Crowley and his dis...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his discrepancies

Page 10 / 10

Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @threefold31

Sorry if I'm not grasping this all

It cannot be grasped until the mystery is solved. You concluded yourself that...

Posted by: @threefold31

But don't these conflict?

That's why this thread is labeled "Discrepancies." There are many mysteries in the Cairo legend, and each one contains a contradiction.

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @threefold31

@belmurru

Dwtw

MacLeod has Besant leaving on the Isis on April 18 on p.55 of that document. He repeats this departure time in note 14. His clippings show definitively that the Oceana arrived Port Said and Isis departed therefrom on the same day. So that much, at least, is clear. Doesn't that make Perdurabo ST incorrect? 

Sorry if I'm not grasping this all, but based on the evidence it appears that MacLeod is right about Isis and the 18th. Besant in Rome on April 22 is a pretty key piece of evidence.

 

Litlluw

RLG

Note that Macleod does not "definitively" show that Oceana arrived in Port Said on 18 April. This appears to be an assumption.

Comparing the sources as we have them for Besant's voyage:

Suez is the southern entrance to the canal; Port Said is 170km to the north. Perdurabo ST says that the average transit time through the canal was 18 hours in 1904 (p. 65).

Macleod says: “the Oceana... arrived at Suez in the morning of Monday the eighteenth of April and at Port Said later that day.” (p. 5 – notes 11 and 12)

Perdurabo ST says: “S.S. Oceana … departed from Colombo, Ceylon, on April 8 and arrived at Port Said eleven days later, April 19...” (p. 187 – note 824)

From Macleod we know that Besant left Bombay on the Peninsular, then transferred to Oceana at Aden (p. 4, with passenger list naming “Besant, Mrs Annie”).

Macleod's notes 11 and 12 (p. 59): (11) “R.M.S. Oceana arrived at Suez on 18 April: 'Steamer Movements.', The Pioneer (Calcutta), 23 April, 1904, page 8.” (12) “R.M.S. Oceana departed Port Said for Marseilles: 'Foreign Ports': 'Suez Canal', Shipping Gazette and Lloyd's List (London), 19 April, 1904, page 7.”

Perdurabo ST note 824: “The Times, 'Mail & Shipping Intelligence, (From Lloyd's, &c.)', Tuesday, April 19, 1904, p. 4: 'P. and O.-s […] Oceana, Sydney for London, with the India, China, and Amsterdam mails, arrived Suez yesterday [i.e. April 18th]'... ibid. Wednesday, April 20, 1904, p. 11: 'P. and O.-s […] Oceana, Sydney for London, left Port Said yesterday morning [i.e. April 19th].'”

Finally, Macleod supplies the range of departure times for Isis from Port Said on 18 April, in note 14 on page 59: “R.M.S. Isis departed Port Said for Brindisi on 18 April between 3 p.m. And 11 p.m.” quoting the Shipping Gazette And Lloyd's List (London), 19 April, 1904, p. 7.

Both Macleod and Perdurabo ST use the Lloyd's List source for Oceana's departure date from Port Said, but neither supplies an exact time for arrival at or departure from Port Said. Macleod says that Oceana arrived at Suez in “the morning” on 18 April; from there she began a roughly 18 hour voyage northward. No evidence is given for Macleod's statement that the Oceana “arrived later that day (18 April)” at Port Said.

But we need exact times to clarify whether Besant could have been on the Isis, or could only have used the Osiris. If we allow the latest possible time, 23:00 18 April for Isis departure, and give at least an hour for passenger, mail, and baggage transfer between ships (but that is only my guess), we can reasonably hold that Oceana must have begun her 18 hour journey from Suez no later than 4 a.m. of 18 April.

But both Macleod and Perdurabo ST agree that Oceana departed Port Said on 19 April, which suggests that the ship was not in that much of a hurry if she arrived on 18 April. 

This chronology leaves us with as improbably tight a schedule as that for Besant's taking Osiris to Messina and then to Rome on the same day.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 
Posted by: @belmurru

Both Macleod and Perdurabo ST use the Lloyd's List source for Oceana's departure date from Port Said, but neither supplies an exact time for arrival at or departure from Port Said. Macleod says that Oceana arrived at Suez in “the morning” on 18 April; from there she began a roughly 18 hour voyage northward. No evidence is given for Macleod's statement that the Oceana “arrived later that day (18 April)” at Port Said.

But we need exact times to clarify whether Besant could have been on the Isis, or could only have used the Osiris. If we allow the latest possible time, 23:00 18 April for Isis departure, and give at least an hour for passenger, mail, and baggage transfer between ships (but that is only my guess), we can reasonably hold that Oceana must have begun her 18 hour journey from Suez no later than 4 a.m. of 18 April.

But both Macleod and Perdurabo ST agree that Oceana departed Port Said on 19 April, which suggests that the ship was not in that much of a hurry if she arrived on 18 April. 

This chronology leaves us with as improbably tight a schedule as that for Besant's taking Osiris to Messina and then to Rome on the same day.

Dwtw

Thanks for taking the time to line up these chronologies. I was forgetting the long travel time from Suez to Port Said.

I think that if Besant was on the Oceana, arriving Suez on 4-18, she couldn't have made it to the Isis in time for a departure that same day (IDK if ships normally leave at 11 pm, but that seems awfully late). If she couldn't make the Isis departure, then she would have had to spend a night or two in a hotel, waiting for the Osiris to depart on April 20. Perhaps the hotel registers would help in this regard?

Conversely, if no mention of her is made on a hotel register, then the chances increase that she simply went from one ship to another at Port Said. Since both the Oceana and Isis were P.&O. ships, it's possible that they coordinated transferring passengers, etc. from one to the other at Port Said. That tightness of schedule is a little easier to explain than trying to get to Rome from Messina the same day, (well before 6pm no less) using a ferry and a couple trains, or even a more direct transfer to the mainland and one train to Rome. Coordinating two or three conveyances with baggage, etc. is more logistically improbable than hopping from one ship to another.

Litlluw

RLG

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @threefold31

 

Dwtw

Thanks for taking the time to line up these chronologies. I was forgetting the long travel time from Suez to Port Said.

I think that if Besant was on the Oceana, arriving Suez on 4-18, she couldn't have made it to the Isis in time for a departure that same day (IDK if ships normally leave at 11 pm, but that seems awfully late). If she couldn't make the Isis departure, then she would have had to spend a night or two in a hotel, waiting for the Osiris to depart on April 20. Perhaps the hotel registers would help in this regard?

Conversely, if no mention of her is made on a hotel register, then the chances increase that she simply went from one ship to another at Port Said. Since both the Oceana and Isis were P.&O. ships, it's possible that they coordinated transferring passengers, etc. from one to the other at Port Said. That tightness of schedule is a little easier to explain than trying to get to Rome from Messina the same day, (well before 6pm no less) using a ferry and a couple trains, or even a more direct transfer to the mainland and one train to Rome. Coordinating two or three conveyances with baggage, etc. is more logistically improbable than hopping from one ship to another.

Litlluw

RLG

 

Yes, I'm leaning more to the plausibility of Oceana-Isis transfer than the wild Osiris journey. Perdurabo ST's scenario does not take into account the constraints of Besant's chronology, whether Ben Fernee's old "between 19-22 April" account, already known, or the new fixed date and time, 6 p.m. 22 April. 

I've spent most of the day trying to find out if Crowley wrote any poetry which might mention Messina - or even Palermo - in 1904, or more broadly any time in any way, and come up with nothing relevant so far (as an aside I can say I really enjoy it - as I get older, Crowley gets better. It's like I'm really hearing him). 

I can only point out that Macleod, bottom of page 6, provides facsimiles of the sources of his information for the dates and times of Oceana's arrival at Suez and departure from Port Said. But nothing about the arrival of Oceana at Port Said.

But, he also provides a Times of India "List of departures from Bombay," for 9 April 1904, page 4 bottom right, which strongly suggests that Oceana and Isis would have wanted to hook up:

"Passengers for Brindisi tranship to a connecting steamer at Port Said." This is for Peninsular to Oceana, but Oceana would have telegraphed ahead to any waiting steamers at Port Said as well. 

I don't know if any other steamers besides Isis and Osiris would have been available for Besant at Port Said, but if Crowley's memory is correct, it had to Osiris in any case, which meant that she would have waited at least 24 hours at Port Said before taking it. It just doesn't seem likely that two P&O ships would have missed each other by a matter of a few hours. Plausibility rests with Oceana and Isis having connected. The mail from Australia and India had to get to the Brits in Italy, and it could not be done so easily with Oceana steaming on straight to Marseille.

