Notifications
Clear all

Reception of Liber AL inconsistencies  

Page 2 / 4
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2010 11:33 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"OKontrair" wrote:
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.

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.

Will someone please lead me hand in hand through the factual details in this thread regarding the early publishing story of The Equinox of the Gods?

These are those details as I see them now with no one to lead me by my hand through them:

Crowley had the galley-proofs ready for his book The Equinox of the Gods either in 1927 or 1930. That is, he had either nine/ten or six/seven years to correct its content, before the The Equinox of the Gods was first published in 1936, and republished in 1937.

And with all this time on his hand, Crowley never corrected these just mentioned editions of The Equinox of the Gods before publishing them, in respect of them containing a description of Aiwass' transmition of The Book of the Law in 1904, a description placing the starting point of that transmition on the first of April.

This is strange/significant since The Equinox of the Gods is the most important of Crowley's books dealing with The Book of the Law, because it contains the authoritative exegesis(= a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text) of this most holy book of Thelema, an authoritative exegesis authored by Crowley himself in person.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
07/06/2010 12:30 am  

That's a fair summary. You don't need anyone to lead you - by hand, elbow, foot, whatever - through the factual details. Whether the date change to "first of April" was a late change by Crowley, or a printer's error which Crowley never noticed, has not to my knowledge been established with certainty. However, there are other references in The Equinox of the Gods to the date as 7th April. So it's a mysterious anomaly and we'll perhaps never get to the bottom of it.

Crowley carried on observing 8th April as the first day of the writing I believe.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2010 5:48 am  

The 8th is also when I thought Crowley celebrated The Feast for the 1st day of the writing of AL. That's when I've always celebrated it, and that is the day that is mentioned in my Centennial Edition of AL.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
07/06/2010 8:40 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
The 8th is also when I thought Crowley celebrated The Feast for the 1st day of the writing of AL. That's when I've always celebrated it, and that is the day that is mentioned in my Centennial Edition of AL.

The situation, N.O.X, is that the date given in this particular passage of The Equinox of the Gods is the only known departure from 8th April as the first day of the writing. It can be suspected from Crowley's tentativeness ("It must have been on . . .") that in any case he was none too sure about the date that Rose told him to enter the Temple at noon on three successive days.

Whether it was a printer's error not corrected by Crowley, or a late change by him, we may never know. In the meantime, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 8th April can stand as the anniversary date.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/06/2010 10:12 am  

I recall hearing about a ship passenger list with their names listed as being on the ship, not in Cairo, on those days. What's the deal there? Busted or unbusted?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
07/06/2010 10:19 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
I recall hearing about a ship passenger list with their names listed as being on the ship, not in Cairo, on those days. What's the deal there? Busted or unbusted?

Earlier in this thread (which, like Cthulhu, has resurged from the depths because the stars are right) there is a post by Ian Rons addressing either this matter or a related one. I don't think these speculations have been proved, but like a typo I'm open to correction.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
07/06/2010 10:30 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In the meantime, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 8th April can stand as the anniversary date.

Yes, particularly since the rest of the same book, i.e. The Equinox of the Gods, refers to that anniversary date.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
07/06/2010 10:35 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes, particularly since the rest of the same book, i.e. The Equinox of the Gods, refers to that anniversary date.

Yes, as I pointed out in an earlier post.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
07/06/2010 10:45 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes, particularly since the rest of the same book, i.e. The Equinox of the Gods, refers to that anniversary date.

Yes, as I pointed out in an earlier post.

I know, I was only agreeing with you 🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
07/06/2010 10:56 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I know, I was only agreeing with you 🙂

Second time in a month. We can't go on meeting like this.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
08/06/2010 3:22 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
In note 381 on page 790 of the 1998 edition of ABA (blue brick)

If you *insist* upon referring to an edition as the "blue brick" you might refer to the CORRECT edition-- the 1st Edition. The subsequent 2nd Edition and 2nd Revised Edition were rather larger in their page dimensions, and do not deserve such a description.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
24/02/2013 9:18 pm  

This from the Egyptian Museum's Facebook page:

Stele of Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu (The Stele of Revealing)

The Stele of Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu i (also known as the Stele of Revealing) is a painted, wooden offering stele, discovered in 1858 at the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Dayr al-Bahri by François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette. It was originally made for the Montu-priest Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu i, and was discovered near his coffin ensemble of two sarcophagi and two anthropomorphic inner coffins. It dates to circa 680/70 BCE, the period of the late Dynasty 25/early Dynasty 26. Originally located in the former Bulaq Museum under inventory number 666, the stele was moved around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo (inventory number A 9422; Temporary Register Number 25/12/24/11), where it remains today.

