The history of magic

[1] The word signifies reception, and in Rabbinical Hebrew it denotes doctrine so communicated—that is to say, by a tradition handed down or received from the past. John Reuchlin specifies it as symbolical reception, signifying that the doctrine is not comprised simply in its surface meaning. He says further that it is of Divine Revelation, and that it belongs primarily to the life-giving contemplation of God. This is in the universal sense, but it is concerned also with secret teaching respecting particular things, meaning things manifest—contemplatio formarum separatarum.

[2] The reference is to L’Origine de tous les Cultes, ou Religion Universelle, 12 vols. in 8vo, together with an atlas in 4to. Paris, 1794. The work endeavoured to shew the unity of dogma under the multiplicity of symbols and allegories. In other words, it explained religion by astronomy, the cultus in the light of the calendar, mysteries of grace by means of natural phenomena. An abridgment in a small volume appeared about 1821. The Table of Denderah or Dendra was a great zodiac sculptured on the ceiling of the portico belonging to the Temple at that place, which was the ancient Tentyrio.

[3]Sed omnia in mensura, et numero, et pondere disposuisti: “But Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight.”—Wisdom, xi. 21.

[4] The conventional Hexagram presents in pictorial symbolism the root doctrine of the Hermetic Emerald Tablet: “That which is above is equal to that which is below.” It is the sign of the interpenetration of worlds.

[5] According to the Zohar, Pt. I., fol. 21a, 21b, it was with the guardian angel of Esau that Jacob wrestled at the place which he named Peniel. The angel could not prevail against Jacob because the latter derived his strength from the Supreme Light, Kether, and from Chokmah, which is the second hypostasis. He therefore smote Jacob on the right thigh, which signifies the seventh Sephira, or Netzach.

[6] The more usual argument of high orthodox theology in the Latin school is that a sin against the Infinite Being is one of infinite culpability. If it were suggested in rejoinder that it must be one of infinite inconsequence, so far as that Being is concerned, it might not be more reasonable than the argument, but it would do less outrage to logic.

[7] It is to be noted, however, that there was mockery of its kind in the middle ages, that Satan and his emissaries in folk-lore appear under ridiculous lights. There is the prototypical story of the devil who gave a course of lectures on Black Magic at the University of Salamanca and demanded, as a consideration, the soul of one of his hearers; but he was cheated with the student’s shadow.

[8] In his earlier work, The Doctrine and Ritual of Transcendental Magic, Éliphas Lévi affirms (a) on the authority of a writer whom he does not name, that the devil is God, as understood by the wicked; (b) on another authority, that the devil is composed of God’s ruins; (c) that the devil is the Great Magical Agent employed for evil purposes by a perverse will; (d) that he is death masquerading in the cast-off garments of life; (e) that Satan, Beelzebub, Adramelek, &c., do not designate spiritual unities, but legions of impure spirits.

[9] In speaking of evil and a possible Prince of Darkness, it is necessary to proceed carefully, if we are confined, like Éliphas Lévi, within the measures of a theory of opposites. The definition of evil as the absence of rectitude is entirely insufficient to cover the facts of experience; it is that indeed, but it is also as much more as may be necessary to account for its positive and active side. The truth is that positive and negative are on both sides of the eternal balance of things postulated by the theory. So far as it goes, evil is the absence of rectitude, and, so far as it goes also, rectitude is the absence of evil; but the vital aspects of good and bad have slipped between the fingers of definition in both cases.

[10] Saint-Martin recognises the existence of an astral region, which is apparently that of sidereal rule. There is, in his view a certain science of this region, and of this the active branch is theurgic, while the passive engenders somnambulism. These divisions constitute the elementary science of the astral, but above these there is one which is more fatal and dangerous, of which he refuses to speak. There is no Martinistic doctrine concerning the Astral Light, understood as an universal medium. Éliphas Lévi seems to have used the term Martinism in a general sense, as if it included the school of Martines de Pasqually. Pasqually, however, has no doctrine concerning the Astral Light. Modern French Martinism has read it into Saint-Martin’s rather ridiculous “epico-magical poem” or allegory, called Le Crocodile, much as another school of experiment might find therein a veiled account of the Akasic records and the mode of their study. I refer to the story of Atlantis, which begins at Chant 64 and occupies a large part of the book. The account of the Chair of Silence is very curious in this connection.

[11] If the word is of Greek origin it seems to connect with the idea of watchers rather than leaders. Cf. [Greek ho egrêgoros] = Vigil, in the Septuagint.

[12] The Kabalistic explanation is (a) that Egyptian Magic was real Magic; (b) that its wisdom was of the lowermost degree only; (c) that it was overcome by the superior degrees, by which the serpent above, or Metatron, dominates the serpent below, namely, Samael. See Zohar, Part II., fol. 28a.

[13] Elsewhere Éliphas Lévi suggests that Pharaoh’s magicians refused rather than failed and that the production of flies was beneath the dignity of their Magic.

[14] It should be mentioned that this enumeration is in the reverse order of chronology, and it is not, as it happens, even in accordance with what may be called traditional chronology. Legend says—and Éliphas Lévi himself mentions subsequently—that the Sepher Yetzirah was the work of Abraham and that the Zohar is in its root-matter a literal record of discourses delivered by R. Simeon Ben Jochai, after the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. The Jerusalem and Babylon Talmuds are admittedly growths of some centuries.

[15] The meanings ascribed to the names and inscriptions on the two Pillars of the Temple will be of curious interest to members of the Masonic Fraternity, who will be reminded of variants with which they are themselves familiar. It must be said, however, that the explanation of Lévi corresponds neither to Masonic nor Kabalistic symbolism. According to the latter Boaz is the left-hand Pillar, being that of Severity in the scheme of the Sephirotic Tree; it answers to Hod, and the meaning attached to its name is Strength and Vigour. Jachin is on the right hand, answering to Netzach on the Tree; it signifies the state of becoming established. That which is made firm between Hod and Netzach is Malkuth, or the kingdom below. This is the late Kabalism of the tract entitled Garden of Pomegranates.

[16] This is the particular construction which is placed by Lévi on the texts with which he is assuming to deal, and it is not really justified by these. The Zohar has, however, a doctrine of the Unknown Darkness. The Infinite is neither light nor splendour, though all lights emanate therefrom. It is a Supreme Will, exceeding human comprehension, and more mysterious than all mysteries. See Zohar, Part I., fol. 239a.

[17] Éliphas Lévi does not seem always to have made the most of his opportunities as regards the texts of Kabalism and the literature thereto belonging which were available at his period in Latin and certain modern languages, including his own. He had otherwise little opportunity of learning the real message of the Zoharic cycle. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, his guesses were sometimes very shrewd, and here and there carry with them the suggestion of intuitions. The teaching of the Zohar on the subject of sex postulates, like so much of its doctrine, a secret tradition to which it never gives expression in fulness, though it is incessantly lifting now one and now another corner of the veil. It is, however, impossible to speak of it within the limit of a note.

[18] It was not a master-word but a mode of greeting; it was neither Masonic nor Kabalistic; it was a Rosicrucian formula. It may be added that: “Peace profound, my brethren”—was answered by: “Emanuel; God is with us.” It is a perfect and highly mystical mode of salutation.

[19] Perhaps the true explanation in respect of Henry Khunrath is that, seemingly, he was of the Lutheran persuasion as one of the accidents of his birth, but in the higher consciousness he was, as he could be only, catholic. As regards the resolute protestantism, Éliphas Lévi says in his Ritual of Transcendental Magic that Khunrath “affects Christianity in expressions and in signs, but it is easy to see that his Christ is the Abraxas, the luminous pentagram radiating on the astronomical cross, the incarnation in humanity of the sovereign sun celebrated by the Emperor Julian.” See my translation of the Doctrine and Ritual of Transcendental Magic, p. 257.

[20] Éliphas Lévi has said previously (a) that the Church ignores Magic—for she must either ignore it or perish; (b) that Magic, as understood by him, is absolute religion as well as absolute science; (c) that it should regenerate all forms of worship.

[21] If it be worth while to say so the translation of this passage does not follow the text, which suggests that the act of conception—on the female side—involves suffering. The text reads: C’est le plaisir qui féconde, mais c’est la douleur qui conçoit et enfante.

[22] According to the Zohar, the letter Aleph is a sacrament of the unity which is in God, and it is thereby and therein that man obtains unity. Beth is the basis of the work of creation, and in a sense also its instrument. Gimel represents the charity and beneficence which are the help of poverty, designated by the letter Daleth. The letters He and Vau are part of the mystery which is contained in the Divine Name— יהוה. The letter Zain is likened to a sharp sword or dagger.

[23] The account which follows may be compared with that which is found, s.v. Apocryphes in Éliphas Lévi’s Dictionnaire de Littérature Chrétienne, mentioned in my preface to the present translation. It describes the legend concerning the fall of certain angels as une assez singulière histoire. He refers also to the various extant versions of the book, and to those in particular which differ from the “primitive” codex, being (a) that which he uses, and (b) “that which St. Jude cites in his catholic epistle as an authentic” work, actually composed by the prophet Enoch, to whom it is attributed.

[24] The Zohar says that the Ark of Noah was a symbol of the Ark of the Covenant, that his entrance therein saved the world, and that this mystery is in analogy with the Supreme Mystery. At this point there is a sex-implicit throughout the Kabalistic commentary, and the nature of the “unbridled appetite” which brought about the deluge is identified with that sin which caused the destruction of Judah’s second son, as told in Genesis c. xxxviii. See Zohar, Part I., section Toldoth Noah. It is intimated also that the souls of those who perished in the deluge were to be blotted out, like the remembrance of Amalek. Part I., fol. 25a. They will not even be included in the resurrection which shall go before the Last Judgment. Fol. 68b. At the same time the chastisement would have been suspended had Noah prayed to God like Moses, but the tradition supposes him to have asked only concerning himself. Zohar, Part III., fol. 14b. The Holy Land was not covered by the waters of the deluge. Part II., fol. 197a.

[25] It was the Rod of Aaron, not that of Moses, which, according to Heb. ix. 4, was placed in the Ark of the Covenant, together with the Tables of the Law and the Pot of Manna. It is said, however, most clearly in I Kings, viii. 9, that “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb.”

[26] Whatever the date to which the Book of the Penitence of Adam may be referable, it represents one form of a legend which was spread widely in the Middle Ages. The Gospel of Nicodemus seems to have instituted the first analogy between the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of the Cross. “All ye who have died through the wood which this man”—Adam—“hath touched: all of you I will make alive again by the wood of the cross.” The legend of the triple branch, under a strange transformation, reappears in that chronicle of the Holy Graal which has been ascribed to the authorship of Walter Map. There is no end to the stories which represent Christ dying upon a tree which was a cutting from the Tree of Knowledge. This is how the Tree of Knowledge becomes the Tree of Life in Christian legend.

[27] The Clavis Absconditorum à Constitutione Mundi, which is the chief work of Postel, outside his translation of the Sepher Yetzirah, affirms that Enoch was born at the time when Christ the Mediator would have been manifested in the flesh as the incarnation of perfect Virtue, supposing that man had remained in his first estate. There is no reference to a Genesis of Enoch.

[28]Hic intrat vivus foveam—he, being still alive, enters the tomb, says Adam of St. Victor in his third Sequence for Dec. 27.

[29] There were two canonised bishops bearing the name of Methodius at widely different periods, and as both were writers it is an open question to which of them the reference is intended. It is probably to Methodius of Olympus, who was martyred about 311. Methodius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, died in 846. There is not the least reason to suppose that the Apocalypse under the name of Bermechobus was the work of either.

[30] Compare Lopukhin’s Quelques Traits de l’Eglise Intérieure, where the sanctuary which was inaugurated by Adam is connected more especially with Abel, and was presumably maintained afterwards by Seth. In opposition thereto was the Church of Cain, which was anti-Christian from its beginning. See my introduction to Mr. Nicholson’s translation, pp. 6, 7, and the text, p. 59—Some Characteristics of the Interior Church, 1912.

[31] According to the Zohar, the intoxication of Noah contains a mystery of wisdom. He was really sounding the depths of that sin which was the downfall of the first man, and his object was to find a remedy. In this he failed, and “was drunken,” seeking to lay bare the divine essence, without the intellectual power to explore it. Section Toldoth Noah.

[32] The Sepher Ha Zohar affirms in several places that the Law was offered to the Gentiles, and was by them refused.

[33] The authority for this statement is wanting. The Zohar dwells on Genesis xxi. 9: “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar,” &c., implying that she did not acknowledge him as the son of Abraham, but of the Egyptian only. The Patriarch, however, regarded him as his own son. Sarah’s desire to expel them is justified on the ground that she had seen Ishmael worshipping the stars of heaven. See Zohar, Part I., fol. 118. There is no allusion to the alleged gifts of the father, the scripture making it evident abundantly that the bread and bottle of water are for once to be understood literally.

[34] Even at the period of Éliphas Lévi, it did not require a rabbinical scholar or a knowledge of Aramaic to prevent any fairly informed person from suggesting that the Book of Concealed Mystery, being the text here referred to, is the beginning of the Zohar. It follows the Commentary on Exodus, about midway in the whole collection, which covers the entire Pentateuch. It so happens that the little tract in question is the first of three sections rendered into Latin by Rosenroth, and this must have deceived Lévi, as a consequence of utterly careless reading. There was plenty of opportunity for correction in the Kabbala Denudata, and so also in La Kabbale—an interesting but very imperfect study by Adolphe Franck, which appeared in 1843.

[35] There is no real analogy between the image attributed to Pascal and that of the Zoharic Book of Concealment. I have not verified the reference to Pascal, as the opportunity is not given by Lévi, but I have explained elsewhere that the idea was probably drawn from S. Bonaventura, who speaks of that sphæra intelligibilis, cujus centrum est ubique et circumferentia nusquam. See Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum. I have inferred that S. Bonaventura himself derived from a Hermetic book. As regards the symbolism of the Balance, the Book of Concealed Mystery says (a) that in creating the world, God weighed in the Balance what had not been weighed previously, (b) that the Balance was suspended in a region where before there was no Balance, (c) that it served for bodies as well as souls, for beings then in existence and for those who would exist subsequently. These are the only references to this subject found in the tract.

[36] As such it is old, and a monograph on the subject is included by Jacob Bryant in his Analysis of Antient Mythology, vol. ii. p. 38 et seq. Following the authorities of his period, and especially Huetius, he says that “they have supposed a Zoroaster, wherever there was a Zoroastrian: that is, wherever the religion of the Magi was adopted, or revived.” The two Zoroasters of Lévi represent two principles of religious philosophy.

[37] An English translation of the Chaldæan Oracles by Thomas Taylor, the Platonist, claims to have added fifty oracles and fragments not included in the collection of Fabricius. Mr. Mead says that the subject was never treated scientifically till the appearance of J. Kroll’s De Oraculis Chaldaicis at Breslau, in 1894.

[38] It must be understood that this summary or digest is an exceedingly free rendering, and it seems scarcely in accordance with the text on which Éliphas Lévi worked. Following the text of Kroll, Mr. Mead translates the first lines as follows: “Nature persuades us that the Daimones are pure, and things that grow from evil matter useful and good.” The last lines are rendered: “But when thou dost behold the very sacred Fire with dancing radiance flashing formless through the depths of the whole world, then hearken to the Voice of Fire.”

[39] See my Key to the Tarot, 1910, p. 32, and the cards which accompany this handbook. See also my Pictorial Key to the Tarot, 1911, pp. 144-147.

[40] One of the Chaldæan Oracles has the following counsel: “Labour thou around the Strophalos of Hecate,” which Mr. G. R. S. Mead translates: “Be active (or operative) round the Hecatic spinning thing.” He adds by way of commentary that Strophalos may sometimes mean a top. “In the Mysteries tops were included among the playthings of the young Bacchus, or Iacchus. They represented ... the fixed stars (humming tops) and planets (whipping tops).”—The Chaldæan Oracles, vol. ii. pp. 17, 18.