ARTICLE REVIEWS

_La Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes_ continues—and we would have been surprised to the contrary—in its efforts to revive the Taxil affair. In the July 7, 14, and 21 issues, it published a long biography of Diana Vaughan, who although she probably never existed is nonetheless presented as a kind of second Joan of Arc, which in any case is really a bit exaggerated. This publication was preceded (June 23 issue) by the reproduction of a letter from this same Diana Vaughan to the Abbot of Bessonies, which provided us with an opportunity to make an amusing observation: as it involves the 'worthy Fr Joseff', the following note was added: 'This is how the name is spelled in the text. It probably indicates Fr Tourmentin. These two ff's, unique in this letter where the name Joseph is spelled perfectly when it refers to Saint Joseph, seem to be the result of an unintentional absent-mindedness on the part of someone originally from Russia.' In the commentary that follows the letter, it is claimed that this so-called American must in reality have been Russian, which moreover does not correspond in any way with the aforementioned biography. But when one gets involved in such stories one does not quibble over a mere contradiction... The only real misfortune in all this is that it really concerns Fr Tourmentin, but Tourmentin was merely a pseudonym, and his real name (we mean his family name and not his first name) was spelled exactly _Josepff_; thus there is surely a mistake, but it consists in the omission of the p and not in the two ff's which should figure in the name. Are the editors of the R.I.S.S. then so ignorant that they do not even know the real name of their former anti-Masonic colleague? Be that as it may, as regards Diana Vaughan's letters we have something even better: it is a letter written on a paper with a letterhead of a lion's tail twisted around a crescent from which emerges a rose, with the initials D.V. and the motto _Me jubente cauda leonis loquitur!_—In the 'occultist part' of the same review (issue of 1 July), there is an article signed A. Tarannes and entitled 'Essai sur un symbole double: Quel est donc ce Dragon?' We expected to find therein some reflections on the double meaning of the symbols—a subject we have often dealt with ourselves, and which is particularly clear in the case of the serpent and the dragon, but we were completely disappointed. The article merely gives weight, so to speak, to the all too famous _Dragon Elect_, with the aid of rather strange documentation and even stranger commentary. In this respect we may venture a question that is probably very indiscreet: it is said that the figure on page 207 is 'borrowed from an unsuccessfully confirmed fragment of a rather rare work.' What is the title of this book, the name of its author, as well as the place and date of its publication? Absent this vital information, we could be tempted to think it an apocryphal document, which would really be a pity! Besides, it is very difficult to remain serious in the face of all the importance given to Aleister Crowley's foolery. Surely, it is obvious that this character's nonsensical ideas go precisely in the same direction in support of the theories upheld by the R.I.S.S. However, the R.I.S.S. will definitely not inform its readers that the O.T.O. and its leader are not recognized by any Masonic organization, and that if this so-called 'high initiate' appeared at the door of the least Lodge of apprentices he would be turned away promptly with all the respect due his rank! We have also noted something else in the same article (page 213) which enables us to assess clearly the value of the information given by the R.I.S.S; this is a reference to a recently deceased writer, who though not named is described clearly enough to be recognized without difficulty, and who is called a 'defrocked priest.' We challenge the author—and with just cause—to prove his assertion; and if he remains silent, we shall insist.—In the meanwhile, for its often untimely zeal the R.I.S.S. recently received a justified reprimand from the Archdiocese, or more precisely, from the Council of Vigilance of the Parisian diocese. The R.I.S.S. contented itself purely and simply with 'taking note' of this, (issue of 14 July) carefully avoiding publishing the rather harsh terms. For the edification our readers, here is the text of this document as published in the _Semaine Religieuse_:

During its session of May 31, 1929, the Council of Vigilance of Paris was overwhelmed with complaints lodged by several groups of youth workers and Catholic writers against the _Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes_. From the information provided, it appears that the opinions issued by this journal created confusion among certain provincial dioceses, into which they penetrated, and that the editorial committee of the _Revue_, summoned before the Paris ecclesiastical court by the founders and directors of the J. O. C. (one of the groups slandered), neglected to appear. On viewing the documents presented, The Council of Vigilance of Paris, which had already been informed of these attacks, unanimously recognized that they ignore the services rendered to the Church by writers whose merit and orthodoxy are proven, that they rashly go against the most authorized pontifical approvals, and lastly, that they show a systematically disparaging attitude, which reaches even to the solemn decisions of the Sovereign Pontiff as regards, for example, the Roman question. The Council of Vigilance can thus only rebuke and condemn this attitude, which offends the Church itself as well as some of her best servants.

For a long time we anticipated, and without the need for the least recourse to 'clairvoyance', that all these stories would end badly...

_La Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes_ is currently publishing a series of articles entitled 'Did Diana Vaughan Exist?', which is an attempt to prove that the memoirs of this hypothetical person could only have been written by someone really belonging to the family of the Rosicrucian Thomas Vaughan. However, the alleged proofs given so far are only references to matters that are much better known than is publicly admitted, or which are entirely unverifiable. Let us await what results... In the August 25 issue, we note a bit of news reproduced from _Le Figaro_, which, it is said, has 'discovered a small new sect' in America. In fact, it is simply a question of an organization called Mazdaznan, which has been well-known for a long time, and has several restaurants and shops selling special food products in Paris itself. If _Le Figaro_ can really be unaware of these things, is such ignorance excusable on the part of 'specialists' of the R.I.S.S.? Is it really worth the trouble to speak once again of Clotilde Bersone and Diana Vaughan in regard to a 'sect' of such a trivial character, because a certain Mrs Arrens supposedly left her husband and her children in order to follow the 'Master'? - The September 8 issue contains the beginning of a study entitled _La Franc-Maçonnerie et son Oeuvre_, signed Koukol-Yasnopolsky; it seems to be the translation of a booklet, but there is no indication of either the place or date of its publication. The first chapter, dedicated to 'Masonic origins, contains nothing more than the rephrasing of some of the most commonplace stupidities concerning the Templars and the Brotherhood of the Rose-Cross. At the very most it is a third- or fourth-hand work. In the 'occultist part', Henri de Guillebert continues his studies on _La Question juive_, always full of the most astonishing statements: thus, in the August 1 issue we read that 'in order to conquer the divine, the initiate claims to make use of his reason alone', whereas such a claim is, on the contrary, rather the mark of the 'profane', and only those who make use of certain supra-rational faculties can be considered 'initiates' in the true sense of the word. The same article contains what is presented as a particularly 'revealing' 'initiatic document', a chart taken from a work by Pierre Piobb that merely expresses certain personal ideas of the author, which, however ingenious, do not have the least traditional character. The following article (September 1 issue) gives a 'sociological' interpretation of the Hermetic formula _Solve coagula_ that is more fantastic than anything imaginable; and there are many more examples—but we must limit ourselves. Nonetheless, let us point out the factual error of declaring (always in support of a particular thesis) Protestants such as Schleiermacher and Harnack to be Jews, not to speak of the assertion that Renan was 'practically converted to Judaism', whereas everyone knows that in fact he had become a stranger to all defined religion, preserving only a vague religiosity, which moreover had nothing Jewish about it, but was for him simply a last remnant of 'disaffected' Christianity. In this same issue of September 1, A. Tarannes (author of the article on the Dragon mentioned in our previous column) deals with '_Quelques symboles de la Maçonnerie mixte_', which he insists on interpreting in the most grossly 'naturalist' sense. What is extraordinary is that those who engage in this little game do not seem to realize that certain enemies of Catholicism are not embarrassed to apply the same system to its symbols and rites; this succeeds just as well and is exactly as false in the one case as in the other. This article also contains some curious mistakes: the initials of the title of a grade are taken for the consonants of its 'sacred word' (which proves that this word is not known), and the 'age' of this same grade is taken for the number of another, which led to attributing to the latter the 'battery' of the first. The author states that he has put off deciphering a so-called 'Masonic square', that probably puts him on the spot. Let us then spare him this trouble: it contains simply _I.N.R.I._ and _Pax vobis_. Lastly, still in the same issue, there is a rather amusing little note on the emblem of the Red-Cross organizations, which states that 'instead of Red-Cross, one could equally well write Rose-Cross of Geneva'; at this rate it is really very easy to be Rose-Cross... or at least to pass for one in the eyes of the editors of the R.I.S.S.

