|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke and Albert H. Handel
5 June 1948
Dear Yorke and Handel.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!
By the Grace of God Triune I will now do my best to clear up the muddle about the "Comment" on Liber Legis before any further confusion is allowed to arise on this subject. These are the facts as I understand them.
Liber Legis, Ch.I v.36 says: "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-Khu-it."
Ch.III v.39 says: " . . . they comment upon this the Book of the Law shall be printed beautifully in red ink and black, etc.". Verse 40 says: "But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit brining in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen." Ch.III v.63 says: "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; and he understandeth it not."
So far we have the instruction to scribe and a statement about the fool.
The first "Comment" was written and published in The Equinox, Volume I Number 7, March 1912. This, as I have clearly shown in mine of May 22nd, being the "only one extant at the time", is without doubt that referred to in Chapter III v.63, and it also fulfilled verse 40: "That is easy; and Hadit . . . shall make . . . etc.". In other words, it fulfilled the direct instructions of R.[a] H.[oor] K.[huit] (But, as will be shown later, it did not fulfil those of Nuit, Ch.1.)
A.C. himself never questioned the value of this original "Comment" until after having received the "Key" to Liber Legis in September 1919.
Then he began a new "Comment" in the light of that Key. This he did as 666 the Beast.
He first typed out on separate sheets all the verses of Liber Legis. Under these he typed the "Old Comment" (of 1912) and under this again the "New Comment". Then he wrote up most of the "history" of how he "came hither", etc. including some "comments" on Chapters I, II, & III in the text thereof, and placed this in the fore-front of the long typescript. Then he made very lengthy additional comments on certain special verses, and sent me these up to a certain point—but not all of them.
Please note that the "comments" I mention in last paragraph (with small "c") now form the "Comment" included in The Equinox of the Gods which is referred to as such in the foot-note on page 126 (if I count my proof-sheets correctly). The various New Comments and Additions above referred to were written between September 1919 and somewhere in 1921 or possibly 1922. We may then say, to that date, we have (1) The Original Comment, (2) The New Comment by 666, (3) the "comment within a comment" used finally in The Equinox of the Gods where Original one should have been.
Now we come to the next phase. In AN. XIX 666 (feeling himself inspired by Hadit) wrote what is called Comment D. This was then in 1923. It is a very valuable comment, and has a history, but it cannot be that of 1925 referred to by Saturnus [Karl Germer]. (I don't want further to complicate matters, but it may be remarked that 666 was not satisfied that the Comment D of 1923 was the final one, for in early 1925 he wrote to someone saying that the true "Comment" was not yet written.)
In about 1925, however, A.C. did fulfil the instruction of NUIT: Not under "Hadit" but "R.H.K." he wrote the very brief COMMENT which he signed Ankh-f-n-khonsu. This, then, must be the Comment of 1925. It first appeared on eleven special copies of Liber Legis made in 1926. And it has appeared several times since. It is:
THE COMMENT Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence. All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself. There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will.
The priest of the princes ANKH-F-N-KHONSU
My explanation then is that in writing the COMMENT of 1912 the instructions of L.L. [Liber Legis] Chapter III were fulfilled, and in 1925 those of Nuit. As the history of Comment D (known to Yorke) shows, however good, that was a "Commentary" and it was not allowed to be published in The Equinox of the Gods however hard A.C. tried to do so. Of the value of the various "Commentaries", time will show. Some are very interesting indeed, from a certain angle. Also "The Comment" of 1925 is very wise—"lest there be folly" and confusion.
Yours in Unity and Love,
Achad.
|