Evidence in Richard...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Evidence in Richard T. Cole's Liber L. vel Bogus.

Page 4 / 10

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

93!

So far there is no real hard evidence in the book that proves Cole's theory, it's all speculation. Some of it quite convincing, some of it not very convincing. I always considered the seemingly changed date in his notebook 23 (Yorke OS23) as belonging in the former group, thereby indicating that AC found the stele already in 1902.

I am talking about No.1 in the attached pic.

Which really somehow looks like it was originally written like seen in No.2

Now there are a lot of 4's in this notebook and everybody knows that AC's 4 looks like one of these in No.3

Then why the heck didn't he forge the date to something like No.4? Maybe it is really just a very sloppy and unfortunate original 4 in OS23 and not a deception?

And furthermore, as someone pointed out to me, is the headline "Egypt 1904" in Crowley's hand at all? No.5 shows ALL the upper case E's in the same notebook, none of them looks like the rounded E in the headline.

<p>os23-5</p>

I always thought that if AC really wanted to fake this whole thing, he did the worst faking job ever. To me most evidence (known to me and/or in Cole's book) indicates just that he really didn't know what to do with the text for years.

That's it for now.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

Thanks Lutz!


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

Crowley in 1907 in Liber LXI vel Causae, first writing that “His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings”, and in Liber LXI vel Causae listing the Book of the Law as one among the said Sacred Writings, before later on in 1912 in the Equinox I, 7, publishing a reception story about it, and presenting it as being of particular importance, does not indicate him not knowing what to do with it, but him playing up its significance over time.

My overall impression derived from Richard T. Cole's book, Liber L. vel Bogus, is that Crowley knew the significance of the Book of the Law from the time of its creation.


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

93!

Well, he obviously came to know what to do with it, but from the time of creation? He published poetry, went on climbing Kanchenjunga, walked through China, went to Japan and America without doing anything apart from mentioning it in obscure ways. Maybe when he managed KCHA (Augoeides operations) he began to know, but from the beginning of writing it? I don't think so.

But that's what I think and what you think. Cole wants to prove that it was all fabricated anyhow as early as 1902, and that is what we are after here. Crowley's annoyance with the book for many years seems to be obvious and he would stick to this version until the end.

So far I have no reason to not believe him.

Love=Law
Lutz


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

the_real_simon_iff: "... Cole wants to prove that it was all fabricated anyhow as early as 1902, and that is what we are after here. Crowley’s annoyance with the book for many years seems to be obvious and he would stick to this version until the end."

No, Cole does not want to prove that the Book of the Law was fabricated as early as 1902. Cole's explanations for why Crowley does not mention anything about the Book of the Law before in 1906 (Cole page 178-182), are the following:

That "Aleister Crowley finished Liber L. vel Legis in early 1906. It was an attempt to provide his pedantic A.’.A.’. buddy, Jones, with the Founding Document his old school sensibilities demanded, before launching a new, improved Golden Dawn … (Cole page 212)"

That "... the Cairo Revelation pertained exclusively to his [Crowley's] awareness of a new occult methodology, Sex Magick ("Sex Magick based on stele imagery (Cole page 232)."), and not [not is underlined by Cole] Liber L. vel Legis, which isn't even mentioned (Cole page 87)." [...] "Precisely as is recorded in Crowley's primary source notebooks, he left Cairo with only the occult 'tool' required to destroy Mathers. This is explicitly clear from two deleted comments, "the ritual is of sex" and "Revelation of ritual to consecrate talismans of XXII against G.'.D.'." Only on completion of this precursor does Crowley get to form his own Magickal Link and, therefore, rightfully (in accordance with occult tradition) assume control of the Golden Dawn (Cole page 114 and 115)."


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

wellreadwellbred:

Sure, that's what Cole thinks is the reason for the whole scam. But what he actually has to prove first is that the official Reception Myth is all faked, and one part of that is that AC found the Stele already in 1902.

That's what I meant.

Love=Law
Lutz


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

My overall impression derived from Richard T. Cole’s book, Liber L. vel Bogus, is that Crowley knew the significance of the Book of the Law from the time of its creation.

One of the most fascinating & key questions raised by Cole is when exactly is the time of its creation. If one takes the other road (belief-wise) from unquestioningly ovine & rather unthelemic acceptance of the integrity of A.C.'s reception account, then it could have been created - as in gestated - at any time between Crowley's first visit to Cairo in 1902 and 1906-07, with additional touches being added to a manuscript in 1909 before its (the actual reception's) first portrayal made in The Book of the Law's overdue revelation, and as such finally, in The Equinox of September, 1912. According to RTC, A.C. disowned it as being his own work when it was necessary to bamboozle Jones - his one-time senior in the Golden Dawn and partner in setting-up his order of the A.'. A.'. - in a manoeuvre which itself fell apart after their estrangement following the Looking Glass trial.

