First word of Liber Legis added later?
-
AC was honest about the fact that some passages in Liber Legis were added or changed later - for example, the "five-pointed star" passage and the one written in "whiter words".
However, I can't find any comment on the obviously different character of the first word of the book, "Had!" It is written outside the margin of the rest of the page and in a somewhat "heavier" hand, possibly with a different pen.
Is there an "official" explanation of this? Did Crowley mistake the word perhaps, for some introductory throat-clearing, only recognising what it was when it was "reflected" in the first words of the second chapter?
Apologies if this has already been discussed; if so, just point me to the thread. I have tried unsuccessfully to search for obvious words like "margin" here and on other pertinent sites.
Thank you
OP
-
93
I see this as a shining example of what some have referred to as the "spiritually informed editor" at work. It is easy to see the intellectual need for the first verses of chapters 1 and 2 to reflect each other:
I:1 - Had! The manifestion of Nuit
II:1 - Nu! the hiding of Hadit
and thus it could have (reasonably) been added after the fact. Crowley obviously would have been the only one qualified to do this.
I think the explanation you have given about it being added after the the rest of the chapter made it recognizable is equally possible.
In the end, it doesn't change the meaning of the work, but certainly validates the instruction that the "the original in the writing of the Beast" be included with the published book. There may be some great mystery contained therein, but my view is that it is a clever trap.
93/93
-
93,
Pure speculation on my part - but might AC not have realized the dictation had begun? "Had" wouldn't make any sense on its own (unlike 'Hadit' could have), and he might have begun writing only when he grasped that the dictation had started with the next few words.
93 93/93,
EM -
I know nothing to suggest this was added later. - That's the pure speculation part!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I know nothing to suggest this was added later. - That's the pure speculation part!"
What "suggests" it to me is simply the margin setting and the heavier penmanship. The left-hand margin of the rest of the first page of the manuscript aligns with "The..."
Do you (or others) have a more likely explanation for this curious alignment?
OP
-
The psychological and practical circumstances of the time are sufficient for me.
The handwriting on the entire dictation isn't Crowley's usual hand writing (which was quite beautiful when he took his time, and when he wasn't bouncing on a train through India). He took this dictation in a hurried state, under duress, with a bad attitude about it, likely shocked when he started hearing the dictation right on time as he had been told he would.
Now, it's possible that he went back later the same day or the next and added it in from memory. I'm not saying it didn''t happen, I'm saying there's no real evidence it happened. There's at least one other place where I am as certain as I can be that an entire line was added after the original dictation (and, in that case, one extremely self-serving to Crowley), but the pen and other elements make it virtually certain that it was written approximately the same day.
All of the pointed additions after the fact were made not by Crowley but by Rose. Her handwriting is distinctive from his (it pretty much jumps off the page!). Crowley did make other changes later, especially the addition of verse numbers and punctuation - These were usually (maybe entirely) done in pencil, which looks quite different even in the reproduction of the manuscript (and is, of course, quite obvious when looking at the actual original copy).
Unlike the known changes, this "Had!" was in Crowley's hand, was evidently with the same pen he used for the rest, was written with the same slant and at the same apparent pace as the surrounding text. It's quite consistent with the "Hadit" in II:1.
BTW, when you look at the first page of Chapter 2 (ignoring the verse numbers, which were added in pencil later), he again began the page farther to the left than the rest of the page - really in the same spot as the "Had!" on page 1. He then indented the second line somewhat more, and then the remainder of the page further still. That looks like it is simply how he was personally inclined to put pen to paper.
In fact, he did this occassionally on other non-initial pages. Look at pages 5, 9, 27, 30, 47, 50, 52, and 56 for greater and lesser examples of the same habit. In some cases (e.g., p. 24, and especially p. 25! - among others) an entire first paragraph is further left, then the rest of the page takes its indentation from the start of the next paragraph. There is also the distinctive indentation (remainder of paragraph starts further in than the first line) on pp. 32-33.
I just think it's how he wrote out pages. Nothing of particular interest.
PS - The one place I think he did go back and add something - but almost right away, while still in Egypt, using the same pen etc. - was on page 55. The line, "and thy comment on this the Book of the Law," appears to have been squeezed in after the rest of the page was written. Take it out and it reads perfectly (and removes large segments of debate among disputative Thelemites).
-
93
Jim, eloquent and academic as usual.
I agree that most things about this manuscript are purely speculative... and many points can be made through induction and observance of patterns, etc, which the acknowledgment that they are then informed, though still speculative points.
I have yet to see much of any spiritual value come from these observances, however. People study the handwriting and the word placement, compare the manuscript with the typescript, and debate the finer points of versions and gematria... to what end? Sure, the book does instruct that the original in the handwriting of the Beast be included... but what value have we seen in this, other than providing the fuel for vast debates and (at least what appear to be) distractions from the Work?
It seems a great many people want to be the one who "cometh to follow..." who will expound the mysteries. And a great deal of alphabet soup and "creative mathematics" follow.
Just as being able to argue over the details of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, being able to critique haiku does not make one Zen, and nearly always, the phrase "I understand" is a lie... it seems we deal with similar phenomenon in the treatment of the Book of the Law as well.
This is why I commented that I consider it a clever trap. There are those who will fall in, and accomplish little else. If it be their Will, so be it.
But to what end?
93/93
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" There's at least one other place where I am as certain as I can be that an entire line was added after the original dictation (and, in that case, one extremely self-serving to Crowley)"
In Crowley's writing? which one are you referring to?
@Jim Eshelman said
"but the pen and other elements make it virtually certain that it was written approximately the same day."
I agree, the "energy" and nature of the writing of the word "Had!" does seem in accord with the rest of the page line.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
BTW, when you look at the first page of Chapter 2 (ignoring the verse numbers, which were added in pencil later), he again began the page farther to the left than the rest of the page - really in the same spot as the "Had!" on page 1."Good observation; the "Nu!" is a bit to the right more though, and it doesn't look as scrunched in.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I just think it's how he wrote out pages. Nothing of particular interest."
It will probably remain a controversial topic, due to it being the first word and part of a cosmological/magickal formula. One other point is that it is the first word, and when writing the first word or paragraph of anything one doesn't usually have it formatted well in the mind. Thus Crowley could have been afraid of not capturing it all, of the document length or pace, and starting right at the page edge could be a natural inclination of him "wanting to capture it all," of carefulness, eagerness, etc. This also perhaps accounts for starting the word "The" after "Had!" very close to the word. Lastly, it would fit Hadit as the point being really tiny.
What are the views concerning it as a cosmological/magickal formula? Making sense of it may help to prove the likelihood of the first verse as it is being correct, or not. Without "Had!" I find it kind of takes away a "Big Bang" type origin from point outwards, to give way to a more "goddess as pangenitor" aspect, or a mother all-begetter--that Nuit simply appears. However I think the wording of the first verses of the other two chapters makes it likely that the first chapter should bear the same formula, to make it tri-une:
I:1 "Had! the manifestation of Nuit."
II:1 "Nu! the hiding of Hadit."
III:1 "Abrahadabra! the reward of Ra-Hoor-Khuit."I:1 The All (Nuit) only appears to the One (Had as point, separation, or individuality). If one was the all, there would be no duality and thus no conception of self at all it seems: one only sees the all when one is not the all, thus when one is Had one sees Nuit as the verse indicates.
II:1 One experiences the gnosis of the all (Nu) when one is "not-one", when Had as the separateness of individual identity hides.
III:1 The dual opposites of Hadit and Nuit create the universe of space and time and resolve their diversity in a third perspective that transcends both.
I believe that is the general formula, my point is that it seems necessarily triune: that two opposites are resolved in a third. I am fairly open on the issue though.
-
I may be way off here, and correct me if I'm wrong but I've often speculated back to my first reading of LL that Nu and Had where written to understand how to pronounce Nuit and Hadit. Is it pronounced New-it or NU (new)? Ha dit or HAD? (Someone once mentioned to me that Nuit is Nut and is pronounced that way but I could never reconcile it with Hadit.) So I've read it both ways (Nu or Nuit) but if there is an official ruling I would certainly like to know it.
-
@peregrinus93 said
"Sure, the book does instruct that the original in the handwriting of the Beast be included... but what value have we seen in this, other than providing the fuel for vast debates and (at least what appear to be) distractions from the Work?"
Well, without the original manuscript, it's possible that "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality" may have been lost. Which would be a shame since it's quite fascinating, both in itself and as a "translation" of the continuity...body text that it got replaced with.
Without the watchful eye of the original manuscript, there may have been other shenanigans (like 4th chapters, "an it harm none," etc.) getting quietly lumped into the Book, too.
Steve
-
How do you correlate the 3 personas to the 3 veils of the negative? I've been considering it, along with how the word formula may indicate it.
One possibility is:
- Nuit
- Hadit
- Ra-Hoor-Khuit
This is the sequential arrangement of Liber Legis, which is significant. There are a few keys:
*Hadit says he is "not extended" which is a synonym for AIN SVP as "no limit"--but the real intent is to say he is actually of no circumference.
*Nuit calls him her Lord, and there is instruction to worship the Khabs as the deepest part, or root of gnosis.
*Nuit says "sixty-one the Jews call it", not "sixty-one the Jews call me."If we look into the threefold formula, and go by the first words, we get:
-
Had
-
Nu
-
Abrahadabra (RHK)
-
Ain: The pure Ain may be Hadit as condensed nothingness, the Black Flame, etc. as the dimensionless point. Hadit is also at the center of Abrahadabra. Just as the line in III:47 cuts through all, it seems Hadit as the deepest negative would be the pure Ain. The actual first word of Liber Legis is "Had!"
-
Ain Soph: Ain Soph as "no limit" or "without limit" may better imply Nuit as the infinite circumference of the circle.
-
Ain Soph Aur: Symbolizes the Solar Glory of RHK well as "Light without limit". Abra-had-abra is triune which mirrors Ain-Soph-Aur; it is pretty likely RHK is here.
The circle of No Limit, Ain Soph, seems more female than the single Ain. This is indicated number wise as well where the circle is even and the point in it is odd, thus 6+1 = 7; 12 + 1 = 13; 36+1 = 37; 72+1 = 73; 360+1 = 361. Interestingly 361 = MONAS in Greek, the monad (also interesting as an anagram of MASON per the U.S. Seal).
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"How do you correlate the 3 personas to the 3 veils of the negative?"
They're all forms of Zero. I equate them all equally to Nuit.
Hadit is the indivisible point - therefore, Kether, a particular point distinguished from the undifferentiated infinite.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit is then the entire Tree that extends forth from that one intersection of the Circumference (womb) and Center (seed).
-
@Oliver P said
"AC was honest about the fact that some passages in Liber Legis were added or changed later - for example, the "five-pointed star" passage and the one written in "whiter words"."
agreed. this is an obvious contradiction to the portion stipulating no changes, thus disclosing the corruption of the Scribe and his overall unreliability.@Oliver P said
"However, I can't find any comment on the obviously different character of the first word of the book, "Had!" It is written outside the margin of the rest of the page and in a somewhat "heavier" hand, possibly with a different pen."
I don't know how you evaluated a different pen, but it is definitely outside the otherwise fairly consistent margin and definitely heavier of hand (compare the 'Hadit' on the same page).@Oliver P said
"Is there an "official" explanation of this? ..."
apparently the "official" explanation is that it didn't happen. why any official explanation should be believed is quite another matter. religious cover up things all the time in order to bolster the reputation or august state/condition/authority of their heros.this is, by the way, the precise explanation for "to what end?". a hefty emphasis and cosmic importance is sometimes ascribed ("prophet of the Aeon", "Magus", etc.) to religious or occult persons, and this individual in particular, due to his skill with the English language. at times, such persons distract the cultists who follow them and their successors for decades, obsessing on their words.
pointing out the errancies and lack of integrity of the presumed religious authorities with respect to their 'important' scripture lends reason to doubt their authority or condition, and this may assist the impressionable. one might also evaluate the religious figure's confessions, disclosures of being repeatedly under the influence of intoxicants and recreational substances, and of being a racist and a sexist individual, so as to size him up as insufficiently mature or (in the language of Hermetics and occultism) 'advanced' (/initiated; despite his claims to the contrary) to merit further attention. the obvious 'spiritual value' which comes from such exposures is that wasted time on the perplexed who are not genuinely of the mystical state they claim or are touted as having by their misguided followers might be minimized.