It is a common phenomenon to see political supporters of all stripes reaching to thinkers of the past to somehow strengthen their claim to “truth,” such as it may be. It is an often overlooked, though effective tactic that constitutes a double logical fallacy of the first order – an argumentum ad antiquitatem, and an argumentum ad verecundium.
Such appropriations of historical figures are often used to bolster all manner of modern issues.
My workload forces me to keep this post brief, but I write it having recently come across some material that quotes Peladan (and in fact quotes me as well), but utterly misrepresents him, co-opting a snippet of his words to support a particularly strong – and completely unrelated – political position.
I do not currently have the time to enter a lengthy refutation of the piece here, but will instead offer the following notes that should offer a clear outline of Peladan’s political views in his own words, so that perplexed readers, (or writers feeling the need to quote Peladan), can ensure they get the story right.
When time allows I will attempt to formulate these notes into a slightly more structured form, but this should suffice for now.
***
- In his books Peladan emphasises deeds—as opposed to birthright—as an indication of “true” aristocracy, alongside fervent pacifist, anti-military, and anti-nationalist sentiments.[1] Towards the end of his life, as World War I still raged, Péladan repeatedly stressed his universalist convictions, expressing his “infinite tolerance for all religious beliefs.”[2]
- There are political dimensions to many of Péladan’s commentaries, particularly those regarding non-violence, and he admonishes his reader to “Detest all force without justice, detest in the State what you would blame in the individual, […] but detest in spirit and don’t explain to the glorious French officers […] that they are wretches.”[4] There are many such references throughout his oeuvre, written with varying degrees of disgust towards the political status quo. Though Péladan frequently cites a “theocracy”[5] as the ideal form of government, care should be taken with the definition, as he was not speaking of authoritarianism—and this would be an anachronistic interpretation—but follows the pattern of Fabre d’Olivet’s harmonious “universal, natural religion.”[3]
- As a corollary: Peladan’s “Catholicism” was frequently (by his own admission and clearly spelled out) a reference to what we would today call “Universalism,” or “ecumenicism”. He used the term with reference to all of humanity, and not to the Roman Catholic Church alone – and when he did so he specified as much.
- Although Peladan indeed used the motto “Ideal, Tradition, Hierarchy” as the catchphrase for his order, the “hierarchy” he was referring to was a cosmological, divine hierarchy, beginning with God and ending in humanity, with all sorts of divine beings in between. He did indeed believe that there was a further, social hierarchy, but all of his teachings sought to prove that every individual could achieve reunification with the divine within the human lifespan, as long as they worked on cultivating their inner self, and renounced …. politics, nationalism, too much socialising, and …. red wine. This has absolutely nothing to do with racial or class distinctions, and most certainly cannot be connected to modern political concerns which inhabit an entirely different sociopolitical context to Peladan’s.
NB. Most of the documentation for these points is found in the sources cited below. The majority of these are freely available on www.gallica.bnf.fr, or if you need a precise reference, feel free to email me (I’m happy to help with references, but I won’t do research for other people and I am too busy to joust).
[1] Péladan, Mage, 259; cf. 189–191.
[2] Péladan, Mage, 259, cf. L’art idéaliste et mystique, 261–2.
[3] Harvey, Beyond Enlightenment, 57, 188–9. The term theocracy was coined by Josephus in the first century CE, designating “a form of civil government in which God himself is recognised as the head.” J.F. Driscoll, “Theocracy,” The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 14 (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1912). Online, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14568a.htm. Accessed 21 May 2014. The term should not be interpreted in light of twentieth-century events. The roots of Péladan’s “theocracy” can partly be traced to a form of “liberal theocracy” espoused by Ballanche and Chateaubriand, comprising a compromise with post-Revolutionary reality. See Nora E. Hudson, Ultra-Royalism and the French Restoration (Cambridge: CUP, 1936), 41; Roger Magraw, France, 1815–1914: The Bourgeois Century, (Oxford: OUP, 1983), 258; on the interrelationship between theocratic ideas and esoteric thought see Darnton, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, 127–128.
4] Péladan, Pereat!, 64; idem, Istar, vol. 1, 295–7; Bertholet, La pensée et les secrets, vol. IV, 62, 195.
[5] Bertholet, La pensée et les secrets, vol IV, 249, citing Péladan, La torche renversée.