Talk:Éliphas Lévi

Levi influence
Many supposedly "ancient" occult or neo-pagan traditions in fact originated with Eliphas Levi. AnonMoos 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article has a lot of material... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A quote (haven't personally verified it yet): AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Occultism was "in a moribund condition when Lévi started to revivify it by his books about it. The astonishing fact is that his work formed the narrow    channel through which the whole Western tradition of  magic flowed to the modern era... Lévi completed the task, begun in the Renaissance, of synthesizing the various ingredients of the Western tradition of magic; it was he who finally made it a single tradition" ..."the Qabala, alchemy, Hermetism, astrology,  magnetism and even a little black magic from the  grimoires" -- from A Wicked Pack of Cards by Ronald Decker, Thierry Depaulis, and Michael Dummett. ISBN 0312162944

Crowley Fetus
The bit about Crowley being the reincarnation of Levi is odd. It assumes the possibility of reincarnation, and then it goes on to assume that if reincarnation is possible, the transfer must take place instantaneously after death. If you're going to accept reincarnation as a possibility, why would it matter how long it took for Soul A to migrate into Body B? --76.83.249.234 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's of interest to know chronology when there is a claim of reincarnation. If I claim to be the reincarnation of Princess Diana of Wales, for instance, people are less likely to believe me than if I claim to be reincarnated from someone who died before I was conceived. That death needs to occur before reincarnation is of course an assumption, but it's one many people make. Here the sequence is a bit more subtle: death before birth, but not death before conception. It's still interesting to note. Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This also strikes me as odd, and inappropriate commentary. There's an implicit assumption that the mechanism of reincarnation is understood enough to cast doubt on Crowley's claim. The historical fact worthy of encyclopedic mention is Crowley's claim. An aside about the plausibility and chronology of reincarnation is better relegated to the article on reincarnation, where this particular claim could serve as an illustration. I'm removing it from this article. Danielsteinbock (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This condition would be comparable to the supposed soul possession of Cyril Hoskins by the Tibetan monk T. Lobsang Rampa, which "Rampa" nee Hoskins claimed happened after a tree climbing accident. The date is undocumented, although the book The Third Eye (book), in which the claim was made, was published in 1956. giggle 20:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Adding bibliography
Could we possibly have a bibliography of Levi's works? Senoraraton 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no mention in the article of the very interesting Paradoxes of the Highest Science - link at Sacred Texts Archive: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/levi/phs/index.htm  Steve Harnish (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

'Book of Splendors' (partial translation of Zohar)
Some years back I had a thin paperback book attributed to Levi, purporting to be his translation / commentaries on Zohar. I no longer have it and am thus unable to provide publisher, date, etc. Is this something that should be included in his bibliography, or a red herring? Shimjung1 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Lévi
I think this article should specify the correct pronunciation of Lévi. I assume it's pronounced "le vee?" and not like the popular brand of denim trousers?Smiloid (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither. It's pronounced the way French people pronounce it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.132 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of name with or without acute accent79.50.227.37 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Title of entry refers to "Levi" while main body refers frequently to "Lévi", the name under which he published. Which should it be?


 * It should be "Lévi" with the accute accent. This is how his name appears on his books.  Unfortunately, the page "Eliphas Lévi" redirects to the page "Eliphas Levi" without the diacritic mark.  This should be fixed. RoyAlcatraz (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As I was reading my copy of The Ritual of Transcendental Magic, the Introduction is prefaced by the illustration titled "The Sabbatic Goat", which is synonymous with Baphomet. If you look at the signature at the bottom of the illustration, "Eliphas Levi Del", what do you see when that name is read backwards? leD iveL, or le Divel. It's not le Devil, but it is close. Why would Levi have signed the name "Eliphas Levi Del"? I don't think this anagram was an accident, but that opinion has no foundational basis, other than a sneaking suspicion. By the way, as the author's name appears on both volumes of Transcendental Magic, as well as how it appears as a signature on The Sabbatic Goat, there is no accent mark in the name. giggle 20:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC) -- User:Gregory.george.lewis


