and "Hadit" hieroglyphs
Earlier this month Thelemites celebrated the birthday of Hadit, which is kind of weird if you think about it because Hadit is supposed to be an Egyptian god, a version of Horus, whose birthday isn't really known. Of course, what Thelemites mean by celebrating Hadit's birthday on a particular day, April 9, is that on this day in 1904 Aleister Crowley wrote the "Hadit" chapter of Liber AL. This is the day, in other words, when one of the Thelemic "trinity" was given his life (or was recognized) in the current of the New Aeon.
Now, where does this name "Hadit" come from? Well, allegedly from the artifact called by Crowley The Stele of Revealing. It was an old funerary monument, a double-sided piece of painted wood with a bunch of Egyptian hieroglyphics, that Crowley and his wife Rose found on their honeymoon to Cairo in 1904. Crowley, after being much impressed that the Stele had some personal connection to him* had it translated by the Cairo Museum staff.
*—The stele was #666 in the Cairo Museum Catalog (actually one of two items so numbered), and was Crowley's number, that of the Apocalyptic "Beast".
After having the Stele translated (originally into French), Crowley and Rose began preparations for a ritual that would finally result in the writing over three days on April 8-10, 1904, of the Thelemic holy book, Liber AL, or The Book of the Law. As noted, on each day, Crowley channeled, allegedly via a spirit called Aiwass (the "Messenger" or "Angel"), one of three chapters, each focusing on one of the three main Thelemic deities:
April 8—Nuit (or Nut, the Starry Heaven, "space")
April 9—Hadit (or Horus, the Winged Disk of the Sun, "any point of view")
April 10—Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Ra-Harakhti, the Conquering Child Horus, Lord of The Aeon Of Horus)
While Crowley superficially based the narrative of these chapters on elements of the Stele of Revealing, his main inspiration was clearly Qabalah and the Western occultism he had learned in the Golden Dawn. Nevertheless, most people have accepted the notion that the names of the Thelemic god-forms were actually Ancient Egyptian and were on the Stele.
For example, Lon Milo DuQuette, writing in Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot says: "The three "deities" of The Book of the Law are the main figures that appear on the Stéle of Revealing".
And Thelemapedia's article on "Hadit" says: "Hadit, "the great god, the lord of the sky," is depicted on the Stele of Revealing in the form of the winged disk of the Sun."
You will find that same line included in the Wikipedia article for "Hadit" as well.
The implicit idea is that Thelema is in some respects a resurrection and an updating of the ancient, presumably truer, Egyptian religion.
For example, the OTO US Grand Lodge website says: "In the Book of the Law, the divine Principles are personified by a trinity of ancient Egyptian Divinities: Nuit, the Goddess of Infinite Space; Hadit, the Winged Serpent of Light; and Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Horus), the Solar, Hawk-Headed Lord of the Cosmos."
I have seen some Thelemites today even advocate adopting what they allege is a more scientific approach to interpreting Thelema, attempting to enlist Egyptological analysis to support their religious faith.
My 1995 Hadit Revelation
My own interest in the true origin of Hadit came in the Fall of 1995, when I acquired a used copy of the 1970s reprint of The Equinox of the Gods, the account by Crowley of the 1904 Cairo Working. In the back of this book, a previous owner had written some notes concerning the translation of the god-names from the Stele of Revealing. This reader seemed to have at least some basic knowledge of hieroglyphics:
"It is to be noted...that the stele makes no mention whatever of Hadit. "Behdet"="Behutet", an epithet of Horus".
AND
"The name Hadit would appear to be based on a mistranslation made by a flunky at the museum. It occurs nowhere in Egyptian mythology."
Since at that point I had no knowledge whatsoever of Egyptian hieroglyphics and certainly could not dispute these allegations, I thought I would go to someone who should know about Hadit, Bill Heidrick, at that time the Grand Treasurer General of the Caliphate OTO.
Heidrick examined the notes and wrote to me on December 30, 1995:
"Interesting notes, in that they show somebody tried pretty seriously to study. The error in the notes is in not realizing that the stele does have "Hadit" as a hieroglyplic spelling of "Bahudit", omitting the "Ba"=into in Crowley's early translation. The full name of Ra Hoor Khuit, according to Budge, is Ra Heru Khuti BaHadit, more or less, Ra who as Horus flies into the disk of the sun. The Bahedit (various English spellings) is simply the winged sun disk. This term appears in the upper part of the vignette of the stele, just under the right wing, from the viewer's position."