Nevertheless, proof is lacking. I tried to find any mention in French papers, but that's another bunch of haystacks in which to look for this needle. I'm on the verge of breaking down and giving the extortionists their money for the privilege of searching in these ancient public domain documents. 

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 
Posted by: @belmurru

I'm on the verge of breaking down and giving the extortionists their money for the privilege of searching in these ancient public domain documents. 

Go for it.

When i made a similar decision to break down, and pay to access some ancient LA Times archival stories about the Solar Lodge "Boy In The Box" case, one result was that Frater Shiva started to post here regularly to point out my many mistakes and misunderstandings.

You may well unleash similar forces, or of course may conversely unleash lunatic Spring Bird posters. Or both. Or (sadly) neither, in these Facebook-not-forums days.

Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth. [Ecclesiastes 11:1-2]


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @ignant666

lunatic Spring Bird posters.

I don't know about New York, but New Mexico has entered Summer already. This is reflected in the disappearance of Spring Birds on the thread-lines. RTC showed up, but seems to have flown away, and hard-core researchers are seeking to expose "the truth" of the discrepancies.

Don't worry, it will surely grow colder again, back into Spring Madness, for our entertainment.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

My daffodils went last weekend, and the forsythias are starting to go. No leaves on anything yet. But New York state legalized cannabis last week. So just barely Spring here.

I predict that more lunatics shall soon arise, and bring fresh Spring Bird fever from the skies.

Perhaps we will get some spring conditions reports from Old Mexico (in Mexico) and Old York (in the UK) soon.

 

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
Posted by: @belmurru

Something doesn't add up.

I have checked P&O again, and only one ship was ever called "Osiris" (although it was renamed "Osiris II" in 1911). 

But there seem to be more Osiri. Two in the Mediterrenean, and a third Osiris went to Sth America, Chili and islands. Here are some more of Colin's files:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/24le0dzsss26z44/Osiris%20%2805-04-21%29.zip?dl=0

There is even a page where both Osiri are listed on the same day (April 5 1904) with two different destinations. Also he wants to emphasize the importance of the mail trans-shipping, apparently. It was a baton relay. The Isis could not have left on the 18th if the Oceana had not arrived. 

Love=Law

Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @belmurru

Something doesn't add up.

I have checked P&O again, and only one ship was ever called "Osiris" (although it was renamed "Osiris II" in 1911). 

But there seem to be more Osiri. Two in the Mediterrenean, and a third Osiris went to Sth America, Chili and islands. Here are some more of Colin's files:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/24le0dzsss26z44/Osiris%20%2805-04-21%29.zip?dl=0

There is even a page where both Osiri are listed on the same day (April 5 1904) with two different destinations. Also he wants to emphasize the importance of the mail trans-shipping, apparently. It was a baton relay. The Isis could not have left on the 18th if the Oceana had not arrived. 

Love=Law

Lutz

Wow, thanks! And thank Colin for sharing all the Lloyd's etc. for references to Osiris

I suppose those other two Osiri are not P&O ships. Not that it matters, it can only be the one that did the regular Brindisi-Port Said run, since we're controlling by Besant's itinerary, and Crowley expected her to know which ship he was talking about, 21 years later. 

I did expect that Oceana had to have met Isis for the mail, and at least one passenger to transfer, Annie Besant. This is why I'm back to the old theory, that AC just mixed up the names of the essentially identical ships. 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva

and hard-core researchers are seeking to expose "the truth" of the discrepancies.

 

I'm titillated by the "hard-core" moniker. I could be even harder, but I'd need exponentially more resources, of the kind known as "currency," both liquid (money), and moral (influence). 

I suspect we've gotten to the bottom of this particular problem, though - Crowley's mistaken memory of the ship's name. I'll disagree with Colin and suppose that he also exaggerated the time between the reception of the book and his departure from Egypt. It was only nine days. Into a second week, but not close to a fortnight, literally. 


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

Also he wants to emphasize the importance of the mail trans-shipping, apparently. It was a baton relay. The Isis could not have left on the 18th if the Oceana had not arrived. 

