 |
 |
hi Ted,
thanks for taking the time to talk with me about this.
> ...The GD folks read a lot into the english
> translation, once produced.
did they? I wonder about that. I don't see many records
of Golden Dawn people doing much with qliphotic demons in
their materials, or goetic demons in their early writings,
for that matter. the bulk of them are interest in angelic
magic and this includes the Enochian angels after Dee.
i doubt it will be found, but cannot be sure.
> I'm not aware of any kind of satanic "qliphotic magic"
> in the Kabbalist or Christian Cabalist sources.
I have also not seen anything in my meager readings.
> I've been immersed in Pico for a couple years
> working on my MA, been over the researches of Idel,
> Wirszubski, Busi, and other on Pico's Hebrew sources,
> and I'm not aware of anything about the "shells."
I gather there's a median zone where some of what
> Cabala after Pico gets more magical (see the
> excellent work of Zambelli, and recent articles
> about Reuchlin's theurgy) and more of the
> grimoire/conjuring type from Jewish magic
> comes in,
is called 'Jewish' is actually Christian reflection
or feedback controversy (compare the various things
called 'Cabala/Qabalah/whatever' that aren't Jewish),
whether struggling with Christian notions of religion
and demonology, such as may be seen in the 20th century,
or promoting ideas about Solomonic magic as demon-summoning
(post-Catholic?), possibly as part of subverson ideology.
that's part of what this dovetails into, is presentation
and religious displacement, as competing groups (esp.
Jews where Christians are concerned) are demonized and
worse, and some of it is taken up in rebelliion or in
curiosity. I expect Jewish mysticism would not touch
either aspect of this, in part because of the dangers
and their typical role as *target* of demonization.
I will assume you're talking about books here, rather
> but in all my travels amongst the later Christian
> Cabalists
than about interviewing Cabalists in modern times.
it may be this part that Jake is criticizing, and if
> I've not come across any magic treating of the
> Kelim or Kelipot or whatever.
so i can concur with his assessments: the dualism is
more recent, used for sociopolitical purposes, and
only more recently, from what i can tell, taken up
in defiance against a nattering, condemnatory culture.
my scan of Scholem indicates that magic is a portion
only of Kabbalah, and this i have never seen described
as either nefarious or somehow drawing on demonic
energies, but always theurgic and G-d-oriented.
within devout religion (Judaism especially) i presume
> Generally the dark side is something to become
> aware of, not exploit.
this is quite accurate, but have no familiarity with
the social milieu which constitutes the Kabbalah at
any point. I've only met a few who claimed their
instruction of it at the feet of rabbis. my impression
is that "the dark side" is a dualistic notion which
is less popularly known in Judaism and more the
province of Christians and those who are struggling
against the moralism and cosmology of Christian
culture for some reason (whether in lapsed
exploration/blaspheming which i associate with
de facto Satanism, or with some kind of Humanist
skeptical experiment).
the exploitation motive and mechanism which i have
seen promoted or popularized most strongly within
the occult subculture is that of the Lesser Key of
Solomon after Waite ("The Book of Black Magic and
Pacts") and his partial exposure, and especially
after Shah ("The Secret Lore of Magic") and the
more recent consult with the various monographs.
yes, that is also my observation, though i think
> Most of the interesting theurgic, grimoire,
> conjuring type sources seem to self-identify
> as good magic,
there is a gray area for the GD in that they were
also exploring (at least stories of) aggressive
magical assault, and sex magic as they knew it.
there is room to question how "dark" these were
> and I'm not aware of any connection to the
> "Qliphot" in any of the darker medieval
> magical sources.
and how old they were also. who was actually
doing something with them, as compared, like
today's "Necronomicon", with having spooky books
and putting on the guise of the dark magic worker
within a culture condemning it as immoral. after
all, a good number of the grimoires are from the
standpoint of a mage wielding the Jewish and/or
Christian deity's power in order to interact with
or constrain what they characterize as demons. in
Fanger's "Conjuring Spirits" and in Kieckhefer's
"Forbidden Rites" we can find definite rebellious
and even demonic activities, but to my read so far
is that these are never Jews shifting to "fallen"
angels (as described, say, within pseudepigrapha)
or to "demons" (say, to somehow engage Lilitu;
maybe at worst that of a not completely safe angel
like Samael), but always Christians who either
want to test their own power (if the accounts
are accurate) or want to freak people out by
their contentions/manuals.
oh that's pretty easy. the Lesser Key of Solomon
> Which brings me back to the question, how in the
> heck did Mathers and crew get the notion?
and other grimoires have demonic engagement ideas
and the appropriation of the Kabbalah hadn't
proceeded sufficiently to ferret out notions of
possible *Jewish demonology* excepting the
aforementioned pseudepigrapha (Noah, Enoch), or
folk repulsion of Lilith in protection of children.
these cosmological speculations by Luria probably
caught their interests, especially as they mention
'arch-devils'. I would ask why it is that Luria
is describing these orders and arch-devils, and
where he got *his* information. was Luria strongly
influenced by Weir or some earlier dualist Christian?
