Eliphas Levi

[Aetherous]

What do you guys think of him? I've been impressed with checking out Transcendental Magic and The History of Magic.

[Michael Sternbach]

Paraphrasing A. E. Waite, he is on the one hand impossible to agree with, on the other impossible to ignore.

[Apech]

My first experience of western ritual magic was from Levi.  It worked first time.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Eliphas Levi wrote the "Gospel" version of neo-magic an interpretation of the Western Magical Tradition that began in the late Eighteenth Century and continued to the present.  It's interpretive model is Mesmerism and it reinterprets the whole of magic within this framework.  Early examples include Francis Barrett's The Magus, which while quoting from such sources as Agrippa, starts to cite Seventeenth Century "magnetical" treatises also.  To get a good idea of the background a read of Joseph Ennemoser's The History of Magic, is essential as one will find all of the theory and the reinterpretation of the magical tradition in its terms  both outlined and copiously detailed there.  Once you understand this relation every aspect of the modern tradition of magic becomes clear.

 

Naturally enough I learned neo-magic as a teenager in the 1960s, it was all that was available and is still in its many guises, dominant, but it was thinking about those experiences and more, such as interesting experiences in alchemical laboratories and reviewing the literature, I could not remain satisfied with it, which is why I undertook in the early 70s the historical and other literary research which lead me outside that paradigm and to far more fruitful and interesting models of magic.

 

Levi?  Except from a historical point of view, largely a waste of time.

[Aeran]

Eliphas Levi wrote the "Gospel" version of neo-magic an interpretation of the Western Magical Tradition that began in the late Eighteenth Century and continued to the present.  It's interpretive model is Mesmerism and it reinterprets the whole of magic within this framework.  Early examples include Francis Barrett's The Magus, which while quoting from such sources as Agrippa, starts to cite Seventeenth Century "magnetical" treatises also.  To get a good idea of the background a read of Joseph Ennemoser's The History of Magic, is essential as one will find all of the theory and the reinterpretation of the magical tradition in its terms  both outlined and copiously detailed there.  Once you understand this relation every aspect of the modern tradition of magic becomes clear.

 

Naturally enough I learned neo-magic as a teenager in the 1960s, it was all that was available and is still in its many guises, dominant, but it was thinking about those experiences and more, such as interesting experiences in alchemical laboratories and reviewing the literature, I could not remain satisfied with it, which is why I undertook in the early 70s the historical and other literary research which lead me outside that paradigm and to far more fruitful and interesting models of magic.

 

Levi?  Except from a historical point of view, largely a waste of time.

 

Which models are you referring to?

[Taoist Texts]

I learned my french by reading his books, the original 19 century editions, in an old fashioned public library, a veritable temple of knowledge . He is a smooth teller of tall tales. Too bad there is no such thing as magic.

[Apech]

I learned my french by reading his books, the original 19 century editions, in an old fashioned public library, a veritable temple of knowledge . He is a smooth teller of tall tales. Too bad there is no such thing as magic.

 

depends how you define it.

[Nungali]

It has a very long tradition of existing and being practised for something that is 'no such thing'  

[Apech]

It has a very long tradition of existing and being practised for something that is 'no such thing'  

 

 

Here's conclusive proof:

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

No, this this the true epoptic vision:

 

 

 

Somewhat more restrained and serious post soon.

[MooNiNite]

"magic" meets the western world. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by MooNiNite

[Nungali]

Been happenin' here fer years mate! 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Gqjf6E_Cc

[Aetherous]

So I'm the only one here that really likes him and his writing?

I'm not into the Golden Dawn stream of information, although he was apparently highly influential on that, which was highly influential on basically the entire occult rack which we see today at the local bookstore.

It's cool to read the writings of someone who greatly influenced what we have today...his actual work to me seems almost entirely separated from it. And as Taoist Texts said, he had a way with words.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

So I'm the only one here that really likes him and his writing?

 

I'm not into the Golden Dawn stream of information, although he was apparently highly influential on that, which was highly influential on basically the entire occult rack which we see today at the local bookstore.

 

It's cool to read the writings of someone who greatly influenced what we have today...his actual work to me seems almost entirely separated from it. And as Taoist Texts said, he had a way with words.

 

Regarding Levi's writing style, it's been since late 1967 or maybe early 1968 that I started to read Levi's Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual in Waite's translation in the 1964 Rider edition.  While I was not looking for fancy prose, I certainly did notice a "way with words", which since I was looking for something practical, only bored and irritated me.  Someone today can hardly imagine the difficulties faced in the 60s trying to find something to actually do, rather than to read about doing, so, no at the time I had little patience with Levi's "Gallic" style.  I read Levi because of Aleister Crowley's claim to be his reincarnation.  I had purchased Crowley's Magick in Theory and Practice a few years earlier as a kid of twelve in the summer of 1963.  As an early influence Crowley impressed me positively during adolescence, but as I read more widely my admiration diminished significantly.  Crowley by the way had an excellent prose style, it is part of the reason he has been so influential, but I cannot make my judgements about magic based on someone's writing style, only on its content.  Ophiel, who had a terrible, almost tortured, but after a while of reading it, almost endearing writing style, came to the rescue as far as practice went, that and some books by W. E. Butler, Regardie's The Art of True Healing, and some others, basically a mere handful of books, and a lot of creativity got me started on practice.

 

As far as the theory of Neo-magic goes, basically it follows from mesmeric practice as it existed circa 1800.  The magician and his control over the 'animal magnetism" was taken as the sole cause of magical phenomenon.  Mesmer even had a "baton" which he used to direct his animal magnetism and this is the model for the "magic wand" as conceived of in neo-magic during the Nineteenth Century.  The other important thing was introduced by Mesmer's were group healing sessions involving the use of his "baquet", which probably influenced the table sessions of the later spiritualist movement and is the model for the "magnetic chain of initiates", a theme that runs through neo-magical theory and is part of the theory of "egregores".

 

I studied the theory of neo-magic in what is probably the best textbook of the classical, that is pre-Crowley, version of neo-magical theory, The Tarot, a Contemporary course in the Quintessence of Hermetic Occultism, by Mouni Sadhu, an author who, in spite of the Indian appearance of his name, taken in honor of his long study of and with Ramana Maharshi, was probably an ethnic Pole, born in what was, at the time, Russia.  This book, a very demanding and challenging read, was my constant intellectual companion for a year or so beginning in the summer of 1968.  Because of that study I have a very clear understanding of the ins and outs of neo-magical theory and have had such since the late 60s.  At the time I did not think in terms of neo-magic, that distinction did not occur to me until later, though I did have some premonition of it in my early reflections on the difference between the practice of magic as outlined in such grimoires as the Greater and Lesser Keys of Solomon and magic as I read about it in the writings of Aleister Crowley and Dion Fortune that I had bought in that first early phase of study in 1963-64.

 

So much for a short outline of neo-magical theory, as for this:

 

Which models are you referring to?

 

that will have to wait for another post.  Some consideration of post Crowley neo-magical theory might also be in order, but I did not even think about that in my first reply since I was focusing on Levi, and not the full scope of neo-magical theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Correct spelling, added a truant letter.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Zhongyongdaoist]

As far as the theory of Neo-magic goes, basically it follows from mesmeric practice as it existed circa 1800.  The magician and his control over the 'animal magnetism" was taken as the sole cause of magical phenomenon.

 

As I thought about my post above it occurred to me that the above statement left out the most important contribution of mesmerisim to neo-magical theory which was the emphasis on "will power and imagination" and should have been written as:

 

"As far as the theory of Neo-magic goes, basically it follows from mesmeric practice as it existed circa 1800.  The magician and his control over the 'animal magnetism" through his will power and imagination was taken as the sole cause of magical phenomenon."

 

This point seemed to be too important to leave to a simple edit to the original post as someone who had already read the post might miss it, so I decided to add this edit as a separate post.  The emphasis on "will power" is not a characteristic of earlier magic and is an attempt to arrive at a "quasi-scientific" explanation for magical phenomena through modeling it on mesmerism and is quite in line with the "zeitgeist" of the late Eighteenth Century as reflected in the Kantian reduction of ethics from practical wisdom to "good will", so the emphasis in earlier magic is on wisdom and understanding, not on will.

[Apech]

Donald,

 

That's very interesting.  I had always assumed that the emphasis on mesmerism was just one of those attempts at an assimilable explanation for the non-practitioner.  As stage hypnotism acts were common and astonishing to many a kind of quasi theory was adopted to explain what they were doing to appease the 'scientific' minded casual reader.  If they really believed it that's another matter entirely.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Donald,

 

That's very interesting.  I had always assumed that the emphasis on mesmerism was just one of those attempts at an assimilable explanation for the non-practitioner.  As stage hypnotism acts were common and astonishing to many a kind of quasi theory was adopted to explain what they were doing to appease the 'scientific' minded casual reader.  If they really believed it that's another matter entirely.

 

Yes, it was taken seriously, it is exactly in this model that the distinction between "High Magic", that of Ceremonial Magic which was upper class magic and manipulated the "dead matter" of the Cartesian worldview through the animal magnetism, and low magic, the superstitious magic of witches and old women and the lower classes arose.  This is purely a Nineteenth Century invention, nothing even remotely like it can be found in Agrippa's Three Books on Occult Philosophy, where magic is viewed as the result of a practice that unifies Natural, Mathematical and Ceremonial magic.  Curiously it does emerge as the root a the title of Gerald Gardner's witchcraft novel High Magic's Aid, in which Gardener introduces witches and "low magic" as something which "aids" high magic, thus seeking to heal the imbalance brought about by too much emphasis on "High Magic".  Interestingly Agrippa warns about not doing ceremonial magic without using natural magic as part of the procedure, and to my mind the history of the modern magical revival is definitely proof of the Wisdom of that warning.

 

For a person who is interested in the historical perspective, Ennemoser is as I said essential, but to gain a fascinating look into both the theory, the practice and the lives of people who practiced magic in the mid-Nineteenth Century and pre-Blavatsky, you can't beat Art Magic and Ghost Land, both ostensibly written by an anonymous adept and edited by Emma Hardinge Britten, the first deals the theory and practice of magic and the second the adepts supposed biography, are fascinating reading.  Of particular interest is the contrast that emerges between the German "occult scientists" who first train and at the same time exploit the young author and the British "ceremonial magicians", a group which the author later meets during a time spent in England.  This later English group is usually considered to be the descended from Francis Barrett and is supposed to have included Bulwer-Lytton.  A wonderful website dedicated to this remarkable woman can be found here:

 

The Emma Hardinge Britten Archive

 

Where downloadable versions of both these works may be found.

 

A very worthwhile modern scholarly history which uses Britten's accounts as a source is:

 

The Theosophical Enlightenment by Jocelyn Godwyn

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Minor spelling

Edited March 21, 2016 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Aetherous]

This thread has proven more than fruitful...thank you Donald!

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I appreciate your appreciation, you are most welcome.

[Nungali]

Emma didnt  write Art Magic or Ghostland ?    I had not realised that .     

 

Any ideas about who did ? 

 

Here is another interesting group ( related ? )  that was in the tradition Blavatsky split from  when she 'went to India'  ;

 

- I suppose you know of Thomas Johnson 

 

 

https://newtopiamagazine.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/thomas-johnson-platonism-meets-sex-magic-on-the-prairie/

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I said "ostensibly" written, these days some people think that she might have have written them, but I honestly don't know, though I did a lot of internet research a few years ago and there is still some controversy on the matter and several more or less plausible candidates, But whether she wrote them or not, she was still a remarkable woman.

 

Of course I know Thomas Johnson, I read Platonism in the Midwest, the seminal scholarly work on the subject of the post Transcendentalist mid-American Platonists, back in the late 70s. In many ways it was one of my favorite reads because of the dedication of the leaders, like Johnson and Jones, and the people who learned from them, whose enthusiasm for Plato and the Platonists, kept the movement going for decades.  The brilliant Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie was its dying breath.  Guthrie's Plotinus translation is still one of the best, not that there are a lot, but it is definitely clearer than Mckenna's and for a non-scholar better than Armstrong's translation.

 

Aside from that, isn't Ronnie Pontiac a great writer and scholar?  I discovered him a few years ago and almost posted about him here, but I had other matters to take care of and never got around to it.

[Nungali]

I said "ostensibly" written, these days some people think that she might have have written them, but I honestly don't know, though I did a lot of internet research a few years ago and there is still some controversy on the matter and several more or less plausible candidates, But whether she wrote them or not, she was still a remarkable woman.

 

yes she was !  

 

Ida Craddock is a favourite too  .....  but that's a tragic story    

 

Of course I know Thomas Johnson, I read Platonism in the Midwest, the seminal scholarly work on the subject of the post Transcendentalist mid-American Platonists, back in the late 70s. In many ways it was one of my favorite reads because of the dedication of the leaders, like Johnson and Jones, and the people who learned from them, whose enthusiasm for Plato and the Platonists, kept the movement going for decades.  The brilliant Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie was its dying breath.  Guthrie's Plotinus translation is still one of the best, not that there are a lot, but it is definitely clearer than Mckenna's and for a non-scholar better than Armstrong's translation.

 

Aside from that, isn't Ronnie Pontiac a great writer and scholar?  I discovered him a few years ago and almost posted about him here, but I had other matters to take care of and never got around to it.

 

yes he is !

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

Aside from that, isn't Ronnie Pontiac a great writer and scholar?  I discovered him a few years ago and almost posted about him here, but I had other matters to take care of and never got around to it.

 

yes he is !

 

Did you read:

 

The Maestro and the Boy

 

Pontiac's very moving memoir of his relationship with Manley P. Hall?  I really is a good read.

 

yes she was ! 

Ida Craddock is a favourite too  .....  but that's a tragic story  

 

Yes, you recounted her sad tale in considerable detail here:

 

Woman in the Magical Tradition

 

Since so little has openly been written about them it can appear women had little to do with the development of the western modern magical tradition . So I though to put some posts up about them (which I will add to from time to time - and I hope others do too. )

 

Many of us have heard of the great Madam Blavatsky and later Alice Bailey but there are many great relatively unknown women that contributed to , not only the development of 'underground' magical tradition, but also to what I call 'western tantra' ( or 'sex magic' as it became known as), woman;s emancipation and sexual liberation in a time when any such expressed thoughts could get one into a load of trouble (even for a man) ,eg. a man could risk arrest for publicly advocating contraception.

 

Rereading the above I wondered whether you have read Mary K. Greer's:

 

Women of the Golden Dawn

 

I loved that book, it is very well researched and written.

 

Another neglected woman, who is actually of great importance to the pre-Golden Dawn era, and well known to the founders, was:

 

Anna Kingsford

 

and also:

 

Anna Kingsford Site, Her Life and Works

[Nungali]

Yeah .....  I had a fight with Mary ... I am sure she can do good research , in this case she tried to imply she had proof of something ....  she didnt , could not produce any evidence and obfuscated , then wrongly claimed all this stuff .....  ho hum. 

 

Popular opinion went her way of course ......

 

.... what would I know ... I have no books published       

 

yes, Anna Kingsford is interesting. Thanks for the link re  Hall / Pontiac. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Nungali

[Apech]

Yeah .....  I had a fight with Mary ... I am sure she can do good research , in this case she tried to imply she had proof of something ....  she didnt , could not produce any evidence and obfuscated , then wrongly claimed all this stuff .....  ho hum. 

 

Popular opinion went her way of course ......

 

.... what would I know ... I have no books published       

 

yes, Anna Kingsford is interesting. Thanks for the link re  Hall / Pontiac. 

 

Where has Maud Gonne?