Chapter LVII: Part I: , Fol. 32a. It is said also that the Word dwells in the superior (1)

heavens, Fol. 33b. And there are other references.

[100] Dacier was a translator in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and his study on the _Doctrine of Plato_ appeared in the third volume of a collection entitled _Bibliothèque des Anciens Philosophes_, which began publication in 1771.

[101] Those who may wish to be acquainted with the sources from which Lévi drew some of his materials may consult _Cœlum Sephiroticum_, by J. C. Steebius, an old folio which appeared in 1679, as well as Reuchlin and Rosenroth. They will see how things change in his hands. According to the _Zohar_, _Ain Soph_ reflects immediately into _Kether_ on the path of manifestation. It is not correct to say that the king is _Ain Soph_ in Kabalism and the letter of Plato is devoid of sephirotic analogies.

[102] It must be said that the Greek word θεοσοφια did not pass into Latin in classical times and was unknown throughout the middle ages. As an illustration of its occult prevalence, I cannot trace that it was used by Paracelsus. In so far as it can be said to have become prevalent, it was in a mystic sense only, as in the proper use of words it could alone be. It was made familiar by Jacob Böhme.

[103] The classical authorities for the visitation of the cave of Trophonius include Pausanias of Cæsarea, who wrote the history of Greece, Cicero, Pliny and Philostratus, not to mention the allusion found in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes. The account of Éliphas Lévi must be taken with certain reservations, but it is not a matter in which accuracy or its opposite is of any consequence outside scholarly research. There were various sacrifices and other ceremonies prior to the visitation, and the candidate for the experience usually descended alone. It is not, I think, on record that the effect of the visit was lasting.

[104] The actual formula seems to have been: “He has consulted the oracle of Trophonius.”

[105] There is no question that, according to the _Zohar_, the sun is the centre of the planetary system, of which planets the earth is one.

[106] There is extraordinary confusion, at the least by way of expression, in this paragraph, which will inevitably create in the reader a notion that the work of Cebes was a picture. As a fact, it is a description of human life contained in a dialogue, to which the title of _Tabula_ was given. It has been printed several times, and once, I believe, at Glasgow, in 1747.

[107] I have intimated elsewhere that the _Zohar_ is in several respects a work of high entertainment, and that its reading is much more diverting than Arabian or Ambrosial Nights. But Éliphas Lévi is right in saying that it calls for some preliminary training. He does not quite mean, however, what I mean in making the suggestion. On the serious side the _Zohar_ is assuredly a work of initiation and one of the great books of the world, though Sir John Lubbock and others of kindred enterprise did not happen to know of it. Lévi is substantially right also in saying that it requires a key, though his meaning is not expressed rightly. The explanation is that it is not a methodical system and presupposes throughout, on the part of its readers, an acquaintance with the tradition which it embodies in allusive form.

[108] It is difficult to say what authority was followed in producing this account. Pentheus was the second King of Thebes, succeeding Cadmus, who built the city. Bacchus was the son of Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, by Jupiter, but he was never a candidate for the Theban throne. The offence of Pentheus was not one of usurpation but of refusal to recognise the divinity of Bacchus. He was not torn to pieces by the daughters of Cadmus, but by a crowd of Bacchanals, among whom was his own mother. It is impossible to turn this story into an allegory of pantheism, as Lévi proceeds to do.

[109] The classical story is the very contrary of this. The effect of his experiments with the serpents was like that of passing through the foot of the rainbow; Tiresias was changed into a girl. He married in this form; but having met a second time with some other interlaced serpents, he again smote them and recovered his original sex. So far from being unable to consummate marriage in either case, he became an authority with the gods on the comparative extent of satisfaction attained by the two sexes in the act of sex.

[110] The term geometrical scarcely applies to the figures of geomancy.

[111] The Bacchus who was depicted with horns was the son of Jupiter and Proserpine. As regards the androgynous nature of Iacchos, I do not know Lévi’s authority, but such a characteristic was ascribed to several deities, though sometimes against general likelihood. It was even said of Jupiter that he was a man but also an immortal maid.

[112] Lévi affirms elsewhere that the satisfaction of all the calls of sense is required for the work of philosophy. In the present place he confuses the issue by implying that chastity means either celibacy or the virgin state. Yet he did not fail to understand that the nuptial life is also a life of chastity; he speaks eloquently of the home and its sanctity, and he alludes elsewhere to the chaste and conjugal Venus.

[113] There were two pagan festivals which have a certain likeness between them: (_a_) _Charisia_, which was in honour of Aglaia, Thalia and Euphrosyne, the _Charites_ or Graces. It was celebrated by dances at night, and the person who maintained the exercise longest was presented with a cake, (_b_) _Charistia_, a Roman festival, for the reconciliation of relations and friends, at which food was eaten. It could be wished for the perpetuity and catholicity of the sacraments that there were traces of an Eucharist in the Christian sense prior to Christian times.

[114] It may be mentioned that 13 is also the number of resurrection, or birth into new life.

[115] The Grimoire mentioned under the name of _Little Albert_ is called in the Latin edition _Alberti Parvi Lucii Libellus_, and is “a treasure of marvellous secrets.” The original intention was to father it on _Albertus Magnus_, and in fact there is another collection which is known as the _Great Albert_. It is of similar value.