The stele is made of wood and covered with a plaster gesso, which has been painted. It measures 51.5 centimeters high and 31 centimeters wide. On the front Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu is as a priest of Montu can be seen; he is presenting offerings to the falcon-headed god Re-Harakhty ("Re-Horus of the Two Horizons"), a synchronistic form of the gods Ra and Horus, who is seated on a throne. The symbol of the west, the place of the Dead, is seen behind Re-Harakhty. Above the figures is a depiction of Nut, the sky goddess who stretches from horizon to horizon. Directly beneath her is the Winged Solar Disk, Horus of Behdet.

The stele is also known as the "Stele of Revealing" and is a central element of the religious philosophy Thelema founded by Aleister Crowley.

--- https://www.facebook.com/EgyptianMuseum09

Pleased to see confirmation that it was already in the Egyptian Museum two years before the Cairo Working.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 451
24/02/2013 9:42 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:

Pleased to see confirmation that it was already in the Egyptian Museum two years before the Cairo Working.

Well, if I had known such a confirmation was needed, I could have provided it some time ago.

The Guide To The Cairo Museum was published every year from the time the museum opened up until some point quite a few years later. Click on the link below to see the 1903 publication of the guide; in the 'Search Inside' prompt, type 302, then click on page 302 when it comes up; it will take you to the entry on exhibit number 666.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Guide_to_the_Cairo_Museum.html?id=_6hDAAAAYAAJ


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
24/02/2013 9:53 pm  

It wasn't needed - but thanks for the link, although I can't see the content on my setup.

The Egyptian Museum has also presented its version of a translation of the rear of the stele: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151211038993071&set=a.10151171328978071.459345.85676803070&type=1&permPage=1

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
24/02/2013 10:37 pm  

'the stele was moved around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo (inventory number A 9422; Temporary Register Number 25/12/24/11), where it remains today.'

Paul, if I am remembering correctly, you mentioned the Stele is not currently on display as it is being moved to a new location or?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
24/02/2013 10:56 pm  

When I last visited Cairo the stele was still on display but several posters here have indicated that it has been removed, one reporting that it has been crated ready for removal to the new museum at Giza. The question about its current location has been asked as Facebook comments so probably worth checking regularly for updates.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
25/02/2013 6:16 am  

Hmm, well this pokes a few more holes in the story of the reception of TBOL.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
25/02/2013 5:07 pm  

Pleased to see confirmation that it was already in the Egyptian Museum two years before the Cairo Working.

Not sure I am pleased.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
25/02/2013 6:28 pm  
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Hmm, well this pokes a few more holes in the story of the reception of TBOL.

I don't think it does. The Museum had become known as the Bulaq because it was in that area. Though relocated in 1902, it's perfectly reasonable that it would have continued to be referred to as the Bulaq for some time afterwards.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/02/2013 6:43 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Hmm, well this pokes a few more holes in the story of the reception of TBOL.

I don't think it does. The Museum had become known as the Bulaq because it was in that area. Though relocated in 1902, it's perfectly reasonable that it would have continued to be referred to as the Bulaq for some time afterwards.

I wonder how that would have come about, though. Would the locals have referred to it as Bulaq, and so that's how Crowley decided to reference it - or would Crowley have personally referred to it as Bulaq?

It is common for places to keep their 'popular names' for a while, just brainstorming of how it may have happened that Crowley referred to it as Bulaq.

Perhaps some newspaper clippings of the time or whatever continued to use that terminology. Or perhaps when Crowley learned of the museum, he learned it as the Bulaq museum, and didn't much worry about the new name change after the museum itself had moved, and also didn't think enough about it to make a solid note anywhere. Or, it's possible that he never learned of a name change (?).


