Kabbalah Unveiled (1912) Mathers

Vincent

Helvetica said:
you're stammering Fulgour ;)

What think you of this?

In 1642, Rittangel published the third Latin translation of the SEFER YETZIRAH, based on the 1562 Mantua edition. This was the translation used by Westcott who made his English translation in 1887. Wescott's Hebrew was somewhat less significant than Shakespeare small Latin and less Greek.

Sour grapes, or does he have a point?
One point might be; why would Westcott's skill, or lack thereof, in Hebrew, have any bearing on a book Westcott translated from Latin?

There are many translations of the Sepher Yetzirah, and there are different versions of it to translate. Westcott's version seems better than some, and worse than others, but it can be highly subjective, even amongst highly qualified Hebrew scholars. So, yes he does have a point, but not much of one.

The Golden Dawn was based on a fraud starting with the Cipher Documents, so belittling Westcott for his lack of Hebrew scholarship seems a little like taking Erich von Daniken to task for spelling errors. Yes, the Golden Dawn version of Tarot was given arbitrary assignments of Hebrew letters to paths and trumps to suit their own tastes and needs, in the same as people have done before and after them. In the absence of anything even remotely resembling evidence, it must be assumed that all such assignments are arbitrary.
Helvetica said:
Crowley at least was anti-semitic; many of the English Anglo-Saxon educated class were antisemitic lite in those days. Bergson - and his sister of course - were Jewish, though integrated.
Once again, the point seems over-stated. Yes, Crowley made several anti-Jewish remarks, (I presume you mean anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic, which in Crowley's day meant something a little different than its common usage today), and even though Thelemites and the suchlike have tried, sometimes ingeniously, to defend these remarks, I, like you, have no doubt that they were anti-Jewish. The thing is that Crowley also made disparaging remarks about Christians, Hindus and many others. And despite the horrid way he abused Jews like Victor Neuburg, Israel Regardie and others, he treated many other non-Jews in the same way.

He was an equal opportunity abuser.


Vincent
 

kwaw

Helvetica said:
What think you of this?

In 1642, Rittangel published the third Latin translation of the SEFER YETZIRAH, based on the 1562 Mantua edition. This was the translation used by Westcott who made his English translation in 1887. Wescott's Hebrew was somewhat less significant than Shakespeare small Latin and less Greek.

As he was translating from Latin the point seems irrelevant.

He compared the Rittangel translation to a relatively corrupt and late British Museum manuscript, adopted most of the erroneous variants

Variants exist within the Jewish sources and among jewish kabbalists and commentators themselves. What is or is not 'erroneous' is a matter of opinion, there are many varients that can be supported by reference to the authority of 'authentic' jewish sources. The use of Jewish sources in Tarot attributions is irrelevant of course, as far as we know there is none.

Secondly the most varied of the variants, the planetary attributions to the double letters, Westcott does not give as part of the body of the original text, but as a supplement to the relevant chapter which he explicitely states is a modern variation not to be found in original sources, which should not be taken as the 'true' attributions but are more or less to be taken as illustration. Thirdly it is totally irrelevant as the GD attributions are not based upon Westcott's translation of the SY anyway but upon 'cipher' manuscripts some GD historians claim were written by Mathers/Westcott, others by Mackenzie.

Crowley at least was anti-semitic; many of the English Anglo-Saxon educated class were antisemitic lite in those days. Bergson - and his sister of course - were Jewish, though integrated.

Sounds a bit 'anti' to pick on English Anglo-Saxons, anti-semitism was pretty widespread throughout Europe and America. Crowley certainly made many anti-jewish remarks, which is different to 'anti-semitism' as it was understood at that time; the worst of these were in the nature of personal attacks against former friends. Israel Regardie, who suffered what was probably Crowley's most vindictive and outrageous attack of this kind, still in later years was to look back and regard Crowley as 'a kind man'[!]. Whatever Crowleys personal failings however, I don't think it relevant to the subject of GD attributions. Such an argument is merely the extreme polemics of one way truists who defend their own system by vilifying the character of those who follow another. Vililfying the GD by association with Crowley is irrelevant polemics.

Kwaw
 

Sophie

kwaw said:
Vililfying the GD by association with Crowley is irrelevant polemics.

Irrelevant, no, but polemic certainly. Not mine, I hasten to add - I am interested in how these various esoterists used the Hebrew (or latin translations) texts.

As for antisemitism - we'll agree to differ on that one. Of course it was prevalent elsewhere in Europe, but we are talking aobut England. My mother has some unpleasant stories to tell about it in the English upper and upper-middle classes as late as the 1950s (after the Shoah). I'm well aware, however, that Crowley is a comple character and no single epithet can qualify him (if anything can).

The use of Jewish texts (including the Bible) by anti-Jewish - or even anti-semitic - people always fascinates me. This goes far beyond the Golden Dawn reference you seem to have fixated on in your post.

As for the question of Jewish sources and tarot attributions, well, it tese sources are very relevant. I'm still sitting on the fence and read everything that comes my way- enough already to say I don't think anyone can rule it out. The time when Tarot was born was heavily influenced by Jewish scholarship, after all.