Talk:R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz

Everyone's an Anti-Semite! Which is to say, no one is, if you keep this up...

What in rootin'-tootin' flippin'-flappin' tarnation is going on with wiki these days?? Everywhere I read, everyone is being accused of antisemitism!

OK, I mean, if they guy was an antisemite, then of course that should be noted. But reading through the article, it's all secondary sources, hearsay, and "My brother Gus told me that"s... For Neptune's sake, if you're going to make such an accusation, there damn well ought to be better evidence than the contestable junk here! The guy's mother was a Jew!

Before anyone starts hauling out the battle armor, I have no stake in this game other than to say that waving that banner at everyone who ever wore anything resembling a Nazi uniform (for god's sake, people!) utterly cheapens the epithet. That is a fact, and you ignore it at your peril (obviously speaking to those who choose to do this, not the community), as the long-term outcome will obviously be the very opposite of what is sought.

Every single instance of the accusation on this page should be heavily qualified. This is why after all this time and all this work, people still don't respect teh Wiki. Do as you please, but... for the record, I emphatically urge you to reconsider the current course, to modify this entry, and in the future think longer and harder about how lightly you paint everyone with that brush. Wouldn't it be an irony and a shame if we ever had to modify the well-known quote to end with: "...when they called me an antisemite, there was no one left to appeal to"...?

My $0.02

Ta, Pimpoosh (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "described him as" is already in the article. That's clearly a qualification. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Egyptologist

Schwaller de Lubicz was not an Egyptologist. He didn't have any credentials on the subject, didn't publish peer-reviewed articles and is widely considered by Egyptologists of being a pseudo-researcher. His ideas are influenced by Theosophy and other occultist theories. See Fagan's Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public for more on Schwaller's nonsense. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. You seem to be arguing that Schwaller de Lubicz's work is pseudoegyptology soley on the basis that his theories are informed by occult ideas. This is not a tenable position. With respect, one and a half mentions in one book by a single author is not enough justification to support your claim that Schwaller de Lubicz is not known for mystic Egyptology. What makes someone an Egyptologist? If this designation is applicable only if one has university qualifications in Egyptology, then we must exclude even Budge from this category. If it is many years of field work in Egypt resulting in the publication of complex and detailed books on the subject then both Budge and Schwaller de Lubicz qualify for this designation. Yes, some people do not agree with his conclusions, but they are fully aware of his work. People don't agree with Anne Dambricourt-Malassé either, but that doesn't mean she is not a palaeontologist. No one believed Walter Reed about Yellow Fever but he was still an epidemiologist. The fact that Fagan can argue against Schwaller de Lubicz demonstrates that Schwaller de Lubicz is known for his theories about Egypt. These theories contain a mystic element. There are 704 hits for his name on Google scholar. His work is cited by scholars, for example the Karnak site at the university of Memphis cites his work, "The Temples of Karnak" [1]. He is explicitly called an Egyptologist in this article by Dale Keiger from Johns Hopkins University [2]. Here he is being cited in a Masters thesis from MIT [3] on the basis of his knowledge of Egyptian architecture. Therefore he is known for mystic Egyptology. On this basis I request that we leave this text in the info box. Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Budge made his career in the British Museum, so whether or not he had an university degree is fairly irrelevant. He has solid credentials solely from his position. Schwaller never worked in any academic or scholarly setting.

Schwaller is of course known for his theories about Egypt, but I'm arguing that these theories are not a part of scholarly Egyptology. Graham Hancock has also written extensively on Egypt, presenting his theories in many books and articles. He is not considered an Egyptologist. Why should we make an exception in Schwaller's case? The MIT thesis you provided doesn't call him an Egyptologist.

A quick search on Google Books of "schwaller"+"egyptologist" finds quotes like "alternative Egyptologist", "renegade Egyptologist", "rebel Egyptologist" and "maverick Egyptologist". An "alternative medical practitioner" is not a physician, and an "alternative Egyptologist" is not an Egyptologist in the sense the word is usually used (ie. someone who studies ancient Egypt using scholarly methods), especially if the person in question has no academic background. Mvaldemar (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Erik Hornung, who really is an Egyptologist, wrote a book (The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West) on the myriad ways ancient Egypt has influenced and been perceived by Western esotericism. He calls these mystical views of ancient Egypt "Egyptosophy" (apparently on the analogy of mainstream theology versus fringe Theosophy), although unlike many of his colleagues, he doesn't really take a hostile attitude toward them. He specifically mentions Schwaller de Lubicz and says, "The object of much hostility from Egyptologists and largely ignored by them, Schwaller nevertheless performed the service of having published the most basic study to date on the Luxor temple; anyone concerned with this temple cannot ignore his photographs." It also says he "came close to pyramid mysticism" (a subject Egyptologists frequently ridicule). So I don't see how Schwaller de Lubicz can be called an Egyptologist. A. Parrot (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And I suppose I should make clear Hornung's attitude toward the ideas he lists in his book. He defines Egyptosophy as "the study of an imaginary Egypt viewed as the profound source of all esoteric lore. This Egypt is a timeless idea bearing only a loose relationship to the historical reality." A little way down, he says "…it is futile to try to prove or disprove esoteric truths that are nourished solely by revelation, faith, and displays of intuition, for we are moving here on two entirely different levels of argumentation. It is possible to make an academic study of esoteric matters, which is what I intend to do here. It is also possible for adherents of esoteric doctrines to adduce knowledge from the academic discipline of Egyptology with profit and incorporate it into their systems. But one must at all costs avoid hopelessly mixing the two areas of interest, as all too often continues to happen—especially when esoteric doctrines are covered with some academic veneer and thus purportedly 'proven'."

For these reasons, I really think Schwaller should not be called an Egyptologist. A. Parrot (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that occult studies or theories can not be scholarly. If this is your yardstick you must exclude Isaac Newton. An "alternative Egyptologist" is still an egyptologist, a "renegade Egyptologist" is still an egyptologist, a "rebel Egyptologist" is still an egyptologist, and a "maverick Egyptologist" is still an egyptologist. A person who studies Egypt is an egyptologist. It is not about whether a person has a degree or whether anyone else agrees with all their theories. It is about if they study Egypt. If you are familiar with Schwaller de Lubicz's The Temple in Man I can not see at all how you can say he does not use a scholarly method. You even state that Hornung praises his work. And you state that Hornung further states that "It is possible to make an academic study of esoteric matters". This is exactly what Schwaller de Lubicz does. But it is only part of his work. Digital Karnak cites him on his work at Karnak because it is good. The Masters thesis I mentioned cites him because his work at Karnak is good. By this measure he is an egyptologist. Also the recent PhD theis on Schwaller de Lubic's work by Dr Aaron Cheak explicitly names him as an egyptologist. Light Broken Through the Prism of Life " From Alsace to Egypt, Schwaller’s esoteric quest took him through a number of diverse roles: artist, social revolutionary, chemical engineer, spagyrical researcher, hermetic philosopher, neo-pythagorean mathematician, and Egyptologist." I have provided cited sources showing he is an egyptologist. Instead of trying to stop the application of a word that accurately describes his work, why not add cited qualifiers if you feel this is appropriate? Or perhaps write a paragraph that talks about the reception of his work? Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hornung's "academic study of esoteric matters" examines esoteric beliefs, much as a historian of religion examines the beliefs of religions. It does not promote esoteric views as Schwaller did. Hornung views Egyptology and its esoteric counterpart as being distinct from each other, much as science and religion are distinct. As I understand it, Schwaller's contribution to Egyptology was in surveying Luxor (and apparently Karnak) more extensively than anybody had bothered to do before, so the evidence he gathered is useful. His esoteric interpretations of it, in contrast, have made no impact on Egyptological thought. Because he had no scholarly qualifications, and his interpretations are not seen as Egyptological, calling him an Egyptologist without qualification is simply wrong. "Amateur Egyptologist" is the absolute most I can support, and even that with unease. A. Parrot (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And I've found an academic source that specifically addresses what an "alternative Egyptologist" is: "Alternative Egypts", by Lynn Picknett and Clive Price, a chapter in Consuming Ancient Egypt, edited by Sally MacDonald and Michael Rice. Its opening paragraph says:

Ever since Egyptology emerged as an academic discipline in the 19th century it has coexisted with a corpus of theories and ideas about Ancient Egypt that are based less on conventional history and archaeology than on esoteric tradition and romantic visions. These non-academic views present an image of Ancient Egypt in sharp contrast to the one that emerged from 'mainstream' Egyptology, and until recently consisted of a loose body of competing theories about the nature and significance of Ancient Egypt that lacked a coherent identity and 'label'. However, in the 1990s, the current representatives of this school of thought began to use the term 'alternative Egypt' or 'alternative Egyptology'.

The chapter further says "'Alternative Egyptology' is also characterized by the amateur status of its proponents, in the sense that they are seldom academically qualified and do not work within the protocols of academia." It also has a couple of paragraphs about Schwaller de Lubicz, whom it describes as "another important figure in the development of alternative Egyptology", alongside people like Ignatius Donnelly, Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, Helena Blavatsky, H. Spencer Lewis, and Edgar Cayce. So alternative Egyptology is a label that such esotericists have created for themselves. It is not scholarly, and Schwaller de Lubicz falls firmly under this label. A. Parrot (talk)

Imagine how much this article could have been improved if this much effort had been put into adding to the article instead of arguing about a simple label. Your source names Schwaller de Lubicz an alternative egyptologist. This means it is labelling him an egyptologist. The question I have is, why has it been necessary to invest so much time to add qualifiers to this description?

Your whole issue here seems to be that he advances theories that others don't agree with that are based on occult premises. This is exactly what Isaac Newton did. Newton wrote more theology than science. He was driven by an esoteric conception of the universe, which turned out to be not entirely accurate but he came up with great results anyway. Shall we name Newton an alternative scientist? This is exactly the same as Schwaller de Lubicz.

It gives me a warm chuckle to see you quote Hornung as saying that he views "Egyptology and its esoteric counterpart as being distinct from each other". In ancient Egypt there was no separation between the things we call science, religion and magic. All these things were blended into an holistic worldview. To try to separate them now for that culture is a conceit based on the perceived superiority of the current dominant paradigm of thinking.

If Schwaller de Lubicz's work is so unscholarly why does he continue to be cited by the academy today? Perhaps he is a scholar when he is spending fifteen years at Karnak making the most accurate measurements, or as you put it, 'bothering' to make the most accurate measurements of Karnak. Perhaps he is only unscholarly when he is drawing conclusions that other egyptologists either don't agree with or can't understand? Perhaps science only consists in consensus reality?

This is not me being tedious about a strange occultist. This is an important issue about applying labels in order to prejudice knowledge on wikipedia based on whether or not ideas are currently out of fashion or yet understood. The history of science is littered with brilliant people whose ideas were out of sync with the rest of the scientific world. The need to wash hands to promote hygiene comes to mind as a spectacularly stupid failure, which resulted in polemic name calling among doctors of the day. The history of science is also littered with names who were what we these days call independent scholars. People who are not attached to any institution yet undoubtedly do great scholarly work. Yet it is on these bases that you want to qualify the correct English word that describes the work of Schwaller de Lubicz.

I feel compelled to assure you that my passion for this subject is not antagonism against you personally. You have seem to be a perfectly nice person. However there is on wikipedia a frequent inability to distinguish between enthusiastic arguments in support of an idea and personal attacks, and it is this which drives my compulsion. I am just encountering this problem a lot in discussions in articles in my specialisation, i.e. magic and religion, and the frustration probably shows through. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that and appreciate it; content disputes become personalized far too often. But I believe it is necessary to invest the time because simply calling Schwaller an Egyptologist is misleading. Picknett and Price draw a clear distinction between professional Egyptologists and the people who call themselves alternative Egyptologists. Not only are they not the same but, as the chapter describes, the relationship between the two communities is often downright antagonistic.

Wikipedia, being based on reliable sources, is supposed to reflect the "consensus reality" of its time. It's been said before that if Wikipedia had existed in the days when spontaneous generation was taken seriously, it would have reported that as the scientific consensus, until that consensus changed in light of the experimental evidence that was gradually built up to disprove it. Egyptologists simply don't see that Schwaller de Lubicz's claims as supported by the evidence—including the Egyptians' own writings about their beliefs, which they have studied in great depth. Distaste for the Egyptians' religious worldview was a serious problem with Egyptological studies in Schwaller de Lubicz' time, but that has changed dramatically. Hornung himself was one of the major figures in that shift in thinking. But the scholarly view of Schwaller de Lubicz' conclusions has not changed.

We're obviously not going to persuade each other. Rather than going around and around, I would like to see more editors weigh in here. I know you left a note about this discussion on the WikiProject Ancient Egypt talk page, but the project is so inactive that I'm often the only person who responds to such notes. If nobody else shows up here in the next day or two, how would you prefer to proceed? A. Parrot (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We should not call him an Egyptologist. By the way, I only get 500 hits on Google scholar, many to things he wrote. Not that that proves anything about him being an Egyptologist. So, that's 3 editors who say we shouldn't call him an Egyptologist. Time to remove that description? Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is. I've also tried to improve the Egypt section some, as Morgan Leigh implied somebody should do. I removed the unsourced statements and provided more details. Some of the statements that were there before could be useful to anyone improving the article further, such as the part about the complexity of Schwaller de Lubicz' mathematical arguments, as long as sources are provided to support them. I doubt that the most fundamental of Schwaller de Lubicz' ideas are represented by what I wrote, but at least it's not so vague now. I was forced to be vague about one fact—he spent years in Egypt, but my three sources vary about how many. Hornung says fifteen, beginning in 1937; Picknett and Prince say fourteen, beginning in 1938; and Dominic Montserrat says only eight, with no dates attached. My rewritten section isn't ideal, but I have tried to write it neutrally, and I hope it can serves as a starting point for further improvements. A. Parrot (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it is for this reason. We have three academic sources that call him an egyptologist and two opinions of editors that say no. What is your reason Dougweller? I ask as you haven't given any reason and an opinion is not a reason. Thanks for your additions to the article A Parrot. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And those academic sources are? I hope they meet WP:RS and that you aren't referring to the article by a journalist[4] or a paper written in partial fulfillment of a Master's degree in architecture. And I see that Cheak is " a life-long student of the world's spiritual, philosophical and esoteric traditions." Hardly an Egyptologist. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Dougweller. You seem to be arguing that only an egyptologist is capable of describing anyone else as an egyptologist. A masters thesis, especially one from MIT, is a reliable source. A PhD thesis is a more valuable reliable source than a Masters thesis. A PhD theses specifically about Schwaller de Lubicz is a quite reliable source indeed on the topic of whether or not he is an egyptologist.

You seem to be arguing that the academic interests of a person with a PhD, where that PhD - which was passed - was specifically about Schwaller de Lubicz, affect the reliability of that source.

I don't believe that either of these are tenable positions.

The other source to which I refer, was that provided by User:A._Parrot, "Consuming Ancient Egypt". Please see the abovementioned quotation from it which describes Schwaller de Lubicz as an "alternative egyptologist". An alternative Egyptologist is an Egyptologist.

I will grant that a journalistic source has less weight than an academic source. However this journalist is writing for a university publication, which makes them more reliable than most journalistic sources. I suggest that Johns Hopkins is an institution that has 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly tried to convey, Picknett and Price draw a clear distinction between scholarly Egyptologists and the non-academic proponents of ideas that are "based less on conventional history and archaeology than on esoteric tradition and romantic visions". These proponents have chosen to call their ideas "alternative Egyptology", but the distinction is still clear. You cannot use Picknett and Price to support the claim that Schwaller de Lubicz is an Egyptologist. A. Parrot (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Picknett and Price are describing the difference between majority and minority views. Schweller de Lubicz is a significant minority view. But both views are of people who study Egypt and are thus Egyptologists. Reliable sources clearly states that significant minority view should be included. You yourself previous agreed that it was ok to call Schwaller de Lubicz an alternative egyptologist based on the source you provided. Now that I am agreeing with you it seems something has changed? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not changed my position; I just should have made it clearer. I can't speak for Dougweller, but I suppose I would be willing to call Schwaller de Lubicz an alternative Egyptologist. (I don't care for this term, but it seems to have some currency, and it has a parallel in alternative medicine. Hornung's "Egyptosophy", which I find more appealing somehow, is not so widely used—although Cheak does use it.) But when you repeated your contention that "an alternative Egyptologist is an Egyptologist", I thought you were still arguing to call him an Egyptologist without qualification, which would be a fundamental misuse of the source. A. Parrot (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should also have been clearer. I am willing to go with alternative Egyptologist. I am not fond of it either, but it is in the source you cite and also is a better descriptor of his work in general than egyptosophist, his measurements of Karnak are really quite prosiac for example, it's only his conclusions that many egyoptologists can't agree with. I agree egyptosophist is a much cooler word, and cited by both Cheak and Hornung, so maybe we can include it in the article as well. So can we call this a concensus and all get on with our lives? I have a PhD thesis to submit in two months so I really hope the answer is yes. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've edited the article accordingly, making it clear in the body what "alternative Egyptology" means. Doug, I hope we can agree on this compromise. A. Parrot (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We have never considered papers written for a Master's degree as reliable sources. And yes, I would not expect laymen to be used to determine who is an Egyptologist. You can take all this to WP:RSN if you wish, but so far you are still in a minority. I will also note that being generally reliable doesn't mean reliable for everything. I'd also need evidence that writing for a house journal even in a university confers more reliablity than most journalistic sources. All this really shows is that you are struggling to find sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a Masters thesis from a school like MIT does not meet the criterion for a reliable source. I agree that it might not be best to use a Masters thesis to cite a theory or major work, but I am just citing that he is an Egyptologist. Even if you choose to disregard the Masters thesis as a source, that still leaves two other sources. Dr Cheak is not a layman. He is a scholar with a doctorate. A doctorate specifically about Schwaller de Lubicz. He is completely qualified to make this statement. Much more controversial statements than the fact that Schwaller de Lubicz can be called an egyptologist, or an alternative egyptologist if you like, are cited elsewhere on wikipedia with a single source. I have provided two academic sources and a high quality journalistic source for this one simple descriptive word. Why is the quality of sources for this one simple word so much in question? I may be in the minority on this talk page but neither of you will say why you won't accept these sources, which is exceptionally odd as one of them was provided by one of you! Consuming Ancient Egypt was provided as a source by A. Parrot. But now that I am agreeing with this source it is suddenly no good. I am sorry but this just looks like POV against occultists. We are not getting anywhere here so I am going to seek resolution elsewhere. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as Egyptology or related disciplines go, Cheak is a layman. He is not qualified to say who is an Egyptologist. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings all interested parties, I have done some more research and I am ready to again assert that SDL can justifiably be called an Egyptologist. Although not formally trained as an Egyptologist, Schwaller's work was indeed published and reviewed in peer reviewed Egyptological journals, acknowledged by other Egyptologists and by the Epigraphic Survey and continues to be cited in academic works.

