Book of Thoth Study Group #6: Tarot and the Golden Dawn

Zephyros

Tarot and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

3. The Tarot and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. One must now digress into the history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the society reconstituted by Dr. Westcott and his colleagues, in order to show further evidence as to the authenticity of the claim of the promulgators of the cipher manuscript.

Among these papers, besides the attribution of the Tarot, were certain skeleton rituals, which purported to contain the secrets of initiation; the name (with an address in Germany) of a Fraülein Sprengel was mentioned as the issuing authority. Dr. Westcott wrote to her; and, with her permission, the Order of the Golden Dawn was founded in 1886.

(The G .’. D .’. is merely a name for the Outer or Preliminary Order of the R.R. et A.C., which is in its turn an external manifestation of the A .’. A.’. which is the true Order of Masters---See Magick, pp.229-244.) [An impudent mushroom swindle, calling itself “Order of Hidden Masters”, has recently appeared---and disappeared.]

The genius who made this possible was a man named Samuel Liddell Mathers. After a time, Frl. Sprengel died; a letter written to her, asking for more advanced knowledge, elicited a reply from one of her colleagues. This letter informed Dr. Westcott of her death, adding that the writer and his associates had never approved of Frl. Sprengel’s action in authorizing any form of group working, but, in view of the great reverence and esteem in which she was held, had refrained from open opposition. He went on to say that “this correspondence must now cease”, but that if they wanted more advanced knowledge they could perfectly well get it by using in the proper manner the knowledge which they already possessed. In other words, they must utilize their magical powers to make contact with the Secret Chiefs of the Order. (This, incidentally, is a quite normal and traditional mode of procedure.)

Shortly afterwards, Mathers, who had manoeuvred himself into the practical Headship of the Order, announced that he had made this link; that the Secret Chiefs had authorized him to continue the work of the Order, as its sole head. There is, however, no evidence that he was here a witness of truth, because no new knowledge of any particular importance came to the Order; such as did appear proved to be no more than Mathers could have acquired by normal means from quite accessible sources, such as the British Museum. These circumstances, and a great deal of petty intrigue, led to serious dissatisfaction among the members of the Order. Frl. Sprengel’s judgment, that group-working in an Order of this sort is possible, was shown in this case to be wrong. In 1900, the Order in its existing form was destroyed.

The point of these data is simply to show that, at that time, the main preoccupation of all the serious members of the Order was to get in touch with the Secret Chiefs themselves. In 1904 success was attained by one of the youngest members, Frater Perdurabo. The very fullest details of this occurrence are given in The Equinox of the Gods.

[Consult especially pp. 61 to 119. The message of the Secret Chiefs is even in the Book of the Law which has been published privately for initiates, and publicly in The Equinox, Vol. I, No.7 and No.10; also, with full details, in The Equinox of the Gods, pp.13 to 38. In a pocket at the end of that volume is a photolithographic reproduction of the manuscript. There is also a cheap pocket edition of the text of the Book by itself. There are also American Editions of the text.]

It is not here useful to discuss the evidence which goes to establish the truth of this claim. But it is to be observed that it is internal evidence. It exists in the manuscript itself. It would make no difference if the statement of any of the persons concerned turned out to be false.

Happy Yom Kippur
 

Zephyros

So, I have to ask, since now we're getting to the real meat... did any of the above actually happen? Has it been definitively deduced that it was Wescott who wrote the manuscripts? Was it someone else? Was Sprengel an actual person?
 

Michael Sternbach

So, I have to ask, since now we're getting to the real meat... did any of the above actually happen? Has it been definitively deduced that it was Wescott who wrote the manuscripts? Was it someone else? Was Sprengel an actual person?

Although the Cipher MS are in Westcott's handwriting, the most widely accepted theory traces them back to Kenneth Mackenzie.
 

Zephyros

Interesting. What about Sprengel? The whole thing just smacks of a creation myth.
 

Aeon418

What about Sprengel?
It's more than likely that she never existed.
The whole thing just smacks of a creation myth.
What's wrong with a creation myth, if that same myth helps you take the next step? Further on down line you may be able to prove the validity of the teachings for yourself. At that point you no longer need the myth. It has served it's purpose.

But that makes one wonder why it was such a crisis of faith within the ranks of the Golden Dawn?
 

Michael Sternbach

It's more than likely that she never existed.

What's wrong with a creation myth, if that same myth helps you take the next step? Further on down line you may be able to prove the validity of the teachings for yourself. At that point you no longer need the myth. It has served it's purpose.

But that makes one wonder why it was such a crisis of faith within the ranks of the Golden Dawn?

For the same reason it was a crisis when Isaac Casaubon showed in the 17th century that the Corpus Hermeticum couldn't have been written by Hermes Trismegistos personally.

And for the same reason I (to my surprise) offended some moderate Christians by informing them about the Gnostic view that Jesus Christ did not really die on the cross.

It looks like even intelligent and reasonably open minded people have a deep desire to believe in the literal reality of myths.
 

Zephyros

I have no problem with a creation myth, it is practically a requirement in occult matters. Even the reception of the Book of Law is one hell of a creation myth, but it is fun and romantic and exciting. In fact, I think that the excitement and romance actually help the cause just like the Kabbalistic fairy tale helps put the whole thing in terms one can immediately understand and connect to.

Why this caused a schism is perhaps because the members actually did believe it, perhaps equating it with other myths such as the reception of the Torah at Sinai. Perhaps they didn't see it as you do, Aeon, that the proof is in one's own experiences.

But then, from what I understand, the number of members who actually attained was a very small clique, so maybe members didn't have any proof with which to supplement their faith.
 

Richard

.....And for the same reason I (to my surprise) offended some moderate Christians by informing them about the Gnostic view that Jesus Christ did not really die on the cross......

Then don't try telling them that the Snake in the Garden actually meant well, and that the Creator God (Demiurge) was stupid and deluded. Also, Christ was, in effect, a later manifestation of the same entity as the Snake, and he succeeded this time. [It is also interesting that the Snake (Nachash) and Christ (Messiah) have the same Hebrew numerical value of 358.]
 

Zephyros

Well... not to go off in a tangent... but the view that the snake was evil is exclusively Christian. The Jews don't agree with that view. They can't, the very idea of being at cross purposes with the Creator and him banishing his creations from Eden in a jealous fit would be at odds with basic Jewish tenets.
 

Aeon418

Even the reception of the Book of Law is one hell of a creation myth, but it is fun and romantic and exciting.
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this because it's a bit different to the Golden Dawn myth. In fact it may even be the complete opposite.

From your current perspective the reception story as related by Crowley sounds like a creation myth. But why? Possibly because nothing like that has ever happened to you. After all, things like that don't happen in real life, do they? ;)

But what if you were to pursue the Great Work and had certain experiences that "appear" to originate from a source external to yourself. Would that not lead you to re-evaluate your view? Would it even matter if your experience wasn't objectively true? Crowley's closing remark in your initial post seems to say it doesn't matter.