[116] I have suffered these lines to stand as they are given by Éliphas Lévi, following the French translation of Salomon Certon. Shelley, who rendered Homer’s _Hymn to Mercury_ into verse which is unworthy of his name, represented the Greek original by asterisks at this point, and I have taken a lesson from the counsel. Lévi gives some further lines—I scarcely know why, but they stand as follows in Shelley’s version:

“Phœbus on the grass
Him threw, and whilst all that he had designed
He did perform—eager although to pass,
Apollo darted from his mighty mind
Towards the subtle babe the following scoff:—
‘Do not imagine this will get you off,

“‘You little swaddled child of Jove and May!’
And seized him: ‘By this omen I shall trace
My noble herds, and you shall lead the way.’”

[117] We shall meet with this sect accordingly, and it will be found that the present remark is either (_a_) not intended to justify the alleged traditional interpretation or (_b_) that the initial reference has to be qualified by its subsequent extension. Johannite Christianity has been the subject of much romancing among the exponents of High-Grade Masonry. Woodford’s _Cyclopædia of Freemasonry_ identifies its followers with Nazarenes and Nasarites, and adds that they regarded St. John the Baptist as “the only true prophet.” One order of Templar Masonry, which is now extinct, seems to have claimed connection with the Johannite sect.

[118] I have quoted elsewhere the previous remark of the author on the same subject as a curious example of how things are apt to strike a French exponent of occultism at different periods of time and in other states of emotion. “St. Paul burnt the books of Trismegistus”—not Göetic texts or works of necromancy; “Omar burned the disciples of Trismegistus (?) and St. Paul. O persecutors! O incendiaries! O coffers! When will you finish your work of darkness and destruction!” This is from the _Rituel de la Haute Magie_, p. 327.

[119] In his _Fundamental Philosophy_, James Balmes seeks to shew that the Eucharistic Mystery, understood in the literal sense of transubstantiation, is not absurd in itself, that is to say, is not intrinsically contradictory. To establish that it is, one must demonstrate: (_a_) that to abstract passive sensibility from matter is to destroy the principle of contradiction; (_b_) that the correspondences between our sense organs and objects are intrinsically immutable; (_c_) that it is absolutely necessary for impressions to be transmitted to the sensitive faculties of the soul by those organs and that they can never be transmitted otherwise. See Book III, _Extension and Space_, c. 33, _Triumph of Religion_. I make this citation because it seems to me that Éliphas Lévi acted incautiously in debating the observation of Rousseau.

[120] The place of his birth is uncertain; Cyprus is one of the alternatives.

[121] This is Dositheus of Samaria, who was contemporary with Christ. There is an account of him by St. Epiphanius and he is also mentioned by Photius.

[122] It is, I believe, one of the Christian apologists who mentions that Helen was found by Simon in a house of ill-fame at Tyre. It is said otherwise that she was Helen of Troy in a previous incarnation.

[123] Because they were both favourites of Nero, or because the reference to a feast reminded Éliphas Lévi of the celebrated Banquet in the _Satyricon_ of Petronius Arbiter. Sophronius Tigellinus was one of Nero’s ministers.

[124] The dispute between St. Peter and Simon the Magician is not a matter of popular rumour; it is a methodical account contained in one of the forged _Recognitions_ ascribed to St. Clement. It will be understood that the version presented by Éliphas Lévi is decorated by his own imagination. It seems generally regarded as certain that Simon visited Rome to enrol disciples, and there is the authority of Eusebius for some kind of meeting with St. Peter.

[125] It might be more accurate to say that there were many successors, of whom Menander was the chief. So also there were many Simonian sects, including the school which followed Dositheus, described by Lévi and others as the master of Simon. Menander claimed to be the envoy of the Supreme Power of God.

[126] They were not included at the period—about 1865—in _La France Mystique_ of Erdan, though it contained _choses inouies_; and they are not found among _les petites religions de Paris_ at the present day, though it contains a Gnostic church confessing to a hierarchic government and, I believe, with an authorised branch at San Francisco—perhaps less _in partibus infidelium_ than is the sect in its own country.

[127] I have given Lévi’s version literally without pretending to account for it. In the authorised version the passage reads: “If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Genesis, iv. 7.

[128] I suppose that reference is intended to _Epitome Delictorum, sive de Magia, in qua aperta vel occulta invocatio Dæmonum_, &c., 4to. I have no record of the first edition, but it was reprinted at Leyden in 1679.

[129] It has to be observed that the Hyphasis was a certain river of India which is assigned by tradition as the boundary of Alexander’s conquests. Had Éliphas Lévi been acquainted with this fact he might have allegorised with success thereon.

[130] It is noticeable that the alchemists of past centuries, who were so apt to see the Hermetic Mystery at large in all literature, and who fathered many mythical treatises on the great and the holy men of old, are silent regarding Apollonius. I am far from admitting the interpretation of Éliphas Lévi, as Philostratus belongs to the dawn of the third century, when alchemy may be said to have been unborn; but I am sure that if the early expositors had known the life of Apollonius, they might almost have suspected something. Even the Abbé Pernety missed the obvious opportunity in his discourse on the Hermetic significance of the Greek and Egyptian fables.

[131] It must be remembered that the Stone in symbolism is far older than the particular symbol which is called the Philosophical Stone, or Stone of Alchemy.

[132] The last statement obtains in respect of the Mystic Stone, as understood, for example, by Zoharic writers.

[133] The introduction to the _Dogme de la Haute Magie_ says: (_a_) That Julian was one of the illuminated and an initiate of the first order; (_b_) That he was a Gnostic allured by the allegories of Greek polytheism; (_c_) That he had the satisfaction of expiring like Epaminondas with the periods of Cato.

[134] The _Golden Legend_ was compiled about 1275 by Jacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa. His authorities were (_a_) Eusebius, (_b_) St. Jerome, (_c_) legendary matter. I am sure that Kabalistic mysteries and Johannite initiation must look elsewhere for their records. The suggestion, however, is not worth debating.

