Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes
November 1, 1931 - This issue of the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes ('occultist section') consists primarily of Dr G. Mariani's article 'Le Christ-Roi et le Roi du Monde' [The Christ-King and the King of the World], and contains many flattering words about us which conceal quite false insinuations. At least for the time being, we shall not detail all the points that need to be discussed, for there are too many, but shall confine ourselves to the most important. First, after the explanations we gave in our book, [6] is it possible to seriously contend that the 'King of the World' (a very exotic term indeed, as we carefully noted) is none other than the Princeps hujus mundi [Prince of this world] of the Gospel? Such is not our opinion, any more than we can in good faith identify Agarttha with the 'Great White Lodge', that is to say the caricature of it imagined by the Theosophists, or interpret in an 'infernal' sense its 'subterranean' situation, that is, hidden from ordinary people during the Kali-Yuga. Besides, when the author says regarding the Hebrew texts that there are 'some Kabbalists' who give to 'their God' [sic] the title of 'King of the World', he betrays his ignorance of the most common Jewish prayer formulas, where the expression Melek ha-Olam is reiterated constantly. Better still: it is maintained that the 'King of the World' is the Antichrist (in this regard, the editor has deemed it necessary to add a note invoking the Secret of the Salette!); [7] till now, we had not been in doubt that the Antichrist already existed, or that he had existed already from the origin of humanity! It is true that this provides an opportunity to present us, in a way that is hardly concealed, as someone especially directed to prepare for the next manifestation of this Antichrist. We could merely smile at such fanciful stories did we not know only too well how likely they are to unsettle poor people who really have no need of that... Moreover, some claim to identify 'our doctrine' [sic] with the 'Nestorian heresy', which in fact is not of the least interest to us for the simple reason that we never look at things from the point of view of exoteric religion. Besides, those
who are commonly described as 'Nestorians' and to whom we referred had doubtless themselves nothing to do with this heresy. It is more or less deliberately forgotten that this doctrine is several centuries earlier than Christianity, with which the world certainly did not begin, and also that the Kshatriya initiation on which the alleged 'Nestorians' apparently depended, in any case pertains only to the contingent and secondary applications of the doctrine in question. Yet we have often explained the difference between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas, and made clear that the role of the latter could not in any case be ours. Lastly, we shall note a truly monstrous allegation against which we protest most vehemently: we have come under attack by some (citing the authority of a certain Robert Desoille, of whom we have never heard) for 'materialistic' and 'political' tendencies! Now, all our writings prove over and over again that we are perfectly indifferent to politics and to anything even vaguely connected thereto, and we are not exaggerating in the least when we say that things not belonging to the spiritual domain do not count for us. Moreover, whether one considers that we are right or wrong in this regard hardly matters, for the incontestable fact remains that this is the way things stand and not otherwise; consequently, either the author of the article is ignorant or he deceives his readers for reasons we do not wish to specify. On the other hand, we have personally received such a strange letter from Dr Mariani himself that the first of these two hypotheses seems less improbable; as the article must have a sequel, we shall come back to it should the need arise.
We also point out, in the December 7 issue of the same review, the conclusion of a long series of articles entitled 'Diana Vaughan a-t-elle existé?' [Did Diana Vaughan exist?]. In short, this conclusion amounts to saying that it is impossible that Taxil could have invented everything. It is well known that he plagiarized documents here and there, which moreover he often distorted, and also that he had collaborators such as the famous Dr Hacks. As for claiming to see in this documentation, which is as copious as it is unusual, a proof of the existence of Diana Vaughan and of her 'family papers', this is certainly not serious. It also seems that Taxil himself could not have made 'this sensational revelation that the essence of alchemy is the pact with Satan'; here, all those with even the least idea of what alchemy is cannot but chuckle!
[In the June 1931 issue of Voile d'Isis G. Mariani's response to the above review was published, along with Guénon's answer]:
Sir, in issue no. 134 of Voile d'Isis, you published a few lines by Guénon regarding my article 'Le Christ-Roi et le Roi du Monde' (R.I.S.S.). Since Guénon mostly likely had time to give my article only superficial attention, he has misunderstood my thinking on at least two points.
1) It is incorrect to say that I confuse Agarttha with the Great White Lodge. On the contrary, while speaking of the role played by the latter in Mme. Blavatsky's works, I quote the following passage by Guénon (p3, n4, sect.3): 'If the Mahātmās were an invention, which for us is beyond any doubt, not only were they so for the sake of providing a mask to the influences that were really at play behind Mme Blavatsky, but this invention was itself conceived according to an already existing model.' This is what permitted me to write (p9) that 'the King of the World himself holds his seat in the midst of a council of twelve wise men, which we identify as the Great White Lodge.' This identification was obviously made merely for the sake of linguistic convenience, for by its use I was able to avoid long-winded sentences and repetitions.
2) It is not true that R. Desoille and myself ever attributed any material and political propensities to Guénon. Here is exactly what I wrote following a remark from my friend (p25): 'We are in the presence of two symmetrical traditions. One leads the spiritual, mystical destinies of this world; this Principle takes the aspect of the Christ-King in God, of whom Saint Michael is the lieutenant. The other relates to the principle directing the material, political destinies of this world. This principle takes the aspect of the Antichrist in Satan, of whom the King of the World is the lieutenant... Guénon, with his aversion for mysticism (mysticism and not mystical speculation), with a natural tendency toward a materialistic interpretation, saw only the second tradition.' It stands out clearly from this passage that the terms 'material' and 'political' apply only to the King of the World and not to Guénon. I have not yet been so extravagant as to believe that these two personalities are one and the same. Furthermore, it is obvious that the sense of the term 'materialism' in the last paragraph should only be understood as opposed to that of 'mysticism' from the preceding line.
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that reference no. 4 (p25), where I mention Desoille, as is there written, to the whole paragraph (relating to the double aspect of the problem, which is moreover a traditional theory), and not to the last paragraph (relating to Guénon), as my friend loathes polemic even more than I do. Moreover, I readily confess that, for want of practice, I do not know the Jewish prayers. I merely maintain that the title King of the World is not found in any biblical text accepted by Christianity and mentioned in the encyclical Quas primas on the Royalty of Jesus.
Sir, I ask you to kindly make this letter available to your readers and to M. Guénon. Indeed, I have as much respect for his personality as for his intellectual merit, and I would find it a pity if, instead of taking place on a purely speculative ground, this discussion were to feed a controversy unworthy of him and, I dare hope, of myself.
Please be assured, Sir, of my perfect esteem.
[Guénon's response, in Christo regnante Paris, March 1, 1931]:
While thanking our correspondent for the courteous tone of his letter, we must say that fundamentally it does not explain anything and is no more precise as regards his way of thinking than was his article, which, incidentally, we did read with all the attention necessary. If he spoke as he did of the 'Great White Lodge' merely 'for the sake of linguistic convenience', he was ill-informed, for a thing cannot be described appropriately by the name of its counterfeit or its parody. Would it not have been simpler to speak of Agartha? On the other hand, we could never have imagined that a text had to be 'accepted by Christianity' in order to be considered as belonging to authentic Judaism! Finally, on the most serious point, that is, the passage dealing with 'material and political propensities,' we note first of all that the author has a particularly low idea of the 'King of the World', which places this personage below the least of the initiates, since he attributes to him a character and preoccupations that are purely 'profane'. We further note that he uses the word 'materialism' in a quite arbitrary sense by opposing it to 'mysticism', whereas to our knowledge it has never been used in this way. Be that as it may, the fact remains that he actually applies to us the
words 'with a natural tendency toward a materialistic interpretation', and on this point we can only renew to the utmost our indignant protest. In this connection, we will point out that whereas in all respects the 'materialistic' point of view falls short of mysticism, ours on the contrary goes well beyond, so that mysticism itself appears to us as something still quite 'material', as is explained in what we wrote earlier on this subject. Dr Mariani's confusion here simply proves once again how difficult it is for certain people to make the necessary distinction between the initiatic domain and the secular domain. As for the professed distaste for controversy, we address him our most heartfelt congratulations, while asking how this distaste is to be reconciled with his contribution to the R.I.S.S.! In any case he may rest assured: we never acknowledge any polemic, as we do not allow ourselves to stray from our field into that of the adversary. As regards Desoille, we remember having heard his name mentioned only once before we read Dr Mariani's article, but in such a strange circumstance that when we saw it in the note in question, we immediately put the two together. But this is another story, which is of no interest to anybody else, and we are not accustomed to entertain discussions with our readers on personal matters...
July-August-September 1932 - The 'occultist section' in this journal always offers extracts from 'Master Therion' (Aleister Crowley), which are of little fundamental interest and seem rather poorly translated. Thus, we find the expressions 'Grand Travail' and 'Grand Ouvrage', obviously to render Great Work; but is the translator unaware that in French there is something called the 'Grand Euvre'? - Then comes an article dedicated to an American, or pseudo-American (for its known headquarters is in Brussels) enterprise, entitled The Thieron School of Life; and the similarity of the names Thieron and Therion leads us to wonder whether there might not be some connection with the O.T.O. But this hypothesis scarcely seems plausible, for Crowley is a much cleverer charlatan than the one who has elaborated the silliness of some examples that we have presented here. We would more readily believe that it is a question of simple imitation of a pseudonym, intended to create a confusion considered advantageous. Was there not once a conjuror performing under the name Papus? - A certain Raymond Dulac(?), who most decidedly seems to have inherited the succession of the 'Mariani fire',
continues to attack us. it seems that we incorrectly attributed a quotation This can happen when one is not a 'scholar' and does not have at hand the means to verify everything, and moreover in the present instance this would change nothing fundamental, which alone is our concern. Be that as it may, he must be truly demonic to describe such a slip as a 'fraud'. But there is an much graver error in his review: where has he ever seen us speak of 'esoteric groups'? Besides, we are in no way a 'philosopher', and we really make fun of philosophy, as of all kinds of profane knowledge. And what is this ambiguous phrase where he alludes to 'Jews of the sociological school,' as if it was not quite well-known that we had only contempt for university theories and that we are also as thoroughly 'antievolutionist' as it is possible to be? Who is he trying to deceive by such gross cock-and-bull stories? Finally, what can we make of the claims of someone who not only 'demands proof' (something worth about as much as undertaking to prove the existence of light to a blind man) but 'waits for one to point out the contents and the depositories of the Tradition'? Who does he take us for? We are neither a spy nor a traitor, and we do not intend to make ourselves in any way an accomplice to the nasty work of these gentlemen. What is more, it is not for such worldlyminded people as these that we write!