Talk:Cipher Manuscripts

Untitled

Broke out this section from Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and expanded it a little. This article can definitely benefit from more detailed information and I will return when I have more time. I would also like a sample picture of a page from the MSS and the key to the cipher. Barthimaeus 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformating and Citations

I've generally reformatted the article to place all references to sources for the Cipher into the "Possible Sources" sub-section , with full citations. All of the previous citations were retained, but some uncited speculations were removed. With the inclusion of a dozen new citations, I removed the {needs citations} tag. - JMax555 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert this article to uncited version. New citations conform to WP guidelines and eliminate the {needs citations} tag. All references to previous citations, including the Wilson article, were retained. - JMax555 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation tags belong only on the talk page, not on the article page. - JMax555 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Shape of the article

The shape of this article is looking really good. I'll add this to my list of articles to nominate for featured articles. See, to get the category I want on the Featured Article page, I need a few (undetermined amount) articles that dont fit into the categories already there. Zos 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was up all night digging through references. By the way, all of what I used as sources can be confirmed using Google Books, using the search keywords {cipher+manuscript}, in case anyone would like to confirm the citations.

I should qualify the above comment: most of the sources can be found on Google Books. The Gilbert, Runyon and Waite sources I personally own in print form. The Wilson reference I have never seen, but was supplied by Kephera975 during all the recent edit disputes, so I included it in the spirit of compromise, even though I'm uncertain of what it acually reveals.

I also added a graphic of one page of the MSS. - JMax555 10:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just came to the article figuring it needed work, only to find a large number of citations! I'm still amazed there are so many source that talk about this. Zos 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is as I've been saying all along: there are a lot of available materials about the history and practices of the Golden Dawn, and most of the sources essentially agree with each other. It's Users Zanoni666, FiatLux and Kephera975, and the HOGD/A+O group they represent, who are the historical revisonists that say this prevalent view of the relevent academic community is wrong, and represents a "biased POV." - JMax555 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

basis for Final Fantasy classes

when I read the manuscripts and saw descriptions of people dressed in white, red, and black robes, my first thought was: "Those are the same colors as the mages from Final Fantasy". Anyone know if there is a connection? 64.4.109.139 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Red, white and black are fairly common colours to see associated with each other. They are the 3 most common colours in printing; they are the favourite colours of the White Stripes (and of my old flatmate). They are found in many aboriginal artforms, such as the art of the Maori, since it was hard to obtain more exotic-coloured pigments. They feature prominently in Indonesian, Tibetan and neopagan magical traditions. They feature particularly in goth fashion and imagery, and people wanting to look like vampires or satanists often adopt these colours (the poor dears). I suspect the cipher manuscripts and Golden Dawn have very little to do with Final Fantasy. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Further remarks on the origin

Under "Possible sources of the Cipher Manuscripts" the existence of the german "Orden der Gold- und Rosenkreuzer" is questioned which seems a more than vague assumption since there is quite enough of reference. I just put together some of the sources within the german wikipedia main article "Rosenkreuzer" which solely refer to that particular order:

Steiner, Gerhard: Freimaurer und Rosenkreuzer. Georg Forsters Weg durch Geheimbünde. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-05-000448-7, S. 87 - 90.

Rebisse, Christian: Geschichte und Mythos der Rosenkreuzer. Le Trembley (2003) ISBN 9783925972454, S. 197.

Lennhoff, Eugen; Posner, Oskar: Internationales Freimaurerlexikon. Artikel: Rosenkreuzer, ISBN 3-85002-038-X, S. 1337.

Schultze, Johannes, Die Rosenkreuzer und Friedrich Wilhelm II. (1929), in ders., Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Berlin 1964, S. 240 65.

Marx, Arnold, Die Gold- und Rosenkreuzer. Ein Mysterienbund des ausgehenden 18. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland, in: Das Freimaurer-Museum 5 (1930), S. 1 168, hier S. 151 54.

I know, this doesn't seem very handy for german non-speakers but it's just meant to show that the question about the existence of the order is nonsense.

Another thought that might deserve attention is that even the form in which the manuscripts are presented is questionable: why would an old german lady - allegedly member of a german order - write or keep such a document in a foreign language? You wrote it is "plain english" (encrypted after an old german system?). If the original text came from Miss Sprengler it seems only plausible to have been written in german and later translated by MacGregor Mathers and Westcott (which btw also couldn't have happened before 1887, right?). Given that, today decryption wouldn't work without translation, see what I mean? In my eyes this puts just another question mark behind the credibility of Westcotts "discovery".

I hope I could be of help. In any way, thank you for this interesting article. Keep up the good work! -- Jbravado 07:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Of course, the claims of Westcott are highly questionable, but that seems to be pretty obvious just from a reading of the article. I don't think there's a need to hammer the point too hard. I don't know if it's "encyclopedic" to offer debunking analysis like that in the text of an article. It's kind of like writing an article on Noah's Ark - pointing out how the physics and biology of the story are highly implausible seems like belaboring an obvious point. JMax555 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at it - the tarot cards in the cipher manuscript follow the Marseille pattern, rather than a German or Austrian pattern. Books on Golden Dawn history note members had a limited choice of tarot decks, mostly French and Italian, so figures it would be their choice in a fake manuscript. Sure, Germans had access to French decks, but they were more likely to choose a local deck, or as likely to pick a Belgian deck.אלן שמידטי (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

One thing is very mysterious after reading this article. Where are the manuscripts currently located? 32.140.174.225 (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilson REF - Cite check

The last paragraph (bullet point #8) in the "Possible sources" section states:

"Another theory formulated by Bruce Wilson argues that the Cipher Manuscripts had been received by Kenneth Mackenzie from the Secret Chiefs of the "Third Order", a continental Rosicrucian mystery school into which Mackenzie had been initiated by Count Apponyi of Hungary. Using the Cipher Manuscripts, Mackenzie allegedly founded "The Society of Eight" as the first phase of what was to later become the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn."

This "theory" of a possible source is already covered in the preceeding paragraph (bullet point #5):

"There really was a German Rosicrucian order, sometimes referred to as the "Gold und Rosenkreutz," and it already had a branch in London, founded around 1810. Mackenzie was a member of this German order, into which he had been initiated by Count Apponyi of Hungary, and obtained the rituals described in the Cipher from them.[16]"

(Ref [16] is a citation to the Wilson paper.)

The Wilson article does not specifically use the term "Cipher Manuscripts", nor does it refer to or identify any "Secret Chiefs of the Order." Therefore the use of these identifiers is not supported by the REF citation. This makes the #8 paragraph a superflous expansion of the #5 paragraph, as well as containing only speculation, or at best original research.

"Allegedly" is a weasel word anyway and should be avoided. Alleged by who? It's another way of saying it's only speculation.

Regarding the REF cited, “The Origin of our Rosicrucian Society”, published in The Historical Notes of the SRIA, 1947, the editor that originally added this paragraph (it was actually moved from the main article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) also added to the REFlist section that "A copy of this article may be obtained directly from the SRIA in England for verification purposes." But no actual ISBN number or other original source was identified, making it difficult to verify. However, this source is now publicly available as a reproduction of the original in a compilation volume, The Origins of the Rosicrucian Society of England, (ed. an. Darcy Küntz, Golden Dawn Research Trust, Austin TX, 2009: ISBN 978-0-9734424-8-9) This contains the Wilson article "The Origin of Our Rosicrucian Society" from 1947.

Available from the publisher at:

http://goldendawntrust.com/Product-SRIA_51.aspx

Also, the paper itself by Wilson is downloadable at Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100138924/The-Origin-of-Our-Rosicrucian-Society

Neither the Wilson reference nor any of the other citations specifically identify any "Secret Chiefs of the Order." The WP article on Secret Chiefs states:

"The Secret Chiefs are said to be transcendent cosmic authorities, a Spiritual Hierarchy responsible for the operation and moral calibre of the cosmos, or for overseeing the operations of an esoteric organization that manifests outwardly in the form of a magical order or lodge system."

There is nothing in any of the citations for #8 that identifies the source of the warrants and/or rituals passed on by Mackenzie as being "Secret Chiefs" of the Golden Dawn, in the sense of "transcendent cosmic authorities" or "overseeing the operations of an esoteric organization that manifests outwardly in the form of a magical order or lodge system."

If there is a pertinent citation in those references that I missed, can someone please point it out (with appropriate page numbers) and provide a relevant quote from the original? I haven't removed the paragraph yet, just tagged it, so if there is a verifiable citation someone can offer it here and we can change the REF accordingly. Otherwise the paragraph at bullet point #8 should be removed for the reason of being a) a superfluous re-stating of #5, and b) containing speculation/original research by the editor not supported by the citations. JMax555 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph described above, and cleaned up he REFlist, which needed it. If an editor comes up with a cite, the paragraph (#5) that already mentions Wilson can be re-written to include it. JMax555 (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Faulty logic within the controversy section

The text says "references are made to the connection between the Qabalistic Tree of Life and the Tarot trumps. This idea was first put forth by French author Eliphas Levi in 1855."

Antoine Court de Gébelin has made the connection between the trumps and the Hebrew letters, as noted by the page about him in wikipedia, in a volume of Le Monde primitif published in 1781. Previous kabbalistic sources have made the connection between the letters and the tree of life. The cipher manuscript was written on paper watermarked 1809.

IMHO, 28 years are plenty time for someone to make the connection between the trumps and the tree of life without any need of Eliphas Levi's 1855 book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.33.195 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)