Photo copyright by R.A. Gilbert
Firstly, there is the matter of Westcott denying being the author of the R.R. et A.C. material, but fervently defending his assertion that the origin of the Outer Order material is his, and that Mathers was little more than a paid scribe for those materials (all of which had their origins in the Cipher Manuscripts anyhow, which neither Westcott or Mathers wrote). These words from Westcott are so important that I feel the need to share them here, to ensure that all readers, whether scholar or student (or both), can have access to them:
Westcott isn't very clear whether his references to Mathers as being paid to "write out the rituals" means he transformed the skeletal structure in the Cipher MSS into the workable rituals we know today or whether he was merely a "scribe" of sorts, copying the material out. However, in 1909 Westcott was more explicit, when he stated in a letter to Brodie-Innes: "I am the only person who could prove [Mathers] wrote the Rituals and so could claim the copyright" (this was in reference to Mathers' suing of Crowley after the latter's publication of the G.'.D.'. rituals in The Equinox). But the letter shared above, which is somewhat more ambiguous, is dated 1912, and Westcott seems to claim a bit more involvement in the writing of the Outer Order rituals: "Mathers helped me to write those up". It could be argued that perhaps Westcott's intimation in 1909 that Mathers wrote these rituals was because Westcott wanted no involvement in the legal proceedings. This is mere speculation, however, and the consensus of opinion, both lay and scholarly, seems to suggest that Mathers was the ritual genius (clearly evident in his 5=6 ritual), and thus turned the Cipher rituals into the beautiful and powerful rituals they are today."Mathers is the only person alive who has any knowledge of the starting of Isis Urania Temple & he has made & no doubt will make false claims of proprietorship of the G.D. Hermetic Society because of his vanity, and because I resigned all offices of the Society in 1897;- I think it was.
I have cipher Rituals, early Rituals in English, diagrams - a volume of historical data from 1887 and a volume of moneys expended from 1887 - and many letters from Mathers, especially 2 asking leave to help me in the G.D. Rituals translation and literature. Those latter he will give his soul to get hold of _ and shall not get.
There are also letters from the first 30 G.D's who asked for the 5=6, each expressing approval of the G.D. system & several German letters re G.D. I want all these kept for my protection. I want you if alive & well after my death to use those to protect my claims _ if any false claims are made about them.
About 1886 AFA Woodford gave me Hermetic teaching & old MSS information of G.D. 0=0 to 4=7. Mathers helped me to write those up _ & Woodman as S.M. agreed to be 1st Principal of the Isis Temple. We 3 were co-equal by my wish _ & this lasted until he died Dec. 1891. Then Mathers brought from Paris the 5=6 and said it was the culmination of my G.D. 0=0 to 4=7 and I carried 5=6 on in England until M. became so eccentric that I resigned in 1897.
I make no claim to the 5=6 Ritual authorship but I do claim right & precedence in the origin of G.D. 0=0 to 4=7 derived from Woodford I started the Isis Temple. I paid Mathers to translate & write out the rituals from my original cypher drafts. I paid for the Isis Warrant, & paid M. for writing it & I won't have him say he got the G.D. from his ancestor in Pondicherry, as he now pretends."
- W. W. Westcott
The important thing to garner from the above is that Westcott (through his ownership of the Cipher MSS which he obtained from Woodford) was the prime source of Outer Order (or Golden Dawn) material, while Mathers was the prime source of Inner Order (or R.R. et A.C.) material. Of course, there's always a problem with terminology, since "Golden Dawn" is used as a blanket term for the entire three-order system, and can thus cause confusion when certain people are referring only to the Outer Order as opposed to the entire system. as a whole. Therefore I believe it is imperative that clarification on this issue is always supplied.
