Changing the styles of letters in CCXX

Mike

"My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit."

I:36.

Also:

"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."

I:54.

Also also:

"54. Nor shall they who cry aloud their folly that thou meanest nought avail; thou shall reveal it: thou availest: they are the slaves of because: They are not of me. The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!"

II:54.

That's 3 places in Liber Legis where Crowley (and us, by extension) is admonished not to change anything... and yet, weren't capitals in letters changed from the original manuscript? Jim, I know that you reverted the verses back to their original forms in your interpretation of the Book.

Can you or anyone else comment on the validity of the published version(s) of Liber Legis that are not exactly identical to the manuscript? I just want to understand this apparent disregard Crowley had for the instructions of the Book that he received in the first place. The Book seems to be telling me that Crowley was wrong in changing anything.

93, 93/93.

Mike

I will when I have the time to go digging, and I'll post them.

93, 93/93.

TheSilent1

I happen to know that the in latest OTO "initiation" copy of of Liber Al some of the handwritten portions of the text were "shopped" to make them more readable. Never could quite figure out how one of the more fundamentalist thelemic groups would do something like that.

Mike

Since I cannot find any other site that catalogues changes in Liber Legis, and since this method is far faster than attempting to read Crowley's frantic script (I am abysmal at reading script even when it's neat), I am digging through Jim's interpretation of Liber Legis and picking out spots where he mentions reverting the verse back to its original form (as opposed to the form in most published versions). I am going in order, posting as I see new examples.

I am excluding changes of only punctuation because we are given explicit permission in Liber Legis to put the stops as we will.

(This post is explicitly just a list. I am not necessarily trying to imply anything, only give the best list of changes that I can come up with.)

Note: everything in bold is emphasis I added unless otherwise stated.

I:20 -

"The key of the rituals is in the Secret word which I have given unto him

“secret” to “Secret,” in accordance with the original ms. I should reconsider this verse to see if this makes it look any different to me.] "

I:49 -

"Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods and let Asar be with Isa who also are one. But they are not of me[.] Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the Sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating.

"sufferer" to "Sufferer," in accordance with the original ms. There are other punctuation changes that I have today made, for similar conformation. This verse should be meditated upon anew to see if this seems to change anything.] "

I:62 -

"At all my meetings with you shall the priestess say — and her eyes shall burn with desire as she stands bare and rejoicing in my Secret Temple — To me! To me! calling forth the flame of the hearts of all in her love-chant.

NOTE: I have capitalized** "Secret Temple"** to conform to the original manuscript."

II:64 -

"Oh! thou art overcome: we are upon thee our delight is all over thee: hail! hail! prophet of Nu prophet of Had prophet of Ra-Hoor-Khu! Now rejoice! now come in our Splendour & rapture! Come in our passionate peace, & write sweet words for the Kings
[...]
N.B. 7/5/95 EV. I have conformed this verse to the original manuscript in terms of punctuation, and have also capitalized “Splendour” in accordance therewith."

And I found nothing in Chapter 3, as Jim's online copy of his interpretation leaves most of Chapter 3 alone.

I am just trying to understand what appears to be Crowley directly contradicting the instructions of this Book and constructing the version of Liber Legis that is the one sold in bookstores all over the place.

93, 93/93.

Mike

Very good arguments Blythe. (I am very glad to see that my skepticism is beginning to rub off on you! )

I have a new theory that developed today - the theory goes something like this:

Liber Legis is expression from/through the Holy Guardian Angel (or at least He delivered it). It is a path connecting the Angel and the reader. The path exists, and it is supra-rational. Everything else is more or less irrelevant as long as one can walk that path to the Angel.

(I am finding it very hard to find remotely adequate language to explain what I am trying to say.)

I guess what I mean is: The Book is a genuine key to unlock the doors to the Angel because of where it came from. Nit-picking is missing out on the forest and only seeing the markings on individual trees.
I can only guess then that the Book warns against changes so that others will not try to edit it to the point of warping that key completely out of shape.
Then again though, it did give explicit instruction in Chapter 3 that it should be translated into other languages, and translation is more of an art than a science...

I am still very interested on everyone's thoughts, though. (Especially on my abysmal attempt at explaining my theory, which is more of an intuition than anything else.)

93, 93/93.

[edited slightly for technicalities]

Takamba

I will add my thought that I disagree perfectly concerning the capitalization of the letter S. I have gone over my copy of the manuscript and there are many many many exact S shapes that are not capitalized (such as "and the work of the sword"). Does Jim capitalize that too?

If I were to identify that particular shape of an S as being definitely upper case, then the eleven words of our Law should be written: Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law.