 * First off, the word for "devil" has a "v" in few other languages than English (certainly not in French). Secondly, "del" is a standard recognized abbreviation for delineavit, Latin for "he drew (it)".  In the context of pre-20th century illustration printing, the person who made the original drawing on which the illustration was based, and the person who translated this drawing into a form which could be used in printing, were usually two separate people.  If so, the person who made the original drawing signed "Delineavit" (abbreviated "del."), while an engraver might sign sculpsit etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Section for deletion (possible copyright violation)
Greetings! I'd like to propose the section Definition of Magic to be deleted. It currently relies on excessive direct quoting, and only one of the direct quotes is actually sourced. I think the current section make constitute a violation of some sort. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If it consists quotes from Levi's writings, then it could be excessive use of primary sources contrary to Wikipedia policies, but it's not a copyright violation (unless recent, still-copyrighted, English translations of the original French are used). AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point AnonMoos. There is currently only one direct quote sourced (Levi, Constant & Blavatsky, 2012), but the first edition seems to date back to 1922 so we should be able to use that one, shouldn't we? Or does it hold only for the specific edition? I also don't know if the other direct quotes are sourced to pre-1923 material, so they are possible copyright violations.
 * Well, copyvios or not, they might still constitute excessive use of primary sources as you said. Thanks AnonMoos, cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Lovecraft
At the end of the documet it is said the Levi is mentioned severall times by Loveraft in "The Case of Dexter Charles Ward". Reading Lovecraft's text, although, Eliphas Levi name is found only twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution, 187.104.4.36. What source was it again? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The source, as stated before, is the novela itself. It can be found in the following urls: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thecaseofcharlesdexterward.htm https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Case_of_Charles_Dexter_Ward/full http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cdw.aspx

In any of these, if you search (crtl+f) the text, only two mentions of Levi's name are found, not several. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WHY YOU KEEP CHANGING BACK TO "SEVERAL TIMES"?

I SAID IT BEFORE: HPL quotes LEVI twice. Twice. Two times. Two. Not several. Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.5.93 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Last edit
In response to the undo by Jayaguru-Shishya: A "piece meal" edit of a few paragraphs that are almost in their entirety erroneous makes very little sense to me. I replaced those paragraphs with a comprehensive entry including detailed references to the scholarship. I would ask you to accept my edit and work on removing links that are deemed unnecessary in order to tackle overlink issues. With regard to the content, I would ask for any explanation why the new edit should be inferior to the old one and should consequently be undone. As the article stands now, each single paragraph, except of the last one under "career", contains wrong dates, non-existent publications, and erroneous information that is not backed up by scholarship. --Jjs hd (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you did'nt react to my messages, so I just went with a step-by-step edit of the article that explains the changes to each section. If anything appears unclear, or if you want to dispute a certain detail, please be so kind to discuss it here and not just undo the edit. Thanks. --Jjs hd (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "COI"
Jjs hd has written a book that concerns the the social background that gave rise to Eliphas Levi. He is not Levi or a friend or family member. WP:SELFCITE applies and has been met (the material "is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. [...] [It is] in the third person and [does] not place undue emphasis on [his] work."), but the rest of WP:COI is completely irrelevant. The article is not about Jjs hd, his "family, friends, clients, employers, or [his] financial or other relationships." The sources in question were published by Walter de Gruyter and Taylor & Francis -- the sort of sources we need. There's honestly no reason for this witchhunt. I hate for-profit editing of any sort and would love to just see all paid editors (even the ones who declare their interests) blocked on sight -- but this is not the case here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is much appreciated. It is completely opaque to me why being an expert on a certain topic and writing an article about it would qualify as a COI, as long as the article meets the standards cited above. It is quite self-contradictory that I am asked to "discuss the edits at TALK" while I clearly tried to do so--unlike Jayaguru-Shishya, who ignored my messages on his user page and here. So, again, if there are any uncertainties, they should be discussed here before an edit (which even met the requests made before) is simply undone. --Jjs hd (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eliphas Levi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919103932/http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_transcendental.htm to http://www.occult-underground.com/Levi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

""""vandalism""""
Recently, my edit has been removed on the count of being "vandalism." Sure, the one sentence wasn't super incredibly helpful for much, but it's not like it was disruptive editing. Nothing was lying, nothing was made as a dumb joke. Anybody reading might see that and say "Huh, that's interesting," and isn't that a part of why Wikipedia is so fun to read? NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

also I've just now noticed that this IP address has undid another edit of mine for seemingly no reason on the Dirk Meerkerk page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPOV Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

provenance of quotes in Theory of Magic
in the section titled 'Theory of magic' the two quotes attributed to Paracelsus cite works which don't themselves justify their claim that Paracelsus wrote them. I can in my admittedly limited skill with this sort of thing find no other attribution or mention of either that doesn't seem to be sourced from those works or this article, or any mention of which parts of Paracelsus' writing they supposedly come from. is it worth doing something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.33.113 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)