who really cares who/what was involved...its not the calendrical dates anyway, its the dates of YOUR reception, that matters. please dont try to split hairs with history- you'll end up with Atropos, Clotho and Lachesis unraveiling your soul.

93!

You are absolutely correct. The whole matter doesn't affect the contents and the implications and whatever more of the book, it doesn't affect the belief systems or spiritual paths of all those that feel influenced by the book at all, nor does the real existence of Aiwass or even AC himself. I simply wonder WHY AC might have forged the dates. Did he believe that these dates were of any importance? Probably, or it would not make sense to redate the reception. Or did he simply made a mistake in his memory? That on the other hand would astonish me. So, it might not be important in any spiritual or philosophical sense, but it is interesting and keeps one's brains fresh and alive to wonder about it - a good thing, I believe.

Love=Law
Lutz

I would say it does and does not matter, but I will say one thing that what We (2 solo aspirants) experienced at 12:00 noon April 10 2004, in the "Fairchild" Garden Audobon nature center, for a full half hour or so, was a complete affirmation of TIMING.....For a Lone HAWK circled and landed on a branch near us, and SAT THERE for a spell, about 8 feet away, so close its talons were gleaming, we both felt FEAR, and ELATION...reverent at least we seared permamently in our soul Some king of old,.we actually sat down on the path below Him and meditated upon his eyes...utterly stunning....this really DID happen. Did we invoke it or did someone else hold 'the door' open at that time I assume we held the keys....
in 93
parzival...

P.S anybody else share similar Thelemic moments??

93,

Early on Crowley did not place any particular importance to the dates. In The Temple of Solomon The King (Equinox vol.1 no.7) he seems to be vaguely recalling from missing or defective diaries when he says: "it must have been the 7th..."

April 1st would not be a particularly apposite choice of date - if choices have anything to do with it - because it is associated in England with practical jokes.

Talking of practical jokes today is Bastille Day when the Marquis de Sade called from the window of his almost empty and lightly defended prison, "Help, help! They are cutting the throats of all the prisoners." (No one was). This precipitated the French Revolution. Mormonism is another example of an influential and successful practical joke.

Never underestimate a good prank.

OK

93
My experience:
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=72&sid=88a054465e3dcbf1a2e40a9844db20cf

I've since interpreted the meditations as perhaps a glimpse of Tiphareth. It was an intoxicating experience, to say the very least.And it feels like it happened ages ago..
It's very interesting that you saw a hawk on the 10th. I imagine that was stunning.

Can anyone share the charts for the dates in question?
93 93/93
10BEARS

I telephoned Stephen Rabson, P&O's historian and archivist at the National Maritime Museum today, and he provided me with several important details. Firstly, however, the plot so far:

1. Bill Heidrick reports that Martin Starr has traced Crowley's passage on the S.S. Osiris (a P&O ship) from Port Said in April 1904 (he doesn't say when).
2. David R. Jones reports that he has been to view the Mormons' archive in Salt Lake City, and has seen a passenger list of the S.S. Commonwealth (then owned by the Blue Anchor Line, but bought by P&O in 1910) which shows Crowley and Besant leaving Port Said on the 6th of April. (He also talks about the Bulaq Museum and an alleged hotel bill, which is circumstantial.)

The Blue Anchor Line ran emigrant ships to Australia going exclusively via the Cape, and so Port Said was not on the Commonwealth's route.
http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/blueanchor.ht m"> http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/blueanchor.htm
This was confirmed by Stephen Rabson, who said that he was not aware of the Blue Anchor Line ever going via the Mediterranean, nor could he think of any reason why it would. Of course, it's not out of the question; but as an aside, the S.S. Commonwealth was basically a 3rd class ship with perhaps a dozen or so 1st class berths -- hardly a vessel fit for a honeymoon!

David R. Jones also cites his intention to go to London and view P&O's passenger lists for 1904, but P&O do not have any passenger lists for either the Osiris or the Commonwealth. In particular, P&O bought the Blue Anchor business but not the company, and so never had any records for the Commonwealth.

Regarding the S.S. Osiris, the shipping dates for April 1904 were as follows:
Brindisi dep. 4th -- arr. 6th Cairo dep. 11th -- arr. 13th Brindisi
Brindisi dep. 17th -- arr. 20th Cairo dep. 25th -- arr. 27th Brindisi

So it would have been the 11th or more likely the 25th of April (assuming it was April at all).

