Some Precise Details of the H.B. of L.

Quelques précisions à propos de la H. B. of L., October 1925.

The "Occult Review,” in its May 1925 issue, published a note on the article we have devoted to F.-Ch. Barlet and his experience with a variety of initiatory societies, but specifically with the 'H.B. of L.” (“Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor”), there has been a plethora of inaccurate information which has surrounded discussions of this topic, and in order to rectify this we would specify what has been said previously.

Firstly, when Barlet was affiliated with the 'H.B. of L.,' the seat of the organization had not yet been moved to America; this affiliation must have been a little earlier than the publication of the Occult Magazine which appeared in Glasgow in 1885 and 1886, of which we possess the complete collection. This journal was indeed an official publication of the H.B. of L., whose motto was "Omnia vincit Veritas;" At this time, Peter Davidson resided in Banchory, Kincardineshire, New Brunswick, and it was only at the end of 1886 when he moved to Loudsville, Georgia, where he was to spend the rest of his life. It was much later that he published a new magazine entitled 'The Morning Star,' which was the official publication of the 'Order of the Cross and the Serpent,' founded by him after the H.B. of L. returned to inactivity.

On the other hand, it was in the 'Occult Magazine' of October 1885 that a note was first published, publicizing for the first time the project of organizing an agricultural colony of the H.B. of L. in California; this note was signed with the initials of T. H. Burgoyne, the Secretary-General of the Order (and not the title of Northern Provincial Grandmaster, which belonged to Davidson). This project was often mentioned in discussion related to this, but the idea of establishing the colony in California was soon abandoned in favor of Georgia; it was even announced that Burgoyne would be at Loudsville beginning April 15, 1886, but he never arrived, of which is credited to Madame Blavatsky's previously alluded to intervention. Burgoyne had previously been convicted of fraud; Madame Blavatsky, aware of this fact, succeeded in obtaining documents which contained proof of the conviction, which she sent to the American government, in order to prevent Burgoyne from staying in the United States; the reasoning behind this was to take revenge for her and General Olcott's exclusion from the ‘H.B. of L.' eight years earlier in 1878. As for
Davidson, whose honesty was never questioned, he did not have to “flee to America," as the 'Occult Review' put it; but there was nothing pre-venting him from establishing himself in Georgia with his family, to form the first nucleus of the future colony, nonetheless, this never succeeded as the long-awaited development.
The editor of the 'Occult Review' says that Davidson acted on behalf of Burgoyne, which is not correct, since their respective positions did not involve subordination of the former to the latter; and, what is more astonishing, he then asserts that behind even Burgoyne was an 'ex-Brah-man' named Hurychund Christaman: this is an odd mistake, and one which requires some explanation. Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott had been affiliated with the American branch of the ‘H.B. of L.' around April 1875, through George H. Felt, who claimed to be a professor of Mathematics and Egyptology, and with which they had been put in touch with through a journalist named Stevens. One of the consequences of this affiliation was that, in the spiritualist séances which Madame Bla-vatsky held, the manifestations of the famous 'John King' were replaced by those of a so-called 'Serapis' on September 7, 1875, and on November 17 of the same year that the 'Theosophical Society' was founded. About two years later, 'Serapis' was in turn replaced by a certain ‘Kashmiri brother;' this is the moment where Olcott and Madama Blavatsky had met Hurrychund Chintamon (and not Christaman), who was not the hid-den head of the ‘H.B. of L.,' but rather the representative in America of the 'Arya Samaj,' an association founded in India in 1870 by Swami Da-yananda Saraswati. In September or October 1877, in the words of Mad-ame Blavatsky, “an offensive and defensive alliance” was established be-tween the 'Arya Samaj' and the ‘Theosophical Society;' this alliance was to be broken in 1882 by Dayananda Saraswati himself, who then spoke very critically of Madame Blavatsky's conduct. The latter, for reasons still yet unknown, later manifested a real terror of Hurrychund Chin-tamon; but what is important to remember is that his relations began precisely with the moment when he began to refute the assertion of the 'Occult Review.'
Now, an explanation of this error still remains to be seen: would there not have been simply some confusion, because of the partial similarity of the two names Chintamon and Metamon? This latter name is that of the master of Madame Blavatsky, the magician Paulous Metamon, who was of a Coptic or Chaldean origin (we never could be exactly sure), who she had met in Asia Minor in 1848, then tracked down in Cairo in 1870; but, it will be asked, what is the relation between this character and the ‘H.B. of L.?' To answer this question, we need to inform our associate, the 'Oc-cult Review,' who seems to ignore it, the identity of the real leader, or, to
speak more precisely, the Grand Master of the 'Outer Circle' of the 'H.B. of L.' This Grand Master was Dr. Max Théon, who was to later create and direct the 'Cosmic Movement;' and this explains why Barlet, the former representative of the H.B. of L. in France, took this step from the begin-ning (that is, if we are not mistaken, from 1899 or 1900). Regarding the origins of Dr. Max Théon, who has always been very mysterious, we have but one testimony, but which deserves some serious consideration: Barlet himself, who was known for his honesty and consistency, assured us that he was Paulous Metamon's own son; if this is true, everything is explained by this one fact.

We had not wanted, in our previous article, to implicate any living people, and this is why we had refrained from naming Mr. Théon, to whom we had only made an allusion; but, following the intervention of the 'Occult Review,' a clarification was necessary in the interest of his-torical truth. It is expected that these explanations will provoke more questions, for we do not pretend to dispel all obscurities at once; there must be other witnesses to the facts in question, and since certain ques-tions are asked, could they not make it known what they know?

Sédir and the Hindu Doctrines
Sédir et les doctrines hindoues, April 1926.

We have learned with sadness of the premature death of Paul Sédir just
as we were reading his article, in the previous issue of Amitiés Spiritu-
elles, the article he had devoted to Hindu metaphysics, which dealt spe-
cifically with our book Man and his Becoming according to the Vedanta.
Sédir, in fact, had formerly been fascinated in the Indian doctrines; it is
especially, we believe, the influence of Dr. Alphonse Jobert which had
helped to push him in this direction. He had then published a study on
The Incantations, which as an essay remained vague, but, nonetheless,
gave hope for further in-depth works. However, he only later gave some
notes that were used in lectures regarding the Hindu tradition, and
which, if our memory does not fail us, appeared in Mr. Jollivet-Castelot's
journal. We also, for the record, wish to make mention of a booklet on
Fakirism, a simple summary of the existing knowledge on the subject,
which, incidentally, is of secondary importance. Sédir was not long in
changing his orientation from study turning towards a rather special
Christian mysticism, much more concerned with action than with mere
knowledge; a great number of his friends, while always recognizing his
great sincerity, could not help but regret this change which disappointed
them. It must be said to be true, because it may help to explain some
things, that Sédir had found little encouragement from the few Hindus
whom he had met, who he considered to be too concerned with 'phe-
nomena;' had it not been for this, perhaps, he would have persevered to
get rid of this Western tendency and to penetrate further into the
knowledge of the veritable doctrines. Unfortunately, he shut himself up
in a hostile attitude which always caused us some astonishment: he
sought, between Christianity and the Oriental traditions, oppositions
which did not exist; he saw a sort of irreconcilable divergence, where we
saw a profound harmony and a real unity under the diversity of external
forms. His final article still bears the mark of this way of looking at
things; but on the other hand, we believe that there is proof that he never
ceased to be interested in those doctrines of India, in the depths of him-
self and in spite of appearances, which had exercised so much attraction
to him at the beginning of his career; and if he had lived longer, who
knows if he might not come back with other dispositions, and if he would
not have seen new horizons that had opened to him. This thought can
only add to the regret felt by those who knew him following his sudden
and unexpected end.

Léon Champrenaud (1870-1925)
Léon Champrenaud, May 1926.

Léon Champrenaud died on October 23, 1925, only at the age of 55, after
a long and painful period of illness. He has been involved in the contem-
porary Occultist movement since a very young age, nearly from the be-
ginning, and he had taken a very active role, despite writing little. He
became a member of the Supreme Council of the Martinist Order, under
the name 'Noël Sisera,' he was the editor-in-chief of a little-known pub-
lication: L'Initiateur, an initiatory study bulleting reserved for Martinist
representatives, which had only published seven issues between January
1904 and March 1905. From the fourth issue onwards, Sisera's name as
editor-in-chief was replaced by that of Sédir's; it was around this time
that Léon Champrenaud began to depart from Western occultism, which
had appeared to him to be a standstill, and turned definitively towards
the study of the Oriental doctrines, in which he had some interest for
some time already. It was then that he founded the review La Voie with
Matgioi, which was published from April 1904 to March 1907. Under the
name of Théophane, he published the first part of the Secret Teachings of
Gnosis with Simon (Matgioi); this volume was to be followed by two more
volumes, but these were never published. It was again under the same
name of Théophane that he gave in 1910 a study on Matgioi, his role in
the Chinese secret societies, and a summary of Taoist metaphysics. Fi-
nally, between 1909 and 1912, he also looked after the journal La Gnose,
which he helped to direct in the study of the Oriental traditions. Having
known him at this time, and having worked with him constantly for
many years, we do not want to let him disappear without sending out an
impactful remembrance and not recalling that he was one of the first to
work and make known the true Metaphysical doctrines of the East in
France.