Satanism, Magic and Mysticism in Fin-de-siècle France is a study that explores the titular topic with particular attention to the French Decadent writers and the occult figures around them. In particular the focus is clearly on Joris-Karl Huysmans, Leo Taxil, Joséphin Péladan, and several of Eugène Vintras' followers. There are of course other figures of note, but usually only to give contextual reference, draw similarities, or inform other anecdotal information.

As someone who neither speaks nor reads French this book is a welcome endeavor to study. My interest in Fin-de-siècle France has roots beyond the occult but it's great to round things out a bit. The background on each figure was decently researched and certainly informed an idea of an overall zeitgeist while reading through each essay.

As an occultist, there were a few errors that definitely caught my attention. One was a reference to an Alfred Waite who sounded awfully similar to Arthur Edward Waite, another was a very telling description of the Magician Tarot card being called The Fool, and another was a claim about the 24 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which only has 22. There are more but it would be silly to dwell on all of them.

These are somewhat pedantic details when zooming out to see the full scope of Robert Ziegler's effort. It seems as though the author was more concerned with certain socio-cultural trends and less on theory and practice. However this does pose an interesting question when non-occultists study and publish on occult topics. Occult and magical writing is well known for intentionally including "blinds" or mistakes so that the unstudied reader will not ascertain the "true secrets" or pass as an initiate. Should an academic take every occult writing at face value alone, their sources may check out, but the meaning will be as jumbled and mistaken as the blinds that they follow. This is of course not counting the above as simply mistakes. This asks, can an academic truthfully study the subject without also being a practitioner, for whom such details make the devil?

If an academic is unable to parse through blinds, are they able to truly comment of the effects of such theory and practice, or are they doomed to forever miss the mark? Extrapolating on a misdirection.

I don't think Ziegler missed the mark, at least not completely. It's not a bulls-eye but he is definitely on the board, most likely due to his previous studies of the French Decadent writers and in particular Huysmans. Ziegler understands the time period and central characters well enough to land more than a few good points even if his specific information doesn't pass the test.

If you are a non-occultist then reading this book will most likely give you what you want. A general idea of these subjects in a specific historical context.

If you are an occultist, then read this like you would an occult book. Armed with plenty of skepticism and fore-knowledge to correct the mistakes yourself. ( )