But that’s what I think and what you think. Cole wants to prove that it was all fabricated anyhow as early as 1902, and that is what we are after here. Crowley’s annoyance with the book for many years seems to be obvious and he would stick to this version until the end.

So far I have no reason to not believe him.

Believe Cole or Crowley, though? It's not completely clear from the context here Lutz. Another related question would be, if it is possible to believe both at the same time, or make excuses for the intentionality of both at different times, or are they permanently mutually exclusive & irreconcilable?

So many Questions, questions...
N Joy


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 

If the patent date of the watermark on the paper used to pen Liber L Vel Legis can be found anywhere, more than likely it will be found at the University of Aberdeen, as they appear to be in possession of the extant records of the Alex Pirie & Sons paper company. Here is a link to the page that describes the contents of an archive that includes files on patents and trademarks:

Hmm, nice research. Looking at the list of items, I'm not sure whether any of those listed items would be likely to have the relevant information. However, it's worth a try.

Well the solution is obvious. We need to get an assembly of learned folks from LAShTAL up there and check out the evidence. There might also be some info. with Wiggins Teape who seem to be the company Pirie was folded into.

I'm picturing a bunch of us up there posed elegantly in frock coats, examining the documents with pince-nez, like in a Victorian painting 🙂


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

I’m picturing a bunch of us up there posed elegantly in frock coats, examining the documents with pince-nez, like in a Victorian painting 🙂

Such an expedition would have to get there by steam locomotive, of course! (I hear they have been recently thinking of re-commissioning The Flying Scotsman?)

Well the solution is obvious. We need to get an assembly of learned folks from LAShTAL up there and check out the evidence. There might also be some info. with Wiggins Teape who seem to be the company Pirie was folded into.

And then after that, maybe this adventurous crew of roving learned musketeers without portfolio could take on the mission relatively impossible of taking a proper gander at the actual manuscript, currently secreted within the safest of safe safety deposit boxes held within custody of some (c)oto-customised high security bank somewhere over the hills and far away

Under lock and key
N Joy


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

Jamie J Barter: "According to RTC, A.C. disowned it as being his own work when it was necessary to bamboozle Jones – his one-time senior in the Golden Dawn and partner in setting-up his order of the A.’. A.’. – in a manoeuvre which itself fell apart after their estrangement following the Looking Glass trial."

RTC's story about Crowley needing to bamboozle Jones, by disowning the Book of the Law, is contradicted by what Crowley states in Liber LXI vel Causae, that he wrote in 1907.

In Liber LXI vel Causae, Crowley refers to both his cooperation with Jones (referred to as D.D.S.) in founding 'the Order of the Silver Star', and to himself (referred to as V.V.V.V.V.), and claims authorship of the Book of the Law (referred to as Liber Legis), by stating that V.V.V.V.V.'s utterance, or "His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings. [...] Such are Liber Legis, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you."

I will like to remind you, as already mentioned before by me in this thread, that the just mentioned Liber LXI vel Causae (where Crowley as already just mentioned claims authorship for the Book of the Law and various other "Sacred Writings"), is placed at the beginning of the first of the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), and that the text of the Book of the Law is placeded at the beginning of the last of the said three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books).

I will also like to bring your attention to something else that I have already mentioned before in this thread, namely that all the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), contain an identical title page, where Crowley, referring to himself with his magical motto V. V. V. V. V., presents himself as acting “Pro Collegium Summum”, (this is Latin for “on behalf of the company of the summit”).

On page 18 in Autumn 2000 E.V. Vol I, No 8, of Black Pearl, the journal of the college of Thelema, COLLEGIUM SUMMUM is defined as " - Supreme (highest) college or society. (A title of the Order S.'.S.'.. )" I mention this, because of its significanse for the following information already provided before by me on page 10 in this thread, information concerning that is written on the said identical title page contained within all the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books):

“PUBLICATION IN CLASS A. IMPRIMATUR. V. V. V. V. V. Pro Coll. Summ.
D. D. S.[,] O.M.[:] Pro Coll. Int.
V. N.[,] P.[,] P. A.[:] Pro Coll. Ext.
O. S. V. Imp.”

My point is that Crowley referres to George Cecil Jones (as D. D. S.), both in Liber LXI vel Causae, that Crowley wrote in 1907 and in which he claims authorship for the Book of the Law and some other "Sacred Writings", and on the title page of the first volume of the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), a volume published in 1909, and within itself, at the beginning of the said volume, right after the said title page, containing the said Liber LXI vel Causae.

