AC on supreme statu...
 
Notifications
Clear all

AC on supreme status of original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law


wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I have made this thread, to cover the subject matter of statements from Aleister Crowley concerning the supreme status of the original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law, (compared to all the other writings that he also designated as Class A. The following are the statements I am aware of so far):

* On page 33 in The Equinox, Volume One, Number 10, Fall, 1913 - http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/x/eqi10003.html - wherein the text of Liber 220, the typeset text of The Book of the Law is contained from page 9 to page 33, Crowley considers Liber 31, the original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law, as the final authority on questions concerning "doubtful spellings and styles" in The Book of the Law, with the following words contained in Square Brackets: "[For doubtful spellings and styles consult facsimile MS. facing p. 386, Equinox I, vii.]"

* "36. [...] The MS. [= the original manuscript of The Book of the Law] the sole authentic text: 666 to abstain from editing it. I am not to change it in one letter; for not only was mine ear at the service of Aiwass, but also mine hand. The effect of this is made plain elsewhere. 666 to comment on AL to guard against false interpretations. I comment on this Book, lest there be folly; for many are the Secret Sayings and obscure in the text thereof. It would be easy for the clever and the crafty to distort the true meaning of Aiwass so as to suit their own conceits, as hath been seen of old time in the cases of the Words of the Masters, the Q'uran, and the so-called Scriptures of the Christians." Source: http://hermetic.com/legis/djeridensis/chapter-i.html - The Comment called D – Chapter 1. Here concerning chapter 1, verse 36. [= "36. 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."]

* "[Part:] II [...] The question arises, especially on examining the original manuscript in My handwriting: "Who wrote these words?" [...]" "[Part:] V [...] This Book proves: there is a Person thinking and acting in a praeterhuman manner, either without a body of flesh, or with the power of communicating telepathically with men and inscrutably directing their actions. [Part:] VI I write this therefore with a sense of responsibility so acute that for the first time in my life I regret my sense of humour and the literary practical jokes which it has caused me to perpetrate. I am glad, though, that care was taken of the MS. [= the original manuscript of The Book of the Law] itself and of diaries and letters of the period, so that the physical facts are as plain as can be desired. [...]  The point then arises: How did the Book of the Law come to be written? The description in The Equinox, I, VII, might well be more detailed; and I might also elucidate the problem of the apparent changes of speaker, and the occasional lapses from straightforward scribecraft in the MS [= the original manuscript of The Book of the Law]. I may observe that I should not have left such obvious grounds for indictment as these had I prepared the MS. [= the original manuscript of The Book of the Law] to look pretty to a critical eye; nor should I have left such curious deformities of grammar and syntax, defects of rhythm, and awkwardness of phrase." Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox-of-the-gods/remarks-on-the-method-of-receiving-liber-legis.html - The Equinox of the Gods Chapter 7 "Remarks on the method of receiving Liber Legis, on the Conditions prevailing at the time of the writing, and on certain technical difficulties connected with the Literary form of the Book."

* ""What then about AL III, 40? [= "40. But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen."] (also see attached) This problem was solved only by achieving the task.  In Paris,* in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required.  No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry.  All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect—Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud.  All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt. One Textus Receptus, photographically guaranteed.  One High Court of Interpretation, each for himself alone.  No Patristic logomachies!  No disputed readings! No civil wars and persecutions.  Anyone who wants to say anything, off with his head, and On with the Dance; let Joy be unconfined, You at the prow and Therion at the helm!  Off we go."

* Error: It was actually in Tunis, November 1925. Editor." Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/mwt_50.html - Magick Without Tears, Chapter 50: "A.C. and the "Masters"; Why they Chose him, etc."


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

Think about it.  I mean really just assess it as you would anything else that happens in our world.  A man puts pen to paper,(in poetically inspired frenzy albeit)  moves the pen across the paper with his own hand and ink is impressed upon that paper.  Who moved whose hand across the paper?  Answer: the man who moved the pen across the paper.  End.  Thankyou.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4209
 
"david" wrote:
Think about it.  I mean really just assess it as you would anything else that happens in our world.  A man puts pen to paper,(in poetically inspired frenzy albeit)  moves the pen across the paper with his own hand and ink is impressed upon that paper.  Who moved whose hand across the paper?  Answer: the man who moved the pen across the paper.  End.  Thankyou.

The original poster is asking not for your opinion on how The Book of the Law came to be written - you have after all made that abundantly plain across a number of threads - but about how Crowley regarded the holograph document as having primary authority over the various typescript and printed renditions.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Think about it.  I mean really just assess it as you would anything else that happens in our world.  A man puts pen to paper,(in poetically inspired frenzy albeit)  moves the pen across the paper with his own hand and ink is impressed upon that paper.  Who moved whose hand across the paper?  Answer: the man who moved the pen across the paper.  End.  Thankyou.

The original poster is asking not for your opinion on how The Book of the Law came to be written - you have after all made that abundantly plain across a number of threads - but about how Crowley regarded the holograph document as having primary authority over the various typescript and printed renditions.

Thanks for pointing that out however if you take my view does it not shed more light on the matter?  The format these documents are presented contain certain passages which are explicit for us to determine for ourselves whether they make sense or not in terms of Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.  Anyway my 2 cents.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

if you take my view does it not shed more light on the matter? 

no.


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

if you take my view does it not shed more light on the matter? 

no.

Why?

If I write or even edit say,three versions of a new movie script then it's down to me to have the last say which one I present to the world as the finalized one doesn't it?  I'm not asking you I'm telling you.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1956
 

93!

"david" wrote:
If I write or even edit say,three versions of a new movie script then it's down to me to have the last say which one I present to the world as the finalized one doesn't it?

I see you are not a professional screen writer...

Better choose another analogy.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"david" wrote:
If I write or even edit say,three versions of a new movie script then it's down to me to have the last say which one I present to the world as the finalized one doesn't it?

I see you are not a professional screen writer...

Better choose another analogy.

Love=Law
Lutz

You have difficulties coping with the concept of analogy and hypothetical thought I see. 

You ever get that feeling that time is being wasted? 

Exiting from thread as of now.  Enjoy the discussion.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1956
 

david, 93!

"david" wrote:
You have difficulties coping with the concept of analogy and hypothetical thought I see.

No, what you see is just what you think of me, while I see what you mean, but, still, your analogy was simply v e r y bad. The concept of an analogy should be to help illustrating your point, but it doesn't. Ask a screenwriter. Why didn't you just simply choose a "writer"?

"david" wrote:
Exiting from thread as of now.

Bye! There are other threads... (well, you'll be back anyhow...)

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Mazus
(@mazus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 100
 

Could we be so lucky that he does truly leave the building?  It must be very difficult to be so misunderstood so I do feel for him.


ReplyQuote
Share: