[69] According to Petrus Galatinus, in De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis, the word Agla expresses the infinite power of the Divine Trinity. Like Éliphas Lévi, he gives us the separate significance of each letter and, like Buxtorf, he makes them the initials of the sentence already quoted, his rendering being: Tu potens in æternum Dominus. He terms Agla Nomen Dei, for which there seems to be as much and as little authority as there is for the suggestion that the Divina potentia is that of the Trinity.
[70] A very full exposition of this Name will be found in the section entitled De Cabale Hebræorum, forming part of Kircher’s magnum opus, the Œdipus Ægyptiacus. It is curious that a tract so important as this, within its own measures, and written with the uttermost simplicity, does not appear to have been translated, even into the French language.
[71] I must admit that this reference escapes me. The Tarot consists of four suits of 14 cards each and there are 22 Trumps Major, making 78 cards in all.
[72] The axiom has rather a convincing air, but the analogy is wrong, and the word “return” is a blunder of popular speech. The possibility of communication with those who have left this life is a question of the interpenetration of worlds. To say that the human spirit departs or comes back is a symbolic expression, like the statement that heaven is above us.
[73] The analogy is again wrong and the creation of a materialistic mind. The return of the soul to God is not annihilation but life for evermore, and it is union with all life.
[74] The soul sheds one envelope, in which it has prepared another.
[75] This expression may tend to confusion. The consciousness and activity of the soul are manifested by means of that vehicle in which it happens to reside. It is not they that belong to the vehicle, but it is the vehicle that is used by them.
[76] There is no Kabalistic authority for the sun as the abode of souls.
[77] Kabalism is silent on the question of communication with those who have left this life, though tacitly it must admit the possibility on the evidence of the case of Samuel. The axiom that the spirit clothes itself to come down and unclothes itself to go up is one of the so-called conclusiones Kabbalisticæ of Picus de Mirandula, but it is found substantially in the Zohar, and as regards the descent, this is just what occurs ex hypothesi in the phenomena of spiritistic materialisations. As regards the parable of the rich man, it has nothing to do with the question of so-called spirit-return; those who were in the bosom of Abraham had as much left this life as those who were in Sheol.
[78] It depends on those who have left us. What of the earthly and the evil? Why should the bond between them and us—supposing that there is a bond—be that of our highest feelings?
[79] The fact is that he was assassinated, the inference is that it was by or at the instance of those whose secrets he was supposed to have betrayed. The murderers, also by inference, were said to be Brethren of the Rosy Cross. It may be mentioned that the Comte de Gabalis contains the theory of communication with elementary spirits, being those of earth, air, fire and water; but the mode of treatment suggests that it is a jeu d’esprit. The Nouveaux Entretiens sur les Sciences Secrètes, Génies Assistants and Le Gnome Irréconcilable, which are supposed sequels, are forgeries, of later periods.
[80] Elsewhere in his works Éliphas Lévi says that the Astral Light is (a) the Od of the Hebrews, (b) an electro-magnetic ether, (c) a vital and luminous caloric, (d) the instrument of life, (e) the instrument of the omnipotence of Adam, (f) the universal glass of visions. It follows the law of magnetic currents, is subject to fixation by a supreme projection of will-power, is the first envelope of the soul, and the mirror of imagination. He terms it also magnetised electricity. It would seem that his contemporary disciples in France have abandoned the theory of their master, or perhaps I should say rather its doctrinal part. On the other hand, it has perhaps reappeared, under theosophical auspices, as the reservoir of the akasic records.
[81] There are also references to Lilith, a demon-wife of Adam, in the Zohar; she is called the instigator of chastisements and was really the wife of Samael, the evil angel. It may be added that, according to Paracelsus, the elementaries non sunt progeniti ex Adamo. See Liber de Nymphis, Sylphis, Pygmæis et Salamandris, Tract. I, cap. 1..
[82] In respect of male celibates, the physiological particulars referred to are the blind yearning of Nature after the nuptial state and, with a tentative reserve in respect of the life of sanctity, it is shame to those who neglect the warning or turn it to the account of sin.
[83] This is one construction of the symbol and is a little tinctured by Éliphas Lévi’s sincere admiration for the understanding which lay behind the Romance of the Rose. The text of Genesis says that a river rose to water the Garden “and from thence it was parted and became into four heads,” or four sources of rivers. These rivers did not water the Garden but the world without, and their names are familiar in the geography of the ancient world. The mystic pantacle of Eden shews therefore an enclosure constituted by a ring or circle of water, an island like that of Avalon, which is another Garden of Apples, and the waters flow out therefrom towards the four points of heaven: they form therefore a cross, and in the centre of that cross is the Paradise. If the reader will bear in mind that, according to the secret tradition, Adam was set to grow roses in the Garden of Eden, he will understand at what place of the world the symbolism of the Rosy Cross takes its origin.
[84] This is true, but it is only the science of this world in the sense that the greater includes the lesser. It is really the supernal knowledge which is called Daath in Kabalism, arising from the union of Chokmah and Binah, or Wisdom and Understanding.
[85] The commentary of the Zohar on Genesis, vi. 2—“the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair”—affirms that the angels were cast out of heaven as soon as they had conceived the desire therein suggested. Aza and Azael were the chiefs of these fallen spirits. Subsequently they taught Magic to men.
[86] The design of the builders, according to the Zohar, Part I, Fol. 75a, was to abandon the celestial domain for that of Satan. They desired to rebuild heaven, apparently in the likeness of their own evil desires. They were the same quality of souls as the “giants in the earth in those days” and “the mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” See Genesis, c. vi. v. 4 and Zohar, Part I, Fol. 25b.
[87] Zoharic Kabalism was dissatisfied with the visitation of the offence of Ham on his apparently innocent son, Canaan, and it accounted for the malediction pronounced upon the latter by the fact that he had removed the testes from the person of his grandfather Noah. On the surface this is a ridiculous enormity, but it is a concealed intimation that the whole Noetic myths is, like Paradise itself, a mystery of sex shadowed forth in symbolism.
[88] It should be needless to say that this is a mere presumption and is not even founded on any legend concerning the travels of Plato. He is said to have been in Egypt for a period which has been estimated at thirteen years.
[89] He was a disciple of Plato who is supposed not only to have been illustrious for his knowledge of geometry but to have paid the usual pilgrim’s visit to Egypt and to have returned an adept in astronomy.
[90] We have, unhappily, to remember that Éliphas Lévi himself wrote a great deal, and assuredly to little purpose, on the subject of squaring the circle and on perpetual motion. Elsewhere he tells us that the revolution of a square about its centre describes a circle, and thus the circle is squared. He also invented, in imagination, a clock which wound itself up in the process of running itself down, and this was perpetual motion—presumably, unless the mechanism happened to stop working or to wear itself out. The reader may settle for himself whether in these phantasies he was in hiding like an adept or pursuing like a fool.
[91] The only remark which is requisite on this chapter is that it involves throughout an abuse of the word Mysticism, which has nothing to do with religious anarchy, sects or magic. See, however, my preface to the present translation.
[92] The history of persecution may be left to speak for itself on the validity of this plea and the postulated principle mentioned by Éliphas Lévi may even be thought to have concealed a stab from behind in the dark. In any case, the alleged horror of blood is best illustrated by the method of pyre and faggot.
[93] “Change not the barbarous names of evocation,” says one of the oracles attributed to Zoroaster, as we have seen, and the reason given is because of their “ineffable power.” This was the true Zoroaster of Éliphas Lévi, and he was not, ex hypothesi, an exponent of Black Magic. “Barbarian words and signs unknown” are not less in favour with the so-called white variety.
[94] See my Book of Ceremonial Magic, pp. 100-102, for a study of this Grimoire.
[95] The reference is to a work entitled Des Hallucinations, ou Histoire raisonnée des Apparitions, des Visions, des Songes, de l’Extase, du Magnétisme et du Somnambulisme. It was first published about 1850 and was of authority at its period. Its large array of materials will be always valuable. I believe that it was translated into English.
[96] There is no need to say that the Second Birth, to which allusion is made by Christ, is not comprehended by any notion of a moral change, though such change is involved. Morality is the gate of spiritual life but is not its sanctuary.
[97] The point which escapes in this synopsis of Egyptian initiation is that which distinguishes the official mysteries—like Masonry—from vital initiation, and I mention it here because there are memorials of Egyptian mysteries which suggest that they were no mere symbolical pageants but did communicate—to those who could receive—the life which is behind such symbolism.
[98] The analogy here instituted assumes in respect of the Greek mysteries that which has been implied previously regarding those of Egypt. The laws and by-laws of the schools of philosophy, whatever they exacted from pupils, were not imitations of the grades of initiation and advancement communicated in priestly sanctuaries, if there was mystic life in those sanctuaries. Even if they were merely pageants, the comparison does not obtain; for it is obvious that Pythagoras and Plato did not confer degrees by way of ritual. Matriculation and “the little go” are not ceremonial observances in the path of symbolism.
[99] The truth is that in so far as the Jewish Kabalah contains a Logos philosophy, so far it embodies confused reminiscences of Alexandrian schools of thought. Éliphas Lévi reminds one of Jacob Bryant, Davies and the respectable Mr. Faber, who explained the whole universe of history by the help of Shem, Ham and Japhet, the deluge and the Ark of Noah. He saw the Kabalah everywhere; had he spoken of a secret tradition subsisting in all times, of which Kabalism is a part in reflection, he would have been less confused and confusing; but he applied to the whole a term which is peculiar to a part. It is said in the Zohar that the Word which discovers unto us the supreme mysteries is generated by the union of light and darkness. Part I, Fol. 32a. It is said also that the Word dwells in the superior 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:
[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. 48b. 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!