[135] In the _Golden Legend_ the story is entitled “Of St. Justina,” whose festival is on September 26. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, is entirely distinct from the Cyprian of legend.

[136] This pictorial sign appears in an old Grimoire.

[137] With this reverie of Éliphas Lévi on the subject of the mystic ass let us compare another which is of an entirely different order, though it belongs to the same category, (1) It is recorded by Josephus that a certain Jew named Onias obtained leave from Ptolemy Philometor to build a temple in honour of God at a certain place in Arabia which was subsequently called Onium, after the founder. (2) This Onium was not Heliopolis, as supposed commonly. (3) The Temple at Onium, on account of a similitude of sound, was connected with the Greek word ονος, signifying Ass. (4) The Greeks in consequence believed themselves to have discovered the secret object of Jewish worship, being the animal in question. (5) It was asserted that there was an ass’s head in the vestibule of every Jewish temple. (6) As the Greeks did not closely distinguish between Jews and Christians, the ass came also to be called the god of the Christians.—Jacob Bryant: _Analysis of Antient Mythology_, 3rd edition, vol. vi. pp. 82 _et seq._

[138] The commentary of the _Zohar_ on Genesis ii. 22, says that the words—“which the Lord God had taken from man”—signify that the Tradition has issued from the Written Doctrine. The words “and brought him to man” indicate that the Traditional Law must not remain isolated: it can only exist in union with the Written Law. Part I, Fol. 48^b. It follows, and is made plain elsewhere, that man is the Written Law and woman the Secret Doctrine.

[139] In one of the pictorial symbols of Alchemy the head of the winged solar man is represented rising from a chest. It is a recurring image.

[140] It is obvious that Éliphas Lévi pictures only the dark side of Gnosticism; he says nothing and perhaps knew nothing of the higher aspects. His stricture on the copulation of Eons reads strangely for a defender of Kabalism, seeing that the _Zohar_ abounds in similar images.

[141] This statement requires to be checked by a French authority of the period, with whom Éliphas Lévi could not fail to be acquainted. I refer to Jacques Matter and his _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, a second and enlarged edition of which was published in 1843. According to the testimony of this writer: (_a_) Some Gnostics rejected the Eucharist entirely; (_b_) Those who preserved it never taught the real communication of man in the flesh and blood of the Saviour; (_c_) for them it was an emblem of their mystic union with a being belonging to the Pleroma; (_d_) The wonder-working Eucharist was particular to Marcos, but according to St. Irenæus it was the result of trickery; (_e_) He filled chalices with wine and water, pronounced over them a formula of his own, and caused these liquids to appear purple and ruby in colour. _Op. cit._, vol. ii. pp. 344-346.

[142] This assertion is merely a matter of inference.

[143] The materials here embodied come direct from Matter, and the last sentence is almost in his own words. The earlier writer says that he caused women to bless the chalice. Nothing is said as to the intervention of men, other than Marcos, in the celebration.

[144] The dream ascribed to Marcos and his followers is that, however, of the _Zohar_, the opening section of which describes the letters of the Hebrew alphabet as coming before God in succession, praying to be used in the work of creation which was about to begin. They were set aside in their turn for the reason applying to each, with the exception of _Beth_, which was taken as the basis of the work, while _Aleph_ was installed as the first of all the letters, the Master of the Universe affirming that His own Divine Unity was in virtue of this letter. The meaning was that _Aleph_ corresponds to the No. 1. This, says the _Zohar_, with ingenuous subtlety, is why the two first words of Scripture have _Beth_ as their initial and the two next words have _Aleph_.—_Zohar_, Part I, Fols. 2b-3b.

[145] It will be seen in a later section that this charge against Vintras rests upon the evidence of persons expelled from the sect which he founded, and, so far as I am aware, it has not been put forward seriously.

[146] The question, however, stood over until the appearance of _La Clef des Grands Mystères_, a considerable part of which is embodied in the digest of Lévi’s writings which I published long since as _The Mysteries of Magic_. The Astral Light is explained as “magnetised electricity “—as already quoted.

[147] In my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ I have given full opportunities for the judgment of this so-called occult ritual, which should certainly have been kept in concealment, or better still allowed to perish, not on account of its secrets but because it is in all respects worthless, and its ascription to Leo III an insult to that pontiff.

[148] It is laid down in the work of Synesius (_a_) that chastity and temperance are indispensable for the knowledge of divination by dreams; (_b_) that these being granted, divination by dreams is both valuable and simple; (_c_) that all things past, present and future convey their images to us; (_d_) that there is no general rule of interpretation; (_e_) that each should make his divinatory science for himself, by noting his dreams. The philosopher gives some account of the profit which he had derived personally from a study of the images of sleep. Divination also preserved him from the ambushes laid by certain magicians, so that he suffered no harm at their hands.

[149] Éliphas Lévi’s knowledge of the works attributed to Dionysius is doubtless derived from the translation of Monsignor Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, which appeared in 1845. There is an elaborate introduction designed to establish the authenticity of the texts and this is excellent, at least for its period, as a piece of special pleading. The reader who refers to the treatise on Divine Names need not be distressed when he finds that it embodies no mysteries of rabbinical theology. To many of us at the present day the most important of the Dionysian writings is that on Mystical Theology, which is omitted in the enumeration of Lévi and not perhaps unnaturally, as it is a _pelagus divinitatis_ over which he would not have ventured to sail.

[150] Goethe.

