What is the difference between the Stele of Jue and The Bornless One? (In words someone kinda ditzy might understand, ok)
First, and foremost the references:
The Bornless One ritual can be found here: http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/b/bornless_one_the_ritual.html
More information on it and Crowley can be found here: http://www.jwmt.org/v1n7/bornless.html
The short version of what I have to say is pretty simple, but involves a bit of history. In 1904 CE, a version of the Goetia was finally produced for the public. It had been half-translated into English by Samuel Liddell McGregor Mathers, who had begun working on it in 1899 CE. Crowley writes: “I have employed Mathers to translate the text of the Lesser Key of Solomon of which the Goetia is the first section. He got no further; after the events of 1900, he had simply collapsed morally. I added a translation of the conjurations into the Enochian or Angelic language; edited and annotated the text, prefixed a “Preliminary Invocation,” added a prefatory note, a Magical Square (intended to prevent improper use of the book) and ultimately an invocation of Typhon...”
There's a lot going on at this point, but I won't bother to discuss the “tall tales” of the early 1900s and the so-called “war” between Crowley and Mathers. In any event, the “Preliminary Invocation” that he added was the Bornless One. Where did it come from? Every time I consult the all-powerful Google for an answer, it seems to respond by insisting that Alan Bennett wrote it. (See the above links.) This is distinctly possible; on the other hand, Crowley could have written it himself. He most assuredly wrote Liber Samekh which is based on the Bornless One in the same way that the Bornless One is based on the Stele of Jeu. It is possible that one of the individuals listed above (Crowley or Bennett) came across the Stele in various publications that appeared from about 1835-1899. (As an aside: I think trying to piece together these links is something that should be done sooner than later, as it might shed some light on the occult romance of the 19th century and its interface with historical data as presented by the authorities of that time.)
Rather than sticking my foot in the quagmire of further speculation about the Bornless One, however, I'm going to shift footing. The Bornless One ritual was based on the Stele of Jeu... But how Crowley or Bennet came to have their hands on it is beyond me. The Stele of Jeu is part of a mass of documents called the “Greek Magical Papyri” (hereafter PGM). According to Hans Dieter Betz: “'The Greek magical papyri” is a name given by scholars to a body of papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt containing a variety of magical spells and formulae, hymns and rituals. The extant texts are mainly from the second century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.” (P. xli)
These documents have a rather long history that I'm sure readers would enjoy avoiding being forced upon them. (If you wish for more information Betz discusses it thoroughly in his “The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells: Volume 1.” If you can afford the book then take my word and just buy it.) In any event, it is highly likely that the initial version of the Stele that the creator of the Bornless One ritual came across was highly fragmented, as many of the PGM at that date were in disrepair and quite a bit of work – carried out over the course of the last century – was required to piece together the puzzles of what they actually said. I suspect this because it would be the primary reason that Crowley would break one of the mottos of his day: “Do not change the Barbarous Words of Evocation!”
Nonetheless, he most assuredly did change the words. Contrary to the opinion expressed by Alex Sumner, Crowley did not fundamentally alter the structure of the text. Sumner seems to be basing this assumption on commentary by Stephen Skinner which appears in his version of The Goetia of Dr. Rudd. One almost wonders if either man ever bothered to read the actual ritual before commenting on it...
In any event, the principle difference between the two rituals is what one is conjuring and what is said. Crowley's 1904 (and subsequent versions thereafter) version of the Bornless One ritual is a version of the Stele of Jeu that has been re-worked into Qabalistic symbolism: this is most clearly demonstrated by his own annotations to the ritual.
The Stele of Jeu is a ritual that is quite simply an invocation of the Agathos-Daemon. I say this based on the last lines: “I am the Headless Daimon with sight in my feet; I am the might one who possesses the immortal fire; I am the truth who hates the fact that unjust deeds are done in the world... I am the one who begets and destroys; I am the favor of the Aion; my name is a heart encircled by a serpent; come forth and follow.” (Betz, P. 103) The purpose of calling this spirit into oneself is so that one gains dominion over all other daimons. One could expel them or command them in any way that one imagines, so long as that link is established.
Overall, both rituals work. However, we must return to the idea as to why not change the “Barbarous Words of Evocation.” A good reason is given by Jack Parsons in a letter to Majorie Cameron dated January 15th, 1950: “I will send you the ritual of the Bornless One... It is a very ancient, potent & dangerous ritual, often used by bold magicians in the Guardian Angel Working. It is useful as a preliminary in almost any sort of work, causing a tremendous concentration of force. It is, however, liable to produce dangerous side phenomena and sometimes permanent haunting in an area where it is repeated, & is for this reason often avoided. Never do it without banishing & opening the temple, then closing and banishing again.” (Italics mine.)
One imagines that perhaps Jack discovered this the hard way...
The Bornless One ritual can be found here: http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/b/bornless_one_the_ritual.html
More information on it and Crowley can be found here: http://www.jwmt.org/v1n7/bornless.html
The short version of what I have to say is pretty simple, but involves a bit of history. In 1904 CE, a version of the Goetia was finally produced for the public. It had been half-translated into English by Samuel Liddell McGregor Mathers, who had begun working on it in 1899 CE. Crowley writes: “I have employed Mathers to translate the text of the Lesser Key of Solomon of which the Goetia is the first section. He got no further; after the events of 1900, he had simply collapsed morally. I added a translation of the conjurations into the Enochian or Angelic language; edited and annotated the text, prefixed a “Preliminary Invocation,” added a prefatory note, a Magical Square (intended to prevent improper use of the book) and ultimately an invocation of Typhon...”
There's a lot going on at this point, but I won't bother to discuss the “tall tales” of the early 1900s and the so-called “war” between Crowley and Mathers. In any event, the “Preliminary Invocation” that he added was the Bornless One. Where did it come from? Every time I consult the all-powerful Google for an answer, it seems to respond by insisting that Alan Bennett wrote it. (See the above links.) This is distinctly possible; on the other hand, Crowley could have written it himself. He most assuredly wrote Liber Samekh which is based on the Bornless One in the same way that the Bornless One is based on the Stele of Jeu. It is possible that one of the individuals listed above (Crowley or Bennett) came across the Stele in various publications that appeared from about 1835-1899. (As an aside: I think trying to piece together these links is something that should be done sooner than later, as it might shed some light on the occult romance of the 19th century and its interface with historical data as presented by the authorities of that time.)
Rather than sticking my foot in the quagmire of further speculation about the Bornless One, however, I'm going to shift footing. The Bornless One ritual was based on the Stele of Jeu... But how Crowley or Bennet came to have their hands on it is beyond me. The Stele of Jeu is part of a mass of documents called the “Greek Magical Papyri” (hereafter PGM). According to Hans Dieter Betz: “'The Greek magical papyri” is a name given by scholars to a body of papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt containing a variety of magical spells and formulae, hymns and rituals. The extant texts are mainly from the second century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.” (P. xli)
These documents have a rather long history that I'm sure readers would enjoy avoiding being forced upon them. (If you wish for more information Betz discusses it thoroughly in his “The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells: Volume 1.” If you can afford the book then take my word and just buy it.) In any event, it is highly likely that the initial version of the Stele that the creator of the Bornless One ritual came across was highly fragmented, as many of the PGM at that date were in disrepair and quite a bit of work – carried out over the course of the last century – was required to piece together the puzzles of what they actually said. I suspect this because it would be the primary reason that Crowley would break one of the mottos of his day: “Do not change the Barbarous Words of Evocation!”
Nonetheless, he most assuredly did change the words. Contrary to the opinion expressed by Alex Sumner, Crowley did not fundamentally alter the structure of the text. Sumner seems to be basing this assumption on commentary by Stephen Skinner which appears in his version of The Goetia of Dr. Rudd. One almost wonders if either man ever bothered to read the actual ritual before commenting on it...
In any event, the principle difference between the two rituals is what one is conjuring and what is said. Crowley's 1904 (and subsequent versions thereafter) version of the Bornless One ritual is a version of the Stele of Jeu that has been re-worked into Qabalistic symbolism: this is most clearly demonstrated by his own annotations to the ritual.
The Stele of Jeu is a ritual that is quite simply an invocation of the Agathos-Daemon. I say this based on the last lines: “I am the Headless Daimon with sight in my feet; I am the might one who possesses the immortal fire; I am the truth who hates the fact that unjust deeds are done in the world... I am the one who begets and destroys; I am the favor of the Aion; my name is a heart encircled by a serpent; come forth and follow.” (Betz, P. 103) The purpose of calling this spirit into oneself is so that one gains dominion over all other daimons. One could expel them or command them in any way that one imagines, so long as that link is established.
Overall, both rituals work. However, we must return to the idea as to why not change the “Barbarous Words of Evocation.” A good reason is given by Jack Parsons in a letter to Majorie Cameron dated January 15th, 1950: “I will send you the ritual of the Bornless One... It is a very ancient, potent & dangerous ritual, often used by bold magicians in the Guardian Angel Working. It is useful as a preliminary in almost any sort of work, causing a tremendous concentration of force. It is, however, liable to produce dangerous side phenomena and sometimes permanent haunting in an area where it is repeated, & is for this reason often avoided. Never do it without banishing & opening the temple, then closing and banishing again.” (Italics mine.)
One imagines that perhaps Jack discovered this the hard way...
3 comments:
Faust -
The mystery of where the Bornless One rite originally came from has been explained quite well by Israel Regardie in his book "Ceremonial Magic" - in part 2 of the book. In it he states that a Charles W. Goodwin published a monograph entitled "A Fragment of a Graeco Egyptian Ritual" in 1852.
It is from this translation that the Bornless One rite was first introduced. Later, Budge in his book "Egyptian Magic" reproduced part of this ritual.
Since Budge was friends with members of the Golden Dawn, I wouldn't be surprised if he referred the curious ritual to them. From there it probably went through modifications by a number of different hands, but there is no indication as to who the author or authors actually were.
Crowley appropriated the ritual from material that was passed around by GD inner order members - where it was incorporated into the publication of the Goetia. So that's the history according to Regardie, and I think that he is resolved the mystery.
BTW - the book has a copy of the original 1852 translation of the spell in the appendix, as it looked before being modified by members of the GD.
Fr. Barrabbas
Fr. B,
Thank you so much for that information! I'll work on acquiring the book by Regardie. I'm especially interested in seeing the original ritual and comparing it to the full translations that we have out today. Like I said, the only reason I can see for changing the VM in the ritual would be due to having a fragmentary copy (with say, large sections missing - the disrepair of the Papyri in the 1800s was a primary reason we didn't see them in print for so long). On the other hand, if it wasn't then it leads to a few more questions about why Crowley would change the structure... (Arrogance, perhaps? Not understanding what he was looking at? Desiring a Qabalistic version of the same ritual?)
Anyway: thank you!
Thanks for posting these. Opening and closing the Temple was new for me, so I had to do some hunting in order to find a fitting ritual. The only one I was able to track down was an astral opening/closing visualization ritual. This was a great experience.
Post a Comment