Tarot and Alchemy
-
While re-reading the Book of Thoth I noticed an area where Crowley appears to contradict himself. (Surprise, surprise.
) Then again it may be just a typo.Here's a question. Which card in the Thoth deck represents the principle of Alchemical Mercury? The Priestess or the Magus?
On page 77 of the Book of Thoth Crowley says:
The Emperor is also one of the more important alchemical cards; with Atu II and III, he makes up the triad: Sulphur, Mercury, Salt.
Here he is saying it's the Priestess. But later on page 104 he says:
It represents a balanced combination of the three alchemical principles Sulphur, Mercury and Salt. These names have no connection with substances so named by the vulgar; they have already been describd in Atu I, III and IV.
So which quote contains the typo?
The Magus is obviously the planet Mercury, but does that automatically mean he is alchemical mercury?
The Priestess has links to "quick silver" through her lunar nature, and she sits on the middle pillar in the symbolic attitude of the glyph of mercury.But which of the pair is the real deal?
-
I might help to remember that there's more than one type of Mercury (and Sulphur and Salt), alchemically speaking. Also that, according to another scheme, Sulphur, Mercury and Salt are the Fool, the Magus, and the Priestess, respectively.
Dan
-
Traditionally, Salt is Venus/Empress (her arms are in the shape), Sulhpur is Emperor (again, his body is in the shape), and the Magus is Mercury for more reasons than one (one being that the shape of his body and the images at his feet make the symbol of alchemical Merucury).
Therefore the first is a typo. 'Atu II' should read 'Atu I'. Perhaps check again to make sure this isn't what it says.
IAO131
-
I noticed that too and reconciled it as a typo; II should have been I.
-
@Aum418 said
"Traditionally, Salt is Venus/Empress (her arms are in the shape), Sulhpur is Emperor (again, his body is in the shape), and the Magus is Mercury for more reasons than one (one being that the shape of his body and the images at his feet make the symbol of alchemical Merucury).
Therefore the first is a typo. 'Atu II' should read 'Atu I'. Perhaps check again to make sure this isn't what it says.
IAO131"
93 IAO131!
Considering the 'Thoth/Atu II vs Thoth/Atu I' conversation we had earlier, I wouldn't, now, be so sure about that!(I shouldn't be so dubious either!) 93 93/93