[151] This explanation is not in accordance with the recorded facts for which Phlegon and Proclus are the authorities. The works of Phlegon were published at Leyden in 1620, under the editorship of Meursius and again in 1775 at Halle, by Franzius; they contain the story of Philinnion—as the name is spelt by Phlegon. Machates was a foreign friend of Demostratus from Pella, not an innkeeper. Philinnion appeared to him after her death in the house of his parents and declared her love. Her intercourse with Machates was discovered accidentally by a servant, and the _denouement_ is much as it is given in the present place. Philinnion said, however, that she acted with the consent of the gods. Éliphas Lévi accounts for his discrepancies by an appeal to the narratives of French demonographers, but he makes no references by which we can check him. He states, however, that they are answerable for the alleged fact that Machates was the keeper of a tavern. The date of the actual occurrence is the reign of Philip II of Macedon, and the “Emperor” referred to should be King Philip. Lévi confuses the date of Phlegon (Hadrian’s reign) with the date of the incident. Phlegon was merely a collector of curious stories, and could not, of course, have witnessed an incident which took place 500 years before his birth!

[152] It will be understood at the present day that this is reverie and only serves to remind us that Aristotle ascribed the philosophy of Greece to a source in Gaul, while it is affirmed by Clement of Alexandria that Pythagoras derived therefrom. It is thought now, on the other hand, that Druidism in its later developments may have been influenced not only by Greek but also by Phœnician ideas.

[153] In Druidic mythology, Belen, otherwise Heol, was the sun-god; Camael was god of war. The highest divinity is believed to have been that Esus who is mentioned by Lucan. He is represented by the circle, as a sign of infinity, and all fate was beneath him. The most important goddess was Keridwen, who presided over wisdom. The conclusion of Lévi’s enumeration is like the beginning—a dream.

[154] A note by Éliphas Lévi says that a Druidic statue was found at Chartres, having the inscription: VIRGINI PARITURÆ. It is curious that Druidic inscriptions should be in the Latin tongue.

[155] It was supposed to increase the species by preventing sterility, and it was dignified by other ascribed virtues; it was the ethereal tree and the growth of the high summit. It was included among the ingredients of the mystical cauldron of Keridwen, in which genius, inspiration and serenity were said to dwell.

[156] The same occult importance attaches to this statement as to another in the _Dogme et Rituel_, where Éliphas Lévi, explaining the superstitions of the past, affirms for those who can suffer it that the toad is not poisonous but is a sponge for poisons. I suppose, however, it is obvious that if “popular confidence” can render mistletoe magnetic, popular distrust may instil poison into toads.

[157] The floating traditions and _chansons_ concerning Melusine were collected by Jean d’Arras into a beautiful romance of chivalry, at the close of the fourteenth century.

[158] Whether this hypothesis of antiquity is warranted or not, the fact that it is adopted should have prevented Éliphas Lévi from characterising the romance of Melusine as an imitation pf the fable of Psyche: it is obviously the reverse side. The allegory in the latter case is that of the assumption of the soul by the Divine Spirit, so that all which is capable of redemption in our human nature, its emotion, its desire and its love, may enter into the glorious estate of the mystic marriage. The allegory in the former case is that of the union instituted between the psychic part and all that is of earth in our nature; but this earth is not capable of true marriage, and whereas the other experiment ends in the world of unity, this terminates, as it can only, in that of separation.

[159] See Jules Garinet: _Histoire de la Magie en France_, 1818, pp. 11, 12.

[160] The story of Fredegonde and her connection with sorcery is told by Gregory of Tours, but Éliphas Lévi derived it from Jules Garinet, already cited. The particulars concerning Klodswinthe appear to be his own invention, of which her imputed discourse bears all the marks.

[161] See Garinet, _Histoire de la Magie en France_, pp. 14-16, and Th. de Cauzons, _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, vol. ii. p. 100. The original authority is again Gregory of Tours: _Histoire des Francs_, Book VI, c. 35. The account of Lévi is rather incorrect, for after unheard-of tortures, the life of Mummol was spared, but he died on the way to Bordeaux. It does not appear that he defied his executioners and the renewed torture was ordained by Chilperic.

[162] The work in question is called _Acta Disputationis cum quodam Nicolai_.

[163] A story of the days of St. Louis is obviously not Talmudic and the antiquity of the idea of immortality among the Jews fortunately rests on a better foundation than this. The criticism exposes the carelessness of Lévi if he is regarded as a man of learning. Some will think that he traded on the ignorance of his readers.

[164] What was actually intended by the expression _amatores diaboli_ should have been perfectly well understood by Éliphas Lévi. It corresponds to the legends concerning _incubi_ and _succubi_. For a specific example see Brierre de Boismont, _Des Hallucinations_, p. 151 _et seq._

[165] The story comes from Gregory of Tours.

[166] The account of Zedekias and the atmospheric marvels is taken from Garinet, pp. 34 _et seq._

[167] See pp. 34-37 of his History. But the account in Garinet is derived from the _Cinquième Entretien_ in the romance entitled _Le Comte de Gabalis_.

[168] It is not in reality an occult tradition; it is simply the unauthorised claim of the grimoire.

[169] It should be mentioned that this enumeration of assumptions expressed or implied in the claims of occult tradition, by the hypothesis of its present exponent, has nothing to do with the _Enchiridion_, which makes only two claims, and these are particular to itself. They are (_a_) that it was sent to Charlemagne by Pope Leo and (_b_) that certain prayers, which rank as its chief feature, possess mysterious power. The suggestion of Lévi’s next paragraph notwithstanding, there is no other point of view from which the book can be regarded.