We have in our hands the first issues of _Bulletin des Polaires_, which began publication last May. The contents are perfectly insignificant, and if what we read there is the result of communication with 'great initiates', from the Himalayas or elsewhere, it is rather pitiful. We would not even speak of it had we not learned that this organization has the deplorable tendency to involve our name as recommendation for people they would like to attract. In fact, in a small way we did follow the demonstrations of the divinatory method called 'oracle of astral force' when there was no question of founding a group based on the 'teachings' obtained by this means, and since there were things about it that seemed rather enigmatic, we did try to clarify them by posing certain doctrinal questions; but we received only vague and evasive replies until, after a very long time and despite our insistence, a new question at last led to a defiant absurdity. At that time we were interested in the initiatic merit of the people supposedly providing the inspiration, this being for us the only interesting point in the whole affair. If we recall correctly, it was precisely in the interval between this question and the response to it that there was talk for the first time of constituting a society decked out in the baroque name 'Polar'. (Although we have spoken of a 'polar' or hyperborean tradition, we cannot without ridicule apply this name to people who appear to know of this tradition only what we have written in our various works). Despite many solicitations, we formally refused not only a part in this society, but to approve or support it in any way, all the more so since the rules dictated by the 'method' contained things that were unbelievably puerile. We learned later that the few serious people who had at first given their allegiance lost no time in withdrawing, and we would not be surprised if all of this finally sank into a vulgar spiritism. We regret that various traditional ideas we expounded in _The King of the World_ were mixed up in this affair, but we can do nothing about it; and as to the 'method' itself, anyone who has read what we wrote concerning the 'science of letters' ^[1] will readily see that the whole thing was nothing but an example of what can happen to fragments of real and serious knowledge in the hands of people who have taken hold of it without understanding.

