building castles in the air; it would only be a matter of using the possibilities at our disposal, limited though they may be to start with. But in a time like ours, who will dare undertake such a task?
February, 1938 - The article 'Le Songe de Descartes' [Descartes' Dream] by Albert Shinz again raises a question that has already given rise to many more or less confused discussions-that of Descartes' supposed Rosicrucian affiliation. The only thing that does not seem in doubt is that the alleged Rosicrucian manifestos published in the first years of the seventeenth century aroused a certain curiosity in the philosopher, who, during his travels in Germany, sought contact with the authors, whom he simply took for 'new scholars', as he was not someone very 'informed'. These Rosicrucians, whoever they were (and in any case they were certainly not the 'authentic Rose-Croix', as maintained by Maritain, who published an article on the subject in the Revue Universelle of December 1920), appear not to have seen fit to satisfy his wish, and even if he did happen to meet someone, that person probably knew nothing. His frustration at this failure is clearly expressed in his dedication to a work entitled Thesaurus Mathematicus, which he proposed to write under the pseudonym 'Polybius le Cosmopolite', but which always remained an idea. It is worth translating this dedication in full in order that we may fully judge the matter:
A work in which is given the true means of resolving all the difficulties of this science, and showing that relative to it the human spirit cannot go any further; to cause hesitation in or to ridicule the temerity of those who promise new marvels in all the sciences, and at the same time to relieve the punishing fatigue of the Brothers of the Rose-Cross, who, entwined night and day in the Gordian knots of this science, waste the fuel of their genius. Dedicated again to the scholars of the whole world and especially to the very illustrious Rose-Cross Brothers of Germany.
What is quite astonishing is that some have wished to see in this a mark of 'Rosicrucianism'. How can one not sense all the spiteful and angry irony in such a dedication, not to speak of the obvious ignorance shown by the persistence of its author in comparing the Rosicrucians to scholars and profane 'seekers'? It is true that prejudice is sometimes combined with one thing or another, but in any case to unite Cartesianism and esoterism in a common admiration or in a common hatred, is to give proof-at least as regards esoterism-of considerable incomprehension! Descartes is certainly the very type of the profane philosopher, whose anti-traditional mentality is absolutely incompatible with all initiation. On the other hand, this is not to say that he may not have been susceptible to certain 'suggestions' of a suspect character; and could not this be
the most likely interpretation of the alleged 'illumination' which came to him in the guise of a rather incoherent and far-fetched dream?
August 1939-January 1940 - We must now return to the question of the Templars, for we have only now learned belatedly of a whole series of articles on the subject by J.-H. Probst-Biraben and A. Maitrot de la Motte-Capron, published in Mercure de France: (1) 'Les Templiers et leur alphabet secret' [The Templars and their Secret Alphabet (August 1, 1939); (2) 'Les Idoles des Chevaliers du Temple' [The Idols of the Knights Templar] (September 15, 1939; (3) 'Les coffrets mystérieux des Templiers' [The Mysterious Caskets of the Templars] (November 1, 1939); (4) 'Les Templiers et les Gardiens du Temple' [The Templars and the Guardians of the Temple] (December 1, 1939); (5) 'Le Roi de France et les Templiers' [The King of France and the Templars] (January 1, 1940).
(1) The authenticity of the 'secret alphabet' seems very doubtful to us, for it appears that no one has actually seen the ancient manuscripts where it is found, the whole of the story resting in fact on no more than the assertions of Father Grégoire and Maillard de Chambure. Moreover, we do not really see how the latter can be considered 'more serious' that the former, for if Father Grégoire received this information from the 'Neo-Templars', Maillard de Chambure was himself a member of this organization, so that the 'source' is the same and certainly hardly trustworthy. Besides, the complicated form of the cross that serves as 'key' to the alphabet in question is really that of the 'Neo-Templars', but it does not seem that it was ever in use among the true Templars. Another very suspicious detail is the distinction between the 'U' and the 'V', quite unknown to the Middle Ages, and we are amazed that the authors did not comment on this even while they were worrying about the presence of 'W', which after all could perhaps be more easily justified. Given these conditions, one might well wonder if it is really useful to engage in hypothetical 'speculation' on the symbolism of this alphabet, which doubtless has as much worth as Fabré-Palaprat's collection of 'relics'. Moreover, if it is a modern invention, it is very likely that the irregularities in the alphabetical order of the letters are in no way esoteric but have as their sole raison d'être to make the deciphering less easy. In any case, as regards the direction of rotation in which there is a desire to see 'a very marked Eastern
influence,' unfortunately, if it concerns the Islamic East, it happens that this would really be the exact opposite direction. From another point of view, it is remarkable that the authors seem to want to reduce the whole mystery of the Order of the Temple to a matter of financial operations, which would hardly be esoteric. Do they not go so far as to write in the following article that 'the real idol of the Templars was international financial power'? Let us also note two historical inaccuracies: Jacques de Molay did not die in 1312, but in 1314, and there never was a papal decision suppressing the Order of the Temple, which latter was only 'provisionally' suspended by the Council of Vienna.
