I don't think that you are, Joe. I'm sure that Crowley - a man extremely well-versed in comparative religion and mythology - was well aware of any such "dark current".

Hopefully they will be amused by it, Paul.  Where would we all be without a little light fun?  No offence to our German friends intended – in that old phrase more often used in connection with ethnic brethren, “some of my best friends are German” - besides it wasn’t Germans or Germany I was lampooning but the idiocies of Nazism (if I may be forgiven for breaking Godwin’s Law…) 

Incidentally I know the stuff about ‘Putzi’ was, as Chris said, “slightly off topic”, but there didn’t seem enough material on him to be worth creating a new thread as a “Person” for, and he was tangentially related to Hanns Ewers under discussion.  (Additionally, at the end of Reply #27 I seem to have listed “As Years Go By” composed by Herman Hupfeld incorrectly instead of “As Time Goes By” – I must also have had the similarly named Rolling Stones ballad “As Tears Go By” on the brain for some reason when I was typing it - however in the interest of trivia accuracy the latter title is correct.)

You are quite spot on with the “1970s characterisation”, btw – the “character” as such is based on Sigmund ‘Cig’ Hile, a sort of “Life of Brian”-ish type alter-ego for der Führer which I invented in the later ‘70s, who made a last ditch stand in his bunker convinced in the state of barking psychosis he was under that the devastation of Berlin was being perpetrated by one escaped English Prisoner of War who was holding the whole area under siege but “moves so damned vast no one can catch zer schweinhünd”.  (‘Ciggy’ also avowed to, not fight "zer Britisher bulldog, Vinston Shirshill" on the beaches, but instead "bite him on the britches”…)  Spike Milligan thought it very funny & wanted to get it published, incidentally, if I might also be forgiven for 'dropping a name' here.

Going back to the main theme, thanks Joe for providing further entrancing information however I still wasn’t clear where/ when Putzi foiled A.H.’s assassination attempt, nor am exactly sure what this “dark current” consisted of which has been referred to.  Was it related to or a synonym of the Left Hand Path, more conventional fin-de-siècle type (Parisian) Satanism, fin-de-siècle Stokerish vampirism, a mixture of more than one or other of these ingredients, or something else perhaps?

"I sit and watch the children play, doing things I used to do they think are new...",
N. Joy

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blessed:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come....

Ach, zer wurm Hope!  Das ist sehr schön, nicht wahr?

Pontifically yours,
N. Joy

From the Guidelines: "All posts must be in English."

C'mon Jamie! You were starting to become mature in your posts, and now you're regressing.

I like the “starting to”!?! - Perhaps I have now by-passed the maturity part & somehow jumped straight from juvenilia to regressing into the premature senility of old age?

“Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans - everything…” (Is that English enough for you, Shiva?!)
N. Joy

Joe, when you speak of Ewers and Satanism, can you tell us what Ewers believed the concept of Satan to mean? Is Satan the adversary of God, is he the Black Sun, or is he Hadit, etc.?

Markus

A good question there, Markus!

With regard to

I was (once again) here just expressing the case of a polarised, opposite p-o-v but on reflection it has struck me that I may probably occasionally be too obscure for my own (and readers) good, and my writing consequently mistaken for immaturity, but my little reference above was to A.C’s (V.V.V.V.V.’s) sublime Liber LXV, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente or ‘the Book of the Heart Girt with a Serpent’, Chapter 5 verse 35 & 36, wherein it is writ:

35.  They beheld not God; they beheld not the Image of God; therefore were they arisen to the Palace of the Splendour Ineffable.  A sharp sword smote out before them, and the worm Hope writhed in its death-agony under their feet.