Of course, this is coming from not having seen Jim's work on this except for what you show me. If he did all those changes consistently, maybe there's merit.

Mike

Thank you for the thoughts Takamba. I just (with great difficulty) tracked down some of these "s"-related capitalization changes, and I do agree with what I see so far on Jim's part: I think that I:20 and I:49 clearly involve capital S shapes, discernible compared to the size of the rest of the word but not necessarily when compared to other S shapes (the size of his writing is not perfectly consistent it seems, so a capital S in one area is the size of a small s in another area).

I just thought of something, and I don't feel I should start a whole new thread just for this: does anyone know where the actual manuscript for Liber Legis ended up, or who has it?

93, 93/93.

edit: I personally disagree with the instance of "shall" you mention - the S is placed below the other letters, though bigger, and doesn't rise above them as clearly as the L in "Law" does... although, now looking at it, the T in "thou" looks to me like a capital T...

Jim Eshelman

The original manuscript is owned by O.T.O. and is kept in a secure location.

I'll give a few examples of my thinking on the specific passages you listed. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

In verse 1:20, the "S" looks distinctly larger, and specifically the size of a capital letter.
[attachment=3:1jhzcxuk]1-20.JPG[/attachment:1jhzcxuk]
In 1:49, the "S" in "Sufferer" appears to be a capital - contrast it in size to the two different styles of "s" in "secret" and "splendour."
[attachment=2:1jhzcxuk]1-49.JPG[/attachment:1jhzcxuk]
In 1:62, "Secret Temple" appears to me to be capitalized.
[attachment=1:1jhzcxuk]1-62.JPG[/attachment:1jhzcxuk]
In 2:64, the "S" in "Splendour" is larger than the "s" in "sweet," and appaers to be a capital.
[attachment=0:1jhzcxuk]2-64.JPG[/attachment:1jhzcxuk]

Mike

Thank you for the post Jim. I do agree with you - all the instances of the letter S that you posted do appear to be capitals. From what we know, did Crowley think he was editing/changing/"correcting" the capitalization, or did he see all of those "uppercase letters," as we call them, as lower-case?

93, 93/93.

Jim Eshelman

He never said AFAIK.

gmugmble

In the manuscript of CCXX, the letter S comes in a variety of sizes and shapes (or I suppose I should say, styles), and I don't think it's always clear-cut whether an upper or lower case S was intended. No doubt that's one reason photocopies of the original are to be made available.

At the risk of opening a can of S-shaped worms, I wonder what difference an upper or lower case letter would make to your interpretation of a verse.

nigris

E6

@Ash said

"...I:36. ... I:54. ... II:54. ...That's 3 places in Liber Legis where Crowley (and us, by extension) is admonished not to change anything... and yet, weren't capitals in letters changed from the original manuscript?"
there is a world of difference between changing the actual manuscript and providing a variant (/corrected) typescript. one may argue that:

it is the Scribe who is being informed not to change the letters (in value/style); he and/or others inferred or were told it also applied to others. Crowley installed his Class to the docs, and this might easily be seen as an action completely outside the authority of the scripture itself.
an addition (such as a "Had!" or with "and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law") might qualify as 'not changing any of the letters'). it might also be understood to change the value of the sentence (especially in the latter case) into which it is (very obviously, and probably later) inserted. the same might also be said about the words provided by Soror Ouarda afterwards.
an adjustment (such as to the Tzaddi) could easily be seen as 'completing the letter's proper style' rather than 'changing the style', and by this method allow for 'correction' which complies with the apparent direction by the source supposed.

and yet all of these might also be supposed seals on a perfect document. what happens with Liber CCXX thereafter need not in any way concern us. that is, whether someone properly conveys the reality of the original manuscript in typescript may be ruled as uncontrolled by the original sources of the document as rendered by the Scribe and his angel, thus supposed.

"Jim, I know that you reverted the verses back to their original forms in your interpretation of the Book."
where is this interpretation to be found? online? {edit: found it here! aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm }

"Can you or anyone else comment on the validity of the published version(s) of Liber Legis that are not exactly identical to the manuscript?"
arguably Liber L vel Legis (XXXI) is the manuscript (and the focus of solidification) and Liber Al vel Legis (CCXX) is the typescript and what proceeds in publishing from this (being uncontrolled by any).

"I just want to understand this apparent disregard Crowley had for the instructions of the Book that he received in the first place. The Book seems to be telling me that Crowley was wrong in changing anything."
'changing anything', as i hope that i've demonstrated above, doesn't seem like a proper evaluation of the direction. whatever is deemed the focus of restraint, additions were made to the manuscript, and one (Hebrew) letter may well have been rewritten. does this constitute 'changing the style or value of a letter'? shortly thereafter the manuscript was photographed so as to provide a standard by which to assess the form and content. publishing this has had the effect of helping to stabilize the cult in its wake. where the process of reception ends and the process of promulgation begins was decided upon by the Beast and his Scarlet Woman. this seems proper given their role with respect to the event. who or what body might want to tweak the typescript interpretation of the scripture thereafter is another matter. it should prove valuable to consult versions of the typescript which were approved as accurate by the Beast himself, and compare this with anything else. perhaps this was done in Red Flame Volume 8.

E666

nigris

@Jim Eshelman said

" {to Ash} ...I'll give a few examples of my thinking on the specific passages you listed. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. {1:20, ...1:49, ...1:62, ...2:64..."
and what do you think about the following?

I.37 &quot;and the work of the sword&quot;; sword=&gt; Sword.

I.40 &quot;Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.&quot;; shall=&gt; Shall.

are there others which seem arguable as well?

Alrah

It's actually remiss of me as a cryptographer, but I have to confess that I have not yet checked the capitalisation frequency of Liber AL vel Legis. [Or maybe I did years ago and got nowhere? I shall have to revisit the matter.]

I note, however (for the sake of completeness) - that the capitalised word 'Splendour' in III, 74 is a part of the Lost Word Cipher.

Copied here from the 'Let it fill me' FB page:

93, For those interested in finding the famous 'Lost Word' that Crowley found in 1900 and claimed was in Liber AL vel Legis; have a good look at the penultimate verse of Chapter III.

III,74 - There is a splendour in my name hidden and glorious, as the sun of midnight is ever the son.

The key words here are: Splendour which in hebrew is HD, and Glorious which in the Hebrew is ADAR. The only letter left out of the cipher Abrahadabra is a 'B.

When we rearrange the letters of HD, ADAR & B we can get 'BaraHDD' which is 'created Hadad' and when we place the Name on the 7 sephiroth of the Merkabah Temple arrangement, then it symbolizes that 'AL (or EL) created Hadad'.

It's commonly accepted these days that the widely worshiped God in the ancient near east - Hadad (a.k.a Ba'al) was the original Yahweh (Yahweh just means 'I am that I am'). But the biblical writers of the J source went and changed his name, for reasons that we can only speculate upon today. Thus, the name was lost until 1900 when Aleister Crowley found it again.

He wrote of the discovery in Confessions saying:

"As I lay one night sleepless, in meditation, bitter and eager, upon this mystery I was suddenly stabbed to the soul by a suggestion so simple, yet so stupendous, that I was struck into shuddering silence for I know not how long before I could bring myself to switch on the electric light and snatch my notebook.

At the first trial the solution sprang like sunlight in my spirit. I remained all that night in an ecstasy of awe and adoration. I had discovered the lost Word!"

Without intimate knowledge of all of the ciphers and cryptography set into Liber AL vel Legis, then we just cannot judge what effect any change will have upon secrets that Crowley concealed in the book. Do you think Bill Breeze has uncovered all the books hidden secrets? I don't.

More information about Aleister Crowley and the Lost Word can be found here: www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/the-temple-of-solomon-the-lost-word-and-the-key-of-it-all

93's!

nigris

thank you, Alrah, for your posting.

@Alrah said

"It's actually remiss of me as a cryptographer, but I have to confess that I have not yet checked the capitalisation frequency of Liber AL vel Legis. {Or maybe I did years ago and got nowhere? I shall have to revisit the matter.}"
should you do so, please let me know. I'd like to try to make note of all possible ambiguities in this regard.

"...capitalised word 'Splendour' in III, 74 is a part of the Lost Word Cipher. ..."
thanks!

"...Without intimate knowledge of all of the ciphers and cryptography set into Liber AL vel Legis, then we just cannot judge what effect any change will have upon secrets that Crowley concealed in the book...."
very interesting. like a documentarian, neither am i concerned (have no evidence to suggest) that any such "secrets" exist inherent to that work, nor do i think that cultic variation in their published forms will have any lasting effect on the world. my role is to get all the data of import to those who say that they have a vested interest in learning about the origins and reality of the document, from a general description of its originating event and how this affected it through to its manuscript and typescript forms complete with relevant commentaries. after that, the slaves shall serve and as brothers fight ye.

Los

@nigris said

"my role is [...]"

As long as you're shaing your "role" with everyone, perhaps you might explain why on earth you've been bumping threads from 5-8 years ago.

Is there any particular point to this?

Frater 639

@Los said

"
@nigris said
"my role is [...]"

As long as you're shaing your "role" with everyone, perhaps you might explain why on earth you've been bumping threads from 5-8 years ago.

Is there any particular point to this?"

Well, it seems he's reviving material that relates directly to the BOL. Fascinating that this interest coincides with the discussed change to the original text?

Also, there is a resource listed on the tagline that seems to be devoted to many published aspects of the BOL...

Drawing my own conclusions, I would say it may have something to do with compiling all possible resources and information about the BOL for archival purposes (and possibly other purposes as well). Admirable Work, IMHO.

Jason R

Who here said, "screw it, I'm going to write my own text based on the ms"?

This brings up a good question.

The Book says we are to each interpret the book for ourselves; and so would this apply to how we interpret these "capitals" and even what translation of the paraphrase to use? Would it be wrong for each individual to transcribe his OWN personal Liber Legis based on the original writing of the Beast? Perhaps this is what is meant about it being translated into "all tongues"; it may not mean languages, but each persons "tongue", or how each interprets this writing of the Beast? The whole problem of "changes" would be eliminated, and literally be in alignment with the teachings of the Book of the Law, if everyone literally decided for him or herself what AC "wrote", and made their own master copy based upon the ms.

Could this work?

nigris

@Jason R said

"Who here said, "screw it, I'm going to write my own text based on the ms"?"
neat option. if you care about any of these things, there's a range of options available to the liberated.

follow the dictates of your master, superior, or teacher in your cult;
follow the recommendations of your favourite source from outside a tradition;
focus on the 'essence' of the Lawbook by some measure (centering on the manuscript, Liber XXXI, and what it appears to say, even about itself; getting a complete picture of what the prophet intended; somehow communing with the messenger angel, the priest of the princes, or the gods Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit; invoking the spirit of the manuscript; etc.);
focus on the 'intended' product(s) beyond the manuscript, Liber CCXX (and possibly on what those who brought them to you, such as the Beast, Grant/Symonds, Regardie, Motta, Heidrick, Hymenaeus Beta, or nigris, have to say about the meaning);
focus on your own intuition or True Will and play it all by ear without much thought or energy put into understanding how these words originate;
use bibliomancy to consult without care for peripherals;
duplicate the process, write your own Lawbook, and possibly use one of the above with that.

" ...The Book says we are to each interpret the book for ourselves; and so would this apply to how we interpret these "capitals" and even what translation of the paraphrase to use?"
demonstrate that the book says this by quoting it and i'll try to come up with an interpretation for you or agree with you that this is what it means. note that "The Comment" is not part of the Book, so referred.

it would be helpful to ask about the meaning of particular text with a premise that you would like to interpret it as a direction from a particular authority (say, Nuit) to a particular audience (say, the sincere and devoted reader of the scripture as a devotee of the cultus, maybe outside social circles).

"Would it be wrong for each individual to transcribe his OWN personal Liber Legis based on the original writing of the Beast?"
according to the Book itself, it does not appear so.

"Perhaps this is what is meant about it being translated into "all tongues"; it may not mean languages, but each persons "tongue", or how each interprets this writing of the Beast?"
that's one of the fun things about disjointed or expositorily variant Magic Books: it begins to become difficult to interpret with any certitude. this is why there is emphasis on the interpretation of the writing by the Scribe or some representative of the religious cult: so as to constrain to intended norms the conclusions drawn from it. the characteristic of oracular text with myriad facets plays off against the desires of herd(s) to reach expressions of will and enterprise.

it seems to me very unlikely that 'tongues' implied personal lexicons. I suggest, from a very conservative Thelemic vantage point, that you consult the Old Comment and New Comment of the Beast on this (III:47) portion of the scripture to get the most likely meaning, rather than wild speculation. for example, try here: book-of-the-law.com/#VIII47

"The whole problem of "changes" would be eliminated, and literally be in alignment with the teachings of the Book of the Law, if everyone literally decided for him or herself what AC "wrote", and made their own master copy based upon the ms. Could this work?"
sounds GREAT!, and it seems very nicely to fit into the 'Do what thou wilt' type of mentality as long as you follow it from a liberated or libertine standpoint (not all do, to be sure). good luck!!

nigris

@Frater 639 said

"
@Los said
"...why on earth you've been bumping threads from 5-8 years ago. ..."
...something to do with compiling all possible resources and information about the BOL for archival purposes (and possibly other purposes as well). Admirable Work, IMHO."
thank you kindly. I described something alike to this within #3 at this post: <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?p=82185#p82185">viewtopic.php?p=82185#p82185</a>

I am I!