Crowley and the use...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and the use of the adjective magickal or Magickal ...


wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

(All underlining by me.)

Richard Kaczynski has written the book The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley, first published in 2009. On page seven in James wasserman's introduction to this book, Richard Kaczynski is described as "a high-ranking member of the O.T.O.whose service has gained him the admiration and appreciation of many." On the same page James Wasserman describes this book as "vetted and approved by a carefully chosen board of Thelemic scholars and magicians."

On page nine in this book, under the headline, Three Quick Tips on Thlemic Etiquette, the following is stated under point three:

"We avoid the modern spelling of "magickal" for "magical", or "magickian" for "magician." There is not a single example of A.C. using that orthography in a bookcase full of his books. He coined the word "magick" to define his system, spelled the adjective "magical", and called its practitioners "magicians.""

I have found that Crowley in Magick in Theory and Practice, use the adjective Magicial, in the following context[-s]:

"I) DEFINITION.

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)"

[...]

"III) THEOREMS. 1) Every intentional act is a Magickal act. (Illustration: See "Definition" above.) By "intentional" I mean "willed". But even unintentional acts so seeming are not truly so. Thus, breathing is an act of the Will to Live." Source: Definition and Theorems of Magick (subtitled Introduction and Theorems) in Magick in Theory and Practice, which is Part III of Book Four - http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/defs.html

Except for in the quotes above, did Crowley use the adjective magickal or Magickal in other Instances?


Quote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Jesus Christ have these so called Thelemic officials nothing better to do that fiddle about with authentic manuscripts?     


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5332
 

Moderator's Note

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Richard Kaczynski has written the book The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley, first published in 2009. On page seven in James wasserman's introduction to this book, Richard Kaczynski is described as "a high-ranking member of the O.T.O.whose service has gained him the admiration and appreciation of many." On the same page James Wasserman describes this book as "vetted and approved by a carefully chosen board of Thelemic scholars and magicians."

On page nine in this book, under the headline, Three Quick Tips on Thlemic Etiquette, the following is stated under point three:

"We avoid the modern spelling of "magickal" for "magical", or "magickian" for "magician." There is not a single example of A.C. using that orthography in a bookcase full of his books. He coined the word "magick" to define his system, spelled the adjective "magical", and called its practitioners "magicians.""

I have found that Crowley in Magick in Theory and Practice, use the adjective Magicial, in the following context[-s]:

"I) DEFINITION.

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)"

[...]

"III) THEOREMS. 1) Every intentional act is a Magickal act. (Illustration: See "Definition" above.) By "intentional" I mean "willed". But even unintentional acts so seeming are not truly so. Thus, breathing is an act of the Will to Live." Source: Definition and Theorems of Magick (subtitled Introduction and Theorems) in Magick in Theory and Practice, which is Part III of Book Four - http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/defs.html

Except for in the quotes above, did Crowley use the adjective magickal or Magickal in other Instances?

And, wellreadwellbred, on what do you base this assertion? A text file you've downloaded from hermetic.com. That's the entire extent of your research before taking a pop at people you don't like?

Now, I don't currently have access to my first edition MITP but I do have the Gordon Press facsimile of it and, in both paragraphs, it says 'magical', not 'magickal'. The Symonds/Grant edition of Magick? 'Magical'. The Weiser 'Blue Brick' edition? 'Magical'.

Very shoddy 'research', wellreadwellbred.

And as for you, david:

"david" wrote:
Jesus Christ have these so called Thelemic officials nothing better to do that fiddle about with authentic manuscripts?

By 'authentic manuscripts' you mean wellreadwellbred's copy-paste of a text file he found online, presumably. You should be ashamed.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5829
 
"lashtal" wrote:
Very shoddy 'research' ... You should be ashamed.

Above quote(s) quoted out of context as the admonitions apply to two separate individuals.

Lots of shame being shared this morning.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

I expect then that the use of the adjective magickal or Magickal, is unlikely to be found in any published versions of Magick in Theory and Practice.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
Moderator's Note
And as for you, david:

"david" wrote:
Jesus Christ have these so called Thelemic officials nothing better to do that fiddle about with authentic manuscripts?

By 'authentic manuscripts' you mean wellreadwellbred's copy-paste of a text file he found online, presumably. You should be ashamed.

