The "Isis" Temple of Berridge & the Continuation of the G.D.

After the schism of 1900, Edward William Berridge (Resurgam) took over the London branch of the Order loyal to Mathers. This has been documented previously in some history books and online timelines as the "Isis Temple", and many have assumed that this was a new Temple, particularly with information suggesting it was "No. 11".

The problem with this assumption is that there is contradicting evidence, which suggests it was actually still called "Isis-Urania", and thus was likely seen as a continuation of the Temple No. 3 founded in 1888 (Temples No. 1 and 2 being fictional).

Consider, for example, the reverse of a surviving Admission Badge from this Temple, dated Sep 1910:

Another example from the same collection (currently held in The Museum of Witchcraft and Magic in Cornwall, England):

 

Both clearly show "Isis-Urania-Temple". There are numerous other examples of this.

 

Further, on 18 January and 22 February 1902, letters by Resurgam (Berridge) were published in the occult journal Light, which clearly states that he was the Cancellarius of the "Isis-Urania Temple".

 

It is evident that this was likely not a new Temple under Berridge, but rather was seen as a continuation of the old one, particularly given that even the name of the Order had not changed.

Where, then, did the "Isis" only moniker come from? The earliest reference I can find is in Ithell Colquhoun's Sword of Wisdom (1975), where she writes (p. 232):

"After the Schism, Isis-Urania was split into the still-loyal Isis-Temple under Dr. Berridge, and the dissident Stella Matutina from which evolved a misty Golden Dawn under Waite himself." [italics in original] 

The problem with Colquhoun's account is that the information about the Stella Matutina is wrong (this Felkin-run group came later), which raises questions about the reliability of it all.

She also gives earlier (p. 199):

"If Brodie-Innes was using the title of Stella Matutina as early as 1900, and Waite did not quit Felkin and Brodie-Innes until 1903, then Waite was also a SM-member for a year or two. After this, he led off his particular cronies to form with him what he called 'the Holy Order of the Golden Dawn', retaining also the name of Isis-Urania for his main, or only, Lodge—even though Dr. Berridge had already established a (loyal) Isis Temple." [italics in original]

Again, the information about the Stella Matutina is inaccurate here (the name was not employed until at least 1903, with the rebels still going by G.D. until 1902, when the Horos scandal prompted a name change to M.R. or Morgenrothe). Given this, I am inclined to believe the statements about the "Isis" Temple are also inaccurate. Certainly, her book is not reliable on many other accounts. Unfortunately, these errors seem to have been reproduced by historian R.A. Gilbert, and from there in numerous other books and websites, with no one questioning the claims.

Assuming, however, that Colquhoun did actually have textual evidence of the Temple being called just "Isis", the answer to that riddle is surprisingly simple. Isis-Urania was commonly referred to as "Isis" in shorthand even during the pre-1900 years. There are countless references to it as such in surviving material. Therefore, any subsequent references to the Berridge-run "Isis" Temple likely simply continued this shorthand.

What about the numbering then? To date, I have not seen any evidence that this Temple was renumbered, and I suspect that someone (as yet, I am unsure who) may have made an assumption here, which has subsequently been taken (and reproduced) as fact by others. Unfortunately, Golden Dawn history is riddled with assumptions, many of which turn out to be inaccurate.

Ellic Howe, in his seminal The Magicians of the Golden Dawn (1972), refers to this as "Dr. Berridge's new and rival Isis-Urania Temple No. 3". He also quotes a letter by Crowley, which also refers to the Berridge-run group as "Isis-Urania No. 3". Clearly, then, Howe is not the source of the "No. 11" attribution.

There is evidence that other A.O. Temples kept their old numbering, such as Amen-Ra No. 6 in Edinburgh, Scotland, under Brodie-Innes (who initially joined the rebellion, but then returned to Mathers). Why, then, would the London Temple be any different? It still had members (albeit not many) loyal to Mathers.

While I am open to evidence that shows the No. 11 for Isis-Urania under Berridge, renumbering this Temple would suggest it was new, and would thus admit defeat to the rebels in terms of accepting that they had seized the original Temple. As Mathers did not recognise the Committee formed by the rebels, or the decisions made by them, or that they had any authority over him, there would have been no reason for him to rename or renumber the London Temple. He only had to assign new Chiefs.

An even stranger scenario applies to one of those supposed Chiefs: Westcott. After Mathers and Westcott fell out in 1900 over Mathers' claims that Westcott forged the Sprengel letters (an accusation proven true by subsequent historians), one would expect that Westcott would not work again with Mathers. Yet there is evidence suggesting that he did indeed patch things up. 

For example, an account by Brodie-Innes on 19 May 1902 gives: 

"S.A. [Westcott] has personally told me that he cannot in any way break with Mathers. Also that he is working with the Berridge group, or at any rate he is in close touch with them."

While I am still investigating how far this went, if Westcott did indeed act as one of the Chiefs of the Isis-Urania Temple loyal to Mathers, this would add further credibility to it being "the" official continuation of the G.D., at least from their perspective. After all, having two of the three original Chiefs (the other, Woodman, having died in late 1891) is about as legitimate as one can get (notwithstanding the fact that the legitimacy of the Order had been majorly challenged by Mathers' accusations).

Further, a letter sent by Mathers on 3 July 1902 to the rebels mentions a "stamped treaty" signed by Westcott and Mathers that supports the latter's claim to the Isis-Urania Temple furnishings taken by them. "This was drawn up shortly after your rebellion." If this is true, which there is no reason to doubt (the rebels could easily ask Westcott, as they had asked him about many things since the schism), this is additional evidence that Westcott (somewhat surprisingly) continued to support and recognise Mathers.

Indeed, an earlier chance meeting between W.B. Yeats and Westcott  on 5 June 1900 in a bookstore suggests that Westcott did not (at least publicly) have a problem with Mathers' behaviour (though various private correspondence from Westcott suggests otherwise). As Yeats recounts: 

"He [Westcott] was very cautious, very anxious, it seemed to me, not to appear to decry any claim D.D.C.F. [Mathers] might possibly make or had made and at the same time anxious that we should not think that D.D.C.F. had done anything reprehensible."

Aside from the likelihood that Westcott feared his forgeries would be further exposed (see, for example, the evidence provided by Tony Fuller in Vol. 5 and Vol. 6 of The Light Extended suggesting that Westcott not only forged the Sprengel letters, but the Cipher Manuscript as well), Westcott may have genuinely recognised Mathers as being a vessel through which unique and powerful occult teachings were being delivered. Indeed, his prior apparent contentment to defer to Mathers seems to suggest this. Regardless, it seems that he was willing to help Mathers continue the G.D., while largely avoiding (at least initially) the rebel faction.

It has been assumed that the G.D. ended in 1900 due to the schism, but Mathers clearly did not agree. He continued to call his faction the G.D. until at least as late as April 1903, as evidenced by the occult journal Anubis of that date, which included an article by him (the final in a series dating from 1902):

This very public attribution shows that he still considered his group to be the Order of the G.D., and that he was still the head (regardless of the rebels' claims to have removed him). The additional public mention of the R.R. et A.C. is also noteworthy. It is also perhaps worth pointing out that the Anubis journal featured art by Moina and articles by Berridge (as himself and Resurgam), and one issue also included several contributions by Westcott (as himself and N.O.M.), which is perhaps another clue of his willingness to work with, or alongside, Mathers.

Mathers and Berridge also contributed to the journal Light in 1902 to defend the Order against the Horos scandal. In the first example, a letter by Mathers dated 23 October, 1901 was finally published in the 11 January, 1902 issue (having been held back so as to not prejudice the Horos case). It again shows Mathers openly claiming to be head of the G.D. An extract:

Mathers also continued to sign off as "Head of the Orders of the R.'.R.'. et A.'.C.'., of the G.'.D.'. and of the Egyptian Mysteries" in private correspondence, and his letters to the rebels make it clear that he did not recognise their claim to now be the Chiefs of the Order. Moina Mathers made similar statements.

As the saying goes, "history is written by the victors", and certainly the very large rebel faction (which subsequently splintered into several more groups) would have likely seen themselves as the victors in this dispute. We have, therefore, perhaps been relying overly on their (certainly very valid) accounts, which can cloud our judgement in terms of seeing the objective history. The reality appears to be that both sides saw themselves as the valid continuation of the G.D., with both making compelling arguments in different ways. History can only tell us what they claim. Who we believe is an entirely different, and ultimately very subjective, matter.