[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.