On the said title page, Crowley referres to George Cecil Jones (as D. D. S.), in a subordinate position within the A.'. A.'., and referres to himself (as V. V. V. V. V.) in a supreme position within the A.'. A.'.

So Cole's reasoning that Crowley, to out-flank George Cecil Jones' occult seniority, needed to bamboozle George Cecil Jones, by disowning the Book of the Law as being his own work (Cole page 154 - 157, and 204 - 206), is contradicted by 'documentary evidence', evidence (i.e. Liber LXI vel Causae) according to which George Cecil Jones - already in 1907 - knew that Aleister Crowley claimed authorship for the Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 

Such an expedition would have to get there by steam locomotive, of course! (I hear they have been recently thinking of re-commissioning The Flying Scotsman?)

Naturally, but first we'd have to get some of our esteemed American brethren over by Packet Steamer. 🙂


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 

So Cole’s reasoning that Crowley, to out-flank George Cecil Jones’ occult seniority, needed to bamboozle George Cecil Jones, by disowning the Book of the Law as being his own work (Cole page 154 – 157, and 204 – 206), is contradicted by ‘documentary evidence’, evidence (i.e. Liber LXI vel Causae) according to which George Cecil Jones – already in 1907 – knew that Aleister Crowley claimed authorship for the Book of the Law.

Noice.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 109
 

I've a very fetching deerstalker I can wear on the expedition. Also, I can translate if any of you have difficulty with the dialect. All I ask is you guys pay for my Irn-Bru.


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

Hmm, nice research. Looking at the list of items, I’m not sure whether any of those listed items would be likely to have the relevant information. However, it’s worth a try.

Pirie & Sons sued a competitor for trademark infringement in 1890 for using a phrase similar to what they used for one of their products, which all but guarantees they considered their watermarks trademarks. The box containing trademark information at the University of Aberdeen may contain a record of the watermark seen on the pages of the Liber L holograph.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1074
 

The result has been negative. At least two of us have already asked Aberdeen about this, reported earlier in the thread -
www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/evidence-in-richard-t-coles-liber-l-vel-bogus/page/2/#post-94569
(specifically option number 2)
And
www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/evidence-in-richard-t-coles-liber-l-vel-bogus/page/4/#post-94625

The collections my correspondent searched (between May and August last year), were:

MS 2911/1/1-2 Patents and Trademarks
MS 2911/20/1 Sample book of 20th century office stationery and
MS 2911/21/2 Blank business stationery and record sheets, 20th century


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

The result has been negative. At least two of us have already asked Aberdeen about this, reported earlier in the thread

Thanks for putting the issue to bed. If the extant records show no evidence of the watermark being placed into production after 1904, then Cole's claim about the watermark is rendered baseless, and not surprisingly so.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 

"The result has been negative. At least two of us have already asked Aberdeen about this, reported earlier in the thread –"

It's interesting how the same ground gets covered, over and over ... but still no results.


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

“The result has been negative. At least two of us have already asked Aberdeen about this, reported earlier in the thread –”

It’s interesting how the same ground gets covered, over and over … but still no results.

It isn't strictly true to suggest that "no result" is quite the same thing as a "negative result". "No" result would mean that no result has been forthcoming at all, whereas a "negative" result, as herupakraath states actually meant finding "no evidence of the watermark being placed into production after 1904". (Of course, that might even be seen as a 'positive' result in itself for the Cole-bashers)

... but first we’d have to get some of our esteemed American brethren over by Packet Steamer.

Or perhaps they'd appreciate by airship!?

My point is that Crowley referres to George Cecil Jones (as D. D. S.), both in Liber LXI vel Causae, that Crowley wrote in 1907 and in which he claims authorship for the Book of the Law and some other “Sacred Writings”, and on the title page of the first volume of the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), a volume published in 1909, and within itself, at the beginning of the said volume, right after the said title page, containing the said Liber LXI vel Causae.

On the said title page, Crowley referres to George Cecil Jones (as D. D. S.), in a subordinate position within the A.’. A.’., and referres to himself (as V. V. V. V. V.) in a supreme position within the A.’. A.’.

However, please regard the following, also from Liber LXI vel Causae:

19. Returing to England, he laid his achievements humbly at the feetof a certain adept D.D.S., who welcomed him brotherly and admitted his title to the grade which he had so hardly won.

22. Therefore by the order of D.D.S. did P. prepare all things by his arcane science and wisdom...

25. Now when P. had this with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S. ...

As someone once said - "Who's the daddy here?"

