Payload Website Template

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.

Footnotes

[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 Anti-christ 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 interpreta-tion', and on this point we can only renew to the utmost our indig-nant 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 per-sonal 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', obvi-ously to render Great Work; but is the translator unaware that in French there is something called the 'Grand Œuvre'? —Then comes an article dedicated to an American, or pseudo-American (for its known head-quarters 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 char-latan 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 ques-tion 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 socio- logical school', as if it was not quite well-known that we had only con- tempt for university theories and that we are also as thoroughly 'anti- evolutionist' 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 Tradi- tion'? 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 worldly- minded people as these that we write! _The Speculative Mason_ OCTOBER 1932 — This issue contains an article that considers the rela- tionship between Operative and Speculative Masonry in a way contrary to current opinion, for it suggests that not only have both coexisted since remote times, but that Operative Masonry is even only a dependency as it were of Speculative Masonry. There is much truth in this thesis, although the terms in which it is expressed are not safe from all objection. If by 'speculative' is meant a 'doctrinal' Masonry directing or inspiring the work of craftsmen, this agrees precisely with what we ourselves have often pointed out regarding the strictly initiatic origin of the arts and crafts. Doubtless this is basically what the author wished to say, for he recog- nized that this so-called 'speculative' Masonry was in reality 'operative' in a higher sense. But for precisely this reason it is improper to use the word 'speculative', which we do not believe was in use formerly, and indicates rather a kind of degeneration—a Masonry become exclusively 'theoreti- cal' and therefore no longer working effectively toward any 'realization', either spiritual or material. Moreover, some of the assertions contained in the said article are questionable. In particular, why consider seriously the 'Egyptological' fancies of Dr Churchward. In any case, there are many other points meriting closer examination, such as the orientation of the Lodges and the place of the officers, the use of the name _al-Shaddai_ in operative Masonry, and also the role played by 'polar' symbolism, which is in reality of a much higher order than 'solar' symbolism, and at the same time nearest to the origins, as all those will easily understand who have some true idea of the 'Center of the World'. OCTOBER 1949 - After giving a general summary of the contents of the manuscripts of the _Old Charges_, of which almost a hundred are now known, and having noted the evidence found there regarding secret information that obviously could not be very explicit in written and even 'semi-public' documents, it examines in particular the question of the name given to the architect of Solomon's Temple. Remarkably, this name is never Hiram; in most of the manuscripts, it is either Amon or some other form that really appears to be a corruption thereof. It would seem therefore that the name Hiram was only substituted for the former later on, probably because it is mentioned in the Bible, although in fact the position of architect is not attributed to him, whereas the question of Amon does not arise. It is also odd that in Hebrew this word has precisely the meaning of craftsman and architect, which leads us to wonder whether a common name has been taken for a proper name, or if on the contrary this designation was given to architects because it was first the name of the one who built the Temple. Be that as it may, its root, whence derives also the word _amen_, expresses in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, ideas of stability, steadfastness, faith, loyalty, sincerity, and truth, which agree very well with the character attributed by Masonic legend to the third Grand-Master. As for the name of the Egyptian god Amon, although identical in form, it has a different meaning, that of 'hidden' or 'mysterious', although it is possible that among all these ideas there are really more connections than may appear at first sight. In this respect it is at least curious to note that the three parts of the word _Royal Arch_ to which we have referred in one of our studies ('_Paroles perdue et mots substitués_' [Lost Word and Substituted Words], in the issue for October-December 1948)[^8], and which are considered to represent the divine names in the Hebraic, Chaldean, and Egyptian traditions, are in Operative Masonry related to Solomon, Hiram king of Tyre, and the third Grand-Master, respectively. This leads us to think that perhaps the 'Egyptian' connection suggested by the ancient name of the third is perhaps not purely accidental. Another interesting point is that it has been assumed that since what is given as an Egyptian divine name is in fact the name of a town, it was introduced there only through a confusion between a divinity and the place where that divinity was worshipped. However, if we take into account the uncertainty of the vowels, it really enters in a scarcely different form into the composition of one of the principal names of Osiris said to be his 'royal name'. What is odder still is that it actually means 'to be', as does the almost homonymous Greek word, which according to some may also have contributed to the confusion. We do not wish to draw any conclusion from this, if not that in such questions one cannot without close examination put confidence in those solutions that seem simplest. Another interesting article is entitled _The Tables of King Solomon and King Arthur_. The 'tables' in question have a similar astronomical symbolism, and here priority is claimed for that of Arthur, because it is identified with the archaic zodiac of Somerset, whose origin would have been far earlier than the time of Solomon. In truth, the question of priority seems to us to lose much of its importance if, as we think it does, the issue concerns, representations derived from the same prototype but without any direct filiation from one to the other. ## Symbolisme JUNE 1933 — This edition of _Symbolisme_ has an article by Oswald Wirth with the excellent title '_L'Erreur occultiste_' [The Occultist Fallacy], which is the one we ourself considered using for a book that would have paralleled our _The Spiritist Fallacy_, but which circumstances have prevented us from writing. Unfortunately, the title offers more than is delivered by the contents of the article, which amount to vague generalities that prove nothing, except that the author has an idea of initiation which, while different from that of the occultists, is not much more accurate; he even goes so far as to write that 'the first initiate must have initiated himself,' evincing complete ignorance of the origin and 'non-human' nature of initiation. Remarkably, he weakens his own case in his following

[6]See the author's _The King of the World_. ED.

[7]The Blessed Virgin appeared to two young shepherds, Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, on the Mountain of La Salette in the Diocese of Grenoble, on September 19, 1846. First, She conferred a public message to both of them; then a secret to Maximin alone; and then to Melanie, a secret message which she could publish in 1858. ED.

[8]See chapter 3 of the present work. ED.