The S.S. Osiris was a time-saving shuttle which met up with the railway into Europe. The National Archive at Kew only holds records for passengers arriving in the U.K. from outside Europe, so couldn't be of help unless Crowley decided to waste time continuing his journey by sea, which would make the trip on the Port Said-Brindisi time-saving shuttle somewhat absurd. I have a suspicion that Aleister and Rose went via Paris (but others will know more), and that in itself would probably rule out the S.S. Commonwealth even for the Mediterranean.

I have enquired of the Mormons about their alleged copy of the S.S. Commonwealth passenger list, and hopefully I will get an answer fairly promptly. A more likely source would be the Lloyd's List, which has details of all reports of ships entering or leaving port around the world, although it would seem that the 1904 list isn't available at the British Newspaper Library (at least on microfilm)
Lloyd's List
and so one would have to enquire directly.

The alleged Crowley hotel bill on the 5th of April (either for food, drinks, rooms, etc.) is not only highly dubious but completely unsubstantiated. I find it hard to believe that any hotel would keep bills going back 100 years (unless they were unpaid!). When I stayed at the Majestic in Tunis (which is, incidentally, not a bad place to stay) and enquired about Crowley, it turned out they didn't even have the guestbook; though my French is pretty thin. At any rate, Crowley claimed to have rented a flat in Cairo, so even proof that he also used a hotel should hardly raise an eyebrow.

There is evidence that he had stayed at the Tewfik Palace Hotel in Helwan under the name of Prince Chioa Khan,
http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/1.ht m"> http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/1.htm
http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/2.ht m"> http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/2.htm
http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/3.ht m"> http://www.duaut.net/Gazette/PrincePrincess/3.htm
and Crowley's diary entry "April 6. Go off again to H, taking A's p." suggests that he was even then moving to and from Helwan, and presumably using the hotel's services to some extent. Therefore, a Helwan hotel bill would tend to corroborate Crowley's story, not the reverse.

The Bulaq/Boulak Museum "mistake" is also spurious, or at least misapplied, since Crowley was clearly only aware of one museum in Cairo which he referred to as "the museum at Cairo", and of course Crowley evidently did have intimate knowledge of one of the exhibits, made a copy of it, had bits translated, etc.

In summary, I think that David R. Jones' claims are dubious in the extreme, and perhaps a wind-up. A look at Lloyd's List for 1904 would help to settle it, and anyone in the U.K. with a penchant for this type of research is welcome to finish off the job. I will give an update when I've heard back from the Mormons.

93!

Wow! Thanks, ianrons... That's exactly what I meant when I wrote: "I would highly appreciate if anybody of the much better informed and learned people here has anything new to share... "

So, it's probably much ado about nothing. Two sides to that story with your side obviously better and more convincingly documented so far. Thanks again...

Love=Law
Lutz

Thanks for your kind remarks, Simon Iff.

I got a reply from the Mormons. Curiously enough, they directed me to this site:
http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/dominion.html
which refers to a different ship also called "Commonwealth" that was sold by Dominion to White Star in 1903, when it was renamed "Canopic", presumably so as not to clash with the 1902-built Blue Anchor "Commonwealth". However, the Mormons didn't say whether or not they had passenger lists (they suggested Google!).

That's not David R. Jones' ship anyway:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/14995
and if you look here
http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/ShipsC.html
you will see that the Canopic never went to Australia or Suez:
"...she resumed Liverpool - Boston voyages on 14/1/1904 and later the same month commenced Boston - Naples - Genoa sailings."

I think the Mormon passenger list for the Blue Anchor ship is now suspect, since the Mormon's haven't acknowledged its existence. However, further enquiry might yield better fruit if anyone can be bothered with this trivia. It might be easier to explain it to them by telephone, but I don't fancy making such a lengthy international call...
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Library/FHL/frameset_library.asp?PAGE=library_contact.asp

By the way, the Lloyd's List is catalogued here:
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/newspapers/record.ASP?lngMTitle=29168
The microfilms are available at the issue desk of the Newspaper Library:
The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HE
+44 (0)20 7412 7353 / newspaper@bl.uk

The P&O archivist and historian whom I mentioned in my previous post seemed very affable (he had heard of both Crowley and Besant, and seemed quite interested), and joked about "other ways" of finding information on Crowley! Furthermore (if anyone wants to verify the information I've recounted here), he specifically welcomed further enquiries on this topic:
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,45003&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL&ContactCategoryID=1008

Ian,

The circumstances surrounding the Cairo Working are of great interest to me and you have done all serious Crowley students - not to mention Thelema itself - a great service, not just for conducting the research but also for making it available to us all.

On behalf of LAShTAL.COM: Thank you!

Paul
@lashtal.com">webmaster@lashtal.com

Gosh, it feels nice to be appreciated for doing so little! Of course, none of this is conclusive thus far, so I hope someone is willing to take up the challenge of going to the Newspaper Library at Colindale (jeez!) and getting a copy/scan of the relevant page of Lloyd's List. If no-one responds, I suppose I could always ask one of the librarians to check it out, but it may be that David R. Jones will admit it was all a joke... having just looked at his post on t93 it seems like that's all it is. Is there a crime of "wasting Thelemites' time"? But, as I say, it's not conclusive thus far...

Thanks for your time and effort ianrons. Now, if we could get the "First" clarified from Mr. Grant’s Mauve book, Astrologers like me would be much happier 😆

I think that issue, which was summarized by Peter-R. Koenig here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/1600 4"> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/16004
was pretty well answered by henriebenholt in his reply here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/1602 7"> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/16027

It reminds me of Pratchett's "Seventh Day Hoppists", who went around on one leg every Sabbath, owing to a misprint in their King James Bible: "Faith, Hop and Charity."

Aye...I had seen the post. Pretty soon we gonna have to get as many of Crowley's TS on microfilm, so everyone can check for themselves 😉

I can now confirm from "The Shipping & Mercantile Gazette and Lloyd's List" that there is no mention of the S.S. Commonwealth at Port Said -- either arriving or departing -- in the first two weeks of April 1904; nor is there a report of her passing Port Said (i.e., going through the Suez Canal) during that time.

The S.S. Commonwealth was advertised as being due for departure from England to Australia via the Cape on the 29th of January that year, and the next departure from England was not until June the 16th. I didn't scour the voluminous and non-alphabetically-arranged records for where exactly the Commonwealth was in April, but as I've said, she apparently didn't use the Suez route anyway; and in any case, the burden of proof has shifted somewhat now!

Some of you may have noticed Ben Fernee's post on t93, where he recounts a trip to the Theosophical Library in London. The records apparently indicate that Annie Besant left India on the 8th of April that year, and went on to give lectures in Italy around the 19th to the 22nd. The journey from Bombay to Port Said is roughly 3100 nautical miles, and the journey to Italy took 2 days we know; and so it would have taken an average speed of 15 knots to get to Port Said in time for a ship to Italy. Just about possible, I suppose; but it speaks against the claim that Besant went to Marseille (on the Commonwealth, or any other vessel).

Incidentally, the S.S. Osiris left Port Said on the 12th of April at 11am, and if the Besant thing is accurate then it couldn't possibly have been the ship that Crowley sailed on. We are probably looking at around the 17th of April for a reasonable departure date. There might be some more detail in Besant's diaries, I suppose. It's all looking a bit odd, since there is of course that story written by Crowley at the time about a ship called "Osiris".

Thanks for bringing up this thread for our perusal, Steve. I hadn't paid such close attention to the dating issue before, and didn't know there was a controversy - which I think is a pseudo-controversy anyway, although one problem does remain - Crowley's memory of the exact dating of the reception.

From Crowley's wording in Equinox of the Gods, it does seem that he remained unsure of which of the three consecutive days it was - it could have been April 1, 2 and 3 rather than 8, 9 and 10 (both are Friday, Saturday and Sunday).

Page 87 (photocopy of the 1936 edition, Stellar Visions 1986):
"It must have been on the first of April that W(ouarda) commanded P(erdurabo)... to enter the 'temple' exactly at 12 o'clock noon on three successive days..."

Page 116: "April 7. Not later than this date was I ordered to enter the 'temple' exactly at noon on the three days following..."

However, careful reading indicates a detail in the second account of Ouarda's command that is missing in the first - the second says "the three days following...". It is evidently easier to remember a day than a date, and it seems that Crowley was sure it was Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If Ouarda's command "on the First of April" also included the detail of the "following three days", then the communication would have begun on a Saturday and ended on a Monday, which is a fact that I don't think Crowley would have misremembered.

Thus, for me, the weight of evidence still rests with the 8, 9 and 10 account.

As for Jones' claims (hoax?)

ianrons' 2005 research seems to have dispelled Jones' 2004 claims, which are thus either misunderstandings or a hoax.

Jones' "S.S. Commonwealth" did not use the Suez route, or go into the Mediterranean at all.

A second "Commonwealth" was renamed "Canopic" in 1903, but as a far as ianrons' information goes, it did not go to Port Said (or pass through Suez). Like the former ship, this one is irrelevant.

The S.S. Osiris seems to be the only plausible candidate, and its Cairo departure dates are 11 and 25 April, 1904.

This brings Annie Besant's itinerary into the picture, which as far as I know is still not confirmed. There seems no reason to dismiss Crowley's offhand allusion to her presence onboard in the Confessions, chapter 50. On the contrary, he remembers it distinctly, and says although he discussed mystical topics with her, he did not mention the Cairo Working.

If Besant really did gives lectures in Italy "around the 19th to the 22nd" of April, then the Osiris' departure of the 25th from Cairo to Brindisi seems like a plausible date (I take the "around" in Ben Fernee's account to indicate insecurity as to the actual dates) for both Prince and Princess Chioa Khan and Annie Besant to have been together.

(thanks for those copies of the Egyptian Gazette notices, ianrons - what great research! The last one also, correcting the omission of "Princess" Chioa Khan, mentions that the couple "propose staying in Helouan till the end of April." This adds circumstantial weight to a later rather than earlier departure date.)

Bel Murru

93,

(thanks for those copies of the Egyptian Gazette notices, ianrons - what great research! The last one also, correcting the omission of "Princess" Chioa Khan, mentions that the couple "propose staying in Helouan till the end of April." This adds circumstantial weight to a later rather than earlier departure date.)

I think you must be referring to Colin S. McLeod's site -- it's not any research that I've done.

On a general note, I seem to recall (though it'll be referenced elsewhere, probably on t93) that the SS Osiris didn't have any 1st class berths (or only about a dozen), and we would expect AC & Rose to have been travelling in style, so the Osiris seems unlikely from that perspective. Also, the departure dates don't really match the Besant schedule IMO.

93 93/93
Ian

93 Ian,

Thanks for the clarification. I've been out of the game for a long time.

On a general note, I seem to recall (though it'll be referenced elsewhere, probably on t93) that the SS Osiris didn't have any 1st class berths (or only about a dozen), and we would expect AC & Rose to have been travelling in style, so the Osiris seems unlikely from that perspective. Also, the departure dates don't really match the Besant schedule IMO.

93 93/93
Ian

The latter point is a stickler. Somebody has to clarify it.

I think you mentioned the 1st Class situation on the Osiris earlier on the thread. But even 12 1st class berths would seem to be enough - is the Osiris really "unlikely" from that perspective alone?

93 93/93
Ross

is the Osiris really "unlikely" from that perspective alone

No, of course not, and I didn't say that. However, the Osiris does seem a little unlikely from the sailing dates. More research could be done on it, but I'm waiting in a state of almost frenzied anticipation to hear back from Herr Jones with his devastating repudiations first.

93 Ian,

It was this comment I mistakenly recalled -

"but as an aside, the S.S. Commonwealth was basically a 3rd class ship with perhaps a dozen or so 1st class berths -- hardly a vessel fit for a honeymoon!"

A quick search around the internet for references to Osiris and its sister-ship Isis doesn't give much information, but I found that they were distinguished by being the only ones in their time to carry solely mail and passengers (and could cruise at 23 knots), so perhaps they had more 1st class berths than that.

(see e.g. the 1911 Britannica (when the ships were still running) at
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Steamship_Lines
"The mails leaving London every Friday night are despatched from Brindisi in specially designed twin-screw vessels, which land them at Port Said little more than 96 hours after their despatch from London. On this service the " Osiris " and " Isis " are employed, and they have the distinction of being the only vessels in the mercantile marine which cross the seas with mails and passengers only."

For "The P&O Passenger Ships List"
http://www.lascars.co.uk/shiplist.html

Osiris doesn't have passenger information, but sister-ship Isis had "78 passengers", no classes mentioned, so it was quite an intimate vessel. )

I might have to call Stephen Rabson (if he's still there) myself for more details.

In any case, I trust Crowley's remark that Besant was aboard, so it seems that unless an authentic passenger list turns up, a coincidence in their itineraries would be the closest way to solving this issue (or talking to Starr?)

93 93/93

Ross

You mean for the coincidence of dates with Besant? If we discount that (which I personally don't - but maybe it was another trip Crowley mixed up with that one) I can't see a problem with 25 April departure date for the Crowleys alone.

More research could be done on it, but I'm waiting in a state of almost frenzied anticipation to hear back from Herr Jones with his devastating repudiations first.

Is he likely to participate?

I'll shut up now until I find out something new.

93 Ian!

nice work!

Fraternally,

441

chris

93,

Yup, but I think if you want to get in touch again, then we should liaise a bit about the questions, because he may have answered some that I haven't mentioned in my forum posts; and also because I may have some questions to put myself – for instance, could a ship departing on the 8th of April from Bombay (or wherever) have reached Port Said or Alexandria in time for the connection with the Osiris on the 12th ('scuse my lack of accuracy about details here, but I've pretty much lost interest in D.R. Jones' game).

I do happen to believe Crowley over Jones, but that's just my taste. And the passenger lists haven't been discovered yet, unless you believe Jones over the Mormon archivists that I spoke to. Someone said to me that D.R. Jones posts a lot of incendiary stuff during the school holidays (he works at a college, apparently; and presumably gets bored when the students aren't around) – and his posts on this subject coincided with the Easter holiday. However, perhaps Mr. Starr could be brought into this – I've only had brief correspondence with him in the past, but I would think he might be interested enough to respond.

At the moment, I would be betting that I was wrong about the time it would take to travel from India to Egypt, and that the ship was the Osiris on the 12th; but then I often like to be contrary!

Look at the most recent correspondence on the topic on t93. He seemed evasive; but that's the trouble with this kind of research – someone can always come up with documentation to refute even the most cautious analysis of someone working without those documents. However, with a recent incident, I was probably too cautious, stating that a particular couple of persons were innocently unaware of the problems with their research, when in fact (as I have since discovered) they were made aware of the problems well in advance of publication. Dr. Jones has not published, and so as far as I'm concerned it's not academic fraud and not a matter for severe censure – it's just a joke. But he hasn't delivered the punchline, and that's why it bores me. Let's not waste our time with this nonsense!

Thanks! I wouldn't do it if it weren't fun...

93 93/93
Ian

This was running through my mind the other day after reading it in Beyond the Mauve Zone by Grant.
He says that Crowley originally stated Liber AL was recieved on 1st April through 3rd April.
Then he said that all successive statements of the dates were lies because he was afraid people would think it an April Fools' joke.

What do you all think?
I think its funny a lot of people are celebrating Holy Days on April 7th etc when they are probably (maybe) wrong.

Like much of Crowley's work there are very particular, very intentional double blinds and dead ends all over the place. Why this wouldn't apply to his diaries too is not obvious to me. Crowley wasn't just inconsistent with the dates of the scribing of the Great Book, he was inconsistent with dates for an entire year, if not slightly longer. Despite Crowley's deep attention to documenting his movement, for which we're all thankful, there was still seemingly a great lot about our man which was not revealed to us. Believe what you like about Richard Spence' book on Crowley's alleged work for Her Majesty's Secret Service, be he a spy or not, it still points out to us something we cannot deny, scholarly research has shown that Crowley was not always straight up with us, his ever eager audience. Perhaps Crowley's muddling of dates was an intentional bluff left precisely if, and when, his diaries were eventually read.

To a degree, I suspect you're right, but the string of inconsistancies doesn't end there.... and that's the damning part of it. One *does* have to give Mr. Hulse credit-- he did his homework, and did it before the materials he cites were available on-line. But he raises a number of inconsistancies and discrepancies in some very familiar twice-told-tales. Some of them are more-or-less easily explained. Some are obviously typographical errors. But some are obvious attempts by The Beast to gloss over some inconvenient half-truths, circumstances, and deliberate obfuscations.

Kenneth Grant said no such thing.

In Beyond the Mauve Zone Grant is picking up something proposed by Charles Stansfeld Jones in 1948 in the course of his correspondence with Gerald Yorke. Jones highlighted the fact that in one passage in The Equinox of the Gods, Crowley gives the date of April 1st for an event which he had previously attributed to April 7th. However, this is an isolated change; and although it cannot be proved conclusively, the chances are that it was a typographical error that Crowley failed to spot.

Yorke pointed out to Jones that in his diaries both before and after publication of The Equinox of the Gods Crowley continually referred to April 8th as the anniversary of the first day's reception.