N Joy


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

Jamie J Barter, I share your enthusiasm for the following: "One of the most fascinating & key questions raised by Cole is when exactly is the time of its creation." (Quote from the beginning of a post in this thread marked January 29, 2016 at 3:25 am #94905, and posted by you, Jamie J Barter).

In the said post you write that the Book of the Law "... could have been created – as in gestated – at any time between Crowley’s first visit to Cairo in 1902 and 1906-07, with additional touches being added to a manuscript in 1909 before its (the actual reception’s) first portrayal made in The Book of the Law‘s overdue revelation, and as such finally, in The Equinox of September, 1912."

Within the timespan that you mention as possibly pertaining to the creation of the Book of the Law, from 1902 to 1912, Crowley in 1909 (volume 1 and 2) an 1910 (volume 3) published the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), in which each volume has a title page containing the following text:

“PUBLICATION IN CLASS A. IMPRIMATUR. V. V. V. V. V. Pro Coll. Summ.
D. D. S.[,] O.M.[:] Pro Coll. Int.
V. N.[,] P.[,] P. A.[:] Pro Coll. Ext.
O. S. V. Imp.”

V. V. V. V. V. is a magical motto for Aleister Crowley. “Pro Coll. Summ.”, is latin for “Pro Collegium Summum”, which can be translated as “on behalf of the company of the highest”.

Definition Of: collegium Latin Dictionary JM Latin English Dictionary N college/board (priests); corporation; brotherhood/guild/company/society/school Source: http://www.latin-dictionary.org/collegium

I find it interesting that the text in the second verse in the first chapter of one of the Holy Books of Thelema, the Book of the Law, "2. The unveiling of the company of heaven.", contains strong similarities to "the company of the highest", that Crowley according to an identical title page in all three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), is working on behalf of.

On page 18 in Autumn 2000 E.V. Vol I, No 8, of Black Pearl, the journal of the college of Thelema, COLLEGIUM SUMMUM is defined as ” – Supreme (highest) college or society. (A title of the Order S.’.S.’.. )”

The Order S.'.S.'. stands for the Order Spiritum Sanctum, or the Order of the Holy Spirit.

In Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis (Report of the Fraternity of the Cross), the title of an anonymous Rosicrucian manifesto published in 1614, it is written that some "eight Brethren" made an agreement "they should meet together in the Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum [= the College of the Holy Spirit]", and that "Ex Deo Nascimur, in Jesu morimur, per spiritum sanctum reviviscimus [= Latin for "We are born of God, we die in Jesus, we come to life again through the holy spirit."]."

My impression is that Crowly emphasised Rosicrucian inspired stories, and not Egyptian inspired stories, in how he presented his order and his "Sacred Writings", before 1911, when George Cecil Jones who founded the said order together with Crowley, distanced himself from Crowley.

Crowley did, of course, continue to use Rosicrucian inspired stories in how he presented his order, for example giving the designation "Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum", A College towards the Holy Spirit, to his so-called Abbey of Thelema started in 1920.


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

I find it interesting that the text in the second verse in the first chapter of one of the Holy Books of Thelema, the Book of the Law, “2. The unveiling of the company of heaven.”, contains strong similarities to “the company of the highest”, that Crowley according to an identical title page in all three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), is working on behalf of.

Although according to your explanation, it could equally well be the "college" as well as the "company" of the highest throughout. Maybe it depends whether one wants to give a more "academic" impression...

The Order S.’.S.’. stands for the Order Spiritum Sanctum, or the Order of the Holy Spirit.

It is also a reference to what One Star In Sight called "The Order of the Star called S.S.", which "in respect of its existence upon the Earth [...] is composed of those who have crossed the Abyss". Elsewhere (I cannot reference it this minute) A.C. states this refers to "Silver Star" - which itself is one English translation of A.'. A.'. , or Astrum Argentum.

My impression is that Crowley emphasised Rosicrucian inspired stories, and not Egyptian inspired stories, in how he presented his order and his “Sacred Writings”, before 1911, when George Cecil Jones who founded the said order together with Crowley, distanced himself from Crowley.

Crowley did, of course, continue to use Rosicrucian inspired stories in how he presented his order, for example giving the designation “Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum”, A College towards the Holy Spirit, to his so-called Abbey of Thelema started in 1920.

Yes. To take one example, the Mountain of Abiegnus is one such particularly prominent recurring metaphor (in the rubric to the 5=6 ritual given in The Equinox I:3, A.C. describes it as "the mountain of God in the Centre of the Universe, the sacred Rosicrucian Mountain of Initiation" which symbolizes the evolutionary journey of the acolyte who must not only scale its lofty heights but, by employing the formula of VITRIOL, also find the spiritual treasure buried deep within.)