(2) On the subject of the alleged 'idols', the testimonies obtained during the trial under conditions hardly allowing them to be regarded as valid, are mutually contradictory; it is possible that certain histories of 'heads' quite simply relate to reliquaries. In any case it goes without saying that, whatever Western ignorance may think, idols of any sort could in no way have been borrowed from an Islamic milieu, a point on which we are in full agreement with the authors. As for the famous 'Baphomet', whose name has given rise to many hypotheses, each as unsatisfactory as the next, we can in passing provide the explanation of von Hammer's so-called Bahumid. It is quite true that this word does not exist in Arabic, but it should in fact be read bahīmah, and, if this does not translate as 'calf' (an interpretation perhaps influenced more by the enigmatic Druse 'head of a calf' than by 'the bull Apis or the golden calf'), it is at least the general designation for all kinds of beasts. Now, it is in fact unlikely that 'Baphomet' derives from the Arabic bahīmah, which the interrogators at the trial could not have known, it could very well be that it derives from its Hebrew equivalent, namely, the biblical Behemoth, and perhaps there is no need to look further for the solution to this enigma.... As for the four statues which, according to the same von Hammer, were found in the office in Vienna (but what has become of them since 1818?), we do not see what leads them to be considered as 'Baphomet's'. Frankly, what can be made of these statues which, from their physiognomy, lead one to being described as 'Roman', one as 'Pharaonic', and the other two as 'Persian', although all carry Arabic inscriptions, very bad Arabic moreover if the given deciphering is
really correct? It must be recognized that there is something in all this that savors of deception, perhaps even more than in the case of the caskets in question earlier... We shall not linger in detail over the interpretation of the Arabic phrases, of which the reading itself is very doubtful, but will content ourselves with pointing out a factual error. While it is true that kentsah (and not kensen) means exclusively a Christian church (a Muslim uses this word as well as a Christian when he wishes to speak of this church, for there is no other word to designate it), but we cannot understand how it can be said that 'Maulana is never used,' for in many Islamic countries (there are others besides the Maghreb), it is on the contrary the term in current use for addressing Sovereigns, and even other respectable personages.
(3) The next question concerns the two famous caskets which figured in the collection of the Duke of Blacas (by what misfortune does it happen that they also have been lost?). As for the so-called 'Baphomets', nothing proves that they ever had the slightest link to the Templars. In the author's opinion it was simply a question of 'boxes of wild animals' used by Greek and Arab doctors. This explanation itself is quite plausible, but we shall not examine here the underlying interpretation of the figures which is on the whole as valid as any other even if it is not correct in all its details (thus, for example, we do not really see why in one place the same sign would indicate a number of ingredients, and in another a number of months or years). What is most curious are the questions that arise concerning the lid of one of the caskets. The symbolism is clearly alchemical (why do some still claim that the principal figure, which is in fact a Rebis, is a 'Baphomet'?), and here again we find inscriptions which, if they have been transcribed correctly, are written in an unimaginable Arabic, something that would not be too astonishing if we admit the authors' hypothesis that this cover, added later, was fashioned by Western alchemists toward the end of the Middle Ages or at the beginning of the Renaissance. The reasons for ascribing this late date to it are not clearly indicated, moreover, any more than are those for asserting that 'one does not see how a Templar could be interested in alchemy.' Quite independently of the question of the caskets, we could just as well say that we do not see why he would not be interested!
(4) The following article deals above all with the question of the possible relations between the Templars and the Ismailis, usually called 'Assassins'. The authors take needless pains to explain that it should be written Assacine, which does not represent a better transcription (the introduction of the mute e, in particular, is only a rather bizarre concession to French pronunciation); it also does not prevent the word 'assassin' from deriving therefrom rather than being a simple 'relationship through assonance'. This derivation does not of course indicate who the Ismailis really were, but merely indicates the common opinion of Westerners in their regard. The article ends with a number of contradictory assertions: why say that the Templars 'were not initiates' simply because it is unlikely they had received initiation from the Ismailis, as if they could not have had their own initiation, especially if it is admitted that they were 'Johannites'? It is also said that they had 'a profound knowledge of the symbolism of Near-Eastern and Mediterranean esoterism,' which scarcely accords with an absence of initiation, or with the wholly profane preoccupations elsewhere attributed to them. As for looking for proofs of this knowledge in the 'neo-Templar' alphabet, perhaps this is not a very solid argument despite the authors' concern not 'to exceed the limits of historical criticism.'
(5) Finally, the last article seems intended to justify everyone: the king of France, the Pope, the Templars, and the judges, each of whom would have had reasons for his own point of view. Without stressing the point, we shall be content to point out that the Templars are now presented as possessing not only a financial secret, but also a 'synarchic' secret, which is a little less grossly material (but is it really to place it in the ambiance of the fourteenth century by speaking here of a 'secular affair'?). Be that as it may, what in particular seems to result from these long studies is that it is really very difficult to know exactly where one stands regarding any of it!