Wonderful post! But it still doesn't explain why Astroael said it was first recieved on the 7th, or why the 1st Edition of the 'Equinox of the Gods' said 'The first of April"....

looks like the 93 percentile on this 8th of april is eerily prophetic indeed!
1st of April...or 8th of April???
1st 6% [ 1 ]
8th 93% [ 14 ]

ALSO, if you place the tarot keys on the calendar and start on April 8th, so 22 days later they will end on the occult date 4/29!!- quite a loaded date indeed!

That's adequate proof for me, Leo. I'll raise a glass to you in a few hours for that. Cheers on the first day of the Writing. 🙂

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

There was never any doubt. It is somtimes fun to take a mole hill and turn it into a mountian!
threefold31 has baked a delicious cake and parzival has spread on the topping! Now to celebrate!
May all you see about you be beautiful blue-blackness.

Love is the law, love under will.

Oh, I think there's plenty of doubt. One typo, I could understand, but there are a lot more questions than there are satisfactory answers. Ultimately though, as others have noted, any doubts about the particulars are overshadowed by the very existance of Liber L/Liber Al Vel Legis. That its origins are a bit shrouded in mystery should suprise no one. 93/93.

93

And on that note, if you don't have a book handy, kick back and have a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NsMUAM3HES4&vq=small#t=594

93 93/93

Thanks, G, very nice.

The Book of Revelations is trash. It is the work of a hate infested idiot. If AC wrote a much better book, I am glad. It is not my favorite, not even close, in his writing. I don't buy into such. He wrote it. Period. The exact date means nothing.

Speaking of trash, I find it hard to believe some of the comments and observations that I have been reading on this thread.

Sure, there are remaining enigmas and discrepancies about Crowley's reception of THE BOOK OF THE LAW, which just goes to show the failings and idiosyncracies of human memory after the passing of only a few years; considering that this is about the best documented Holy Book in human history. 8th, 9th and 10th of April will do for me - with a grateful nodding wink in the direction of April Fool's Day - in fact, any three consecutive days in April 1904 e.v. will do for me (subject to Thomas Cook bookings, of course). The intensity and coherence of the text is what matters; its ferocious power and beauty. All the rest is a pestilence of trivialisation.

I was going to introduce a thread asking 'Where have all the Women Gone?' - apart from sweet, enduring Alysa, they all seem to have deserted us. And no surprise, if tiresome nerdish nit-picking like this is the order of the day.

The Book of Revelations is not trash and was probably written by several inspired and hate-infested madmen, in a hate-infested time. Its in the well established Hebrew-Aramaic tradition of eschatological visions and contains many glorious secrets, as AC was well aware; it even gets quoted in LIBER AL. Have a bit of respect for the parampara my over-enthusastic friend, Horemakhet.

Regards from Satan's Advocaat, when he's having a good day.

Dwtw

I think that the date controversy of Liber L's reception should be exposed to a bit of Occam's Razor.

The 'firsters' who believe it was revealed on April 1st have some small evidence garnered from the mention in TEOTG. But what implications does such a mention really have? Assume that AC actually received this text on April 1-3; if he felt that admitting it was received on these dates would expose it to being considered an April Fool's joke, and he then changed the dates, isn't that an argument for the authenticity of the transmission? He knew its importance and didn't want it trivialized or doubted because April 1 was involved. Conversely, there would be no need to 'change the date' if he had just written the book himself; he could have claimed he received it on the Equinox, or some other time while he was in Egypt.

The possibilities are these:
A: Liber L was received on April 1 and the date was changed to avoid criticism.
B: Liber L was received on April 8 and the mention of April 1 was an accident.
C: Liber L was written on April 1 by AC as a 'joke' and the date was changed to avoid discovery, and thus criticism.
D: Liber L was written on April 8 by AC as a 'joke'and the mention of April 1 was an allusion to this joke.

If either A or B is what really happened, the key point is that the text was received by Aiwass as stated, and it would hardly matter what date this took place on.

If C or D happened, then Crowley wrote the Book himself, and it would hardly matter what date this took place on.

Does the evidence for either A or B happening outweigh the evidence that C or D happened? I believe it does, given what we know now. In the absence of further evidence, there is more reason to believe either A or B rather than C or D.

This is not a comprehensive proof that Liber L was written on April 8-10. Such a thing would be almost impossible to prove beyond a doubt -- (even if he had said it in his diary, that might have been a lie too) -- it would be much easier to disprove it, by having AC on a ship at that time or some such evidence. Until we have conclusive contrary evidence, Occam's Razor suggests that we accept the received dates of Liber L, until further notice.