[170] It is said elsewhere by Éliphas Lévi that the _Enchiridion_ has never been published with its true figures, and one is led to suppose that a more important MS. copy may have been in his possession. The plates which he describes belong to a printed edition, but there are no particulars concerning it. Most of the symbols are perfectly well known otherwise, and I have given them in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, where they were taken from examples with which I am acquainted. Some of them correspond to the description of Lévi.

[171] _Adonai_ according to the _Zohar_ is one of the titles of _Shekinah_.

[172] He has said elsewhere (_a_) that to pronounce the word _Agla_ Kabalistically is to undergo all the trials of initiation and fulfil all its works; (_b_) that the occult forces which comprise the empire of Hermes are obedient to him who can pronounce, according to science, the incommunicable name of _Agla_; _(c_) and that its letters represent (1) unity, (2) fecundity, (3) the perfect cycle, and (4) the expression of the synthesis.

[173] He means that it symbolises the Creative Intelligence rising over the waters of creation. It is not, strictly speaking, Zoharic symbolism, but it corresponds to his own construction of one of the sections, namely, the _Book of Concealment_.

[174] It is more especially a Rosicrucian number, and its importance in Kabalism arises from its frequent recurrence in the scriptures of the Old Testament. When the days of the greater exile draw to their close, and judgment is coming upon all the peoples and all the kings of the world who have oppressed Israel, it is said that a pillar of fire shall be raised from earth to heaven and shall be visible to everyone for a period of forty days. The King Messiah will leave that place which is called the Bird’s Nest in the Garden of Eden and will manifest in the land of Galilee. At the end of the forty days a splendid star of all colours will appear in the East, &c. _Zohar_, Part II., fol. 7b.

[175] A reference to Plate III in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ will shew that the emblem in question is not the Labarum. For a design which is intended to represent the latter, see Plate IV, Fig. 2. There is really no connection between the Sigils of the _Enchiridion_ and the text of the work.

[176] Éliphas Lévi wrote and published much after the _History of Magic_, but the intention here expressed did not pass into realisation.

[177] At the period in question Westphalia comprehended the region between the Rhine and the Weser. Its southern boundary was the mountains of Hesse; its northern the district of Friesland, which at that time extended from Holland to Schleswig.

[178] No secret mission in the sense intended by Éliphas Lévi was ever entrusted by Charlemagne. He had overcome the Saxons of Westphalia after a thirty years’ war, had enforced the religion of the conqueror upon them, and had established a Frankish system of government therein.

[179] The origin of the Secret Tribunal is clouded, like all the history of its period, but it is quite certain that it is referable to the middle of the thirteenth century. It should be added that Éliphas Lévi was by no means author of the Charlemagne hypothesis, which had been advanced many years previously. The competitive views are numerous. It will be seen directly that a document of the Tribunal claims that it originated in the days of Charlemagne, supposing that it has been quoted correctly. Jules Garinet supported the claim without shewing any knowledge on the subject.

[180] The meetings of the Tribunal were frequently held in the town-house and the castle, sometimes in the market-place, and on rare occasions in churchyards. There is only one record concerning a session underground. The general place was under trees in the open air.

[181] An accused person had the right to conduct his own defence, or he could bring an advocate with him. There were also certain circumstances under which there was the right of appeal.

[182] The evidence is wanting for this extraordinary statement. Éliphas Lévi seems to have been under the impression that the Tribunal was like a Masonic Grand Lodge, with one mode and place of meeting. It was naturally composed of many tribunals and met, as we have seen, in all kinds of places.

[183] That this statement is amply justified may be seen by a reference to _La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, by T. De Cauzons, a work of considerable research published within the last few years in 4 vols. The section entitled _La Magie sous les premiers Capétiens_ is a record of trivialities concerning diabolical manifestations and can have been included only for the sake of chronological completeness.

[184] The story of Rabbi Jechiel’s device of self-protection is told by Bartolocci, _s.v._ R. Jechiel de Parisio, in the _Magna Bibliotheca Rabbinica_, vol. iii. pp. 834, 835. It is on the authority of R. Ghedalia ben David Iacchia. But although Jechiel is supposed to have been a magician there was neither electricity nor magic in his process, only a kind of trap at his own door step or threshold.

[185] It so happens that he went to see him and fell into the trap of the Jew. Garinet is the authority for the imaginary visit to the court of St. Louis. He follows Sauval.

[186] This paragraph is adapted from Garinet, _Hist. de la Magie en France_, p. 76.

[187] Many treatises on alchemy have been fathered on Albertus Magnus, including _Libellus de Alchymia_ and _Concordantia Philosophorum_.

[188] According to the _Zohar_, Adam was formed of earth brought from the four quarters, and this is really an allusion to the symbolic correspondence between the parts of his personality and the four elements of ancient physics.

[189] The universal secret which was sought by mystic Alchemy was more truly that of the life of life; it was the quest of transmutation in God.

[190] The thesis of physical Alchemy was that Nature always intended to produce gold but was thwarted by the impurity of the _media_ amidst which she worked under the earth. The inferior metals resulted. The end of Hermetic art was to complete the design of Nature and raise what is base to perfection.

[191] St. Thomas Aquinas wrote eight treatises on alchemy, if the ascriptions of the literature could be trusted. They are of the same authenticity as those of Albertus Magnus.

[192] The study in question was enjoined in a particular manner by Leo XIII.

[193] I do not know or have forgotten how this legend originated, but in any case no works on transmutation have been imputed to St. Dominic, which leads me to think that the story of his adeptship did not attain any considerable currency.

[194] A fragment of Ostanes is included in the Byzantine collection of ancient alchemists. Romarius should read Comarius, whose tract in the same collection is supposed to be addressed to Cleopatra. Salmanas wrote on the fabrication of artificial pearls and was supposed to be an Arab. A treatise on weights and measures is attributed to Cleopatra and there are also some Latin forgeries. The other names are well known in the literature of Alchemy.

[195] This must be understood in the general sense of the Secret Tradition perpetuated in various forms through Christian times. The Templars had no concern in the secret schools of Jewry. On the basis of the official process which resulted in their condemnation, they have been accused of Black Magic, Sorcery and of entering into a league with the Order of Assassins.

[196] I have dealt with the claims of this speculation in my _Secret Tradition in Freemasonry_, vol. i. p. 300 _et seq._

[197] The reference is really to the fourth chapter of the apocryphal _Book of Nehemiah_, which is the _Second Book of Esdras_, and to the Masons of Nehemiah, not of Zerubbabel. The latter was concerned with the building of the Second Temple and the former with that of the walls about Jerusalem. Half of the young men did the work of restoring the fortifications and half stood in readiness to fight. The builders also were girded with a sword about the reins. The sword in one hand and trowel in another is a symbolical expression.

[198] It is obvious that the arrangement of four triangular blades in a cruciform pattern would constitute an ordinary Maltese cross or cross of the Knights of St. John. This was an Assyrian emblem in pre-Christian times.

[199] The blasphemous fiction is well known and its root is in the _Sepher Toldos Jeshu_; it is inaccurate to call it a tradition; more properly it is a lying invention. I have failed to discover a source for the Theoclet story, but it is barely possible that it may have risen up within the circle of Fabré Palaprat’s _Ordre du Temple_.

[200] In the year 1844 Jacques Matter made a special study of the accusations against Knights Templar in his _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, vol. iii. p. 315 _et seq._ He states that the alleged preference of the Templars for St. John’s Gospel is nowhere attested by the history of the Order. They were not therefore tinctured by remanents of Paulician Gnosticism, as it is not likely that they would be.

[201] Elsewhere Éliphas Lévi says: (_a_) That the hypothetical idol Baphomet was a symbolical figure representing the First Matter of the _Magnum Opus_, which is the Astral Light; (_b_) That it signified further the god Pan, which may be identified with “the Christ of dissident sacerdotalism”; (_c_) That the Baphometic head is “a beautiful allegory which attributes to thought alone the first and creative cause”; and finally, (_d_) That it is “nothing more than an innocent and even a pious hieroglyph.”

[202] The suggestion is that they were summoned by Jacques de Molay to appear before the Divine Tribunal within a year and a day, there to answer for their injustice, and that they died within the time mentioned, which does not happen to be true.

[203] The revision of the process which condemned the Maid of Orléans was begun by Charles VII himself in 1449. In 1552 twelve articles were drawn up, designed to exhibit its illegality and injustice. For political reasons, meaning the relations between France and England, the mother and brothers of Joan were made plaintiffs at Rome, and Pope Callixtus V appointed a commission. In 1456 the commission pronounced its judgment, reversing and annulling the first process on the ground of roguery, calumny, injustice, contradictions and manifest error in fact and law.—_La Magie et la Sorcellerie en France_, vol. ii. pp. 514-518.

[204] It has been suggested that the charge of sorcery covered a political conspiracy for his destruction and was of the same value as the same charge in respect of the Knights Templar.

[205] Francesco Prelati seems to have been a magician by profession and as regards Gilles de Sillé, it is said otherwise that he was a priest of St. Malo.

[206] This was Catherine de Thouars, and it was to her that the bulk of his fortune was due. He is said to have been one of the richest nobles in Europe.

[207] It will be understood that what follows is merely romantic narrative. See _Gilles de Rais, dit Barbe Bleue_, by Bossard et Maulde.

[208] The account at this point represents the admixture of the Blue-Beard or folk-element and may be read in conjunction with Perrault.

[209] It does not appear that Francesco Prélati and Gilles de Sillé were brought to account subsequently.

[210] He was really cited to appear before Jean de Malestroit, Bishop of Nantes and Chancellor of Brittany. He obeyed this summons.

[211] The records say that he was insolent at the beginning but soon changed his methods, and the confession which he made involved two of his servants, named Henri and Poitou.

[212] It was the servants of Gilles de Rais who accused him under torture.

[213] This explanation is absolutely supposititious, there being no tittle of evidence for the existence of such a process in the records of Black Magic. It is of course possible that some readers may ascribe secret sources of information to Éliphas Lévi. Speaking generally, Black Magic and the synonymous white variety were concerned little enough in alchemical processes, good or bad. Their amateurs and adepts sought enrichment by the discovery of buried treasures with the assistance of demons; they sought also to communicate with evil spirits who could bring gold and precious stones from the mines, or who could themselves accomplish transmutation.

[214] It is just to say that Gaffarel wrote in defence of the Jews and to clear them of many accusations besides those made by Philo. His thesis was that many things were falsely imposed upon them.

[215] His fate was shared by the servants already mentioned, who are said to have been his accomplices.

[216] The Marquis Eudes de Mirville wrote _Des Esprits et de leurs Manifestations Fluidiques devant la Science Moderne_, 1858, and other large books, which were highly recommended by ecclesiastical authority of the day. He saw the intervention of Satanism everywhere in psychic and occult phenomena. Remove the personality of Satan and Éliphas Lévi says exactly the same thing.

[217] The reference is to _La Réalité des Esprits et le Phénomène Merveilleux de leur Écriture Directe_. It appeared in 1857 and is a very curious collection of materials. Long after, or in 1875, the same writer published _La Morale Universelle_, which seems to be a plea for secular education.

