The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles

The Cosmic Movement: Sources, Contexts, Impact edited by Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss The Goldstein-Goren International Center for Jewish Thought ‫ספריית גולדשטיין‪-‬גורן במחשבת ישראל‬ ‫‪The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought‬‬ ‫חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬עורך ראשי‬ ‫‪Gerald J. Blidstein (ed.), Sabbath: Idea, History, Reality, 2004‬‬ ‫יעקב בלידשטיין‪ ,‬עיונים במחשבת ההלכה והאגדה‪ ,‬תשס"ד‬ ‫זאב גריס‪ ,‬חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬בועז הוס (עורכים)‪ ,‬שפע טל‪ :‬עיונים במחשבת ישראל ותרבות יהודית‬ ‫מוגשים לברכה זק‪ ,‬תשס"ד‬ ‫‪Howard Kreisel (ed.), Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, 2006‬‬ ‫חיים קרייסל (עורך)‪ ,‬לימוד ודעת במחשבה יהודית (כרך ב)‪ ,‬תשס"ו‬ ‫‪Chanita Goodblatt, Howard Kreisel (eds.), Tradition, Heterodoxy and Religious Culture:‬‬ ‫‪Judaism and Christianity in the Early Modern Period, 2006‬‬ ‫אורי ארליך‪ ,‬חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬דניאל י' לסקר (עורכים)‪ ,‬על פי הבאר‪ :‬מחקרים בהגות יהודית‬ ‫ובמחשבת ההלכה מוגשים ליעקב בלידשטיין‪ ,‬תשס"ח‬ ‫חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬בועז הוס‪ ,‬אורי ארליך (עורכים)‪ ,‬סמכות רוחנית‪ :‬מאבקים על כוח תרבותי בהגות‬ ‫היהודית‪ ,‬תש"ע‬ ‫עדיאל קדרי‪ ,‬עיוני תשובה‪ :‬הלכה‪ ,‬הגות ומחשבה חינוכית בהלכות תשובה לרמב"ם‪ ,‬תש"ע‬ ‫ניחם רוס‪ ,‬מסורת אהובה ושנואה‪ :‬זהות יהודית מודרנית וכתיבה ניאו‪-‬חסידית בפתח המאה‬ ‫העשרים‪ ,‬תש"ע‬ ‫‪Boaz Huss (ed.), Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, 2011‬‬ ‫דניאל י' לסקר (עורך)‪ ,‬מחשבת ישראל ואמונת ישראל‪ ,‬תשע"ב‬ ‫משה חלמיש‪ ,‬חקרי קבלה ותפילה‪ ,‬תשע"ב‬ ‫אורי ארליך (עורך)‪ ,‬התפילה בישראל‪ :‬היבטים חדשים‪ ,‬תשע"ו‬ ‫‪Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss (eds.), Theosophical Appropriations: Esotericism,‬‬ ‫‪Kabbalah, and the Transformation of Traditions, 2016‬‬ ‫יעקב בלידשטיין‪' ,‬ובהם נהגה'‪ :‬עיונים בהלכות תלמוד תורה לרמב"ם‪ ,‬תשע"ז‬ ‫ברכה זק‪ ,‬כרם היה לשלמה‪ :‬האל‪ ,‬התורה וישראל בכתבי ר' שלמה הלוי אלקבץ‪ ,‬תשע"ח‬ ‫ג'פרי רובינשטיין‪ ,‬סיפורים תלמודיים‪ :‬אומנות הסיפור‪ ,‬עריכה ותרבות‪ ,‬תשפ"א‬ ‫‪Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss (eds.), The Cosmic Movement: Sources, Contexts, Impact, 2020‬‬ ‫מקורות לחקר מחשבת ישראל‬ ‫לוית חן לר' לוי בן אברהם‪ :‬איכות הנבואה וסודות התורה‪ ,‬מהדורת חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬תשס"ז‬ ‫מעיין עין יעקב לר' משה קורדובירו‪ ,‬מהדורת ברכה זק‪ ,‬תשס"ט‬ ‫כתבי ר' משה אבן תבון‪ ,‬מהדורת חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬קולט סיראט‪ ,‬אברהם ישראל‪ ,‬תש"ע‬ ‫דרשות ר' זרחיה הלוי סלדין‪ ,‬מהדורת ארי אקרמן‪ ,‬תשע"ב‬ ‫ממעיינות ספר אלימה לר' משה קורדובירו ומחקרים בקבלתו‪ ,‬מהדורת ברכה זק‪ ,‬תשע"ג‬ ‫לוית חן לר' לוי בן אברהם‪ :‬סתרי האמונה ושער ההגדה‪ ,‬מהדורת חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬תשע"ד‬ ‫ספר הכוזרי לר' יהודה הלוי‪ ,‬תרגם מיכאל שורץ‪ ,‬תשע"ז‬ ‫חמישה קדמוני מפרשי ר' אברהם אבן עזרא‪ ,‬מהדורת חיים קרייסל ועוד‪ ,‬תשע"ז‬ ‫אבן העזר לר' יהודה ליאון בן ר' משה משקוני‪ ,‬מהדורת חיים קרייסל‪ ,‬תשפ"א‬ The Cosmic Movement: Sources, Contexts, Impact edited by Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought Publication no. 27 Distribution: The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem www.bialik-publishing.co.il ISBN 978-965-536-319-7  All Rights reserved to Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press Beer Sheva, 2020 Printed in Israel Contents Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss Introduction – The Cosmic Movement: Sources, Contexts, Impact 9 I. The Origins and Early History of the Cosmic Movement and its Founders “Our Habit Should Not Do Such Things!” Teresa’s Early Life at Claydon 65 Christine Ferguson Zanoni’s Daughters: Fin de Siècle Fictions of Female Initiation 91 Julie Chajes John Patrick Deveney The Cosmic Tradition, F.-Ch. Barlet 127 and Alberto de Sarak: The Lure of the Con-Man Mage II. The Cosmic Movement and Teachings of Max Théon and Mary Ware Gal Sofer The Reception of Ritual Magic in 169 Max Théon’s Circles Boaz Huss Cosmic Philosophy and the Kabbalah 199 Jean Pierre Brach Max Théon’s Cosmic Philosophy of 233 Numbers Christian Chanel Numbers and Cosmos in the Cosmic 251 Philosophy III. The Offshoots and Later Development of the Cosmic Movement Michele Olzi From Mystical Russia to the Eurasian 277 Homeland: Marc Séménoff and the Cosmic Movement Helena Čapková Miloš Maixner (1873-1937) and the 307 Cosmic Movement in the Context of Czechoslovak Hermeticism Jonatan Meir Cosmic Hasidism: Les Merveilles du 327 Becht by Pascal Thémanlys Asher Binyamin Fidélité et erreurs: Louise Duban and 353 her Contribution to Our Understanding of the History of the Cosmic Movement Hana Ewa Raziel Branches of the Cosmic River 397 IV. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother Toshio Akai Mirra and Paul Richard in Japan: Why 431 is Their Mystery Still Unsolved? Peter Heehs The Role of “the Hostiles” in the Cosmic 453 Philosophy and in the Integral Yoga Daniel Raveh Sri Aurobindo: Translator of the 483 Ineffable Shimon Lev “I read Sri Aurobindo to find some 519 light in our difficult days,” Hugo Bergman’s Encounter with India, Aurobindo, and the Mother Acknowledgments This volume is based on the lectures that were delivered as part of a workshop held at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in March 2017 that was funded by the Israel Science Foundation and the Goldstein-Goren International Centre for Jewish Thought. First of all, we would like to thank the Israel Science Foundation and the Goldstein-Goren International Centre for Jewish Thought for funding the project and this publication, as well as all those who contributed with their lectures, chapters, and peer reviews. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Asher Binyamin, for his exceptional contribution to the organization of the workshop, editing and preparation of this volume to print, and research into the Cosmic Movement and its offshoots. Special thanks are also due to Prof. Howard Kreisel, the head of the Goldstein-Goren International Centre for Jewish Thought and the editor of the Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought, who contributed a great deal towards the preparation and publication of this book. Julie would like to thank the Blavatsky Trust for their support. Finally, we express our deep gratitude to Ms. Hana Ewa Raziel and Dr. Tal Gilead for providing us with invaluable archival sources without which much of the research presented here would have been impossible. Contributors Toshio Akai is a professor teaching cultural studies at Kobe Gakuin University, Kobe, Japan. He was awarded an MA in English Literature from Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan, in 1984. He specializes in the history of Theosophical activities in Ireland and India, as well as the Irish impact on Japanese culture during the interwar years. Asher Binyamin is a researcher for the Goldstein-Goren International Center for Jewish Thought at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and editorial secretary for the centre’s journal, Jewish Thought. His 2005 Master’s thesis focused on Rabbi Moshe of Salerno’s commentary on the chapters on prophecy in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. He is currently engaged in the preparation of annotated editions of archival documents relating to the Cosmic Movement. Jean-Pierre Brach is a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne (Paris), where he holds the Chair of the History of Esoteric Currents in Modern and Contemporary Europe. He has published on topics ranging from early-modern Christian Kabbalah, magic, and alchemy to number symbolism, contemporary occultism, and Freemasonry. He is co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Politica Hermetica. His most recent publications include Géopolitique et ésotérisme (ed. with J.