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
25/02/2013 9:17 pm  
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Hmm, well this pokes a few more holes in the story of the reception of TBOL.

Some might think that this would suggest AC saw it first in the Bulaq - in 1902.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
25/02/2013 10:25 pm  

The second of the two Boulaq Museums closed in 1890 and the contents were removed to Gizeh (Giza) in a baroque palace loaned by the Khedive. This building was/is? in the grounds of what still is Cairo Zoo - upstream a few miles. This is where the stele got numbered 666. Exhibit 666 in the earlier Boulaq Museums was a terracotta tile.

The Ghizeh Museum closed around the turn of the 19th century and the contents were stored in situ while the new - i.e. present - building was being completed.

At the opening of the present museum the ashes of Auguste Mariette were moved from their previous resting place outside Boulaq2 to the catafalque outside the new building where they still are.

There is an account of the opening ceremony in 1902 (in French) in one of the Annales where most of the guests referred to any old museum they wanted to mention - new, old or inbetween - as 'The Boulaq.'

I can dig out a reference for this if anyone cares but not right now (busy and disorganised)

OK


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
25/02/2013 10:48 pm  

I found what I mentioned above. You can find it at:

http://archive.org/details/annalesduservice05egypuof

The relevant article is on page 54. Page 55 has some interesting dates:

The statue arrived on 14th February 1904 (a long project conceived originally in 1894 held up by the move and fundraising etc.) and was erected on the 18th. The inaugural ceremony took place on Thursday 17th March 1904.

It would be rather surprising if this wasn't in the papers at the time and the attendees were all commemorating the past - Ghizeh never achieved the fame that Boulaq had and many of the guests were French.

OK


ReplyQuote
jdes
 jdes
(@jdes)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 61
25/02/2013 10:57 pm  

There's an archived article here:
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/library/texts/background/2200-2199-old-article.html
that mentions such a newspaper article...

In the Egyptian Gazette of Thursday, March 17th, 1904, in an article about Mariette on the occasion of the unveiling of a statue of the great man in the grounds of the museum, there is this: "The founding of the old Boulac museum, which was transferred to Ghizeh, and retransferred but a short time ago to Boulac, was due to the marvellous energy and perseverance of F. Auguste Ferdinand Mariette."


ReplyQuote
jdes
 jdes
(@jdes)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 61
25/02/2013 11:18 pm  

In the English translation of the 1903 Guide to the Cairo Museum the author [GASTON MASPERO?] makes an apology for the disorder on the first floor, the southern hall being used as a kind of 'lumber room', with only some of the exhibits on that floor catalogued. Full text including page scans here:

http://scholarship.rice.edu/jsp/xml/1911/13080/1540/MusCa1903.tei-timea.html#index-div3-N22DBA

An ill-ordered house indeed!


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
26/02/2013 9:21 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
I found what I mentioned above. You can find it at:

http://archive.org/details/annalesduservice05egypuof

The relevant article is on page 54. Page 55 has some interesting dates:

OK

The link did not work for me OK.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
26/02/2013 9:52 am  

Paul, try this one -
http://archive.org/stream/annalesduservice56egyp#page/n63/mode/2up

- with the rest of the formats here -
http://archive.org/details/annalesduservice56egyp


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
26/02/2013 10:02 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
Paul, try this one -

Much appreciated Belmurru. Thank you.

Using your links and the terrible Google translator, means you can read a rough english translation at the following link.
http://archive.org/stream/annalesduservice56egyp/annalesduservice56egyp_djvu.txt


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
21/02/2014 4:38 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Originally located in the former Bulaq Museum under inventory number 666, the stele was moved around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo (inventory number A 9422; Temporary Register Number 25/12/24/11), where it remains today. [...] The stele is also known as the "Stele of Revealing" and is a central element of the religious philosophy Thelema founded by Aleister Crowley.
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Hmm, well this pokes a few more holes in the story of the reception of TBOL.
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I don't think it does. The Museum had become known as the Bulaq because it was in that area. Though relocated in 1902, it's perfectly reasonable that it would have continued to be referred to as the Bulaq for some time afterwards.
"lashtal" wrote:
Some might think that this would suggest AC saw it first in the Bulaq - in 1902.

