Book of Thoth Study Group #4: Evidence for the Initiated Tradition - Eliphaz Levi

Aeon418

Please elaborate.
Elaborate? On what? The Cipher Manuscripts are written in a basic substitution code that for the most part decodes into English. But there are also sections that decode into Latin and French.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Page 46 of the Cipher Manuscript decodes into French. It is an analysis of the word INRI.
http://hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/cipher46.htm
(click on "The Cipher MS") in the bottom middle of the screen to get the ciphered page)

Crowley says on page 6 that "there is a note to one page that seems to be in the writing of Eliphas Levi." However, it cannot be page 46 of the Cipher ms., since that seems to be in the same hand as the rest of the ciphered parts.

I don't know what page Crowley is referring to, as all the annotations are in English (e.g. pp. 33 and 51), and Levi did not know English.
 

Zephyros

Something I don't understand is, well, basically everything...

Where's the "evidence.?" If the manuscripts were originally thought to be the product of some German order, through the Secret Chiefs, doesn't admitting who wrote them admit that they are a forgery? If Grant wrote them, inspired, perhaps, by Levi, them why isn't he the visionary celebrated by Crowley here, since he would have been the one who saw beyond Levi's mistake or deliberate obfuscation? And if he did write them, why would Crowley accept his authority on the matter?
 

Ross G Caldwell

The authorship of the Cipher Manuscript has never been established. I believe that it is only fairly recently, since Ellic Howe in the early 1970s perhaps, that there has been speculation about its authorship.

Mathers' damaging claim in 1900, which fatally fractured the Order, was that Westcott had forged the correspondence between himself and Soror S.D.A. in Germany (see Equinox I,3, pp. 255 and following), not that he had written the Cipher Manuscript. This was to bolster his claim that only he was in authentic communication with the Secret Chiefs, and receiving new information about the Order.

As far as I know, no one at the time ever accused either man, or the deceased Woodman, of having written the document. Although both Westcott and Mathers undoubtedly had the learning, it is clear that they followed Levi's Hebrew letter - Tarot trump associations as late as 1887 and 1888 respectively (Westcott in Tabula Bembina; The Isiac Tablet of Cardinal Bembo,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/isi/isi02.htm - (bottom of page);
Mathers, The Tarot: Its Occult Significance, Use in Fortune-Telling, Method of Play, Etc. -
http://sacred-texts.com/tarot/mathers/mtar01.htm - (table at bottom of page))

The discovery of the Cipher Manuscript after Mackenzie's death in 1886, and the decision to found an Order based on it clearly convinced both men of the other, secret system revealed there. It seems unlikely that both of them would have so openly published a wrong Hebrew letter Tarot trump association if they knew otherwise at the time, or if either to them were the author of the system.

Crowley's own opinion about claims of forgery or recent composition, etc. is of the "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" variety: it doesn't matter who made it, just that if it works, if it is beautiful, if it is inspired, then it is worthy to be held in higher esteem than a banal truth ("Of All Truth", rather than "Certain withot error"). It's the same as he argued for Einstein's theory of Relativity, or the question of the origin of Tarot itself. He states it in the following way in Liber LXI, "The History Lection", verse 7:
"Some years ago a number of cipher MSS. were discovered and deciphered by certain students. They attracted much attention, as they purported to derive from the Rosicrucians. You will readily understand that the genuineness of the claim matters no whit, such literature being judged by itself, not by its purported sources."

Crowley offers arguments for Levi having known the document on pp. 6-7 of The Book of Thoth, but I don't think they stand up to scrutiny.
 

Michael Sternbach

Crowley's own opinion about claims of forgery or recent composition, etc. is of the "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" variety: it doesn't matter who made it, just that if it works, if it is beautiful, if it is inspired, then it is worthy to be held in higher esteem than a banal truth ("Of All Truth", rather than "Certain withot error"). It's the same as he argued for Einstein's theory of Relativity, or the question of the origin of Tarot itself. He states it in the following way in Liber LXI, "The History Lection", verse 7:
"Some years ago a number of cipher MSS. were discovered and deciphered by certain students. They attracted much attention, as they purported to derive from the Rosicrucians. You will readily understand that the genuineness of the claim matters no whit, such literature being judged by itself, not by its purported sources."

I agree with AC on this. After all, the purported origin of so many revered spiritual texts is highly dubious.

Crowley offers arguments for Levi having known the document on pp. 6-7 of The Book of Thoth, but I don't think they stand up to scrutiny.

It is not surprising that Crowley would try to assign the authorship to Levi, his great hero and "predecessor".

However, there is little reason to assume this to be correct, seen from a modern and independent perspective. In terms of content, the issue is far from unambiguous. Personally, as I have mostly studied Tarot from a GD perspective until now, the accompanying set of letters/Trumps correspondences is what I feel most familiar with - and good reasons can be given for it, to be sure.

However, I must admit that there can be strong arguments found in support of the other scheme as well. Some of which were given by Levi himself, others more recently by Mark Filipas: Not only is the posture of the Magician in old decks like the TdM reminiscent of Aleph, also the (medieval) Hebrew names of so many things depicted on that card begin with that letter: Amgusch (magician), agorah (coin), ariran (dagger), abuv (thin hollow tube), arnaq (bag, purse), ev (green sprout), atz (hat), agan (cup), aschwah (streak), aszit (mortar), aruchah (long board), adom (red), adama (earth).

Filipas goes on to demonstrate the similarity between other Tarot figures (Emperor, Hermit, Wheel of Fortune, Strength, Hanged Man, Temperance, Devil, Tower, World, Fool) and their letters, and between the latter and numerous further objects on the cards. He concludes that the Majors may have been cards for learning the alphabet in a medieval Torah school, originally! - Contemporary elementary schools use similar learning aids.

Again, this is not to say that the scheme of the Cipher MS is "wrong" in any way. Just that the alternative scheme can definitely be seen as worthy of the great occultists that represented it - men like Levi, Papus and Wirth.
 

Abrac

To me it absolutely matters if the source is fictitious or true. If someone presents material to me and says try this it really works, then they lie about its source, why should I believe them when they say it works; and what else could they be lying about? :)
 

Michael Sternbach

To me it absolutely matters if the source is fictitious or true. If someone presents material to me and says try this it really works, then they lie about its source, why should I believe them when they say it works; and what else could they be lying about? :)

Hmm. I would suggest trying it out and seeing yourself if it works.
 

Abrac

I wouldn't do that for the same reason I wouldn't invest money in something without doing my due diligence. :)
 

Richard

To me it absolutely matters if the source is fictitious or true. If someone presents material to me and says try this it really works, then they lie about its source, why should I believe them when they say it works; and what else could they be lying about? :)

The Bible lies about the authorship of various books. That was customary at the time of their writing and does not necessarily diminish their value. If we always insist on total honesty in this regard, a lot of good stuff must be rejected.
 

Zephyros

Things also become a bit more murky when we're talking about ethereal beings that may or may not exist. Like the manuscripts the Book of Law itself claims a supernatural source. There is no doubt that it was written down by Crowley, but even if he made it up himself, who's to say he wasn't "divinely inspired?" As LRichard pointed out, the Bible does this too, claiming that the Torah in its entirety was written by Moses. Even if that were true (or indeed, even possible) he could easily claim that the spirit of Yaweh was in him.

I've found that people who believe the Bulak story to be gospel also tend to be third-chapter literalists. })