I argued this point on these hallowed boards of LAShTAL in thrillingly gladiatorial fashion with Patriarch156 two or three years ago. I had not then seen Yorke's replies to Jones, which though not conclusive I subsequently found compelling.

Best wishes,

Michael.

michael,
hopefully you'll forgive me for not understanding then, but if grant is not saying this what is he saying?
i quote the passage from 'beyond the mauve zone' which led me to the conclusion that grant was saying Crowley said he received liber AL on 1st April. (is that an erroneous conclusion? trying to clear this up 🙂 :
'It is important to note that April the first is a date of major significance both in the Mysteries of Freemasonry and of Thelema. Concerning the latter, April 1st was the date on which, according to Crowley's account in The Equinox of the Gods, Aiwass began transmitting the Book of the Law. (18) As if to confirm the fact that the date si not a misprint, first of April is spelled out in full. It has been a source of puzzlement to more than one student why Crowley had maintained publicly, until 1936 (19), that Aiwass had begun the dictation of AL on April 8th. Frater Achad suggested (20) that Crowley was not slow to foresee the inevitable jibes arising from an April Fool joke perpetrated on him by his wife Rose whilst on their honeymoon. Crowley did have a conscience about all matters pertaining to Liber AL and the Great Work, and when it came to the final reckoning he let stand what he knew to be the true date in a publication purporting to contain a precise documentation of the events that occurred in Cairo on April 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 1904. And it has become apparent over the years that Frater Achad guessed correctly the reason for this hitherto unexplained discrepancy in dating AL's origin.
19. The date of the publication of The Equinox of the Gods . Although re-issued in 1937, the book carried an extended errata list which did not refer to the first of April date. It is inconceivable that it would have passed unnoticed by Crowley a second time if the date had been erroneous.
'
so with all due respect michael, I agree since you know Grant better, that if you say Grant is not saying AL was received on the first, what is he saying? Because I am sure you can see that based on this passage, to someone not as knowledgeable as you it totally seems like Grant is saying AL was received on the first. He doesn't say it was Achad's belief, he doesn't bring up Achad until after making the statement. So can you please help me understand this discrepancy? I thought that was what Grant was trying to get across ? 🙁
thanks in advance for the help! 😳

I'd like to see the "thrilling gladiator" thread!

Chris,

You have misrepresented what Grant wrote in Beyond the Mauve Zone. To quote from the passage of the book which you reproduce above:

It has been a source of puzzlement to more than one student why Crowley had maintained publicly, until 1936 , that Aiwass had begun the dictation of AL on April 8th.

Grant here makes clear, quite correctly, that in all accounts until this one reference in 1936 Crowley maintained that transmission had started on 8th April. And yet despite this clarity on Grant's part, you represent him as stating that Crowley "originally" stated that transmission had started on 1st April. This is why I used the term "misrepresentation", because Grant did not say what you said he did.

Personally I couldn't care less whether The Book of the Law was transmitted on 1st April, 8th April, or even Christmas Day.

Best wishes,

Michael.

michael
thanks for clearing that up for me.
i must admit though i am a great fan of grant,
I have a hard time processing all the information sometimes as there is so much of it thrown at the reader.
I meant harm in my pseudo-academic wrangling in choice of quotes it was just what i remembered as containing what confused me.
you can see how someone could think that based on that quote though cant you?
i think i need to re read that chapter... 🙂
i also dont really care whicih day it was received for certain, |I just found the ambiguity amusing.

funny how i count Grant as one of my favourite authors yet here I find out I am not understanding him fully.
thanks for your response and
take care
chris
edited because i found out which quote you were talking about. 🙂
its amazing what a 3rd or fourth read will do for your understanding when you are overwhelmed the first or second time!

now that i understand that grant wasn't positing a new date, merely showing the inconsistency in Equinoxes information, why do we think that Crowley let that error in there?
if we think april first was an error?
chris

😯

Rather Typo - nian of you, chris!
🙂

Noctifer, I'm in to most way certain our dear Christibrany meant to say "I meant no harm" as he stand most friendly towards Mr. Staley and Kenneth Grant, and only wishes to learn. Anyway 't was a most funny typo coming from him, LOL.

lol 🙂 insert NO
:-p
😳
goes off to do penances

Please do not go off doing penances it's very bad. . .

"in to most way certain" ?