-P. Laurant) and “Illicit Christianity: Guillaume Postel, Kabbalah and a ‘Transgender’ Messiah” (both 2019). Helena Čapková is an art historian and Japanese studies specialist who was educated in Prague and London, where she received her PhD in transnational visual studies. She is associate professor of art history at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto and researches transnational modernism, Japonisme, and international hermeticism. Her keen interest in the work of architects and designers Antonin 54 Contributors and Noemi Raymond led her to study occult networks in interwar Japan. She has conducted pioneering research into the lodges of the Theosophical Society in Japan during the 1920s and 1930s, in which her transnational approach allowed her to uncover connections between networks of occultists in Japan, India, and Bohemia. Julie Chajes is an historian of nineteenth-century Britain and America with a particular interest in religious heterodoxy and its intersections with broad intellectual, literary, and religious trends. She is the author of Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky’s Theosophy (Oxford University Press, 2019). Born in Brazil and raised in the UK, Dr. Chajes teaches at the University of Haifa. Her articles have dealt with such topics as gender, Orientalism, emergent critical categories, and the appropriation of scientific and medical theories in modern forms of religion. Christian Chanel, a graduate in law and economics, began to take an interest in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother while working at the French Ministry of Economy and Finance. After a period of study at the National School of Administration, during which he discovered the Théons’ works, he chose a career as a magistrate. In parallel with his career, he undertook research on the Théons’ works and wrote his doctoral thesis under the supervision of Antoine Faivre at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne. It was awarded with the highest honours in 1992/1993. In 1995, he co-authored the book The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor with Joscelyn Godwin and John P. Deveney, which he then translated into French and published with some additions in 2000. He has been an honorary magistrate since 2013 (retired) and continues to pursue his research on the Cosmic Movement. John Patrick Deveney is a lawyer who practiced in New York City for many years and now lives in Memphis, Tennessee. He studied the history of religions under Mircea Eliade at the University of Chicago and has a long-time interest in the history of western 55 Contributors occultism, especially its practice. He is the author of Paschal Beverly Randolph: A Black American Spiritualist, Rosicrucian and Sex Magician (SUNY, 1995) and other books and articles on the subject and is a regular contributor to Theosophical History. At present he is actively involved in the efforts of The International Association for the Preservation of Spiritualist and Occult Periodicals (iapsop) and the related Standard Spiritualist and Occult Corpus (ssoc), both available at iapsop.com, to gather, preserve, and make available online without charge the international literature of the spiritualist, occultist, Theosophical, and New Thought movements in the century between the 1840s and the 1940s. At present the repository includes about 3.7 million pages of data, consisting of almost 9,000 books and 1,000 periodicals (about 40,000 issues), all of which are wordsearchable and able to be downloaded. Iapsop also collects and makes available the ephemera, lessons, and artifacts of these movements and invites contributions of all this material for inclusion in its online libraries. He can be reached at [email protected]. Christine Ferguson is a Professor of English Studies at the University of Stirling, where her research focuses on the entangled histories of science, popular fiction, and Britain’s occult revival in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She is the author of Determined Spirits: Eugenics, Heredity, and Racial Regeneration in Anglo-American Spiritualist Writing (Edinburgh University Press, 2012), and with, Andrew Radford, co-editor of The Occult Imagination in Britain, 1875-1947 (Routledge, 2018). Peter Heehs is an independent scholar based in Pondicherry, India. He is connected with the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives and is on the editorial board of the Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo project. Heehs has published more than sixty articles in journals such as History and Theory, Modern Asian Studies, and Postcolonial Studies, and in magazines such as History Today and Art India. He is the author or editor of twelve books, the most recent of which are The Lives of Sri Aurobindo (Columbia University Press, 2008), 56 Contributors Writing the Self: Diaries, Memoirs and the History of the Self (Bloomsbury Academic, 2013 – named an Outstanding Academic Title for 2013 by Choice), and Spirituality without God: A Global History of Thought and Practice (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018). Boaz Huss is the Aron Bernstein Chair in Jewish History at the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His research interests include the history of Kabbalah, contemporary Kabbalah, western esotericism, New Age culture, and New Religious Movements in Israel. His recent publications include Mystifying Kabbalah: Academic Scholarship, National Theology, and New Age Spirituality (Oxford University Press, 2020) and The Zohar: Reception and Impact (Liverpool University Press, 2016). Shimon Lev is an independent researcher focusing on Indian and Jewish studies. He received his PhD from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in 2016. His publications include Vesheyodea Lishol (Xhargol, 1998); Soulmates: The Story of Mahatma Gandhi and Hermann Kallenbach (Orient Blackswan, 2012); From Lithuania to Santiniketan: Schlomith Flaum & Rabindranath Tagore (Lithuanian Embassy in New Delhi, 2018); and “Clear are the Paths of India”: The Cultural and Political Encounter Between Indians and Jews in the Context of their Respective National Movements (Gamma, 2018). He edited the Hebrew edition of Gandhi’s: Satyagraha in South Africa (Babel, 2014) and Hind Swaraj (Adam Olam, 2016). Lev’s art has appeared as part of many solo and group exhibitions and he has also frequently acted as curator, most recently for “The Mount: Viewing Temple Mount-Haram al-Sharif, 1839-2019” at the Tower of David Museum, Jerusalem (2019-2020). He is currently working on a book entitled Gandhi and the Jews – The Jews and Gandhi. Jonatan Meir is a full Professor at the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and a 57 Contributors Member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. His field of research is modern Jewish history, with a focus on the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah), Hasidism, and twentieth-century Kabbalah. The books he has written and edited include – Shmuel Verses, Joseph Perl and His Literary Legacy (Zalman Shazar Press, 2012); Imagined Hasidism: The Anti-Hasidic Writings of Joseph Perl (Mossad Bialik, 2014); Joseph Perl, Sefer Megale Temirin, annotated edition in 2 volumes (Mossad Bialik, 2014); Kabbalistic Circles in Jerusalem, 1896-1948 (Brill, 2016); Literary Hasidism: The Life and Works of Michael Levi Rodkinson (Syracuse University Press, 2016); Habad Hasidism: History, Theology and Image (Zalman Shazar Press, 2016); Gershom Scholem, History of the Sabbatian Movement (Schocken, 2018); and The Mythological Figure of Israel Baal Shem Tov (Schocken Institute, 2020). Michele Olzi received his PhD in the medical humanities from the University of Insubria (Varese) in December 2019. His research project focused on the life and work of the Italian psychoanalyst Emilio Servadio (1904-1995). His interests include the connection between avant-garde art movements and occultism, gender and the occult, early-twentieth century Italian neo-Gnosticism, RussianJewish immigration and western esotericism, and religion and the media. He edits the online journal La Rosa di Paracelso. He is secretary of the international network Foro di Studi Avanzati Gaetano Massa. Daniel Raveh is Professor of Indian and Comparative philosophy at Tel Aviv University. He is the author of three books: Exploring the Yogasūtra (Continuum, 2012); Sūtras, Stories and Yoga Philosophy (Routledge, 2016); and Daya Krishna and Twentieth-Century Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury, 2020). Hana Ewa Raziel holds an MA in French linguistics and psychology from Wroclaw University, Poland. She broadened her studies in France where she specialised in psychic-organic approaches to health 58 Contributors such as osteopathy, the Vittoz method, the conversational hypnosis of Milton Erickson, and positive psychology. She lives in Jerusalem where she works as a therapist. She was for years a close pupil of the Jerusalem-based spiritual teacher, Pascal Themanlys, who shared with her the riches of the Kabbalah, particularly in their more universal aspects as the Cosmic Philosophy of Max Théon and his wife. Gal Sofer is a PhD student at the Department of Jewish Thought at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and an Azrieli fellow. His work, under the supervision of Prof. Yuval Harari and Prof. Boaz Huss, focuses on demonic magic from the late middle ages to the modern period, with a particular focus on Solomonic magic and its reception. His MA thesis dealt with Hebrew versions of Liber Bileth (a fifteenth-century manual for summoning the demon Bileth), and he is currently pursuing research on Kabbalah and magic in Renaissance Italy. His recent publications are “Lover, Son and Prophet: Magic and Kabbalah in The Autobiography of Yohanan Alemanno” (Tarbiz 86/4, 2019) and “Inserting a Demon Inside a Person as a Case Study of Aggressive Magic: Between East and West” (With Alon Ten-Ami, Ginzei Qedem 14, 2018). 