36.  Even as their rapture shore asunder the visible Hope, so also the Fear Invisible fled away and was no more.

(Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, V: 35-6.)[/align:2wln00nd]

And to which Fr. O.M. 7[sup:2wln00nd]o[/sup:2wln00nd] = 4[sup:2wln00nd]□[/sup:2wln00nd] commented:

“[…] ‘Hope’ is a crawling worm, being the token of non-realization of one’s Self as supreme Enjoyment. […]”[My emphases]

{Hope is also the corollary & twin ugly sister of Doubt, which LXV goes on to treat as

38.  They shaped Doubt as a sickle, and reaped the flowers of Faith for their garlands

-  to which O.M.’s comment here  is “Terrier-Work”, Chapter 51 from The Book Of Lies:

“[…] It seems sometimes as if beneath all conscious doubt there lay some deepest certainty.  O kill it!  Slay the snake! […]” with his commentary:  “[…] it will be noticed that the identification of the Soldier with the Hunchback has reached such a pitch that the symbols are interchanged, enthusiasm being represented as the sinuous snake, scepticism as the Goat of the Sabbath.  In other words, a state is reached in which destruction is as much joy as creation. […]”

These siblings are then completed by and along with the Cinderella of

39.  They shaped Ecstasy as a spear, and pierced the ancient dragon that sat upon the stagnant water.”}

So, Shiva, yes thinking the matter over I belatedly take your point, that maybe I should have made things a bit clearer & not so abstruse, and thank you for the tip.

Returning to the main theme,

From New Reply #30 by anarchistbanjo on August 06, 2013, 03:18:12am:
Once activated this lowest etheric body needed to be sustained or fed to remain viable. There were/are three ways of doing this:

Crossing the great abyss into spiritual power sources
Absorbing group energy
Vampirism, specifically energy vampirism.

I am not sure of the object is to which these “lowest etheric bodies” are obliged to be sustained; but particularly in respect to the first of these, why it would be by (supernal) “spiritual power sources” over and above the normal course of emanation?

From New Reply #30 by anarchistbanjo on August 06, 2013, 03:18:12am:
Ewers became a famous writer and sustained his etheric body through group energy, but that also drained him. In the end he became a vampire and finally, when sated, under Crowley’s influence crossed the great abyss.

Not sure what this means exactly, either.  Like Jones (Achad) did, you mean?

From New Reply #30 by anarchistbanjo on August 06, 2013, 03:18:12am:
His last words, “What an ass I’ve been!”

I seem to recall an entry from A.C.’s diaries from the ‘40s lamenting wasted opportunities, etc., and saying almost verbatim the exact same thing.  I cannot remember the reference – possibly someone else may? (Where, o where, are these much-touted (for at least the last two decades) Collected  Magical Diaries 1898-1947, and when are they finally going to appear?)

Don’t understand

From New Reply #30 by anarchistbanjo on August 06, 2013, 03:18:12am:
Was Crowley an energy vampire? The crossing of the abyss and the scarlet women cycles seem to indicate that if he was, then he outgrew it the same as Ewers did.

A.C. did not “outgrow” the “Crossing of the Abyss" or "the Scarlet Woman” – unless one is talking about his 8[sup:2wln00nd]o[/sup:2wln00nd]=3[sup:2wln00nd]□[/sup:2wln00nd] experiences rather than more narrowly the actual former concept itself, nor am I sure which “cycles” are referred to.  He retained Scarlet Women until he became impotent & could no longer work the work of the wand.

From New Reply #33 by anarchistbanjo on August 06, 2013, 04:27:57am:
From this time period on Ewers moves toward nationalism and merging with the national soul of Germany, a more mystical approach. As previously mentioned he tries getting Crowley's works published in Germany but fails. He is obviously now moving on the mystical path and his writings become more disjointed and hard to follow. This leading to a death bed conversion.

Nor did I understand this death-bed conversion.  To what exactly, though?  Surely not to Christianity!  (One is put in mind of the badgering of Voltaire (or was it Pascal?  I don’t have a book of quotes to hand at the moment) to confess & do penance by the priest called to his bedside to administer the last rites, or else face the agonies of having to confront Satan & his minions in the world to come.  “This is hardly the right time for me to be making new enemies”, he is alleged to have declined.)

As I am beginning to use too many words I will shut up now & wish you a blissful weekend

Without even daring to mention the War (IYKWIM),
N. Joy

Ewers expressed his beliefs in fiction and not outright. However the main influences on his thought are the writings of Max Stirner and Stanislaw Przybyszewski. Max Stirner's main work is "The Ego and his Own". This basically stating a philosophy in which each person should strive for what is good for themselves.[Crowley shares this in the sense of "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of the Law" and the idea that when one is doing what they are meant to do the world will function at its highest.] This is similar to Nietzsche but not as "Supermen that rule over others ", more as anarchists and individuals acheiving the highest possible to them.[Crowley retains the hierarchy "Superman" aspect in a hierarchy]

Ewers' lectures on "The Religion of Satan" were largely taken world for word from Przybyszewski's "Synagogue of Satan" which I have translated and would refer you to if further interested. It essentially presents the process of developing and activating the lowest etheric body through intense living, particularly sexuality and intoxication.

He does not appear to believe in Gods, Goddesses, demons or devils and thinks of them more as personality fragments or in the nature of psychological experiences. As one activates their lower etheric body they learn to control it naturally and use its magnetic properties.

He does not believe in good or evil and is simply existential.

What he does believe in is natural law and the need to balance male and female within ourselves. In this regard Satanism to him is the balancing of male and female within self and within the world. He was a strong advocate of women's rights. This balance of male and female or horizontal energies and vertical energies are symbolized by the Rosy Cross of the Rosicrucians. He does believe in spiritual states and ecstatic experiences.

He writes of the battle between a male personality and a female personality within one person (The Death of Jesus Maria von Friedel) and sex change operations and its psychological implications (Fundvogel). He seems to think of himself as a female soul stuck in a male body and it drawn toward masculine or strong women (male souls in female bodies) to find a balance.

There is no know effort of bringing things under conscious control, but rather the drive to become conscious of the unconscious/subconscious while letting it have its way.(The way of nature) Thus much of sleep walking, hypnosis and charisma/energy magnetism.

There is no need for ritual, meditation, special practices of any kind; but instead the permanent activation of the lowest etheric body and magickally working in a natural way with it. In this the dream world (etheric world) is what is real and physicality only an incomplete reflection of it with its highest manifestation as beauty.

As for the black current, this is the energy of the lowest possible non-physical plane before physical manifestation and many magickal paths have tapped into it. Crowley's main victory is the ability to tap into it while also tapping into the higher spiritual levels as well and being a bridge between them and doing this with conscious intent. He is not unique in this black current, but the balancing of it, the balancing of light and dark, good and evil, God and Devil, Christianity and Satanism. Crowley did in a head trippy way what Ewers was attempting to do in a more natural way. Ewers was apparently not aware of the vampiric effects of his own path until writing about them in "Vampire".

Any person that works strongly with tantric sexual energy will color their aura with a "Black" energy. This totally pure energy is sexual and beautiful in its own right but lies beneath the energy of fear. Thus one must work through one's fears before they can work consciously with it and that is also why people tend to fear those that have this "Black" energy in their aura and think of them as "Black" magician.

-joe

This is a rather bold and accurate description of the "energetics" as I see them. Powerful tantrics, male and/or female, scare the poop out of many sensitive people (who are still suffering from the fear of unknown, internal demons). In Oriental Medicine, the sexual function is housed in the kidney (water) function - and the "emotion" of that element is "fear."

Hanns Heinz Ewers...

A fabulous photo, Paul. His physiognomy is quite impressive, especially the jaded eyes - really brings to light what Joe has been telling us about him.
Joe, thanks for elucidating the Satanism issue. I believe this must have been a broad current in those days, one which to an extent harmonises with the currents expressed by Crowley and Gregorius.

Markus

Another important aspect of the Satanism of Hanns Heinz Ewers which I have forgotten is the destructive aspect. In short, the present generation is continually trapped inside the world of the previous generations creation and needs to destroy it before they themselves can flourish. They in turn create a world that will entrap the future generations which must in turn tear their world down. This is the anarchistic aspect of Satanism.

The order or law is understood as necessary for humanity to exist but constantly needs to be torn down so that a new order can flourish free from the restrictions of the old, which is unfairly loaded against the new generation.

If we consider this in terms of "The Book of the Law" we find this:

Chapter III

1. Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut.

2. There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!

Thus, flaw is inherent within the "Book of the Law" itself and it may be accepted as a needed guide with the understanding that someday too it must be destroyed and replaced with something new that does not entrap the new generations. This is the Satanism of destruction and why some OTO member must always take the opposite viewpoint in honor of this practice.

-joe

I don't see what makes you think that the two verses you quote refer to the preceding part of your post.

What I mean is that the "Book of the Law" is perfect in its imperfection! This is just an example of what the Satanism of Ewers is about and how that type of Satanism might be reflected within Crowley's work. I've already shared how I think Crowley influenced Ewers. Isn't it fair to consider that Ewers might also have influence Crowley in a cross pollination of ideas?

-joe

Thanks for the response, Joe. I still don't see why you consider those two verses add up to some sort of flaw, nor do I see how these two verses relate to the preceding part of the post.

I can see this as a general principle, though I think it's an ongoing process of change rather than tearing a world down. I don't see what's anarchist about this principle; still less can I see that it is an aspect of Satanism. There is an ongoing process of creation and destruction, but why should the destructive part of the process be considered "Satanic"?

It's my impression from this thread that you considerably over-estimate the influence of Ewers on Crowley. You've already said that within the group of pro-German sympathisers in which both men moved, several of the group were close friends, but there's not much evidence that Ewers and Crowley had much contact. In fact, after considering these friendships, you concluded:

Crowley may well have found Ewers of interest, but to my mind you suggest throughout this thread that Ewers had a great influence on Crowley, and I don't see any evidence of that. Nor can I understand what you mean by the Satanism of Ewers, despite having followed your remarks in this thread with great interest.

From my ongoing translation of "Satan's Children" by Stanislaw Przybyszewski:

"Take care . . . not to desire those treasures that rust . . . Heh, heh . . . Some people travel to India and go to the Brahmans for teachings . . . others seek to purify and ennoble themselves through the refinement of humanity, the third all become supermen!”

An unaccustomed anger came over Gordon.

“It is ridiculous, this trembling fear that has now been created of the transformation into a superman. This fear, this fear, you understand—is the fear of the little citizen, fear that the anarchists will leave them up in the air. I hate these lying ideologues of the bourgeoisie even more than Napoleon . . .”

He stopped suddenly and looked almost with embarrassment toward Hartmann. It occurred to him that he had said too much.

“Your judgment is terribly frivolous and one-sided,” said Hartmann after a long silence. “You jump like a schoolboy from a man like Nietzsche to . . .”

“Perhaps I am . . . yes, I really am. I am biased; I am a fanatic . . . You are right . . . By the way, that is my thing. The only philosopher whom I adore is Napoleon. I don’t care about happiness. The entirety of ethics, the whys and the wherefores, mean nothing to me. But the only thing that remains is beautiful—do you understand? The thing that is beautiful is power, power, power!”

Hartmann looked at him darkly.

“I knew that your motives for doing this are bad.”

“What does it matter to you, whether they are good or bad? By the way, power is neither good nor bad. It is just beautiful! Napoleon himself was a ridiculous ideologue. He was a little man, because he struggled for power in order to enjoy it. He wanted to make a country for himself out of that power . . .”

“And you?”

“I only want to enjoy the power of doing the deed. Power as possession is just as ridiculous to me as the paltry, indebted good on which I sit. I want to be powerful, but I don’t want to have power. If Napoleon had destroyed the world, just to destroy it; if he had overturned the throne, just so no one would ever fill it again; if he had dissolved the order of things, not to give them a new form, then he would have been a God to me! No! Not a God! God is only there to protect the existence of good and of life . . . But he would have been a Satan to me! The highest! The one that owns nothing, is indifferent to life, needs no God, because God is superfluous to him.  But he needs Satan, the God that speaks through actions, and impels others to act . . . By the way, I despise Napoleon as well.”

They were silent for a long time. Hartmann slowly stood up.

“You can go now. You were very honest. I don’t have the slightest sympathy for you. I don’t sympathize with you because you are not human. A person that only acts is not a person. “

Gordon smiled contemptuously.

“You have many bourgeois prejudices, dear Hartmann. I thought your mind would be better trained. You still have much work to do on your brain.”

Gordon suddenly became strangely sad, his brow was furrowed and his eyes were veiled.

“You still have respect for the terms which the middle class invented to protect the concept of property. The term “humanity” makes your heart warm. But don’t you understand that this term is only a collective name for the protection of collective ownership? That’s exactly what it is, and why I despise the anarchists. They want to abolish property, but they worship humanity. Humanity belongs with ownership. Only insofar as I consider myself a bit of humanity, do I have anything in common with it: I have possessions; I love humanity, and am not permitted to destroy . . .”

He suddenly laughed.

“And I am not permitted to destroy, so I am an ideologue and a citizen. Now live well, Hartmann, and don’t forget what you have promised me.”

“I never forget what I promise.”

Hartmann looked at him darkly.

“You are very honest,” he said slowly.

“You are the only one that I’ve ever told all of this to.”

Gordon reached out his hand and smiled.

“Once everything is destroyed, then I will leave, then you will have a place to build.”

Why is this to be regarded as Satanism?

Hi Michael,
I'm not going to go around and around with you on this. Satanism is pretty well defined in "The Synagogue of Satan" which I've already mentioned. Here is a link if you are interested:

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3759344/Synagogue-of-Satan

For all intents and purposes Stanislaw Przybyszewski defined Satanism unless you choose to believe the pap that Anton Levay has spread around. Any book by Przybyszewski gives insight into this religion/philosophy. You can choose to believe as you will. Ewers' lectures were based upon Przybyszewski's works. I've been square with you. Now I'm done.

You can also choose to ignore or take as insignificant that at the exact time Crowley becomes seriously interested in the sexual secrets of the OTO (tantric sexuality) one of the world's foremost tantrics just happens fortuitously to work in the same building and hang out in the same salons. Later Ewers helps famed sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld publish the "Love in the Orient" series, German translations of Das Kamasutram/Des Vatsyayana; Der Duftende Garten Des Scheik Nefzaui;Anangaranga/Die Buhne Des Leibesgottes. He wrote forwards to each of these works and was consulted for clarifications of finer details.

Crowley has been given the credit for the origination of this Satanic current and black current of tantric sex. I have merely tried to show that it might not have originated with him.

bright blessings
-joe

Thank you for the link, Joe, at which I'll take a look.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Hi joe,

Thanks for the link and for the information regarding his work with Magnus Hirschfeld. Since you might have this info at hand, can you tell me when he was assisting Hirschfeld?

Greetings from Berlin,
William

It depends on what one means by ”generation” as well, I suppose, but so far I cannot see a great deal in what is original about Ewers’ Satansim in this regard that wasn’t done previously.  Rabelais, for instance, advocated or at least set down this sort of ‘anarchistic’ outlook four hundred years earlier.  In the Heruvian sense, one is not trapped within the previous generational pitfalls of Isa and Asar, which prevailed for approximately two thousand years each.  The transmission of the foreshadowing of the Maat Current to come after, took place only seventy years after the reception of Liber AL.  Presumably any further advances may take place in an even shorter period of time, in line with the hypothetical acceleration towards ‘the Omega Point’.  But then again, one thing is for certain & that is nothing is certain…

Perhaps if one’s definition of a satanist here is that one has to be a selfish, uncaring bastard who (rather like James Williamson seen as “the world’s forgotten boy”) ‘is searching only to destroy’? (In other words, he ain't no architect)

The theory and practice of tantra certainly far predates A.C.  But how much the Heruvian current may be considered a Satanic one is a moot point, all depending upon one’s interpretation of his (A.C’s) interpretation of Shaitan, etc.

Love in the middle of a fire fight,
N. Joy

I have written a small essay on Satanism in Pre-war Germany that is not suitable for this forum. I've posted it on my blog for those interested:

http://anarchistbanjosworld.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-satanism-of-pre-war-germany/

This clarifies some of my personal views and is appropriate for this forum about Ewers because I believe that he is responsible for this new understanding of Modern Satanism that has nothing at all to do with Gods, devils, demons or ritual magick.
It has to do with anarchy, personal freedom, liberty, magick, sexuality, women's right and modern psychology. It also attempts to explain why Germany has been considered "occult" by so many.

I really have nothing to add, so best wishes to all and to all a good day!
-joe

As a postscript to my Reply #71, over the weekend I came across the following which is of some bearing to this aspect of the current thread:

The Silver Star (A.’. A.’.) is Sirius.  As Hoor-paar-Kraat, whose formula is Silence and Strength, he is the undying God, beyond our solar system.  Horus is the “son” of this God, and the Sun (or Father) of our solar system.  Horus is thus Hrumachis, (Son of) the Star, Sirius. Sirius, Sothis, or Set-An, thus represents the Supreme, the Eternal Light.  The Star (Atu XVII, attributed to [Aquarius]) is therefore the key to the present Aeon of Horus, for it represents the energy of Satan that will permeate the earth during the present cycle. [my emphasis]

p.68 from Chapter 4, “The Angel and the Aeon”, Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God.[/align:3jtxr2nq]

But also, as is remarked by Michael, exactly:

And who is going to ‘justify” this aspect of A.C. to deluded fundamental Xian bigots, or the general public who are a bit “itsy” about the idea of Stan-ism as a whole??!

