View Full Version : Goetia in Golden Dawn Tarots
Okay... in the spirit :D of getting this subforum rolling I've got a question for you Hermetic types:
How useful, practical, or effective is the Golden Dawn's assignment of the Goetic spirits to the Minors? Is it just an expression of their completist fervor and the desire to wedge everything into what would become the 777 tables.
For that matter does anyone know of another system relating them to Tarot? I feel like I've seen a million retreads of the basic theurgical qabalistic discussions (i.e. up to 5=6)in a million books and all over the internet, but where's the thaumaturgy?
The GD assignment of "day" and "night" dĉmons seems arbitrary at best... and I've never seen anyone DO anything with it in using a GD deck. I know about Paul Huson's writing on the subject, but other than that the subject seems completely unexplored.
Anyone have any insights/anecdotes/observations they'd like to share?
I know nothing of the Goetic attributions, beyond what Duquette says in the companion book for the Tarot of Ceremmonial Magick, which is sourced from 777. I understand that the 72 Goetic spirits are assigned to the 36 numbered cards, (2-10) in pairs, one for the day and one for the night.
Is there a method to the order and placement? Not yet being familar with Goetia, I wonder are the attributions based on some structure/system/pattern as with the astrological attributions, or is it more random? I assume from your post Scion that there is no tradition outside of the tarot to relate a Goetic spirit to the day or night. Do the different types of Goetic spirits get different cards, e.g. a King or a Prince etc..
How useful, practical, or effective is the Golden Dawn's assignment of the Goetic spirits to the Minors? Is it just an expression of their completist fervor and the desire to wedge everything into what would become the 777 tables.
I believe the assignment of the Goetic spirits were based on their original correspondence to the Schemahamphorasch. The Golden Dawn creators simply absorbed this information into their syncretic system directly from the medieval source documents available to them.
Sim, it's funny you should ask, I asked Aeon this quesiton a couple years ago...
Mathers (and the Aurum Solis) starts the sequence in Leo and advances by quinance. The Golden Dawn is also a quinance system, but starting in Aries. The 777 attributions shake things up by splitting into Day/Night because Crowley is (perhaps) recalling the Denderah Zodiac and not wanting to split each Decan.
Back when I asked, Aeon dug around and figured out that the GD system starts astrologiclaly from Aries. so Bael (as spirit 1 in the Lemegeton) gets the 1st Aries decan, then the night spirts are the doubling over of the remaining 36... which is why the 2 of wands has the 1st and 37th demons on it.
And Aeon, I see where you're going with the Shem angels, but other than Rudd's usage, I don't know of any other tradition that links them. In Rankine & Skinner's Goetia of Dr. Rudd Orobas is paired with Nanael, but the Golden Dawn pairs him with Mebahel.
Incidentally, I do like Skinner's case (in Complete Magician's Tables etc)for the Goetia as astrological spirits, but agree that the names are so garbled that proper identification is often impossible. :bugeyed:The research on the Goetia is so fragmentary and limited! I can't believe some zealous philologist hasn't taken it on as a thesis topic. I wish I could clone myself and go back to school... :D
Back when I asked, Aeon dug around and figured out that the GD system starts astrologiclaly from Aries. so Bael (as spirit 1 in the Lemegeton) gets the 1st Aries decan, then the night spirts are the doubling over of the remaining 36... which is why the 2 of wands has the 1st and 37th demons on it.
I still think that's the most simple and logical answer. ;)
Does the order of the spirits really matter? I just thought of something Lon said in his Tarot of Ceremonial Magick. (p.128)
It should be pointed out that the attributes and correspondences of the Small Cards do not define the characteristics of the spirits of the Goetia or vice versa.
Just a random thought.....
Who added the Goetia spirits to the Golden Dawn system? I can't off hand think where in the GD system Goetia fits. Was it Crowley himself who added them when he was writing up 777? After all he did pay (? :laugh:) Mathers to translate the Lesser Key. And there is a note in there that indicates that they were both well aware of Rudd's manuscript and his attributions.
Thanks guys. Is there any significance of the order of the numbers in Goetia, beyond being a "standard" numeration? It seems an unlikely way to assign spirits to the cards. I suspect the answer is "nup, order is random" but it would be nice to hear "well the order is a very interesting things, it all started because...." :D
Looking at my chart of the Angels and Spirits, it seems the Angels start from 0 degrees Leo in the order determined by Exodus 14:19. It seems strange to then disregard the pre-existing system of Rudd, and start a simple numerical assignment for the Goetic Spirits starting at Aries...
Who added the Goetia spirits to the Golden Dawn system?
I read on wikipedia that Levi added the Schemahamphorasch to the tarot cards, in day/night pairs, however spread across the full 78 cards. The GD and Crowley then modified it, leaving them in day night pairs (don't know if the same pairs or different) and assigned them to the 36 small cards. So I'd guess the Goetia was added on following that by Mathers or Crowley.
Is there any significance of the order of the numbers in Goetia, beyond being a "standard" numeration?
I've been doing a bit of reading on this, and some OCD table drawing :| I made up a chart of the cards, signs, ruling planets, and related Angels and Geotic spirits, with their ranks and related planet/metal to see if there were any interesting patterns. There weren't so that was a waste of a couple of hours :laugh:, but I did find my way around a few books, so worthwhile I guess.
The interesting part was Rudd's relationships betweem the Shemahamphorasch Angels and Goetic Spirits. I drew them up based on Skinner, who also gives a different alternate numeration for the Spirits based on Rudd. I don't have Rudd yet so can't look it up in the original context. Can anyone tell me does he actually use a different number system? Cause if you draw it up with the "standard" order, its just 1st Angel = 1st Spirit etc. all the way down the 72, starting at 0 degrees Leo. This seemed quite weird, given that Skinner stresses there is no traditional association with the Geotic Spirits and the decans, and yet he published the Rudd stuff which lines up so nicely. So presuambly the connection there is purely Angel=Demon and no talk of decans there.
Anyways attached for the curios, please excuse the typos (and yes, I am shameless pumping you lot for more discussion here, come on cough it up :P )
Sim!!
Love charts! Apparently we're both compulsive in the same way, but I think we already knew that. :D Not a waste of time at all. In fact, I did something simlar, which wound up leaking into my Liber T thingy. For better or worse there are a couple of interesting overlaps with the Thoth geometry... but that may just be the daemons messing with me. })
Rudd's order IS different if I recall... I have it here on the shelf. I'll check tomorrow.
I think the thing that bothers me most about the GD assignment is the idea of pairing the Goetic spirits. It's just... wrong for a hundred reasons. Which makes me feel like it was a 777 bandaid on a complicated chunk of material for which they didn't have as much research as we do. This is one of those knots I tugged and tugged and tugged at and couldn't find the end of the thread.
In the meantime: have you read the Testament of Solomon; it's definitely related and definitely decanic... but it doesn't line up neatly with the Lemegeton at ALL. :bugeyed: I've got a theory brewing about that, but that's probably for another day too.
It's 4am and I have to get some sleep, but I will definitely come back when I've digested more.
X
S
Apparently we're both compulsive in the same way
I like color, what can I say :D
Rudd's order IS different if I recall... I have it here on the shelf. I'll check tomorrow.
Thanks! Skinner does give 2 alternate numbering systems, one from Rudd. I assume its directly from the book, but the history of which number system came in which order is fascinating if your looking for a way to line the Spirits up with the decans. I'm assuming from the second hand sources I've read, that Rudd matches the Goetic Spirits with the Shem. Angels, and there would be no real order/system with his numbering system. So how did he line them up?
But if you use the more common number system, then its an exact match with the Angels order, and in turn that would line them them up with the decans, both starting at 0 degrees Leo. So if Rudd is using a different order, then that leads me to ask where his order comes from, where the other order comes from, and why does using half of each's system make a perfectly matching whole? There is probably a very logical boring answer to this, but in the meantime I choose to be fascinated :thumbsup:
In the meantime: have you read the Testament of Solomon
Nope, never even heard of it :D Is it the one by Steven Ashe your referring to?
It's 4am and I have to get some sleep, but I will definitely come back when I've digested more.