Incidentally, isn't it curious to reflect upon the words laid down in clause #7 of Liber LXI vel Causae:

You will readily understand that the genuineness of the claim matters no whit, such literature being judged by itself, not by its reputed sources

taken in relation to the allegedly "bogus" claims made on account of the reception "story" & the unanimously-agreed-upon 'genuineness' of the contents of Liber L/ The Book of the Law itself.

N Joy


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

93!

What we know is that Liber L was there in 1905, since he is studying it with Soror Fidelis in early 1906, and even working on the Comment by then, and is beginning to realize his role as "the chosen one", and - invoking Aiwass - is told to go back to Egypt with Rose the seer "under the same circumstances". He was by then "on the road" (Kanchenjunga, India, China etc.) for 9 months already and it seems unlikely that he wrote it in that timespan.

To me, any date later as early/mid 1905 is highly improbable.

Well, the infamous watermark dating would help, but so far this seems to be impossible. What we know is that the watermark depicted in Cole's book is (for whatever reason) retouched - there clearly is no 1906 date in the Liber L manuscript - and that Pirie sold "Standard" paper already in 1903 (see Miller's Guide 1903), though there also was a "Standard Linen" paper if I remember correctly, but I think linen paper would not have been advertised as "Flat Writings" paper as in the Miller's Guide.

Concerning Cole's pointing out that it seems unlikely that Crowley took a stack of paper on his honeymoon (I am not poet/writer enough to comment on that): if the Standard Typewriting paper was available in 1904 and Crowley was in contact with a typing service company in Cairo (which seems to be the case) to have the even more infamous Vellum Book typed, he could have had a source for that type of paper.

As usual, these are my five cents.

Love=Law
Lutz


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

What we know is that Liber L was there in 1905, since he is studying it with Soror Fidelis in early 1906, and even working on the Comment by then, and is beginning to realize his role as “the chosen one”, and – invoking Aiwass – is told to go back to Egypt with Rose the seer “under the same circumstances”.

Indeed, A.C.'s diary entry of July 1906 stated: "Working on Liber legis." Assuming he is talking ahout studying its mysteries, or engaged upon a Comment/ary - NOT on cobbling together some version of [the contents of] the ms itself, which would actually be the strictly literal interpretation!?

Concerning Cole’s pointing out that it seems unlikely that Crowley took a stack of paper on his honeymoon (I am not poet/writer enough to comment on that):

How are we lesser mere mortals to judge the ways of those inscrutable beings of genius who are so high above us? ;

It seems unlikely A.C. would take a ream of typewriter paper on his honeymoon - unlikely, but not impossible - just the same as one wouldn't have thought he would be capable of transporting a whole mini-library up the side of a mountain either, much to the vexation of his fellow climbers. But he did!

Wellread, would it be correct to assume you do now acknowledge A.C. was now in Liber LXI vel Causae clearly & unambiguously declaring himself as Frater Perdurabo to be in a junior and not superior positon to Frater D.D.S. (George Jones) - and not the reverse?

N Joy


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

93!

Jamie wrote: NOT on cobbling together some version of [the contents of] the ms itself, which would actually be the strictly literal interpretation!?

If we want to interpret AC strictly literally, the debate would be over, because he said all about it.

No, he's studying it in April, working on the comment in May and there is no reason to believe that he's writing it in July - and, I have to add, in MY version of the 1906 diary I do not find any entry in July where he is "working" on it - in fact, in MY version he is never "working on it". Can you specify?

Love=Law
Lutz


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

Suffering catfish, I can't seem to find the "Edit" button either!

Indeed, A.C.’s diary entry of July 1906 stated: “Working on Liber legis.”

Of course I meant to say:

Indeed, A.C.’s diary entry of May (2nd) 1906 stated: “Working on Liber Legis.”

Usual apologies apply
N Joy


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

93, Jamie!

I do not know on which source you rely, but on May 2nd he just writes: "Working at comment on Liber Liges with (as usual) lamentably little result."

What's your source?

Mine is the typescript (corrected and annotated by AC) of his 1906 diary housed at the Harry Ransom Center, which can be inspected for research by (I guess) everyone.

Love=Law
Lutz


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

93 Lutz!

What’s your source?

As (a) I didn't have any other sources available at the time of typing it (b) ther seemed to be a hurry to have to respond with information (c) there being no index to Liber L. vel Bogus, I couldn't easily locate the reference where I originally saw it, (d) I looked at the following chronological reference on page 181 which gives:

1906 May 02 Diary entry: "Working on Liber Legis"

which although in the rush I naturally took to be correct information.

