View Full Version : Fulcanelli and the Alchemical Revival

solomon levi
01-05-2009, 11:54 PM
This is a Phoenix-thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7) from the old site (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/forum.htm).

In this book, Genevieve Dubois unravels the mystery behind Fulcanelli, and, sadly I suppose,
exposes him as a farce. That is, the knowledge in the books is what it is, but Fulcanelli was no
adept and never produced the P-stone, and died.
You'll have to read it yourself. I'm sure no one will want to believe it. But the evidence is very good.
To spoil it for you, Fulcanelli was Jean-Julien Champagne, although the first book, Mystery of the
Cathedrals, was written by his friend Pierre Dujols and plagarised a manuscript prepared by
Rene Schwaller (de Lubicz).
Each of these men are masters in their own right, but none adepts, and all died.
Canseliet was kept in the dark, as was everyone, about Champagne's collaboration with
Schwaller, who was the real master behind the books. But Champagne stole his work while
pretending to find a publisher for him.

There are letters between the men and the handwriting and signature of Champagne and
A.H.S. Fulcanelli are practically identical. A.H.S. means Apostle of Hermetic Science, and was
written on Champagne's tombstone. Schwaller always maintained and referred to Champagne
as Fulcanelli.

What Champagne may have succeeded at was producing the colored glass of Chartes Cathedral,
which was the secret colloboration he had with Schwaller who funded his practice. This occurred
in the year 1930, the same year "Dwellings" became available, and Champagne died two years later.
The famous letter published by Canseliet in the preface to the second edition of "Mystere" speaks of
the success of this operation and not of the P-stone.

Anyway, check it out if you want. It's a fascinating read.
How do they account for Canseliet's brief mention of Fulcanelli's appearance? Long white facial hair, roughly in his 80's etc...I know Champagne sported a mustache - but I thought he was closer in age to Canseliet at the time (especially since he was 54-55 (in 1932) when he died and would have been 48-49 when Cathedrals came out)...Also with that in mind, how did Fulcanelli retract Finis Gloria Mundi after Champagne died (if he was Champagne), or add the Hendaye chapter in 1957? I haven't read this book but am totally interested in their theories...good find nonetheless.
Pseudopigrapha is relatively common in sacred texts... the Book of Daniel, for instance, which is included in the Bible, was written hundreds of years after the prophet Daniel lived. Way it usually works is that somebody writes something but thinks that nobody will care if it's them saying it, so they tweak the style a little to make it seem older and then say that they've "discovered" a book by a great master.

I can't say for certain that's what happened here... doesn't fit the model exactly, after all (as there's no claim that it was written before it was actually written). The point is that it's quite possible for it to have been. Think of it this way... it's at least as legitimate as some books that are included in the Bible.
Well, it appears Canseliet eventually figured out that Schwaller was Champagne's source
and wrote him a letter - I don't know if they met. But Canseliet may have always believed in
Fulcanelli being Schwaller. Which he was if we consider he was the true source for the books.
But Champagne organised and added to his material and got the books published.

I'm now reading The Cross of Hendaye, and they say the publisher, Schmett or something
like that, also knew Champagne as Fulcanelli.

I think Canseliet lied about the last meeting with Fulcanelli and saying he was younger.
Canseliet was the only one to gain by keeping the myth alive.

How the Hendaye chapter was added is unsolved. We know that Boucher wrote an article
about it in a magazine and that he must have seen the source material before then.

Champagne was the master behind the actual laboratory work and knew a great deal; maybe
knew all. It's a shame he died of gangrene. Schwaller saw his leg a couple days before he died.
Champagne was also into Pernot and Absynthe pretty heavily.
I'd be interested to know Green Lions take...I think he believed Fulcanelli may have borrowed heavily from Pierre Dujols & Viollet le Duc...either way, I still find/found his books beneficial. I suppose you could tell me Fulcanelli was Santa Claus and I'd be fine with it. I think whenever I have time I'll read up on it, thanks for bringing it to the table Solomon.
Yeah, I just read Mystere again yesterday.
I always thought the two books had a different style.
Dujols supposedly wrote Mystere from Schwaller's text
and Champagne wasn't happy with it and added more for Dwellings.

I think the books are extemely valuable.
It's just that The author, whether Dujols, Champagne or Schwaller - was not an adept - ie did
not produce the stone and their deaths are quite certain - no chance of faking it.

You'll get a much better picture from reading the book.
There's already been mention of this (de Chardonnet) before...here's (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=157) the post.

After awhile it turns into too much of a quandary- and I cease to really be invested in any one notion.
It ends up being that it is or isn't:
de Chardonnet

And enough researchers have enough evidence to support their claims...but not enough to be (in my mind) true without a doubt. My vote...Fulcanelli is Santa Claus! For me, whoever wrote those two books was clearly an adept - but just like little kids with Santa Claus- perhaps it is only because I want to believe.