You shouldn't eat before bed, it'll give you nightmares ;)
I should say for anyone looking at the charts, the final column with the Goetic Spirits is only matched to the Angels using Rudd's system, the numbers come from the standard and not Rudd, and none of it lines up with anything else in the graph. Its an add on and should be read seperately to the rest.
I should say for anyone looking at the charts, the final column with the Goetic Spirits is only matched to the Angels using Rudd's system, the numbers come from the standard and not Rudd, and none of it lines up with anything else in the graph. Its an add on and should be read seperately to the rest.
But what defines the "standard" order, or even Rudd's?
In his introduction to the The Lesser Key of Solomon, Joseph H. Peterson draws attention to the similarities between the Goetia and the earlier catalogue of demons published by Johann Weyer in 1563 as Pseudomonarchia daemonum. (emphasis added)
It includes variations in many of the names, showing that it had been redacted by the time Weyer obtained it, so it evidently dates from long before 1563. In Weyer's text, there are no demonic seals, and the demons are invoked by a simple conjuration, not the elaborate ritual found in the Lemegeton.
The most striking difference between Weyer's text and the Goetia is the order of the spirits. I see no explanation for the difference; it's almost as if a stack of cards got scrambled. There are also four additional spirits found in the Goetia that aren't in Weyer (number 3, Vassago, and the last three, Seere, Dantalion, and Andromalius).
Other anomalies may be of more significance. One is that the fourth spirit in Weyer's text, Pruflas (alias Bufas), was accidentally left out of Reginald Scot's English translation, or was already missing from the edition used by Scot (a manuscript dated 1570). It is also the only spirit from Weyer's list that is not found in the Lemegeton. If a specific edition can be found that introduced this defect, it might allow us to fix the date of the composition of the Goetia in it's present form.
Are Crowley and Mathers' Goetic correspondences 100% correct? I doubt it. But they did what all magicians have done throughout the centuries. They used the creations of those who came before them as raw material for their own works. A good example is Golden Dawn Enochian compared to the original system laid down by Dee and Kelley.
In some ways it reminds me of the recent uproar, or storm in a tea cup, caused by the new translation of Abramelin by Georg Dehn & Steven Guth. After it's publication hoards of morons began pouring scorn on Mathers translation because of a difference in the proscribed length of the operation. 18 months compared to Mathers 6 months. I'm sure details such as this are of great import to scholars. But should they be of equal importance to magicians?
Since when did following turgid ancient manuscripts to the letter guarantee success in magick? Crowley recognised this fact all to well with his own version of the Abramelin (Liber VIII) that simplifies and condenses the entire operation into a mere 12 weeks!!!
This quote from a letter between Crowley and McMurty about a personal rendition of Liber Resh sums it up nicely. At the time of writing, Grady McMurty had been digging into Egyptology to find the "correct" gods.
The gods that you quote are not at all those given in Liber Resh and I do not see why you should depart from the text, but if for some reason you find them more suited to your peculiar style of beauty, go ahead and heaven prosper you! As long as you do not get into a state of imagining that it matters such a devil of a lot if you have got some detail wrong. It is this state of doubt which damages people's practices. You drift more and more vaguely into the uncharted archipelago of theory; and presently arrive at a state of jitters in which none of your practises work any more at all.
:) Aeon I take your point... but I tend to be a completist about these things.
It's not that I believe any one original source exists with a pristine order for the 72, but more that by examining every scrap of data we can trace the edges of the topic. The Goetia are so hyped in the magickal community, and yet the material that circulates seems to come from the same 4 sources. I really dig Rankine & Skinner's new book mainly for the fact that they poured more info into the stream. And bottom line: it works.
I was also amused by the Abramelin kerfuffle. In the same way I am by the bickering between the various Golden Dawn orders wrestling over claims of legitimacy. In these things I tend to take the Chaos position: does it get results? :) Like Crowley, I think the main thing is that the consideration not derail the practice. But obviously he studied everything upon which he could get his paws.
The same skew happens throughout the grimoire tradition because people forget about things like copying errors and historical context. At best the "Solomonic" material is working notes specific to a practitioner that got copied. At best, the books are a starting point.
In a sense the Goetia question is the easiest: we just have to ask them.
It's just that I'm fascinated by the history as well and the way the material has been coopted and adapted over time. With regard to the Golden Dawn's use of the spirits, I'm interested how FEW people comment on it; the situation reminds me of my little Liber Hermetis "discovery" with the decans: it's not that the Liber T art was "weird" but that no one had bothered to post the Hermetis decan descriptions on the internet... which meant that they'd virtually ceased to exist in easy-access internet consciousness. As a consequence EVERY review of that deck decided that it was simply bizarre and negative. If everyone just relies on each other's research then no progress is made. It's like a dark Ouroboros where we'll all just read the same rehashed bits and never move in any direction.
With the Golden Dawn stuff, I think it's because most people tend to repeat and regurgitate the same accessible material over and over from Regardie et al. How many copies of the Bornless Ritual, or the lesser Banishing Ritual does ANY library need to contain? How many times do publishers have to print bollocks about pathworking or the letter assignments from people who don't read Hebrew or practice magick of any stripe? :D And recently a lot of fluffy Angels-in-a-can coming down the pipe. It's not that I think it's worthless, it's just that it's material that's been covered so often. I understand the marketing issue, but the bias blurs over into "serious" occult writing as well, academic and otherwise.
As André Gide said, "One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time." I still want to know everything I can about every element I can reference. Not as the outline of some monolithic castle-in-the-sand truth, but as logs for the fire.
Which goes back to the original question: is there any evidence of the GD or its members making use of the Goetic attributions in conmnection to Tarot? And to add your wise codicil: did it get results?
:) Aeon I take your point... but I tend to be a completist about these things.
I apologise if my previous post read like a personal criticism. I wasn't intended as such. I too suffer from "dot every I and cross every T syndrome". :laugh:
Like Crowley, I think the main thing is that the consideration not derail the practice. But obviously he studied everything upon which he could get his paws.
That's true. But Crowley was never one to get side tracked by minutiae and details. He would probably have used something he found useful and dicarded, without a second thought, anything he thought inessential to his purposes.
An opposite phenomenon seems to be happening these days that is leading to contempt for the Golden Dawn system in some quarters. Every time a new piece of information comes out of some long forgotten manuscript that conflicts with modern day systems, some people have a kind of crisis of faith. It's as if they equate antiquity with authenticity. But this fails to recognise that ancient systems are just as much a human construct as more modern systems like the Golden Dawn.
With regard to the Golden Dawn's use of the spirits, I'm interested how FEW people comment on it
I think the basic answer is that the Goetia was added to the Golden Dawn by Crowley. As such, it doesn't form part of that system. I've spoken to holy-roller Golden Dawn purists who practically started babbling at the mere mention of Goetia. :rolleyes:
Wasn't part of Crowley's bad rep in Golden Dawn circles to do with the fact that he was experimenting with the Goetia in his Chancery Lane appartments?
Don't worry I didn't take it personally. Truth be told, I always read your posts hearing a warm, jocular Northern accent in my head so I'm unlikely to infer offense. :) I just wanted to keep the convo going.
Wasn't part of Crowley's bad rep in Golden Dawn circles to do with the fact that he was experimenting with the Goetia in his Chancery Lane appartments?
Exactly so... and one of the main reasons Waiite hated/criticized him so viciously: accusations of "foul" Goety. Waite was already headed for souped up Christian mysticism (path of the sword) by the time they crossed paths, and Crowley had come out the other side of mysticism into something... else. In fact Waite's [i]Ceremonial Magic{/i] pretty much condemns Goetia across the board. Mathers is another story, but I don't think he would have built somethign that symbolically unmanageable into the GD teachings. So it is Crowley, working off the Mathers translation. I do find myself wishing tha they had remained friends just a bit longer... the GD would have had a very different path. And so would they, natch.
Always the Manichean anxiety, :bugeyed: as if you can draw a circle around one group of spirits and say: GOOD... and everything that falls without is BAD. Like the universe is an enormous simplisitic chessboard.