In the February 1 issue of the _Nouvelle Revue Française_, under the title 'La mise en scène et la métaphysique', Antonin Artaud presents views that, while interesting, are at times rather confused, and could be considered to illustrate what we recently said here concerning the degradation that has made Western theater purely 'profane', whereas Eastern theater has preserved its spiritual value. It is surprising that the word symbolism was never employed in the course of the study, which it would have greatly illuminated, for it is really a matter of the application of symbolism to theatrical art; in reality the use of multiple means other than speech is nothing else. Moreover, we do not know why a sentence we never wrote was ascribed to us (by placing it within quotation marks), it is not that we could not approve the idea insofar as we understand it, but the form in which it is expressed are entirely foreign to our vocabulary. Furthermore, we could never have said 'we' or 'us' when speaking of Westerners.... Another (although much less inoffensive) apocryphal sentence, and the same one as ever for that matter, has been attributed to us perhaps for the twentieth time by Paul le Cour in the January-February issue of _Atlantis_. It is true that nothing of this kind can surprise us about him after we have seen how two proper names written several times on a wall could, in his eyes, metamorphose into a sentence which is... approximately Latin. As for the rest, there is no need for such a fertile imagination to ascribe to someone something he never said, and on occasion something even completely contrary to what he really meant. For this it is enough to separate a mere fragment of a sentence from its context, and there are some famous examples of this (_Qola allahu taala: Fa waylun lil-musallin_...). Whatever may be the case, in this issue Paul le Cour devotes no less than two articles to an attack upon us, first regarding _The Symbolism of the Cross_, a subject he claims to treat in his own manner (or rather in the manner of the _Héron de Paray-le-Monial: Aor-Agni_ and other already famous fantasies), and then regarding Hermeticism and some of our articles from _Voile d'Isis_. He even offers the testimony of many people who have no understanding whatsoever of what we write. If only he knew to what extent we feel unconcerned about this 'profane critique' that is by definition incompetent in matters of initiation! We write in order to instruct those capable of understanding, and not to look for the approval of the ignorant. Also, what we do has nothing in common with literature, despite Paul le Cour, who confuses Hermeticism with esthetics and enjoys counting the words in our sentences (which probably kept him from noticing that in _The Symbolism of the Cross_ we spoke of a three-dimensional geometrical representation and of an indefinite spheroid, since he reproaches us for not having done anything of the sort!). He also reproduces a letter directed against us by a certain Mr Alvart whom we believe to be the same person as a former 'worshipper' of Mme Blavatsky (see _Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion_, chap. 4). Since we have already responded implicitly in our article of last month, we shall not revisit the subject, but cannot help mentioning Paul le Cour's new linguistic find: he solemnly declares that 'the word Christian is a development of the word cross. But then what can you say to someone who apparently thinks Latin is derived from Spanish, for he writes that 'hermoso in Spanish has become _formosus_ in Latin'? As for our article "The Language of the Birds," we wholly maintain what we said there concerning the origin and 'the meaning of the Latin word _carmen_, in spite of the strange and hardly 'normal' etymology 'pointed out' to le Cour, who perhaps 'can impress certain minds lacking critical sense.' Frankly, what weight could the assertions of the orientalists possibly have for us? Besides, if we spoke of these birds as symbolizing the angels, it is because the Islamic tradition is explicit on this point. We do not express individual opinions and our knowledge is of tradition alone. It is indeed a question of the 'language of the birds' (the Koran explicitly says _mantiq at-tayr_), and in no way did it involve the 'song of the birds', which could have another significance, but which in any case was not in question there. Truly, our opponent 'does not seem to us qualified to speak of these matters.' However, let us hope that the more or less brilliant variations on a theme in which he indulges on this subject are not for him of a... 'sign song'! ^[3] Indeed, if we 'amuse' a few ignorant people who believe themselves very strong, then, as for Le Cour, he frankly makes us burst into laughter, and in this dismal end of the Kali-Yuga, such occasions are rare enough that we cannot help being somewhat grateful to him. Rabbuna ikhallik, yā bafuna!In the June issue [of La Revue Spirite] we posed a question concerning the mysterious death of 'Dr G. Mariani'. We have still not received a response, and we think it time to point out some facts. His death, to which the R.I.S.S. only alluded equivocally, was announced publicly in a leaflet of the _Liberté_, a sort of fictionalized account according to the fashion of the day, on the 'underside of contemporary occultism,' by two authors, at least one of whom was 'Mariani's' intimate friend, and was perfectly familiar with all our works (we shall see the import of this observation). In the March 25 issue, in the course of a supposed dialogue between two collaborators, the question of the 'King of the World' arose, which, it was said, 'singularly recalled the _Prince of the world of the Gospels_.' In passing, we must admire this feat of prestidigitation, for the evangelists never spoke of the 'Prince of the world', but rather of the 'Prince of this world', which is so different that certain languages require two entirely distinct words for them (thus in Arabic, 'the world' is _al-alam_, and 'this world' is _ad-dunya_). Then follows this sentence