Love=Law

Lutz

Dwtw

Thanks Lutz. I figured it was something like that. It makes sense that P&O would have waited for the mail, especially knowing that the Osiris would not be doing its normal Brindisi run, but heading to Sicily. Missing the Isis would have meant delaying the Italian mail for a week or so. And since waiting for the Osiris seems much too tight for Besant to get to Rome in a timely manner, it puts us back to the original theory that they took the Isis, only this time with some more evidence to back it up. Plus the fact that there was never a mention of Besant spending a day or two in Egypt. You would think if she was stuck in Port Said for awhile, she would have gone to check out the pyramids or something.

One might argue that this departure on April 18 would then support AC's reception of AL on April 1 or 2, ending by April 4 and thus a 'fortnight' later. But since he seems to have not remembered the name of the ship correctly, we also need not hold him to the two week interim either. So I don't think it bears a lot of weight when determining if the reception was on April 8-9-10 or not. 

Litlluw

RLG


belmurru liked
ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @ignant666

I predict that more lunatics shall soon arise, and bring fresh Spring Bird fever from the skies.

I second that prediction. I predict we'll still get (at least) a near freeze before Winter bails out completely.

Posted by: @belmurru

I'm titillated by the "hard-core" moniker.

Well, look, I suppose I could do the same thing using a search engine ... but I continue to be amazed by your (plural - y'all) abilities to dredge up century-old data.

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @ignant666
Posted by: @belmurru

I'm on the verge of breaking down and giving the extortionists their money for the privilege of searching in these ancient public domain documents. 

Go for it.

When i made a similar decision to break down, and pay to access some ancient LA Times archival stories about the Solar Lodge "Boy In The Box" case, one result was that Frater Shiva started to post here regularly to point out my many mistakes and misunderstandings.

You may well unleash similar forces, or of course may conversely unleash lunatic Spring Bird posters. Or both. Or (sadly) neither, in these Facebook-not-forums days.

Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth. [Ecclesiastes 11:1-2]

Colin Macleod's generosity, relayed by Lutz, has saved me or us some pennies in this regard. I guess we unleashed that. We already knew what Isis was doing, and Annie Besant was in a hurry to get to Italy, so the Osiris is effectively out of the picture now, but at least we have a complete picture of what that ship was doing. 

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva

 

Posted by: @belmurru

I'm titillated by the "hard-core" moniker.

Well, look, I suppose I could do the same thing using a search engine ... but I continue to be amazed by your (plural - y'all) abilities to dredge up century-old data.

 

There are still some possible avenues where the Almighty Google might help, but getting to the bottom of anything typically means writing to private individuals or archivists, after doing your Google homework to find out where some information might be. And you really have to love what you're doing, for its own sake, because it doesn't matter for why most people care about Crowley and Thelema and the Path in general.

But for more nitty-gritty, if we really wanted to exhaust every possibility given what we know now, you'll notice that Colin's "Homeward Bound" on page 4 gives a clipping from the Times of India for 9 April, which lists all of the passengers departing Bombay aboard the Peninsular, including Besant, along with the skipper, Captain Cubitt. Maybe one or more them in addition to Annie Besant transhipped (a new word for me) at Aden to the Oceana, and at Port Said for Brindisi. 

Most of those names are Anglo-Saxon, and several are military, the kind that leave paper trails. In any case, someone else may have transhipped to Isis at Port Said, and, if that can be established, then that person may have left a written record of the journey. We'd be in luck if it were published, but if not, maybe there are "so and so's papers" somewhere, which an archivist or family member might be willing to help with. It's a long shot, since apparently Isis and Osiris were not comfortable ships, the whole point being speed. Not a lot of occasion for long hours in the lounge or on deck, getting to know another passenger. But if you're sweeping the floor for every last crumb and mote of dust, there are leads to follow.

And all we are looking for is someone who puts Besant and Crowley on the ship at the same time, in the same way that Arnold Bennett puts Crowley in Paris at lunch on 26 April, and Andrew Dickson White puts Besant in Rome at 6 p.m. on 22 April. 

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @threefold31

 

One might argue that this departure on April 18 would then support AC's reception of AL on April 1 or 2, ending by April 4 and thus a 'fortnight' later. But since he seems to have not remembered the name of the ship correctly, we also need not hold him to the two week interim either. So I don't think it bears a lot of weight when determining if the reception was on April 8-9-10 or not. 