This confirms that 666 was not the inventory number of the stele in 1904, in the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
21/02/2014 5:03 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
This confirms that 666 was not the inventory number of the stele in 1904, in the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo.

Oh dear, this old chestnut.

Check out Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum", 1903, page 302, given at a link earlier in this thread -
http://scholarship.rice.edu/jsp/xml/1911/13080/1540/MusCa1903.tei-timea.html#index-div3-N22DBA

Note the date -

Note the exhibit number -


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
21/02/2014 6:54 pm  

And Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum", is contradicted by the information quoted by the original poster on this thread, information from the Egyptian Museum's Facebook page, information according to which 666 was the inventory number of the stele before its relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo, where it received "inventory number A 9422; Temporary Register Number 25/12/24/11". According to the said information from the Egyptian Museum's Facebook page, 666 given as the stele's inventory number in Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum" from 1903, is incorrect, as it refers to an outdated or no longer valid inventory number for the said stele. If the stele was still marked with its original inventory number 666 from the former Bulaq Museum, even after the relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo where it received the new inventory number A 9422, this can be the background for the stele in error being referred to with the no longer valid inventory number 666, in Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum" from 1903.

Indeed an " ill-ordered house", as it is written in The Book of the Law.  😉


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
21/02/2014 8:02 pm  

And what conclusions do you draw from this, wellreadwellbred?


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 430
21/02/2014 9:59 pm  

Dwtw

The chances are good that Stele 666 was not the only one referred to by its previous Boulak catalog number. It certainly could not have been the only object given a new number after the move to the new museum, and Maspero uses quite a few old numbers just on page 302.

My guess would be that the old numbers were still attached to all these objects, (as is clearly the case with Stele 666 to this day), and Maspero was referring to them because his book was a 'field guide' which would be useless if it referred to new catalog numbers that were not on the actual items.

This is pure speculation, but it seems reasonable that the original register with the new inventory numbers had a column with the old catalog numbers in it for reference. So the new numbers would have been useful for the internal accounting of the artifacts after the move, but this did not necessarily translate to them being the 'colloquial' numbers used to refer to the objects, as they resided in their display cases. It could be that it was just too time-consuming to relabel every artifact, so the old number labels were left on them. Or it could be that the new numbers were not intended to be put on the objects at all. At least in the case of Stele 666, a century has gone by, and the label still hasn't been removed.

Litluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
21/02/2014 11:31 pm  

wellreadwellbred, you are creating a problem where none exists.

The old number was 666.
This number was laquered onto the stela.
The museum renumbered their catalogue later.
The museum didn't physically remove the old number from this stela.
Crowley saw the number that had been laquered onto the stela.
Crowley was not aware that somewhere a new numbering had been assigned.
It is not important that a new number had been assigned by cataloguers, and was written down on a list in a volume on a shelf somewhere in the back offices of the museum.
It is important that "666", physically present on the stela, was important to Crowley.

There is no contradiction between what Paul wrote in the introductory post, and the fact that the old number remained present on the stela, which Crowley saw. New numbers are frequently assigned when libraries or collections move from one place to another, and all the numbers are methodically recorded and passed on to subsequent researchers, who may need to know what the older numbers were when researching sources that knew those old numbers.

I think I know what you were trying to do, but I'd like to hear you state it and retract it.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
22/02/2014 4:25 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
And what conclusions do you draw from this, wellreadwellbred?

That the stele's original inventory number 666 - which Crowley used to create the idea of a special link between the stele and him as the prophet of a new religion - in 1904 when Crowley claims he first saw the said stele and started paying special attention to it, as a matter of fact was outdated as it had been assigned the new inventory number A 9422 around 1902.

"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley was not aware that somewhere a new numbering had been assigned.

We can not know for sure if Crowley did not know about, or got to know about, the new inventory number assigned to the said stele from around 1902, but it is known that Crowley paid special attention to this stele, making it plausible that he could have gotten knowledge about its new inventory number.

