93!
Anybody happens to know when Crowley first used the term "Crowleyanity"?
Thanks in advance
Love=Law
Lutz
'Twas Fuller first, I believe, in 'The Star In The West' but you already know that, I'm sure!
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
Yes, I see it on page 193, in the footnote.
93, Paul!
Yep, that's what I always thought too. Now it is kind of fun these days to thumb through material concerning Rose (she really was a very important medium to him) and then I found in his (unpublished as far as I know) diary of 1907 this entry while AC was visiting the Alhambra (in Grenada, Spain):
"Cathedral well enough if you own it & can be alone. CATENA reveals architectural truth for Crowleyanity. Simplicity: one decoration at a time."
Hopefully I deciphered his terrible handwriting correctly, but there is absolutely no doubt about Crowleyanity.
Well, this was news to me and so I thought I'll share it.
Love=Law
Lutz
Beautiful - thanks, Lutz!
Perhaps he had invented the term already (it's easy enough to imagine), and had been batting it about with Fuller.
Nice work! Actually, 1907 seems to have been a considerable high point for AC - presumably because he still had a fair amount of cash to flash!
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
93, Paul!
Yep, that's what I always thought too. Now it is kind of fun these days to thumb through material concerning Rose (she really was a very important medium to him) and then I found in his (unpublished as far as I know) diary of 1907 this entry while AC was visiting the Alhambra (in Grenada, Spain):
"Cathedral well enough if you own it & can be alone. CATENA reveals architectural truth for Crowleyanity. Simplicity: one decoration at a time."
I have not come across Crowleyanity (as in, “the debased cult of” – private joke) previous to Fuller either. I think A.C. wrote “The Empty-Headed Athenians” around about that same time, but could it have been before then, would anyone know?
Meanwhile the dairy entry mentioned, for 19th July, 1907 (in which A.C. also notes for the 23rd, “Rose’s 52nd birthday" for some reason – when she was in fact 33) appears as page 151 in “The Equinox” Volume V No.4 [otherwise called “Sex and Religion by Aleister Crowley”] as edited by (surprise!) Marcelo Motta. (N.B. - This is no longer available except at (more than) extortionate prices, by Order of the 'Caliphornian' O.T.O.)
“Does earth plug a hole in heaven, or heaven plug a hole in earth?”
Norma N.Joy Conquest
Coming across the following reference to this subject by Clifford Bax the other day prompted the memory of this byegone thread, and on the basis of it the year can be advanced forward from 1907 to at least the beginning of 1905:
A powerful man with black magnetic eyes, walked up to me. He wore a velvet coat with ermine lapels, a coloured waistcoat, silk knee breeches, and black silk stockings. He smoked a colossal meerschaum…
Every evening we played chess together and to play chess with a man is to realise the voltage of his intellect. A strong and imaginative mind directed the pieces that opposed me. Moreover, he was an expert skater, an expert mountaineer; and in conversation he exhibited a wide knowledge of literature, of occultism, and of Oriental peoples.
I am certain, too, that with a part of his personality he did believe in his Messianic mission. On the eve of my return to England, after we had played the last of our chess games, he exhorted me to devote myself to the study and practice of magic. I understood that he would instruct me. “Most good of you,” I stammered, “but really, you know – perhaps I am not quite ready. I must read a little more first.”
“Reading,” he answered, “is for infants. Men must experiment. Seize what the gods have offered. Reject me, and you will become indistinguishable from all these idiots around us.” He paused, and then asked abruptly, “What is the date?” “January 23rd,” I answered. “What is the year, according to the Christian calendar?” “Nineteen hundred and five.”
“Exactly,” said Crowley, “and in a thousand years from this moment, the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowleyanity.”
The easy and unhesitant, confident way it would appear to roll off A.C.’s tongue to Bax suggests it may well not have been his first use of the term, that it may have had a degree of previous practice to ensure a certain fluidity in transmission – that in fact A.C. may have had more than three weeks to ‘prepare’ it, and therefore may have originated from 1904 itself. (Before then he would not have been interested in any quasi-messianic mission at all, his immediate focus being upon Rationalist Science and Buddhism (as seen in e.g. his 1903 essay of the same name, q.v.)
N Joy
I omitted to mention the/a source for the above:
[...] “Reading,” he answered, “is for infants. Men must experiment. Seize what the gods have offered. Reject me, and you will become indistinguishable from all these idiots around us.” He paused, and then asked abruptly, “What is the date?” “January 23rd,” I answered. “What is the year, according to the Christian calendar?” “Nineteen hundred and five.”
“Exactly,” said Crowley, “and in a thousand years from this moment, the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowleyanity.”
(Aleister Crowley: The Beast Demystified by Roger Hutchinson [Mainstream Publishing; Edinburgh: 1998]; p. 109.)[/align:1zovuyjd]
david, take note! The above is an acceptably correct citation, the model of which if you want to be as helpful and considerate as possible to your fellow Lashtalians, you should try to incorporate in your postings wherever possible, in order that people will be able to check for themselves and examine the exact context of the same, if they so wish.) Look ye & learn! Viddy well, my brother!
Teaching, teaching, teaching, as if you were Lord (God) Tankerville…
N Joy
This matter does raise considerably more issues than I at first thought. Perhaps most significantly of these, A.C.’s first gleaning of the direct personal importance of Liber AL to him was when he wrote on the front page something along the lines of “received by my ear 1906” (I cannot check the phrase exactly at the moment.) This current reference pre-dates that by at least a year, possibly even almost two. Yet if he was unprepared before that to make The Book of the Law and Thelema the cornerstone, nay the keystone of his whole religio-philosophic outlook, then what precisely would his ‘Crowleyanity’ have consisted of and have its belief-system revolve around?
As supplemental but also relevant questions: in addition to the one posed by the thread to begin with, is it known what A.C. would have conceived what was meant by the term ‘Crowleyanity’ between 1904 and 1907, after which his ‘serious’ use of the term appears to have died away in a dimuendo before being replaced with first “Scientific Illuminism” and then finally “Thelema”, with his later references having a more pronounced self-deprecatory or ironic tongue-in-cheek tinge to them?
Take away the Egyptian (let’s not even mention Sumerian) pantheon of deities, which mythos might A.C. have established instead? Maybe he would have gone ‘Greek’ instead, utilising Pan, Chronos & all the Teitans? Would his role also have been an exalted one in line with that of the ‘Prophet’, or perhaps more of an administrative minister, in the manner of some Pope sort of figure-in-charge? Would its general character have greatly diverged from that of a similar “World Teacher” role which arose in the aftermath of the World War and similar claims by the remains of Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society? Would Crowleyanity still be essentially the same twenty years forward apart from its quintessence and framing superstructure comprising of Thelema & The Book of the Law? It cannot have been too far from what he had in mind right at the beginning, with his first mentions of Crowleyanity, Shirley.
For those who prefer ‘Crowleianity’, imagine corrections made forsooth.
N Joy
who are you calling Shirley?
😀 😉
N Joy
In case anyone's not in on the joke -
[...] “Reading,” he answered, “is for infants. Men must experiment. Seize what the gods have offered. Reject me, and you will become indistinguishable from all these idiots around us.” He paused, and then asked abruptly, “What is the date?” “January 23rd,” I answered. “What is the year, according to the Christian calendar?” “Nineteen hundred and five.”
“Exactly,” said Crowley, “and in a thousand years from this moment, the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowleyanity.”
(Aleister Crowley: The Beast Demystified by Roger Hutchinson [Mainstream Publishing; Edinburgh: 1998]; p. 109.)[/align:3nzflf6f]
The quote seems garbled in every secondary source. Hutchinson's differs from Bax’s original, which has –
“And,” he said, “in a hundred years from this day the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowley-anity.”
(snippet view from Google Books)
I hyphenate it in the first page, although there it occurs in the line-break as well, because on the next page he hyphenates it in mid-sentence:
Symonds has changed “hundred” to “thousand”, and Kaczynski gives the oddest variation, with no “Crowleyanity” at all:
“What is the date?”
“January 25.”
“And the year, according to the Christian Calendar?”
“1905”
“Exactly. And in a hundred years, the world will be sitting in the dawn of a New Aeon.”
(from Perdurabo, p. 134)
Kaczynski’s note to this version is on page 596, note 13:
“This conversation is drawn from two of Bax’s books: Some I Knew Well (London: Phoenix House, 1951), 51-5, and Inland Far: A Book of Thoughts and Impressions (London: William Heinemann, 1925), 41-2. While Bax quotes Crowley as saying “the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowleyanity,” its accuracy is suspect. Either Bax misremembered or Crowley misspoke, for AC believed his impact was just beginning; in other words, dawning, not setting. Furthermore, the term “Crowleyanity” is attributed to J.F.C. Fuller, who coined the term later that year.”
(“later that year” does indeed mean 1905, specifically the summer. Kaczynski, who is probably the most knowledgeable person alive on Fuller, says he wrote The Star in the West then (p. 158). I can’t find this conversation in searches of Bax’s earlier work Inland Far (1925), but he does mention Fuller’s “The Star in the West”, so it is possible that, having read it, he projected the term “Crowleyanity” back twenty years to the time of his meeting with Crowley in St. Moritz in January 1905.)
Fuller’s own “coinage” of the term (used three times, including a descriptive definition) is in note 1 of page 193 (unnumbered) of The Star in the West, mentioned earlier this thread:
Crowley may have coined it earlier than Fuller, but it seems unlikely to me that Fuller would have had the subtle humour implicit in the word. I.e., as a parody of Christianity rather than an “-ism” like Buddhism, hence “Crowleyism.” So either both men invented it independently, or Bax did indeed “misremember,” under Fuller’s influence.
Crowley used “Crowleymas Day” as the working or original title for his March 1902 essay בראשית “Berashith,” (Sword of Song (1904), p. 59 (in the note to line 616 of “Ascension Day”); this is equivalent to the version in Collected Works, vol. II, p. 201; see also Confessions, p. 275). Thus, he had this sort of name-play in mind before Fuller’s apparent invention, but apart from Bax’s doubtful memory, 1905 in The Star in the West appears to be the earliest use of the term “Crowleyanity.”
Some more fascinating research on your part once again, bel. Well done!
However whoever originated the phrase, Crowley or Fuller, it now seems to be definitely pegged to 1905 as opposed to 1907, and therefore still leaves the question of exactly what matter this rather mysterious “Crowleyanity” (as distinct from Crowleyism!) would have consisted, apart from Fuller’s suggestion that “Where Agnosticism and Scientific Buddhism [sic] end, Crowleyanity begins”, which does at least imply some sort of a mystical, religio-philosophical basis to it.
N Joy
93!
I think this is especially interesting when we consider that he allegedly had nothing to do at all with TBOTL until 1906 or 1907 again. What else could have inspired him to imagine "Crowleyanity"? Or didn't he misplace the book and forgot about it for a few years at all?
Love=Law
Lutz
See Confessions pp. 538-541 (especially 541) for this very issue, Lutz. The seventh chapter of The Star in the West is an exposition of "Crowleyanity" as Crowley's philosophy before his Samadhi in October of 1906, before plans for A.A. with Jones, before he took Liber Legis seriously. The chronology of that chapter in the Confessions is confused, I'm writing a post up about it, but am too busy at this moment.
Jamie Barter, for this question I find the following to be of some relevance:
The thread 'Restoring Christianity as a solar-phallic religion' - source http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85355#p85355 - a thread containing information in respect of Aleister Crowley maintaining that the task of his sexmagical organisation Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) was "to restore Christianity to its real status as a solar-phallic religion."
The last posting (Reply #269) on page 18 in the thread 'The expression "True Will"' - source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85901#p85901 - where I quote an interesting remark from David remembering that Colin Wilson in his Crowley biography "The Nature of the Beast", "puts forth the view therein that Crowley underwent a crisis of an acceptance of his own homosexuality but in the context of a "spiritual experience" [after an experience in Stockholm on New Years Eve 1897]."
Also from the same thread but on page 19, belmurru's Reply #271 - source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85918#p85918 - containing the following about Crowley:
"The connection with his True Will was that he found he was discovering himself – his true Self – through sex. Sex was rebellion, sex was freedom, and sex was magic. It was a way to knowledge, liberation, and power: a key to identity. There is a lot more that could be said, but you should think about it, and its implications for you, if any, for yourself."
Crowley being a child of his time, my educated guess is that he would have based ‘Crowleyanity’ on "the phallic idea" considered "to lie at the base of all worship of life" (source: page 394 in Encyclopedia of Religions (first published in 1906) by John G. R. Forlong (1824-1904), (Serpents is the subject-matter on the six pages from page 268 to 273 in this encyclopedia)). Concepts corresponding to the above just mention "phallic idea" were well known in writings on the development of the religions of the world, in the time before Crowley authored The Book of the Law. Something like "the phallic idea" seems to be the basis for Crowley's most secret O.T.O. writings
That is, I think Crowley's ‘Crowleyanity’ would have consisted of and have had its belief-system revolve around something akin to "the phallic idea" just described above, for example something resembling Crowley's above just described claim "to restore Christianity to its real status as a solar-phallic religion." But I also think Crowley's ‘Crowleyanity’ would include his metaphysical speculations based on his 0=2 idea.
When I in my former posting in this thread makes an educated guess that Crowley would have based his 'Crowleyanity' on a concept corresponding to "the phallic idea" considered "to lie at the base of all worship of life" described on page 394 in the Encyclopedia of Religions (first published in 1906) by John G. R. Forlong (1824-1904), I forgot to mention that this refers to Vol. III: N-Z of this Encyclopedia of Religions - In Three Volumes.
“And,” he said, “in a hundred years from this day the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowley-anity.”
It is rather singular that there should be so many errors in the secondary transcriptions thus subjecting the matter to further confusion…
“What is the date?”
“January 25.”
“And the year, according to the Christian Calendar?”
“1905”
“Exactly. And in a hundred years, the world will be sitting in the dawn of a New Aeon.”
(from Perdurabo, p. 134)
Kaczynski’s note to this version is on page 596, note 13:
“This conversation is drawn from two of Bax’s books: Some I Knew Well (London: Phoenix House, 1951), 51-5, and Inland Far: A Book of Thoughts and Impressions (London: William Heinemann, 1925), 41-2. While Bax quotes Crowley as saying “the world will be sitting in the sunset of Crowleyanity,” its accuracy is suspect. Either Bax misremembered or Crowley misspoke, for AC believed his impact was just beginning; in other words, dawning, not setting. Furthermore, the term “Crowleyanity” is attributed to J.F.C. Fuller, who coined the term later that year.”
This is true, although “sunset” might fit in better if the length of time passing were a “thousand” years rather than a "hundred”. Maybe A.C. rather generously thought his belief system would give way to some future successor who might arise 1,000 years hence with something better and/or more suited to those future times ahead. It would have made even more sense if he had said “two thousand” years, of course, to bring it in alignment with the time interval it takes to pass through one of the signs of the zodiac during the Precession of the Equinoxes.
If A.C. had meant and said “a hundred years” though, it implies that he imagined that’s how long it would take the “dawn” of Crowleyanity to get going (since “dawn”, being at the other extreme to "sunset", would imply the “beginning” – not the very beginning, that would be “First Light”, but near enough to it not to make much difference.) Maybe not so very inaccurately after all, as far as things presently stand!
I agree; the great difficulty seems to be that there are no first hand documents of what the early system reduced to the shorthand of “Crowleyanity” would have meant by Crowley himself, and there seems to be no evidence of anything where he formally sets out what his system going under this blanket name consisted of at this early stage (i.e., c. 1904 -07). So much so, that everythings seems to come through at one remove and secondhand from Captain Fuller who himself summarised the application & distilled “the new wine” from Crowley’s written texts:
The Agnostic principles of Crowleyanity may briefly be summed up as follows:
[1.] Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself.
[2.] Say not “I have a soul,” before you feel that you have a soul.
[3.] Say not “There is a God,” before you experience that there is a God.
[4.] You can never understand until you have experienced.
[5.] You can never experience until you have got beyond reason.(Fuller: The Star In The West; p. 282)[/align:hnkrvdqf]
And as the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ became known as Christianity, so let this theurgy, as expounded by this marvellous being, be known as Crowleyanity: or in other words, according to the mind of the reader; - Pyrrhonic-Zoroastrianism, Pyrrhonic-Mysticism, Sceptical-Transcedentalism, Sceptical-Theurgy, Sceptical-Energy, Scientific-Illuminism, or what you will; for in short it is the conscious communion with God on the part of an Atheist, a transcending of reason by scepticism of the instrument, and the limitation of scepticism by direct consciousness of the Absolute.
(Fuller: The Star In The West; p.212)[/align:hnkrvdqf]
Crowleyanity does not, in words, explain; for being beyond reason, it is both inexplicable and undefinable in rational terms; yet it directs, and the weary traveller, searching for the stone of the wise, has but to follow, guided by the sure and certain hope that if he so will, it will guide him to that great and glorious transfiguration he so ardently desires.
(Fuller: The Star In The West; p. 239)[/align:hnkrvdqf]
I am inclined to agree with wellread that one key ingredients, prior to A.C.’s acceptance of The Book of the Law and the Equinox of the Gods, would have been the institution or restoration of a form of “Esoteric Christianity” which would incorporate aspects of solar-phallicentricism but would also at the same time sought to find a balanced re-emergence of the Goddess too. Such a “Gnostic Neo-Christianity” was indeed one of the concerns of the pre-Thelemic O.T.O., but Crowley was not a member of the Order until 1910 and so would have been unaware of this at the time in question (i.e., 1904-06).
This would also be on the assumption - for which I would be interested to receive further information - that A.C. did not believe in the primacy of Horus either until he had accepted The Book of the Law: i.e., that at this time he would still be thinking the world was in the paternalistic Old Aeon where Osiris and the Piscean current were still dominant & held sway.
N Joy
It seems like "many" errors are not "singular" but should be "multiple."
It would seem that Fuller's exposition of Crowleyanity in Chapter 7 of The Star in the West not only accurately states Crowley's views, but was done under Crowley's guidance.
Fuller wrote the book in the summer of 1905 - why did it take so long, until (spring of, by my estimation) 1907, to get published?
The chronology runs -
Fuller begins corresponding with Crowley in June 1905, inquiring about the "chance of the geologic period". He had only read, at this point, Why Jesus Wept. Fuller is stationed in Lucknow, not far from Crowley, in Darjeeling preparing for the Kanchenjunga expedition. Crowley likes what he hears from Fuller, and has copies of all of his works sent to him. Within a few months, Fuller had devoured everything, and finished The Star in the West (Kaczynski, p. 158).
But what did the manuscript look like at this point, and why did it take a year and a half to publish it? It seems that Fuller didn't like Crowley's spiritual or mystical side, and had not written about it.
Crowley describes this - when read closely - in the Confessions, pp. 540-54:
"On one point only were Fuller and I at odds. His hatred for Christianity extended to the idea of religion in general... he fought with me, hand to hand, week after week, about the question of Magick. He had originally intended his essay to conclude with the sixth chapter, and he had scrupulously avoided any reference to the magical and mystical side of my work; nay, even to the philosophical side so far as that was concerned with transcendentalism. But I showed him that the study must be incomplete unless he added a chapter expounding my views on these subjects. Thus chapter seven came to be written.
"It is a very complete and just exposition of my views, and it is especially to be noticed that within the one hundred and thirty-three pages there is no reference to The Book of the Law."
I think that the time delay between the first six chapters and the seventh is thus explained by the amount of time it took Fuller to become acquainted with Crowley's mystical and philosophical background, all the while in correspondence with him, and probably until after he and Crowley had physically met, in August 1906. In other words, he wrote the first six chapters in a burst of inspiration and enthusiasm in a few months; but it took him over a year to write the seventh.
Given this, and Crowley's expression of satisfaction with it, above, I think it is possible that Crowley himself had suggested the term "Crowleyanity" to Fuller, and explained what it meant during all this time of fighting with his anti-mystical stance. So Bax may be right in his recollection of Crowley using the term already by January 1905.
So I think that in Chapter 7 we really have Crowley's own views of what Crowleyanity was in 1906. This was to be the term for his philosophy. But events moved quickly; the term was quickly dropped.
About the "hundred years" in Bax's recollection, it may be notable that in the poem "The Convert (A Hundred Years Hence)" the century is a point of reference (I don't know exactly when this poem was written, but it was only published in 1910).
It seems like "many" errors are not "singular" but should be "multiple."
It was the occurrence of them (the many errors) which was "singular", Shiva. And yes, belmurru, I rather think your ideas on the matter are right.
N Joy
About the "hundred years" in Bax's recollection, it may be notable that in the poem "The Convert (A Hundred Years Hence)" the century is a point of reference (I don't know exactly when this poem was written, but it was only published in 1910).
Yes, the term "Crowleyanity" was quickly dropped, and even if A.C. intended it to be taken seriously in the early period up to 1907, after this (as I noted earlier) his stance towards the term became increasingly tongue-in-cheek and self-mocking, reaching its conclusion in the poem “The Convert (A Hundred Years Hence)” while the phrase for his world-view/ belief-system appears to have shifted to “Scientific Illuminism” (as on the masthead of “The Equinox”) before finally settling on Thelema.
The central question arising from the discussion still seems to be unanswered, however. Irrespective of the exact nature of what Crowleyanity would have consisted of prior to 1907 (or more specifically before October 1906, when A.C. appears to have taken on board The Book of the Law seriously for the first time) – and the nature of this appears to have been the resurrection of some form of solar-phallic although Goddess-balanced Esoteric or Gnostic Neo-Christianity – it seems that A.C. did not accept the reality of the Equinox of the Gods at this early stage at all and would therefore not believe that the world had undergone the transition into the New Aeon of Horus. His viewpoint would therefore remain resolutely “Old Aeon” until at the very least, October 1906.
Can anyone supply any evidence which might counteract this assertion?
N Joy
Can anyone supply any evidence which might counteract this assertion?
Maybe Crowley due to the lack of time, was distracted from paying closer attention to "the Equinox of the Gods". Crowley's time could have been consumed by matters like - the completion of his globetrotting wedding-trip, of which the visit in Cairo 1904 was a part - the birth of his first child, Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith (born on 28 July 1905) - him getting published his Collected Works volume I in 1905, his Collected Works volume II in 1906, and his Collected Works volume III in 1907 - him in 1905 also preparing for and participating in the Kangchenjunga expedition - and him both traveling and self-initiating himself in China in 1906.
Can anyone supply any evidence which might counteract this assertion?
Maybe Crowley due to the lack of time, was distracted from paying closer attention to "the Equinox of the Gods". Crowley's time could have been consumed by matters like - the completion of his globetrotting wedding-trip, of which the visit in Cairo 1904 was a part - the birth of his first child, Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith (born on 28 July 1905) - him getting published his Collected Works volume I in 1905, his Collected Works volume II in 1906, and his Collected Works volume III in 1907 - him in 1905 also preparing for and participating in the Kangchenjunga expedition - and him both traveling and self-initiating himself in China in 1906.
Shirley, this cannot be the case? Even if he was such a busy bee, how long does it take to think about the matter – it hardly even requires the effort to “pay close attention” – as to whether the current zeitgeist is Old or New Aeon, Osiris or Horus? In my estimation, this opinion – yea or nay - could be formulated in less than one second. Obviously, exploring the logistics and what it actually entails, would then take a little longer. Say, ooh, thirty months (e.g., between April 1904 and October 1906)?!
Buzz buzz buzz (bumbling along),
N Joy
Well, Jimbo, in the thread 'What is a true act of magick?' – source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66992#p66992 - Patriarch156 states that The Book of the Law after "the reception of the other Holy Books in 1907 [...] provided a source of authority from the Secret Chiefs and the initiatory formula of attaining the religious experience to destroy and succeed the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with his own Order, the A.'.A.'."
Unlike Patriarch156 I consider it to be the fact of the matter that The Book of the Law was intended by Crowley to be a source of authority in relation to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, from the very beginning. That this is the case, is demonstrated by Crowley while in Egypt in 1904 challenging the rules of Golden Dawn-style ritual procedure, making void his Golden Dawn oaths, severing relations with his former mentor, Samuel Liddell Mathers, and usurping the latter’s role as sole conduit to the Secret Chiefs. (Source: Walk Like an Egyptian: Egypt as Authority in Aleister Crowley’s Reception of The Book of the Law, an article by Caroline Tully, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, PhD Candidate).