> The recent death of a young man who dedicated himself to the task of discovering the truth on precisely this point—I speak of an old friend of mine, Gaetan Mariani—proves that the question is dangerous; he must have known too much about it! > The claim is thus very clear, despite the slip of saying that the dead man 'dedicates [in the present tense] himself...' In addition, for those who could not know who 'Mariani' was, a note adds that he is the author of our own study _The King of the World_, which is carefully specified as 'a very rare book, and which indeed is entirely out of print! It is true that in the February 18 issue our _The Spiritist Fallacy_ is no less curiously attributed to an imaginary person named 'Guerinon'! Since our books are signed 'René Guénon', the most elementary propriety demands that when spoken of, the name be reproduced as such, if only to avoid confusion; and, of course, if they were signed Abul-Havl ('F:. Fomalhaut' would shudder with fear in his tomb), it would be exactly the same. — This is not all: we were informed that those who spread the word of 'Mariani's' death attributed it to a hydroplane accident that occurred at sea at the end of last December near the port where he lived. However... In this connection, we definitely had reason to recall the pseudo-suicide of Aleister Crowley, also engulfed by the waves of the sea... In fact, according to a very reliable source there were many points of resemblance between the victim (or, more precisely, one of the two victims) of the accident in question and 'Mariani': same name but for one letter, difference in age of less than one year, same residence; but finally, it was definitely not 'Mariani' in person. We must thus believe that this astonishing set of coincidences was put to use for some purpose that remains obscure, and we should not forget to add that in order to confuse things as fully as possible, the body of the victim was never recovered! Thus, it was nothing but a sinister comedy. If it was so, was it organized by 'Mariani' himself, or by... others, and for what strange reasons? And was the R.I.S.S. a dupe or an accomplice in this phantasmagoric 'disappearance' of its contributor? Whether or not one chooses to believe us, we do not pose these questions for the pointless satisfaction of unraveling the thread of a kind of 'detective story. In order to obtain an answer, will it finally be necessary for us to record in full the names of heroes of this incredible account?

PS: We request our readers to take note (1) that having never had any 'disciples' and having always refused to have any, we do not authorize anyone to claim this title or to attribute it to others, and that we most categorically deny any statement to the contrary, be it past or future; (2) that as a logical consequence of this attitude we also refuse to give individual advice to anyone whomsoever, as we consider that for a number of reasons such could never be our role, so that we earnestly ask our correspondents to abstain from all questions of this kind, if only to spare us the unpleasant task of being obliged to answer with a refusal; and (3) that it is equally useless to ask us for 'biographical' details about our person, considering that nothing that concerns us on a personal level belongs to the public, and that these matters cannot be of the least genuine interest for anybody; doctrine alone counts, and before it, individualities do not exist.

The December issue of the review _Action et Pensée_ contains an article by Jean Herbert entitled '_Métaphysique et Psychagogie_'. This latter term is borrowed from the very agenda of the review, which displays a truly incredible misinterpretation of the subject: the word _psyche_ is here translated as 'spirit'. One wonders what exactly 'leading the spirit' can mean, when it is the spirit on the contrary that necessarily leads everything! In reality, of course, it is in no way a question of spirit, which is precisely why this 'psychagogy' has no connection, either as to its sphere or as to its goal, with the Hindu methods of Yoga or anything else. We have been sufficiently explicit elsewhere about this deplorable confusion to which we here add metaphysics and philosophy. True metaphysics has in fact no connection with 'hypotheses' or any 'beliefs' whatsoever... Another point that we must touch on here is the necessity of a guru. Herbert is quite right to think that there are 'long preparatory stages during which to a very large extent one can rely on the written teachings of authentic masters' (subject to the possibility of even finding such undistorted teachings in the West, and especially with a reservation as to the quality of 'authentic master' attributed to Vivekānanda). This is properly speaking a phase of theoretical preparation, which can indeed be accomplished in an independent way; but as for what must follow, Herbert seems to hold that the role of the guru consist merely in an adaptation of the 'technique' to each particular case, whereas his truly essential role, that which renders his intervention strictly indispensable, is above all to ensure regular initiatic transmission, of which no mention is made here. Lastly, a note referring to _The Mystical Qabalah_ of 'Dion Fortune' which we recently discussed, shows that unfortunately Jean Herbert is not properly informed about the real worth of 'Western disciplines' of this kind... - The rest of the part devoted to 'modern Hindu philosophy' particularly contains extracts from various writings of Sri Aurobindo, whose intentions certainly do not have anything in common with 'psychology' or with the therapeutics of nervous or mental illnesses, or for that matter with the 'conduct of life' as understood in the totally profane sense of Western psychologists.