Litlluw

RLG

Yes, it only matters which forgetfulness you choose to believe. For me, the earlier - Temple of Solomon the King - "7th of April" carries more weight than the "first of April" in 1936's Equinox of the Gods

We are left with explaining THAT change, which went through multiple proofreads, as Colin Macleod points out. I think I settled on the conclusion, during the last go round of this issue here, that "7th" must have been handwritten for the typist to interpret, and that it was badly enough written to be interpreted as "1st," which the typist then decided to spell out as "first." This then went to the typesetter. Why neither Crowley nor anybody else who laid eyes on it, noticed it, we can only speculate.  But he never changed his view of the dates when the Book of the Law was written. 

But another tack taken by Perdurabo ST has got me thinking outside the box on an interpretation of AL III:71, related to the recent eruption of the Russo-Japanese war. I'm not sure if this is the best thread to get into it, though. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @belmurru

But if you're sweeping the floor for every last crumb and mote of dust, there are leads to follow.

Forensic Thelema? Forensic Theosophy?

Esoteric Forencisism!


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @belmurru

But if you're sweeping the floor for every last crumb and mote of dust, there are leads to follow.

Forensic Thelema? Forensic Theosophy?

Esoteric Forencisism!

I guess it's forensic if one presents the evidence in the form of an argument. I am doing that about the Isis versus Osiris, in order to weigh the possible against the probable, at the level of "preponderance of evidence" in, for instance, a civil trial. 

But otherwise it's just normal documentary historical research. Quite often the facts speak for themselves, no argument needs to be made. The problem with believers of one sort or another is that, unless the evidence does indeed speak for itself, they demand "incontrovertible proof," far beyond even "reasonable doubt." If that is not forthcoming, they believe that their highly improbable scenario is no less plausible than what the preponderance of evidence shows to a dispassionate observer. 

I have my opinions and points of view, but they're nothing special. I go where the evidence leads me, and I'm happy to change my mind. In this case, which ship did Crowley take, after reading Perdurabo ST I was happy to learn a lot of new facts and to imagine it was the Osiris. Playing out the scenarios, even in the absence of evidence, began to weigh the theory down. Finally, the improbability of Oceana with her mail missing Isis just sitting there, moved me decisively back to the original scenario of a few years ago - Crowley mixed up the names. As I wrote above "It just doesn't seem likely that two P&O ships would have missed each other by a matter of a few hours. Plausibility rests with Oceana and Isis having connected. The mail from Australia and India had to get to the Brits in Italy, and it could not be done so easily with Oceana steaming on straight to Marseille."

Subsequently, Lutz reported Colin Macleod arguing the same thing. The absence of incontrovertible evidence of their meeting does not override the preponderance of evidence that they must have. I fully expect that we can find the proof, if we need it. 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 230
 

@the_real_simon_iff  and @belmurru

Thanks for the links concerning the respective and most respectable works of Colin MacLeod and PerduraboST !!!

 


belmurru liked
ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @ignant666

I predict that more lunatics shall soon arise, and bring fresh Spring Bird fever from the skies.

I second that prediction. I predict we'll still get (at least) a near freeze before Winter bails out completely.

Don't worry, it will surely grow colder again, back into Spring Madness, for our entertainment.

Two out of three of your prognostications were fulfilled sooner and more accurately than I could have imagined. 

Not only did we (in France, including the Mediterranean coast) get a bout of freezing temperatures two nights ago that destroyed up to 80% (in some places) of the young shoots on the vines, but this thread froze too, stopped dead in its tracks. Maybe everything that can be said, so far, has been? Or maybe those so inclined are poring over the details in the new documents and their arguments, which takes time.

On the other hand, the Spring Bird Fever hasn't shown up again yet. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @belmurru

On the other hand, the Spring Bird Fever hasn't shown up again yet.

These are unusual times. This thread was ewsurrected by RTC in order to provide or at least assess pre-marketing banter. That counts as "Spring Birdness," but hardly matches the usual flocks that migrate here.

It was not this thread that stopped. This thread was the only thing ticking for quite a while, mostly you and Iff. For days now, the entire LAShTAL thread mechanism has faltered. One or two posts every 24 hours.

I may even start a thread, if only I could determine a content worthy of attracting research or fisticuffs.


belmurru liked
ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @belmurru

On the other hand, the Spring Bird Fever hasn't shown up again yet.

These are unusual times. This thread was ewsurrected by RTC in order to provide or at least assess pre-marketing banter. That counts as "Spring Birdness," but hardly matches the usual flocks that migrate here.

It was not this thread that stopped. This thread was the only thing ticking for quite a while, mostly you and Iff. For days now, the entire LAShTAL thread mechanism has faltered. One or two posts every 24 hours.

I may even start a thread, if only I could determine a content worthy of attracting research or fisticuffs.

The prophylactic measures are taking a toll. We're all worn down, more or less listless, I guess. Even Googlhulthlu has its limits. Maybe video gaming/chat/virtual life is something, but I don't do that. 

The new document by Perdurabo ST suggested a speculative avenue for interpreting The Book of the Law III:71 that I hadn't considered properly before. I mentioned it to the few reading here a few days ago, but nobody bit, so I decided not to post on it. Nothing deep, just the usual historical drivel, but if there's nothing else, I might as well throw up a new topic.

But another tack taken by Perdurabo ST has got me thinking outside the box on an interpretation of AL III:71, related to the recent eruption of the Russo-Japanese war. I'm not sure if this is the best thread to get into it, though.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 

Was AC again careless with his dates? We all know about June 28, 1909, when he said (in the Confessions) he found the manuscript of Liber L while looking for a pair of skis for Kenneth Ward. Now I see this entry in "The Record of Omnia Vincam", Victor Neuburg's notes of his Magical Retirement at Boleskine from June 18 to June 27:

"June 20.

It is now 10.4 a.m.

I went to the Chamber last night after dinner and meditated: then I resolved to sleep for an hour. My Guru entered suddenly, and reproached me bitterly with lack of concentration. He also brought me news concerning a certain manuscript, with regard to which I have been inexcusably careless."

A certain manuscript? Is it possible that he is talking about that certain manuscript? Neuburg arrived on the 18th together with Ward. It would at least be a good time to search for a pair of skis.

Just another discrepancy to ponder...

Love=Law

Lutz


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

Is it possible that he is talking about that certain manuscript?

Yes, this is a distinct possibility.

 


ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@the_real_simon_iff - Nah!


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

@the_real_simon_iff - Nah!

It's settled then, thank you very much.

Love=Law

Lutz

 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

Was AC again careless with his dates? We all know about June 28, 1909, when he said (in the Confessions) he found the manuscript of Liber L while looking for a pair of skis for Kenneth Ward. Now I see this entry in "The Record of Omnia Vincam", Victor Neuburg's notes of his Magical Retirement at Boleskine from June 18 to June 27:

"June 20.

It is now 10.4 a.m.

I went to the Chamber last night after dinner and meditated: then I resolved to sleep for an hour. My Guru entered suddenly, and reproached me bitterly with lack of concentration. He also brought me news concerning a certain manuscript, with regard to which I have been inexcusably careless."

A certain manuscript? Is it possible that he is talking about that certain manuscript? Neuburg arrived on the 18th together with Ward. It would at least be a good time to search for a pair of skis.

Just another discrepancy to ponder...

Love=Law

Lutz

The syntax, or the form of the quote, doesn't help. If "I" refers to Neuburg himself, what would he have had to do with the manuscript of Liber L to begin with, that he could have been careless about it? 

On the other hand, Neuburg might have been quoting Crowley, the statement reading "He also brought me news concerning a certain manuscript, 'with to regard to which I have been inexcusably careless.'" I'd raise an eyebrow if that were the case. 

But in the form as it is given, I'd have to guess it wasn't Liber L. There were no doubt other manuscripts about with which Neuburg might have had reason to be concerned.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @belmurru

On the other hand, Neuburg might have been quoting Crowley

Upon reading the quote, this was my first impression. In this case, the question is, Do first impressions count? You know, it's kind of subjective.

 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 

Anonymous (@Anonymous) [Original Post]:

" ... RT Cole [...] says Crowley fabricated the events surrounding the reception of Liber AL to secure his position as 'Prophet of the New Aeon'.

[...] Did he [ = Crowley ] successfully cross the Abyss and truly control that most insidious entity - the Ego?

Any opinions/insights? "

 

It is obvious that AC intended to "found a new world religion" with his Thelema, as he already in 1905 -  shortly after writing his Thelema's most holy book, which he dates to 1904 - asked for help to "... found a new world religion.", and was predicting that "... in a hundred years, the world will be sitting in the dawn of a New Aeon."  It is also obvious that AC has utterly failed in founding "a new world religion" with his Thelema.  