I'm sorry Paul but the kill/fill event and now the term, "magickal" offends (wait for it wait for it;) "Thelemic etiquette."  You don't think it's a bit anal and busybody-ish to deem that the term, "magickal" is offensive even though AC is famously known for putting the "k" on the end as a new aeonic gesture?  Is there some sort of Freudian hang-up there that some folk have about the letter "k" or what?  The term, "magickal" has been used in discourse for decades. Why target it?

All we need now is another dispute about a  third "k" and .........no.. let's move on    🙂           


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5332
 
"david" wrote:
I'm sorry Paul but the kill/fill event and now the term, "magickal" offends (wait for it wait for it;) "Thelemic etiquette."  You don't think it's a bit anal and busybody-ish to deem that the term, "magickal" is offensive even though AC is famously known for putting the "k" on the end as a new aeonic gesture?  Is there some sort of Freudian hang-up there that some folk have about the letter "k" or what?  The term, "magickal" has been used in discourse for decades. Why target it?

So, a very well respected Crowley scholar and author draws attention (in what is essentially a beginner's guide) to an error occasionally made by, well, by beginners. A member of this site disagrees and publicly voices his disapproval, based entirely on the reading of a poorly transcribed online text. You take the opportunity (within 20 minutes of the first post), without undertaking even the simplest fact-checking, to announce: 'Jesus Christ have these so called Thelemic officials nothing better to do that [sic.] fiddle about with authentic manuscripts?' Taken to task, you try to confuse the issue and distract from your error by linking 'Thelemic etiquette' with the 'kill/fill' debate.

Unbelievable. Any chance of you returning your focus back to heruraha.net? Please? 

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"lashtal" wrote:
an error occasionally made by, well, by beginners.

I'm not sure how "occasional" it is. I run across usages of the incorrect spelling "magickal" fairly often, an error made in very many cases, amusingly, by people who style themselves as Thelemites or as students of Crowley. If I'm not mistaken, even the OTO's newsletter used to be called "The Magickal Link." Or is it still called that?

Since it's a persistent error perpetuated by poorly transcribed texts, I'm not in the least surprised that people who seriously study Crowley's works would try to educate people. The only downside is that the error can sometimes be helpful in distinguishing those who have carefully researched and read the source material from those who haven't. But then again, the differences are usually obvious in other ways.

I'm not sure why anyone would object to correcting spelling mistakes. Sorry, but the little things do matter. As an example, I personally find it difficult to take any "Thelemite" seriously who doesn't capitalize the word "Law" in "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5829
 

Grady Louis McMurtry a.k.a. Caliph Hymenaeus Alpha 777www.luminist.org/archives/mcmurtry.htm‎CachedSimilar
the Luminist : The Magickal Link Vol. 1, 1981 [pdf]. The Magickal Link
Vol. 2, 1982 [pdf]. The Magickal Link Vol. 3, 1983 [pdf]. The Magickal Link Vol.

"The page you requested is not currently available. It may be closed for repairs or under construction, or you may have followed an outdated link."

But: Proof from Cornelius:
[/align:1vlv9zhw]


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 545
 

Great pull, Shiva. Putting the 'k' in magic(k)al makes sense within context. In the early 80's & even now. It's a Crowleyan stamp, & it still works. After all, we live in a post- Harry Potter world!  🙂


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5332
 
"Horemakhet" wrote:
Great pull, Shiva. Putting the 'k' in magic(k)al makes sense within context. In the early 80's & even now. It's a Crowleyan stamp, & it still works. After all, we live in a post- Harry Potter world!  🙂

'Magickal' is a mis-spelling. It was in the Eighties and remains so now. And goodness only knows how an OTO newsletter printed 30+ years ago changes that and, heaven forbid,  even makes it a 'Crowleyan stamp'! Whatever one of those might be.

But, in any case, the assertion in the original post was that Crowley used the spelling, twice, in 'Magick In Theory And Practice'. He didn't. Because he could spell.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 545
 

I said "within context", Paul. I can see why some people would want to keep the 'k' to differentiate it. It works. You are right though, it IS incorrect.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok Paul I see your point.  Maybe the Temple of Psychick Youth (or A.I.N.) should be informed about this?  The "k" was/is very important for them.  I shall be emailing ex-member and founder, G  POrridge on the matter.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I'm sorry Paul but the kill/fill event and now the term, "magickal" offends (wait for it wait for it;) "Thelemic etiquette."  You don't think it's a bit anal and busybody-ish to deem that the term, "magickal" is offensive even though AC is famously known for putting the "k" on the end as a new aeonic gesture?  Is there some sort of Freudian hang-up there that some folk have about the letter "k" or what?  The term, "magickal" has been used in discourse for decades. Why target it?

So, a very well respected Crowley scholar and author draws attention (in what is essentially a beginner's guide) to an error occasionally made by, well, by beginners. A member of this site disagrees and publicly voices his disapproval, based entirely on the reading of a poorly transcribed online text. You take the opportunity (within 20 minutes of the first post), without undertaking even the simplest fact-checking, to announce: 'Jesus Christ have these so called Thelemic officials nothing better to do that [sic.] fiddle about with authentic manuscripts?' Taken to task, you try to confuse the issue and distract from your error by linking 'Thelemic etiquette' with the 'kill/fill' debate.

Unbelievable. Any chance of you returning your focus back to heruraha.net? Please? 

"Confuse the issue and distract from my error"?  No Paul not at all.  I'll explain why as follows;

"Los" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
an error occasionally made by, well, by beginners.

I'm not sure how "occasional" it is. I run across usages of the incorrect spelling "magickal" fairly often, an error made in very many cases, amusingly, by people who style themselves as Thelemites or as students of Crowley.

It's probably not a mistake i.e. it's more likely a display of an allegiance to the chaos magic(k) culture which is pretty widespread.   

"Los" wrote:
Since it's a persistent error perpetuated by poorly transcribed texts, I'm not in the least surprised that people who seriously study Crowley's works would try to educate people. The only downside is that the error can sometimes be helpful in distinguishing those who have carefully researched and read the source material from those who haven't.

I'd say that that was a generalization.

"Los" wrote:
I'm not sure why anyone would object to correcting spelling mistakes.

Well yeah I agree but this particular case is different.... for a lot of people particularly if you research the influence of William Burroughs on err magic(K??)al thinkers and his ideas about language and control.   

"Los" wrote:
As an example, I personally find it difficult to take any "Thelemite" seriously who doesn't capitalize the word "Law" in "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Again using the "k" in "magick" is a different situation and is not analogous to merely misquoting sentences from Liber Al.  The "k" has become a specific cultural hallmark and if people can't see the value and significance  in that then ...wow....... 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1120
Topic starter  

In the book The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley, first published in 2009, mentioned by me in the original post in this thread, I quote two times from page seven and James Wasseman's introduction to this book. The same page also contains the following statement: "Our friendship allowed me to speak directly about my concerns for a doctrinally accurate book."

In the original post I also quote from page nine and the third of 'Three Quick Tips on Thelemic Etiquette'. That the the said tip which is about how Aleister Crowley spelled "magic", "magician" and "magicians", is placed so early in this book, right after the introduction, can be read as an indication of its perceived importance within a 'doctrinally accurate book'.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5829
 

Well, it looks like AC did NOT use the "k" in magic(k)al, magic(k)ian, etc, but a lot of other people since then HAVE done so - including myself in earlier times but not now in my advanced years. That should answer the OP - unless someone comes up with a new quote.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 448
 

Dwtw

The fact that Crowley did not use the adjective 'magickal' does not change the fact that he began the practice of adding a 'k' to make the word magick. The adjectival form of such a word would by default be 'magickal'.  One might argue that Crowley was himself being inconsistent by NOT using the adjective 'magickal'. Those who are following in the current he created would seem to be doing him an homage by spelling it that way.

I don't see the logic in claiming that (of course) he didn't spell the word as magickal, (because he could spell properly) when in fact he was the one who spelled Magick a different way in the first place. It's certainly important to point out that he did not in fact use the adjectival form, but after dispelling this myth, if indeed it is one, the fact remains that the adjective with a 'k' takes any cultural correctness it may have from the example set by Crowley.

