Newsgroups: alt.magick Path: Supernews!supernews.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ix.netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user From: cholden@NOSPAM.netcom.com (Clay Holden) Subject: Re: The Shuelers and Enochian Magic Message-ID: Sender: cholden@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: The John Dee Publication Project X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.1d3+ References: <338a793d.650037@snews.zippo.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 20:12:55 GMT Lines: 168 Xref: Supernews alt.magick:102979 In response to Joseph Max and Poke Runyon: Joseph Max wrote: >Now, a _real_ Enochian Magician simply _must_ have a copy of the original >work itself, _A True And Faithful Relation Of What Passed For Many Years >Between Doctor John Dee And Some Spirits_, by Meric Causabon, published >around 1650ce. Magickal Childe Books reprinted it recently in a huge, >beautiful leather covered edition available for around $200. But >it's all from the _original_ papers of John Dee, as archived in the >British Museum. My group chipped in for a copy. As one of the contributors to the Magickal Childe edition, I have never heard of them offering an officially sanctioned leather-bound edition. Nor have I ever seen one offered "off the rack" in any bookstore or catalog. Steve Savedow *has* advertised custom leather-bound editions in his Serpents Occult Bookstore catalogs, but these were not readymades either. He has a neighbor who is a book-binder, and was offering custom bindings to customer specifications. I don't recall seeing prices listed, but imagine such work would be over $200. Poke Runyon wrote: >Much of what you say is valuable. We have the old Askin leather >edition of "True Relation" -- but "The True and Faithful Relation" is >neither true nor faithful. Causabon's purpose in publishing the book >was to discredit revelatory visions (anti-Roundhead, as I recall) and >he was not concerned with the accuracy of what he culled from Dee's >MSS. Casaubon certainly had his own agendas in publishing the work, true, but I think too much has been made of his propaganda motives. To go to such lengths to produce a piece of work merely to harm the reputation of a learned man makes no sense for an individual of Casaubon's intelligence. This is, after all, the same man who edited the _Meditations of Marcus Aurelius_ (an edition which is still frequently reprinted). Considered as a *magickal act*, however, its publication becomes very important. Along with alchemical books being published, and the contemporary publication in English of Agrippa's four books _Of Occult Philosphy_ (_Three Books..._ in 1651 and the _Fourth Book_ in 1655), Casaubon's publication in 1659 was largely responsible for a Magickal Revival in the late 17th century which profoundly influenced such later Western Magickal systems as the G.'.D.'., the A.'.A.'. and the A.'.S.'. I find it interesting to read between the lines of Casaubon's _TFR_ introduction and re-question his true motives in publishing, and would recommend this to others. Certainly it was a major influence on Elias Ashmole, who spent much of the rest of his life not only collecting and preserving Dee's magickal MSS., but copying them out by hand, along with numerous other magickal works. Ashmole was one of the founding members of the Royal Society, and the founder of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. Incidentally, a bit of research shows that Casaubon was not responsible for the transcription of the MS. himself. It was done at the request of Sir Thomas Cotton by a Mr. Raph. Jennyngs, the "reacher of the records" at the Tower of London in 1656. A portion of his transcription follows the end of Dee's diaries in Cotton Appendix XLVI Part 2. From folio 244 r to 250 v, following the end of Dee's last entry (Monday, 7 Sept. 1607), is a section transcribing several diary entries from August 1584 in Prague (starting at pg. 214 in the _TFR_) in a very neat hand. A note at the top of the first page written by a 19th century librarian reads: "Apparently, part of the transcript made by order of Sir Thomas Cotton, & from which Casaubon printed, in 1659 -- see f. 214 (The hand is that of R. Jennynges. See fol. 51)" At folio 51 of Part 2, Division VII, there is this note by Jennyngs: "Saterday 25 July 1656 Mr. Widdington I have sent you the originall and that Copy I have written I can not come to you because I am writing at the Records at the Towr I pray you to pay my wife the Ten shillings ------- And if you please you may send Sir Thomas word that I look for some thirty shillings more when we count upon the back reckoning. I am your servant Raph Jennyngs" This not only tells us who did the transcription, but suggests that he was paid between 10 and 40 shillings for the work! As to the numerous inaccuracies in Casaubon's printed edition, these are not to be blamed on Jennyngs, who apparently *did* produce a "true and faithful" copy, judging from his work here. As far as I know, the rest of this transcript does not survive. I would love to be found in error. > The later corrections (Raphael's Recension, etc.) were not >included. Clay Holden and Pat Zalewski know more about this than I do >and I'd like to see their opinion on it. As Az0th has already noted, this is incorrect. The "Tabula Recensa" material is present. The _TFR_ contains all of the written material in the Cotton Appendix, with the exception that text was on some occasions altered to eliminate references to marginal or inline illustrations which were left out. > Is there a compendium of the >Enochian eratta for True Relation? If not, shouldn't somebody create >one if this book continues to be published? I understand that there *is* one floating around in typescript form, but I should let someone more knowledgeable than myself deal with this issue... I certainly would love to get my hands on such a thing! There is the additional issue of providing English translations of the mountains of Latin throughout the work. This is much more extensive than in the earlier Spirit Diaries, and imposes a huge stumbling block to the reader without a classical education. If one is going to attempt such a monumental task, they ought to start with a microfilm of Elias Ashmole's copy at Oxford (MS. Ashmole 580), which contains his transcription of Casaubon's notes from his own annotated copy. Nicholas Clulee (in _John Dee's Natural Philosophy_) notes that there is another copy of the book in the British Library, which collates it with the original MS. (shelf mark 719. m. 12.). Whether this is Casaubon's copy or not is unclear. (Mogg, do you know? I've seen you mention Casaubon's annotated copy here before.) The book is an historical document anyway, and there will always be a place in good libraries for facsimile editions of such critical works, with or without corrections. I would love to see a fresh transcription of the Cotton Appendix material which follows Dee's layout, or, barring that, at least one which follows his spelling, underlining of words, etc. Anyone with the time to do a raw transcription of Casaubon's edition into straight ASCII text? That's the easiest place to start. > (Remember: "Book H" >came directly from True Relation -- so we already have a deeply >embedded spin-off to contend with. Thoughts and ideas??? _Book H_ comes "directly" from Sloane MSS. 307 and 3821, with additions and emendations as I understand it. Sloane 3821 is partly in the hand of Elias Ashmole. I do not know who did Sloane 307. As has been pointed out more than once, neither Dee's MSS. nor Sloane MS. 307 give elemantal attributions to the Tablet of the Earth (at least not directly), nor do they use the truncated pyramids found in _Book H_ and the G.'.D.'. system. I do, however, agree with your point regarding deeply embedded errors in the history of the "Enochian" system's transmission. Best wishes, Clay -- Clay Holden ( - ) http://www.dnai.com/~cholden ( + ) "Super caelestes roretis aquae: __:__ Et terra fructum dabit suum." | -John Dee /^|^\