"belmurru" wrote:
It is not important that a new number had been assigned by cataloguers, and was written down on a list in a volume on a shelf somewhere in the back offices of the museum.

Can we know for sure that the stele's new and then valid inventory number, was not mentioned in the description of it in the exhibition area, or can we know for sure that Crowley could not have gotten knowledge about this number when he started paying special attention to the stele? 

"belmurru" wrote:
It is important that "666", physically present on the stela, was important to Crowley.

Factual information about the stele which was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it, is important in the context of, and in comparison with, what Crowley choose to write about it, as Crowley made the said stele an importantant part of his new religion.

     

"belmurru" wrote:
I think I know what you were trying to do, but I'd like to hear you state it and retract it.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to do.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/02/2014 4:57 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
It is important that "666", physically present on the stela, was important to Crowley.

Factual information about the stele which was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it, is important in the context of, and in comparison with, what Crowley choose to write about it, as Crowley made the said stele an importantant part of his new religion.

Agreed.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
22/02/2014 8:07 am  

wellreadwellbred, you are creating a problem where none exists.

Agreed.

The fact is that whatever the current museum number was is irrelevant - AC may not ever have been aware of it. What is important is that the number 666 was attached to the stela.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/02/2014 1:11 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

wellreadwellbred, you are creating a problem where none exists.

Agreed.

The fact is that whatever the current museum number was is irrelevant - AC may not ever have been aware of it. What is important is that the number 666 was attached to the stela.

Or, Crowley may have been aware of it, and chose not to acknowledge it, even if for no other reason than 'it doesn't matter, as long as one of the numbers is 666'.

If he was picking and choosing things like that, one can't really be too sure what else he didn't say.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
22/02/2014 1:45 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
I think I know what you were trying to do, but I'd like to hear you state it and retract it.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to do.

93!

Well, I guess the only plausible reason to "reveal" this stuff seems to try to point out that Crowley could not have encountered the exhibition number 666 and therefore his story about the reception of Liber L must have been an invention. One might suggest that he found the stele in 1902 in the old Boulak museum and made everything else up later.

The reception story sure has quite some "inconsistencies", but there is no doubt about it that the stele was stele 666 - even if it was to be catalogued differently later (or even before 1904). When Crowley hired the museum curator's (Brugsch Bey) assistant M. Delormant to translate the hieroglyphs, Mr. Delormant consistently refers to no. 666. See attached manuscript scan.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
22/02/2014 1:45 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If he was picking and choosing things like that, one can't really be too sure what else he didn't say.

It's necessary to "pick and choose". Take gematria, for instance. A variety of words, with a variety of meanings, share the same value. However, the qabalist will choose the word that is appropriate to the case which is being developed; just as a painter will select the figures, the scenes and the colours that are appropriate for the picture he or she wishes to create; just as a poet will use the imagery and analogies appropriate to the poem.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
22/02/2014 2:17 pm  

Beautifully and well articulated Mr. Staley. Most folks aren't content until they complicated their selves into a quagmire though.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
22/02/2014 2:43 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
I think I know what you were trying to do, but I'd like to hear you state it and retract it.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to do.

93!

Well, I guess the only plausible reason to "reveal" this stuff seems to try to point out that Crowley could not have encountered the exhibition number 666 and therefore his story about the reception of Liber L must have been an invention. One might suggest that he found the stele in 1902 in the old Boulak museum and made everything else up later.

Exactly, Lutz. I wonder why wellreadwellbred couldn't just spell that out?

The reception story sure has quite some "inconsistencies",

I have yet to note any inconsistencies. Obscurities, maybe, but nothing that contradicts the chronology as Crowley gives it.

The problem for most "conspiracy" types seems to be Crowley's explanation, as "praeterhuman". So they imagine a period of long construction of the book, a hoax as it were.

But nobody, to my knowledge, has tried to claim that Liber VII, longer than Liber L, wasn't written at a single sitting of about 2 1/2 hours on the night of October 29-30, 1907; or that Liber LXV, arguably of greater poetic and mystical merit than L, wasn't written over the course of five nights beginning on October 30, 1907, in similar conditions - i.e. "inspiration".