59 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles1 Gal Sofer Introduction The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor (The H. B. of L.) presented itself publicly in 1884, describing itself as an order of practical occultism whose Grand Master of the Exterior Circle was Max Théon (Eliezer Bimstein 1850-1927). Apparently, the main venture of the H. B. of L. was a correspondence course to which those who were accepted into its exclusive ranks were given access. Often identified as a form of magic, the order’s practical pursuits are one of the main issues discussed in Joscelyn Godwin, Christian Chanel, and John Patrick Deveney’s monograph, the first on this intriguing order.2 An emphasis on magical practice was also present in the second occultist group headed by Théon – The Cosmic Movement. The Seventh Epoch was a work that focused on the mythology of the movement, written after Max Théon and his 1 2 This chapter was written with the generous support of the Azrieli Foundation and the Negev and Goldstein-Goren scholarships of BenGurion University of the Negev. I would like to thank my advisors Prof. Boaz Huss and Prof. Yuval Harari for their guidance and patience, and to the anonymous readers for their insightful comments. I am also grateful to Boaz Huss for sharing archival works with me. My thanks are also due to Julie Chajes, whose comments helped me to refine many of my arguments. Joscelyn Godwin, Christian Chanel, and John P. Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor: Initiatic and Historical Documents of an Order of Practical Occultism (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1995), 3-5. This book made available important works of the H. B. of L. for the first time and will be referenced throughout this chapter. 169 Gal Sofer wife, Mary Ware (1843-1908),3 left France for Algeria in 1888. This work, like others of the Cosmic Tradition, was written in English by Mary while she was in a state of trance that she was guided into and out of by Max.4 In The Seventh Epoch, the Théons described the history of the cosmos and discussed topics such as the role of humanity and the origin of evil. In this work, we find a story about the first-born child of a rich and wise king: When the child was eight days old, the king made a magnificent feast, during which three chiefs offered him gifts. The first offered him an ancient and rare amulet, the second offered him a golden box of rare gems, and the third offered him a ring. The child stretched forth his hand and grasped the brilliant. The great hall rang with applause and the chiefs were full of admiration saying: “Already the child knows how to choose that which is the most valuable, to choose the practical before the ideal. For the amulet is of legendary value only, and the rare gems are for protection against the inimical beings other than man; but this ring is not only precious by reason of the size and rarity of the brilliant but it’s aura is so aurarised that if an enemy take the hand of its possessor he will fall down lifeless.”5 Leaving aside the Jewish and Christian allusions to the brit-milah (Jewish circumcision ceremony, which happens when the boy is 3 4 5 On Max Théon, see Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 8-21. On Mary Ware, see Boaz Huss, “Madame Théon, Alta Una, Mother Superior: The Life and Personas of Mary Ware (1839–1908),” Aries 15, no. 2 (2015): 210–46. Huss, “Madame Théon,” 214. The Seventh Epoch, Thémanlys’ archive, 277-278. Compare to the French translation of this work that was published later in La Tradition Cosmique, 2 (Paris: Bibliothèque Chacornac,1904), 88. 170 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles eight-days old) as well as the three magi of the New Testament, it is clear from this passage that according to the ideology of the Cosmic Movement, qualities that are beyond the material are the most significant aspects of occultism. The amulet, the golden box of gems, and the ring are all objects of a certain virtue, but neither the protective gems nor the amulet – the gift that seems most clearly associated with practical magic – are as important as the aura of the ring. The rejection of popular perceptions of magical instruments seems to have been a common attitude in occultist circles, particularly in those practising ritual magic, in which the grimoire known as The Key of Solomon was the central text. Thanks to its wide circulation, it is not surprising to find The Key’s footprints in Max Théon’s circles, as we will see.6 Ritual/Solomonic magic The research of magical works, especially those included under the category of grimoires (i.e. books of magical spells), has risen steadily in the past decade and many new editions have been published.7 Within this field, there is a special focus on a well6 7 The presence of sex magic in Théon’s circles has been discussed by scholars but is beyond the scope of this chapter. See John P. Deveney, Paschal Beverly Randolph: A Nineteenth-Century Black American Spiritualist, Rosicrucian, and Sex Magician (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997); Hugh B. Urban, Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006). For example, see Florence Gal, Jean-Patrice Boudet, and Laurence Moulinier-Brogi, Vedrai Mirabilia: Un Libro Di Magia Del Quattrocento (Roma: Viella, 2017); Paul Foreman, The Cambridge Book of Magic: A Tudor Necromancer’s Manual, trans. by Francis Young (Cambridge: Texts in Early Modern Magic, 2015); Julien Véronèse, L’Almandal et l’Almadel latins au Moyen Âge: introduction et éditions critiques (Firenze: SISMEL edizioni del Galluzzo, 2012); Joseph H. 171 Gal Sofer known text attributed to King Solomon – the Clavicula Salomonis or The Key of Solomon. This fifteenth-century magical text is concerned with summoning demons and forcing them to fulfil the practitioner’s (or “master of art’s”) wishes. The Key of Solomon became so famous in the nineteenth century that almost anyone who had any interest in magic mentioned it.8 The influential French occultist Eliphas Lévi (1810-1875) admired The Key and even produced his own translation of it. He also produced a Tarot deck, regarding the Tarot as a complement to his translation of the Key.9 Not all occultists were enamoured of the Key, however. Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891), the co-founder of the important nineteenth-century occultist movement the Theosophical Society, hated it, describing it as “the height of superstition and ignorance.”10 Nevertheless, the Key remained popular among most occultists. Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (18541918), one of the leaders of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, popularized The Key by publishing his own version based 8 9 10 Peterson, The Sworn Book of Honorius: Liber Iuratus Honorii (Lake Worth, Florida: Ibis Press, 2016). Although the Clavicula Salomonis is mentioned frequently, the references are not always to the same work. As Federico Barbierato notes, from the seventeenth century onwards, the Clavicula Salomonis is no longer one specific work; the title is used for many different texts. See Federico Barbierato, “Writing, Reading, Writing: Scribal Culture and Magical Texts in Early Modern Venice,” Italian Studies 66, no. 2 (2011): 267. It is common opinion among scholars that the roots of the Clavicula go back to the middle ages, and that the Greek text known as The Magical Treatise of Solomon (or the Hygromanteia) is its ultimate source. See, for example, Robert Mathiesen, “The Key of Solomon: Toward a Typology of the Manuscripts,” Societas Magica Newsletter 17 (2007): 1–9. Eliphas Lévi, Clefs Majeures et Clavicules de Salomon, 2nd ed. (Paris: Chacornac frères, 1926), 65. On Lévi, see Christopher McIntosh, Eliphas Lévi and the French Occult Revival (Albany: SUNY Press, 2011). Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, “What Is Theosophy?” The Theosophist 1 (1879): 4. 172 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles on several manuscripts in 1889.11 The Golden Dawn itself, as noted by Robert Gilbert, used the symbolism of The Key in its magical system.12 Even today, there are some groups that practice The Key, and some seals from Mathers’ work can be found in the form of amulet-medallions and as wall tiles in NewAge shops. Because of this popularity and great influence, the Key should be considered the most important text of ritual magic in the modern era. In what follows, I will use the term Solomonic magic to refer specifically to practices derived from The Key of Solomon, and the more general term “ritual magic” to denote broader practices. A brief introduction to some basic concepts of Solomonic magic is required. Many practical magical texts bear the names of famous figures, which reflect a particular association. In the case of Solomonic magic, the image of King Solomon – a wise king who ruled over the demons – is an ancient one.13 In one of the manuscripts of The Key of Solomon, there is a diagram in which the magician is represented as a king standing in the centre of the circle with a crown on his head and a wand in his hand surrounded by all his tools: a book, a knife, a sword, and a censer. Finally, there is a medallion, also known as a lamen, or pentacle, that is supposed to bind the summoned demon outside of the circle. It should be engraved on a specific metal (e.g. gold) or written on a piece of virgin parchment. Each instrument is consecrated with a special 11 12 13 Samuel L. M. Mathers, The Greater Key of Solomon (Boston; York Beach: Samuel Weiser, 2000). On Mathers’ work, see Francisco Silva, “Mathers’ Translation of the Clavicula Salomonis: The Relationship Between Translator, Text and Transmission of A ‘Religious Text,’” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2009). Mathers, The Greater Key, v-viii. On the image of King Solomon as a magician see Pablo A. Torijano, Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2002), 192-224. 173 Gal Sofer adjuration that utilizes holy and angelic names.14 The practitioner is expected to act as a king, subduing the demonic entity. In The Transformations of Magic, Frank Klaassen observes that, historically, magical texts have been adapted – in format and content – so that they reflect the doctrines of those currently using them.15 The practice of Solomonic magic has changed over the centuries through two processes in particular: first, through the selection of certain elements from the Key but not others, and second, through the placing of these elements in different theoretical frameworks than those original to The Key. An example of the first process would be the medallions that were originally intended to bind demons but which have circulated as amulets since the sixteenth century, divorced from their original context.16 An example of the second process would be the claim made by the infamous magician, Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), that the “demons” of The Key were aspects of the human mind that the magician stimulated through the ceremony.17 This physiopsychological interpretation has come to be connected with notions of “spirituality,” so that, for example, the contemporary magician Carroll Runyon (b. 1935) argues that Solomonic practice 14 15 16 17 Kaufmann MS 256, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Budapest, 121. Frank Klaassen, The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance (University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013). Owen Davies, Grimoires: A History of Magic Books (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 67. The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the King, ed. by Aleister Crowley (Boleskine: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, 1904), 3. On Crowley’s approach see Marco Pasi, “Varieties of Magical Experience: Aleister Crowley’s Views on Occult Practice,” Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 6, no. 2 (2011): 149–52; Egil Asprem, “Magic Naturalized? Negotiating Science and Occult Experience in Aleister Crowley’s Scientific Illuminism,” Aries 8 (2008): 146–48. 174 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles is a “spiritual development system” or a “spiritual-intellectual adventure,” describing the practitioner as a “spiritual leader.”18 Were these two processes occurring in Théon’s circles? I will argue that The Key and variations of it were incorporated and reinterpreted by the H. B. of L. and by the Cosmic Movement. While the former group psychologized certain elements of ritual magic, the later criticized contemporary practitioners, creating a new “cosmic” form in which the typical Solomonic master of demons was transformed into a “wrestler” who combated the evil beings that caused the disequilibrium of the universe. Ritual Magic in the H. B. of L. The first work that will be examined is The Light of Egypt by the secretary of the H. B. of L., Thomas Henry Burgoyne (born Thomas Henry Dalton, 1844-1895?).19 The first edition was published in 1889 and an expanded one in 1900. This work, as Patrick Bowen puts it, “is the first major original work produced by the H. B. of L.”20 In the second volume of The Light of Egypt there are three chapters that contain references – not always explicit – to Solomonic magic. These are to be found in chapter nine (on talismans), chapter ten (on ceremonial magic) and chapter eleven (on the magic wand). Taking a linguistic approach, in which he discusses the “real sense” of words through etymological analysis, Burgoyne explains the true meaning of the words “talisman,” “ceremony” and “magic,” while at the same time referring to their current common usage. The word “talisman,” explains Burgoyne, commonly “means a piece of 18 19 20 Carroll R Runyon, The Book of Solomon’s Magick (California: Church of the Hermetic Science, 2007), I, 2, 8. Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 33. Thomas Moore Johnson, Letters to the Sage: Selected Correspondence of Thomas Moore Johnson, ed. Patrick D. Bowen and K. Paul Johnson, vol. 1 (Oregon: The Typhon Press, 2016), 69. 175 Gal Sofer imposture, connected with some magical hocus pocus to the ignorant and superstitious mind.” In fact, it is a natural object that contains a permanent virtue that corresponds with specific persons. For example, a certain gem can be talismanic for someone who is born under the influence of the corresponding zodiac sign. Thus, the effectiveness of such a talisman depends on both the talisman and the one who wears it.21 In contrast to talismans, charms are artificial: If the magical artist be expert, and endowed with an exceedingly potent will, his charm may become very powerful… But, if this one grand essential be lacking, no amount of cabalistical figures and sacred names will have any effect, because, there can be no potency in symbols apart from the ideas and mental force they are capable of arousing in the mind of the maker. Solomon’s seal is no more powerful, when drawn upon virgin parchment, with a weak will, or in a mechanical state of mind, than a child’s innocent scribbling upon its slate... Magical charms, then, are simply natural objects, possessing but little active virtue in themselves, but, owing to the mediumistic nature of their substances, are endowed with artificial powers, of temporary duration, by virtue of the idea and thought.22 The concept of the magician’s will was very important to the members of the H. B. of L., as it was for many other occultists.23 21 22 23 Thomas H. Burgoyne, The Light of Egypt, vol. 2 (Colorado: The AstroPhilosophical Publishing Company, 1899-1900), 76: “Consequently, that gem, or those gems, representing and corresponding to his House of Life, become to him, a Talisman, because of their relationship - their spiritual affinity. ” “House of Life,” refers to the astrological first house. Ibid., 74. See, for example, the importance of will power in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as discussed in Alison Butler, Victorian Occultism and 176 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles It is the will that spins the magical wheels, as it were. While discussing ceremonial magic (which he prefers to call the “ritual of magic”), Burgoyne explains that: “will and motive form the basis of true magic.”24 The idea that the efficacy of magical operations depends exclusively on components that are intrinsic to the magician (like the will or the ability to understand symbols, in the case of charms) suggests that any outer component is unnecessary, or at least marginal. This is what stands behind 24 the Making of Modern Magic: Invoking Tradition (Basingstoke & New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 155-158. Eliphas Lévi also saw the will as an important element in magic. See, for example, Julian Strube, “The ‘Baphomet’ of Eliphas Lévi: Its Meaning and Historical Context,” Correspondences 4, no. 1 (2016), 64-66. Henrik Bogdan considers the emphasis on the will to be a “new important aspect of nineteenth- and twentieth-century occultist currents.” See Henrik Bogdan, Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007): 16-17. The importance of the will of the magician was not a modern innovation, and an expression of it can already be found in the work of the fourteenth-century Italian magician Antonio da Montolmo, who states in his De Occultis et Manifestis that “the will is the more important thing, and the utterance of words is a secondary thing.” Nicolas Weill-Parot, “Antonio Da Montolmo’s De Occultis et Manifestis or Liber Intelligentiarum: An Annotated Critical Edition with English Translation and Introduction,” in Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries, ed. Claire Fanger (University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012), 273. Later, the German theologian Jakob Böhme (1575-1624) claimed in his Six Mystical Points (1620) that “magic is in itself nothing but a will.” See Jakob Böhme, Six Theosophic Points and Other Writings, trans. John Rolleston Earle (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1920), 143. Burgoyne, The Light of Egypt, 85. Compare Eliphas Lévi, Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual, ed. and trans. Arthur Edward Waite, 2nd ed. (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2001), 249: “Ceremonies, vestments, perfumes, characters and figures being, as we have stated, necessary to apply imagination to the education of the will.” 177 Gal Sofer Burgoyne’s attitude towards the magical instruments: What, then, is the use of magical rites, of symbols and priestly robes? We answer: in themselves alone, nothing, absolutely nothing, except the facility and convenience we derive from system, order and a code of procedure. To this may be added the mental force and enthusiasm of soul which such things inspire.25 The instruments and preparations of a magical operation (which, as we will later see, are derived from Solomonic sources), are just tools to raise enthusiasm. However, to this rule, there are some exceptions: Magic swords, rings, pentacles, and wands, may, and often are powerful magical agents in the hands of the magician, by virtue of the power, or charm, that is invested within them when properly prepared; but apart from such preparation, by those who know, they are as powerless as unintelligible incantations.26 By “preparation,” Burgoyne is most probably alluding to the process of magnetizing those tools, so they will be charged with magnetic, and therefore magical, properties.27 Burgoyne’s focus 25 26 27 Burgoyne, The Light of Egypt, 85. Ibid. The process of magnetizing an object is mentioned by Burgoyne when he discusses the magic wand (Burgoyne, The Light of Egypt, vol. 2, 90): “The best time to cut a shoot of witch-hazel or other material for a Wand is the first full Moon after the Sun’s entry into Capricorn, at midnight, and then magnetize it upon the next full Moon at the same hour.” Seemingly, the process of magnetizing an object is a later interpretation of the consecration process that is described in Solomonic magic texts. The reinterpretation was influenced by animal 178 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles on inner forces, like the power of the will and the magician’s enthusiasm, creates a flexible system of magic in which the magician himself is central, rather than the ritual. In this system, it seems, personalization is legitimate, and adjustments can be made in order to fit the ritual to the magician’s intrinsic power. An application of this idea can be found, long before Burgoyne, in Eliphas Lévi’s version of The Key, in which Lévi instructs practitioners to consecrate and magnetize pentacles, and add a biblical verse of their own choice that best expresses to them “the virtue of letters and numbers.”28 This is the reason why in his works, some of Lévi’s pentacles appear with a verse, and some remain without. Like Burgoyne’s charms, Lévi’s pentacles “fix the mind, render the thought stronger, and serve as sacraments to the will.” Lévi also claims that they have an immanent power, and that the magician should have “a great lucidity of mind and a great purity of heart” when he makes them, so they won’t be used by evil entities that will make him “the first victim.” In a fascinating passage in which he expresses himself more clearly, influenced by Lévi, Burgoyne interprets Solomonic magic: You may enter your magic circle, drawn with prescribed rites, and you may intone your consecrations and chant your incantations; you may burn your incense in the brazen censer and pose in your flowing, priestly robes; you may bear the sacred pentacles of the spirit upon your breast and wave the magic sword to the four quarters of the heavens… and yell your conjurations and exorcisms till you are black in the face; but all in vain, my friend—all in vain... Not the priestly robes 28 magnetism. On animal magnetism and mesmerism see Bertrand Méheust, “Animal Magnetism/Mesmerism,” in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter J. Hanegraaff (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 75-82. Lévi, Clefs Majeures, 7. 179 Gal Sofer nor magic sword… can produce Nature’s response to Occult rite; but the fire of the inward spirit, the mental realization of each word and mystic sign, combined with the conscious knowledge of your own Deific powers—this, and this only, creates Nature’s true magician.29 The scene Burgoyne sketches here seems to be a Solomonic ritual which, in his view, must be performed as a mental act accompanied by “the fire of the inward spirit,” that is to say, with enthusiasm. It is noteworthy that Burgoyne is well aware of the process through which texts might be reframed, and he actually gives The Key of Solomon as an example of that process, claiming that The Key became “the Tarot of Bohemian gypsies.”30 (He is probably referring here to Eliphas Lévi, who identified The Key with the Tarot, and ascribed the Tarot to the Bohemians.)31 Burgoyne’s approach to Solomonic magic, or ritual magic in general, might explain another (undated) work of the H. B. of L., Laws of Magic Mirrors, particularly its second part. Godwin, 29 30 31 Burgoyne, The Light of Egypt, 83. Ibid., 98: “The transmission of spiritual truth from inward to outward form, though differing according to the age in which it is expressed, is ever the same in principle. And in the same way that the sacred clavicula of Solomon became the Tarot of Bohemian gypsies.” Lévi, Transcendental Magic, 225: “The absolute kabalistic alphabet, which connected primitive ideas with allegories, allegories with letters, and letters with numbers, was then called the Keys of Solomon. We have stated already that these Keys, preserved to our own day, but wholly misconstrued, are nothing else than the game of Tarot.” For Lévi’s description of the tarot of the Bohemians See Eliphas Lévi, La Clef des Grands Mystères (Paris: Germer Bailliere, 1861), 208. Lévi’s ascription was not a forgotten anecdote among occultists. The occultist Papus (Gérard Encausse 1865-1916), who greatly appreciated Lévi’s work, published in 1889 his Le Tarot des Bohémiens. This was the same year Burgoyne published the first edition of The Light of Egypt. 180 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles Chanel, and Deveney maintain that the author of this second part is Peter Davidson (1837-1915), the “Provincial Grand Master of the North,” although only a French translation of the original English work is preserved, which was made in 1889.32 The second part, entitled the Rite of Consecration of Crystals and of Mirrors, contains a ceremony derived from the Solomonic magical tradition. In this ritual, the magician activates his crystal or mirror, so that an angel will appear and answer his questions. As Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney mention, this probably duplicates material taken from a work by the English occultist Francis Barrett (b. 1774), namely, his translation of The Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals. The original was a Latin work attributed to the famous German abbot and esoteric thinker Johannes Trithemius (14621516).33 The Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals relies heavily on Christianised Solomonic magic in which, instead of demons, the magician summons angels in the name of Christ. The text refers to many of the tools usually associated with Solomonic magic, including the circle, pentacle, censer, wand, and ring. In Davidson’s version, however, there is no explicit Christian reference, and some tools are missing – there is no circle (but rather a special room), no ring, and no wand. Only the appearance of the pentacle discloses the Solomonic tradition that lies behind this operation.34 Some elements taken from the Rite of Consecration of 32 33 34 Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 194. On Francis Barrett see Robert A. Gilbert, “Barrett, Francis,” in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, eds. Wouter J. Hanegraaff with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 163-164. Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 207212. In ritual magic, the mention of a “pentacle” (rather than a pentagram) is always an indication of Solomonic origin (in the broad sense, i.e., to include texts that derive from the Key in addition to the Key itself). 181 Gal Sofer Crystals and of Mirrors appear in the initiation rites of the H. B. of L. – both the private rite (performed by the neophyte alone) and the exterior one (performed in the lodges, in collaboration with other members). In each case, the leader of the rite, or the neophyte (the new candidate who wishes to be admitted to the lodge) recites four evocations taken from the second volume of Lévi’s Dogme et Rituel de La Haute Magie (1856).35 The four evocations address the four elementary spirits, the creatures that represent the four elements, namely, the watery undines, the fiery salamanders, the aerial sylphs and the earthly gnomes. In order to become the king of the occult elements, argues Lévi, “the word of our will must be imposed on the elements by special consecrations of air, fire, water and earth.”36 The special consecrations of those elements are formulae that Lévi borrowed from The Key of Solomon. He then blended them with Kabbalistic terms to make them more appropriate to his notion of the relation between magic and Kabbalah. But while the consecration formulae in The Key are full of magical names, Lévi’s formulae are modest, and mention only a few well-known Biblical terms such as the Tetragrammaton, alpha and omega, a few Kabbalistic terms (specifically, the names of the sephiroth), and some angelic names. Nothing from the consecration formulae is mentioned in the H. B. of L. initiation rites. The rite of exterior initiation, for example, mentions that: “We exorcise the Air by blowing toward the four cardinal points.”37 But while Lévi, at that point in his work, adds the consecration formula itself, the initiation rites of the H. B. of L. omit it. This omission is not a one-time event, and 35 36 37 Ibid., 103-106; 109-120. As the authors show, Burgoyne refers to Waite’s translations of Lévi’s work as an accessible source for the four evocations. Those appear in Lévi, Transcendental Magic, 228-236. Lévi, Transcendental Magic, 229. Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 112. 182 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles it is not a coincidence, especially when we consider that Burgoyne, in the rite of private initiation, instructs the student to use the elemental evocation from Lévi. However, No notice is to be taken of the Magical formula. Recite the prayer of the Sylphs. Ditto the Undines, ditto the Salamanders and Gnomes. These prayers ALONE are to be used.38 These specifications were meant to keep the student away from Lévi’s consecration formulae. The motive for such censorship might be explained through the H. B. of L.’s view of Solomonic operations, to which Burgoyne alludes in The Light of Egypt: the centre of such an operation is the practitioner’s intrinsic powers. Thus, there is no need to use consecration formulae that imply the exact opposite, i.e. that external powers are required. It is reasonable to argue that Burgoyne wished to enforce this view among new initiates, the neophytes, who were probably aware of The Key and its elaborate formulae. In conclusion, it seems that in the H. B. of L., magical operations that were originally derived from The Key were interpreted with an emphasis on the will, the mind, and the true psychological role of the instruments. This represented an indirect and selective borrowing from The Key. The consecration through adjuration that appears in The Key was abandoned, first, by Lévi (in favour of a magnetizing process together with a prayer addressing “God”). However, while Lévi used the Key’s invocations of external forces in his consecration formulae, the H. B. of L. rites ignored them, keeping their prayers devoid of magical names. This seemed to be just another expression of Burgoyne’s attitude towards magic and rituals that emphasized the psychological aspects, rather than the technical requirements, preferring the internal over the external, while keeping new 38 Ibid., 105. 183 Gal Sofer initiates away from texts that implied otherwise. Ritual Magic in the Cosmic Movement Not surprisingly, some works by the Théons imply that they were familiar with the Solomonic magical tradition. The art of invocation, or evocation – they use these words interchangeably – was, for the Théons, a tool that can be used to fight evil (sometimes referred to as “the inimical,” enemy or adversary). These beings are said to occupy the first degrees of the “nervous state,” a higher state in the cosmos that follows the lower physical (“nervo-physical”) state.39 These inimical beings are responsible for the disequilibrium of the cosmos. Adepts can dare them to wrestle, in order to gain specific knowledge, or to redeem someone they have captured. There is no doubt about the evil nature of the inimical beings, and several names are mentioned, for example, Dvh, “the prince of the powers of darkness,” and Devo, whose name resembles the Zoroastrian Dew or demon.40 There is also Bel Zapphor, whose name seems related to Beelzebub, a famous demonic figure in Christian and Jewish demonology,41 and Asmodeus, the Latin form of Ashmedai, a demon from Jewish demonology. It is significant that this figure is also listed (as Asmoday) in the seventeenth-century Solomonic derivative text known as the Lesser Key of Solomon as one of the 39 40 41 See Christian Chanel, “De la ‘Fraternité Hermétique de Louxor’ au ‘Mouvement Cosmique.’ L’oeuvre de Max Théon,” (PhD diss., École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, 1992/1993), 619. Dvh appearance in the Théons’ story about Attanee Oannes, in Lives of Attanee Oannes beyond the Tomb, Thémanlys’ archive, 107. See, for example, Lives of Attanee Oannes, 77. 184 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles demons that the practitioner can summon.42 In the mythological work of the Théons, The Seventh Epoch, the couple describe the relationship between humanity and the inimical: The knowledge of the immense power which would be ours could we contend successfully against the inimical, has induced man from all ages to attempt the invocation by word, or action, of the inimical, and many are the records of those who have compelled these beings to serve, or on their refusal, undone them. Nevertheless, man has gained no advantage from these frequently recorded victories over the lesser beings of the inimical.43 A significant victory that features in their mythological account is the victory over Asmodeus achieved by the redeemer-figure Nefdi. Following the combat, the Théons explain that only born invokers who are duly evolved and educated, are allowed to “dare” the inimical to wrestle. They then classify four different types of evokers or invokers: “The most-rare invokers,” “the contemplative invokers,” “the active invokers” and “the evokers of those who have left the body.” Those who belong to the first group possess the: Most valuable property of non-exteriorizing… by no possibility can those whom they evoke cause them to exteriorize… These evokers are self-protected, what they require in order to combat effectually is also rare, and that is a sensitive who is in such affinity with them into whatever 42 43 See The Seventh Epoch, 388-421. For Asmoday in the Lesser Key of Solomon see Joseph H Peterson, ed., The Lesser Key of Solomon (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2001), 21-22. Ibid., 420. 185 Gal Sofer state they pass they are enveloped in this aura of protection… this form of evocation is almost unknown now.44 Exteriorization is the act through which the practitioner reaches a higher realm in the cosmos by detaching his higher “nervo” part from his physical body. After exteriorizing, the practitioner – now disconnected from the physical body and world – can travel in hidden and higher states of the cosmos. This is the direct way in which the wrestler may confront the inimical, but it is a dangerous process and the Théons discuss its risks.45 Thus, the ability to evoke without the need to exteriorize is a rare and valuable one. Furthermore, the inimical knows about the risk of exteriorization, and might try to force the practitioner to do so. “The most-rare invokers” cannot be forced to exteriorize and are therefore protected. The way that those invokers confront the inimical is not by dangerous exteriorization, but though cooperation with a sensitive, usually a female, who possesses the ability to exteriorize more easily. The connection between “the most-rare invoker” and the sensitive will protect the sensitive while she exteriorises. No specific practice is mentioned in the description of these “rare invokers.” The same can be said of the second type, the “contemplative invokers,” who are less protected, and who need a protector (a sensitive) – who will always be on call. This is because: “the enemy may draw the contemplative to the state or degree of being where he is the most powerful, and where therefore he has the best means of overcoming him.”46 The fourth type – the evokers of those who have left the body – referred to a practice that was strictly forbidden, because of its dangerous nature: it might injure the departed, the inimical might take the form of the invoked one and 44 45 46 Ibid., 422. See Chanel, “L’oeuvre de Max Théon,” 365. The Seventh Epoch, 423. 