[218] The reader should understand that Éliphas Lévi is only giving expression to a point of view; it must not be supposed that there were adepts—either true or false—who said or thought the things which are here set down at the period in question, or indeed at any other period.

[219] See Gabriel Naudé: _Apologie pour les Grands Hommes faussement accusés de la Magie_.

[220] Bartholemæus Platina was assistant-librarian of the Vatican, and his _Opus in Vitas Summorum Pontificum_ appeared at Venice in 1479, two years before his death.

[221] “Let the popes see to it,” he remarks, according to a Note of Lévi; “it is they who are concerned in the question.”

[222] Éliphas Lévi, in his defence of the Catholic Religion, by which he means that of Rome, reminds one of Talleyrand proceeding to consecrate and entreating his familiars about him not to make him laugh: in the symbolic language of the man in the street, his tongue is so evidently in his cheek. An open enemy of Rome would think twice before saying that the pope who authorised the instruments which were used in the execrable massacres of Albigensians and Vaudois was “so eminently catholic.”

[223] I refer the readers of this section to my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, where the content and history of this Grimoire are considered with special reference to the criticism of Éliphas Lévi.

[224] I have mentioned in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_ that the first edition of the _Grimoire of Honorius_ is referred to 1629, being about 900 years after the death of its alleged author. I have also referred it to its proper source in the _Sworn Book of Honorius_, which belongs to the fourteenth century. The Honorius here in question was the spokesman of magicians assembled at a mythical place. He is described as the son of Euclid and Master of the Thebans.

[225] This is another way of stating that it is precisely of the same character as the _Key of Solomon the King_, the _Keys of Rabbi Solomon_ and the _Magical Elements of Peter de Abano_, which correspond to the description given.

[226] The Grimoire is, on the contrary, a Ritual for the evocation of evil spirits and, granting only the legality of this operation, it is conformable in all respects to the doctrine of the Latin Church. Now, it is idle to say that this Church substitutes the passive for the active principle, the cultus of the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding.

[227] I am not acquainted with this frontispiece, but I have seen a copy having a design on the title-page representing the sun within an inverted triangle.

[228] This exegesis is personal to Éliphas Lévi and has no authority in Kabalism, as there is no need to say, seeing that the Secret Tradition in Jewry did not maintain the hierarchy of the Latin Church. In the _Zohar_, Adonai is a title of _Shekinah_, as already stated.

[229] On the assumption of course that the letter _Aleph_ stands for _Adam_, while _Cheth_ and _Vau_ are the first letters in the name of _Eve_. The interpretation throughout is of the same value and Éliphas Lévi was not more serious in expressing it than I am in translating it. The _Grimoire of Honorius_ is no such abyss of decorative philosophical iniquity.

[230] I have used the translation made from the Grimoire itself, published in my _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, p. 107.

[231] It affirms that the power to command demons is resident in the Seat of Peter and then proceeds to communicate that power by dispensation to “venerable brethren and dear sons in Jesus Christ,” being those comprised in the ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

[232] It must be explained that the oration in the Grimoire is not rhythmic, but the “when I shall impose my will upon them” recurs several times, literally or in substance. In this manner Éliphas Lévi gets the refrain of his verses: _Je leur imposerai ma volonté pour loi_. His metrical rendering is well conceived and executed.

[233] I have rendered in prose that which is given by Lévi in verse, which is anything but in the words of the Ritual. Compare my translation of the prayer taken from the Grimoire in the _Book of Ceremonial Magic_, pp. 280-282.

[234] The Ritual proceeds to the conjuration of the Kings presiding in the four quarters of heaven and the evil angels who rule over the days of the week.

[235] The presence of the gipsies in Europe can be traced prior to the fifteenth century.

[236] The authority of George Borrow is quoted for this statement.

[237] Long before Vaillant, this Chinese inscription was described by Court de Gebelin, who also believed that it was a form of the Tarot.

[238] If certain beautiful Tarot cards preserved in the Bibliothèque du Roi and at the Musée Carrer are the work of Jacques Gringonneur, which is disputed, as we have seen, then the Tarot is first heard of in 1393 and as it was in 1423 that St. Bernardin of Sienna preached against playing cards, which were no doubt Tarots, it is probable that they were put to the same use at the earlier date that they were put to at the later.

[239] The romantic history of Raymund Lully on which Éliphas Lévi worked was written by Jean Marie de Vernon.

[240] What is certain historically is as follows: (_a_) That the story of Ambrosia di Castello, so far as regards its root-matter, concerns the original and only Raymund Lully, who was the author of the _Ars Magna_; (_b_) That it is in all probability fictitious; (_c_) That it has been decorated and dramatised by Éliphas Lévi, who has done his work admirably; (_d_) That concerning the father of the illuminated doctor we know only that he was a great soldier; (_e_) That the author of the alchemical treatises was not the author of the _Ars Magna_; (_f_) That the alchemical writer is said to have been (1) another Raymund Lully, which, I think, means only that he assumed the name in order to father his works upon a celebrated person, and (2) a proselyte of the gate, being a person who becomes a Jew, but this is manifestly contradicted by the evidence of the alchemical texts; (_g_) That when the works of Raymund Lully were collected, at the end of the eighteenth century, into eight enormous folio volumes, we find, as I have said elsewhere, a third Raymund Lully, who was a mystic; but as to his real identity we know nothing.

[241] Rose Nobles were replaced by Angels in 1465, _temp._ Edward IV.

[242] Louis Figuier wrote occult romances under the guise of history, and did not know what he was talking about in respect of the _Ars Magna_. There is no reason to suppose that it had even passed through his hands. It was otherwise as regards the little alchemical texts; and there is no reason to question what he says concerning them.