Crowley worked liked that. I have seen no reason to believe that Liber L wasn't written when he said it was, in three one-hour stints starting at noon on each day of April 8, 9 and 10 of 1904.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
22/02/2014 3:20 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Exactly, Lutz. I wonder why wellreadwellbred couldn't just spell that out?

I could not spell that out, as I do not doubt that Crowley could have encountered the number 666 in a museum, both before and after in 1904, or sometime in 1904.

"belmurru" wrote:
wellreadwellbred, you are creating a problem where none exists.
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
Agreed.

The fact is that whatever the current museum number was is irrelevant - AC may not ever have been aware of it. What is important is that the number 666 was attached to

the stela.

Factual information about the stele - an historical object - that was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it as a core element of his new religion, is relevant and important in the context of, and in comparison with, what Crowley choose to write about it, as I stated in my former posting in this thread.

What that is relevant and important in the context of such an investigation is not only limited to what Crowley choose to write about the stele, but must also include as relevant and important what factual information about the stele that was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it.

michaelclarke18, belmurru and any others for that matter, are of course free to dismiss anything except what Crowley choose to write about the stele. This reminds of an acquaintance of mine which is an Egyptologist, dismissing what Crowley wrote about the stele, as an irrelevant attempt to create a connection where none exists, and stating that Crowley was very likely to find the number 666 in some context in a museum, as it is a standard procedure for any museum to assign an inventory number to an object in its collection, and nothing to make a fuss about.

Anyway, no matter what various opinions there are about the relevance or importance of a larger context than only what Crowley choose to write about the stele, research of such a context focusing on the factual information about the stele that was available in Crowley's lifetime, could provide more details making it possible to put what Crowley choose to write about the stele in to a larger context covering his lifetime.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
22/02/2014 3:40 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
michaelclarke18, belmurru and any others for that matter, are of course free to dismiss anything except what Crowley choose to write about the stele.

You're the one dismissing what everyone else, including Crowley, chose to write about "Stèle 666", preferring some other fantasy you haven't spelled out for us, but which I think Lutz explained. If not this, what?

Here is some of the other documentation - what am I dismissing?

The Stela has the number "666" on its reverse side. It did then, it still does.
Maspero (the Director of Antquities) notes it by this number in 1903.
Brugsch Bey (the museum's curator) and M. Delormant note it as "Stèle 666", as you can see in the documents kindly provided by Lutz.

Of course Crowley is a witness too, but for some reason you judge his evidence as worthy of doubt.

Why?

All that Crowley says is "... the exhibit bore the number 666!" (Equinox of the Gods, p. 73)
This is true. It was then, and it still is.

So what's the problem?

Then there is your bizarre locution "a museum", as if you think that Crowley were lying about where he was.

Why the suspicion? What makes you think that Crowley didn't see the stela with the number 666 on that day in 1904?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
22/02/2014 4:37 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
michaelclarke18, belmurru and any others for that matter, are of course free to dismiss anything except what Crowley choose to write about the stele.

"belmurru" wrote:
You're the one dismissing what everyone else, including Crowley, chose to write about "Stèle 666", preferring some other fantasy you haven't spelled out for us, but which I think Lutz explained. If not this, what?

I am not dismissing what everyone else, including Crowley chose to write about "Stèle 666",  as I - as I have done earlier in this thread - emphasize the relevance and importance of all factual information about the stele that was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it. Including the new and the valid inventory number of the stele in 1904, a number which you earlier in this thread dismiss as irrelevant. 

"belmurru" wrote:
Here is some of the other documentation - what am I dismissing?

You dismiss  the valid inventory number of the stele in 1904 as irrelevant, even though it is plausible that Crowley stating that he paid special attention to the stele in 1904, could have gotten to know this number,  as I have already stated earlier in this thread.

"belmurru" wrote:
Of course Crowley is a witness too, but for some reason you judge his evidence as worthy of doubt.

I don't  judge Crowley's evidence as worthy of doubt, but I would like to compare it with the context of all  the factual information about the stele that was available in Crowley's lifetime,  as I have also already stated earlier in this thread.

