Hello.

Can anybody help me understand a certain passage in "The Novel Of The White Powder" by Arthur Machen?

Men and women, seduced from their homes on specious pretences, were met by beings well qualified to assume, as they did assume, the part of devils, and taken by their guides to some desolate and lonely place, known to the initiate by long tradition, and unknown to all else. Perhaps it was a cave in some bare and windswept hill, perhaps some inmost recess of a great forest, and there the Sabbath was held. There, in the blackest hour of night, the Vinum Sabbati was prepared, and this evil gruel was poured forth and offered to the neophytes, and they partook of an infernal sacrament; sumentes calicem principis inferorum, as an old author well expresses it. And suddenly, each one that had drunk found himself attended by a companion, a shape of glamour and unearthly allurement, beckoning him apart, to share in joys more exquisite, more piercing than the thrill of any dream, to the consummation of the marriage of the Sabbath.
It is hard to write of such things as these, and chiefly because that shape that allured with loveliness was no hallucination, but, awful as it is to express, the man himself. By the power of that Sabbath wine, a few grains of white powder thrown into a glass of water, the house of life was riven asunder and the human trinity dissolved, and the worm which never dies, that which lies sleeping within us all, was made tangible and an external thing, and clothed with a garment of flesh. And then, in the hour of midnight, the primal fall was repeated and re-presented, and the awful thing veiled in the mythos of the Tree in the Garden was done anew. Such was the nuptiæ Sabbati.

What I do not comprehend is that the man was "attended by a companion, a shape ... beckoning him apart," but then there is a mention that "the shape was no hallucion but the man himself." It makes sense to me so can anybody enlighten me on the problem?

I understood it to be a reference the concept of a familiar spirit, that accompanies the witch, and aids him/her in magical practices.
The suggestion seems to be that this is not in fact an independent entity, but an (evil) aspect of the person itself (the worm that never dies, which lies sleeping within us all).

I don't see, however, how this relates to the story itself. Ms Lester, as far as I know, never sees such a creature. However, the doctor may have learned additional details in his one private conversation with the brother. I guess the brother is the only one who would be able to see or converse with such an entity. The only monster that Ms Lester ever sees, as far as I know, is her own brother.

The blob that her brother turns into seems to be an extension of the idea of the witches' mark, carried to its ultimate extreme.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 3 Aug 22 | 02:04PM by Platypus.

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello.
>
> Can anybody help me understand a certain passage
> in "The Novel Of The White Powder" by Arthur
> Machen?
>
> Men and women, seduced from their homes on
> specious pretences, were met by beings well
> qualified to assume, as they did assume, the part
> of devils, and taken by their guides to some
> desolate and lonely place, known to the initiate
> by long tradition, and unknown to all else.
> Perhaps it was a cave in some bare and windswept
> hill, perhaps some inmost recess of a great
> forest, and there the Sabbath was held. There, in
> the blackest hour of night, the Vinum Sabbati was
> prepared, and this evil gruel was poured forth and
> offered to the neophytes, and they partook of an
> infernal sacrament; sumentes calicem principis
> inferorum, as an old author well expresses it. And
> suddenly, each one that had drunk found himself
> attended by a companion, a shape of glamour and
> unearthly allurement, beckoning him apart, to
> share in joys more exquisite, more piercing than
> the thrill of any dream, to the consummation of
> the marriage of the Sabbath.
> It is hard to write of such things as these, and
> chiefly because that shape that allured with
> loveliness was no hallucination, but, awful as it
> is to express, the man himself. By the power of
> that Sabbath wine, a few grains of white powder
> thrown into a glass of water, the house of life
> was riven asunder and the human trinity dissolved,
> and the worm which never dies, that which lies
> sleeping within us all, was made tangible and an
> external thing, and clothed with a garment of
> flesh. And then, in the hour of midnight, the
> primal fall was repeated and re-presented, and the
> awful thing veiled in the mythos of the Tree in
> the Garden was done anew. Such was the nuptiæ
> Sabbati.
>
> What I do not comprehend is that the man was
> "attended by a companion, a shape ... beckoning
> him apart," but then there is a mention that "the
> shape was no hallucion but the man himself." It
> makes sense to me so can anybody enlighten me on
> the problem?


This is indeed a tough one--purposely ambiguous, I suspect.

First, we're purposely told that "men and women" were guided to a place where the black mass was to be celebrated. These are first-time initiates.

These guides were well qualified to assume the parts of devils, and I suspect that these are not actual devils, but former initiates, since they're the only ones qualified to guide the initiates, as stated.

A potion was mixed up--water and a white powder--and the initiates drank it, "sumentes calicem principis inferorum" (
"taking the cup of the ruler of the underworld").

This next part, "a shape of glamour and unearthly allurement, beckoning him apart, to share in joys more exquisite, more piercing than the thrill of any dream, to the consummation of the marriage of the Sabbath." is all a mixture of sexual impulse and "glamour" in the old sense of the word, connoting magic. This is not directly identified with the neophyte or sprung from the neophyte; it seems like a spontaneous creation that "attends" the neophyte, "beckoning him apart", and it sounds like a sexual consummation.

Now, it does indeed seem like this being was of the neophyte ("...loveliness was no hallucination, but, awful as it is to express, the man himself."). So it seems like the being was created from the neophyte ("the man himslef"), but did not actually mimic or resemble him.

But what was this being made of? Machen says: "the human trinity dissolved", but what are the parts of the human trinity? We know the divine trinity, but not the human one. What is "the worm which never dies"?

In any case, the neophyte has carnal consummation with this being, sprung from himself in some fashion, repeatin original sin, apparently. I had always thought original sin referred simply to listening to the serpent, but here it sounds like sexual consummation.