Litlluw
RLG

``````````````````````````````````
The Astrology of The Book of the Law

93

This is an adventurous and experimental meditation on the astrological configurations that obtained during the three one-hour periods in which Aleister Crowley received the Book of the Law.

http://gmugmble.com/astrology/AL.html

93 93/93
_____________________________________________________

Every man and every woman is a star.

Every number [or date-number] is infinite; there is no difference.

And yet another so-called thelemite gets their knickers in a twist when anyone brings up Christianity or any of the books of the New Testament, whining or acting like a petulant child throwing a fit because they haven't gotten their head far enough out of that Slave Religion to stop senselessly hating it.

Talk about a "hate-infested idiot", have you read what you wrote? The Book of Revelations is antecedent to Liber Al Vel Legis. Without The Book of Revelations, the Book of the Law would be meaningless, or practically so. Quit making so much 'difference between one thing and another, for thereby cometh hurt', REMEMBER? (Sorry to jump off track of the thread a bit here, Moderators.)

I like the book of revelations. its got some groovy symbolism. and although most christians i meet i dislike just based on their way of expressing their opinions and not wanting to entertain other view points there are some very cool ones too. once you see the egyptian hindu and other concepts in the bible that were there, when they were their own myths before christianity, you can appreciate the book for what it is: an amalgamation of many cultures' concepts that was squeezed to fit into an agenda only later.

And as far as this poll I think its the 8th of april because all the documents add up to that time line. Its as good a day as any, anyway. If it was on april fools day crowley would have not had such a hard time remember the date also .

Aside from the fact that Revelations was one mong many books of it's type from the time, it's obviously a response to the tyranny of the ROman empire at the time interjected with the mystical symbolism of the tradition from which it stems. Given that, I'am without a clue why it was ever even placed into the Bible. It's various interpretations have also made for some very entertaining forms of modern christianity.
That being said, it is obviously a work that has a considerable amount of relevance to Thelema.

One should keep in mind that the Bible, preferably in their Greek and Hebrew originals, are given as suggested reading by Crowley.

SO far as the dates concerned, where exactly does this confusion arise?

Well, as it's been mentioned, in the first Edition of "The Equinox Of The Gods" and in the uncorrected 1960's Gordon Press Edition, Crowley says that the date the first chapter Book of the Law was communicated was "the first of April." And Leah Hirsig, in one of her diaries, claims that the first day of its reception was the 7th of April. Furthermore, on the 1st Page, the title page of Liber L, Crowley comments that this book was recieved "by another" and claimed it an example of automatic writing. This was written in Crowley's hand on the title page in 1906, when it was originally intended to be published in "Collected Works Vols. I-III, a time that Crowley later claimed that he'd misplaced the original manuscript, and eventually found it in his attic a few years later when he was looking for a pair of skis. However, there are literally dozens of odd quirks, conflicting stories, and examples of materials and magic words (such as Abrahadabra) from the Book of the Law that preceed the time of its reception in 1904 that can be found listed in David Hulse's 3-pamphlet series "Genesis Of The Book Of The Law. I'd highly encourage anyone with sincere interest in this to seek out Hulse's booklets, hopefully being able to borrow them, as out of print, they're quite expensive for 6'x4' two-staple booklets. The *one* thing you will get out of these books is that "all is not as it seems" in the accounts given by Crowley in various places. A few inconsisitancies I could understand. Hulse categorizes quite more than merely "a few."
This does not reduce the importance or legitimacy of its message, in my opinion, but it does make you wonder what sort of game Crowley thought he was trying to play.

Possibly a dangerous game, imo, one that might have placed the veracity of the message itself in question.

Maybe that is the game - take nothing as a given. Just a thought, but it's the kind of hidden joke I can imagine AC chuckling at.

93,

It would be only fitting for the "Spiritual Scientists" Crowley wanted to create to be the very ones to prove he was a fraud... doesn't much matter to me. I do my Will regardless of what anyone wants to call it.

93 93/93

This is exactly what I was getting at - not that the hypothetical joke was 'it's a fraud haha' but that at the heart of it all is a clear demonstration that ultimately you have to be your own authority in everything.
"Spiritual Scientists" indeed, no longer "Spiritual Students". (at least we hope so to be 🙂 )

No, that is not what is written; you're reading more into the statement than is actually there; here is the statement:

"It must have been on the first of April that W. commanded P. (now somewhat cowed) to enter the "temple" exactly at 12 o'clock noon on three successive days, and to write down what he should hear, rising exactly at 1 o'clock."

The statement says nothing about which three days, only that Crowley was supposed to make the effort at some point. Considering the leisurely pace of the Cairo Working, it seems unlikely Crowley would have been commanded to receive the book on the same day he was to do so, without being given any time to prepare.

A statement made prior to the one in question (for some), indicates April the eighth was the day the creation of Liber L began:

