Variants of Golden Dawn attributions by the Aurora Aurea

Richard

......It seems like Farrell replaced the Kings' thrones with chariots and kept horsed figures for the Princes. I will be interested to see his bases; they can't be any more imaginative than Crowley's.

I think Farrell's reasoning is somewhere on the internet, but I get a massive headache thinking about the issue, so I have avoided searching for it.
 

Michael Sternbach

It's a bit confusing, but all the Book T attributions of the horsemen and charioteers are interchanged in the Temple Tarot. Nick Farrell had his own reasons for doing this.

For example, in the GD Temple Tarot, the charioteers are called Kings, and are at the top of the Court pecking order. They are positioned at Sephirah 2 and have all the attributions of the Book T horsemen (Knights).

The GD Temple, horsemen are called Princes (not Knights), and they are below the Queens in the pecking order. They are positioned at Sephirah 6 and have all the attributions of the Book T charioteers (usually called Princes).

It's not really so complicated. Farrell simply swapped the Kings and Princes of the GD scheme.

The Princes of the Temple Tarot are therefore equivalent to the Kings in the original GD system, and to the Knights in both Thoth and RWS.

Farrell's Kings are equivalent to the Princes in GD and Thoth, and to the Kings in RWS.

Regarding the question how the Thoth court cards relate to the GD scheme, I have written this article:

https://michaelsternbach.wordpress....f-various-decks-really-relate-to-one-another/

Mind you, Wang's classical Golden Dawn deck and Cicero's Magical Golden Dawn follow the GD scheme as laid out in the Book T, while the Initiatory GD follows Crowley (not only in this regard, btw) - as does the Hermetic insofar there, the Kings are called Princes in subtitles.

You see, it's EASY! :D
 

Michael Sternbach

The only issue is their mode of transportation.

The Princes in the GD Temple deck are sitting on horses, as the Kings in the "traditional" GD decks and the Knights in the Thoth (and RWS) are.

The Kings in the GD Temple are seated on chariots, as the Princes in the "traditional" GD decks and in the Thoth are.

Where is the issue?

ETA: Correction of grammar
 

Barleywine

For example, in the GD Temple Tarot, the charioteers are called Kings, and are at the top of the Court pecking order. They are positioned at Sephirah 2 and have all the attributions of the Book T horsemen (Knights).

The GD Temple, horsemen are called Princes (not Knights), and they are below the Queens in the pecking order. They are positioned at Sephirah 6 and have all the attributions of the Book T charioteers (usually called Princes).

This post of Richard's nags at me a bit:

The Kings are in chariots but have the attributions of the horsemen (GD and Thoth Knights).

The Princes are mounted on horses but have the attributions of the charioteers (GD and Thoth Princes)

It looks like the "modes of transportation" have been flip-flopped but the attributions haven't. Unlike the GD Kings/Knights, who are mounted on horses, or the equivalent Thoth Knights (who are likewise on horseback), the GDT Kings are riding in chariots (more like the GD and Thoth Princes) although they retain the qualities of a horseman. On the other hand, the GDT Princes are mounted on horses but behave like they're riding in chariots. Since a charioteer has much greater defensive capability but much less maneuverability than a mounted warrior, while a horseman is just the opposite, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to retain the contrary qualities, at least on an exoteric level. Perhaps the chariot is a "mobile throne" that allows the King to survey his domain? That still leaves the Princes in an awkward situation. Also, are the Kings still associated with "Fire" of their element, and the Princes with "Air," or has that been swapped too?

I guess I really need to get the GD Temple Tarot to sort it all out. (Man, talk about enabling!)
 

Michael Sternbach

Oh, okay, I see the problem. If only the names had been swapped, we would expect the Princes to be in Chockmah, and the Kings in Tiphareth.
 

Barleywine

Oh, okay, I see the problem. If only the names had been swapped, we would expect the Princes to be in Chockmah, and the Kings in Tiphareth.

Actually, I hadn't taken it that far. I always assumed that whatever male was at the top of the "court card pecking order," no matter how named, went into Chokmah ("Father"), the Queen into Binah ("Mother"), the variously-named "Son" of their union into Tiphareth, and the "Daughter" into Malkuth. It seemed pretty clear to me that the Princes have no claim to Chokmah, even if they do think they're "Knights."
 

Richard

Oh, okay, I see the problem. If only the names had been swapped, we would expect the Princes to be in Chockmah, and the Kings in Tiphareth.

Yes, one would expect the horsemen to be in Chockmah, and the charioteers in Tiphareth.

However, in Farrell's deck, the horsemen are Air and primarily Fixed, and the charioteers are Fire and primarily Mutable. Thus the horsemen would be the Vau of the Tetragrammaton, and the charioteers would be Yod.

For example, quoting from the LWB of the GD Temple Tarot:

Prince of Cups [horseman]: "Air of Water. Sphere of Influence: 20° Libra - 20° Scorpio."
King of Cups [charioteer]: "Fire of Water. Sphere of Influence: 20° Aquarius - 20° Pisces."​
 

Zephyros

I wonder, how does it "work?" I mean, the GD system in this respect is almost absurdly simple: the Knights "go forth" and plant the seed, the Queens incubate, the Princes (Emperors, Kings, etc.) rule while the Princesses (ditto) are "us." But what's the "story" being told here? Is there an explanation anywhere?