Secondly, there is the issue of the Alpha et Omega material, under Mathers, after the initial split in 1900. S.R., in his blog post, shares a few quotes from Pat Zalewski and Nick Farrell from the Golden Dawn Yahoo group, where the latter posits that the A.O. material was of inferior quality to the original G.'.D.'. material and the later Stella Matutina material. Zalewski cites a number of A.O. documents which he has seen and comments on their effectiveness. Admittedly, Zalewski is biased towards S.M. material, what with his Whare Ra teachers being members of the last remaining S.M. temple, and thus he may believe Felkin's input to be of a higher standard than that of Mathers, but none of this bias automatically renders his opinion untrue. There is also the matter of the supposed "optionality" of the Z-documents in the A.O., which, if true, raises a large question mark over Mathers' head, since they are so vital to the system, and easily some of his most important written documents. Since I have not seen any of these A.O. documents yet, I cannot make a full appraisal of this matter. I do look forward to Nick Farrell's book on the A.O., however, which should elucidate some of these things. Until this book (co-authored by Melissa Seims, I believe) is available, I must point out that S.R.'s comment on the revelation of the A.O. material being "no doubt from an S.M. perspective" is entirely speculation, and seems to be extremely biased, since S.R. appears to dislike Farrell.
Thirdly, there is the issue of Mathers' character as a whole. The problem with this is that he is just as eccentric a figure as Aleister Crowley, and we all know how heated the debate on him has been in the last hundred years. Like Crowley, people seem to love or hate Mathers, and I agree with S.R. on the initial point that he made in his blog post, in that it seems to be "in vogue" to bash and discredit Mathers. However, that does not mean that we should not criticise Mathers (for there are many areas where he deserves criticism), just because we don't want to be seen as going with the flow of the "popular vote".
The more letters I read from Mathers recently the more I found myself disliking him as a person, though I must qualify this comment by stating that I do like some of his qualities, such as his belief that one's personal life should be left outside the temple (see here). But he definitely did many things wrong, and I think it would be naive of us to ignore that, which even S.R. realises in his acknowledgement that the appointment of Crowley as Mathers' confidant was a huge mistake (although it seemed they both found comfort in each other's egocentric personality, which was, in a sense, a mirror of their own). Given the initial spur for the 1900 revolt was Crowley's admission to 5=6 by Mathers after he was rejected for Inner Order membership by the Council of Adepts, it seems not just a huge bad judgement to send him as his representative, but almost a defiant insult to the other Adepts, which shows he had no respect for the judgements of those other Adepts, which he believed his opinion should automatically overrule.
Speaking of bad judgements, the whole Horos scandal is a prime example, and the evidence shows that Mathers was completely duped by this couple, regretting it to large extent soon after. It does make one wonder just how "solid" and reliable his claim to contact with the Secret Chiefs really was, given that they might have warned him against these people (who the other Adepts saw through easily). To be brutally honest, I find his claim to contact with the "Secret Chiefs" to be dubious at best (although just as justifiable as Westcott's claims of authenticity of the Sprengel correspondence). There is probably no denying that he had "inner plane contacts", that, indeed, some of his material was "inspired", for want of a better word, by a greater spiritual essence. However, this occurs naturally as part of the Current or egregore of an Order (as I have experienced both within and outside the Golden Dawn), and the "Secret Chiefs" are, in my eyes, merely a personification of this process, one that, however, tends to lead to elitism and autocracy (clearly evidenced in Mathers' case). There is no doubt a presence of "guardians" (again, a personification) within a magical group's Current, but all true students of the system can have access to them, depending on their nature, and it does not confer any special right to leadership (which is a quality dependant very much on the individual person).
But the fact remains that, even with all this "bad press", Mathers deserves credit for his work for the Golden Dawn. While he was not, as some (including himself) claim, the sole source of everything in the Order, he did bring the Order very far, and was the only one of the original three founders to stick with it all the way through (although Woodman died early on and Westcott had issues with Mathers' personality and the State's insistence that he withdraw from his occult involvement). Mathers' dedication needs to be appreciated, even if he was distracted by other matters, such as the Isis Mysteries, at varying times. He had huge character flaws, and these also need to be realised, but he was no demon. And before people think I'm actually writing an apologetic here (which I most certainly am not), he was no angel or saint either for that matter, but then neither was Westcott. Despite Mathers' genius he was paranoid, lacking in good judgement, and extremely egotistical and power-hungry. He was simultaneously the source of much excellence in the Order and much turmoil, and without him I cannot see the Order having survived as long as it had.