[243] The story of a transmutation performed by some one called Raymund Lully in England depends from the alchemical texts mentioned, and is therefore no evidence, and from a forged Testament of John Cremer, who called himself Abbot of Westminster, but no person of this name filled the office in question, either at the supposed period or any other.

[244] The tracts extant under the name of the alchemical Raymund Lully are enumerated by Lenglet du Fresnoy in connection with those attributed to the author of the _Ars Magna_. Mangetus printed sixteen in his _Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa_, 1702. The _Codicillus_, _Vade Mecum_, or _Cantilena_ is a considerable work, divided into 74 chapters.

[245] The reader may consult at this point my study of the life and writings of Raymund Lully in the _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_, pp. 68-88.

[246] There is no reference to a title in the original text.

[247] It is stated once only in the Apocalypse that “there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.” See Chapter VIII, verse 1.

[248] The _Book of Nicholas Flamel_ describes the symbols as follows: (1) A Wand and serpents devouring one another; (2) a Cross, on which a serpent was crucified; (3) Deserts, in the midst of which were many fair fountains, whence issued a number of serpents that glided here and there.

[249] Mercury and Saturn—as Flamel supposed them to be—were depicted on the obverse side of this leaf and the symbolic flower was on the reverse side. It is not said to be a rose, but simply a fair flower. The rose-tree was on the obverse side of the fifth leaf.

[250] The original has no reference to solidified air.

[251] Otherwise, Arisleus, who figures prominently in the discourses of the _Turba Philosophorum_.

[252] There is an old story that he translated the _Sepher Ha Zohar_ into Latin, but the manuscript has never been found.

[253] It was first published at Basel and afterwards at Amsterdam in 1646. In 1899 the second edition was rendered into French. It deserves and will repay careful reading from the mystic point of view.

[254] This promise represents another unfulfilled intention of Éliphas Lévi.

[255] See _Les Six Voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier, en Turquie, en Perse et aux Indes_, Paris, 1676. There were five French editions, and the work was also translated into English.

[256] This is really the title of a particular treatise, but as it is exceedingly long and may be said to be _de omnibus rebus_, it may not be taken unjustly to represent his philosophy at large.

[257] The latest and most successful apologist of Paracelsus says that the charge of intemperance was invented by his enemies. See the _Life of Paracelsus_, by Miss Anna M. Stoddart, 1911.

[258] Éliphas Lévi, who rather misquotes Dante, held that he had performed the same kind of mental pilgrimage, and had escaped in the same manner—by reversing dogma. He says elsewhere: “It was after he had descended from gulf to gulf and from horror to horror to the bottom of the seventh circle of the abyss ... that Dante ... rose consoled and victorious to the light. We have performed the same journey, and we present ourselves before the world with tranquillity on our countenance and peace in our heart ... to assure mankind that hell and the devil ... and all the rest of the dismal phantasmagoria are a nightmare of madness.”

[259] The interpretation of the _Divine Comedy_ as embodying an act of war against the papacy was begun by Gabriele Rossetti, about 1830, in his _Disquisitions on the Anti-Papal Spirit which produced the Reformation_. For the obscure and dubious tenets to which Éliphas Lévi gives the name of Johannite, he substitutes the doctrines of Albigenses and Waldenses. The same thesis, taken over from its Italian deviser, was maintained in the same interest by Eugène Aroux, firstly in _Les Mystêres de la Chevalerie_, and afterwards in the great body of annotation attached to his translation of Dante. The latter work appeared in 1856. The interpretation of Lévi is a variant of that of Aroux. The disquisitions of the French writer are a fountain of joy for criticism. He produced yet another monument, being _Dante, Hérétique, Revolutionnaire et Socialiste_, 1854. He was a devoted member of the Latin Church, though I think that there would have been joy among the faithful had his books been burnt at Rome.

[260] The authority is the demonographer Bodin. Trois-Échelles confessed to the King that he had given himself over to a spirit who enabled him to perform prodigies. He was forgiven on condition that he denounced others who were guilty of sorcery. It is supposed that his subsequent condemnation was the consequence of new operations on his own part.

[261] That is, Pierre de l’Étoile. See _Véritable Fatalité de Saint Cloud_, art. 8.

[262] This account is drawn from Garinet, who cites two pamphlets of the period: (A) _Les Sorcelleries de Henri de Valois, et les Oblations qu’il faisait au Diable dans le Bois de Vincennes_, 1589; (B) _Remonstrances à Henri de Valois sur les choses horribles envoyées par un enfant de Paris_, 1589.

[263] Compare Aroux: _La Comédie de Dante_, vol. ii., p. 33 of his _Clef de la Comédie_. The Rose is “the Albigensian Church and its doctrines ... transformed into a mystic flower.” Hence the immense vogue of the romance of William of Lorris, despite the anathemas of Gerson.

[264] The words of Flamel are as follows: “On the fifth leaf was a fair rose-tree, flowered, in the midst of a garden, growing up against a hollow oak, at the foot whereof bubbled forth a fountain of pure white water, which ran headlong down into the depths below. Yet it passed through the hands of a great number of people who digged in the earth, seeking after it, but, by reason of their blindness, none of them knew it, except a very few, who considered its weight.” _Le Livre de Nicolas Flamel._

[265] It will be seen that this is the counter-thesis to the explanation of the spiritual world by means of natural law; it is the explanation of the natural world by means of spiritual law. So also Éliphas Lévi is right when he goes on to affirm in substance that the religion of supernatural grace is the font of natural religion. It is in the light of the instituted sacraments that we find the hidden grace of those in Nature.