Visions & Voices - Errata
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Since V&V was released, I've been slowly rereading it for errata. We work hard to keep mistakes from creeping in, but there are always some things that get past. You have both my personal and institutional apologies for these.
Here are the errata I've identified. As far as I know, the list is complete. If anyone has found something I've missed, please add it here - the intention is that this top post become the master errata sheet.
Prologue 2
p. 4, para 1, line 10: Add space after dash.Chapter 2
p. 46, para 3, line 4: The parenthesized alpha and beta should be italicized to be consistent with style throughout the rest of the book.
p. 78, 20th KHR should read Aeon / Fool / Moon, not Aeon / Chariot / MoonPart I: Yetzirah
p. 112, para 1, line 5: Following 20 and 21, mark should be minutes sign ' rather than rounded single smart-quote
p. 119, top half: LIXIPSL, by the gematria method, enumerates to 551, not 491. This would significantly alter the commentary midpage.
p. 119, first par.: It has been alleged that I misstated Crowley's enumeration as 533 and that it was 553 - I haven't had the chance to confirm this yet, and, in any case, that typo doesn't affect the discussion.
p. 146, horoscope: (Only an erratum because I meant something different: I meant to exclude the unnecessary Eastpoint on this chart, to sharpen the visual effect of the rising Mars.)
p. 176, Sidereal horoscope: Degree value is missing for Pluto. Should be 2°.
p. 179, line immediately above illustration: "LXXIV" should be "LXXXIV".
p. 179, next-to-last line: Hyphen should be after (to the right of) the Hebrew Aleph Lamed, not to the left.Part II: Briah
p, 266, par 1, line 5: Comma after "crosshatched" should be a semi-colon.
p. 315, comment after {13.}, next-to-last line: "He the solar" should read "He is solar".
p. 318, last line before {22.}: Add space after dash.Part III: Atziluth
p. 383, Sidereal horoscope: Minutes value of Mars is missing. Should be 05'.
p. 409, par after {31.}, line 4: Add "in" after "The Latin phrase"Appendices
pp. 533 & 535: Running heads should say "Appendix C", not "Appendix A".
p. 543, last line: The single smart-quote after 01 should be a minute symbol 'Glossary
p. 554: Three entries are not in alphabetical order: Aeon, The; Aeon, Old; and Aeon, New -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
-
93
I have question relating to the table on page 53.
BAG is attributed to Aries, Taurus, and Leo.
In Weiser's edition of Liber 418 edited by Hymenaeus Beta, letter G (ged) is attributed to Cancer not to Leo.
Crowley's commentaries seem to follow Cancer attribution (for example see footnote 1 on page 46 when he analyses letters he + vau + **chet **and gets 19 ("Eve", "to manifest", "to shew forth".)Also, in Visions & Voices letter P (mals)is attributed to Cancer but in Weiser's edition, that letter is attributed to Leo.
Again, Crowley's commentaries seem to support Leo attribution (for example see footnote 1 on page 100).So it looks as if we have two letters changed. This is quite important problem because these attributions throw light on astrological interpretation of the aethyrs.
Which edition is correct?
Yours,
93 93/93
Krzysztof -
@krzysztof said
"I have question relating to the table on page 53.
BAG is attributed to Aries, Taurus, and Leo.
In Weiser's edition of Liber 418 edited by Hymenaeus Beta, letter G (ged) is attributed to Cancer not to Leo.
Crowley's commentaries seem to follow Cancer attribution (for example see footnote 1 on page 46 when he analyses letters he + vau + **chet **and gets 19 ("Eve", "to manifest", "to shew forth".)"That point, and your further question further on about P, are addressed on p. 50 as follows:
@V&V p. 50 said
"CrazyMaker No. 2: Although Crowley knew the correct attribution of the Enochian P to Cancer (Moon waning) and G to Leo (Sun in north declination), and evidently had these clearly in mind at the time of receiving the visions published here, he reversed the attributions in his mind at the time of penning his comments. Based on evidence internal to the visions, this most likely was an error and not intentional. Therefore, his notes on any aethyr with a G or P in its name are sometimes misleading."
Also, he wasn't consistent on this G vs. P across the visions. A striking example is POP. Look across the range visions with these letters in the aethyr names and you'll see the pattern more clearly. In short: he goofed in his comments. It happens.
Aethyrs to examine with this in mind: G (Sun/Leo) appears in BAG only. P (Moon/Cancer) appers in ASP, POP, ZIP, and PAZ.
Thanks for your questions.
"Which edition is correct?"
My purpose was to present the accurate attributions, based on primary sources; in this sense, my table is 100% accurate. On the other hand, I suspect the purpose of the editors of the Weiser edition was to tabulate what was (erroneously) used by Crowley in his commentary. For that different purpose, their table is more accurate.
PS - On the issue of calculating the gematria of the names, you may wish to review my section beginning on p. 57.
-
currently reading this in conjunction with "the vision and the voice with commentary and other papers" (i.e. very s-l-o-w-l-y), i noticed that in chapter 3 - enochian magick - on page 54, regarding the calls, it says "calls 3-6 air, water, fire, earth (respectively)".
is the sixth call not assigned to the invocation of fire, not earth? -
@bdc said
"is the sixth call not assigned to the invocation of fire, not earth?"
Y'know, I think you're right. I'll double check when I get home but, from memory, I think you're right. The line should read "earth, fire," not "fire, earth."
Thanks for catching that. We'll fix it in the next printing.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"My purpose was to present the accurate attributions, based on primary sources; in this sense, my table is 100% accurate. On the other hand, I suspect the purpose of the editors of the Weiser edition was to tabulate what was (erroneously) used by Crowley in his commentary. For that different purpose, their table is more accurate."
I think the editors of the Weiser edition accept Crowley's ged - mals reversal. In the latest Weiser edition of Book 4 the reversal is reproduced. The reason is buried away in editor's note 324:
".... but the ged-mals reversal represents a substantive departure from the traditional system. Crowley's notes to Liber 418 show signs of corruption in the typescript and published editions. His original commentary is pasted into a copy of The Equinox I(5); the scholar who owns this has confirmed that it collates with the 1954 edition of the commentary. But while the letter ged only occurs once, there are too many occurances of the letter mals with the new attribution to ascribe the reversal to error. There are however four individual instances of variant attributions for other letters (one for the Enochian letters gon, ur, don and fam) which may be transcription errors. Thus, despite the small sampling of attributions in actual usage, the ged-mals reversal has been retained."
-
Thanks - and, as you probably guessed, I disagree with that. One must IMHO consider that there is inconsistency across the set of visions regarding the two reversals.
Now, I do think Crowley intentionally made the swap during one period of time. If he did, then I just have to say that he think he was wrong for doing so. Mostly, the appearances scream "mistake."
-
On page 119 of V&V there appear to be a couple of errors. First Crowley enumerated the name, LIXIPSP, as 553, not 533 as stated.
Second the name LIXIPSL is enumerated as 491 using the geomancy based method. But this value is 60 short of the actual total of 551, and part of the commentary is based on the former value of 491.
I can't find anything significant relating to 551. But using Crowley's system where P=Leo we get 552 which is Σαταν, Satan in Greek.
-
@Her said
"On page 119 of V&V there appear to be a couple of errors. First Crowley enumerated the name, LIXIPSP, as 553, not 533 as stated."
Thank you. My copy of the Crowley commentary are in boxes right now (I just moved for the first time in 37 years), but I'm retaining this note here for when I can check on it.
"Second the name LIXIPSL is enumerated as 491 using the geomancy based method. But this value is 60 short of the actual total of 551, and part of the commentary is based on the former value of 491."
Thank you. You are absolutely right. Looks like I have a page to rewrite in a Second Edition. I appreciate this.
I'm not a fan of the geomancy method anyway - I think it's flawed. This paragraph was me bending over backwards to fairly treat a system I actually don't think has value, rather than be stuck in my own opinion on the matter 0 and I screwed it up. I think there's an actual lesson in there
"I can't find anything significant relating to 551. But using Crowley's system where P=Leo we get 552 which is Σαταν, Satan in Greek."
Yes, but that system is flawed. It's not really "Crowley's system," it's Crowley's errors at the time of making his notes.
I appreciate your taking the time to really work through this - to pay close enough attention to catch it. This book is "cleaner" than most, but this was a big boo boo. I'll have some meditation and rewrite to do before a Second Edition.
-
@Her said
"LIXIPSL... actual total of 551... I can't find anything significant relating to 551."
An added note as a thanks for your efforts here: To state my position clearly, I don't think there is any value to the geomancy method. (I think there is enormous value to the geomantic attributions as symbols of the letters, but not of then adapting these for gematria as AC did.) Nonetheless, to demonstrate that great flaw of my character which is excessive fairness...
I agree that 551 isn't very impressive, but I did find one Hebrew word that seems totally on target for the vision. In Leviticus 16:16 we find the word VMPShOYHM, ve-mipis'eyhem, which means "and because of their transgressions." The full passage has an eerie similarity to the diatribe of the angel in this vision: "And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the transgressions of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins..."
My attention is also caught by a word in Lev. 26:44, MASThYM, m'astiym, "I will reject them." (It's used in the negative in that verse, but applies in the affirmative in the vision.)
Finally, in Deuteronomy 29:16 I find ShQVTzYHM, siqqootzeyheh, "their abominations." (This is 29:17 in KJV, 29:16 in the Hebrew versions.)
For what it's worth.
Turning to 620, which I believe is the correct meaning, in the text I'd found only KThR, Kether, which seemed inappropriate. I probably didn't give due credit to one of the most important equivalencies of Kether that shares this value, ChKMH BYNH VDOTh, Chokmah Biynah ve-Da'ath. This IMHO is the deeper mystery behind the message. There are other things I didn't dwell on that I actually think are related, but didn't want to take weaker (meaning, less direct and obvious) elements to build a case, e.g., ShORYM, sha'ariym, "Gates." In Greek there is the clear thysia, "a sacrifice," quite fitting. Still, I wish there were a clearer "knock it out of the park" correspondence. This is tougher in the outer aethyrs where signals are so jumbled.
Oh, and there is also THRThV, "his cleansing," which is very much what was going on for Crowley (counterpoint to PRShM, "their dung"). Their are half a dozen uses of this word and related constructions I ntheTorah, all of which have to do with filth vs. cleaning. This might be the part I was missing before.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree that 551 isn't very impressive, but I did find one Hebrew word that seems totally on target for the vision."
One word that I stumbled upon is the word for "ashamed" used in Ezekiel 16:27. HNKLMVTh. The context and some of the 'strong language' used in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel made me think of the Unveiling of the Mother that is mentioned in the 29th and 28th Aethyrs.
I'm probably way off though.