At the end of the day, Mathers was human, not a hero and not a villain, and no amount of contact with "Secret Chiefs" is going to change that. So, while I find myself disliking him sometimes as a person, and at times am forced to question his mental state, I like and value much of his work, and appreciate his great input to the Golden Dawn, which he rightly deserves credit for. But Westcott also deserves credit, and I think it has gone too long with everyone blowing Mathers' trumpet and not recognising that which Westcott contributed to the Golden Dawn. Just as it is popular now to see Westcott as the "true genius" of the Golden Dawn, it was for a long time (and still remains in many quarters) a popular view to see Mathers as the sole genius of this magical system. Like all things in the Golden Dawn, balance is key, and thus we must recognise the input of both men and attempt to avoid falling prey to extreme lauding or extreme loathing.
Posts
8 comments:
Care Dean,
I salute you for your balanced contribution on this matter. I agree with you that Westcott deserves his share of recognition. I like his written papers as much as I like Mathers'(well, almost). We wouldn't have a Golden Dawn tradition without these two; they are the fathers of our tradition.
Like Mathers Westcott was instrumental in popularizing hermeticism and qabalah in the English speaking world, with works like Collectanea Hermetica and the Sepher Yetzirah, etc.
Regarding Mathers side interests, one shouldn't forget that Westcott invested lots of time to his S.R.I.A. and also to the Theosophic Society (albeit not as much with the latter).
It's a shame that this creative partnership between Mathers and Westcott did end like it did, with a bang. We see this happening over and over, even today. It makes my heart ache everytime I think of it.
Personally I also like the contributions of both the latter A.O. and S.M., both Mathers and Felkin. They have both contributed to what we appreciate as the Golden Dawn tradition of today.
You're right that I am biased towards Nick Farrell (and Pat Zalewski), simply because I have identified a bias stemming out of their written words on Yahoo-forums. Everything they do is politically motivated. I just have had enough of it. But I can actually understand Pat's motivation as he professes to be a Golden Dawn (spiritual)leader and representative of the Whare Ra tradition (which cannot be un-political).
But if you profess to be an historian, like Farrell, there cannot be any conscious bias towards the subject you are treating (any unconscious one cannot be helped; we all have them). Nick Farrell has the same background as Pat, in the NZ tradition. I will read his work but with great caution and prudence.
My Apology is biased too, obviously, but my main motivation was to balance things up considering the Zalewski & Farrell crusade against Mathers.
I often tend to do that, in social conversations, to take the opposing side just to balance things up. It's a weakness that I have...but one that I wouldn't like to be without ;). Maybe it's a Qabalistic thing....
S.R.
First, let me say to both Dean and Sincerus Renatus that I've enjoyed reading both of your takes on the Mathers issue. I especially find it refreshing to see, for once, some G.'.D.'.-related debate that is free from personal attacks and in which both parties make use of real documents that anyone can check for themselves. As opposed, that is, to "secret, proprietary" documents or oral traditions that conveniently only one side happens to possess and for which no independent documentation exists.
On the latter note, I recently read Nick Farrel's "The Genius of the Golden Dawn," in Hermetic Virtues #3 (available at cost from www.hermeticvirtues.org. In this article, while he doesn't deny that Mathers had at least a hand in writing the original Outer Order ceremonies, Farrel argues that the corresponding Stella Matutina ceremonies, as revised by Felkin and Brodie-Innes, are of a far superior literary and spiritual calibre. In contrast, he claims that Mathers's originals are "bland, bald and very masonic." (I'll leave aside the clear bias in that last statement.)
The problem is, in support of his argument Farrel quotes rather selectively from both versions of the Neophyte ritual. Specifically, he quotes from only one brief passage, in order to point out that, at the point where the Hierophant gives permission to admit the Candidate, the S.M. version has the "Inheritor of a dying world, arise and enter the darkness. The Mother of Darkness hath blinded [etc.]", whereas the original G.'.D.'. version lacks this. What Farrel doesn't say, however, is that the most beloved (or at least most-often cited) passages of the 0=0 ceremony--e.g. "The voice of my higher soul said to me [...] the light shineth in darkness, but the darkness comprehendeth it not," and "Inheritor of a dying world we call thee [...] Quit the night and seek the day," are already found, essentially in toto, in Mathers's version. These and many more. It therefore hardly seems accurate to dismiss Mathers's Neophyte ceremony--assuming he was the principal author--as "bland" and "bald," on the basis of one passage.
As for Westcott's letter regarding his payment of Mathers to "translate and write out" the rituals, it seems to me there's no reason to assume that Westcott was telling the whole truth. Given the contentious history between the two men, and the damage done to Westcott's professional reputation (by whoever leaked his G.'.D.'. involvement to his employers), it would've been natural for him to present his side of the story in the most flattering light possible, while downplaying the role of his onetime partner turned enemy.
In all likelihood, barring the discovery and authentication of additional (and less ambiguous!) primary source documents, we'll never know the whole story.
As all great men do, Mathers had audacity. He was a visionary.
Mathers was literally willing to starve for his vision, while others (Westcott? my memory fails me) left so that they could hold onto a government job. I think that says a great deal about Mathers's spiritual commitment.
Certainly he went overboard at times, but for me that only adds to the legend.
Ave T.G.C.,
Thanks for the comment :)
In fairness, Mathers was living off money given to him and his wife by Annie Horniman, so he didn't really have to worry about income for much of the time (until he fell out with Horniman, that is). I think Westcott resigned from the G.'.D.'. for more than just keeping his Coroner job - there was obviously issues between him and Mathers. But yes, of the two, Mathers was the one who devoted himself to the Golden Dawn, while Westcott focused more on the SRIA once he left the former.
LVX,
Dean.
I really appreciate the balanced historical approach you take to this issue.I'd like to ask a very basic question. And I am totally fine if you don't want to answer this, or go in this direction, as it's a digression to what you write here. I have studied very little about Western traditions, as I am a Buddhist. In Buddhism, it is not only important, but essential to have complete trust and faith in your teachers, and the teachers who taught them. The validity of the teachings is totally intertwined with the validity of the teacher. That doesn't seem the case with the Golden Dawn teachings. How do you resolve this issue? Do Golden Dawn students say, 'well there were politics and intrigue, but the teachings are great and pure?' Do Golden Dawn students feel they can progress spiritually even if there was a power swirl around the teachers? When you write about some of the teachings, they sound genuine and profound. If I weren't a Buddhist, I might have gone in a Western esoteric direction. I am just curious.
Ave Hijinks,
Thanks for the comment.
That is a very valid question, and one that many ask. It is also why so many people seem to wand to "sugar coat" the nature of some of these leaders, as they feel it reflects badly on their teachings or students.
However, I believe this is a naive viewpoint, as the vessel need not necessarily be pure for a transmission of Light to occur. As a Gnostic I believe that there is a spark of Divinity in all of us, including the corrupt and the criminals (after all, corruption and criminality are moral constructs, and have no place in God). So, a man or woman can have personality defects, as we all do, and still be a great teacher.
I don't believe in a "perfect" adept. I believe that wile incarnate the ego exists, no matter how much we try to ignore, shun, or destroy it. We can elevate the ego to a higher level, and cease to be ruled by it, but at the end of the day, as humans we are still flawed. See my post on the Imperfect Adept here:
http://mishkan-ha-echad.blogspot.com/2008/07/imperfect-adept.html
So, I believe that so long as we recognise our teachers for who they are (for the ideal of the "perfect adept" only leads to worshipping them, as Buddha himself experienced, which is a defect in our own personas), we can use and benefit from their teachings. Plus, many of the G.'.D.'. teachings are older than these people, just collected and amalgamated into a more workable whole.
On a final note, you might be interested in the writings of Peregrin. He explores both Golden Dawn and Buddhist teachings on his blog:
http://magicoftheordinary.wordpress.com/
LVX,
Dean.
Hello HiJinks and Dean,
Thanks for the comments. With respect, Dean I would like to add more to your analysis. The Buddhist refuge jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha (modern view) do translate into the Western traditions: Buddha, as Dean reflects being the Buddha (divine) nature within us, the Dharma being the GD teachings and traditions, and the Sangha being the College of the Adepti and the Order egregore itself.
The Guru focus, particularly within Vajrayana does not translate as well. The Guru functions as the embodied culmination and vehicle of the other three. They ARE enlightened, they ARE the Path itself and they ARE the community, and they ARE right there in front you, real and physical.
Now as Sogyal Rinpoche writes in his Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, there are still Enlightened Masters in the world and when we meet one our lives are shaken up, often in unsettling ways. This has been my personal experience. Then again, as the Sufi saying goes: “when a Master walks into a room, all a thief sees are pockets.”
In Modern times in the West we have very few enlightened Masters, as opposed to the Tibetan tradition which has many. There is no way we can say Mathers et al were enlightened, as wonderful creative, self-sacrificing and important they were. The so called “Masters” in the West often portray qualities that are less then enlightened, to say the least. For example (and there are others), I once had a memorable (and public) argument with someone who was defending the appalling, rude and hurtful behaviour of Kenneth Grant by saying he didn't need to behave civilly, as “he was a Master”. This is in complete contradiction to the established wisdom, East and historically in the West. Masters are the embodiment of love, compassion, tolerance and beauty.
Now two important points: the Western tradition now does not function mainly via embodied Masters, but once did. The works of Peter Kingsley on the ancient Greek teachers show this well, as do the biographies of some of the historical Gnostic teachers.
Secondly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY just because the western traditions do not at present have embodied Masters as a major aspect of their work, does not mean they are less effective than the eastern traditions. Potentially they are just as effective. There ARE many problems within the western traditions which I have touched upon in Magic of the Ordinary, but that is no reason to decamp from the Western traditions. We have to accept work with where we are, and it is seldom useful to reject the traditions and cultures we are born into.
The western traditions work with non-incarnate Masters, which as Dean in his wonderful (and sadly rare) explanation a few posts back explained are seldom astral “beings” but part and parcel of a properly contacted lodge egregore. Indeed they function as the Third Order, guiding and directing the Second Order to greater degrees of Love and Compassion.
Whilst there are the occasional incarnated Masters in the West mostly they (the Third Order) are contacted inwardly by members of a Second Order, the Adepts. The first Order, the Novices are taught by the Adepts to prepare them for this contact by transformation and service.
On the Mathers ‘question’. I look forward to Nick’s book intensely. However, and I do not disparage Nick at all here, who is a very intelligent, helpful and perceptive guy from what I can tell, I pray that Mathers and the GD are soon the subject of a professional, academic historian with standing. I thinking of course of people like Ronald Hutton (Wicca), Ian Stevenson (Masonry) or Australia’s own Greg Tillett (Biography of Leadbeater). Someone who is esoteric friendly, objective, within the Academy and has access to primary sources, which are still held in private collections and Orders, to my certain knowledge. Then, and only then, we may get a better view of it all. :)
Thanks,
Peregrin :)
When you see the AO rituals you will immediately see that any suggestion they are markedly inferior to the SM has almost no basis. In fact, with one exception, they are identical to the original GD lectures. The only changes made by Mathers were introducing an extra 'refrain' into the opening/closing of the Neophyte and the same into the Equinox. This change was also incorporated, with a minor modification, into the BOTA rituals by Paul Case. The SM Portal is, undoubtedly, an improvement over the GD/AO which lacks the opening/closing created by Neville Meakin after his return from Steiner. At the outset of the GD, the Portal was originally part of the 5=6 and often taken on the same day.
Equally, the suggestion that the Z papers were not part of the basic 2nd Orde curriculum is quite wrong and is evident from the papers I have seen.As to the criticism of Pat Zalewski that Mathers' later work for ThAM is inferior that is merely his opinion which of course he is entitled to but is one I do not share. Much as I admire Felkin, and some of his work is very good, there is not the slightest doubt that he too was almost entirely dependent on the original Order material. Indeed there was quite a lot of criticism from SM members at the time about the fact that there was no body of material for the ThAM and above. This led Felkin down the track of Ara Ben Shemesh, Cromlech and Steiner (not all at the same time). Some of the later Mathers and Brodie-Innes material was later incorporated into the SM Hermes and even into Whare Ra.One of my copies of the ZZ papers (ThAM papers on the 1=10) , which I gave to Pat.Z for his study (he has now published it) is actually issued from the SM. I believe this to be Brodie-Innes' work ather than Mathers.
Apologies for the rather erratic ramble above.
Tony
Post a Comment