from my brief read it looks like they were rough
contemporaries but unlikely to have had cross-over.
the ideas of demons obviously does, if von Rosenroth
> It doesn't seem like it existed in any traceable
> form in Jewish or Christian Kabbalah.
can be translated to incorporate "demons" and "devils".
what are the Jewish terms von Rosenroth provides in
Latin? what were the Latin terms Mathers gives in English?
that seems to me where to take up the trail of Qabalistic
demonology back possibly to Christian Cabalistic demonology
(if von Rosenroth was doing more than issuing translation)
and thence to Lurianic demonology (why have these ideas?
you're probably right, for awareness/avoidance/protective
purposes and aims). does Luria provide more information,
and if so, what kind? Grant takes 777 and runs heavily
with notions that the qliphotic are disease-oriented,
and i am not aware that he clearly elucidates why he
has arrived at this conclusion.
Mr. Copenhaver seems to stop there also, proclaiming
> But my knowledge of the field ends at the 17th century.
that "the mechanical philosophy" has displaced "the
occult philosophy" sufficient that this is the end of
that chapter, at least, of occult activities. it is not
an uncommon posture to take in academic evaluations
of magic (treating them only in the distant past).
beware of the intrusions of Taxil-hoax materials,
> I don't know much about the 18th century stuff;
> seems like there may have been weird freemasonic
> cabalists with some kinda rosicrucian proto-GD
> qliphotic magic happening,
and the fulminations of Christian condemners. it's
very unlikely that what you described existed, from
what i can tell, and any representation of this kind
of 'dark side of cabala' would need quite a bit of
supportive data before it could convince me that it
it didn't proceed from imaginative Christians having
a gander at Albert Pike and his imaginative writing
and plagiarism of Levi (mid to late 1800s-early 1900s).
the 18th century is when we may find people like
Antoine Court de Gebelin fashioning fantasies
of Ur pasts for the French king and incorporating
within "Monde primitif" notions of the Tarot game
being an ancient Egyptian esoteric remnant, setting
the stage for its adoption as a kabbalistic wonder,
integrated into arcane use and occult traditions of
very recent origins. what little i know about it
does not support the kind of 'Jewish demonology'
you suggest, though other kinds may well have
taken place.
I've suggested a few places in this email. I think
> I just couldn't trace it and wouldn't know where
> to look.
tracing Luria forward and backward would be helpful.
are there excellent academic evaluations of Luria,
and where he got is demonological framework? is it
original to him, for example? I don't rightly recall
how much is known about him and his life / practice
though i see a couple of texts about his life and
contributions (Klein, Fine) at wikipedia's page
about Isaac Luria.
I'm not sure about Cagliostro, whose reputation is
> I think of the GD as being more inspired by the
> spirit of folks like Cagliostro and Eliphas Levi
> than the pious, contemplative Cabalists.
possibly far more elaborate than his contribution.
at least Alphonse Louis Constant (Eliphas Levi) is
an author with definite assertions to be found,
though little i can discover of demonic character.
his Luciferian expositions are interesting, though
i have no idea what he, in his post-Catholic trial,
may have done to investigate the infernal.
the Golden Dawn were certainly influenced by Levi,
but probably moreso they were influenced by Waite,
and especially Mackenzie (or whoever you would like
to say constructed the Cypher Manuscript that at
least Westcott tried to pass off in the Fraulein
Sprengel Ruse, Trithemian code and special paper to
boot). the Brotherhood of Luxor in the Americas is
an important precursor to both the GD and OTO, and
its participants, speculative and contemplative,
apparently (as compared to the actively practical),
were probably far more influential, at least
initially, than anything older other than
what i have already mentioned above.
my pleasure. I appreciate being able to add something
> thanks for your input on this thread.
> fascinating stuff.
of value here and hope that any errors that i am
likely to make given my lack of education will be
pointed out in a friendly fashion. one of the pitfalls
of individual studies in books and outside of academic
institutions is that i will of necessity be unaware of
important developments in revisioning the past, and my
best means of combatting these myopias is to take
chances here and hope for gentle correction. ;)
> ...http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu/brian/index.htm
> p.s. do you know about Brian Copenhaver's website?
> He's got all his publications on Renaissance
> Magic up there, plus some unpublished Pico
> translations.
no, thanks for mentioning this. wonderful.
this i had known about as well as his excellent
> Perfect complement to Joe Peterson's esoteric archives
> website
publications. am i to understand that Mr. Petersen's
publications and site material is of comparable
quality to those in academia issuing translations
and reflections on the past? I do not know if he
is working with academic institutions, though i
do very much like what he is doing and writing.
I don't know much about Mr. Karr. do you? I have
> and Don Karr's bibliographical surveys on
> the study of KBL in English
seen his web site and these few pdfs and haven't
sufficient familiarity with him or his work to know
from whence he proceeds or what support he brings
to his subjects of study.
very much appreciated,
nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
*Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------