Catherine yronwode — co-proprietor of Lucky Mojo and one of the most knowledgeable practitioners of Hoodoo and Western occultism on alt.magick.moderated — poses a historical question for discussion: what role did Gérard Encausse (Papus) play in the formation of Thelema? The argument traces the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica backward from Crowley through Reuss and Encausse to Jules Doinel's Gnostic Mass — and concludes that Thelema as it exists cannot be understood without this lineage.
I am curious — how do people consider Gérard Encausse (Papus) with respect to Thelema?
Here is an opinion (not strongly defended by me, but one which I wish to discuss) giving reasons for the inclusion of Encausse in any history of Thelema:
1. Encausse was a member of the Paris chapter of the HOGD. Crowley was a member of HOGD as well, and specifically loyal to the Paris (Mathers) faction. Both Mathers and Encausse worked on translations of the Kabbalah; Crowley utilised their work in his own subsequent materials. Crowley was aware of and knew Encausse before Crowley entered acquaintanceship with Reuss.
2. Thelema is Crowley's building upon two pillars: HOGD and Reuss's OTO.
The HOGD is built upon two pillars: Masonry, and the Synthesis of Hermeticism / Egyptophilia / Kabbalah.
The OTO is also built upon two pillars: Masonry and the EGC.
Thelema incorporates all of these.
The EGC as it developed within the OTO is the direct result of Reuss's trading of patents with Encausse in 1901 and 1908. Crowleyan Thelema would not have incorporated the EGC, nor been so tied to French Neo-Gnosticism, had not Crowley been inducted by Reuss, and Reuss by Encausse, and Encausse by Doinel and his Gnostic Mass.
3. To bring up the date of the PUBLICATION of Crowley's revisions of the Reuss OTO / EGC material is not relevant to the subject of Thelemic currents or literary influences. In fact, it seems to represent a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. Although Crowley's Gnostic Mass revision was published in 1918 — after Encausse had died — Crowley actually WROTE his revised Gnostic Mass in 1913 in Moscow, while Encausse was still very much alive. And on top of that, Encausse's connections to Crowley stretch all the way back to the Paris HOGD, long before Crowley met Reuss and well before Reuss met Encausse in 1908 — back to when Encausse was writing on Kabbalah and Tarot, and both men owed allegiance to Mathers.
To deny that Encausse had an extremely strong role in the development of Thelema seems ahistorical.
No one is saying that Encausse was a member of the Abbey of Thelema. However, we cannot understand Thelema as it is presently manifested without understanding the Neo-Gnostic EGC aspects of Thelema, which derive directly through Reuss, Encausse, and ultimately from Doinel.
I strongly believe that Encausse belongs in any article or article-set describing the history of Thelema. Crowley did not develop his revised OTO in a vacuum — he got it from Reuss's OTO, and it contained a Gnostic Mass when he received it. Thus Crowley's revised EGC Mass built upon Reuss's EGC, which was derived from Encausse's EGC and thus utilised the Doinel Gnostic Mass text.
What say you?
Colophon
Posted to alt.magick.moderated by catherine yronwode, April 20, 2006.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Archived for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.
🌲