Crowley usurped Samuel Liddell Mathers' role as sole conduit to the Secret Chiefs, by sending the latter a letter informing him that the Secret Chiefs had appointed Crowley to be the visible Head of the Order of the Golden Dawn.
In the same source as quoted earlier in this posting, Patriarch156 writes that Crowley in the first years after writing/receiving The Book of the Law, in "His diaries and writings treated the book as a book of Magick. A key to attainment." Source: The thread 'What is a true act of magick?' – http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66992#p66992
Crowley's initially focusing upon The Book of the Law as a book of Magick, as a key to attainment, and as a source of authority in relation to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, is likely to be the most plausible reason for him not in the first two or three years after writing/receiving it, paying closer attention to "the Equinox of the Gods", in addition to the fact that he was also very busy concerning other matters in that time period.
And, Jimbo, does not Crowley in 1907 writing/receiving some other Holy Books in addition to The Book of the Law', and him in 1909 writing/receiving The Vision and the Voice, the book he considered to be second in importance behind The Book of the Law, actually represent Crowley paying closer attention to "the Equinox of the Gods"?
Also, Jimbo, is it not a plausible possibility that Crowley originally writing The Book of the Law as his claim to fame and top-dog position among the Order of the Golden Dawn crowd, is the true background and basis for why this book is mostly popular among persons interested in Western esotericism, and not among persons in general?
Well, Jimbo, in the thread 'What is a true act of magick?' – source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66992#p66992 - Patriarch156 states that The Book of the Law after "the reception of the other Holy Books in 1907 [...] provided a source of authority from the Secret Chiefs and the initiatory formula of attaining the religious experience to destroy and succeed the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with his own Order, the A.'.A.'."
Unlike Patriarch156 I consider it to be the fact of the matter that The Book of the Law was intended by Crowley to be a source of authority in relation to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, from the very beginning. That this is the case, is demonstrated by Crowley while in Egypt in 1904 challenging the rules of Golden Dawn-style ritual procedure, making void his Golden Dawn oaths, severing relations with his former mentor, Samuel Liddell Mathers, and usurping the latter’s role as sole conduit to the Secret Chiefs. (Source: Walk Like an Egyptian: Egypt as Authority in Aleister Crowley’s Reception of The Book of the Law, an article by Caroline Tully, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, PhD Candidate).
By 1904 A.C. was not interested in the G.D.. By 1907, he had founded his own magickal order, the A.’. A.’..
This was long before 1904, though.
Crowley's initially focusing upon The Book of the Law as a book of Magick, as a key to attainment, and as a source of authority in relation to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
What do you mean, “a book of Magick” - like a grimoire, perhaps? But this label could cover (as in, obscure, bury, conceal) a great deal of ground.
This begs the question of what event could be more important and justify/ reward paying closer attention to it than the once-in-an-aeon Equinox of the Gods?
Yes. But we are talking about 1907 there, not 1906, 1905 or 1904.
You may be right, but where and when did he write that? I would have thought he would have chosen The Book Of Lies, personally.
In a word, no. It is rather an implausible one.
Furthermore, he did after all write it - as “the Law” – for “all”.
Whence this substitution now of my full name for ‘Jimbo’ (The last person to frequently address me as that was my old university tutor)?
“…a joy a million times greater than this …” (Liber AL, II:24)
N Joy
Yes, for my correction of myself concerning this matter, I refer you to my Reply #7 in the thread 'Questions on the nature of Ra Hoor Khuit who sent A.C. the praeterhuman Aiwass.'
That A.C. failed to usurp Samuel Liddell Mathers as the visible Head of the Order of the Golden Dawn, does not at all contradict the likelihood of that The Book of the Law was also written as an attack on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in addition to being written as a declaration that (AL I:34) "the Law is for all."
Well, concerning this matter, Patriarch156 in my quote from him, makes the following reference to Crowley's diaries and writings: "His diaries and writings treated the book as a book of Magick. A key to attainment." Patriarch156 is the one who knows more about these "diaries and writings".
The critically important work of writing/"receiving" more Holy Books of Thelema, so as to provide himself with as many supportive sources of authority from the Secret Chiefs as possible, to be as well-prepared as he could, before seriously attempting to capitalize on the extremely important Equinox of the Gods.
He wrote a minor part of it in Mexico in 1900, but wrote the largest and final part of it in Algeria in 1909.
Well, The Vision and the Voice could be used by Crowley as a source of authority from the Secret Chiefs, Crowley did after all consider it the second-most important of The Holy Books of Thelema, and unlike The Book Of Lies, it does not contain the word lies in its title.
Furthermore, he did after all write it - as “the Law” – for “all”.
This does not contradict the likelihood of that The Book of the Law was also written as an attack on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in addition to being written as a declaration that (AL I:34) "the Law is for all."
“…a joy a million times greater than this …” (Liber AL, II:24)
N Joy
That substitution of your full name for ‘Jimbo’, is inspired by the following humorous pearl of wisdom on these fora, for which you were reprimanded by the forum master:
Source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1.msg76921#msg76921 - Re: AC on BOTL verse numbers? « Reply #36 on: May 31, 2013, 04:34:42 pm »
I like your sense of humor, and hope it is fine with you if I call you Jimbo, in honor of the above quoted humorous pearl of wisdom on these fora.
AL II:22. "... enjoy all things of sense and rapture ..."
wellreadwellbred
That A.C. failed to usurp Samuel Liddell Mathers as the visible Head of the Order of the Golden Dawn, does not at all contradict the likelihood of that The Book of the Law was also written as an attack on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in addition to being written as a declaration that (AL I:34) "the Law is for all." [...]
This does not contradict the likelihood of that The Book of the Law was also written as an attack on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in addition to being written as a declaration that (AL I:34) "the Law is for all."
I am sure the prime purpose of the writing of The Book of the Law was not intended as an “attack” on the H.O.G.D. By then (1904) weren’t all his quarrels with them a bit old hat (let alone old aeon 😀 )?
Well, concerning this matter, Patriarch156 in my quote from him, makes the following reference to Crowley's diaries and writings: "His diaries and writings treated the book as a book of Magick. A key to attainment." Patriarch156 is the one who knows more about these "diaries and writings".
My comment still stands, despite your deflection of the ‘responsibility’ for the description onto Patriarch156. It is too broad a category for descriptive purposes on its own, in a way like “every intentional act is a magickal act” from MiT&P.
The critically important work of writing/"receiving" more Holy Books of Thelema, so as to provide himself with as many supportive sources of authority from the Secret Chiefs as possible, to be as well-prepared as he could, before seriously attempting to capitalize on the extremely important Equinox of the Gods.
OK, I’ll go along with that idea. Reservedly.
He wrote a minor part of it in Mexico in 1900, but wrote the largest and final part of it in Algeria in 1909.
You know perfectly well I’m not asking about when A.C. wrote The Vision & The Voice – and where. I was asking where he referred to it as his Number 2 Text. If you don’t know, just say so. And then perhaps explain why you said so.
“…a joy a million times greater than this …” (Liber AL, II:24)
N Joy
That substitution of your full name for ‘Jimbo’, is inspired by the following humorous pearl of wisdom on these fora, for which you were reprimanded by the forum master:
Source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1.msg76921#msg76921 - Re: AC on BOTL verse numbers? « Reply #36 on: May 31, 2013, 04:34:42 pm »
Reprimanded? But that makes it sound like I – misbehaved??!? (:o ) Though I have seen – used – worse language here myself without being reprimanded. And if I was reprimanded, well, you are an “accessory” to the fact by dredging it up to the surface again.
I seem to have been uncharacteristically indiscreet not to mention unusually candid on that occasion, I don’t know why. Although I am now strongly having to resist the temptation of telling a further anecdote which I would probably not receive any thanks over (Hello though Ian, if by any remote likelihood you may happen to be reading this! 😀 ) Therefore I will not bother. Perhaps I was suddenly overtaken by a wave of nostalgia?! It’s perfectly true that bit about lecturing/ tutoring though, and the more years go by the more I think it may have been a much cushier bet going for that option, if I had my time over again. Young people, take note! I certainly never received that (in)valuable advice from the uni career’s advice department myself. But now: the die is cast for me. *Sigh!* *wry grin* That’s enough wistful contemplation from “ah, me” though, I think. [Cut.]
Yes, call me Jimbo – if you feel you must, well do it, well. 🙂 ::)
“… An if thou art ever joyous” ;D (Liber AL II:72)
N Joy
I am sure that a part of the purpose of the writing of The Book of the Law, and its content, was to write something that also included an "attack" on the H.O.G.D. Like for example: "I:49. Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating."
In the context of The Book of the Law being written shortly after the splintering of the GD due to Samuel Mathers in 1900 accusing his co-founder Wynn Westcott of forging communications between himself and the Secret Chiefs who had given him the authority for the Order to exist, the following from The Book of the Law can be read as Crowley in contrast demonstrably making a big issue out of the close and truthful nature of the communication from the Secret Chiefs to him: "III:39. All this and a book to say how thou didst come hither and a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever -- for in it is the word secret & not only in the English -- [...]."
Also, in chapter four of Lawrence Sutin's Crowley biography, Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley, a short diary entitled The Book of Results, is described as covering the week from March 16. to March 23. 1904, and as referring to an invocation of Horus, the results of which Crowley in this diary understood as the arrival of a new Equinox of the Gods, meaning the beginning of a new spiritual aeon, and as that – "I am to formulate a new link of an Order with the Solar Force."
Further Sutin states that the results of the said invocation of Horus had confirmed for Crowley "that the Secret Chiefs of the Third Order (beyond the First and Second Orders of the Golden Dawn) had sent a messenger to confer upon me the position which Mathers had forfeited." And that this also ensured Crowley in making a final break with Mathers: "G.D. to be destroyed, i.e. publish its history & its papers. Nothing needs buying."
Sutin continues by writing that Crowley carried this battle plan out by five years later publishing the history and rituals of the Golden Dawn in The Equinox, and that the statement "Nothing needs buying" is likely to refer to Crowley's conviction that Mathers deserved no payment or no rights for the said rituals, describing this conviction as a position similar to the one Crowley took when it came to Mather's work on The Goetia.
Maybe the true story about Crowley and The Book of the Law is something along the lines of what gurugeorge states here:
That might be earlier than you think, Jimbo, given that The Vision and the Voice when it mentions Aiwass, like for example in the 8th Aethyr where it is written "my name is called Aiwass," and "in The Book of the Law did I write the secrets of truth that are like unto a star and a snake and a sword.", is actually documenting a message from Crowley himself. Another indication of Crowley emphasizing the major importance of the link between The Book of the Law and The Vision and the Voice, is him numbering the latter book asLiber 418. The latter number is identical with one of the following numbers that Crowley numbers and/or identifies Aiwass as "XCIII=418" (meaning: 93=418), in the printed version of The Book of the Law (or Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX, as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI, as it was titled by Crowley).
When and where do you think that Crowley referred to The Vision & The Voice] as his Number 2 Text?
With respect to Ian Rankin, I have to admit that I made the mistake of confusing him with Ian McEwan. Something which has happened to him before as is obvious from the following:
Source: https://twitter.com/beathhigh/status/26490761550 - from Ian Rankin's twitter page.
OK then, I give you that this might have been an early incentive for A.C. to start his own magickal order whIch eventually became the A.’. A.’. in 1907. I don’t have a transcription of The Book Of Results to access at present, but can you confirm is there anywhere within it where A.C. actually makes a specific reference to “the arrival of new Equinox of the Gods”?
You don’t include “battle plan” in quotation marks. Does that mean Sutin does not use this phrasing – in other words, that it’s your own choice?
That might be earlier than you think, Jimbo, given that The Vision and the Voice when it mentions Aiwass, like for example in the 8th Aethyr where it is written "my name is called Aiwass," and "in The Book of the Law did I write the secrets of truth that are like unto a star and a snake and a sword.", is actually documenting a message from Crowley himself. Another indication of Crowley emphasizing the major importance of the link between The Book of the Law and The Vision and the Voice, is him numbering the latter book asLiber 418. The latter number is identical with one of the following numbers that Crowley numbers and/or identifies Aiwass as "XCIII=418" (meaning: 93=418), in the printed version of The Book of the Law (or Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX, as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI, as it was titled by Crowley).
I don’t think A.C. did refer to V&tV as his “Number 2 Text.” That was what you said. I said if he referred to any of his texts as that (including the so-called Holy Books) it might have been The Book Of Lies. I also said that was my personal opinion, not a factual statement.
So I say again, well, if you don’t actually know where A.C. referred to V&tV (which is not a “Holy Book”) as his No.2 Text, it would save time to have just said so.
Is its numeration as Liber 418 particularly significant, given that Liber 93 was not reserved for some startling revelation about Thelema itself?
I never made this statement! So why therefore are you asking me now then, well?
N Joy
So I say again, well, if you don’t actually know where A.C. referred to V&tV (which is not a “Holy Book”) as his No.2 Text, it would save time to have just said so.
I had the impression he did say that somewhere, but I couldn’t easily recall where.
HB in the “Editor’s Introduction” to The Vision & the Voice with Commentary, and Other Papers (Weiser, 1998), p. ix, says:
“Crowley considered Liber 418, The Vision and the Voice to be second in importance only to The Book of the Law.”
Unfortunately he doesn’t give a reference for that assertion. Nevertheless, at least he and I are under the same impression.
So, determined to find it, I began reading the introduction to the book excerpted from the Confessions, with restored passages, that HB used as a proper “Introduction” in this edition of Liber 418. This consists of Chapter 66, pp. 611-624, of the 1969 Confessions, and pp. 5-26 of the 1998 The Vision & the Voice.
Crowley does indeed say it, though less succinctly, on page 618 (1969) or page 17 (1998):
“Now, The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind… that it is unique. The thirty Aethyrs being, however, only second in importance, though very far away, to that Book, the Lords of Vision were at pains to supply internal evidence, more than amply sufficient that the revelations therein contained may be regarded as reliable.”
Perhaps he said it somewhere else more concisely, but this seems like the statement I remember and the one HB is referring to.
You can find you are asking for in The Equinox of the God, Chapter 6, source: http://www.beyondweird.com/crowley/liber/eoftg/eqotg6.html In that source is the following listed under Frater P.'s Diary: "March 20 At 10 p.m. did well--Equinox of Gods--Nov--(? new) C.R.C. (Christian Rosy Cross, we conjecture.) Hoori now Hpnt (obviously "Hierophant")."
In that source is also the following: "We now return to the "Book of Results." 19 The ritual written out and the invocation done-- little success. 20 Revealed (We cannot make out if this revelation comes from W. or is a result of the ritual. But almost certainly the former, as it precedes the "Great Success" entry) that the Equinox of the Gods is come, Horus taking the Throne of the East and all rituals, etc., being abrogated. (To explain this, the analogy is between the "new formula" given by the "Word" every six months in the Order, and that given every couple of thousand years (more or less) by the Word of a Magus to the whole or part of Mankind. The G.D. ritual of the Equinox was celebrated in the spring and autumn within 48 hours of the actual dates of Sol entering Aries and Libra.)
Great success in midnight invocation. (The other diary says 10 P.M. "Midnight" is perhaps a loose phrase, or perhaps marks the climax of the ritual.) I am to formulate a new link of an Order with the Solar Force."
I am paraphrasing Sutin, Sutin's words are: "This encapsulated battle plan was carried out – Crowley would, five years later, publish the history and rituals of the Golden Dawn in The Equinox."
I have no idea to what you are referring to with the term "Liber 93", what do you refer to with the term "Liber 93"?
Oh, the question from me to you, that you quote above, was by me meant as me asking you why you are asking me about this:
I don't know if anyone else is following these games of ping-pong between Jamie and wellreadwellbred, but if not, the following exchange is a gem:
Oh, the question from me to you, that you quote above, was by me meant as me asking you why you are asking me about this:
You couldn't make it up, could you.
I'm beginning to suspect that 'wellreadwellbred' is actually some form of bot - perhaps an elaborate Turing Test?
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
Lot of that around, it seems.
Likelier, he just finds himself somewhere on the spectrum this incarnation. Perhaps moreso than some, but certainly not alone amongst those who find their outlet on internet message boards.
“Now, The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind… that it is unique. The thirty Aethyrs being, however, only second in importance, though very far away, to that Book, the Lords of Vision were at pains to supply internal evidence, more than amply sufficient that the revelations therein contained may be regarded as reliable.”
Perhaps he said it somewhere else more concisely, but this seems like the statement I remember and the one HB is referring to.
When was Confessions written and/or published?
And also Jimbo, I still have no idea about what you are referring to with the term "Liber 93", what do you refer to with the term "Liber 93"?
“Now, The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind… that it is unique. The thirty Aethyrs being, however, only second in importance, though very far away, to that Book, the Lords of Vision were at pains to supply internal evidence, more than amply sufficient that the revelations therein contained may be regarded as reliable.”
Perhaps he said it somewhere else more concisely, but this seems like the statement I remember and the one HB is referring to.
You're welcome.
When was Confessions written and/or published?
Please don't tell me you are that lazy.
I have no idea to what you are referring to with the term "Liber 93", what do you refer to with the term "Liber 93"?
“Now, The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind… that it is unique. The thirty Aethyrs being, however, only second in importance, though very far away, to that Book, the Lords of Vision were at pains to supply internal evidence, more than amply sufficient that the revelations therein contained may be regarded as reliable.”
Perhaps he said it somewhere else more concisely, but this seems like the statement I remember and the one HB is referring to.
When was Confessions written and/or published?
And also Jimbo, I still have no idea about what you are referring to with the term "Liber 93", what do you refer to with the term "Liber 93"?
Surely, well, you are capable of researching about the Confessions yourself? This is extraordinary!
Regarding ‘Liber 93’, this is otherwise known as Liber TzBA (= Tzaddi[90] + Beth[2] + Aleph[1]) vel Nike, also known as “The Fountain of Hyacinth” and attributed Liber XXVIII (which is already classified as the ‘restricted’ A.’. A.’. document Liber Septem Regum Sanctorum).
Oh, the question from me to you, that you quote above, was by me meant as me asking you why you are asking me about this:
You couldn't make it up, could you.
Yes, highly amusing ping-pong, although after a while it can become a tad exasperating trying to get simple information without constant repetition and "going round the houses." Regarding The Vision & the Voice being A.C.'s Number 2 Text, which belmurru (rather than yourself, well) was considerate enough to provide full & further information, I remembered vaguely reading something along those lines myself but was put off attributing any further validity to it by the fact that Liber 418 (V&tV) was also classified as “Class AB”, along with The Paris Working (Liber CDXV), while “The Treasure House of Images” [Liber CMLXIII] is classed as Class A and B. However all of the other Holy Books are classed as straight Class A, though.
Neither does V&tV appear in Course I Section I “Books for Serious Study” which begins with Liber CCXX – then goes on to list as number two, “The Equinox” (all eleven volumes), followed by Liber ABA, Liber II (The Message of the Master Therion) and Liber DCCCXXXVII (The Law of Liberty). The Vision and the Voice was not included in second place nor in the rest of the running on that list.
N Joy
93, Jamie!
If I understood wellreadwellbred correctly (iirc we are both not native English speakers) he wasn't asking about what Liber 93 is. He did not understand - if I did - that you were doubting that the importance of Liber 418 is shown in its numbering already, because if so, then said Liber 93 would be highly more important, which it clearly is not.
Love=Law
Lutz
The Vision and the Voice or Liber 418 is a Class AB book, what Class is Liber TzBA or Liber XXVIII?
And why is Liber TzBA or Liber XXVIII known as ‘Liber 93’ when it is attributed Liber XXVIII, which means that that 28 and not 93 is the number attributed to it as a Liber?
Links to the Libri of Aleister Crowley – source; http://www.geocities.ws/nu_isis/libri2.html – lists Liber TzBA vel Niké under "UNCLASSIFIED OR UNKNOWN".
If I understood wellreadwellbred correctly (iirc we are both not native English speakers) he wasn't asking about what Liber 93 is. He did not understand - if I did - that you were doubting that the importance of Liber 418 is shown in its numbering already, because if so, then said Liber 93 would be highly more important, which it clearly is not.
93, Lutz! My casual comment seems to be assuming an importance rather out of proportion with the intention of my original remark, which was made when I wasn’t clear that Liber 418 aka The Vision and the Voice might have been A.C.’s “Number 2 Text”, and which belmurru provided enough evidence to support that this might be the case. Therefore the issue did not really need to be extended beyond that point, since I was making the original argument from a false premise, in that I was not sure TV&tV was A.C.’s Number 2 Text.
The Vision and the Voice or Liber 418 is a Class AB book, what Class is Liber TzBA or Liber XXVIII?
And why is Liber TzBA or Liber XXVIII known as ‘Liber 93’ when it is attributed Liber XXVIII, which means that that 28 and not 93 is the number attributed to it as a Liber?
I don’t know further on the matter without looking it up. I daresay that almighty fount of knowledge the big blue breezeblock aka Book 4 might provide an answer. I do know there are two claimants to Liber XXVIII, as I mentioned: one being Liber Septem Regum Sanctorum, the other being “The Fountain of Hyacinth”, also known as Liber TzBA vel Nike or Nikh. Maybe to prevent confusion with the other Liber XXVIII, Liber TzBA also became known as ‘Liber 93’ in respect of its Hebrew numeration – compare such numeration with the precedent of other libri e.g. Liber Tzaddi being numbered 90, etc.
“UNCLASSIFIED or UNKNOWN”? Funny then, that I should happen to have a copy of this “unclassified” and “unknown” book on my bookshelf (I am speaking metaphorically here as it’s actually in a cardboard box and can’t be accessed for further information at the moment. Nevertheless, the point still remains…)
N Joy
[All emphasis added by me.]
J., Links to the Libri of Aleister Crowley – source; http://www.geocities.ws/nu_isis/libri2.html – lists Liber TzBA vel Niké under “UNCLASSIFIED or UNKNOWN”, J. , not “unclassified” and “unknown”.
J., Links to the Libri of Aleister Crowley – source; http://www.geocities.ws/nu_isis/libri2.html – lists Liber TzBA vel Niké under “UNCLASSIFIED or UNKNOWN”, J. , not “unclassified” and “unknown”.
I was under the impression from your own posting, well, that Liber TzBA appeared to be both unclassified and unknown, which as I demonstrated was not the case with either. I take it that apart from this mildly pedantic quibbling here though, you have no other problem with the rest of my own posting? Otherwise, pardon me for this unparalleled slip; I must spank myself to make it sure it doesn’t ever happen again.
Thankfully, the earth hasn’t manage to stop revolving in the meantime though... 😀
N Joy
So what? Chancing across an old Geocities website is no substitute for research.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
From Magick: Liber ABA (2006 Weiser) under "Appendix 1" p. 753:
"Only three definite additions, and one probable addition, were made to the O.T.O. Syllabus after 1919. "Liber TzBA vel Nike sub figura 28, The Fountain of Hyacinth," is a diary written in 1922. Its number is 28, which duplicates that of an existing A.'.A.'. paper, "Ritual of the Seven Holy Kings. [...]"
The above basically summarizes what jamie was saying. The thorn in my side is that 93 seems the more-than likely candidate for this Liber TzBA's ennumeration to me. Unless I'm missing something (pretty sure I am), the 28 attribution has me scratching my head. Being a diary of Crowley's "attempt at breaking the habit," and reading more or less as a straight telling of his perceptions, the only conclusions I've arrived at are the diary began in February (28 days) which seems a little too arbitrary, or possibly back then the 'typical' stay at a rehabilitation clinic was 28 days, of which authority I'm going off the Sandra Bullock movie I have not seen.
I'm also unsure which came first ("Septum..." or "Nike..."), though that may shed light on why 28 was AC's first choice....
-Chom
Thank you for that information Chom. Of all the biographies on Crowley published so far, my educated guess is that Richard Kaczynski's Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley, is the one that is likely to contain the most details, if any, concerning Libers and such.