The Temple of Man is favourably reviewed in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Bothmer, Bernard V. ‘Le Temple dans l'homme by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies vol. 2, no. 2 (1952): 151-2. The reviewer concludes that "Egyptian art and architecture are largely symbolic in nature, and in focusing on this much neglected aspect, Le Temple dans l’homme makes an important contribution regardless of the extent to which the reader may disagree with some of the author’s interpretations." This from Bothmer, an Egyptologist and Art Historian (see http://www.gate.net/~ekwerner/bvbothmer/).

Schwaller was published, on pharaonic mathematics, in Chronique d'Egypte, still one of the preeminent French Egyptological journals - R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. 'De la Mathématique pharaonique’. Chronique d’Égypte 37, no. 73 (1962): 77-106. The editors of this issue specifically acknowledged Schwaller's work in Egypt.

Schwaller's symbolist theories were controversial and polarised Egyptologists, and the bias against Schwaller to this day is a result of these two basic orientations, symbolist and materialist/historical. The fact that his work created this division of Egyptologists into these two camps indicates he is influential enough to be called an Egyptologist.

Moreover SDL was acknowledged by the Epigraphical survey, it being the standard reference for the temple and its inscriptions, in both The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994) and The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, Volume 2: The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Instititute of the University of Chicago, 1998).

SDL's work continues to be cited by Egyptologists, for example see Bell, L., ‘Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka’. JNES 44, no. 4 (1985): 251-294. and Bell, L., ‘The New Kingdom “Divine” Temple: The Example of Luxor’. In Temples of Ancient Egypt, edited by Byron E. Shafer and Dieter Arnold, 127-184. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Having provided evidence of his influence on Egyptology, his review and publication in Egyptological journals, his acknowledgement by the Epigraphic Survey and his continued citation by leading Egyptologists I find no reason to continue to note SDL with the appellation alternative Egyptologist, and I shall be editing the article accordingly. There is no precent for the addition of this qualifier. If it is added here it must logically be added to anyone in any field who produces work which creates controversy or disagreement in that field. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that I've recently said elsewhere that this mystical counterpart to Egyptology is too ill-studied at present to have a definitive name, I can't strenuously object. But more important than labeling SDL in the infobox is clearly describing his relationship with the Egyptological mainstream in the body. I've obtained, or found in my unwieldy collection, more sources to do that with. Unfortunately I don't have time to write the stuff myself, and I won't until summer, at the earliest. But I'll lay out some sources here now.

For one thing, Edmund S. Meltzer's article on "Egyptology" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, already cited in the article, describes SDL as a "mathematician and Hermetic philosopher", in the same sentence with "the Egyptologist Alexandre Varille". More broadly, that article says, "As John Baines has noted in a penetrating article on 'restricted knowledge, hierarchy, and decorum' in ancient Egypt and Egyptology, the scholarly understanding of ancient Egypt's religion has shifted to a strong consideration, and in some cases general acceptance, of features that several decades ago were the sole domain of the Egyptosophist. It can be debated how much of this is due to the Egyptosophists, but in any case it provides common ground for discussion."

Looking at Baines' paper ("Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions", Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 27, 1990), he specifically refers to SDL, in the portion that talks about Egypt-related esotericism. It mentions a dispute between John Anthony West and the classicist Peter Green, who negatively reviewed West's Serpent in the Sky, which draws heavily on SDL. Baines says, "Schwaller de Lubicz knew more about Egyptian temples than either his disciple or his critic. I agree with Green in being suspicious of Schwaller de Lubicz's method, but the only possible a priori reason for this suspicion is that Schwaller's strategy of imposing images on ground plans can prove almost anything." Baines also mentions Schwaller de Lubicz's surveys of Luxor and Karnak, and their use by Egyptologists. And he says "Schwaller de Lubicz also influenced some Egyptologists who worked in Luxor at the same time as him, notably Alexandre Varille and Clément Robichon. In a sense, the approach of Alexander Badawy, Ancient Egyptian Architectural Design: A Study of the Harmonic System is comparable to that of Schwaller de Lubicz. So far as I know, no Egyptologist publishing at present uses similar methods."

Finally, I must object to your claim that "the bias against Schwaller to this day is a result of these two basic orientations, symbolist and materialist/historical". I cannot stress enough how dramatically the Egyptological approach to ancient Egyptian religion has changed since SDL's day. Meltzer points it out above, and recent sources on Egyptian religion often refer to it. In the middle of the 20th century, some of the most prominent scholars, like Kurt Sethe and Hermann Kees, did show "a certain rationalistic contempt for religion and reduction of its implications to politics and factional struggle", as Baines calls it (in "Egyptian Myth and Discourse", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, April 1991). But that already began to change in the late 1940s with the work of Henri Frankfort (e.g., Ancient Egyptian Religion: An Interpretation, 1948), which emphasized the cohesiveness and metaphorical nature of ancient Egyptian thought. Erik Hornung's book Der Eine und die Wielen (1971) built on some of Frankfort's arguments, and today it is a cornerstone of Egyptological study of Egyptian religion. It's possible that Schwaller de Lubicz or Varille contributed something to this shift in thinking, but the seminal works that scholars always mention are Frankfort and Hornung. Symbolism is everywhere in Egyptian religious thought, and everyone acknowledges it. (For Egyptian symbolism in general, see Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art, 1994, by Richard H. Wilkinson; for it in temples, see Wilkinson's Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt, 2000, or any other recent overview of the subject; for symbolism in religion, see practically anything from the Works Cited section of Egyptian mythology.) But they still do not accept that Egyptian religion included symbols of the themes that Schwaller de Lubicz emphasized. A. Parrot (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings A.Parrot, Once again a thorough and complex reply from you. Thank you. I welcome your suggestion of adding to this article a section about the relationship between SDL's work and that of other Egyptologists. I totally agree with you that Egyptology has moved towards a symbolic understanding of Egyptian religion since SDL's time. I do however stand by my point that SDL was labelled a nutter for advancing the symbolic theories he did at the time he did, a time when a symbolic approach was at variance from the norm. The point though is that I am not arguing that Egyptologists might agree with everything SDL said, but rather that he has done sufficient well regarded work that was published in journals and noted by other Egyptologists as being worthwhile that he can be labelled an Egyptologist. Some of his work remains controversial to this day but much is widely accepted, his measurements of Karnak for example are still relied on. It seems to me a disturbing trend that people are saddled with labels designed to relegate them to some kind of secondary level of worth because some of their work is at variance with the mainstream. It is not in our remit to decide who is an Egyptologist and who isn't by debating whether their work is widely accepted. An Egyptologist is a person who studies Egypt. Any subsequent qualifers have agendas. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Birth

For your information, It is not born december 7 in Alsace-Lorraine but the 30 has Asnières-sur-Seine ! See the page in French please. Best regards. Licorne37 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jeu du Tarot égyptien Schwaller de Lubicz 17-18-19-20.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)