"belmurru" wrote:
Why?

Because I hope this can provide more details making it possible to put what Crowley choose to write about the stele in to a larger context covering his lifetime, and as I have also already stated earlier in this thread.

"belmurru" wrote:
All that Crowley says is "... the exhibit bore the number 666!" (Equinox of the Gods, p. 73)
This is true. It was then, and it still is.

So what's the problem?

My problematic or main question in the research I have suggested in this thread is the following: How does all  the factual information about the stele that was available in Crowley's lifetime, compare with all he wrote about it?

"belmurru" wrote:
Then there is your bizarre locution "a museum", as if you think that Crowley were lying about where he was.

Why the suspicion? What makes you think that Crowley didn't see the stela with the number 666 on that day in 1904?

What suspicion? In my former posting in this thread I wrote: "I do not doubt that Crowley could have encountered the number 666 in a museum, both before and after 1904, or sometime in 1904." "[...] sometime  in 1904." does cover Crowley encountering "the stela with the number 666 on that day in 1904".

In addition to all Crowley wrote about the stele, I have in this thread emphasized the relevance and importance of all factual information about the stele that was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it, that is my point.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
22/02/2014 5:41 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
My problematic or main question in the research I have suggested in this thread is the following: How does all  the factual information about the stele that was available in Crowley's lifetime, compare with all he wrote about it?

His entire lifetime? How on earth is that period relevant? It's not like Crowley revisited the museum periodically throughout his life and continually revised his account of it.

The only important time is March-April 1904, and his account of it from that time is true. It is factually correct. He even commissioned the first translation of it.

Your post reopening this non-issue suggests something else -

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
This confirms that 666 was not the inventory number of the stele in 1904, in the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo.

Your concern yesterday leaves little room for doubt that you were implying that the number "666" was not on the stela when Crowley claims to have seen it. Since that is wrong, and it amply proven that the stela did bear the number - as it still does - you now want to claim that it is important that Crowley neglected to mention that somebody had assigned another inventory number to it at least since 1902.

But so what? Bey and Delormant in their transcription and translation didn't bother to give the new inventory number or the temporary number either. Are they in on the conspiracy too?

The exhibit number on the stela meant something to Crowley, that's all. It was a coincidence he regarded as important. It is incidental to his account, "icing on the cake". Nuit only knows why you think the other numbers associated with the object are so important.

Crowley doesn't say "the inventory number was 666", he says "the exhibit bore the number 666." It did, and it does, in fact bear that number. This is attested by the object itself, by Maspero in 1903, and by Bey and Delormant in 1904.

In addition to all Crowley wrote about the stele, I have in this thread emphasized the relevance and importance of all factual information about the stele that was available at the time Crowley started paying attention to it, that is my point.

Well, why not write something up and show why it's relevant to know absolutely everything about this stela (how much did it weigh, by the way? I'm sure you know. What is the chemical composition of the stucco? Surely Crowley had devious reasons not to mention it. Etc...).

Let me just pose this question:

Do you disagree with these statements taken from Crowley's account? -

Between March 18, a Friday, and March 23, a Wednesday, of 1904, Crowley and Rose visited the newly reopened Museum of Egyptian antiquities, which everybody knew as the "Musée de Boulak".
They had never gone there before.
Rose led him to a stela with an image of Horus, which bore the exhibit number 666.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
22/02/2014 6:21 pm  

Belmurru, I enjoyed your post and agree with pretty much all of it ... but:

"belmurru" wrote:
Between March 18, a Friday, and March 23, a Wednesday, of 1904, Crowley and Rose visited the newly reopened Museum of Egyptian antiquities, which everybody knew as the "Musée de Boulak".

Well, that's simply over-stating the facts. The 'Musée de Boulak' had housed the Stele in 1902, in which year AC did visit Cairo, but didn't house it in 1904 for the simple reason that it no longer existed. If AC's account is to be believed, he didn't see the Stele until 1904 'at the Musée de Boulak'. This can't be correct and dismissing that error by claiming that 'everybody' called it by a title it didn't hold doesn't help.

Having said that, you're absolutely right about the irrelevance in this matter of '666', which was on the label next to the Stele as recently as 2012, when the Stele was removed from public view.

There are puzzles and 'mysteries' in AC's account of the Cairo Working and it doesn't serve AC or the facts to dismiss them in this manner.
 

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
22/02/2014 7:05 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Belmurru, I enjoyed your post and agree with pretty much all of it ... but:

"belmurru" wrote:
Between March 18, a Friday, and March 23, a Wednesday, of 1904, Crowley and Rose visited the newly reopened Museum of Egyptian antiquities, which everybody knew as the "Musée de Boulak".

Well, that's simply over-stating the facts. The 'Musée de Boulak' had housed the Stele in 1902, in which year AC did visit Cairo, but didn't house it in 1904 for the simple reason that it no longer existed. If AC's account is to be believed, he didn't see the Stele until 1904 'at the Musée de Boulak'. This can't be correct and dismissing that error by claiming that 'everybody' called it by a title it didn't hold doesn't help.

Thanks Paul, I know it is a little overstating, but I can't get any closer to a new "official" name than March 17, at the inauguration of the monument to François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette ("Pacha"), described in the Annales du service des antiquités de l'Egypte volume V for 1904, mentioned previously in the thread, where the first speaker mentions the new museum only by the descriptor "Musée des antiquités égyptiennes", where it does not seem to be a title, since it is not capitalised; the fifth speaker, M. Péron, who delivered what is more or less the eulogy, says essentially that Mariette's spirit "yet watches over this Boulak Museum that he founded" ("veillait encore sur ce Musée de Boulak qu'il avait fondé"), p. 66.

It seems that an official name hadn't been chosen yet, certainly it hadn't become common yet, and Péron refers to it still as the Boulak Museum, so it seems to me fair to say that some people colloquially called it that.

Sorry I'm rushing out at the moment, but I'd love to hear more detail of the name change. Thanks for the clarification!


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
22/02/2014 7:27 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Your concern yesterday leaves little room for doubt that you were implying that the number "666" was not on the stela when Crowley claims to have seen it. Since that is wrong, and it amply proven that the stela did bear the number - as it still does - you now want to claim that it is important that Crowley neglected to mention that somebody had assigned another inventory number to it at least since 1902.

This is not the whole truth, as I yesterday also mentioned the possibility of the number "666" still being on the stele even after the relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo:

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
According to the said information from the Egyptian Museum's Facebook page, 666 given as the stele's inventory number in Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum" from 1903, is incorrect, as it refers to an outdated or no longer valid inventory number for the said stele. If the stele was still marked with its original inventory number 666 from the former Bulaq Museum, even after the relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo where it received the new inventory number A 9422, this can be the background for the stele in error being referred to with the no longer valid inventory number 666, in Maspero's "Guide to the Cairo Museum" from 1903.
"belmurru" wrote:
But so what? Bey and Delormant in their transcription and translation didn't bother to give the new inventory number or the temporary number either. Are they in on the conspiracy too?

You are the one mentioning a conspiracy, I on the other hand, in the quote from myself above in this posting, provide a plausible but entirely non-conspiratorial background for why the stele was still referred to with the no longer valid inventory number 666, even after its relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo.

"belmurru" wrote:
Let me just pose this question:

Do you disagree with these statements taken from Crowley's account? -

Between March 18, a Friday, and March 23, a Wednesday, of 1904, Crowley and Rose visited the newly reopened Museum of Egyptian antiquities, which everybody knew as the "Musée de Boulak".
They had never gone there before.
Rose led him to a stela with an image of Horus, which bore the exhibit number 666.

I do not deny the possibility of Crowley's wife paying special attention to an object bearing the number 666, in the said museum at the said time, given the likelihood that she was familiar with her husband's special interest in this number.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
23/02/2014 1:32 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
This is not the whole truth, as I yesterday also mentioned the possibility of the number "666" still being on the stele even after the relocation around 1902 to the newly opened Egyptian Museum of Cairo:

Possibility? How about "probability"? Given that the designation 666 was still there until the recent removal of the stele from public view, there's a fighting chance that it was there in 1904.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 4
Share: