The annotations are less likely to be in Bennett's hand in my opinion because he had emigrated a few years before the publication of 777. He did return here shortly before his death in the early 1920s, and it's possible of course that he and Crowley met at some stage. But it's my opinion that Grant or Yorke would have recognised Bennett's handwriting.

Certainly there's a link with the Golden Dawn notebooks in the sense that many of the correspondences in 777 were derived from Crowley's training in the Golden Dawn.

Thank you for your response Michael,

I thought that might be the case as I had heard rumours that Crowley used many of the correspondences he had learnt with Bennett in compiling 777. I also knew that Bennett had moved to India and later moved back to England and died here.

The Qabalistic musical note correspondences used by Kenneth Grant in ‘Nightside of Eden’ are almost exactly the same as those used by the Golden Dawn (Paul Foster Case also used Bennett’s correspondences for BOTA). There is one difference however, as Grant uses the note B flat (A sharp) for Aries whereas Bennett uses the note C. Grant also uses B flat for Aquarius and dispenses with the note C altogether only using 11 of the 12 semitones of the Western Tempered scale.

We still don’t know the identity the mystery Adept who wrote the correspondences in Crowley’s personal copy of 777 though. Other questions are raised too, such as who actually has Crowley’s copy of 777 now? Were any of these annotations ever published apart from in ‘Nightside’? Are there facsimiles of it?

These correspondences came from Allan Bennett originally, as they were drawn from his Golden Dawn notebooks. Who has those and was Bennett actually a musician?

Thom Parrott describes the process used by the Golden Dawn:

“In Western music, the scale is divided into twelve semitones. Bennett assigned the twelve semitones of the chromatic scale (chroma is Greek for “colour”) to the twelve signs, beginning with the note C and the sign Aries. As each of the signs had a colour associated to it, Bennett had, by this process, derived colours for each of the musical notes as well. Since all the colours allotted to the planets and elements were included in the twelve colours of the rainbow associated with the signs, they were assigned notes based on colour (in the King Scale of the Golden Dawn)…”

Magmus

Interesting question to investigate, thanks for bringing it up, Magmus.

Do you know, or does anyone, whether this musical theory was used in the composition of the music for the rites of Eleusis?

Also - isn't there already an association of tones and scales with the Zodiac and planets in the middle ages and Renaissance?

The brilliant interpreter of the works of Wagner, Stefan Mickisch, has theorised that keys and the zodiac go together. Unfortunately his lecture is all in German. Cf. his English biography:

http://www.mickisch.de/engl_bio.htm

Markus

It may no longer exist. It would most likely have been amongst Crowley's possessions at his death, the annotations copied, and then the book itself shipped to Germer along with the rest of Crowley's diaries and documents. This material was stolen from Germer's widow in the mid 1960s and then destroyed in a fire.

I should imagine that some of them found their way into 777 Revised which Yorke published in the 1950s via Michael Houghton's Neptune Press.

Probably not. Copies were produced on a typewriter. It may be that Germer copied the material at a later date, and if so he may have used some equivalent of photocopying.

Thank you Michael.

The musical note correspondences do not appear in 777 Revised but it is interesting that Grant wrote in ‘Nightside of Eden’ in 1977:

“The sound-keys are derived from the researches of an Adept whose marginal annotations in Crowley’s personal copy of 777 enabled me to allocate the correct vibration to the pertinent demon or qlipha. These keys have not heretofore been published”. p.152

This could imply that Grant was either in possession of Crowley’s copy of 777 or copied the correspondences out during his time with Crowley (or even copied them later if he knew someone else that was in possession of it or a copy of it) and could therefore have been unaware himself of who wrote in Crowley’s copy.

Grant continues in ‘Nightside’ on the same page:

“Also unpublished in the posthumous edition of Liber 777 (footnote: known as 777 revised, Neptune Press, London, 1959) is the material forming an additional column entitled Typical Diseases, which also appeared in manuscript in Crowley’s personal copy. As these diseases pertain essentially to the qliphoth, I have included them, although Crowley’s list is known to have been tentative”.

First off, the Neptune Press edition was published in 1955, not 1959 as stated by the footnote.

Secondly, the Typical Diseases column does appear in the 1955 edition, published twenty-two years before ‘Nightside’. I don’t have access to the 1955 Neptune edition, however Stephen Skinner states in his ‘The Complete Magician’s Tables’ (Golden Hoard Press 2006) that in 1955 his old friend Gerald Yorke expanded the tables and added a lot of new notes from his Crowley archive, and it was republished by Weiser in 1973 (I have this copy). The list appears on page 37 of the 1973 Revised edition. Maybe Grant didn’t realise these correspondences appeared in the 1955 edition.

Thirdly, the list of these diseases, which Grant asserts was hand written (he doesn’t state if this list was in Crowley’s hand or another’s), is known to have been tentative but it somehow made it into later editions, although the musical note correspondences didn’t. Perhaps they were even more tentative!

Magmus

Belmurru,

I am not sure if these correspondences were used in the Rites of Eleusis. But it seems as if they were tentative anyway. It would be interesting to see if any of the music suggested by Crowley for the Rites in the ‘Notes for the Rites of Eleusis’ (included in the 1990 Mandrake edition of the Rites of Eleusis) corresponds key (musical) wise to Bennett’s system. I say Bennett’s system, since we don’t know who wrote the annotations in Crowley’s 777; this system at present can only be traced back to Bennett. Some of the pieces appear to have been written by Leila Waddell such as ‘Samadhilied’ used in the Rite of Jupiter. I remember talk of some her scores still being in existence.

Bennett took the obvious route to derive his correspondences as he applied the Mother key note, C, to the first sign in the Zodiac, Aries, and then continued around the wheel applying each successive semitone to each successive Zodiac sign (i.e. C=Aries, C Sharp=Taurus, D=Gemini, D Sharp=Cancer, etc.). Obviously there are 12 transpositions or permutations possible using this method. For example you could then generate a whole new system by starting with any other musical note corresponding to Aries other than C and continue matching each successive chromatic note to each successive Zodiac sign sequentially. Any of the 12 semitones could be the starting point and match up with Aries.

In fact there are numerous systems that have been expounded over the centuries, using the above method or relating the notes to the planets etc. etc.

For the best overview of these systems I highly recommend Joscelyn Godwin’s excellent work ‘Harmonies of Heaven and Earth’, especially the third section called ‘The Music of the Spheres’. His now rare ‘Music and the Occult’ is also superb, as are his ‘Music, Mysticism and Magic’ and ‘The Harmony of the Spheres’.

Everyone from the Egyptian’s to Plato, Robert Fludd, Ptolemy, Johannes Kepler, Henschel, Schneider, Cicero, Fabian d’Olivet, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Herbert Whone, to Tereshchenko, to name a few, where at it in one form or another.

Markus,

Stefan Mickisch work on Wagner sounds intriguing. It’s a shame I don’t speak German. There is however a whole section on the Occult leanings of Debussy and Satie in Godwin’s ‘Music and the Occult’ and a whole book about Debussy, which analyses his music in terms of how it relates to the Golden Section etc. and how he was influenced by the Occult and Eliphas Levi’s work. This book is called ‘Debussy in Proportion’ by Roy Howat.

Magmus

I am reliably informed that it is in the Yorke Collection and is included in the 'annotated books' section of the OTO microfilm.

[move:kchksghz]In the Name of Historical Accuracy[/move:kchksghz]

Please note that only a small portion of the OTO archives was stolen in the mid-60s and, yes, almost all of this material was destroyed in a fire. To my knowledge, only two things survived that fire: (A) The Book of Abramelin Talismans, and (B) A carbon-copy set of the complete Crowley/Germer correspondence. The vast bulk of the OTO archives remained at West Point, California.

After Mrs Germer's death, Grady McMurtry assumed legal custody of those remaining books and papers. Then somebody stole a bunch of those docs from a storage locker (McMurtry accused Seckler, and Seckler accused McMurtry, of this second theft).

Then, just before it came time for whatever McMurtry had left when he died to be transferred to the new, improved OTO under Hymenaeus Beta, a third theft took place.

The following quote tells this same story from a slightly different perspective:

“No one liked Sascha, she was a bitch and the idea that she controlled all of the Crowley estate was wrong. Should have Solar Lodge done what they did?
“Well, in truth, as Grady often said, and which I too agree, I would have most likely assisted in rescuing the archive.
“As for the thief of the other archives; like that from Grady's storage unit or his personal stuff after his death, both were not done for Thelema’s sake but out of pettiness to keep stuff out of the hands of those who rightfully have assumed authority. and whom the thieves didn’t like.
“In Sascha’s time, she had the stuff, had no right to it and there was no one in charge to assume proper authority at the time to request it.
“It was not really ‘theft’ as much as rescuing stuff so that it could be used."

- The words of Jerry Cornelius, quoted from Inside Solar Lodge - Behind the Veil (c)2012[/align:kchksghz]

Thank you Paul.

So Crowley’s personal copy of 777 still exists and is available for viewing on microfilm as part of the Gerald Yorke Collection. This means there is a possibility that the mystery Adept who wrote the annotations could be identified if someone could recognise his handwriting.

Whoever this Adept was, it seems likely that he inherited his Zodiac/Pitch correspondences from Allan Bennett, since there is only one discrepancy between the correspondences attributed to the Adept in Grant’s ‘Nightside of Eden’, and those described as Bennett’s in ‘The Middle Pillar’ appendix by Thom Parrott.

The single discrepancy between Bennett’s Zodiac/Pitch system and the one published by Grant, is likely to be a mistake made by either Grant or the Adept. It is worth mentioning here that the Adept’s system, as given by Grant, appears to have a mistake as it follows the same logic as Bennett’s system, but then randomly repeats one of the twelve musical pitches, using only eleven of the twelve pitches normally used in music.

Bennett’s Golden Dawn Zodiac/Pitch correspondences are certainly likely to be older than those of the Adept, as 777 was first published privately in 1909 but Bennett had left for India by 1900.

I already have Regardie’s ‘The Golden Dawn’ but I have just ordered his ‘The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic’ to see if it includes Bennett’s Zodiac/Pitch correspondences.

Also of interest was to find out if Crowley actually used these Zodiac/Pitch correspondences by seeing if the keys of the Musick used for each Planet in ‘The Rites of Eleusis’ match up with those in Bennett’s system. A cursory look shows that they probably don’t. For example, some of the keys of the compositions are given (most aren’t though), and looking at the key of D (Beethoven’s ‘Romance in D’), used for the ‘Rite of Venus’, it doesn’t match up with the Zodiac signs ruled by Venus in Bennett’s system, which are F# used for Libra and C# used for Taurus. One could say that D major has two sharps, which are F# and C#, but in Bennett’s system D corresponds with Gemini, which is ruled by Mercury not Venus. When I have time I will put some more work into this (i.e. locating the original keys from the sheet music and analyzing the correlations between them, the given planet in the Rite, and Bennett's Zodiac/Pitch attributions).

Maybe someone can shed more light on the handwriting of the mystery Adept who wrote the correspondences in Crowley’s personal copy of 777? Does anyone have access to the microfilm?

Thank you to everyone who has helped with this so far.

Magmus

Phew! That's okay, then. Robbery where the victim was elderly, confused and assaulted, where irreplaceable texts were stolen and then stored with total contempt and neglect, resulting in their loss by fire, is so much more acceptable when it involves only 'a small portion' of the archive.

A disappointing post, Shiva, that wasn't especially improved by calling on Jerry as justification. His 'bitch' remark does him little credit.

He didn't say whether or not it was 'acceptable behavior', only that it was historically accurate.

I can't recall the podcast where Wasserman mentions that his role in the entire thing with Motta was acceptable because he was "doing his Will". This may not be the thread for it, but Paul, do you think that doing such things are acceptable if someone is "doing their Will"? Personally, I think that, "I was doing my Will," can in some cases be used as an excuse for going against socially acceptable paradigms, though it is still an excuse.

It's a rather broad quandary, I suppose.

I know what he said, Azidonis, thank you. And it's clear what the inferences were.

AC was very clear on such matters and I don't think he was wrong. Besides, the assault and drugging of an elderly lady for the purpose of theft has nothing to do with 'going against a socially acceptable paradigm' in pursuit of one's supposed 'Will' and everything to do with greed.

On a positive note... Thank Horus that both handwritten Liber L. vel Legis manuscripts survived the historical accuracy.  Perhaps the 'other' one will be considered for inclusion, along with OS21 and OS23, in the unexpurgated Confessions, or Diaries, at some point in the New Aeon?

Incidentally, the 777 annotations appear to have been penned by Crowley, with a few scribbles by Norman Mudd - Including a quote by Crowley, in which he which he mentions a curious ommission: "It is to be noticed that there is no reference to the Cairo Working."

So where is the 'other' one, Richard? Yorke's correspondence with Germer mentions only the one, which he sent to Germer by registered post a few months after Crowley's death.

Crowley's quote notwithstanding, why would one expect necessarily to find a reference to the Cairo Working in what amounts to little more than a tabulation of the Golden Dawn correspondences?

Michael, something tells me that you/we should not hold the breath waiting for Mr. Cole to answer these questions. There is a noticeable tendency that Mr. Cole does not respond directly to specific inquiries, his role being mostly confined to the one of the "devil's advocate." I am also harbouring serious doubts regarding the actual existence of "Liber AL vel Bogus." I am in fact inclined to believe that it exists at the realm of existence together with the "other" ms. of Liber AL, which is to say in the mind of Mr. Cole and nowhere else. Of course, it would be very easy to prove me wrong. But I am not holding my breath for that one either. This whole affair is in general of lesser consequence than the proverbial storm in a teacup. 

Really? Two manuscripts? Or just a suspicion that the surviving one isn't the 'real' one? Are you suggesting that there are two manuscripts that can be viewed today?

Meanwhile, any progress on your 'watermark' claims?

When can we expect publication of the book you're promoting?

I certainly hope that not many people took my post about the thefts as being "acceptable." My statement was neither intended as a justification nor in terms of a moral issue. The post was in reference to Michael's statement that AC's 777 was shipped to Germer, and one could take it to be "implied" that all of this "shipped" material was stolen and perished in a fire.

I stressed the "small portion" simply because many people still think that Solar Lodge picked up all of the material. And also, many people remain unaware of the second and the the third thefts.

Then, it seems like this 777 never made it to Germer at all. In fact, there are several other, original items that were in AC's possession at the time of his death that never made the trans-atlantic voyage, but remained in the hands of certain executors - to eventually be housed in the "Yorke Collection."

It seems as though there was some snitching of items even before the Solar Lodge atrocity, which I have referred to as "Theft #1." I guess we can call the original, "Theft #0" (zero).

Anyway, this is all a side-topic, and it seems like the 777 in question took the route of the Tao (zero) and at least it eventually ended up someplace away from fires where it can be referenced today.

FTR, Crowley did produce a second handwritten version of Liber L, years after the Cairo Working, which was given to George Cowie as a gift. According to Marcelo Motta, the Cowie copy was purchased by Oskar Schlag for the sum of one million dollars, who was under the impression it was the original manuscript produced during the Cairo Working.

So another piece of the puzzle appears to fall into place.

Thank you Richard.

I assume that your statement means that you have or have had access to the microfilm.

So if the annotations were Crowley’s, that means he probably derived the Zodiac/Pitch attributions from Bennett and either had them written elsewhere and later copied them into his personal copy of 777, remembered them or remembered that they are derived from the most obvious route, placing C at Aries and then matching each consecutive semitone with each consecutive Zodiac sign.

It is worth noting that Grant indicates Crowley’s 777 attributions by way of the averse side of the 22 paths of the Tree of Life. So why is there only a single discrepancy between the two systems, whereas all the other attributions are exactly the same? My guess is that it was probably Grant’s mistake in ‘Nightside’ and someone viewing the microfilm could tell whether it was Crowley’s or not.

It becomes clear why the mistake occurred when one looks at the attributions made. Bennett attributes the note C to Aries i.e. path 15 in the Golden Dawn system and therefore A# to Aquarius i.e. path 28 in the Golden Dawn system.

As we know because of the verse in Liber Al about Tzaddi not being the Star, Crowley swapped the Hebrew attributions of Aries and Aquarius. Thus we see in the system Grant describes, A# is attributed to Aries (The Emperor) which is now affiliated with path 28 and it should follow, but doesn’t, that C should be attributed to path 15 which is now Aquarius (The Star), but the A# remains from the Golden Dawn system. Someone forgot to make the swap!

Probably Crowley used the original Golden Dawn attributions as he inherited these from Bennett before the Book of the Law was written (Bennett had moved to India by 1900) and didn’t solve the “Tzaddi is not the Star” riddle until much later, as described in ‘The Book of Thoth’. It also seems less likely that Crowley would have made the mistake as he would have seen his attributions as a list and realised that the note C was missing and that the note A# was repeated.

In relation to this theory, if anyone is working with Grant’s ‘Nightside’ system and evoking Hemethterith, i.e. the Guardian of the 15th path/tunnel they should probably be working with the note C, not A#. Grant calls them keys but they are single notes rather than keys, and the key of A# doesn’t exist but the single pitch A# does.

So we can see that the New Aeon ‘switch’ breaks the symmetry of the Golden Dawn system meaning that it can be viewed as old Aeon. The system that I propose in my forthcoming book is not only concomitant with the New Aeon ‘switch’, but it actually relies on it for its coherence.

Magmus

So two copies of Liber AL, which brings us back to the question of whether the existing handwritten manuscript which is seen to be the original IS the original or another handwritten copy.

Interesting stuff lately to be sure.

Richard might be right in his judgement that the annotations are by Crowley.

On the other hand, Grant corresponded with Crowley, stayed with him for a few weeks in 1945 as his secretary, and after his death made typed copies of diaries and documents that spanned several decades. He would thus have had familiarity with Crowley's handwriting in many developments across the years.

Palamedes - "There is a noticeable tendency that Mr. Cole does not respond directly to specific inquiries..."  See below.

Palamedes - "I am also harbouring serious doubts regarding the actual existence of "Liber AL vel Bogus." I am in fact inclined to believe that it exists at the realm of existence together with the "other" ms. of Liber AL, which is to say in the mind of Mr. Cole and nowhere else."  See below.

MichaelStaley - "So where is the 'other' one, Richard?"  See below.

Lashtal - "Really? Two manuscripts? Or just a suspicion that the surviving one isn't the 'real' one? Are you suggesting that there are two manuscripts that can be viewed today?"  See below, really!  Incidentally, and for the sake of historical accuracy, neither of the two extant manuscripts is available for viewing.  On this theme, the one penned in late 1909 will almost certainly remain unseen.  Why?  For now, let's just say...            
 
herupakraath - "FTR, Crowley did produce a second handwritten version of Liber L, years after the Cairo Working, which was given to George Cowie as a gift. According to Marcelo Motta, the Cowie copy was purchased by Oskar Schlag for the sum of one million dollars, who was under the impression it was the original manuscript produced during the Cairo Working."  Ahh... Thank you, herupakraath.  Your oasis of knowledge in this desert of rather defensive and mean-spirited cynisism is a breath of fresh air.  Michael, Lashtal and Palamedes, surely Mr. Schlag is the person to ask about this - Assuming he is not also a figment of my imagination.

Lashtal - "Meanwhile, any progress on your 'watermark' claims?"  No further progress is required.  My findings will be published in the second part of Liber L. vel Bogus. 

Lashtal - "When can we expect publication of the book you're promoting?"  05 December 2013, at 1:39PM.

P.S. Perhaps Grant's "mystery adept" is of the same order as Aiwass?

the 'copy' of Liber AL in Schlag's library was created in Cefalu by Frater Genesthai. Though Schlag did indeed believe - or at least hope - that it was the original, the ever resourceful Yorke disabused him of that notion. Whether he paid one million dollars american for it.... well Schlag was Swiss I suppose....

Which channel would you recommend - ouija board or planchette?

Ouch!

Just for the record, RTC, Schlag's copy isn't entirely new to the members of this site - see http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=74777#p74777 - but it seems to be something you've learnt of only after Herupakraath's post. And it's a 1920s copy - not even in AC's hand, or so I'm told - and seemingly has nothing to do with your assertion about a 1909 copy by AC. Given that you've declared that your book won't be published until December, perhaps you would just answer a simple question: Does the 1909 MS exist or do you surmise that it must have existed?

The copy of 777 at the Warburg with Crowley’s notes is not Crowley’s own copy but another copy into which Yorke has copied them.

see page 68 of this pdf.

http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/images/yorke/Yorke_Microfilm_Index.pdf

Crowley probably had more than one personal copy.  I half remember someone on this site contributed photos to the Bibliographica Thelemica of one that they picked up cheap in a secondhand bookshop.

I could be wrong, I often am.

OK

I need to make a correction in regard to my previous statements. Having read the information thirty years ago, I conflated some of the facts. There are two mentions of the "other" handwritten version of the Liber L manuscript in writings by Marcelo Motta that I own. In Volume one of Motta's publication of Magick Without Tears, he recounts his meeting Oskar Schlag, and Schlag boasting that he owned the original handwritten version of the Book of the Law. When Motta asked Karl Germer about it, Germer recalled Schlag claiming the same thing to him, but Germer was allowed to examine the manuscript, and informed Schlag that he was wrong, yet Schlag tried to convince Motta of the same thing years later.

A second mention of the other handwritten copy of Liber L is seen in Motta's commentary on verse III:47 of the Book of the Law, found in The Commentaries of AL. Evidently the other handwritten copy was produced in Cefalu, but according to Motta, it was written in Crowley's hand for a favorite disciple, who promptly went mad, and years later sold it as the original manuscript, probably to Schlag. I was wrong about the second copy being written for George Cowie. My apologies.

Thank you Michael and Okontrair.

So it could appear that the annotations in the version of 777 held at the Warburg Institute, were made by Gerald Yorke as a copy of the annotations in Crowley’s personal copy, and Crowley’s original copy is not in the Yorke collection. From the Yorke Collection catalogue:

“777 vel Prolegomena Symbolica ad Systemam Sceptico-Mysticæ Viæ Explicandæ, Fundamentum Hieroglyphicum Sanctissimorum Sci-
entiæ Summæ. London: Walter Scott, 1909. With transcriptions of marginal notes by Aleister Crowley in the hand of G.J. Yorke.”

This could also imply, however, that the Institute holds Crowley’s original copy, and the marginal notes are in Crowley’s hand, but there are some transcriptions of Crowley’s notes by Gerald Yorke, either in the back pages of the book or as additional papers (so that Yorke had effectively collected all the marginal annotations in one place).

If the latter were true, then Grant’s mystery Adept could well have been known to be Crowley by Grant (as Michael rightly stated, Grant would have known Crowley’s handwriting), but Grant concealed Crowley’s identity in 'Nightside of Eden' for some unknown reason.

Interestingly in Grant’s ‘Remembering Aleister Crowley’ (p.54-55) he gives an inventory of the books in Crowley’s possession at Netherwood in February 1945, only a couple of years before Crowley died there. Included is Liber 777, and Grant notes in brackets (A.C and others: private copy), which could either be implying the annotations by the mystery Adept or Bennett’s contribution, or both. The inventory only boasts one copy of 777, which appears to be the copy Grant mentions in ‘Nightside’.

After his death, Crowley’s literary remains were sent by his literary executors, Louis Wilkinson and John Symonds, to Karl Germer in New York. Perhaps Crowley’s copy of 777 was sent with them and Gerald Yorke was charged with the task of copying any annotations in Crowley’s copy (and other books) before it was sent. Yorke’s copy with the copied annotations, is the one that the Warburg Institute now holds. This gives credence to Michael Staley’s idea that ithe book could have been shipped to Germer (and subsequently lost or destroyed). If this were correct, then the Yorke Collection catalogue entry might have assumed that annotations from Crowley’s personal copy of 777, which were transcribed by Yorke, were originally in Crowley’s hand, when in fact they were not. Grant certainly would have seen Crowley’s copy of 777 and the annotations when he was at Netherwood, especially since he had direct contact with Crowley’s books, including producing the inventory previously mentioned. If this were true, then the identity of Grant’s mystery Adept will probably remain a mystery.

Magmus

Thank you for posting the correction, Herupakraath.

Mr. Schlag is indeed the person to ask. A good way to get in touch would be through a séance, as he passed away in Zurich on 29.11.1990. Allegedly, he bequeathed his extensive library to "a foundation" (Swiss OTO?), but some of his files were stolen. See Horst Miers' Lexikon des Geheimwissens for details.

Markus

Utterly pointless in the current context. The inference made by Mr Cole, based on his reading of a post (subsequently corrected) by Herupakraath, was that Schlag's copy of AL was one written in AC's hand in 1909. The facts, however, conspire as so often to disappoint: Schlag's copy is actually in C F Russell's hand and dates from the 1920s.

Schlag's library was donated to the University of Zürich

http://www.zb.uzh.ch/profil/spezialbestaende/schlag/index.html.de

the donation did not contain his papers - only his books. The papers were bequeathed to the private Oskar R. Schlag-Stiftung in Zürich - which is not open to the public.  One can, however, purchase volumes of his collected works from Ergon Verlag here

http://www.ergon-verlag.de/en/start.htm?varia_schlag,_oskar_r._-_die_lehren_des_a..htm

I don't have any information regarding thefts. But i guess if people wanted his things and he didn't want the people to have his things but the people called him a bitch, then it is okay if they stole the things. or?