The _Mercure de France_ (November 15 issue) has published an article by Nyoiti Sakurazawa entitled 'Philosophie et Science d'Extrême-Orient'. Some years ago Sakurazawa published a volume treating the same subject, in which he presented as 'key' and 'unique principle' of this 'philosophy' and of this 'science' (which, moreover, as he himself acknowledged, are precisely neither 'philosophy' nor 'science' in the Western sense of these words) a 'universal law' which is nothing but the cosmological doctrine of the two complementary principles _yin_ and _yang_, the oscillations and vicissitudes of which produce all manifested things, with the indefinite multiplicity of their modifications. As a matter of fact, this doctrine has its application in the field of all the traditional sciences, but in this article the author restricts himself to a more particular consideration of its medical application. His account contains some interesting information, but also a certain confusion, due above all to a mixture of modern Western conceptions and traditional ideas; and this again confirms what we have so often had to say against these illusory parallels drawn between matters that proceed from radically different points of view. We should also mention an article in the same issue by Paul Vulliaud on 'Léon Bloy prophète et martyr' containing curious details on the origins of the 'mission' that this peculiar character believed himself to be invested with. The most interesting aspect of this whole story pertains directly to the affair of La Salette, which is one of those events with suspicious 'undercurrents'. Our times offer such examples in plenty, and as the author notes, it presents truly remarkable links to the affair of Louis XVII's 'survival', links all the more noteworthy in that they remain the same in all cases of this kind occurring during the nineteenth century. The search for the reasons behind this could probably lead quite far into the sphere of what can be called the 'underground' history of our times... Besides, the famous 'Secret of La Salette, which so obviously inspired Léon Bloy's furious invectives against Catholics and particularly against the clergy, contains certain 'marks' that are very clear as to the true nature of the 'influences' that were active throughout all of this. Thus when it becomes obvious that under various guises these things still have a 'sequel' in present times, one may be allowed to think that this is not exactly reassuring, and one will thereby understand why, in particular, the current fashion of certain so-called 'prophecies' must inspire a certain anxiety in anyone not totally ignorant of these kinds of 'ramifications'.

From a certain quarter where it seems that for some time efforts have been made to gather together the scattered debris of the old occultist 'movement', there has also arisen a truly curious attack against the necessity of an effective and regular initiatic transmission, something evidently quite embarrassing for anyone unable to invoke anything better than an 'ideal' connection that is as vague as it is ineffective! In this context, in order to depreciate what one cannot boast of possessing, one speaks of 'exoteric initiation', which is a contradiction in terms. All initiatic rites are by their nature and very definition esoteric rites, but in order to understand this it is first of all necessary not to confuse initiatic transmission with an exoteric transmission such as that of the ecclesiastic ordinations. In no way do these things belong to the same order, even though in their respective domains they are each equally indispensable. Further adding to this confusion, authentic initiatic organizations are placed in the same category as some of the worst examples of 'pseudo-initiation' that can be found... But the best part is that this negating fury goes so far as to contest the existence of the primordial tradition itself, and we can easily guess why, for it is the very filiation of the orthodox traditions that is fundamentally embarrassing, because in the initiatic order this filiation essentially implies the 'chain' that one wishes to dispense with. Without any exaggeration, we can apply to people of this kind what they themselves say of the study of traditional doctrines, no doubt preferring to remain in their ignorance, which is indeed more convenient and less tiring for them: all they can do in seeking a so-called initiation in the clouds of the 'invisible' or in... the world of the Moon, outside of all terrestrial 'lineage', 'is but a vain effort, an ineffectual task, a staggering in the darkness, and mental childishness.'