Missing Verse Numbers
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I have a question about Liber Al regarding the original Ms. In the first chapter there appears to be no verse numbers! Is this so? When then were the verse numbers determend and added? Isn't this changing the original by adding numbers; or at least segregating the words into verses perhaps not originally intended?
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Takamba said
""The stops as thou wilt;""
93
I thought that pertained to the punctuation? Isnt the numerical values and verse grouping a little more than punctuation? Not saying thats not right, sort of makes sense. But with setting these numbers it seems to sort of set these in stone, vs punctuation which can be a bit easier to "change" or interpret.
93 93/93
-
@gmugmble said
"
@Takamba said
""The stops as thou wilt;"""Stop" is (or was, back in the old 20th century) the ordinary British word for a punctuation mark."
93
Which I THINK supports my question. Is verse numbers punctuation? My concern is, for example, that for years I never realized that the first chapter was devoid of verse numbers and so should be considered as punctuation or at the mercy of these "stops". What makes for yet more confusion is the fact the other chapters DO have verse numbers, and so are NOT up for debate etc. If I didn't know that this was the case, then many others do not realize this either. How do we expect anyone to examine these verses etc., without this knowledge? How do we play then with these "stops" for verses? Can we honestly then say there are 220 verses in Liber Al??
93 93/93
-
All three were originally devoid of verse numbers - not just the first chapter.
I do see your point. OTOH, I don't have a big objection to Crowley having numbered these - it doesn't set off any intuitive alarm bells.
And, in my own exploration of the book, the verse numbers have explosively seemed the real key to the book - verse by verse, 22 separate 10-verse sephirothic patterns that unlock dozens of verses in very significant ways. This is so significant that I can't be made to mind the prophet (and only true witness to the reception, the only participant, and the one who made the original lineation and paragraph breaks) numbering the verses.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"All three were originally devoid of verse numbers - not just the first chapter.
I do see your point. OTOH, I don't have a big objection to Crowley having numbered these - it doesn't set off any intuitive alarm bells.
And, in my own exploration of the book, the verse numbers have explosively seemed the real key to the book - verse by verse, 22 separate 10-verse sephirothic patterns that unlock dozens of verses in very significant ways. This is so significant that I can't be made to mind the prophet (and only true witness to the reception, the only participant, and the one who made the original lineation and paragraph breaks) numbering the verses."
93
Im glad to hear from you about this Jim, because I have saw your method of catagorizing the verses. I always refer to your commentary and find it very helpful and insightful. So, I agree with you. Non the less I'm now even MORE flabberghasted at realizing ALL the verses were un-numbered! I agree there is some comfort in Crowley handling these "stops" and the many significant findings that help confirm the verse numbers; yet for some reason I feel uneasy these are "up for grabs" so to speak. Somehow I've come to view these as written in stone, and I feel the foundation has now shifted beneath my feet. Even though I know most of these are probably correct, I also know these are open for debate ultimately, which I feel chsnges a lot somehow.
Also, what of the knowledge of this fact not being a bit more evident to the new reader? Shouldn't it be made clear these are at least to some degree open? I find it rather strange this hasn't been brought up more in commentaries, mostly AC. I would assume he would look at the possibilities of this numbering as well in trying to unlock mysteries.
93 93/93
-
Here is a snippet from my essay on the subject (not quite finished):
Verse numbers were not written at the time of the reception of Liber Legis, but it is clear from the way it was received that it is meant to have verses. This is evidenced by the fact that a new page line of writing is started when there is still ample space left on the line above to start a new sentence. This pattern persists throughout all three chapters of Liber Legis. This allows certainty as to where one verse ends and another begins in many cases. Where the proper versing becomes ambiguous is when there is no space left in a page line, and a sentence’s beginning occurs immediately in the line below it. When this occurs it cannot be proven by this reasoning alone whether that sentence is part of the same verse, or the beginning of a new one—and indeed there is no way to ultimately prove such one way or the other. It is up to the individual to decide upon what is most likely the correct versing of Liber Legis, and in many cases it is tough to make a solid guess. I have summed up my own preferences and thoughts in the pages ahead, often using grammatometria to inform my decision. What is clear is that Crowley’s versing for the first chapter of Liber Legis is incorrect. He makes three blatant, forced versing errors. These are:- His verses 12 & 13 should be the same verse, as “I am above you...” occurs on the same page line as “...& take your fill of love.” Here Crowley splits the same page line up into two separate verses.
- His verse 22 should be two separate verses, as there is an obvious page line break between “knoweth me” and “Since I am Infinite Space and the Infinite...” Here Crowley ignores a page line break.
- His verses 28 & 29 should be the same verse, as “For I am divided...” occurs on the same page line as “...the stars, and two.” Here Crowley splits the same page line up into two separate verses.
Like Jim, I believe occult inspiration allowed Crowley to ascertain the correct number of verses as 220 (although 221 would be interesting as the sum of the svastika on the Mars square), but I think there are definitely errors within his schema. My newest observation is to get rid of that "for why" verse (his II:13), since the period after "not" is in pencil, to read: "Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me." To make up for it, I separate "Behold! the rituals of the old time are black!" into a separate verse [On the first page of the other two chapters, any ambiguous versing is always separated into separate verses except this one].
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"Here is a snippet from my essay on the subject (not quite finished):
Verse numbers were not written at the time of the reception of Liber Legis, but it is clear from the way it was received that it is meant to have verses. This is evidenced by the fact that a new page line of writing is started when there is still ample space left on the line above to start a new sentence. This pattern persists throughout all three chapters of Liber Legis. This allows certainty as to where one verse ends and another begins in many cases. Where the proper versing becomes ambiguous is when there is no space left in a page line, and a sentence’s beginning occurs immediately in the line below it. When this occurs it cannot be proven by this reasoning alone whether that sentence is part of the same verse, or the beginning of a new one—and indeed there is no way to ultimately prove such one way or the other. It is up to the individual to decide upon what is most likely the correct versing of Liber Legis, and in many cases it is tough to make a solid guess. I have summed up my own preferences and thoughts in the pages ahead, often using grammatometria to inform my decision. What is clear is that Crowley’s versing for the first chapter of Liber Legis is incorrect. He makes three blatant, forced versing errors. These are:- His verses 12 & 13 should be the same verse, as “I am above you...” occurs on the same page line as “...& take your fill of love.” Here Crowley splits the same page line up into two separate verses.
- His verse 22 should be two separate verses, as there is an obvious page line break between “knoweth me” and “Since I am Infinite Space and the Infinite...” Here Crowley ignores a page line break.
- His verses 28 & 29 should be the same verse, as “For I am divided...” occurs on the same page line as “...the stars, and two.” Here Crowley splits the same page line up into two separate verses.
Like Jim, I believe occult inspiration allowed Crowley to ascertain the correct number of verses as 220 (although 221 would be interesting as the sum of the svastika on the Mars square), but I think there are definitely errors within his schema. My newest observation is to get rid of that "for why" verse (his II:13), since the period after "not" is in pencil, to read: "Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me." To make up for it, I separate "Behold! the rituals of the old time are black!" into a separate verse [On the first page of the other two chapters, any ambiguous versing is always separated into separate verses except this one]."
Don't ask me to argue my point tonight, as I am not sober. But intuitively I don't agree with your idea. You contradict yourself twice in only four paragraphs.
But let me say that my personal take is that I do not care for the verse numbers. To me, Liber Legis is a song. I do not sing verse numbers.
-
Wizardiaoan,
93
Thank you for your thoughts. I do agree with the general idea; I personally haven't taken much time to really reach any sort of view yet. I just recently realized that these verses were not numbered; I'm surprised somehow I missed it over the years. That alone may suggest that its the flowing beauty of the verses themselves which are ultimately the most important, however I do feel there is some important aspects to the numbers of the verses. Jim has seemed to point out some really interesting divisions showing a reflection of sephirah. It seems likely it would reflect this 220, and of course Crowley penning these numbers himself it would stand to reason it is correct. I think I recall that at a particular grade anything written is "correct" or in other words it is ordained or what not. I was thrown though reakizing this, and it still makes me scratch my head how ive never heard a peep about it in any commentaries etc. I would assume even Crowley himself would question these, or at least toy with possibilities.
93 93/93
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"...My newest observation is to get rid of that "for why" verse (his II:13), since the period after "not" is in pencil, to read: "Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me." To make up for it, I separate "Behold! the rituals of the old time are black!" into a separate verse [On the first page of the other two chapters, any ambiguous versing is always separated into separate verses except this one]."
the general evaluation you've provided already to my knowledge (it is not my aim to keep things at 220):
(I)
12/13 combination - reduces one verse.
22 split - adds another verse.
28/29 combination - reduces one verse.(II)
5 split - adds another vers.
12/13 combination - reduces one verse.
70 split - adds another verse.
75/76 combination - reduces one verse.still yielding a total of 219.
see previous: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3470&hilit=Liber+AL+vel+Legis">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3470&hilit=Liber+AL+vel+Legis</a><!-- l -->
-
No verse numbers were in the original. ALL were added later.
They were added by the prophet. I'm not inclined to mess with that.
On a separate matter, I do have reason to hold to the 220 exactly. I think that the versification is basic to an underlying 10 x 22 architecture of the book. However, that's almost a digression of the above since, even if that weren't the case, I'd still not want to mess with how the prophet numbered the verses after the fact. (I regard versification as reasonably subsumed within "space marks," which he was given distinct authority over.)