Again, not having the expertise to dispute or confirm Heidrick, I let the matter drop at this point, but since there was a clear contradiction between the two opinions, I decided to come back to the question later on, after I had learned some more, especially some Egyptian hieroglyphics.
After a while, I had obtained enough information to knowledgeably question Heidrick the next time the matter came up.
1998 And the Infamous Devil Thread
One of the more infamous, and interesting, threads that ever occurred on the old Usenet group, alt.tarot, was an argument between myself and Bill Heidrick over questions of Tarot, Thelemic belief, and the OTO. I had by the time of this debate learned a great deal more about the various topics of discussion, especially about "Hadit". Given that Hadit is specifically referred to the Devil by Crowley, it is interesting this question was first publicly raised in a thread entitled "Thoth's Devil & Sex".
The thread had started innocently enough, for a discussion of Crowley's Thoth Tarot card "Devil". It was during Heidrick's explanation of this card's symbolism, particularly the Hierophant wand, that he made a suggestion that started all the trouble—"Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit."
Now, by "Bahadi" it seems Heidrick must have meant "Bahadit", echoing his theory quoted above, and so he was saying that this symbolic element of the wand:
—went by the same alleged name as the winged disk on the Stele of Revealing, and that it indicated "Hadit".
As it turns out, Heidrick had publicly articulated his Hadit theory in his notes to The Old and New Commentaries to Liber AL, at Chapter II, verse 1:
"'Hadit' is the spelling of 'Bahadit' found on the Stele. This is unusual in that most Egyptian spelling of the period maintained the "Ba" prefix. Crowley adopted the spelling from the Stele, and it is common as well in Liber AL."
Heidrick credited this theory as being "researched by Fr[ater] Ebony", i.e. Charles Lee Reese, whose memorial website includes a eulogy to Reese by Heidrick wherein he claims Frater Ebony was "[s]teeped in the language of Egypt".
At one point in the 1998 discussion, Heidrick was quite explicit in his opinion: "The misspelling is on the Stele itself."
What we see is that esteemed and high-ranking members of OTO were publicly declaring that "Hadit" was "on the Stele", and if there was anything unusual about it, this was allegedly due to a peculiarity in spelling introduced by the artist who created the Stele, 27 centuries ago. In other words, if "Hadit" didn't quite sound like "Bahadit", it is simply because the artist had left off "the 'Ba' prefix".
However, during the 1998 discussion, OTO began to be aware that these explanations were no longer going to suffice, as I began a critique of Heidrick's explanations in the Devil thread that involved a hieroglyphic analysis. Note that I certainly did not claim back then, nor do I now claim, to be "steeped in the language of Egypt", as I had only a beginner's understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics; but that is just the point—a basic understanding was all that was required to see that the note-maker in my copy of EOTG had been quite correct—"the stele makes no mention whatever of Hadit".
My 1998 analysis follows (note that at this time I had not seen the French translation and so did not know whether it used the word "Hadit" or some other spelling. As I will explain below, the French translation actually used the word "Houdit", which in fact was a common, but erroneous, spelling of the hieroglyphs):
Let's examine Bill's myth, point by point—
1. Bill states "Hadit" is the spelling of "Bahadit" found on the Stele."
First off, it's helpful to know that in hieroglyphic transliteration one generally does NOT know the sound of vowels (Egyptian hieroglyphs are consonants, the readers of the language were expected to fill in the vowels). So, a convention developed amongst translators whereby the vowel 'e' was substituted for all vowels (exceptions being made for when the correct vowel sound might be guessed from other sources or to simply add some variation to a word).
Thus, what Bill writes as 'Bahadit', or 'Ba-Hadit', is generally written 'Behdet' or (as in Budge) 'Behutet'.
Indeed, as pointed out before, in later editions of 'Equinox of the Gods' the word is, in fact, given as 'Behdet', the correct translation. Now, the way in which we get this word is by the combination of certain hieroglyphs, in this case they are:
a. 'tusk'='b' or 'b(e)h'
b. 'hand'='d'
c. 'cake'='t'
In addition, as I pointed out earlier, this word possesses a special glyph (the circle with cross), known as a 'determinative', which expresses a particular characteristic of the word, in this case, that 'Behdet' is the name of a town (modern 'Edfu').
If what Bill claims is true, and the 'b' (or, as he says, 'ba') sound is absent on the 'Stele of Revealing', we should not expect to find the 'tusk' hieroglyph.
But in fact we DO find it.
Indeed, the word 'Behdet' appears on MANY such votive stelae of the Saite and Late Periods. There is the stele of Wedjarenes, for example, which depicts a scene similar to that found on the 'Stele of Revealing', and which is inscribed almost identically---'the great god, lord of heaven, he of variegated plumage---Behdet'.
The hieroglyphs for the word, 'Behdet', are exactly the same here as for that found on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There is NO misspelling of the word on the 'Stele of Revealing'. The word was mistranslated and Crowley simply accepted the error as the great Thelemic deity, 'Hadit'.
2. While Bill allows that 'This "Hadit" or "Bahadit" is the winged sun disk, used over the entrances of temple doorways, at the tops of steles and elsewhere in Egyptian art and architecture", he fails to understand that 'Behdet' is a very particular expression of this winged disk (as Horus), which identifies him with the town of Edfu (a center of his myth and worship). Indeed, because Bill wishes the word to actually be TWO words, meaning, according to him, 'into the disk of the sun', he claims that it is 'hadit' which means 'disk of the sun'. As I pointed out before, it is possible that such a name (Hadit) was used as shorthand by the translator---but THAT word is NOT present in the name of Horus given at the top of the 'Stele of Revealing'---it is instead 'BHDT'---'Behdet', correctly spelled, incorrectly translated and incorrectly understood and used by Crowley.
Heidrick's response to this critique? He refused to reply to it:
"I'm skipping this part. Make as little or as much of that as you will. I've said my piece on it."
I will simply note that it was not Heidrick's habit to back away from direct challenges to Thelemic and OTO credibility. Recall that I was directly calling into question both his knowledge and that of Frater Ebony on a key point of dogma and lore. I have wondered if his refusal to reply to my analysis was because he had been ordered to silence by his superiors in OTO.
So far as I know, Heidrick has never again offered another public opinion about the Hadit question in these ten years.
One viewer of this exchange noted: "Bill and the OTO come off as such eunuchs. No sense of creative energy—just
attenuated protectors of a legacy they're too timid to confront openly. Why do I get the feeling old Beastie Boy would have made mincemeat of his followers?"
Of course, Crowley did that regularly to his followers.
A Professional Opinion
During the 1998 discussion, it occurred to me that the most authoritative opinion that I had obtained so far on the matter was my own and some anonymous analysis in the back of my copy of "EOTG". I was confident I was correct in the main of what I was saying, but I thought it might be prudent to obtain a professional confirmation. So, I began sending out requests for information about the hieroglyphs to a number of Egyptologists. One of the responses I received, four days after my analysis was posted to alt.tarot, came from Dr. James P. Allen, who at that time was curator of the Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Dr. Allen wrote to me:
"The misreading 'Hadit' for 'Behdet' arises from the first sign, the flat one with an upturned end. [i.e., 'tusk'] This has the value *Hw* (H = "dotted h") in most uses: hence, the translator read *Hwdt* = 'Hadit.' But the same sign is also used with the value *bH*, and fuller spellings of this word show it is *bHdt* = 'Behdet'."
The next day Dr. Allen repeated his confirmation in blunt terms:
"'*Hwdt* Hadit' doesn't mean anything in Egyptian. It's simply a misreading of *bHdt* 'Behdet'. Such misreadings were common in the early years of Egyptology."
This was of course precisely the determination that the note-maker in my copy of "EOTG" had come to, and that I myself had figured out as well. It did not in other words require Dr. Allen's level of expertise to establish the correct translation of the relevant hieroglyphs on the Stele, but his confirmation was conclusive that "Hadit" was not on the Stele of Revealing.
Recent Hadit Findings
From time to time I have revisited these questions; each time I have an opportunity to learn more, and to better understand exactly how it is "Hadit" came to be. As a consequence of one discussion, I was encouraged to examine the French translation to see what if anything it might offer. Of course, as one might expect, it offered a great deal, for example the insights that the original translation of the hieroglyphs for "Behdet" had been "Houdit", anglicized "Hudit". The "Houdit" form had been standard for translating the "Behdet" hieroglyphs for much of the 19th century, but by 1904 had been replaced by most Egyptologists with the form "Behdet". The French translator was still using the older, obsolete, form. This is what Dr. Allen meant by pointing out "[s]uch misreadings were common in the early years of Egyptology".
However the most interesting thing about my examination of the French translation was the clear evidence it provided for how "Houdit" became "Hadit".
This is from my notes taken during my examination of the original French translation:
"On the back of the pages of the translation are numerous notes made by Crowley, trying to force the various Egyptian names he was now introduced to into Hebrew transliterations and gematrias.
For example:
For Houdit/Hudit:
ChDiT
Cheth-Dalet-Yod-Tau
&
HADIT
Heh-Alef-Dalet-Yod-Tau
Then Crowley wrote the following:
ChADIT=441
—and he scribbled numerous combinations trying to make it work—adding, dividing—trying to get "the father of truth" (AMT=441, "truth"), desperate to get 666."
What this means is that the word "Hadit" was a Qabalistic expression by Crowley of the word "Hudit" (itself a mistranslation of "Behdet"). This modification occurred prior to the Aiwass sessions of April 8-10, 1904, and this means, unlike what some have argued, "Hadit" was not a product of Crowley misunderstanding the spoken word "Behdet" from Aiwass; nor was it as Heidrick and others have alleged a misspelling that occurs on the stele itself.
"Hadit" is a modern word originated by Aleister Crowley for the religion of Thelema. It is in no way ancient Egyptian, although it is based in a misunderstanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Finally, it may be worth noting that Crowley says in the Second Aethyr: "Hadit is a mathematical expression rather than a God."
That in fact seems to be precisely the case; "Hadit" is a Qabalistic expression.
Why Does This Matter?
A number of people have understandably asked why such a seemingly small point should make any difference to anyone, and especially to people who accept the Thelemic creation myth, and Liber AL.
My answer would be that this is not a question concerning a "small point", but rather a couple of fundamental ones
1. It suggests that Liber AL was the product of a calculated effort on Crowley's part to produce a Qabalistic document. It undercuts the notion that a praeternatural entity authored the text via an aural transmission, because certainly Aiwass, who was alleged to be the minister of the Egyptian god Hoor-paar-kraat, would have known and spoken the correct name for Horus, i.e., the epithet "Behdet". Obviously Crowley, who we see had intentionally changed the epithet to "Hadit", didn't care what Aiwass might have said about this, since he was aiming for a Qabalistic validation of a personal belief system. If all Aiwass intended to do was to echo Crowley's misunderstandings and personal designs, then what indeed is really the difference between Aiwass and Crowley? Crowley himself at certain points of clarity or honesty, acknowledged this. We should expect more from a truly impersonal revelation concerning the nature of the order of the cosmos for the next 2000 years. We should at least expect, for example, the Secret Chiefs would get the names of the principal players right.
2. Given that Crowley became aware of the "Hadit" error a few years after he had enshrined it, why would the OTO persist, even to this day, in representing "Hadit" as an Egyptian god, instead of a purely Thelemic one? And why have they concocted such a demonstrably erroneous story to explain away questions regarding the error? Why do they attempt to make it seem that no mistake had been made on Crowley's part, that he was innocently copying an error that was already on the stele, and so presumably validated in some way by its antiquity? Obviously, for whatever reason, OTO has considered this much more than a small point. Given that OTO claims to have employed professional Egyptologists over the years to aid in the translation and understanding of the stele, it is difficult to see how OTO could reasonably contend they have remained ignorant not merely of the facts (which again they had at hand for a long time), but also their implications.
3. Finally, apart from big-picture considerations (of small points) or any sort of controversy (I think), it should be important to anyone interested in Crowley and his ideas to finally understand the origin of "Hadit".
(jk)
