View Single Post
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwaw View Post
I don't think there is any need to remove the Lion of fortitude, as it does not seem a Leonic type Lion anyway.
That's all true, but it misses the point about the authority of the initiated tradition of Tarot attributions. Crowley was working in this belief system, not by rational argumentation based on historical study.

Crowley was taught, and believed, that the GD attributions, given in the Cipher Manuscript, were the true ancient tradition (even though he knew it was forged), and that Levi's "Continental" system was a blind, which the French occultists mistakenly followed. The Cipher Ms. states the reason for the counterchange of Justice and Strength as:

"VIII Justice = [Lamed] and [Libra]
And XI Strength = [Teth] and [Leo] which
causeth a transposition
for these are cognate symbols
but at one time the sword of
Justice was the Egyptian
knife symbol of the sickle
of Leo while the scales
meant the [Sun] having
quitted the balance point
of the highest declination.
To the female and the lion
gave the idea of [Libra] repressing the
fire of Vulcan ([Saturn] in [Libra]
exalted. But earliest was
the lion goddess to [Leo] and Ma
to [Libra] with her scales. And this
is better."
(fols. 54-55; words in [brackets] are symbols in the original document)

As far as Crowley was concerned, there were correct and ancient attributions for the Tarot, the Initiated Tradition. Any change, such as he proposed for Tzaddi and Heh - and Aquarius and Aries going with the Trumps not the Letters/Paths - had to come from the same initiated source - the Secret Chiefs.

Trying to solve the problem posed in I:57 suggests an implicit recognition of the authority of the Secret Chiefs, since they issued the challenge in the first place. History and reason do not recognize a problem. Thus if anyone comes along with a "better" solution than Crowley's, they must be playing the initiate's game, and therefore assume the mantle of prophet with the authority to make the change.

It does not make sense, to care about it, in any other way.

Added: thanks Steve, you suggest there IS another way it makes sense to care about the problem - in order to present better proof of the supernatural origin of the book. Solving the problem of I:57 more elegantly than Crowley - leaving no room for dispute - helps show that there was a problem in the first place, and gives additional proof that the author of the book knew more than Crowley or anybody could have.
Top   #56