Now as for the word 'magickian', it doesn't seem to roll off the tongue quite as smoothly 🙂

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4135
 
"Los" wrote:
Sorry, but the little things do matter. As an example, I personally find it difficult to take any "Thelemite" seriously who doesn't capitalize the word "Law" in "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

I'm surprised you're so liberal, Los. A more fundamental yardstick, surely, is the font in which the injunction is couched. It's difficult to take any "Thelemite" seriously who uses a common font such as Times New Roman, or Arial - such fonts are hardly "against the people", are they?.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5829
 
"threefold31" wrote:
The fact that Crowley did not use the adjective 'magickal' does not change the fact that he began the practice of adding a 'k' to make the word magick.

He hardly "began" the practice; he revived that spelling from Olde English. See also "Publick".

... in fact he was the one who spelled Magick a different way in the first place.

Not "in the first place." Maybe in the "second place," or in the "revived place," though.

Now as for the word 'magickian', it doesn't seem to roll off the tongue quite as smoothly

That's for sure. But it has a "sh" pronunciation, not a "ck" sound.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

What Shiva said.

"Magick" - like "logick", "rhetorick", "publick", etc., was common until the mid-18th century. Just search Google Books with date limited to, say, 1600-1750.

E.g. Gabriel Naudé, "The History of Magick" (English trans. by J. Davies, 1657):

http://books.google.fr/books?id=MT92hcXWZscC&printsec=frontcover&dq=magick&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=uBVqVNvjFYfzPNbHgdAN&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=magick&f=false

As you can see on the title-page, he also uses "magicians", because the pronunciation is "maj-ISH-un", not "maj-ICK-yan".

Davies also uses "magicall" a few times in the book (search for it), not "magickal". This is presumably because the problem with "c" is that it is only before "i" and "e" that there is any confusion about whether it is to be pronounced as a hard or soft "c", hence "s" (or "sh" before "i"), but in the word "magical" it is before an "a" and hence unambiguous, whereas in the word "magician" it is, in fact "sh". I don't know why they felt the need to add a "k" after a final "c" in those words, perhaps the c was too weak looking or something, or maybe people were unsure about whether it was pronounced hard or soft. These words were often borrowed from French, where the ending is "-ique", and maybe in English the orthographic power of "c" had not been standardized yet. 

There is nothing "wrong" with "Magickian", if "magick" is a proper name for, say, a philosophy, and the c is not pronounced "sh". It would be stupid to write "magickian" and SAY "maj-ish-un" though. If someone is a "Maj-ICK-iyun", and says it that way, then it is a consistent usage, and a neologism. Perhaps some people have that usage, although I have never heard it seriously used.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5829
 

"Magick" - like "logick", "rhetorick", "publick", etc., was common until the mid-18th century.

And note (in your pic) the use of an "f" instead of an "s." There are other cases whereby we can hardly tell what is being written/printed in Olde-style English. It's funny how things change.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"threefold31" wrote:
Dwtw

The fact that Crowley did not use the adjective 'magickal' does not change the fact that he began the practice of adding a 'k' to make the word magick. The adjectival form of such a word would by default be 'magickal'.  One might argue that Crowley was himself being inconsistent by NOT using the adjective 'magickal'. Those who are following in the current he created would seem to be doing him an homage by spelling it that way.

I don't see the logic in claiming that (of course) he didn't spell the word as magickal, (because he could spell properly) when in fact he was the one who spelled Magick a different way in the first place. It's certainly important to point out that he did not in fact use the adjectival form, but after dispelling this myth, if indeed it is one, the fact remains that the adjective with a 'k' takes any cultural correctness it may have from the example set by Crowley.

Now as for the word 'magickian', it doesn't seem to roll off the tongue quite as smoothly 🙂

Litlluw
RLG

Well put you accentuate my points.  However in terms of  academic accuracy the term, "magickal" or "magickian" is incorrect.  Does it really matter in terms of affecting discourse? 


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 448
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
The fact that Crowley did not use the adjective 'magickal' does not change the fact that he began the practice of adding a 'k' to make the word magick.

He hardly "began" the practice; he revived that spelling from Olde English. See also "Publick".