AC did already in 1902 in his Berashit An essay on ontology with some remarks on ceremonial magic, mention the "Qabalistic religion", and there repeatedly and positively refers to "Qabalah". And it would have been all the better for his Thelema, if he with no mention of anything involving Ancient Egypt, had just come clean, and openly had stated that his Thelema was a creation based on the Qabalistic Tree of Life, in which the three chapters of the most holy threefold book, represents respectively Binah, Chokhmah, and Keter.

 


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @belmurru

On the other hand, Neuburg might have been quoting Crowley

Upon reading the quote, this was my first impression. In this case, the question is, Do first impressions count? You know, it's kind of subjective.

 

The only next step I can think of is to see the diary manuscript, if that is possible. It may or may not give some insight. 

But AC wasn't going by memory for this account, he was quoting his own diary in TSK (Equinox 1(10), pp. 98-99, and the Confessions (pp. 595-598). He must have had it in front of him, and the date of 1 July is scientifically verifiable: "... on departing, instantly shone the moon, two days before her fullness, over the hill among the clouds."

Full Moon was indeed on 3 July, or two days later (about 40 hours actually). 

So my bias would be towards the accuracy of Crowley's account, given that it comes from the pages of a diary in front of him, rather than towards doubt about it because of the interpretation of the unclear meaning of a phrase in Neuburg's diary.

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
Posted by: @belmurru

Full Moon was indeed on 3 July, or two days later (about 40 hours actually). 

That's a very good point!

The manuscript also supports it:

grafik

Love=Law

Lutz


lashtal and belmurru liked
ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @belmurru

Full Moon was indeed on 3 July, or two days later (about 40 hours actually). 

That's a very good point!

The manuscript also supports it:

grafik

Love=Law

Lutz

Thank you very much for supplying that entry, Lutz! From that, I'd say that "I" refers to Victor Neuburg himself. It doesn't help us identifying the manuscript in question, though. I think the word "news" is what makes it a tease. This was during his initiation to Neophyte, so maybe it was in regard to making his own copies or studies of Libers LXI and LXV, or Pyramidos. Crowley also says earlier on that he was gathering materials for an exposition of Dee and Kelly's workings, for which he would later go to the Bodleian to study the originals. Maybe it was something to do with that subject. 

But the fact that Crowley was literally citing his diary, with its dates, means that we have to accept the date of 28 June. The diary still exists, if we are to trust Churton, who cites it in AC The Biography p. 147. He gives the entry for 28 June 1909, endnoting it to “HB,” which means “unpublished typescripts edited by Hymenaeus Beta.” Therefore a typescript of the diary exists.

I should correct my timing for the 1 July entry. I had taken it as just past midnight on 2 July, with full moon occurring around noon on 3 July. But it really should be just past midnight on 1 July, since the unnamed tenant coming to rent Boleskine was scheduled to arrive that day, and Crowley and Neuburg went back to London on the same day. 

 


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 475
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

"He also brought me news concerning a certain manuscript, with regard to which I have been inexcusably careless."

If the manuscript referred to is Liber L, then Vicky-Bird may have been the one responsible for losing it, having possibly placed it among items stored in the loft without realizing what it was.

 


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 230
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @belmurru

Full Moon was indeed on 3 July, or two days later (about 40 hours actually). 

That's a very good point!

The manuscript also supports it:

grafik

Love=Law

Lutz

Thanks for this! 

What strikes me is that the page number in the upper left reminds me of page numbers in Liber L vel Legis....


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1821
 

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

Can you possibly... be referring here to the fact that ... Crowley fortunately managed to intercede to prevent?

Posted by: @shiva

No. But I always thought it was a third party (not Crowley) who intervened.

Having a moment free I decided to check up on this incident which is recorded in Chapter 27 of the Confessions and according to which it seems it was actually a third party/person, and not Crowley himself:

Whether overawed by the majesty of the saint or interrupted by the entry of a third person, I.A. [Bennett] no longer remembered, but D.D.C.F. [Mathers] never pulled the trigger.

In connection with the foregoing to the passage above, possibly the third person who interrupted may perhaps have been V.N.R. [Mrs Mathers] by so doing "thus formulating the symbol of the Blessed Trinity"??

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
Posted by: @jamiejbarter

may perhaps have been V.N.R. [Mrs Mathers] by so doing "thus formulating the symbol of the Blessed Trinity"??

Yes, that's the way I remember it. Weird explanations of the duality being interrupted by the trinity (a third person), who I recall was female.

 


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 10
Share: