### Some Reflections on Hermeticism

We have said before that properly speaking the Brothers of the Rose-Cross were beings that had effectively achieved the completion of the 'lesser mysteries', and that the Rosicrucian initiation inspired by them was a particular form linked to Christian Hermeticism. Relating this to what we have just explained, one must already be able to understand that Hermeticism belongs in a general way to the domain of 'royal initiation'. However, it will be good to bring more precision to this subject, as here again much confusion has arisen, the word 'Hermeticism' itself being used by many of our contemporaries in a very vague and uncertain way. We do not mean only the occultists, for whom this is only too evident, for there are others who, even while pursuing the question more seriously seem, perhaps because of certain preconceived ideas, not to realize just what is at issue. First of all, it must be noted that the word 'Hermeticism' indicates that we are dealing with a tradition of Egyptian origin, afterward clothed in a Hellenized form (doubtless in the Alexandrian epoch), and in the Middle Ages transmitted in this form both to the Islamic and Christian worlds, and, let us add, to the second in great part by the intermediary to the first,^[1] as is proven by the numerous Arabic or Arabized terms adopted by the European Hermeticists, beginning with the word 'alchemy' itself (al-kimyā).^[2] It would therefore be quite wrong to extend this designation to other traditional forms, just as it would be, for example, to consider the 'Kabbalah' to be anything other than Hebrew esoterism.^[3] It is not, of course, that it has no equivalents elsewhere, for these do exist to the degree that the traditional science of alchemy^[4] has its exact correspondence in doctrines found in India, Tibet, and China, although with methods of realization that are naturally quite different; but as soon as one says 'Hermeticism' one specifies a clearly determined form the provenance of which can only be Greco-Egyptian. Indeed, the doctrine thus designated is by this very fact related to Hermes insofar as the latter was considered by the Greeks to be identical with the Egyptian Thoth; moreover, this presents the doctrine as being derived essentially from a sacerdotal teaching, for Thoth, in his role as guardian and transmitter of tradition, is nothing other than the very representation of the ancient Egyptian priesthood, or rather, to be more precise, of the principle of 'supra-human' inspiration from which this priesthood held its authority and in whose name it formulated and communicated initiatic knowledge. One should not see in this the least contradiction with the fact that this doctrine belongs to the domain of the royal initiation, for it must be clearly understood that in every regular and complete tradition it is the priesthood that, by virtue of its essential teaching function, confers both initiations, directly or indirectly, and that this ensures the true legitimacy of the royal initiation itself by relating it to its higher principle, in the same way that the temporal power can receive its legitimacy only from a consecration by the spiritual authority.^[5]

This being said, the principal question that must be asked is whether what has been maintained under the name of 'Hermeticism' can be regarded as constituting a traditional doctrine complete in itself. The answer can only be that it cannot, for here we are dealing with knowledge that is not of a metaphysical order, but is only cosmological, understanding this word in both its 'macrocosmic' and 'microcosmic' applications, for it goes without saying that in every traditional conception there is always a close correspondence between these two points of view. It is therefore not admissible that Hermeticism, in the sense that this word acquired in the Alexandrian epoch and has retained ever since, represents the integrality of the Egyptian tradition even as a 're-adaptation', all the more so as this would be clearly contradictory to the essential role played in this tradition by the priesthood, as we have just recalled. Although the cosmological point of view seems to have been particularly developed there—insofar as it is still possible to know anything about it in detail, which will in any case be what is most apparent in the vestiges that still remain, whether they be texts or monuments—we must not forget that it can never be but a secondary and contingent point of view, an application of the principial doctrine to the knowledge of what can be called the 'intermediary world', that is, the domain of subtle manifestation where the extracorporeal prolongations of the human individuality are situated, that is, the very possibilities the development of which properly concerns the 'lesser mysteries.^[6] It might be interesting, although doubtless rather difficult, to inquire how this part of the Egyptian tradition could find itself isolated in a certain way, preserve itself in an apparently independent fashion, and then incorporate itself into both Islamic esoterism and the Christian esoterism of the Middle Ages (which a complete doc-trine could not have done), to the point of becoming a truly integral part of both and furnishing them with a complete symbolism that, through an appropriate transposition, was even able to serve as a vehicle for truths of a higher order.^[7] We do not wish to enter now into these extremely complex historical considerations; whatever the answer to this particular question, we will recall that the cosmo-logical sciences are those which, in traditional civilizations, have been especially the province of the Kshatriyas or their equivalents, while pure metaphysics, as we have already said, belonged to the Brahmins. That is why, as a result of the revolt of the Kshatriyas against the spiritual authority of the Brahmins, one sometimes sees incomplete traditional currents arise which are reduced to these sci-ences alone, separated from their transcendent principle, and even, as we said above, deviated in a 'naturalistic' direction by a negation of metaphysics and a failure to recognize either the subordinate character of 'physical' science^[8] or the two things are closely related, as our earlier explanations make sufficiently clear-the essentially sacerdotal origin of all initiatic instruction, even that which is more particularly destined for use by the Kshatriyas themselves. This is not to say of course that Hermeticism in itself constitutes such a deviation or that it implies any kind of illegitimacy, which would obviously have rendered its incorporation into orthodox traditional forms impossible; one should recognize, however, that by its very nature it can quite easily lend itself to deviations if favorable circum-stances arise,^[9] and this is generally where the danger lies for all of the traditional sciences when they are cultivated for their own sake, for then they are not seen in light of their relationship to the principial order. Alchemy, which we could define as being so to speak the 'technique' of Hermeticism, is indeed actually 'a royal art', if we understand by this a mode of initiation especially appropriate to the nature of the Kshatriyas;^[10] but this in itself marks precisely its place in the totality of a regularly constituted tradition, and besides, we must not confuse the means of initiatic realization, whatever they may be, with its goal, which in the end is always pure knowledge.On the other hand, we must reject entirely an assimilation sometimes made between Hermeticism and 'magic'. Even if the latter is taken in a rather different sense from that which is ordinarily intended, it is greatly to be feared that even this sense, which finally is an abuse of language, can only provoke unfortunate confusions. As we have fully explained, magic in its proper sense is nothing but one of the most inferior applications of traditional knowledge, and we do not see the slightest advantage in evoking the idea when it is really a question of things that, while still contingent, are nonetheless on a notably higher level. Moreover, here we may well have something more than a simple question of poorly applied terminology. In our age the word 'magic' exercises a strange fascination over some people, and, as we have already noted, the weight given to such a point of view, even if in intention only, is still linked to the distortion of the traditional sciences when separated from their metaphysical principle. This is undoubtedly the major stumbling-block that every attempt to reconstitute or restore such sciences is likely to face, unless one begins with what is truly the beginning in every respect, that is, with the principle itself, which is at the same time the goal toward which all the rest must normally be directed.Another point there is good reason to emphasize is the purely 'inward' nature of true alchemy, which is properly of a psychic order when taken in its most immediate application, and of a spiritual order when transposed into its higher sense; in reality it is this that constitutes the whole value from the initiatic point of view. Alchemy thus has absolutely nothing to do with the material operations of any 'chemistry' in the current sense of this word; almost all modern people are strangely mistaken about this, both those who wish to see themselves as defenders of alchemy and those who, on the contrary, are its detractors; and this misunderstanding is even less excusable among the first than among the second, who at any rate have never claimed to possess any sort of traditional knowledge. It is certainly easy to see in what terms the ancient Hermeticists speak of the 'puff-ers' and 'charcoal burners', in whom one must recognize the true precursors of present-day chemists, however unflattering this must be to these latter; and even in the eighteenth century an alchemist like Pernéty took every opportunity to underline the difference between 'Hermetic philosophy' and 'common chemistry'. Thus, as we have already said many times while demonstrating the 'residual' character of the profane sciences in relation to the traditional sci-ences (but these are things so foreign to the present-day mentality that one could hardly repeat them too often), what gave birth to modern chemistry is certainly not alchemy, to which it finally has no real connection, any more than the 'hyperchemistry' imagined by some contemporary occultists.^[11] Indeed, this latter is only a deformation or a deviation resulting from the incomprehension of those people who, profane and devoid of any initiatic qualification and incapable of penetrating in any measure the true meaning of the symbols, thus took everything literally according to the most outward and popular meaning of the terms used, and believing therefore that nothing more than material operations were in-volved, threw themselves into an experimentation that was more or less disorganized, and in any case hardly worthy of interest.^[12] In the Arab world, material alchemy has always been held in very low regard, and sometimes even identified with a kind of sorcery, whereas 'interior' and spiritual alchemy, on the contrary, was held in great honor, often designated under the name of al-kimiyā as-sa'adah or 'alchemy of bliss.'^[13] This is not to say that we must therefore deny the possibility of metallic transmutations, which represent alchemy in the eyes of the common people; but we must reduce them to their proper importance, which is no greater than that of any other 'scientific' experiments, and not confuse things that are of entirely different orders. We do not even see, a priori, why it is impossible for such transmutations to be realized by the processes of merely profane chemistry (and basically the 'hyperchemistry' to which we referred earlier is nothing but an attempt of this kind).^[14] There is however another aspect to the question. The being that has arrived at the realization of certain interior states can, by virtue of the analogical relation between 'macrocosm' and 'microcosm', produce outwardly corresponding effects; it is then perfectly admissible that one who has reached a certain degree in the practice of 'interior' alchemy may be capable of accomplishing metallic transmutations or other things of the same order, as a wholly accidental result involving none of the procedures of material pseudo-alchemy, but uniquely by a kind of outward projection of the energies he carries within himself. Moreover, there is yet another essential distinction to be made here. What is involved may be merely an action of a psychic order, that is, the putting into play of subtle influences belonging to the domain of human individuality, and then it would indeed again be a material alchemy, if one wishes, but now operating by means altogether different from those of pseudo-alchemy, which latter relate exclusively to the corporeal domain; or else, for a being that has reached a higher degree of realization, it can involve an outward action of true spiritual influences, like that produced in religious 'miracles,' which we have mentioned previously. Between these two cases there is a difference comparable to that separating 'theurgy' from magic (although, to repeat, here it is not properly a case of magic, and we mention this only by way of analogy), since that difference is in the final analysis that which exists between the spiritual and psychic orders. If the apparent effects are sometimes the same in both instances, the causes that produce them are nonetheless totally and profoundly different. We will add that those who really possess such powers^[15] scrupulously refrain from making a display of them to impress the crowds, and that they generally do not even make use of them at all, at least outside of certain particular circumstances where their exercise is deemed legitimate because of other consider- ations. ^[16] Be that as it may, what we must never lose sight of, and what is at the very foundation of all truly initiatic teaching, is that any realization worthy of the name is of an essentially interior order, no matter what the external repercussions may be. Man can find the principles only in himself, and he can do so because he carries within himself a correspondence to everything that exists, for we must not forget that according to a formula of Islamic esoterism 'man is the symbol of universal Existence'; ^[17] and if he succeeds in penetrating to the center of his own being, by this very fact he reaches total knowledge with all that this implies, which to say that 'he who knows his Self knows his Lord, ^[18] and he then knows all things in the supreme unity of the Principle itself, in which is con- tained 'eminently' the whole of reality.