Another Typo-nian ! You two must be working together! Conspiracy!:lol:

'In the most way certain' I'm not one advocating to make typo's.

"Number 3 reached galley-proofs in 1927 EV, but was delayed until 1936 EV when it appeared in partial form as The Equinox of the Gods (actually part one of four parts of Book Four Part Four, to have included the Commentary to The Book of the Law."
(Source: http://www.book-of-thoth.com/archives-printpage-1580.html - containing a text titled "Introduction: Culture vs. Cult" written by CALIPH HYMENAEUS BETA X°. This is a text contained within The Equinox: The Review of Scientific Illuminism v.3: The Review of Scientific Illuminism Vol 3 No. 10, published in 1990.)

The information from HYMENAEUS BETA X° above, indicates that Crowley had finished writing about the first of April 1904 date as the startingpoint for Aiwass' transmition of The Book of the Law, already in 1927, as what was later published as The Equinox of the Gods in 1936, had already reached galley-proofs in 1927.

I don't think it indicates any such thing. It is extremely unlikely that Crowley simply took what had reached the galley-proofs stage in 1927 and published it in 1936. Assuming that the galley-proofs were accessible to him at the time, he is likely at the very least to have looked at the material again with a view to further revision, since a lot of water would have flowed under the bridge in the intervening ten years or so.

In 1936 Crowley reopened correspondence with Charles Stansfeld Jones specifically because he was preparing The Equinox of the Gods for publication. That indicates, I would have thought, that Crowley wasn't simply having the 1927 proofs printed.

Finally, from a letter Yorke to Jones in 1948, to be included in a forthcoming publication from Starfire Publishing:

I have now succeeded in finding and acquiring the actual typescript used by the printer to set up his type for The Equinox of the Gods. This typescript has many alterations and additional foot-notes in the old boy's handwriting which have all been incorporated in The Equinox of the Gods . . . In this typescript as sent to the printer the relevant passage reads "It must have been on the 7th April that W . . .". The typescript shows, as I have said, innumerable cases of revision, but this was not altered. The actual page proofs of the book have not survived, so that it is still possible that A.C. made the alteration in the page or galley proof stage.

This indicates that contrary to your assertion, the 1936 publication was not from the galley-proofs of 1927. It also makes it unlikely that the date-change was there in the 1927 galley-proofs; in fact, since the republication by Breeze of The Equinox of the Gods in the 1990s restored 7th April in this partricular passage, I'd say it was a cast-iron certainty.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I think Christibrany makes a very good observation there. He's obviously read the material, thought about it and reached an intelligent conclusion. Wellredwellbred's contribution I just don't understand.

To complicate matters further by 1998 Crowley expert H Beta had revised his opinion on the date of the '1927' proofs. In note 381 on page 790 of the 1998 edition of ABA (blue brick) he has decided that Crowley expert Yorke has misidentified these proofs and quite plausibly places them as being from 1930.

The passage referred to in Crowley expert Yorke's 1948 letter beginning - "It must have been on the 7th April that W . . .". shows a man tentatively deciding where to place an event rather than an expression of certainty.

I generally concur with Crowley expert Michael Staley's view but I consider the matter as unsettled rather than cast-iron.

OK

ps. I can't think where I picked up this habit of calling everyone Crowley expert. I think it was sparked off by someone recommending the admirable Prof.Pasi.

Something happened in 1936, something as significant as a giant meteor impacting the planet.

Knowledge fractures, dividing into pieces and combining into various forms. In acquiring the capacity to transmit information in spoken words and written symbols, we lost the ability to communicate.

synchromorph93,

Uh, we are all communicating now, aren't we? 😉

In a manner of speaking. If you choose to refer to symbolized hominid grunts as true communication.

Weren't we grunting before 1936 too?

Yes, but the two are unrelated. Or perhaps not. But then that illustrates my point, does it not? Or can you see the multidimensional images in my mind's eye that cannot be transliterated in words?

i can see some kind of images but they aint too pretty 😉 Hookah ma jooka!

LOL 😳

Yes, I'd certainly agree with that. It seems to me that Crowley was tentative on dates and even location. In my view this is because at first he placed little value on The Book of the Law, and only later did it assume more importance for him.

Yes, "cast-iron certainty" was a tad overstated. I doubt that the change in date was there in any proof that the copyright-holders have access to, given that the change was silently dropped in the 1990s edition of The Equinox of the Gods.

Best wishes,

Michael.