186 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles connect with the invoker, and the inimical might also take permanent physical form, “the greatest of all disorders and the most fatal of all evil.”47 Our focus in what follows will be on the evokers/invokers of the third type, which the Théons name the “active invokers.” According to their description, the “active invokers” can be identified as practitioners of demonic ritual magic: These invokers prepare for the conflict by many elaborate and difficult ceremonies and customs, such as ablutions, abstinence, the changing of apparel, the burning of certain known substances which are said to attract, or to drive away the inimical, the calling of names, the repetition of certain known formulas, the burning of circles of lamps and of incense.48 Although they view the “active” invocation method as lawful, the Théons avoid it and warn their readers against using it. First, they claim that the method is uncertain and ineffectual. Then they allude to a social responsibility, arguing that “every defeat of an invoker is a danger and enfeeblement for all other invokers.” They also attribute contagious physical and mental illnesses to this practice and say that a special order of the inimical devote themselves to answering to an active evocation. But the most striking idea of the Théons regards the preparation of the “active invocations”: Apart from this inconvenience and harmfulness, the preparatory practices, such as many ablutions and abstinences enfeeble, not only the exterior envelope, but the 47 48 Ibid., 425-426. See also the discussion in Chanel, “L’oeuvre de Max Théon,” 398. The Seventh Epoch, 424. 187 Gal Sofer nervo, psycho and mental degrees of the physical-nervo state.49 According to the Théons, the physical preparations in ritual magic injure not only the physical body (“the exterior envelope”), but also the higher inner parts of the practitioner (“the nervo, psycho and mental degrees”). This seems to be a unique approach: imploring practitioners to avoid these methods, yet still legitimating them. First, the Théons limit access to the practices by stating that “invokers like the adepts of other great arts, are born, not made,” and no book can solve this problem. Furthermore, they ascribe danger to almost every aspect of it: for the practitioner himself (the preparations are dangerous to the physical and metaphysical body) and for others (the defeat of the wrestler weakens other wrestlers.) However, there is a way to practice this active invocation, according to the Théons: It should be attempted only in hierarchical order, that is, the evoker should be surrounded by living circles of his fellow men and preceded by his forerunners and avant-garde, whose office it is to meet and combat with the forerunners and avant-garde of the one invoked.50 In other words, an active invocation, which is the type of invocation that is most closely related to ritual magic, can be performed only within groups that have a well-defined hierarchy. We should read this idea in its historical context: The Théons mention that this type of invoker is “by far the most numerous,” and that ceremonies and practices of this type “unfortunately fell 49 50 Ibid., 424. Ibid., 425. 188 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles into vulgar hands.” Because their “signification” was “veiled,” they were “ill interpreted.” This seems to be directed towards practitioners of ritual magic that the Théon couple knew or had heard about.51 It is very clear, from their classification, that the safest and most effective invocations can be performed by invokers of the first type, “The most-rare,” who should be preferred over the more common “active invokers.” In their mythical and astrological work, the Chronicles of Chi, which, like The Seventh Epoch, was written after they left France for Algeria in 1888, they mention the “most-rare” invokers once again: Children of the evolved… are set apart as mighty wrestlers in the physical-nervo degree of being, that is, they are of the most rare of all orders of wrestlers who are able to evoke and contend with nervo beings inimical without exteriorizing, which is the most powerful of all ways of wrestling, and the freest from danger also.52 As mentioned above, this type of invoker, according the Théons, can wrestle with higher beings (“nervo beings”) without the need to detach themselves from their own physical body (“physicalnervo degree”). This type of wrestling is “freest from danger” because exteriorization might result in the nervo-beings trying to possess the “empty” physical body. This is what happened to the character of Oannes Attanee in the (unpublished) story Lives of Attanee Oannes Beyond The 51 52 As Butler noticed, in Victorian England there is a shift in magic practices from solitary to group participation. See Butler, Victorian Occultism, 138-145. Chronicles of Chi, Thémanlys’ archive, chapter X. Compare to the French translation of this work that was published later in La Tradition Cosmique, 3 (Paris: Publications Cosmiques, 1906), 248. 189 Gal Sofer Tomb, in which he wrestled with the inimical Dvh. In this story, Oannes encounters a man named El Allah, and the two discover an ancient place - “the chamber of wrestling.” Then, in what might seem like an unexpected turn, El Allah suggests that the two play a game, in which El Allah will imagine himself as an inimical, Oannes will be “one of the old magi,” and the two will wrestle. This game, which turns into a serious combat when El Allah is revealed as Dvh himself, offers a glimpse into the ritual: [El Allah:] “It is yours therefore to kindle the lamp and to take your station in the midst of the magic circle. You will then invoke my presence, I shall appear, you will bid me to remain outside the circle. I shall try to enter it and if I succeed then we two will wrestle for the mastery”… [Oannes Attanee:] Then I kindled the twelve lamps which were placed in a circle in which was drawn a triangle whose three points touched the circle outside of which the twelve lamps stood. Then I entered the circle and commenced the supreme invocation… Then slowly and distinctly I called on the name of Dvh.53 The combat does not take place, since, in a moment of weakness, Oannes exteriorizes in order to wrestle and Dvh possesses his physical body and takes control of his nervo-being (i.e. the part that left the body in the process of exteriorization). Then as a last resource I exteriorized myself and from the circle I said: “Enter here now and wrestle with me for the prize and for the mastery”… And then with resistless force he drew my nervo being to his and as he did so I saw my nervo-physical body lying white and still in the midst of the circle… [Dvh:] “I now enter into the form of 53 Lives of Attanee Oannes, 106. 190 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles Oannes Attanee.”54 Oannes is not the only wrestler mentioned in the Théons’ works. In fact, another wrestler they write about represents another possible reference to Solomonic magic. When Oannes wakes up, he tries to remember the preceding events. Then, he explains that “the recollection came to me of that which was received of Shelama the great wrestler.” This Shelama, possibly from Shelomo (i.e. Solomon),55 appears in the Théons’ Seventh Epoch as the evoker who, through a process of “active” and hierarchical invocation, wrestled with the inimical and released Ra Men Nefer, another famous invoker in the Théons’ mythology, whom the inimical had previously overcome.56 This is reminiscent of demonic ritual magic and the name Shelama seems to point, specifically, to Solomonic magic. The meaning of invocation in the Théons’ works suggests a 54 55 56 Ibid., 108-109. As Chanel argued, the attitude of the Théons toward possessions might be a part of their criticism of contemporary Spiritualists, an attitude that also explains their view of the “nervo” part as fragile. See Chanel, “L’oeuvre de Max Théon,” 683. The transcriptions of Biblical names in the Théons’ works is not conventional at all. For example, the biblical Tubal-cain, appears as Tubal Khan in the Chronicles of Chi. Also, in the Lives of Attanee Oannes, a girl named Aishe-Mim appears, and she asked about the origin of her name: “Is it because I am as pure water which glistens in the sunlight that you have named me Aishe-Mim?” From her question, we can assume that Aishe-Mim was supposed to point to Esh-Maim (i.e. firewater, the fire refers to the sunlight) or to Isha-Maim (i.e. woman-water). As those examples show, it is often extremely difficult to understand the transcriptions of Hebrew names in the Théons’ works. As for Shelama, in the Chronicles of Chi, we are told that he saw “the sufferings of man,” maybe as a reference to Ecclesiastes (which is attributed to king Solomon). The Seventh Epoch, 441. 191 Gal Sofer simple equation: invocation is wrestling with the inimical. It seems that the Théons took the psychological framework of Lévi and Burgoyne one step further, incorporating the concept of invocation and framing it as a spiritual tool that should be used to wrestle evil beings that are responsible for the disequilibrium of the universe. Directly or indirectly, ritual magic inspired by the Théons developed a unique notion of invocation that they incorporated into their doctrine about the forces of the universe. The original idea of controlling demons in The Key of Solomon turned into wrestling with the “nervo inimical,” and in both cases, it was achieved through evocations in order to achieve a welldefined goal. While the master of The Key fights the demons in the physical world, forcing them to appear in a specific physical form, the cosmic wrestler exteriorizes himself (i.e. exits his physical body) in order to dare the demonic inimical into combat. Solomon, according to the Solomonic tradition (and the Cosmic one – as Shelama), is famous for mastering the art of controlling the demonic, or the inimical. Conclusions The H. B. of L. and The Cosmic Movement mention the Solomonic magical tradition in their works, either explicitly or implicitly. The members of both groups saw themselves as elites who revealed the true meaning of magical operations by reframing them and giving them, respectively, a psychological or a “Cosmic” interpretation. They argued against what they saw as the popular understanding of Solomonic magical traditions and dissuaded their readers from such practices. Nevertheless, they borrowed elements from the Key of Solomon and incorporated them into their own system of magic and mythology. These steps, taken earlier by Eliphas Lévi, encouraged innovative approaches to old practices. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it was 192 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles common to find explanations concerning the mechanisms and theoretical basis of Solomonic magic. Some of these explanations, like Lévi’s and Papus,’57 emphasised a combination of the physical and the metaphysical. Some, like Burgoyne’s, stressed the metaphysical, and treated the physical aspects of ritual magic as mental tools. The Théons, as we saw, not only emphasized metaphysical aspects, but also warned practitioners away from the physical ones. The works of the H. B. of L. and the Cosmic Movement can be situated within a wide spectrum of approaches towards ritual magic. The reception of ritual magic among those groups, as well as other groups such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, reveal the transformation of Solomonic magic from a medieval and almost mathematical method of conjuring demons, to a contemporary, psychological, flexible, and, arguably, more accessible practice. Psychological notions highlighted the position of the individual in the magical act and the important role of the inner powers of the practitioner. This encouraged the transformation of impractical acts into rather more practical ones: from an amulet written with bat’s blood on a virgin parchment to a wall tile hanging in a twenty-first century bedroom. 57 See Gérard A.V. Encausse, Traité Élémentaire de Magie Pratique, 2nd ed. (Paris: Chamuel Éditeur, 1893). 193 Gal Sofer References Primary Sources [n.a]. The Key of Solomon. Kaufmann MS 256, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Budapest. [n.a]. Lives of Attanee Oannes. Thémanlys’ archive. [n.a]. Chronicles of Chi. Thémanlys’ archive. [n.a]. The Seventh Epoch. Thémanlys’ archive. [n.a]. La Tradition Cosmique 3 (Chroniques de Chi). Paris: Publications Cosmiques, 1906. Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna. “What Is Theosophy?” The Theosophist 1 (1879): 2–5. Böhme, Jakob. Six Theosophic Points and Other Writings. Translated by John Rolleston Earle. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1920. Burgoyne, Thomas H. The Light of Egypt. 5th ed. 2 vols. Colorado: The Astro-Philosophical Publishing Company, 1899-1900. Crowley, Aleister, ed. The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the King. Translated by S. L. MacGregor Mathers. Boleskine: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, 1904. Encausse, Gérard A. V. Traité Élémentaire de Magie Pratique. 2nd ed. Paris: Chamuel Éditeur, 1893. Johnson, Thomas Moore. Letters to the Sage: Selected Correspondence of Thomas Moore Johnson. Edited by Patrick D. Bowen and K. Paul Johnson. Vol. 1. Oregon: The Typhon Press, 2016. Lévi, Eliphas. Clefs Majeures et Clavicules de Salomon. 2nd ed. Paris: Chacornac frères, 1926. Lévi, Eliphas. La clef des grands mystères. Paris: Germer Bailliere, 1861. Lévi, Eliphas. Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual. Edited and translated by Arthur Edward Waite. 2nd ed. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2001. 194 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles Mathers, Samuel L. M. The Greater Key of Solomon. Forward by R. A. Gilbert. Boston and York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2000. Peterson, Joseph H. ed. The Lesser Key of Solomon. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2001. Peterson, Joseph H. ed. The Sworn Book of Honorius: Liber Iuratus Honorii. Lake Worth, Fl: Ibis Press, 2016. Runyon, Carroll R. The Book of Solomon’s Magick. California: Church of the Hermetic Science, 2007. Secondary Sources Asprem, Egil. “Magic Naturalized? Negotiating Science and Occult Experience in Aleister Crowley’s Scientific Illuminism.” Aries 8 (2008): 139–65. Barbierato, Federico. “Writing, Reading, Writing: Scribal Culture and Magical Texts in Early Modern Venice.” Italian Studies 66 (2011): 263–76. Bogdan, Henrik. Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Butler, Alison. Victorian Occultism and the Making of Modern Magic: Invoking Tradition. Basingstoke and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Chanel, Christian. “De la ‘Fraternité hermétique de Louxor’ au ‘Mouvement Cosmique.’ l’oeuvre de Max Théon.” Phd diss., École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, 1992/1993. Davies, Owen. Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Deveney, John P. Paschal Beverly Randolph: A Nineteenth-Century Black American Spiritualist, Rosicrucian, and Sex Magician. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Foreman, Paul. The Cambridge Book of Magic: A Tudor Necromancer’s Manual. Translated by Francis Young. Cambridge: Texts in Early Modern Magic, 2015. 195 Gal Sofer Gal, Florence, Jean-Patrice Boudet, and Laurence Moulinier-Brogi. Vedrai Mirabilia: Un Libro Di Magia Del Quattrocento. Roma: Viella, 2017. Gilbert, Robert A. “Barrett, Francis,” in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach, 163-164. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Godwin, Joscelyn, Christian Chanel, and John P. Deveney. The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor: Initiatic and Historical Documents of an Order of Practical Occultism. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1995. Huss, Boaz. “Madame Théon, Alta Una, Mother Superior: The Life and Personas of Mary Ware (1839–1908).” Aries 15, no. 2 (2015): 210–46. Klaassen, Frank. The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013. Mathiesen, Robert. “The Key of Solomon: Toward a Typology of the Manuscripts.” Societas Magica Newsletter 17 (2007): 1–9. McIntosh, Christopher. Eliphas Lévi and the French Occult Revival. Albany: SUNY Press, 2011. Méheust, Bertrand. “Animal Magnetism/Mesmerism,” in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, and JeanPierre Brach, 75-82. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. Pasi, Marco. “Varieties of Magical Experience: Aleister Crowley’s Views on Occult Practice.” Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 6, no. 2 (2011): 123–62. Silva, Francisco. Mathers’ Translation of the Clavicula Salomonis: The Relationship Between Translator, Text and Transmission of A ‘Religious Text. PhD. diss., University of Manchester, 2009. Strube, Julian. “The ‘Baphomet’ of Eliphas Lévi: Its Meaning and 196 The Reception of Ritual Magic in Max Théon’s Circles Historical Context.” Correspondences 4, no. 1 (2016). http://correspondencesjournal.com/ojs/ojs/index.php/home/article/view/39. Torijano, Pablo A. Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Urban, Hugh B. Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006. Véronèse, Julien. L’Almandal et l’Almadel latins au Moyen Âge: introduction et éditions critiques. Firenze: SISMEL edizioni del Galluzzo, 2012. Weill-Parot, Nicolas. “Antonio Da Montolmo’s De Occultis et Manifestis or Liber Intelligentiarum: An Annotated Critical Edition with English Translation and Introduction.” In Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries, edited by Claire Fanger, 219–93. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012. 197