Hoping this explanation satisfies?

93, 93/93
N Joy


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

On page 180 in the second corrected edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus., Cole has written the following:'

"The next diary reference occurs on May 1906:

“Working at comment on Liber Liges with (as usual) lamentably little result.”"


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

93, Jamie!

Well, I guess, it's just another bullshit fake in Cole's book.

That's simply not in the diary.

Thanks for pointing it out though...

Love=Law
Lutz


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

Jamie J Barter: "However, please regard the following, also from Liber LXI vel Causae:

"19. Returing to England, he laid his achievements humbly at the feet of a certain adept D.D.S., who welcomed him brotherly and admitted his title to the grade which he had so hardly won.

22. Therefore by the order of D.D.S. did P. prepare all things by his arcane science and wisdom…

25. Now when P. had this with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S. …"

As someone once said – “Who’s the daddy here?”"

Jamie J Barter: "Wellread, would it be correct to assume you do now acknowledge A.C. was now in Liber LXI vel Causae clearly & unambiguously declaring himself as Frater Perdurabo to be in a junior and not superior positon to Frater D.D.S. (George Jones) – and not the reverse?"

Who is the one who "29. [...] arose, an exalted adept of the rank of Master of the Temple" whose utterance it is, that within Liber LXI vel Causae is described as "29. ... enshrined in the Sacred Writings. 30. Such are Liber Legis, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you."?

An who is it that "31. [...] conferred upon D.D.S., O.M., and another, the Authority of the Triad, ..."?

Jamie J Barter: "Incidentally, isn’t it curious to reflect upon the words laid down in clause #7 of Liber LXI vel Causae:

"You will readily understand that the genuineness of the claim matters no whit, such literature being judged by itself, not by its reputed sources"

taken in relation to the allegedly “bogus” claims made on account of the reception “story” & the unanimously-agreed-upon ‘genuineness’ of the contents of Liber L/ The Book of the Law itself."

Yes, and it is also curious to reflect upon Crowley's words in The Equinox of the Gods, which he first published in 1936, in chapter 7, stating the following concerning the Book of the Law, if it is not fully that what he states it is in his reception story for it since 1912: “If It be not wholly that, it is a worthless curiosity of literature; …”

the_real_simon_iff: "What we know is that Liber L was there in 1905, since he is studying it with Soror Fidelis in early 1906, and even working on the Comment by then, and is beginning to realize his role as “the chosen one”, and – invoking Aiwass – is told to go back to Egypt with Rose the seer “under the same circumstances”. He was by then “on the road” (Kanchenjunga, India, China etc.) for 9 months already and it seems unlikely that he wrote it in that timespan."

Cole (Cole page 178-179) states "that the very first instance of Crowley referring directly to Liber L. vel Legis does not happen until 18 April 1906. [...] His diary entry of this date reads: "Studying Liber Legis: decide to ask A. to invoke Aiwass."

Are there any earlier sources, where Crowley directly mentions Liber Legis or the Book of the Law?


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

93, Jamie!

Do you want me to post a pic or do you believe MY version?

Love=Law
Lutz


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

93, Wellreadwellbread.

I only have the first edition which states on p.180 "Working on Liber Legis..."

which is clearly wrong. Seems he has corrected it - at least...

Love=Law
Lutz


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

93, wellreadwellbred!

In the diary, April 18th is the first mention of Liber L and I don't know of another mention.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

No point, Lutz, Cole's quote is wrong as he appears to have (silently) acknowledged in a later edition, as follows...

@wellreadwellbred wrote:

On page 180 in the second corrected edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus., Cole has written the following:’

“The next diary reference occurs on May 1906:

“Working at comment on Liber Liges with (as usual) lamentably little result.””

Version control of Cole's book is a little confusing, but I think there are three main 'editions' - a 'Pre-publication' one, a first general issue one and a 'second corrected edition' to which you refer. I don't have a copy of the latter, but, as Lutz has noted, the 'first general edition' is different on p180 and is then intriguingly extended:

The next diary reference occurs on 02 May 1906:

"Working on Liber Legis with (its usual) lamentably little result."

If we take Crowley at his word, then his reception fable crashes at this point, because "Working on Liber Legis" two years after its dictation really isn't the way forward, So, if only to prevent this book from abruptly stopping here, let's ignore yet another unfortunate instance of ambiguity and assume Crowley meant to write 'Working on Liber Legis Comment.'

Baffling. Oh, by the way, the 'Pre-Publication' says the same thing so any change appears to have been introduced in the later 'corrected second edition'. Perhaps @wellreadwellbred can tell us how the later paragraph (starting 'If we take Crowley at his word...') now appears?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

93, Paul!

I have another softcover version at home, maybe it's the second edition, will check it later (we collectors are sooooo stupid).

"Silent acknowledging" is so disappointing with an acknowledement that renders the "crashing of his reception fable at this point". As is the retouched watermark, as is the "young Crowley" pic versions, as is the "riddle" retouching...

If Cole won't deliver the watermark proof (in the literal meaning of proof) the whole book is about politics ... which bore me

Love=Law
Lutz


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

It appears as just quoted by you. And the said paragraph is followed by the following sentence:

"On this subject, it is important to revisit five specific instructions dictated by Aiwass: ..."


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Sorry @wellreadwellbred but just to clarify...

Are you saying that the second corrected edition says:

The next diary reference occurs on May 1906:

“Working at comment on Liber Legis with (as usual) lamentably little result.””

If we take Crowley at his word, then his reception fable crashes at this point, because “Working on Liber Legis” two years after its dictation really isn’t the way forward, So, if only to prevent this book from abruptly stopping here, let’s ignore yet another unfortunate instance of ambiguity and assume Crowley meant to write ‘Working on Liber Legis Comment.’

If so, that makes no sense whatsoever.

(By the way, I'm assuming that you included two typos in your post - excluding the '02' part of the date and spelling 'Liber Liges'...)

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

Jamie J Barter: “Wellread, would it be correct to assume you do now acknowledge A.C. was now in Liber LXI vel Causae clearly & unambiguously declaring himself as Frater Perdurabo to be in a junior and not superior positon to Frater D.D.S. (George Jones) – and not the reverse?”

Who is the one who “29. […] arose, an exalted adept of the rank of Master of the Temple” whose utterance it is, that within Liber LXI vel Causae is described as “29. … enshrined in the Sacred Writings. 30. Such are Liber Legis, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you.”?

An who is it that “31. […] conferred upon D.D.S., O.M., and another, the Authority of the Triad, …”?

Briefly, the discrepancy is explained by the fact that A.C. is clearly referring to V.V.V.V.V. in a different capacity (or "plane") to that which he is referring to Frater P[erdurabo].

Do you want me to post a pic or do you believe MY version?

No, Lutz, thanks for the offer. There seems to be a difference between "Working on Liber Legis" and "Working at comment on Liber Legis", with the latter version being the correct one. Unfortunately I happened to have quoted the incorrect version in this context. There would also appear to be several variants of the Cole opus at large, but that explained my source anyway.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2856
 

Lutz,

To be honest, in my opinion the whole point of this book is not to offer ground-breaking new research, or to be the David's stone in the eye of the giant of Thelema, it is more about making Cole some money so that he can have a bit of extra cash around.

I am sure he is laughing as each new order comes in. It's just like baiting any religious group for hits; it's pretty easy. At least Thelemite's won't sick (sic?) detectives on you like Scientologists will.

At TIMES I can appreciate his sense of humour but it seems like attention-grabbing and money-grubbing to me.

Chris


ReplyQuote
SPHINX
(@sphinx)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 64
 

YEOW PAUL
CAN THIS BE TRUE?

LATEST MEMBER JOINED THREE HOURS AGO - RTC (the real one)?

WILL THERE BE FIREWORKS FROM THE MAN WHO BROKE THE CROWLEY TOY?


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

Lashtal, Keymaster, anything written in bold, illustrates the extra text added to, or changed from, what you just quoted from an earlier edition of Richard T. Cole’s Liber L. vel Bogus:

"The next diary reference occurs on 02 May 1906:

“Working on comment on Liber Legis with (as usual) lamentably little result.”

If we take Crowley at his word, then his reception fable crashes at this point, because “Working on Liber Legis” two years after its dictation really isn’t the way forward, So, if only to prevent this book from abruptly stopping here, let’s ignore yet another unfortunate instance of ambiguity and assume Crowley meant to write ‘Working on Liber Legis Comment.’

Lashtal, Keymaster: "(By the way, I’m assuming that you included two typos in your post – excluding the ’02’ part of the date and spelling ‘Liber Liges’…)"

Page 180 of the edition of Richard T. Cole’s Liber L. vel Bogus that I own, the "Second, Corrected Edition", does not include two typos, excluding the ’02’ part of the date and spelling ‘Liber Liges’.


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

Cole (page 172, 186-187, 189 and 233) is making a point out of that Crowley, when for the first time publishing it in 1910 in the Third volume of his THELEMA (Holy Books), publicly premiered Liber Legis or the Book of the Law, as one among a series of inspired writings 'Channelled' in 1907.

But according to the following quoted from page 172 in Richard Kaczynski's 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, "Liber VII" was "... the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass."

Does anyone know the earliest source, where Crowley claims that the said "Liber VII" was dictated by Aiwass, or where Crowley claims that the said "Holy Book" were dictated by Aiwass?


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

But according to the following quoted from page 172 in Richard Kaczynski’s 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, “Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”

Does anyone know the earliest source, where Crowley claims that the said “Liber VII” was dictated by Aiwass, or where Crowley claims that the said “Holy Book” were dictated by Aiwass?

I don't have Kaczynski's tome to hand to check but if accurate this seems an odd statement to make given his wide ranging knowledge of matters Crowleian. Did he (Crowley) actually claim that Liber VII and the rest of the Class A "Holy Books series" was dictated by Aiwass? I was always under the impression that although A.C. certainly maintained he was 'inspired' by the highest he claimed authorship himself (as with all of the other 'Holy Books' with the one exception). Liber L. vel Legis or "The Book of the Law" remains the only one out of all of them which he ever claimed was directly dictated by Aiwass and far beyond his own powers to compose.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 

Quothe Jamie

"Did he (Crowley) actually claim that Liber VII and the rest of the Class A “Holy Books series” was dictated by Aiwass?"
1
Well, if you have not yet figured it out buddy boy, Crowley was all over the map!


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

What map??

Quothe Jamie: 'The map isnae the territory'
2
Cartographically yours,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Jamie, I can confirm the extract from Kaczynski is as quoted by @wellreadwellbred -

That evening, the automatic writing “Liber VII” was penned, the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 

JB sez: "I was always under the impression that although A.C. certainly maintained he was ‘inspired’ by the highest he claimed authorship himself (as with all of the other ‘Holy Books’ with the one exception). Liber L. vel Legis or “The Book of the Law” remains the only one out of all of them which he ever claimed was directly dictated by Aiwass and far beyond his own powers to compose."

That is exactly my own "impression." In fact, regardless of the map, that is exactly what he wrote ... somewhere. And it is the same thing he wrote in other places. Paraphrase: "I wrote the holy books under inspiration, but not AL - that was dictated to me."

Whoo nose? Maybe he slipped in some contradictatum someplace ... but I want to see it quoted from his work, not as a hearsay report from some secondary biographer.

Now in terms of who Aiwass was, his definition that is, AC was surely all over the map, er, dictionary, um, thesaurus.


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

Jamie, I can confirm the extract from Kaczynski is as quoted by @wellreadwellbred

Well, well (Well) It's news to me if all the other Holy Books in the 'series' were dictated by Aiwass too - if one understands 'dictated' in the same sense as was employed in respect of The Book of the Law. In other words, Crowley hearing a voice (maybe of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce or aught else as suited the moods of the message: not bass exactly, perhaps a rich tenor or baritone) within the room declaiming prose-poetry which he subsequently wrote down verbatim with his Swan fountain pen (actually the exact make of the pen is quite optional.)

Perhaps as Shiva suggested some enterprising and resourceful Lashtalian of which there are many can provide a direct quote from A.C. appertaining to this matter? Or has Mr Kaczynski ever acknowledged his passage may have been another of those ghastly mistakh thingys & rtrcted or isued an errattatta slipp frm up athis nd?

n Jy0


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

From The Book of Lies, chapter 84:

How much more then should He devote Himself to
AIWASS for the understanding of the Holy Books
of {Theta-Epsilon-Lambda-Eta-Mu-Alpha}?

From the commentary on chapter 84:

Put your mind in tune with his; identify yourself with him as he
seeks to identify himself with the Intelligence that
communicates to him the Holy Books.


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

Quothed from wellreadwellbred:

[A]ccording to the following quoted from page 172 in Richard Kaczynski’s 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, “Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”

And here's another thing that's struck me - wouldn't Liber VII have been the second of such a series cited here (the first being Liber Legis)?

Positively snowbound with mountain-sickness,
N Joy


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

19. Returning to England, he laid his achievements humbly at the feet of a certain adept D.D.S., who welcomed him brotherly and admitted his title to the grade which he had so hardly won.
22. Therefore by the order of D.D.S. did P. prepare all things by his arcane science and wisdom…
25. Now when P. had this with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S. …

As someone once said – “Who’s the daddy here?” Jamie J Barter (#94941).

@wellreadwellbred - Who is the daddy, here, and when?


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 10
Share: