Liber L or Liber AL
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Exactly. He heard the sound "el," and took it to mean the letter L. An alternate view, later accepted, was that it was the Hebrew God-name El, spelled Aleph Lamed.
And then, hearing this, he wrote down L.
I know Crowley subsequently believed AL ("El") was the name of the book, as stated in the quoted commentary. My point is that, in doing this, he's breaking The Book's own rule, which he otherwise honors: Don't change so much as the style of a letter."
How can you say that he otherwise honors this? Nuit's star, the pentagram with red, is written in later by Rose. In one part he crosses out 'the non atomic fact of my universality' or something and replaces it with 'consciousness of the continuity...' Also, the Tzaddi symbol looks like it was written over once and maybe even twice. There are many other small changes. It seems he not only changed the style of a letter but inserted entire phrases. If he changed this and it still stands, why would one letter on the title page not be changed, especially if the change illuminates many passages of Liber Legis?
-
@aum418 said
"How can you say that he otherwise honors this? Nuit's star, the pentagram with red, is written in later by Rose."
Those were sections that were incomplete, and her input (on the same day as the dictation or very nearly) was part of the original taking down of the manuscript. That's different from, years later, changing something that was taken down and presumed complete in the original.
"Also, the Tzaddi symbol looks like it was written over once and maybe even twice. There are many other small changes."
I'm unaware of any that were made after the original dictation other than those completions provided by the Scarlet Woman immediately after. (Exception: Adding in pencil punctuation and line numbers, consistent with the instructions.) All of the Tzaddi overstrokes appear to be with the same pen, so it seems more likely they were all done on the same occasion.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@aum418 said
"How can you say that he otherwise honors this? Nuit's star, the pentagram with red, is written in later by Rose."Those were sections that were incomplete, and her input (on the same day as the dictation or very nearly) was part of the original taking down of the manuscript. That's different from, years later, changing something that was taken down and presumed complete in the original."
Firstly, how can you claim that 1) Rose dictated these on the same or very nearly the same day and that 2) somehow her dictation is 'part of the original manuscript'? Is it even known whether Rose was in the room at the time of the dictation of the Book? If she was, she could hear an audible voice? If not, how could she possibly fill in the spaces? Is she even remotely qualified to write in lines, with absolutely zero training in magick or yoga? There are too many holes for my liking.
To me, this is a blatant disregard of the 'change not the style of a letter' injunction.
"
"Also, the Tzaddi symbol looks like it was written over once and maybe even twice. There are many other small changes."I'm unaware of any that were made after the original dictation other than those completions provided by the Scarlet Woman immediately after. (Exception: Adding in pencil punctuation and line numbers, consistent with the instructions.) All of the Tzaddi overstrokes appear to be with the same pen, so it seems more likely they were all done on the same occasion."
I am not sure how you can be sure that the Tzaddi overstrokes are with the same pen (couldnt the same pen touch the same paper at different times as well).
Further, how can you count the title page as part of the dictation although it obviously is not part of the actual dictation which starts with 'Had' and ends with 'Ha'? Are all the drawings and the note that Liber L is an example of 'automatic writing' also part of the manuscript? These look they were done 'with the same pen'...
-
@aum418 said
"Firstly, how can you claim that 1) Rose dictated these on the same or very nearly the same day and that 2) somehow her dictation is 'part of the original manuscript'?"
It was always held by AC as part of the original dictation. It was a team effort. She'd been in psychic content with those transmitting the dictation, she set the criteria for the ritual he performed at the Equinox of the Gods, and she told him how to receive the dictation. He then fully accepted her completion of the manuscript on those two place IIRC that he didn't get the words.
"Is it even known whether Rose was in the room at the time of the dictation of the Book?]"
Actually, we know she wasn't. Crowley described this in Equinox of the Gods. Probably because of her psychic connection, he accepted, her input.
"Is she even remotely qualified to write in lines, with absolutely zero training in magick or yoga?"
Crowley regarded her as so qualified based on the tests of her psychic abilities he'd previously made. Liber Legis was brought through by the two of them, not just by Aleister.
"To me, this is a blatant disregard of the 'change not the style of a letter' injunction."
And yet, to Crowley, it was part of receiving the original document.
"I am not sure how you can be sure that the Tzaddi overstrokes are with the same pen (couldnt the same pen touch the same paper at different times as well). "
Sure, if he took the Egyptian hotel's pen back to England with him. - This is easier to tell when looking at the actual original manuscript (not the reproductions of it).
"Further, how can you count the title page as part of the dictation although it obviously is not part of the actual dictation which starts with 'Had' and ends with 'Ha'?"
You're making an interpretation of the beginning and end. The title was dictated beginning at noon on April 8, 1904. It is page one of the original manuscript.
"Are all the drawings and the note that Liber L is an example of 'automatic writing' also part of the manuscript? These look they were done 'with the same pen'..."
I'm pretty sure those were doodles after the fact - though that's a guess. Not all are the same pen (IIRC some are in pencil). Probably done soon after, but hard to tell how soon. (I don't have any of that stuff in front of me here at work, so I'm going from memory on the title page details.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"Is it even known whether Rose was in the room at the time of the dictation of the Book?]"
Actually, we know she wasn't. Crowley described this in Equinox of the Gods. Probably because of her psychic connection, he accepted, her input."
Just a thought I toy with from time to time.
Rose was in the room and was acting as a seer, but was fully possessed by Aiwass so she really wasn't "there" at the time.
Much like how the naked savage that attacked Neuburg in the desert was not "really" Crowley but in fact was Choronzon.
-
Hi,
I think it may be at least possible that Crowley's memory failed him concerning the title of Liber Legis. It may be that the title was not heard from Aiwass, and that Crowley simply latinized the English title for the Book that was given in the Book itself: as "the threefold book of Law" of AL I:35, & II:35 "the Book of the Law," & III:39 "this the Book of the Law." This would be Liber vel Legis in Latin. Then, perhaps thinking of a number for the Book, Crowley realized that L as Lamed = Libra basically means Law; so it could be considered Liber L, without any entity telling him so. That it is mentioned in I:35 as "the threefold book of Law" I think makes the case for possibly calling it Liber AL, as AL = 31, and 3 x 31 = 93 = Thelema in Metric Greek as "the word of the law".
Yes the fact that Crowley might not have heard the title as he said is circumstantial, I just wanted to throw it out there. I personally think it is likely myself: that the reception began with verse 1 rather than Aiwass saying "by the way, the title of this book you're about to receive is Liber El." I also personally like quoting Liber Legis as AL II:76, etc., rather than L II:76, and I think there's something to this too.
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"I think it may be at least possible that Crowley's memory failed him concerning the title of Liber Legis. It may be that the title was not heard from Aiwass, and that Crowley simply latinized the English title for the Book that was given in the Book itself..."
But the title was part of the dictation.
We have both the title page with the original manuscript, and his statement that this is how it happened.
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"Crowley simply latinized the English title for the Book that was given in the Book itself: as "the threefold book of Law" of AL I:35, & II:35 "the Book of the Law," & III:39 "this the Book of the Law." This would be Liber vel Legis in Latin."
In Latin "vel" means or not of. Book (A)L or Law.
-
@jw said
"
@Wizardiaoan said
"Crowley simply latinized the English title for the Book that was given in the Book itself: as "the threefold book of Law" of AL I:35, & II:35 "the Book of the Law," & III:39 "this the Book of the Law." This would be Liber vel Legis in Latin."In Latin "vel" means or not of. Book (A)L or Law."
Correct. But the "of" is in the conjugation of legis.
Liber L. (or El) vel Legis is thus translated, "Book L. (or El), or [Book] of the Law."
-
Yeah my bad on the "vel" part meaning "of", it is "or" which I forgot. I personally do not really like the word "vel" in its technical title for this reason, as this translates as Mr. Eshelman says into "Book L. (or El), or [Book] of the Law." I think arriving at a specific title rather making one title include 2 possibilities would be better.
One last thing I will note in my hypothesis that "maybe Crowley really didn't hear the title of Liber Legis, even though he said he did": If one would collect data from the various trance documents out there, it might be seen that most of them received only the text portions, then made up a title built around their content. This might even be the case with the majority of Crowley's other 12 Holy Books, I am not sure. I do not intend to mislead, just to throw the idea out as possible, however unlikely.
Anyone want to try to list the possible working titles for Liber Legis (even including various languages other than Latin or English)?
I think we should obviously start with how the Book of the Law names itself in English:
AL I:35: "the Book of Law"
AL II:35: "the Book of the Law"
AL III:39: "the Book of the Law"Latin:
Liber Legis "Book of Law" (Legis implying "of" in Latin as was pointed out).
Liber L "Book L" ("Liber L" is largely written on the title page of Liber Legis, with "vel Legis" written under the L, perhaps implying simply "Liber L" was Crowley's first prefered main title for it.)
Liber AL "Book AL"
Liber L Legis "Book L of Law"
Liber AL Legis "Book AL of Law"
Liber L vel Legis "Book L, Book L of Law, or Book of Law" (correct?) (This is the full title of Liber Legis upon the title page to the Book).
Liber AL vel Legis "Book AL, Book AL of Law, or Book of Law" (correct?)Hebrew? Greek? I'm not sure...
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Wizardiaoan said
"I think it may be at least possible that Crowley's memory failed him concerning the title of Liber Legis. It may be that the title was not heard from Aiwass, and that Crowley simply latinized the English title for the Book that was given in the Book itself..."But the title was part of the dictation.
We have both the title page with the original manuscript, and his statement that this is how it happened."
Where does Crowley provide details of receiving the title page as dictation? The trouble I have with believing that is the lack of care given to the title page--there are noodlings, doodlings, scribblings, and what appears to a coffee cup stain on the title page. It seems likely that Crowley received the title to the book either from Rose or through Aiwass several days prior to the actual dictation, which resulted in Crowley abusing the first blank sheet of paper in the stack that later became the manuscript.
Tim
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"Where does Crowley provide details of receiving the title page as dictation?"
I'm at work and don't have references at hand. If memory serves me correctly, he desscribes this in his commentary to the title page (which precedes his comment to Ch. 1, v. 1). And, of course, the title page is collated among his papers with the original manuscript and is at least written with the same pen and therefore probably concurrent with or very close to the same time.
"The trouble I have with believing that is the lack of care given to the title page--there are noodlings, doodlings, scribblings, and what appears to a coffee cup stain on the title page."
And he did his best for five years to completely lose the entire manuscript - short of simply tossing it in the trash.
"It seems likely that Crowley received the title to the book either from Rose or through Aiwass several days prior to the actual dictation, which resulted in Crowley abusing the first blank sheet of paper in the stack that later became the manuscript."
But you're making that up! It isn't good policy to make up stories you like better in the face of uncontroverted first person testimony on what happened.
-
I wrote:
It seems likely that Crowley received the title to the book either from Rose or through Aiwass several days prior to the actual dictation, which resulted in Crowley abusing the first blank sheet of paper in the stack that later became the manuscript.
Jim replied:
But you're making that up! It isn't good policy to make up stories you like better in the face of uncontroverted first person testimony on what happened.
I was speculating, I make no claim of certainty.
Jim wrote:
And, of course, the title page is collated among his papers with the original manuscript and is at least written with the same pen and therefore probably concurrent with or very close to the same time.
I wrote it was likely that the events unfolded as I theorized, while you wrote that the events probably unfolded as you stated. Your conclusion is just as speculative as mine based on your choice of words.
If AC provided a commentary on the cover page it should have been published along with the other commentaries. If the caretakers of the Crowley corpus were doing their jobs there would be no need for speculation.
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"If AC provided a commentary on the cover page it should have been published along with the other commentaries. If the caretakers of the Crowley corpus were doing their jobs there would be no need for speculation.
"He did - it's right where I thought it was.
From the Old Comment to CCXX (for example, Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law, p. 75), he wrote in part:
"This title should probably be AL, pronounced "EL", as the 'L' was heard to the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen."
As this is the only place in the dictation where that name is given, it's the only place he could have been referencing concerning hearing "the Voice of Aiwaz."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"From the Old Comment to CCXX (for example, Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law, p. 75), he wrote in part:
"This title should probably be AL, pronounced "EL", as the 'L' was heard to the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen."
As this is the only place in the dictation where that name is given, it's the only place he could have been referencing concerning hearing "the Voice of Aiwaz.""
I can confirm that the older (Regardie edited) version of the Law is for All contains a about 150 words of comment on the title page of the book.
Dan
-
@jw. said
" ...Crowley saw the way of the prophet as being the single most important spiritual process for every major religion. To that end, I see the point of MAGICK being the process of developing prophets. Like a prophet, you converse with Metatron (K&C), and so it should follow that one produces a book of Law."
insofar as Magick was the Path of Mysticism the Beast sought to propagate, it seems clear that the True Will, the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, and the Great Work are the primary components of it. how this manifests in any single culture, within any particular religious system, or even for any given individual, is likely to vary.@jw. said
" If this hypothesis has any validity, then perhaps by changing Liber Legis to Liber AL was secondarily to emphasize that this was only Al's Law (Al as in Aleister); the first in a series of Law to be produced by the same Prophet-Kings that the Book of the Law foretells, establishes, and speaks to. Otherwise why update L to El or AL instead of just commenting about that idea, you know, in the commentary?"
picking at scabs, healing interfered. otherwise, you're discussing religious issues which only the paltry fulcrum of faith may decide.according to the best sources in each, L and Al (or AL), their commentators, and most illuminated adepts, the resolution is contained within a single edict contained therein: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. The word of Sin is Restriction." to elaborate, choose L, choose El, choose Al, choose AL, choose Allah, choose mekka lekka hi mekka hi nee ho. use the Beast's scripture, use yours, use the sheets of your bed. if it be your True Will let none say Nay, and as kindred we'll support you in your choice.