"During the period March 23rd--April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stele were translated for Fra. P., and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis."

The only way to conclude Liber L was dictated on days other than the known official days are by misinterpreting one statement, and ignoring another.

Just a reminder that this has been discussed here previously with rather more factual content and less opinion: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=333&start=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc

In summary: "the first of April" appears to be a typo (see the letter from Yorke to Jones discussing the typescript of The Equinox of the Gods) but, in any case, it doesn't conflict with the usual account ("three successive days", not "that day and the two following").

Anyway paul that you can or care to merge the two threads? I dont like it either when there are a few that say the same thing. It makes us waste time reading threads unnecessarily.

Some similar Heresy:

http://stores.lulu.de/items/volume_51/779000/779618/3/print/The_Secret_of_Aleister_Crowley.pdf

The buffoon who wrote that seems a little cockeyed.

93,

Gotta admit, he's got a way with descriptions...

"Now, this is the part that I hate to tell the Probationers about."

...what a hoot! Thanks for the laughs. It amuses me how caught up in "reality" some of these writers get.

Crowley could have been a cannibal too, for all we know. Hell, he could have raped a Duke of Normandy and Cleopatra simultaneously! Certainly he was a reincarnation of Alexander the Great, and Alexander Graham Bell! The Book of the Law is actually a collection of fragmented writings he compiled from the walls of British bath houses...

Poof! ... more Illusion Dust.

! and ?

93 93/93

93 Care,

Round and round we go. Does it really matter, but on a personal level? You have to decide based on your studies, your best guesses, and what speaks through you. Beyond that, there is nothing. I've not read anything from Crowley that says the first, so I choose April 8, 9, and 10. Does it really matter? Perhaps this is symbolic since he did not know the real dates. He tossed the manuscript aside as meaningless, at first. Then ran across it some time later. We can co-exist whatever our beliefs. Many use the verse "As brother fight ye!" as an excuse to fight. I take it more as we should be working together. Thelema is a personal walk, not a dogmatic religion of the slave gods. We have a choice. When are we going to work together, and quit bickering like children and slaves? We weaken ourselves with petty bs.

93et93,
Frater Teth

No. I don't think there's anybody here who maintains that it's a matter of vital significance, but simply a point worth discussing.

There is only one reference that has come to light so far, in The Equinox of the Gods. The page is available as an image on this website:

You won't see the reference in more recent editions of the book, because the editor of these more recent editions decided to change it.

The reference on the page reproduced above does not state when the Book was transmitted, but only when Crowley was commanded to go into the temple, there to be told to re-enter at noon on three successive days. Those three successive days might have started the next day, but then again they might not. The premise on the basis of which the original poster started this thread - did the transmission start on 1st or 8th April - is an absurd misunderstanding of the whole issue.

All accounts which I have seen are vague as concerns dates, and April 8th, 9th and 10th were in all probability his best guesses. He continued to celebrate those days as the anniversary of the reception.

I think you're overstating things here. This thread, like several others on the same theme over the years, is a discussion. There's no bickering; no-one has declared war on the matter; simply a discussion.

I'm with you wholeheartedly in your interpretation of "As brothers fight ye!" as being an exhortation to fight side by side, rather than to beat the crap out of each other.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Well did he? I can't see anything in his diaries - certainly for the last part of his life - where he gives it any attention. He consistently marks the 18th of November as his true birthday. i.e. when he joined the G.'.D.'. and once or twice he grumpily refers to his wedding anniversary (12th Aug.)

He also never refers to any dead people as having gone to their 'Greater Feast'.

OK

I take this from a letter from Yorke to Jones in 1948 towards the end of a discussion of this very matter. Yorke seemed to think that he celbrated those three days as the anniversary. I'll find the precise quote.

Best wishes,

Michael.

The dates given for the Alamantrah Working show consistent work from day to day through April 7th, then the work ceases and resumes on April 11th; I consider the break in the work substantial evidence that Crowley observed April 8th-10th as the days of reception for the Book of the Law.

The surviving records of the Amalantrah Working that I have seen do not show "consistent work from day to day through April 7th", but show work being sporadic. For instance, work in March took place on the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 23rd, 26th, 30th, and 31st.

Work throughout April was similarly sporadic, taking place on 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 14th, 20th, 21st, 27th, and 28th.

In these circumstances, I don't think that the absence of work on April 8th, 9th, and 10th can be taken as substantial evidence.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Herupakraath makes a good point here with which I broadly concur. I completely agree with his earlier excellent point that 'it must have been' on the 1st. April that Rose laid out conditions to be complied with later.

My own intrusion was perhaps a little off topic. I homed in on the word 'celebrate'. Celebration takes many forms; when Brazil has a super carnival the English merely watch their housewives throw pancakes about and trip over. I wondered what Crowley himself did annually on those three days and the answer turned out to be not very much.

Crowley, in his later years, filled out Royal Court diaries. These diaries pre-print national holidays, the King's birthday and other information of that sort. Whenever these arise AC crosses out the note and replaces it with a remark of his own. "Shit!" would be a typical example. With the exception of New Year's Eve, which he seems to enjoy, all the others get complained of on the grounds of general inconvenience and the disruption of postal services or railway travel.

Aleister liked good company, parties, eating out and having a good time but during the 1930s and 40s the early part of April does not stand out in any way that might be thought of as celebratory.

OK

As for the inception of the Book of Law by Aleister Crowley, it appears he was influenced by Helena Blavatsky who had the Book of Dzyan to use for her Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled in order to start her Theosophical Society. Crowley at least created a technique and a blue print in his writings to contact beings to dictate doctrines that can be used among occultists. I always questioned if the chemicals he used was an enhancer in terms of hearing voices dictate words to him. He had already built writing and poetic skills that were remarkable, that his mind in any state could write pure art.

I noticed in his publication of the Goetia in 1904, the 1995 Weiser edition in the intro states Crowley became disillusioned with Mathers possibly in 1902 was considering breaking off with him. The Goetia published in 1904 has a Greek curse against Mathers to inflict Catalepsy and an Abramelin square to undo any magic. The intro states the comments he made about the Golden Dawn in the Goetia were the basis for him being expelled from the Golden Dawn in 1905 for stating he was going to publish the History of the Golden Dawn. I am not sure which month the Goetia in 1904 was published before or after the creation of the Book of Law? Later in 1904, Crowley was said to have sent a typescript of the Book of Law to Mathers where he proclaimed himself appointed by the secret chiefs as stated in the intro. I have never seen a reproduction of the letter with the typescript he sent to Mathers and letter date. The point I am trying to make is the Goetia publication was used for Crowley to breakaway and found his own order based on the Book of Law.

On letter 51 How to Recognize Master, Angels and How They Work of Magick Without Tears, it mentions that he deliberately “lost” the MS of Liber AL. He “miraculous” rediscovers the manuscript some years after he lost it. Stated in Chapter 65 of the Confessions “I had sealed my stubborn refusal to make the Book of Law the basis of my work by taking advantage of the technical excuse that I could do nothing in the absence of the manuscript. And that had been lost for years.”

I am confused on the timeline he sent Mathers the Book of Law and what year did Crowley lose the manuscript and rejected the Book of Law. If he refused to accept the Book of Law right away, why would he send this letter to Mathers? There is some type of inconsistency or a part I am missing or I’m in error. I was going over my reading sources and could find evidence to refute the April 1 date. Instead I stumbled on my inconsistencies of Crowley’s writings and accounts.

It appears April 8, 9, 10 are the traditional dates accepted. I do not think it is possible to answer why the first edition of Equinox of the Gods has April 1 and there is no errata list for the 1937 reprint for April 1rst. After reading the link below and Michael Staley stating“Crowley's published diary entries for this period are vague and incomplete. The dates for the writing seem to be his best estimate.” I do not think this thread can explain this date April 1 for the first edition of Equinox of the Gods.
http://www.astronargon.us/Holy%20Conundrum!.html

The only cabalistic number game I played with these dates is 8,9,10 minus 1,2,3 equals 777. Perhaps those above the abyss celebrate 1,2,3 (Kether-Binah) and those below celebrate 8,9,10(Hod to Malkuth). Remember April Fool the Fool connects to Kether. But as far as I am concerned this above statement is a joke not to be taken seriously.

The 1937 reprint of The Equinox of the Gods, page 87, retention of the expression "It must have been on the first of April that W. commanded P." remains unexplained and to me the excuse "it's just a typo" seems ludicrous. He published the most important book of all time TWICE with the same "mistake"? Um, yeah.

This is perhaps the single most important thing to occur in the history of mankind, and Crowley allows - in two successive editions with ample time in between for revision or for it to be noticed or pointed out to one by attentive and intelligent students - Crowley allows it to be incorrectly given as the letters

f - i - r - s - t

instead of something like 1st, which is simpler and therefore easier to accidentally write, mis-read, type or set?

The words "eighth" and "first" are completely unalike, whether typed or hand-written in cursive or printed, in every way : visually, typographically, graphologically, the works.

It could quite possibly be a subtle joke, suggesting that it wasn't any of the above, that it shouldn't and doesn't matter but "here is a fact if you want one of that sort". It's possible and entirely likely, I think, that it was written on probably neither the first nor the eighth, ninth, or tenth of April of 1904e.v., but possibly on some other date(s), in locations possibly but not necessarily Cairo, in circumstances which may or may not be like those which he presents in his writings.

Crowley's bibliophilia was extreme, we know how artistically obsessive he was with every detail of his books, and how extraordinarily (and to a certain extent, perhaps justifiably) vain he was as a writer. He was a perfectionist. Repeating an error regarding what he supposedly saw as the inception of the cosmic destiny of human consciousness on two occasions, with the "mistaken" date having such universal resonance and symbolism (especially in the Anglosphere, his main audience) of "the Fool" with all which that card implies, could also be seen as an inference supporting the "joke".

To not notice something mistakenly published as occurring on the FIRST OF APRIL for God's sake. Come on. TWICE. You'd notice. SOMEONE would notice.

Deliberately leaving in "It must have been the first of April" in two successive editions of the most important book of English mystical poetry the universe has ever seen, seems far more intentional and sublime than something as incredible and frankly unimaginable as a typo - on two occasions, and no mention whatsoever on the errata sheet for the second edition! As Grant says. If this is untrue - about the 1937 edition errata sheet not listing this as a mistake - please correct me. But if it is true than it is a substantial enough anomaly to warrant attention, as opposed to dismissal, merely for the sake of habit or convenience. It would appear to be intentionally retained. Both times.

The plausibility of this lies partly in the various "Grey" areas outlined elsewhere regarding the dating of the paper of the document itself, implications of its linen backing, and the various other incongruencies (such as the boat passenger lists indicating he may not have been in Cairo on those dates - I'm not up with the latest on this but thought it had been reasonably shown). It also lies unmistakeably in both the repetition of the "typo" and its omission from the errata list for the 1937 edition.

I wonder...

93,

"On the first of April my wife commanded me into the temple too, where I did all of the necessary preparatory work for the event to come. Unfortunately, RHK was out that day, as when I travelled in the Spirit Vision he has a note on his door that read, " Off to war. Be back soon. Love, Horus." That kid was always getting into trouble."

"Or another alternate: On the first of April my wife commanded me into the temple, but I was stoned out of my mind, and told her I'll go when I damn well please. It was a test on whether or not she was setting me up, or this was genuine."

Or without the little anecdotes, just because she told him to go into the temple doesn't mean he went into the temple that very second. You are talking about one of the world's most foreknown skeptics. Not to mention he was quite the womanizer, and some part of him probably didn't give a damn what Rose had to say...

Needless to say, I agree with you that I doubt it's a typo. I also think that if this is the only evidence there is about the dates of the Book, then it is not very much evidence.

Here's to the rumor mill and Thelemic "celebrities"! /raiseglass

93 93/93

The statement of how "it must have been the first of April" does not suggest at all that the first part was received on that day, for it makes no mention of the time when the wife issued the command. She might well have told him on the evening of the 1st of April to go into the temple on 3 succesive days at noon. Maybe Crowley wanted a week to prepare for it.

I hope the editors of Crowley's works don't continue to change his words whenever they get the wrong end of the stick. In the case of the Equinox of the Gods they should have left it as Crowley wrote it and simply added a footnote pointing out that the statement is not saying that he began the reception on the first. But then again that would have required them to understand his deceptively simple words. 🙄

Dwtw

I must say, I do not understand Noctifer's continued insistence on a mis-reading of the text in the EOTG. It clearly does not say that he entered the temple on the first, only that on the date mentioned, he was commanded to do so. It's probably not a typo at all, but it also doesn't necessarily mean what it is purported to mean.

One has to step back for a second and ponder the obvious. If Crowley was given a specific command to be in the 'temple' for three days beginning at noon each day, that command had to be told to him at some point prior to entering the temple. The command was relayed through Ouarda on April 1st, to the best of Crowley's knowledge when he wrote the account later.
Why did he settle on this date? perhaps because in retrospect he remembered that he prepared for about a week after she gave him the instruction, so he backdated it to the 1st, as a best guess.

Since the statement in EOTG is ambiguous at best, Occam's razor indicates that the traditional dates of April 8 - 10 be accepted until further evidence to the contrary.

Litlluw
RLG

With all due respect, I'm not "insisting on a continued mis-reading of the text".

The remark occurs in this context:

Not sold on the "occams razor" bit, threefold31. The anomaly of the text and lack of correction OR mention in the errata slip of the second edition still stands, as far as I can see.

It is quite reasonable however to suggest (as you do) that the "three successive days" mentioned need not necessarily include that same day when he was told about them, the "first of April" when P. was told by W. to sit down and write what he heard. But it's an extremely vague way to put it if this is the case, and Crowley was usually pretty good at specifics of grammar to convey precise information so it would be an unusually clumsy way of putting it if this if so.

I'm all for "accepting the traditional dates of April 8-10" as per tradition, as repeatedly stated elsewhere; Crowley published enough to show he intended this to be the accepted, formal version of events. But that's a separate matter from the issue mentioned above, the various other outstanding anomalies regarding the dating of the manuscript itself, and in general, finding out the historical truth - not only the mythic one that he intended us to accept formally, or ceremonially, or officially or whatever.

Best regards
N.

93,

It is not my intention to discuss Noc's remarks, but rather to discuss the quoted material, Crowley's remarks.

This is simple enough. It basically states that from March 23- April 8 "work was continued to some extent". One can quite easily read, that from March23 - April 8 Crowley was "preparing" for the reception.

Is it so uncanny that he had the Stele translated and prepared? So much of a "remarkable coincidence" that since the Stele obviously played a huge part in the reception that he might want to have it on hand?

Let us not forget that during this period, Crowley was an Adeptus Major 6=5. Whether by the Golden Dawn standards or the A:.A:., certainly he was of the Inner Order. Perhaps he received a personal Instruction to have the Stele prepared?

Wouldn't any decent Adept do the same? For a man who climbed some of the worlds tallest mountains while getting frowned upon for carrying a collection of books, it doesn't seem too far fetched that to perform a magickal operation regarding the Stele, he would want a copy of the Stele.

Checks and balances. Either he went in "winging it", or he went in with an arsenal as handy as he could have at his disposal. He obviously didn't remember which, only that he gathered what he could. I don't see this as striking, or something "revolutionary".

Great. She told him to go into the temple and do the Work. What we know form his above account is that from March 23 - April 8, "work was continued to some extent". After the reception, the Work was complete at that point in time, yes? He didn't spend 45 days and nights sitting in the little clerk house afterwards. I posit then that he "prepared" from March 23 - April 8 (which was a Friday, by the way), up until the actual reception began. Once the reception began, all further instructions were in the Book itself.

Conspirators will always find conspiracies. Some people enjoy looking for things that don't exist. Some like to read in between the lines and not look at the information that is right in front of them.

As I said before, if this is the only evidence that people are pointing at, it is extremely weak evidence. The logic Crowley has presented in the quoted material is very easy to follow, but I do see how people can play letter-hockey and shuffle meanings around, especially when they are hell bent on "debunking" some "myth".

93 93/93

Dwtw

The obvious is pointed out in the first quote given by Noctifer;

"During the period March 23rd--April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent..."

This is clearly a sentence intended to show that after the invocation of Horus on the equinox (March 20), and up until April 8th, work was being done. But if the Book had been received on April 1, 2, 3, why mention the 8th in this sentence? It makes no sense except in the context of someone describing preparations for the 'big day' that occurred on April 8. The reference to the 'first of April' is then simply an account of when he was actually told to enter the room on three days.

I won't comment any further on this topic. All I can say is, you may not like shaving, but the Law of Parsimony will do you some good.

Litllut
RLG

Thanks for the, er, instructions on "what will do us some good", mister 31.

Speaking of rationalistic reductionism, it's worth noting that I've not said "April 1, 2, 3" anywhere - I've said that in my view, the actual writing (as opposed to the Annunciation Myth narrative presented in Crowley's peculiar book entitled The Equinox Of The Gods) most probably occurred on days which were neither April 1st nor April 8, 9, 10, 1904 - most likely in another year in fact. The Equinox Of The Gods is just a book by Aleister Crowley. It's not gospel :D.

I can't prove it, yet - but as nobody can prove that it WAS composed on any or all of those dates (sorry, Crowley's published version does not "prove" anything any more than the King James Bible "proves" the historical occurrence of the Resurrection ) and that there are many outstanding issues and anomalies regarding this, I'm happy to settle on this notion until I see reason not to :-D.

Occam's razor, etc. 😀

Note that - as already mentioned - Crowley actually refers to this story given in The Equinox of the Gods in correspondence years later as a "Marvel Tale, or Fable". Fables are not intended to be literally accurate depictions of historical events.

By the way, I'm not out to "debunk" myths or "find conspiracies". Myth is perfectly legitimate means to create social or other effects, and we only need to look around us to see how potent it can be. If Crowley composed a magical myth as the chariot for his Word that's fine by me. I'm simply interested in the fact that there are still many outstanding anomalies, including this reference to the first of April which is clearly NOT a misprint or typo and remains inexplicable except as a bit of either Operation Mindfuck or uncharacteristic vagueness on Crowley's part.

And conspiracies need more than one person to be in on them to deserve the title :).

"4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 ALGMOR 3 Y X 24 89 RPSTOVAL. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it."

So by the argument of rational thinking which essentially asserts that their is nothing magical about the reception of the Book of the Law or it's contents, Crowley consciously devised an ingenious system of English Qabalah, pretended to know nothing about it whatsoever and then never used it? Or does this argument assert that the above cipher is nothing more than another one of Crowley's pranks, a blind that amounts to nothing more than intentional gibberish?

93,

At least you say it's "your view".

Interesting how you mention the Bible. One thing that any decent historian realizes is that when reviewing a text, one has to look at the context, as well as the time period in which the text was written.

There have been many debates over the years concerning various parts of the Bible that quite simply didn't get included. Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from anyway? You know, things like that. They have been debated for centuries, and will be debated for centuries more. Thing is, in the context of the story, they are pretty much irrelevant. The mention of their wives was probably just to denote their status as householders, nothing more. Further, the time period in which the story was written says a good deal about it, as women were not widely in the picture during that time, patriarchal societies, blah blah. So, to sit and continually question such things as Cain and Abel's wives is not only a dead end, but it is a distraction from the overall message.

In accordance with this same general rule, the context in which Crowley wrote the account was from a vague memory of something he seemed to have placed a passing importance on, at first. One would think that for all of his rigorous notes and record keeping, he would have recorded every minute detail of the event. That he did not record every detail right after it happened doesn't show that he was trying to hide something. Rather, it shows the lack of importance he placed on the events initially.

Second, the time period in which he wrote about the events was not the current time period. Just like the Cain and Abel story, and many other stories in the Bible which have people constantly guessing at what may have happened just because [insert event here] wasn't recorded with the most minute details, Crowley's record in the reception has some gaps. It's not that he necessarily left anything out, but perhaps moreso that the time period in which he was writing had more to do with it. Some things were just understood. Some things were just understood in Biblical times, and even to this day some things are just understood.

If you keep a record of your daily adventures, do you always include that you had a shower or brushed your teeth? If you didn't include them one day would you go out of your way to put them in there, or would you assume that since it was a part of your daily regimen, as evidenced from the rest of your records, that intelligent people would be able to use deductive reasoning to determine whether or not you actually bathed that day? Moreover, if you went back through a record of some years ago, and found that you had forgotten to record showering and brushing your teeth a few times, would you amend the entries? Would you amend the entries if you couldn't clearly remember whether you showered that day or not?

I know that in today's world, especially within the Internetz, everything has to be spelled out so perfectly clear and concise that you almost need a degree in law to read things properly. If you don't spell it out clearly, your words may end up being twisted from here to hell, without a thing you can do about it. However, just because today's society is like that, you cannot apply that practice as rigorously to a society who's writings were not.

Indeed.

Crowley also had issues with Leah Hirsig due to the fact that she loved him as an "Idea" but loathed him as a "man". For someone like Crowley, who wrote The Book of Lies and other things, a Fable was as common as a Truth. Hell, to Crowley, calling it a Fable may have been his way of calling it a Truth.

When Buddha described Nirvana, he described the negatives. He described what Nirvana is not. He never described what it is, only what it is not. Then, he implored his students to figure it out for themselves.

I don't doubt that Crowley calling the story a Fable was aimed at similar ends.

You seem to fashion yourself as the Lashtal.com "mythbuster", Noc.

It's a Mindfuck if you want it to be. If you just can't wrap your brain around that phallus, that's your problem. But you have presented some very weak "evidence" for your claims thusfar. Is there more "evidence"? If so, type it up, let's see what you got. If not, then you are making a pretty baseless claim using very poor scholarship.

Oh, I'm sure if you felt you had enough "proof" and enough people agreed with you, you would make a second post along the lines of "Equinox of the Gods Tale: A Fraud", or some such mess, like you did with the multiple A:.A:. threads.

93 93/93

Well, until "proof" arrives that Crowley's published dates are historically accurate, I guess we're all in the same boat. If we're interested in such things - which is presumably why this thread exists, and why we've posted in it. Isn't it. So we may as well be civil to eachother about it and keep our minds open, such as they may be, mayn't we.

There seems to me to be very little actual understanding of how historical proof is actually asserted. May I suggest the following illuminating article: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-8.html

The convergence of evidence (a few anomalies, some more strained than others) is indicative of the April 8th-10th 1904 dates. As has been shown repeatedly the first edition Equinox of the Gods itself indicates this dating, even if we do not accept April First as a mistranscription of the "April 7" of the original text. Chapter VII of the first editio of the Equinox of the Gods specifically states: " Chapter 1 was written between Noon and 1 p.m. on April 8, 1904. Chapter II between Noon and 1 p.m. on April 9, 1904. Chapter III between Noon and 1 p.m. on April 10, 1904. "

In fact there is not a single item that indicates any different date or year. The 1906 dating on the titlepage has also already been explained as referring to something else (both on the titlepage itself as well as in the Equinox of the Gods) and is directly contradicted by an explicit admission written with the same pen as the title, that it was "given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, +10, 1904."

We know for a fact that Crowley was there as testified by newspapers reporting his presence at that time, that his diary of the period records the Equinox of the Gods and the involvement of Rose Crowley and contact with Aiwass, and reference to the Stele of Revealing and concepts that has its origin in the Book of the Law.

Rose Crowley's brother Gerald Kelly had a lot of criticism to direct towards his former friend, but he never gave any indication that Crowley was fraudulent in his claims of his sister's involvement in creating a new and in his view rather sinister religion.

We know that he did make reference to studying the Book of the Law in march 26th 1906 in his diaries of astral workings with another woman, several months previous to the July 1906 date when the manuscript came into his posesssion.

In all his various recapitulations of the story of the Book of the Law in print as well as in letters he never gave an indication of any other date or year.

In the end I have to wonder just what kind of proof of the dating would be enough to convince the revisionists, because I suspect that no such historical proof would be possible.

Oh my god, he's brought up the holocaust-denier analogy ALREADY.

Speaking purely for myself, as someone with a long-standing professional interest in historical research including sessional academic teaching at university, I'm well aware of how "historical proof" is asserted, and how it isn't, but thanks all the same, Pat.

It certainly isn't asserted the way you've attempted to do above. A quite perfect analogy, which I made earlier, is worth repeating here, because it seems to be the extent of your logic in this matter.

Crowley said it's April 8, 9, 10. Therefore it's April 8, 9, 10.

Which is akin to saying

Fox News says that x = y. Therefore, x = y.

or

The Bible says Jesus became a zombie. Therefore, Jesus became a zombie.

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm underwhelmed.

Crowley is far more likely to have been the "revisionist" (an interesting choice of term, are you suggesting by inference that the "believers" in Crowley's dates are somehow "chosen" - and by extension thereof, that open-minded inquirers into the anomalies regarding the annunciation myth are simultaneously Nazis and holocaust-deniers?), given that he did in fact have an agenda.

Again, I'm not asserting anything - merely pointing out that (as the watermark issue and the boat tickets also indicate) there are anomalies which only a revisionist (and not an historian) would dismiss as faithfully as you seem to.

There is no "convergence of evidence", because there is no evidence - merely Crowley's published remarks, which contain at least one anomaly, the "April first" one - that the book was written exactly as he says it was. There are odd things about the "evidence" and circumstances which we do have, and these are worth looking into, all in due course.

Best regards,
N.

And one more anomaly for those who insists on "April First" being one. I suppose they also regard "April 7" as another anomaly since that is what the original text read when published in The Temple of Solomon the King. Perhaps April 7th-9th should from now on be a third contender 😉

As Leah Hirsig's diaries suggest, at least one "first generation" Crowleyite did in fact observe April 7th as the first day.

The "April first" was retained into the second edition (1937), and not listed on the errata slip. So yes, it's an anomaly (and not a typo) by any standard, and for several reasons. Grammatically, for a start. It's unprecedentedly poor grammar (for Crowley) if taken to mean that that was the day when he was commanded but not the day he was commanded to enter the temple - even though those are the words he uses.

Crowley's grammar and linguistic precision was exceptional, so an error or ambiguity of his sort - in a Class E document ("public announcements and broadsheets" - only! c.f. all other "public announcements" for standards of accuracy expected of this !! sic. !) - suggests to me that his other literary characteristics, a monumental sense of humour, wit, sublimity, joke-pulling and lesson-teaching, are also worth bearing in mind here (April first being symbolic), (especially given his complete lack of academic or scientific qualification of any kind at all, which if he'd had it may perhaps have made his "historical reporting" possibly more rigorous than it is, which is not very, although it makes excellent Fable, or myth, or Poem).

Right, so now we have three contenders:

Title Page of AL: July 1906 because he noted that he came into posession of it on that date (even though the titlepage explicitely declares it being received on April 8-10 and that he notes in his diaries that he has studied Liber Legis 4 months peviously).

Temple of Solomon the King: April 7-9 because he wrote that Rose commanded him on April 7 to enter the Temple (even though he within the same chapter wrote explicitely that it was received April 8-10, and that it was merely indicative that since he entered the Temple as stated earlier in that chapter the next day, that had to be the latest date she could command him to enter the Temple).

Equinox of the Gods: April 1-3 because he wrote that Rose commanded him on April First to enter the Temple (even though he within the same chapter wrote explicitely that it was received April 8-10 and that the errata sheet also did not catch many other errors).

It is so nice to see the evidence available not converging towards the same conclusion 😉