It's funny... most religion texts will tell you that dualism comes to us from the Zoroastrians, but Zoroastriansim is actually animist more than anything. It's the literal reinterpretation of religion where people inevitably step in the poo. :rolleyes:
I've been writing aboiut this so much recently (the project I mentioned to you, Aeon, a year or so ago) on my own... so it's really nice to kick the ball around with y'all.
Truth be told, I always read your posts hearing a warm, jocular Northern accent in my head
That was bellow the belt. :laugh: Northern accent!!! I'm from the Midlands. :D
So it is Crowley, working off the Mathers translation. I do find myself wishing tha they had remained friends just a bit longer... the GD would have had a very different path.
It's hard to imagine Mathers changing aspects of the Golden Dawn system at the behest of Crowley. The system he created is firmly rooted in the dualistic, Osirian perspective of Spirit transcending matter. Incorporating something as "earthy" as the Goetia would break all the rules.
The classical Golden Dawn model requires a more spiritually relativistic outlook to enable it to embrace Goetia with any degree of comfort. Enter Thelema. :D The different way the averse pentagram is viewed between Golden Dawn and Thelema is a graphic example.
36. Many have arisen, being wise. They have said "Seek out the glittering Image in the place ever golden, and unite yourselves with It."
37. Many have arisen, being foolish. They have said, "Stoop down unto the darkly splendid world, and be wedded to that Blind Creature of the Slime."
38. I who am beyond Wisdom and Folly, arise and say unto you: achieve both weddings! Unite yourselves with both!
39. Beware, beware, I say, lest ye seek after the one and lose the other!
40. My adepts stand upright; their head above the heavens, their feet below the hells.
41. But since one is naturally attracted to the Angel, another to the Demon, let the first strengthen the lower link, the last attach more firmly to the higher.
42. Thus shall equilibrium become perfect. I will aid my disciples; as fast as they acquire this balanced power and joy so faster will I push them.
43. They shall in their turn speak from this Invisible Throne; their words shall illumine the worlds.
44. They shall be masters of majesty and might; they shall be beautiful and joyous; they shall be clothed with victory and splendour; they shall stand upon the firm foundation; the kingdom shall be theirs; yea, the kingdom shall be theirs.
In the name of the Lord of Initiation. Amen.
Liber Tzaddi
But what defines the "standard" order, or even Rudd's?
I don't know, thats why I'm asking :D I'm really not trying to be pendantic, I'm just very interested.
If Rudd was using the "Standard" order, then he's lined up the Angels and the Spirits in a nice and simple 1=1, 2=2, 3=3... 72=72. But as he doesn't use that order, but still is aligning the exact same pairs, that leaves me wondering what is going on there?
It could be anything, from a huge typo in Skinner, to the more interesting possibility that the "standard" order in the Goetia is in fact based on the Angels or Decans, even though the relationship between them is not ackowledged anywhere.
In that case, we are all sitting around debating the best way to attribute the Goetic Spirits to the decans, Crowley has made up a possibly dodgy variation, when in fact a system was already there, and it was missed! What if someone had said to Crowley "Rudd already lined them up, just put Bael at 0 degrees Leo, and keep going through the deck". What would ew have then. Maybe not that important, since the only real use the Goetia in the cards seems to be as oracle to choose a spirit to evoke, but still its fun to think about.
All this is very unlikely I admit, and probably there is a very boring answer, but still makes me want to find it out. :thumbsup: I have the numbers for the Weyer version here, and that raises the same question. If that is an older version of the numerical ordering, why/when/who where they reordered, and why does Rudd's Angelic pairing, bring them into the more common order perfectly and line them up with the decans?
What if someone had said to Crowley "Rudd already lined them up, just put Bael at 0 degrees Leo, and keep going through the deck".
Just guessing....
Spirit 1. Bael, and Spirit 2. Agares both "rule in the east". Aries is East in the Golden Dawn system.
Spirit 1. Bael, and Spirit 2. Agares both "rule in the east". Aries is East in the Golden Dawn system.
Ah, I didn't know that, thanks Aeon. That explains why Crowley would start at Aries in preference to Leo, which perhaps already had the claim via Rudd.
Why the day/night pairings though?...
The 777 attributions shake things up by splitting into Day/Night because Crowley is (perhaps) recalling the Denderah Zodiac and not wanting to split each Decan.
Perhaps because he was specifically avoiding a direct Goetic Spirit = quinance alignment, as he had specifically stepped away from that by choosing to start at Aries.
OK, I'm babbling now I know, but thanks for humouring me :D
I think the thing that bothers me most about the GD assignment is the idea of pairing the Goetic spirits. It's just... wrong for a hundred reasons.
Re-reading this Scion, and I'm uncertain, is it the pairing of Goetic Spirits into Day/Night pairs that you dislike, or the pairing with an Angel of the Shemahamphorash? What is it about the pairings that disturbs you?
In a sense the Goetia question is the easiest: we just have to ask them.
And then tell your friends what they say... :D
How about a description for those not steeped in Occult Tarot as to what Goetia is.
My understanding of Goetia- Is that it is a tradition of Magic (some say Black Magic) that includes incantations, ceremonies and techniques (some say sorcery) sometimes associated with medieval Grimoires- which provide instructions for contacting spirits.
~Rosanne
Roseanne! :D
Yes, pretty much that is it. I don't think its really a system/method that covers multiple Grimoires though the word seems to be used in that context. It is a specific group of Spirits from one specific Grimoire. The 72 Spirits of the Goetia are described in the Lesser Key of Solomon. There are several sections in the Lesser Key, the first of which is the Goetia (the other sections deal with other, different types of Spirits). The Goetic Spirits are said to be those that Solomon used to build the Hebrew temple among other things before he trapped them in a bottle (obviously the bottle was not strong enough ;) )
You can download the Crowley/Mathers translation at this website.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/index.htm
The general idea being a classic evocation. Stand in the magic circle, call up a spirit by using the recommended conjurations and talismans/seals (hope it doesn't eat you) and tell it to do things for you which it is known to be able to do.
Wiki has a nice summary also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goetia
I believe the assignment of the Goetic spirits were based on their original correspondence to the Schemahamphorasch.
Just reading the Crowley version and noticed that the title for the section on the 72 spirits is Schemahamphorasch. I thought that word was very specific to the 72 Angels of the 72 letter name of God. Interesting use of it, is that common?
Also I noticed:
THESE 72 Kings be under the Power of AMAYMON, CORSON, ZIMIMAY or
ZIMINAIR, and GAAP, who are the Four Great Kings ruling in the Four Quarters, or Cardinal Points,27 viz.: East, West, North, and South,
Gaap is the only one of these listed in the 72 Spirits, and in the GD system falls in Aquarius. Not sure who the others are or where they come from.
Just reading the Crowley version and noticed that the title for the section on the 72 spirits is Schemahamphorasch. I thought that word was very specific to the 72 Angels of the 72 letter name of God. Interesting use of it, is that common?
Basically Crowley was trying to forge an identity with the spirits of the Goetia and the Schemahamphorasch right from the word go. It might be more correct to say that he was trying to define an averse Schemahamphorasch to balance the existing angelic system. In the Goetia each angel of the Schemahamphorasch has it's unbalanced counterpart, it's own Qlipphoth.
Or so the theory goes... :laugh:
I thought after logging off last night, Ravenest has posted some images of a Goetia setup. http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=874758&postcount=34
I accidentally stumbled on this while browsing on TG. An oracle, based on the Goetia. It contains 72 cards, and each has a quinance listed, though different to those of Crowley or Rudd by inference.
http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/w-decks/wisdomsolomoncards.gif
http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=solomon
LOL I own it. :D
It's VERY iffy and rushed... kind of what you would expect from Llewellyn: Insta-Lemegeton... just add brass vessel!
Her quinances are totally different. I can list them if you're interested.
cardlady22
27-07-2010, 23:45
I know this is an old thread, but I'd love to have the reference list if you still have the deck.
Finally back after the summer away writing. Sorry for the delay, cardlady. What reference list did you mean?
cardlady22
29-10-2010, 01:40
*stumbles back into the thread blinking quickly*
Sorry I flaked out on this one, Scion! I was wondering if you had made a list of the info from the cards.
number/title, spirit, date/degree
ETA: Good gravy! Average $200 to pick one up. :(