Book of Thoth Study Group #2: The Contents of the Tarot - Origin of the Tarot

Zephyros

I agree, I see no reason why this would imply that he thought the story was true. By the same token, other scholars might make a presumption that the book that Neferkaptah stole, the original Book of Thoth, was the Tarot. Both Tarot "creation myths" have their own charm, but they shed more light on the perception of Tarot rather than its historical fact. Both the Book of Thoth as well as the Rota are devices of great power and wisdom nestled in initiatory metaphorical literature.

I'm surprised Crowley doesn't mention the Egyptian story, which is clearly a fairy tale (and a really good one, too).
 

Michael Sternbach

I see nothing in the footnote that says this conclusion is Crowley's own. The note begins, "It is supposed by some scholars...", and Crowley gives no indication as to whether he agrees or disagrees with this opinion.

However, the way I know Crowley, I would be quite surprised if he even would have mentioned the hypothesis without immediately refuting it, unless he was strongly inclined to agree.

How this implies a suspension of critical thinking is unclear too. One could start from the assumption that the Fama is a work of fiction or a mystical allegory and still speculate about the Rota that was being used.

Well, according to modern researchers like Frances A. Yates, the existence of the Brotherhood was part of the fiction. But if there was no Brotherhood, who would have been using the "Rota" in the first place? In keeping with Ockham's razor, one would have to assume that the "Rota" was part of the fiction as well.

Moreover, for all I know, the Tarot/Rota idea goes back no further than to Paul Foster Case ("ROTA TARO ORAT TORA ATOR").

Unless the starting premiss is that Crowley was nuts, so lets see how we can interpret everything to advance that position.

No, my conclusion that Crowley was being uncritical here doesn't imply that he was nuts.
 

Michael Sternbach

I'm surprised Crowley doesn't mention the Egyptian story, which is clearly a fairy tale (and a really good one, too).

Probably because he considered THAT one a fairy tale.
 

Zephyros

However, the way I know Crowley, I would be quite surprised if he even would have mentioned the hypothesis without immediately refuting it, unless he was strongly inclined to agree.

I guess everyone has their own projections, and the truth is difficult to ascertain. From what I know of him, he was nothing if not methodical, always going the scientific way, which is an amusing thing to say about a magician. Nevertheless, I think he was quite skeptical and not prone to flights of fancy. I think he would have believed in the spirit of the Fama, seeing truths in it, but not necessarily as a factual tale any more than many Bible stories can be seen through initiatory eyes as metaphors. But I don't have any real justification for that.

Probably because he considered THAT one a fairy tale.

Interesting point, and it makes sense. It seems like an important story, reminiscent of the one about Prometheus. He knew it, no doubt, Ettiella connected the Book with Tarot. For people who don't know it the story of Nefer-ka-ptah can be found at Sacred Texts and is highly recommended (by me, although it is unrelated, it's just a damn good adventure story).

What's interesting is that I can't recall, although I may be wrong, Crowley mentioning it anywhere. Stands to reason that if you're going to call your book after a mythical text that you would mention its mythology at least in passing.
 

Michael Sternbach

I guess everyone has their own projections, and the truth is difficult to ascertain. From what I know of him, he was nothing if not methodical, always going the scientific way, which is an amusing thing to say about a magician.

In keeping with his philosophy "the Method of Science, the Aim of Religion". This also ties in with the mystic/scientific approach suggested in the Fama. But even scientists of all sorts can be quite opinionated sometimes, in AC's case, this regularly took the form of mockery.

But it really doesn't matter much if he took the story of Frater C.R. literally or not. He exemplified its spirit like few others, something I whole-heartedly agree with and which attracted me to the BoT in the first place. Like I said elsewhere:

As mysticism becomes more scientific, science becomes more mystical.

Nevertheless, I think he was quite skeptical and not prone to flights of fancy. I think he would have believed in the spirit of the Fama, seeing truths in it, but not necessarily as a factual tale any more than many Bible stories can be seen through initiatory eyes as metaphors. But I don't have any real justification for that.



Interesting point, and it makes sense. It seems like an important story, reminiscent of the one about Prometheus. He knew it, no doubt, Ettiella connected the Book with Tarot. For people who don't know it the story of Nefer-ka-ptah can be found at Sacred Texts and is highly recommended (by me, although it is unrelated, it's just a damn good adventure story).

What's interesting is that I can't recall, although I may be wrong, Crowley mentioning it anywhere. Stands to reason that if you're going to call your book after a mythical text that you would mention its mythology at least in passing.

Book of Thoth might also refer to the legendary collection of books written by Hermes Trismegistos, a small part of which supposedly reached us in the form of the Corpus Hermeticum, including the famous Pymander. Again, historical researchers no longer support this hypothesis, but the texts and their supposed author played a very important role in the magical/scientific revival that characterized the Renaissance. In fact, Christian Rosencreutz can be thought of as another manifestation of Hermes Trismegistos. Sometimes mythology has a stronger impact than historical reality in shaping a particular Zeitgeist, for better or worse. For human psychology is archetypal in essence.
 

Zephyros

For human psychology is archetypal in essence.

Yes! And we desperately need that in order to survive, it gives form to our experiences. We will probably never face Medusa the way Perseus did, but we all have our own Medusa and other guardians of the underworld, even if our is an ill-tempered bank manager.
 

Aeon418

However, the way I know Crowley, I would be quite surprised if he even would have mentioned the hypothesis without immediately refuting it, unless he was strongly inclined to agree.
The way I know Crowley, it may have been nothing more than a joke. Crowley loved to pull people's legs and see how gullible they were. But then again maybe not. Crowley's not here to answer the question, so it's all opinion and supposition based on very little evidence.
Well, according to modern researchers like Frances A. Yates, the existence of the Brotherhood was part of the fiction.
It would not matter if they were. (And they most likely were.) The real Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross is completely different. I am 100% sure that Crowley saw in the Fama an allegory of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. By successfully completing the work of the A.'.A.'. grades through 5=6 (or a comparable system), one is joining the same Order described in the Fama.
 

Zephyros

It would also make sense with what we've already seen so far. The Bibliographical Note alone is a fancy little piece of subterfuge. "Some scholars" could be a dig at one of his peers who believed exactly that.
 

Michael Sternbach

It would also make sense with what we've already seen so far. The Bibliographical Note alone is a fancy little piece of subterfuge. "Some scholars" could be a dig at one of his peers who believed exactly that.

For once not at Waite anyway, who wrote in The Real History of the Rosicrucians:

"THREE derivations are offered of the name Rosicrucian. The first, which is certainly the most obvious, deduces it from the ostensible founder of the order, Christian Rosenkreuze. I shall show, however, that the history of this personage is evidently mythical or allegorical, and therefore this explanation merely cakes the inquiry a step backward to the question, What is the etymology of Rosenkreuze?"

Although this doesn't tell us how other GD members looked at the matter.
 

Zephyros

I find it very interesting that the only real piece of new information this section gives us is in a small footnote. That can't be accidental. He goes on and on about Gypsies and Egyptians, then dismisses them, while mentioning in passing this extraordinarily important document, giving the impression that this is the least important part.

It really does feel that a certain sleight of hand is going on here, although I don't know toward what end. It doesn't feel as if he's saying that the Fama is necessarily true, but he's drawing our attention to an anecdotal folklore lesson, diverting us from the only relevant "Golden Dawn-ish" information.