“Soul radiation in the dead of night…”
N. Joy

Whilst waiting for Michael to reply (if he is going to), in addition to the above quote from Kenneth Grant (and there are others by him on the same or similar theme which I could also upload here) there is also the following from another claimant to the throne of Outer Head of the O.T.O., Marcelo Motta:

Is the H.G.A. of the A.’.A.’. always the same?
Yes and no. 
No, because the Central Task of the Inner Order is to achieve the Knowledge and Conversation, and once this is achieved the Adepti have a free choice of whether they want to continue in the Discipline of the A.’.A.’. or not.  No one knows the name of the God of his brother, or sister, as the case may be.  Thus did Frater Iehi Aour leave the A.’.A.’. to follow the Way of the Buddha on reaching Adeptship.
And yet, I who speak to you would say yes.  Because to those who continue in the A.’.A.’. after reaching the Knowledge and Conversation comes, little by little, understanding of the Spiritual Nature of that Black Star that shields itself in horror because it cannot abide the touch of fear; wears a mask of utter sorrow because it wills to be known only by those who can know true joy; who was inveigled, slandered, cursed, feared and hated by the lords of the slums of the dead aeon under the name of the Devil.
Yes, we are the followers of the Fallen One.  Verily, does not that Somber Star point downwards through the Abyss?
Read then, who will.  And let them who seek knock; for it shall be opened unto ye.

Page 40, “The Equinox” Volume V, No.2, edited by Marcelo Motta. [My emphasis - j.b.][/align:1avlggz3]

I cannot recall though whether either Grady McMurtry (“Hymenaeus Alpha”) or William Breeze (“Hymenaeus Beta”) have ever made a comparable assertion vis-à-vis this issue of STAN-ism to both Kenneth Grant & Marcelo Motta?  Can someone ‘enlighten’ me, please?!

Konx Om Pax,
N. Joy

Jamie who is this STAN of which you speak? Is he THE MAN? 😀

STAN – or ST-an (as in Set-An) with S, or more correctly I suppose, Sh, standing for Shin  and T for Tau.
As for the ‘number’ of “The Man”, or his identity – well, there’s Stan Lee, I suppose, of Marvel Comics fame.  Then there’s also Stan “hard boiled eggs and nuts!” Laurel, as in Laurel & Hardy.  "My Friend Stan" beloved of Slade?  Possibly one or two others...

Does this answer your question, Chris?  Talking of which, meanwhile I still wait - in vain I fear!?! - for Michael to give an “official” T.O.T.O. answer to my previous question in his poisition as lineal ‘follower’ of KG’s parampara: in accordance with which, it is always possible to do a silent number, but a response of ”I don’t know” doesn't quite cut the mustard here!  (Thinks: “Maybe I will have to wait until their “official” website is up and will have more luck then?”  Or maybe not.)

“I feel no fear, to be here, is 0 so fine/ shining brightly like sun light inside my mind…” (- Move Any Mountain (capable of movin’!)) :
N. Joy

Jamie, your last two posts are off topic an overly subjective. 

I do love a bit of constructive literary criticism.  Yes, I suppose you are right in a sense, azwyth, and under those terms this post will go on to make a hat trick. 

However, the thread was to do with Ewers and his S[a]tanism, and my last contributions were attempting in my usual blundering fashion to arrive at some sort of a consensus definition of what people meant by that very much misunderstood word (which Ewers himself apparently uses in its most destructive, or Apophis, sense.)  Grant and Motta both appear to be saying there is something more ‘redeemable’ from the situation, however there appears to be nothing from the subject by both of the "Hymenæii" (is that the plural?  And would there be a suitable collective noun for the pair of them?!)

Incidentally, I wonder did you find your own post very “ecstatic” to write – going by your own choice of sign-off signature, that is?

“Oriel Seraphim/ Eo Potesta/ Zati, Zata/ Galatim, Galatah!” (= the Uttermost words of power...)
N Joy

I don’t intend to carry on this thread any further in the absence of more participation from other Lashtalians, but I feel I just need to “shine a bit more light” onto what I was getting at by way of adding some further clarification before bidding adieu.  STan, that great illusion, what exactly has ‘he’ done to give ‘him’ such a bad rap?  (One might ask the same question regarding A.C., of course)  Evil is relative and not an absolute force; the worst thing on Stan’s charge sheet appears to be that he carried out the ‘sin’ of Disobedience to Boss Man Jehovah?  The rest is all sorts of superstitious nonsense…

As Alan Watts so perceptively remarked,

It is concealed that the Devil is made in the image of those who imagine him.  The sensation of being threatened, spiritually, by a weirdly alien and incalculable power of malice is, above all, a symptom of unconsciousness – of man’s alienation from himself.  Furthermore, inasmuch as he is unconscious of the devil as his own image, he is the more apt to vent upon his fellows his fear of and fury at this disowned aspect of himself.  This is why acceptance of the Devil in and as oneself is a moral obligation. … The Christian Devil is unique.  No other demonic figure has ever been conceived to be so purely malicious, so sinister, and so totally opposed to the universal design. 

”The Two Hands of God: the oneness of opposites” (1963), pp. 36-9[/align:wcqe08iw]

And as I myself mentioned in my essay “Black and Blue Magick”:

The Devil… came complete with horns, hoof, a little pointy-tail, a pitchfork, a goaty beard and a widow’s peak.  This cartoon became a convenient “bogeyman” for keeping the critical faculties and imaginations of men and women shackled for centuries – and still is. … In most traditional Tarot packs, The Devil card itself is precisely this cartoon image, except that for more representational purposes the bodies of a man and woman have to be in chains, in place of their more abstract (and therefore harder to  pictorially depict) minds.

(Norma N. Joy Conquest: “Metaphor & the Buried Crowley”: http://www.lashtal.com/pub_pdf/Metaphor.PDF )[/align:wcqe08iw]

Therefore, to refer to Simple ‘Stan’ makes the great Adversary seem a little bit less intimidating & daunting and a bit more – approachable, almost.  Also something like “Lucifer, Lord of Light” is a bit better for P.R. than “Beelzebub, Prince of Darkness, Lord of Flies”, etc., you must admit.  Some people –  both strongly for and against the conventional stereotype – may well disagree with this proposition, but if so, would they care to present the relevant arguments?

Incidentally, at a slight tangent, if you are particularly bored of an afternoon, say, and want an amusing diversion & live near a large patch of open parkland or common-ground grass, you can greatly liven up your day and your neighbourhood in creating an innocent amusing diversion for a minute or two by barking out in your best commanding, ‘invocatory’ accented tones: “Satan!”  It is great fun yelling this out at full volume several times, and such hollering can also do a very good job with clearing the bronchial tubes, although to cover your tracks once you begin to get funny looks from people after their initial startlement, you may need to then add something along the lines of: “C’m’ere, Satan, where are you, boy?  Come heel, Satan – bad dog!”, or suchlike. (With a bit of practice, you can also even make that last bit sound like “Come Hail, Satan!”...)

“Comin’ awn like a seventh sense… hold ON - got any Veras? Luvverly!  Wickid!  Sortad!”
N. Joy

I asked some time ago regarding the time frame in which Ewers and Hirschfeld were working together and received no answer. The volume below is a result of that cooperation and was published in 1929. Both Ewers and Hirschfeld wrote short introductions to the work and I suspect Ewers himself created the translation - though there is no confirmation of this in the volume.

Reading through this thread I can find no evidence that Ewers and Crowley had contact after the First World War. Has anyone seen evidence suggesting that they did?

Hi William,

There are a few references in Tobias Churtons 'The Beast In Berlin' which imply that they may have had some contact in 1930.

On page 138 In a letter to Germer (22nd June 1930) he asks Germer to "please cultivate Ewers. He is really the great man." and on page 147 Chuton mentions a diary entry (31st October 1930) in which Crowley wishes to have Ewers translate his Gnostic Mass into German.

Sadly neither actually say that Crowley was actually in contact with him, or that the translation idea was anything more than just that, but perhaps the diaries for that period might furnish some proof.

'The Beast In Berlin' also mentions Crowley reading Ewers very odd novel 'Fundvogel' (1928) which he apparently liked, so it would seem he was at least aware of Ewers activities to some extent.

REGARDS!

John

93 John,

yes, it seems that all current evidence of contact between the two is circumstantial. The digging continues...

93 93/93
William

I'd very much like to know whether Ewers' novel Fundvogel had been translated into English by 1930? If so, would it have been available in Berlin, or did the Old Sinner in fact read it in German?

Markus

Hi Markus,
Fundvogel has never been translated, barring odd sections posted online by Joe E Bandel a few years ago, so we must assume Crowley read German, though I do not remember it having been mentioned in the biographies.
REGARDS!
J

I was kindly sent the exact citation of the very diary entrance which let Churton assume Crowley had read Fundvogel. AC's wording does not necessarily support this view; rather he could simply have been told that Fundvogel is "a very good novel". At the very least this proves two points: a) Churton ought to be read with some caution, and b) Crowley showed interest for his old chum Ewers.

I still wonder how good AC's German was, say ca. 1932 - (the description of his German knowledge in 1925 is probably not indicative of his later abilities). Above all, did he meet up with Ewers again?

Markus

Does your source have access to the diaries in question and could they check for other Ewers related entries of the early 1930s. I think if there were any evidence at all that they met post New York it would be known of by now but I live in hope.
Yes indeed, one should approach Churton with caution.
I pulled it out to check the Fundvogel reference (p146-7 if anyone is interested) and Churtons description of the novel is a paraphrase from the 'International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies' (virtually the only quote about it online) which suggests that that is as near to researching it as he got.
I have a number of 'issues' with the book which I intended to post in a review of it but being typically lazy didnt get around to writing. One gripe (and sadly we drift off topic here) is that he sees A.C.s artwork as having some sort of affinity to the works of both Francis Bacon and Bridget Riley. My mind boggled so much at this it was hard to take anything that he said regarding The Beasts artwork seriously.
However I should confess that I find most of Crowleys artwork execrable so perhaps I am not too favourably disposed to those that try to convince me its wonderful. I've not seen any in the flesh though.
Is there a thread discussing his artwork? Must be...
REGARDS!
J
J

Checking the correspondence index for the Ewers collection in Düsseldorf I found there are a couple of letters to Viereck in the list. As AC was also a Viereck correspondent there may be some mention of him there. Unfortunately I won't be able to get to Düsseldorf in the next few months to check for myself. I am waiting for the Ewers bio to arrive and hope to check how often AC & Ewers were living in the same town.

here's another one for the lovers and the players:

Earlier in this thread I posted that Ewers befriended Crowley while they were both living in New York according to Viereck. I also posted that it was quite likely Ewers initiated Crowley into German Satanism since Ewers had been giving his "Religion of Satan" lectures for over ten years at that point in time. The "Dark Current" is quite evident in the literature of both Ewers and his predecessor Pryzybyszewski. This dark current is evident in literature published years before any contact between Ewers and Crowley.

I'm tired of waiting for SideReal Press to come out with my translation of "Vampire" so I will be coming out with my own copy through Lulu publishing sometime next month. SideReal will still be coming out with an edition, but I suspect only after "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".

I have original copies of the three volume "Liebe Im Orient" and have translated Ewers forwards for each. I will be putting material in the Ewers facebook page for those interested.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/139179720136/

joe

for those interested, there will be an exhibition on the works of Ilne Ewers-Wunderwald (Hanns Heinz's wife) at the Brohan-Museum in Berlin this Spring:

https://www.weltkunst.de/veranstaltungen/berlin/ausstellung/ilna-ewers-wunderwald-wiederentdeckung-einer-jugendstil-kuenstlerin-blackbox-6

Sehr interessant William,

Did Ilne ever illustrate Ewer's books?

I am thinking of getting Hearts of Kings from Ajna press soon. Have you read it?

Not sure if she did. Perhaps I'll know more after visiting the exhibition next month. I do have nice copy of Théophile Gautier's 'Le Roman de la Momie' which she translated into German.