Dwtw

Good point. I love it when comments bring out the research, as belmurru provided. I should have been more specific (specifick?) about what century I was referring to. As for the use of an 'f' in the word 'wise' above, it actually is an elongated S, but it certainly resembles an F. That usage must have stopped in the early 19th century.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1908
 

93!

A short discourse: the "long (or descending) s" was the standard way of writing/printing this letter (when it occurred at the beginning or in the middle of a word) in all romanic, english, scandinavian, slawic and dutch languages until the beginning of the 19th century (in Germany well until the 1940s), and I still have to struggle with it in some German O.T.O. (and anti O.T.O.) texts. Only an end-s was written/printed in the terminal or round form, the form which has survived today.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 
"Shiva" wrote:

"Magick" - like "logick", "rhetorick", "publick", etc., was common until the mid-18th century.

And note (in your pic) the use of an "f" instead of an "s." There are other cases whereby we can hardly tell what is being written/printed in Olde-style English. It's funny how things change.

Yes, but as RLG and Lutz pointed out, it is really a “long s”, not an “f”. Surpriſingly, it ſeems to come ſtandard in moſt fonts, ſuch as Times New Roman, Caſlon, Garamond, etc., in the extended character ſet. There is an informative Wikipedia article on its origin and the reaſons for its demiſe, here –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

I have since come up with an ad hoc theory about why there was a “k” after the “c” in those words.
I remembered coming across spellings like “logicke” and “rhetoricke”, and looked for “magicke”, from 1500 to 1650. Thus an even "more archaic" form than mere magick. There are plenty.

I don’t have the Oxford English Dictionary’s entry to check usage and dates, but from other sources it is clear that it entered the English language in the late 14th century (I’d like to see the form – I haven’t found it in Chaucer yet) from French magique, displacing other words dealing with witchcraft and other words ending in –craft (French says nowadays la magie for our “magic”, e.g. “la magie noire” – “black magic” – whereas magique is only an adjective, e.g. “la baguette magique” – “the magic wand”).

The other “-ick” or “-icke” words came into use from French at the same time, so my hypothesis is that the “i” was pronounced long, with perhaps a slight emphasis on the second syllable, i.e. “ma-jeek’,” in English.

This sound would not be apparent in English as simply “ic”, where the “i” would be short. Also, there is a late medieval Latin form magice which, if spelled as such in English, would clearly be read “ma-jeese.”

So, a few factors could have been at work. First, of course, spelling was not standardized until the 19th century in either the UK or the US. Then, the irregular habit of the application of an “e” at the end of words (with long middle vowels or not, e.g. “feete”, “seere”, “worlde”, “worde”, etc.), added to the borrowing from French, transforming the “-ique” spelling to a more English “cke.”

Finally, as the words became nativized, they dropped the “e,” by the mid-17th century, and finally the “k” itself by the mid-18th century.

You can see the earlier spelling in the early 17th century in Walter Raleigh’s Historie of the World (1614):

You can see the instability of the orthography directly in Henry Smith’s  Gods Arrow against Atheists (1617), where both “Magicke” and “Magick” (three lines below the last highlighted “Magicke” on that page) occur:

Another nice example, from the late 16th century, is Thomas Lodge’s The Diuell Coniured (The Devil Conjured), 1596:

Of course, the forms of “magical” (as “magicall”, but despite the geminated consonsant, still no “k”) and “magician” remain the same, since there is no ambiguity in pronunciation of the hard “c” in the former, and the soft “c” (since before “i”) in the latter.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3563
 

My Compact OED (1971) confirms an Old French origin for magic/magick from magique, derived from Latin magica.
The earliest citations my old eyes can make out through the [supplied] magnifying glass are to Chaucer 1384 "magike" and two Chaucer 1386 uses of "magyk", so the "k" appears to be attested earlier than the "c" in English.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 
"ignant666" wrote:
My Compact OED (1971) confirms an Old French origin for magic/magick from magique, derived from Latin magica.
The earliest citations my old eyes can make out through the [supplied] magnifying glass are to Chaucer 1384 "magike" and two Chaucer 1386 uses of "magyk", so the "k" appears to be attested earlier than the "c" in English.

Thanks for looking that up! What does the OED give for early uses of "magical"?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 
"ignant666" wrote:
My Compact OED (1971) confirms an Old French origin for magic/magick from magique, derived from Latin magica.
The earliest citations my old eyes can make out through the [supplied] magnifying glass are to Chaucer 1384 "magike" and two Chaucer 1386 uses of "magyk", so the "k" appears to be attested earlier than the "c" in English.

The earlier entries are from The House of Fame, which John Fyler, in the Riverside Chaucer (seems to be a standard reference), dates to 1379-1380. The manuscript his edition is based on uses the form "magik" (without the final "e"), e.g. lines 1258-1270 (Book III; some editions will start counting lines anew with each book):

"Ther saugh I pleye jugelours,
Magiciens, and tregetours,
And Phitonesses, charmeresses,
Olde wicches, sorceresses,
That use exorsisacions,
And eke these fumygacions;
And clerkes eke, which konne wel
Al this magik naturel,
That craftely doon her ententes
To make, in certeyn ascendentes,
Ymages, lo, thrugh which magik
To make a man ben hool or syk."

Magik rhymes with syk here, but I can't tell if it is a long or short "i" - "ick" or "eek". Maybe other passages will make it clear.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3563
 

The two 1386 uses OED gives of "magyk" are the "Squire's Tale", and the "Man of Law's Tale"; the 1384 citation is indeed the one you cite.
For "magical" and "magician", my OED gives no "k" spellings, and 16th century for usage examples..
The earliest use with "ck" i could make out was from 1590 in Marlowe's Faust, which has "magicke".
I apologize for any errors, and realize i need a better magnifying glass for dictionary use as my eyes get worse with age; in my defense, the usage citations are in very tiny type.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

For a long time I went along with the prevailing orthodoxy of spelling it magical on all occasions, instead of magickal on some occasions.  Now I tend to use K when I want to stress its connection with Crowleian or Thelemic context, and this also affects music likewise, as in ‘musick’.

Spellings only become fixed with the advent of dictionaries in the 18th century, and apart from the fact that such fixity will give fuel to pedants there is a potentially significant downside that language will evolve a lot more slowly and noncreatively now that it has been bolted down and regimented.

‘Magickian’ is however, I quite agree, a rather different kettle of fish – the pronunciation mag-ick-ee-yun feels clumsy and inelegant – yucky! – compared with the also much more familiar mag-ish-yun, and for that reason I would only use it on the rare occasion it would need to be given any special emphasis.

Another candidate is Crowleian or Crowleyan (Crowleiantity or Crowleyanity).  The former is correct I was once informed on fairly reliable authority, and on that basis try to stick to it wherever I can.  Sometimes though I like the look of Crowleyan instead, and if it subjectively seems to fit better I will go along with that and to hell with the pedants, master!  🙂 , 😮 !

There is also Liber AL III:2 to consider as well, of course:

Speling si difunkd, ect ect chiz moan drone,
Nigel Molesworth p.p. Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Another candidate is Crowleian or Crowleyan (Crowleiantity or Crowleyanity).  The former is correct I was once informed on fairly reliable authority, and on that basis try to stick to it wherever I can.  Sometimes though I like the look of Crowleyan instead, and if it subjectively seems to fit better I will go along with that and to hell with the pedants, master!  🙂 , 😮 !

That authority might be Crowley himself, who writes "Crowleian" in The World's Tragedy, p. xxv, if we can trust the Falcon Press 1985 edition:

"You are not a Crowleian till you can say fervently 'Yes, thank God, I am an atheist.'"


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1908
 

93!

The Falcon Press edition is correct:

Note: It's a one-liner in the original holograph, I changed that purely for practical reasons (so that the image is not so wide)...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1088
 

Excellent -thanks very much for the confirmation straight from the horse's mouth, Lutz!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

It may perhaps be ambitious for people such as our estemmed webmaster to berate members of the Aleister Crowley Society for perceived mistakes in their usage of magical and magicKal, as matters can be seen in their proper place when a surprising proportion of contributors (more than a factor for simple error would allow, such as for typos) show that they even seem incapable of distinguishing between “your” and “you’re” for “you are”, and “its” and “it’s” for “it is” - oh, and “chiper” for “cipher” (sorry there, well! 🙁 ) . 

Maybe it might be best to only try to take the one summit at a time, and to measure any modest successes accordingly…? 🙂

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Share: