In the series of reviews by Guénon of Evola's books, after 'Revolt
against the Modern World' (message 166), we present that of 'The
Hermetic Tradition', published in 'Le Voile d'Isis', April 1931 ;
later, as chapter IV of 'Formes traditionnelles et cycles
cosmiques', Gallimard, Paris, 1970.

Review of 'The Hermetic Tradition'

Under the title 'The Hermetic Tradition, its Symbols, its Doctrine
and its 'Ars Regia'' (1), Julius Evola has published lately an
interesting work from many points of view, but which shows once
again, if necessary, the opportunity of our latest writings, as
regards the relations between sacerdotal initiation and royal
initiation (2). In the aforementioned book, as a matter of fact, we
find again the affirmation of the autonomy of the latter, to which
the author refers Hermetism, and the idea of two traditional distinct
and even irreducible types, respectively typical of the East and of
the West (3). This is why we must make some reservations on the
interpretation which is given of Hermetist symbolism, to the extent
that it feels the effect of such conception, even though, on the
other hand, it shows then clearly that true alchemy is of the
spiritual and not of the material order, something which is the exact
truth, a truth which is often little-known or ignored by the moderns
who claim to be able to deal with such questions.

We shall take this opportunity to clarify again some important
notions, and above all the meaning which it is advisable to give to
the word 'Hermetism', which seems to us to be often ill-used by our
contemporaries. This word indicates that it is essentially about a
tradition of Egyptian origin, which assumed successively an
Hellenised form - certainly at the Alexandrine time - and which was
transmitted in this form, in the Middle Ages, at the same time to the
Islamic world and to the Christian world, and - we should add - to
the latter to a large extent by the medium of the former as is showed
by the Arabic or Arabic-like words, taken by European hermetists, to
start precisely with the term 'Alchemy' (el-kimia) (4). It would thus
be illegitimate to apply this designation to other traditional forms,
just as it would be illegitimate, for example, to call 'Kabalah'
something different from Jewish esotericism. This does not mean,
obviously, that there are no equivalent forms elsewhere, true as it
is that this traditional science which alchemy is presents specific
correspondences with some Hindu, Tibetan, Chinese, doctrines, even
though, naturally, with quite different means of expression and
methods of realisation ; however, when the word 'Hermetism' is
mentioned, a clearly definite form, whose origin is only Graeco-
Egyptian, is specified. Basically, the doctrine named so refers
directly to Hermes, insofar as conceived of by the Greeks as
identical to the Egyptian Thoth, and we should point out here that
this fact is at odds with the thesis of Evola, since it shows that
such doctrine is essentially derived from a sacerdotal teaching, as
Thoth, as guardian and continuator of tradition, is nothing else but
the image of the ancient Egyptian priesthood, or rather, to be more
precise, of the principle from which this priesthood drew its
authority and in the name of which it expressed and passed on
initiatory knowledge.

At this point, a question arises : does the whole of teachings which
is known today as 'Hermetism' constitute a full traditional doctrine?
The answer to such question can only be negative, since it is not
about a knowledge of the specifically metaphysical but of the
cosmological (both in its 'macrocosmic' and 'microcosmic'
application) order. Thus, it cannot be admitted that Hermetism, in
the sense which this term has assumed from the Alexandrine time and
which it has kept fully since then, represents the entire Egyptian
tradition. Although the cosmological point of view seems to have been
particularly important in it, as shown by the remains which have
survived of it - whether texts or monuments -, it should not be
forgotten that it can never be anything else but a secondary and
contingent point of view, a doctrinal application to the knowledge of
what can be called 'intermediary world'. It would be interesting, but
certainly rather difficult, to try to discover how this part of
Egyptian tradition was able to be in a way isolated and to maintain
apparently autonomous, and then to be integrated into Islamic
esotericism and into the Christian one of the Middle Ages (something
which would not have been possible for a full doctrine, so much so
that it became an integral part of both esotericisms and it gave both
a whole of symbols which, with an appropriate transposition, could
sometimes act as a vehicle for truths of a higher order). It is not
opportune to venture into such historical considerations, really very
complex ; yet, whatever conjecture one wants to back up, it must be
said that the specifically cosmological character of Hermetism, if it
does not justify the conception of Evola, contributes to explain it
to a certain extent, since the sciences of this order have actually
been, in all traditional civilisations, essentially the prerogative
of the Kshatriyas or of the equivalents, while pure metaphysics was
reserved to the Brâhamana. This is why, under the influence of the
Kshatriyas against the spiritual authority of the Brâhamana, we have
sometimes seen the formation of incomplete traditional currents,
reduced to those sciences alone separated from their principle and
even deviated in a 'naturalist' sense, through the negation of
metaphysics and the disavowal of the subordinated character
of 'physical' science, as well as (for both things are closely
connected) of the sacerdotal origin of any initiatory teaching, even
of those intended particularly to be applied by Kshatriyas, as
explained in various occasions (5).

This does not mean in anyway that Hermetism constitutes as such an
alteration or that it implies essentially something illegitimate
(this would have made its integration into orthodox traditional forms
impossible) ; however, it must still be acknowledged that it can lend
easily to this, by its very nature. More generally, this is the
danger of all traditional sciences, when they come to be cultivated
in a way for themselves, something which subjects one to the risk of
losing sight of their connection with the main order. Alchemy, which
could be defined, so to speak, as the 'technique' of Hermetism, is
really a 'royal art', if, by this expression, what is meant is a
modality of the initiation especially fit for the nature of the
Kshatriya ; but it is precisely this consideration which shows its
specific place, in the whole of a regularly constituted tradition. It
should be added that the means of an initiatory realisation, whatever
they may be, must not be mistaken for its final aim, which is always
that of pure knowledge.

Another point which seems to us to be open to criticism in the thesis
of Evola is his almost constant tendency to liken Hermetism
and 'magic' ; it is true that the latter seems to have for him a
rather different meaning from the one which is usually given to it,
but we are right to fear that this may cause rather unpleasant
confusions. As a matter of fact, inevitably, when one speaks
of 'magic', one thinks of a science meant to bring about more or less
extraordinary phenomena, particularly (but not exclusively) in the
sensitive order ; whatever the origin of the word, this meaning
sticks so much to it that it is advisable to let it to it. It is then
the lowest, we could even say the most despised, of all the
applications of traditional knowledge, whose practice was left to
those who, given their individual limitations, are incapable of
developing other possibilities. We thus do not see what advantage
there would be in referring to the idea, when it is in reality about
things which, even though still contingent, are still far higher :
and, if it is true that it is only a question of terminology, it must
be admitted that it still has its importance. Besides, there may be
something else : the word 'magic', in our age, exerts a strange
fascination on some people and, as has been already noted in the
previous article, to which we have alluded at the beginning, the pre-
eminence given to such point of view, be it only in the sphere of
intentions, is still linked with the alteration of traditional
sciences, cut from their metaphysical principle. This is certainly
the stumbling block on which all the attempts to restore such
sciences break up, as one does not start with what is really the
beginning, from any point of view, that is to say, from the
principle, which is also the end, in view of which all the rest must
be normally ordered.

On the other hand, the point on which we agree fully with Evola and
in which we see the greater merit of his book is when he insists on
the purely spiritual and inner nature of true alchemy, which has
absolutely nothing to share with the material operations of any
chemistry, in the natural sense of the word. Almost all moderns, in
this respect, have made the same fundamental mistake, both those who
have tried to defend alchemy and those who have become its
detractors. Yet, it is easy to see in what terms ancient hermetists
spoke of "blowers" and of "charcoal burners", among whom the true
precursors of current chemists must be seen, no matter how little
flattering for the latter. Still in the eighteenth century, an
alchemist like Pernety made sure he underlined the difference
between 'Hermetic philosophy' and 'common chemistry'. Thus, what gave
birth to modern chemistry is not at all alchemy, with which, after
all, it has no relation (nor, besides, has it any relation with
the 'hyperchemistry' invented by some contemporary occultists) ; it
is only a distortion or alteration of it, caused by the
incomprehension of those who, incapable of fathoming the true meaning
of symbols, took everything literally and, assuming that it was only
about material operations, set about making more or less haphazard
experimentations. Likewise, in the Arab world, material alchemy was
never held in high esteem, and sometimes even identified with a sort
of witchcraft, whereas alchemy, the only true one, often called Kima
es-saâdah - "alchemy of happiness" (6) - was the done thing.

Besides, this does not mean that we should deny the possibility of
metallic transmutations, which represent alchemy to the profane,
provided that things of a very different order are not mistaken for
them. There is no reason, a priori, such transmutations could not be
achieved with processes related merely to profane chemistry
(basically, 'hyperchemistry', to which we have alluded above, is
nothing else but this) (7).

Another aspect of the question is rightly brought to light by Evola :
the being which has managed to realise specific inner states can, by
virtue of the relation of analogy existing between 'microcosm'
and 'macrocosm', produce externally effects corresponding to the
level of spiritual realisation reached by him. It can thus be
admitted that the one who has gotten to a certain level in the
practice of spiritual alchemy is capable, ipso facto, of achieving
metallic transmutations, albeit as a completely accidental
consequence, and without having recourse to any process of material
pseudo-alchemy, but rather by a sort of outward projection of the
energies which he bears in himself. There is here a difference which
can be compared to the one which exists between 'theurgy' or action
of 'spiritual influences' and magic and even witchcraft : if apparent
effects are sometimes the same, for both, the causes which bring them
about are totally different. We should add that those who really have
such powers generally do not use them, except in specific very
particular circumstances in which the use of such powers is justified
by other considerations. However this may be, what must never be lost
sight of and what is at the root of any genuinely initiatory teaching
is that any realisation worth of the name is of the essentially inner
order, even though it is likely to have outward repercussions. It is
only in himself that man can find the principle and the instruments
of it and can achieve it, because, in himself, he bears the
correspondence with everything which exists : el-insânu ramzul-
wujûd, "man is a symbol of universal existence" ; and, if he manages
to get into the centre of his being, he reaches thus total knowledge,
with everything it implies : man yaraf nafsahu yaraf Rabbauhu, "the
one who knows his Self knows his Lord", and knows then all things in
the supreme unity of the principle, outside which nothing can have
the slightest degree of reality.

(1) The first edition of this work, to which Guénon's article refers,
was published by Laterza, Bari, 1931. The third and latest edition,
sixty five years later, by Edizioni Mediterranee, Rome, 1996. It was
translated in French only in 1971.

(2) See 'Perspectives on Initiation', chapter XII.

(3) In his turn, Evola made some reservations about Guénon's views on
the relations between spiritual authority and temporal power on one
hand, on initiation on the other hand.

(4) This word is Arabic formally, but not in its root - it is derived
in all likelihood from the old Egyptian 'Kémi' or 'Black earth' (Note
of the Author).

(5) See, especially, "Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power".

(6) A treatise of El-Ghazâli bears this title (Note of the Author).

(7) George Ranque, 'La pietra filosofale', Edizioni Mediterranee,
Rome, 1973, has demonstrated this possibility from a scientific
standpoint.