Hi Mogg,
>>You mean hung out in the British Library which was them part of the BM?<<
Yes, well actually I mean the Reading Room of the BM.
>>Not sure that's the same a direct work with the Egyptologists there -
surely there would be something more concrete - rather than the same vague
rumours and chinese whispers.<<
That's right, it's not the same. I'm just saying its likely, or at least
possible.
>>It's a bit like the statement that Mathers worked as a curator or whatever
at the Horniman - if you ask them they have no record of that although they
are aware of his friendship with the founder?<<
That's interesting,. I've only heard of that in Mary Greer, so whatever her
source is for that, I guess that's the source.
>>Its funny how something so recent has so little documentation - makes you
wonder about the relationship between older research and its evidence base :
)<<
Well, if documentation does exist (about the GD and BM), I'm sure someone
diligent could go find it - if it was findable.
>>I agree with your article about the authority of Egypt for GD/AC etc - but
does it ever go further - and why is there such a discrepency between the
Egyptological knowledge of the time and some of the Crowleyian liturgy?<<
You mean why is Crowley's take different to scholarly Egyptology (admitting
that some of that scholarly Egyptology wasn't that great)? I think Crowley
would have felt free to adapt Egyptian material to his purposes and also, I
think he used a Kabbalistic structure as his base, his 'map', and fitted
things into that, for example, the "Four-ness" of say Liber Resh fitting
into the Tetragrammaton. He would have favoured 4's (Tetragrammaton), 7s
(planets, excluding the later-discovered ones, even though he included
Neptune in his Astrology book), 12s - the Zodiac etc...
>>I suspect that Crowley thought the Egyptians meant it to be a nice even
four and rectified the rite as he did for Liber Samech.<<
Big YEP there.
~Caroline.
|