Not sure about any of this, however. Very evocatively written, with hints and partial revelations, but strangely elliptical and indirect. Works well as weird fiction.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you very much for sharing your opinions.

Could it be possible "the worm that never dies" and "the human trinity" refer to the Bible?

[www.compellingtruth.org]
[lorenlung.wordpress.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 4 Aug 22 | 03:22PM by Minicthulhu.

"the worm that never dies" is a reference to Chapter 9 of the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus speaks of persons being thrown into the fires of hell, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." This "worm" is sometimes translated as "maggot", and is sometimes read to refer to some aspect of the human soul which is not destroyed by corruption and/or consumed by hellfire.

Not sure about "human trinity". Maybe, the body, the soul, and the "worm that dieth not".

Glancing at a few 18th century texts, I see "human trinity" used in a variety of contexts, with a variety of meanings. For instance, in certain Swedenborgian texts, "human trinity" has been used to refer to "body, soul, and operation"

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "the worm that never dies" is a reference to
> Chapter 9 of the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus
> speaks of persons being thrown into the fires of
> hell, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is
> not quenched." This "worm" is sometimes
> translated as "maggot", and is sometimes read to
> refer to some aspect of the human soul which is
> not destroyed by corruption and/or consumed by
> hellfire.

Great!

Thanks!

>
> Not sure about "human trinity". Maybe, the body,
> the soul, and the "worm that dieth not".


Is the soul imperishable? If so, how does one separate out the "worm that dieth not"?

In the context of the Mark passage, it almost seems like Mark is anticipating the question: "How is it that the body is perpetually burned, but *consciousness* remains to endure suffering without end?"

In other words, it's not referring to the soul, or any subdivision of human existence, but merely offering a metaphor for how it can be that a body can burn forever and the individual can remain conscious of it--it's like a worm or maggot that never dies.

To address this paradox, new and non-physical attributes must be created. The idea of, when in Hell, the human form is indestructible and consciousness of the situation, so as to be able to suffer endless torment.

It's a theological issue much like trying to tie down whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. In this sense it has no intuitive meaning beyond the religious context and has to be explained to the uninitiated, who must then either accept it as delivered, or not accept it.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, I have just found a 19th century reference to "human trinity" referring to the "physical, intellectual and moral" natures of Man. So the human trinity being dissolved might refer to a man's physical and intellectual natures being divorced from his moral nature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 5 Aug 22 | 01:10PM by Platypus.

Sawfish Wrote:
> > Not sure about "human trinity". Maybe, the
> body,
> > the soul, and the "worm that dieth not".
>
>
> Is the soul imperishable? If so, how does one
> separate out the "worm that dieth not"?
>
> In the context of the Mark passage, it almost
> seems like Mark is anticipating the question: "How
> is it that the body is perpetually burned, but
> *consciousness* remains to endure suffering
> without end?"
>
> In other words, it's not referring to the soul, or
> any subdivision of human existence, but merely
> offering a metaphor for how it can be that a body
> can burn forever and the individual can remain
> conscious of it--it's like a worm or maggot that
> never dies.
>
> To address this paradox, new and non-physical
> attributes must be created. The idea of, when in
> Hell, the human form is indestructible and
> consciousness of the situation, so as to be able
> to suffer endless torment.
>
> It's a theological issue much like trying to tie
> down whether the Holy Spirit comes from the
> Father, from the Father and the Son, or from the
> Father through the Son. In this sense it has no
> intuitive meaning beyond the religious context and
> has to be explained to the uninitiated, who must
> then either accept it as delivered, or not accept
> it.


To me, "trinity" simply means "group of three". I'm sure Machen has a specific three aspects of the human condition in mind, and until I guess what they are, I'd rather not go too far in making analogies to the Divine Trinity.

Gehenna is, of course, a metaphor. It refer, originally, to a literal place -- the Valley of Hinnom, where, we are told, trash and the corpses of animals and criminals were disposed, and where fires were burned to, I guess, consume the unsanitary mess that resulted. The passage in Mark imagines a different sort of Gehenna, where the maggot engendered in the corpse never dies, and the fire is never quenched.

"The inmost Light" by Machen, is another story, with similar themes, about subdividing human nature.

Here's a text that looks like it might be on the right track:

J.B. Heard, THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN: SPIRIT, SOUL AND BODY. (5th edition, 1882). Looks like a mystical text, applying itself to the doctrines of

- original sin
- disembodied states
- the new birth
- the spiritual body

[books.google.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 Aug 22 | 01:26AM by Platypus.

But the way, what do you think was the real nature of the hideous change that came over his physical body? Was the guy transforming into something else, or was he decomposing himself alive?

Minicthulhu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the way, what do you think was the real nature
> of the hideous change that came over his physical
> body? Was the guy transforming into something
> else, or was he decomposing himself alive?

His moral corruption was becoming physically manifest. It is the idea of the witch's mark, carried to an extreme.

Turns out minicthulhu's suspicion was correct. The idea of a "human trinity" is scriptural. Sort of, anyway.

It comes mainly from 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where St. Paul speaks of the body, soul and spirit of man (translating the Greek words soma, psyche, and pneuma).

It gets some support from Hebrews 4:12, where the author (St. Paul?) speaks of God having a sword that can divide spirit from soul and divide bone from marrow.

The latter might be taken as implying that spirit and soul are hard to distinguish, but God can distinguish them.

St. Paul is an infamous troublemaker who says all sorts of things that nobody is sure what they mean, causing endless theological debates.

I was not too familiar with the idea as my own sect, Roman Catholicism, tends to emphasis a body/soul dichotomy, rather than a trichotomy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 7 Aug 22 | 01:46AM by Platypus.