Introduction to Lib...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Introduction to Liber AL Date  

  RSS

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/04/2013 5:30 pm  

The original question, as posted in the Babble-On Box:

"[Does] anyone know the exact date that the Intro to Liber AL was written? I'm thinking it was written in 1921, but would love an accurate date."

belmurru's reply:

"I think the date of the Introduction can't be earlier than late 1936, since mentions the Equinox of the Gods and quotes The Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government,, both published in late 1936."

Are there any other thoughts on this?

The reason behind the 1921 date is that is when the technical title of the book was changed from "Liber L" to "Liber AL" and renumbered from XXXI to CCXX. I assumed that's when Crowley decided to write his Introduction. But belmurru is a much better historian than I, so I accept the 1938 year, barring the emergence of an actual date.

The overall purpose of this, lest any questions arise, is that Crowley signed the Intro as "O.M.", his 7=4 Motto. In the Introduction, he calls himself "The Master Therion", his 9=2 Motto.

He also says this: "This matter is best studied under the Master Therion, whose years of arduous research have led him to enlightenment." This is one of the few times, that I recall, that Crowley actually mentioned himself as "enlightened". Maybe not. Feel free to cite other times where he specifically chose that term.

And so, I want to know when he wrote that. If it was in 1921, or even in 1938 as belmurru suggests, it would have been after his "Ipssisimus Initiation". If it was written before 1921, then it would have been before said Initiation.


Quote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
08/04/2013 7:47 pm  

Azidonis, 93!

Do you mean the "Introductory Note"? The typescript at the Harry Ransom Center of this "Introductory Note" and "The Comment" as well as the "Colophon" says Tunis, An XXI Sol in 27° Scorpio die Jovis which would date it to October/November 1924. But maybe you mean a different intro?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/04/2013 9:16 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Azidonis, 93!

Do you mean the "Introductory Note"? The typescript at the Harry Ransom Center of this "Introductory Note" and "The Comment" as well as the "Colophon" says Tunis, An XXI Sol in 27° Scorpio die Jovis which would date it to October/November 1924. But maybe you mean a different intro?

Love=Law
Lutz

I honestly don't know, Lutz! 😀

I mean this one:

Introduction

I
The Book

1. This book was dictated in Cairo between noon and 1 p.m. on three successive days, April 8th, 9th and 10th in the year 1904.

The Author called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be “the minister of Hoor-Paar-Kraat”; that is, a messenger from the forces ruling this earth at present, as will be explained later on.

How could he prove that he was in fact a being of a kind superior to any of the human race, and so entitled to speak with authority? Evidently he must show KNOWLEDGE and POWER such as no man has ever been known to possess.

2. He showed his KNOWLEDGE chiefly by the use of cipher or cryptogram in certain passages to set forth recondite facts, including some events which had yet to take place, such that no human being could possibly be aware of them; thus, the proof of his claim exists in the manuscript itself. It is independent of any human witness.

The study of these passages necessarily demands supreme human scholarship to interpret— it needs years of intense application. A great deal has still to be worked out. But enough has been discovered to justify his claim; the most sceptical intelligence is compelled to admit its truth.

This matter is best studied under the Master Therion, whose years of arduous research have led him to enlightenment.

On the other hand, the language of most of the Book is admirably simple, clear and vigorous. No one can read it without being stricken in the very core of his being.

3. The more than human POWER of Aiwass is shewn by the influence of his Master, and of the Book, upon actual events: and history fully supports the claim made by him. These facts are appreciable by everyone; but are better understood with the help of the Master Therion.

4. The full detailed account of the events leading up to the dictation of this Book, with facsimile reproduction of the Manuscript and an essay by the Master Therion, is published in The Equinox of the Gods.

II
The Universe

This Book explains the Universe.

The elements are Nuit— Space— that is, the total of possibilities of every kind— and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convenience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)

Every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it.

“Every man and every woman is a star,” that is, an aggregate of such experiences, constantly changing with each fresh event, which affects him or her either consciously or subconsciously.

Each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. This implies the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness.

In our present stage, the object that you see is never the same as the one that I see; we infer that it is the same because your experience tallies with mine on so many points that the actual differences of our observation are negligible. For instance, if a friend is walking between us, you see only his left side, I his right; but we agree that it is the same man, although we may differ not only as to what we may see of his body but as to what we know of his qualities. This conviction of identity grows stronger as we see him more often and get to know him better. Yet all the time neither of us can know anything of him at all beyond the total impression made on our respective minds.

The above is an extremely crude attempt to explain a system which reconciles all existing schools of philosophy.

III
The Law of Thelema*

This Book lays down a simple Code of Conduct.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

“Love is the law, love under will.”

“There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.”

This means that each of us stars is to move on our true orbit, as marked out by the nature of our position, the law of our growth, the impulse of our past experiences. All events are equally lawful— and every one necessary, in the long run— for all of us, in theory; but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another.

Each action or motion is an act of love, the uniting with one or another part of “Nuit”; each such act must be “under will,” chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned.

The technical methods of achieving this are to be studied in Magick, or acquired by personal instruction from the Master Therion and his appointed assistants.

* Thelema is the Greek for Will, and has the same numerical value as Agape, the Greek for Love.

IV
The New Aeon

The third chapter of the Book is difficult to understand, and may be very repugnant to many people born before the date of the book (April, 1904).

It tells us the characteristics of the Period on which we are now entered. Superficially, they appear appalling. We see some of them already with terrifying clarity. But fear not!

It explains that certain vast “stars” (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years.* In the history of the world, as far as we know accurately, are three such Gods: Isis, the mother, when the Universe was conceived as simple nourishment drawn directly from her; this period is marked by matriarchal government.

Next, beginning 500 B.C., Osiris, the father, when the Universe was imagined as catastrophic, love, death, resurrection, as the method by which experience was built up; this corresponds to patriarchal systems.

Now, Horus, the child, in which we come to perceive events as a continual growth partaking in its elements of both these methods, and not to be overcome by circumstance. This present period involves the recognition of the individual as the unit of society.

We realize ourselves as explained in the first paragraphs of this essay. Every event, including death, is only one more accretion to our experience, freely willed by ourselves from the beginning and therefore also predestined.

This “God,” Horus, has a technical title: Heru-Ra-Ha, a combination of twin gods, Ra-Hoor-Khuit and Hoor-Paar-Kraat. The meaning of this doctrine must be studied in Magick. (He is symbolized as a Hawk-Headed God enthroned.)

He rules the present period of 2,000 years, beginning in 1904. Everywhere his government is taking root. Observe for yourselves the decay of the sense of sin, the growth of innocence and irresponsibility, the strange modifications of the reproductive instinct with a tendency to become bisexual or epicene, the childlike confidence in progress combined with nightmare fear of catastrophe, against which we are yet half unwilling to take precautions.

Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible when moral growth is in its earliest stages, and the prevalence of infantile cults like Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalised to the point of practical extinction.

Consider the popularity of the cinema, the wireless, the football pools and guessing competitions, all devices for soothing fractious infants, no seed of purpose in them.

Consider sport, the babyish enthusiasms and rages which it excites, whole nations disturbed by disputes between boys.

Consider war, the atrocities which occur daily and leave us unmoved and hardly worried.

We are children.

How this new Aeon of Horus will develop, how the Child will grow up, these are for us to determine, growing up ourselves in the way of the Law of Thelema under the enlightened guidance of the Master Therion.

* The moment of change from one period to another is technically called The Equinox of the Gods.

V
The Next Step

Democracy dodders.

Ferocious Fascism, cackling Communism, equally frauds, cavort crazily all over the globe.

They are hemming us in.

They are abortive births of the Child, the New Aeon of Horus.

Liberty stirs once more in the womb of Time.

Evolution makes its changes by anti-Socialistic ways. The “abnormal” man who foresees the trend of the times and adapts circumstance intelligently, is laughed at, persecuted, often destroyed by the herd; but he and his heirs, when the crisis comes, are survivors.

Above us today hangs a danger never yet paralleled in history. We suppress the individual in more and more ways. We think in terms of the herd. War no longer kills soldiers; it kills all indiscriminately. Every new measure of the most democratic and autocratic govenments is Communistic in essence. It is always restriction. We are all treated as imbecile children. Dora, the Shops Act, the Motoring Laws, Sunday suffocation, the Censorship— they won’t trust us to cross the roads at will.

Fascism is like Communism, and dishonest into the bargain. The dictators suppress all art, literature, theatre, music, news, that does not meet their requirements; yet the world only moves by the light of genius. The herd will be destroyed in mass.

The establishment of the Law of Thelema is the only way to preserve individual liberty and to assure the future of the race.

In the words of the famous paradox of the Comte de Fénix— The absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will.

All men and women are invited to cooperate with the Master Therion in this, the Great Work.

O. M.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
08/04/2013 9:36 pm  

93!

Well, I meant this one:

This book was dictated to me (on April 8, 9 & 10, 1904, E.V.) by Aiwass, a Being whose nature I do not fully understand, but who described Himself as "the minister of Hoor-Pa-Kraat" (the Lord of Silence). The intents of the book prove to strict scientific demonstration that He possesses knowledge & power quite beyond anything that has been hitherto associated with human faculties. The circumstances of the dictation are described in the Equinox, Vol. I, No. vii: but a fuller account, with an outline of the proof of the character of the book is in preparation, & will be issued shortly. The book announces a New Law for Mankind. It replaces the religious & moral sanctions of the past, which have everywhere broken down, by a principle valid for each man & woman in the world, & self-evidently indefeasible. The spiritual Revolution announced by the Book has already taken place: hardly a country where it is not openly manifest. Innocence of the true meaning of this new Law has led to gross anarchy. Its conscious adoption in its proper sense is the sole cure for the political, social & racial unrest which have brought about the World War, the catastrophe of Russia, & the threatening attitude of China, India and Islam. Its solution of the fundamental problems of mathematics & philosophy will establish a new epoch in History. But it must not be supposed that so potent an instrument of Energy can be used without danger. I therefore, by the power and authority entrusted to me, summon every great spirit and mind now on this planed incarnate to take effective hold of this transcendent force, & apply it to the advancement of the welfare of the human race. For, as the experience of these one-and-twenty years has shown too terribly, the Book cannot be ignored. It has leavened Mankind unaware: & Man must make thereof the Bread of Life. Its ferment has begun to work on the grape of Thought: Man must obtain therefrom the Wine of Ecstasy. Come then, all ye, in the Name of the Lord of the Aeon, the Crowned & Conquering Child, Heru-Ra-Ha: I call ye to partake this Sacrament. Know - Will - Dare - & Be Silent!

I just see that this "Introductory Note" was later called "The Summons", though this early version differs from the later published versions from the "Equinox of the Gods".

So, sorry, But I can't help at the moment.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
09/04/2013 1:21 pm  

The introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law would have developed from notes and commentaries which Crowley had been writing for many years, edited for the 1938 edition.

7=4 was I think his Golden Dawn grade at the time of receiving The Book of the Law.

Whatever the course of the Ipsissimus initiation - and there are oblique references to it - Crowley carried on signing letters etc as  "To Mega Therion, 9=2" up to the end of his life.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/04/2013 3:59 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
The introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law would have developed from notes and commentaries which Crowley had been writing for many years, edited for the 1938 edition.

7=4 was I think his Golden Dawn grade at the time of receiving The Book of the Law.

Whatever the course of the Ipsissimus initiation - and there are oblique references to it - Crowley carried on signing letters etc as  "To Mega Therion, 9=2" up to the end of his life.

Indeed, he had a thing for using various grade names at different times, but never revealed a 10=1 Motto. This is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. I wouldn't chastise the guy for how he chose to sign his name, really.

Just wondering when he called himself "enlightened", at what stage he was at on his own System.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/04/2013 3:25 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
The introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law would have developed from notes and commentaries which Crowley had been writing for many years, edited for the 1938 edition.

Going back to this, belmurru said 1936, and you are suggesting 1938.

Do you know if the manuscript of the intro is available/dated/date-able? Does anyone?

Odd that he was particular about putting dates on so many things, but the very few things he didn't put dates on seem hard to find dates for.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
10/04/2013 4:26 pm  

Belmurru said not the date of the Introduction was 1936, but that it could be no earlier than 1936 due to the reference to The Equinox of the Gods which was published that year.

I suggested 1938 simply because that is when the edition with the Introduction you cite was published. It was, though, just a suggestion; I have no evidence it was written in 1938.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/04/2013 4:39 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Belmurru said not the date of the Introduction was 1936, but that it could be no earlier than 1936 due to the reference to The Equinox of the Gods which was published that year.

I suggested 1938 simply because that is when the edition with the Introduction you cite was published. It was, though, just a suggestion; I have no evidence it was written in 1938.

Okay, I see. Makes sense that it could have been written between 1936 and 1938, and published in 1938.

Thanks for the correction and input.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
10/04/2013 4:49 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Going back to this, belmurru said 1936, and you are suggesting 1938.

I mean that the earliest date has to be after The Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government was published, which was either simultaneous to or after The Equinox of the Gods (since there is an advertisement for the latter in the former), which was in September 1936. The former is actually quoted in the text of the Introduction, while the latter is referenced by title. I think that this internal evidence is decisive for the terminus post quem date, but I can't find anything more specifically indicative for how long before March 1938, the publication date of the London 1938 edition, it was written. Therefore there is a range of late 1936 to early 1938 for it.

The name "O.M." is not helpful - Crowley cites this name as the 7=4 authority on the Imprimatur pages of The Equinox of the Gods and The Book of Thoth. I would guess that he used this motto in his didactic or intellectual capacity, to indicate that it is not the word of a Magus or MT, but only the highest scholarly authority.

The publication of AL prior to 1938 was in The Equinox of the Gods, and contains The Summons (quoted above by Simon). Apparently the 1926 edition also had it. It seems to me that if the 1938 Introduction had been written before 1936, Crowley would have included it in The Equinox of the Gods.

I don't see anything suspicious about the terms "enlightenment" and "enlightened" in the context of the Introduction. He seems to be using them in a commonplace sense, like in the phrase "he has enlightened views on social issues", as opposed to "benighted" or ignorant ones. Moreover, the term is not capitalized, which we might expect if he were using it in a technical spiritual sense.

So, I really can't see why there should be any suspicion that the date of the writing of the 1938 Introduction is not between late 1936 and early 1938. 

Do you know if the manuscript of the intro is available/dated/date-able? Does anyone?

Odd that he was particular about putting dates on so many things, but the very few things he didn't put dates on seem hard to find dates for.

I don't think it's hard to date it. I see no evidence that it is not when it appears to be.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/04/2013 5:11 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
I don't see anything suspicious about the terms "enlightenment" and "enlightened" in the context of the Introduction. He seems to be using them in a commonplace sense, like in the phrase "he has enlightened views on social issues", as opposed to "benighted" or ignorant ones. Moreover, the term is not capitalized, which we might expect if he were using it in a technical spiritual sense.

I'm half-ass tempted to try and catalog all of the times he used the term, especially when referring to himself.

"belmurru" wrote:
So, I really can't see why there should be any suspicion that the date of the writing of the 1938 Introduction is not between late 1936 and early 1938. 

Whatever the date is, it's quite fine with me. My intention was never to challenge the date, but to only attempt to ascertain it. I'm more than willing to accept that it was written between 1936-1938 and published in 1938.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
10/04/2013 5:19 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm half-ass tempted to try and catalog all of the times he used the term, especially when referring to himself.

LOl - best of luck to you! Unless you happen to have most of his works in machine-readable format, then it should just be tedium, but not impossible. I think he uses it a couple of times, at least, in The Book of Lies. That might be a good place to start. Working backwards, it seems The Equinox might have some too. You can definitely search those volumes for keywords, since Bill Heidrick nicely ASCII'd them in long ago.

"belmurru" wrote:
So, I really can't see why there should be any suspicion that the date of the writing of the 1938 Introduction is not between late 1936 and early 1938. 

Whatever the date is, it's quite fine with me. My intention was never to challenge the date, but to only attempt to ascertain it. I'm more than willing to accept that it was written between 1936-1938 and published in 1938.

Ah, good. I really wondered where your dogged suspicion came from.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/04/2013 5:26 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm half-ass tempted to try and catalog all of the times he used the term, especially when referring to himself.

LOl - best of luck to you! Unless you happen to have most of his works in machine-readable format, then it should just be tedium, but not impossible. I think he uses it a couple of times, at least, in The Book of Lies. That might be a good place to start.

Half-assed. I'm not insane LOL But if I just so happen to come across it while reading any of his works, I'll place the citations in this thread (and others may too!).

"belmurru" wrote:
So, I really can't see why there should be any suspicion that the date of the writing of the 1938 Introduction is not between late 1936 and early 1938. 

Whatever the date is, it's quite fine with me. My intention was never to challenge the date, but to only attempt to ascertain it. I'm more than willing to accept that it was written between 1936-1938 and published in 1938.

Ah, good. I really wondered where your dogged suspicion came from.

Mainly, that in the Introduction he makes an open claim to "enlightenment". So, let's say he wrote that when he was still with the Golden Dawn, at 4=7, for example. Well, if that were true (which we've ascertained it's not), then what would it say about the rest of the Grades?

That he made the claim in the 1930s, many years after the 1921 Ipssisimus 'event', is no surprise, and not even dramatic.

Basically, that he makes the claim at 10=1, is perfectly okay. If he made the claim before that, then that brings with it the question, "What exactly is he calling enlightenment?"


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
10/04/2013 5:50 pm  

Talking of dates, and the fact that we are in the 3rd day of the anniversary of the writing of The Book of the Law (or so it is alleged), does anybody have anything to say about the fact that the dictation is really meant to have occurred on 1st, 2nd and 3rd April but Crowley changed the dates because he didn’t want anyone to think Rose was involved with him in an exotic April Fool’s? 

I don’t have the reference materials to hand at the moment, but I think Crowley mentions the matter in The Equinox of the Gods somewhere.  Kenneth Grant also referred to the matter in an early chapter (3 or 4, I think) in Beyond The Mauve Zone – but I don’t have it to hand this moment either.

With one eye on the calendar,
Norma N. Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/04/2013 6:04 pm  

So I did a cursory scan of my hard drive, in the section designated for Crowley's Librii, and found 4 mentions of the term "enlightenment". They are as follows:

"Liber 157 Tao The King" wrote:
Published in 1975 by Weiser as The Equinox Vol. III No. VIII

It is therefore not altogether without confidence that I present this translation of the Tao Teh King to the public. I hope and believe that careful study of the text, as elucidated by my commentary, will enable serious aspirants to the hidden wisdom to understand with fair accuracy what Lao Tze taught. It must however be laid to {10} heart that the essence of his system will inevitably elude intellectual apprehension unless it be illuminated from above by actual living experience of the truth. Such experience is only to be attained by unswerving application to the practices which he advocates. Nor must the aspirant content himself with the mere attainment of spiritual enlightenment, however sublime. All such achievements are barren unless they be regarded as the means rather than the end of spiritual progress, and allowed to infiltrate every detail of the life, not only of the spirit, but of the senses. The Tao can never be known until it interpret the most trivial actions of everyday routine. It is a fatal mistake to discriminate between the spiritual importance of meditation and playing golf. To do so is to create an internal conflict. "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt." He who knows the Tao knows it to be the source of all things soever; the most exalted spiritual ecstasy and the most trivial internal impression are from our point of view equally illusions, worthless masks, which hide, with grotesque painted pasteboard false and lifeless, {11} the living face of truth. Yet, from another point of view, they are equally expressions of the ecstatic genius of truth -- natural images of the reaction between the essence of onesself and one's particular environment at the moment of their occurrence. They are equally tokens of the Tao, by whom, in whom, and of whom, they are. To value them for themselves is deny the Tao and to be lost in delusion. To despise them is to deny the omnipresence of the Tao, and to suffer the illusion of sorrow. To discriminate between them is to set up the accursèd dyad, to permit the insanity of intellect, to overwhelm the intuition of truth, and to create civil war in the consciousness.

"Liber 418" wrote:
3rd Aethyr - December 17, 1909. 9:30 - 11:30 a.m.

And now the shew-stone is all clear and beautiful again.
The pure pale gold of a fair maiden's hair, and the green of her girdle, and the deep soft blue of her eyes.
Note. --- In this the gold is Kether, the blue is Chokmah, the green is Binah.
Thus she appeareth in the Aethyr, adorned with flowers and gems. It seems that she hath incarnated herself upon earth, and that she will appear manifest in a certain office in the Temple.
I have seen some picture like her face; I cannot think what picture. It is a piquant face, with smiling eyes and lips; the ears are small and pink, the complexion is fair, but not transparent; not as fair as one would expect from the hair and eyes. It is rather an impudent face, rather small, very pretty; the nose very slightly less than straight, well- proportioned, rather large nostrils. Full of vitality, the whole thing. Now very tall, rather slim and graceful; a good dancer.
There is another girl behind her, with sparkling eyes, mischievous, a smile showing beautiful white teeth; an ideal Spanish girl, but fair. Very vivacious. Only her head is visible, and now it is veiled by a black sun, casting forth dull rays of black and gold.
Then the disk of the sun is a pair of balances, held steady; and twined about the central pole of the balance is the little green poisonous snake, with a long forked tongue rapidly darting {27}.

27. It would be improper in this place to comment upon these prophecies. The student may seek enlightenment in "The Urn".

The Urn does not contain the actual word "enlightenment".

"Liber 418" wrote:
12th Aethyr - December 4 - 5, 1909. 11:30 p.m. - 1:20 a.m.

This is that which is written, "O my God, in one last rapture let me attain to the union with the many.6" For she is Love, and her love is one, and she hath divided the one love into infinite loves, and each love is one, and equal to The One, and therefore is she passed "from the assembly and the law and the enlightenment unto the anarchy of solitude and darkness. For ever thus must she veil the brilliance of Her Self.{7}" O Babylon, Babylon, thou mighty Mother, that ridest upon the crown d beast, let me be drunken upon the wine of thy fornications; let thy kisses wanton me unto death, that even I, thy cup-bearer, may understand.

7. See Liber VII, Cap. VII, vv 43 - 44.

"Liber VII" wrote:
Written between 1907-1911. Specific date required if possible. (I don't have it immediately available.)

Liber VII, Cap. VII, vv43-34: "My darling! My darling! away, away beyond the Assembly and the Law and the Enlightenment unto an Anarchy of Solitude and Darkness!
For even thus must we veil the brilliance of our Self."

A note: The search is for the actual term "enlightenment". No variations on the theme (such as Attainment) are under consideration at present. All citations should be Crowley's own writing (not Crowley quotes of other people's writing), and must contain the date of the writing, or the date of its publication at the least.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/04/2013 12:21 pm  

Further to my posting in Reply #13 supra, I have now checked the information sources as mentioned and append the references here in full:

“To this writing we now turn.
"It must have been on the first of April that W. commanded P. (now somewhat cowed) to enter the “temple” exactly at 12 o’clock noon on three successive days, and to write down what he should hear, rising at exactly one o’clock.
"This he did. Immediately on taking his seat the Voice began its Utterance, and ended exactly at the expiration of the hour.”
"These are the three chapters of Liber Legis, and we have nothing to add.”
(‘Genesis of Liber AL’, from The Equinox Of The Gods by A. Crowley, p.87)

"It is important to note that April the first is a date of major significance both in the Mysteries of Freemasonry and of Thelema.  Concerning the latter, April 1st was the date on which, according to Crowley’s account in The Equinox of the Gods, Aiwass began transmitting the Book of the Law.  As if to confirm the fact that the date is not a misprint, first of April is spelled out in full.  It has been a source of puzzlement to more than one student why Crowley had maintained publicly, until 1936*, that Aiwass had begun the dictation of AL on April 8th.  Frater Achad suggested that Crowley was not slow to foresee the inevitable jibes arising from an April Fool joke perpetrated on him by his wife Rose whilst on their honeymoon.  Crowley did have a conscience about all matters pertaining to Liber AL and the Great Work, and when it came to the final reckoning he let stand what he knew to be the true date in a publication purporting to contain a precise documentation of the events that occurred in Cairo on April 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 1904.  And it has become apparent over the years that Frater Achad guessed correctly the reason for this hitherto unexplained discrepancy in dating AL’s origin."
(from Chapter 2, “The Masonic Masque” in Beyond The Mauve Zone by K. Grant, p.34.)

*A footnote details: “The date of the publication of The Equinox of the Gods.  Although re-issued in 1937, the book carried an extended errata list which did not refer to the first of April date.  It is inconceivable that it would have passed unnoticed by Crowley a second time if the date had been erroneous.”

Outside the circles of time (?),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
11/04/2013 1:57 pm  

Interesting points Grant makes. It is puzzling that "first of April" is "spelled out in full" in Equinox of the Gods, whereas the first publication of this text, more or less taken over verbatim, in "The Temple of Solomon the King" in The Equinox, I, 7, p. 386, does, apparently, say "7th of April". I say "apparently" because I am relying on a PDF of the text and not a first edition or facsimile. Perhaps someone can confirm it.

It is difficult to imagine that a handwritten "7th" could be misinterpreted as "first", unless the typesetter were in the habit of spelling out abbreviations, and a "1" looked like a "7".

The Big Blue Brick, 1994 edition, page 419, also says "7th of April". The editors note that their text follows the "The Temple of Solomon the King" because it is "more reliable" than Equinox of the Gods.

Whether or not it is "inconceivable" that Crowley would have missed the phrase "first of April" in preparing the errata sheet, if he himself did indeed prepare it, for the 1937 edition, I don't know.

Does anybody know where Achad notes what Grant says?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
11/04/2013 2:05 pm  

I don't see this as either mysterious or ambiguous.

On the first of April the plan was made to do something on 'three [unspecified] successive days' not 'at noon today, tommorrow and the day after'. If the plan were to start immediately Crowley would not have needed to cast his mind back and say 'It must have been...'

The passage quoted says more about the comprehension of Grant and Achad than anything else.

OK 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/04/2013 2:42 pm  

What does it has to do with the date of the introduction?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
11/04/2013 2:50 pm  

Not a speck; I thought that had been resolved. I was responding to arch-derailer Barter.

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/04/2013 2:53 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
Not a speck; I thought that had been resolved. I was responding to arch-derailer Barter.

OK

Oh, okay. De-rail away then, I suppose.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
11/04/2013 3:30 pm  

I'm satisfied of the truth of 8, 9 and 10 April, but whether or not Jamie is trying to derail the thread with goofy Grant stuff, the fact is that the Temple of Solomon the King (1912) says "7th of April" while both "editions" of Equinox of the Gods (1936/1937)  say "first of April". This is the basis for both Achad's unsourced suppositions as well as Grant's comments. It is intrinsically interesting.

OK's interpretation of the sense of "successive days" meaning unspecified days in the future, which I thought of too until I saw this discrepancy for myself, is beside the point. How do we explain how "7th" became "first", and why did Crowley presumably miss it in issuing the 1937 errata? I think both of these questions are tangentially pertinent to the thread, however unresolved the questions, and speculative the discussion, must remain in the absence of further evidence.

My speculation for the absence of the correction in the errata sheet is that Crowley overlooked it. For how "7th" became "first", I think it is impossible to even give a convincing explanation. Accepting that it is an error, anyone can believe what they like about how it happened.

The thread is going to be short in any case - do we need yet another one discussing the "true" date of the writing of the book in order to justify this tangent?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/04/2013 4:32 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Does anybody know where Achad notes what Grant says?

The relevant footnote indicates that the Achad reference given by Grant on page 34 of BTMZ is from “Achad’s ‘Offical’ and ‘Unofficial’ Correspondence concerning the Inauguration of the Aeon of Maat.  Under the bibliography, this is mentioned as “Unpublished letters to Germer, Handel, Kowal, Yorke. 1948. Retained in the Gerald Yorke Collection, Warburg Institute, London.”

"Azidonis" wrote:
What does it has to do with the date of the introduction?

Rather than begin a whole new thread on it, I thought it would go in to the existing one close enough, having at least “Liber AL” and “Date” in common.  I was also under the impression that the original topic had been largely resolved.  I also think the remark is slightly rich too, coming as it does from yourself.

"OKontrair" wrote:
Not a speck; I thought that had been resolved. I was responding to arch-derailer Barter.

Too kind, sir – I am sure the title must belong to someone else.  I am but a relative beginner here!

N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/04/2013 4:40 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
The thread is going to be short in any case

Case closed, imo, thanks to you and Mr. Staley.

As for the original intent of the thread, that of Crowley's open claim to enlightenment, I'm satisfied that this occurred in a paper written after 1921. Citations of such a claim being made by Crowley prior to 1921 are worthy of speculation, in my view, and are worthy of their own dedicated thread.

That said, this thread can be locked at any time...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
12/04/2013 12:13 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
. . . goofy Grant stuff . . .

This is incorrect.

When Grant raised the matter of April 1st in Beyond the Mauve Zone, it was presented as being speculative rather than a matter of fact. He was in fact drawing upon references in letters from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke in 1948, where Jones was drawing attention to Crowley's reference in The Equinox of the Gods to when he was commanded to enter the Temple on three subsequent successive days; Crowley's account is substantially that of his account in The Temple of Solomon the King in The Equinox Vol I No 7, with the dates changed from 7th to 1st April. Unless you have access to the first edition of The Equinox of the Gods then you may be unaware of this, since it has been silently edited by the copyright holder in posthumous editions.

Jones never proposed that these were the dates when The Book of the Law was actually transmitted; he was merely drawing attention to a discrepancy.

Kenneth was well aware of the fact that, this one discrepancy in dating notwithstanding, Crowley continued throughout his life to celebrate April 8th, 9th and 10th as being the anniversary of the reception of The Book of the Law. Had Grant been putting forward the early April dating of the reception as being the true date, then your reference to "goofy Grant stuff" would have some justification. Since he wasn't, then it doesn't.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
12/04/2013 9:43 am  

thanks for the clarification Herr Staley...


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
12/04/2013 11:30 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
This is incorrect.

When Grant raised the matter of April 1st in Beyond the Mauve Zone, it was presented as being speculative rather than a matter of fact.

"... the fact that the date is not a misprint". That date is "first of April".

I see no hint that Grant is presenting his own opinions as speculation in the passage in Beyond the Mauve Zone quoted by Jamie. He does not use the terms "might have", "could have", or "maybe". Rather, I don't see how it can be read as anything other than Grant's clear affirmation of Jones' speculations as to why the term "first of April" is present in The Equinox of the Gods.

Temple of Solomon the King, "7th of April" (Equinox I,7, page 386).
Equinox of the Gods, "first of April" (page 87).

According to Grant in the passage cited, Jones noted the Equinox of the Gods date, thought that the contradiction between this and the traditional dates meant that Crowley was embarrassed by the fact that it happened on April 1, and so held publically until 1936 that it was on April 7 he got the order, and April 8, 9 and 10 he got the book.

Grant notes Jones' opinion, and adds his own, as further confirmation. He notes that Crowley did not correct the date "first of April" in the Equinox of the Gods, even when he got the chance with the errata sheet of the reissue of the book in 1937. Grant takes this to be confirmation that it was the "true date" (Grant's words).

Grant also notes that "it has become apparent over the years" that Jones' explanation for the reason for the change from April 1 to 7 shows that he had "guessed correctly the reason for this hitherto unexplained discrepancy in dating AL's origin" (Grant's words, not Jones').

I myself find Jones' explanation for why Equinox of the Gods says "first of April" to be utterly ludicrous, but Grant accepts it - "frater Achad guessed correctly the reason" - and adds the further proofs of Crowley's leaving "first of April" in the text of Equinox of the Gods, along with an allusion to the significance of the date in "the mysteries of Freemasonry and of Thelema".

From the passage as quoted by Jamie, I don't see how it can be read as anything other than Grant affirming that Jones was right, and that "in the final reckoning" (that in the Equinox of the Gods) Crowley "let stand what he knew to be the true date ... of the events that occurred in Cairo on April 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1904". Grant adds that it is "inconceivable" (a strong word) that Crowley would not have corrected "first of April" if that date had been wrong.

From this last passage we may further infer that Grant believed that Liber Legis was received beginning on April 1.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/04/2013 12:32 pm  

This is all very interesting, because contradictory within the terms of reference already given.

To begin with, I think it was rather unfair of belmurru to dismiss it as “goofy Grant stuff” when he himself expressed in Reply #16: “interesting points Grant makes.”

However I absolutely agree with him when he queries with Michael that the matter was presented by KG as “speculative”. In addition to the sentence containing “the fact” that the date is not a misprint, the other evidence of KG’s own words indicates that the majority of what he had to say was clearly nothing of the sort, as also evidenced for example by the first sentence quoted:

"It is important to note that April the first is a date of major significance both in the Mysteries of Freemasonry and of Thelema."

Just exactly what is of “major significance” in Thelema about the “first of April” otherwise?

I accept “three successive days” may not necessarily mean commencing on that day, i.e., 1st April, but neither can it be altogether ruled out.  But even if so, unfortunately that would not negate the whole issue under consideration and therefore this particular matter does not really matter much one way or the other here, since we simply do not know (if “successive” pertains to the same day, or not.)

For my part, seeing that the Invocation of Horus took place at the Spring Equinox, I cannot see why there should be a further week’s (unnecessary) delay which would take the date beyond April 1st, especially when the text itself recommends haste in places, e.g. “Do this quickly!”

The matter of 7th April is another curious anomaly, but similarly peripheral although not irrelevant to the matter under consideration.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Kenneth was well aware of the fact that, this one discrepancy in dating notwithstanding, Crowley continued throughout his life to celebrate April 8th, 9th and 10th as being the anniversary of the reception of The Book of the Law.

Would there happen to be any written or other evidence which points to this?  That would be useful in providing some further clarification.  Otherwise, on what basis can this statement be made?  It would also be useful to have the source materials indicated by:

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
He was in fact drawing upon references in letters from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke in 1948, where Jones was drawing attention to Crowley's reference in The Equinox of the Gods to when he was commanded to enter the Temple on three subsequent successive days;

It is educational to know that the Typhonians now seem to officially celebrate the writing of The Book of the Law to have been on April 8th – 9th – 10th.  However it would be interesting to also know if KG himself perhaps commemorated the 3 days writing of The Book of the Law within the TOTO on those same dates.  But even if he did, it still does not relate well with the undue weight which, in the circumstances, he places on first of April.

"belmurru" wrote:
Grant notes Jones' opinion, and adds his own, as further confirmation. He notes that Crowley did not correct the date "first of April" in the Equinox of the Gods, even when he got the chance with the errata sheet of the reissue of the book in 1937. Grant takes this to be confirmation that it was the "true date" (Grant's words).

Indeed Grant does state “true date” in relation to “what Crowley knew” about April 1st – 2nd – 3rd.

"belmurru" wrote:
I myself find Jones' explanation for why Equinox of the Gods says "first of April" to be utterly ludicrous, but Grant accepts it - "frater Achad guessed correctly the reason" - and adds the further proofs of Crowley's leaving "first of April" in the text of Equinox of the Gods, along with an allusion to the significance of the date in "the mysteries of Freemasonry and of Thelema".

From the passage as quoted by Jamie, I don't see how it can be read as anything other than Grant affirming that Jones was right, and that "in the final reckoning" (that in the Equinox of the Gods) Crowley "let stand what he knew to be the true date ... of the events that occurred in Cairo on April 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1904". Grant adds that it is "inconceivable" (a strong word) that Crowley would not have corrected "first of April" if that date had been wrong.

From this last passage we may further infer that Grant believed that Liber Legis was received beginning on April 1.

I do not myself find Jones/ Achad’s explanation “utterly ludicrous” – in a way I think it would be sublimely & screamingly hilarious if it was to be discovered that April 1st– 2nd– 3rd was the real date of the reception of The Book of the Law, as opposed to April 8th –9th –10th.  It would be the ultimate April Fool’s joke in perpetuity and somehow fit in with the almost fortean level of uncertainty attending so much which is connected with what we recognise as the system of Thelema, and which still appears to have an ever-increasing and entrancing hold over so many intelligent and sceptical Thelemites.  And I write as someone who has observed the 3 days feast on April 8th – 9th – 10th for twenty seven consecutive years including this one! 

But ever had the feeling you’re being blithely led up the garden path by somebody?
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
17/04/2013 1:38 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
To begin with, I think it was rather unfair of belmurru to dismiss it as “goofy Grant stuff” when he himself expressed in Reply #16: “interesting points Grant makes.”

I do not myself find Jones/ Achad’s explanation “utterly ludicrous” –

What I meant by "goofy" was Grant's concession that Jones was right about the reason -

"Frater Achad suggested that Crowley was not slow to foresee the inevitable jibes arising from an April Fool joke perpetrated on him by his wife Rose whilst on their honeymoon."

So, we are to believe that Crowley was afraid that somebody might think, because of the date April 1, that the whole thing was a joke by Rose? Who in their right mind could even imagine Rose dictating the book to him, or something, or whatever? To me it really is a ludicrous suggestion, and it was goofy of Grant to assert that it was right.

Crowley was not afraid of the symbolism of April 1 - he makes it part of his interpretation of the Fool card in The Book of Thoth, pp. 56-57. It's brief, and it's hard to read anything into it that might obliquely refer to the reception date of the Book of the Law.

Grant's "interesting points" are that the date "first of April" is "spelled out in full",  and that Crowley didn't correct the date when he had the chance, on the errata sheet of 1937. The questions raised by these points do demand an explanation.

So I don't think I contradicted myself when I wrote that Grant had both some goofy stuff as well as some interesting stuff in this passage.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/04/2013 2:40 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
So I don't think I contradicted myself when I wrote that Grant had both some goofy stuff as well as some interesting stuff in this passage.

Fine by me, belmurru!  However Micheal may still possibly take further umbrage at "goofy" & certain questions still need to be answered by somebody somehow... 

Don't they?!

Enquiringly yours,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
17/04/2013 3:19 pm  

I owe you an apology, belmurru, insofar as in the relevant passages in Beyond the Mauve Zone Kenneth wrote affirmatively rather than speculatively as I had previously maintained. I hadn't read the book since it was published, and unfortunately my recall wasn't accurate.

I'm presently preparing the Jones-Yorke correspondence for publication later this year, and only this morning noted that throughout the earlier portion of the correspondence, Jones referred to the reception as taking place on April 8th, 9th and 10th. It's only later in the correspondence, on 24th May 1948, that he first mentioned the reference in The Equinox of the Gods to the "first of April" as being the date when he was asked by Rose to go into the Temple on three successive days.

By his own account Jones never had a copy of the published The Equinox of the Gods, but only unnumbered page proofs which Crowley had sent him earlier in 1936.

Jamie, re your request for evidence that Crowley observed April 8th, 9th and 10th as the anniversary dates, over the years I've come across this in letters and diaries. I'm too busy at present to tabulate it for you, but I'm sure that if you spent a day or two browsing in the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warbug you'd see that for yourself.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
17/04/2013 3:22 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Don't they?!

Not really.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
He was in fact drawing upon references in letters from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke in 1948, where Jones was drawing attention to Crowley's reference in The Equinox of the Gods to when he was commanded to enter the Temple on three subsequent successive days;

The word 'subsequent' in this quote from Achad is an unwarranted inclusion and does not come from The Equinox of the Gods.

And in any case if the order came on the 7th with the result that reception was on the 8,9,10th then an order on the first would mean the reception came on the 2,3,4th not the 1,2,3rd.

On p.116 of the 1936 EOG Crowley says:

“April 7. Not later than this date I was ordered to enter the "temple" exactly at noon on the three days following and write down .... etc.”

comparing this with the equally tentative ‘It must have been on the first of April that W ….” quote from p.87 of the same edition of the same book I would conclude that AC just doesn’t remember exactly when the arrangements were made and, to his credit, does not insist firmly that he does.  Nowhere does AC deviate from 8,9,10th date for the reception itself as opposed to the preliminary arrangements.

OK


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
17/04/2013 3:32 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
The word 'subsequent' in this quote from Achad is an unwarranted inclusion and does not come from The Equinox of the Gods.

Yes, it is unwarranted, but it was an inclusion on my part, not by Achad.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/04/2013 4:28 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Don't they?!

Not really.

Not really o’riley?  In what sense?  Questions have been raised.  Somebody somehow should be called to account for how this unusual situation arose, if at all possible.  This is difficult with dead men’s shoes and limited light has been shed on the exact degree of involvement of either Achad, Grant or Crowley, although Michael seems to have answered as far as it is in his ability to do so.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm presently preparing the Jones-Yorke correspondence for publication later this year, and only this morning noted that throughout the earlier portion of the correspondence, Jones referred to the reception as taking place on April 8th, 9th and 10th. It's only later in the correspondence, on 24th May 1948, that he first mentioned the reference in The Equinox of the Gods to the "first of April" as being the date when he was asked by Rose to go into the Temple on three successive days.

Might the actual letter of Jones of 24th May, 1948 (or mentions in similar correspondence, as you appear to be editing them for publication) throw any further light upon the situation?  As Grant appears to be relying upon this for his information there may be something of value contained within somewhere…

With regard to A.C. “entering the temple”, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that Rose ‘seered’ at some point in the same morning before noon with a view to the “successive days” beginning there & then.  I would have thought the instruction a tad unlikely myself ("Get your ass in temple by midday or it will go the worse for you!"), but it cannot be dismissed as altogether impossible.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Jamie, re your request for evidence that Crowley observed April 8th, 9th and 10th as the anniversary dates, over the years I've come across this in letters and diaries. I'm too busy at present to tabulate it for you, but I'm sure that if you spent a day or two browsing in the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warbug you'd see that for yourself.

This is possibly true.  But I think I have left behind the days when I would spend "a day or two browsing" at the illustrious Warburg & and am not planning on trugging over there to check on that one thing – possibly some other kind soul might have (access to) the information relating to   

Who's fooling who?!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/04/2013 4:38 pm  

I omitted to mention that we are still no clearer why April the first is of "major significance" to Thelema.  The only other reference is that alluding to The Fool in The Book of Thoth, which came out three years before AC died & forty years after the alleged reception.

I ask again, of whomsover: what (other) "major significant" Thelemic dates coincide with this one (the first of April)?

N. Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
17/04/2013 5:16 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I owe you an apology, belmurru, insofar as in the relevant passages in Beyond the Mauve Zone Kenneth wrote affirmatively rather than speculatively as I had previously maintained. I hadn't read the book since it was published, and unfortunately my recall wasn't accurate.

Thanks. As for the significance of the quote, to what extent Grant believed it, I have to accept what you say that he always kept to the traditional 8, 9 and 10 April. I can only surmise that, like most of us, he was capable of contradicting himself thoughtlessly.

Nevertheless, the "spelled out in full" insight is good. Crowley could easily have overlooked the date in writing out the errata sheet (if he did, I don't know - could it have been someone else?), but how can "7th" become "first"? It was all printed already in "The Temple of Solomon of the King" in 1912. I don't believe Crowley had to hand-transcribe the whole thing again, which might indicate then that a typesetter saw "7th" badly handwritten as "1st" and decided to spell it out in full. I don't think he had to transcribe directly from the diary again also because the versification of the stele in Equinox of the Gods seems to be printed directly from that used in the Equinox I,7 because it includes the "REVELLING" mispelling in the title.

Something happened to turn "7th" into "first", and I don't think it was Crowley's memory being jogged. It just doesn't matter, really.

It's a pedantic question, but pedantry can be a fun game.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
17/04/2013 5:27 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I omitted to mention that we are still no clearer why April the first is of "major significance" to Thelema.  The only other reference is that alluding to The Fool in The Book of Thoth, which came out three years before AC died & forty years after the alleged reception.

I ask again, of whomsover: what (other) "major significant" Thelemic dates coincide with this one (the first of April)?

N. Joy

Nothing springs to mind while fishing about for an event of major significance to the mysteries of Thelema on April 1st. Perhaps Grant was thinking about the fish, pesce, poisson d'avril, Fool card and whatnot, and perhaps this paragraph was itself intended to be the demonstration of the assertion that the date was important in Thelema. 

But Grant also mentions Freemasonry, so maybe we can also search there for what is significant about April 1st.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/04/2013 12:16 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
What I meant by "goofy" was Grant's concession that Jones was right about the reason -

"Frater Achad suggested that Crowley was not slow to foresee the inevitable jibes arising from an April Fool joke perpetrated on him by his wife Rose whilst on their honeymoon."

So, we are to believe that Crowley was afraid that somebody might think, because of the date April 1, that the whole thing was a joke by Rose? Who in their right mind could even imagine Rose dictating the book to him, or something, or whatever? To me it really is a ludicrous suggestion, and it was goofy of Grant to assert that it was right.

I think Achad was slightly off the mark with his comment but still in the same ball-park.  It is my understanding (for argument’s sake taking the position of temporarily believing that the dictation did not occur on April 8th–9th–10th) that A.C. was not slow to foresee the inevitable jibes arising from an April Fool joke perpetrated by himself on the rest of the world at large whom he thought might imagine the remainder of his account and the whole of Liber AL to be concocted as some sort of monumental piss-take/ ‘put on’.  I don’t know why Achad should bring Rose into it – as she seems a bit of a red herring as far as the April Fool's itself is concerned – however it is not too far removed from the realms of possibility that Crowley would be sensitive to all of the implications around the date & initially changed it to the week following in order to prevent just such a general misinterpretation and dismissal.  Perhaps by 1936 he may have considered enough time had passed & Liber AL to have already found a sufficient modicum of acceptance by then to justify his ‘coming clean’ about the real date and allow the truth to be told for posterity.  Just a thought.

Also just for argument’s sake, should 1st–2nd–3rd April somehow turn out to be correct, would it actually change things very much once people got accustomed to the idea?  There may be some astrological divergence entailed, but nothing of a dramatic nature I would venture.  Nobody knows the true date of birth of the semi-mythical character known as Jesus Christ either but it has been assumed for centuries for reasons which have pagan antecedence to have been December 25th.  But if it was proven to be say in March, I doubt whether Christians everywhere would feel a great urge to change their inclination to worship “Christmas” in December.  (Let alone the chaos it would cause to commerce, of course, and "‘ditto" in the matter of changing 'fill' to 'kill', too.)

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Had Grant been putting forward the early April dating of the reception as being the true date, then your reference to "goofy Grant stuff" would have some justification. Since he wasn't, then it doesn't.

It would be instructive, especially for beginners to Grant, to know which aspects of his works that his lineal successor regards as "justifiably goofy" so that they/we could bear it in mind as a caveat.  In view of previous comments that KG was writing "fantasy" as opposed to fact, a list might prove useful indicating either the issues as a whole (e.g., reception of S'lba material, Necronomicon, Tunnels of Set?) or passages, pages and/or chapters in the relevant books themselves to which this assessment could refer?

It appears that I should have made a separate thread of this after all: had I known it was likely to continue to over double the length of the original topic I would naturally have done so, but I (wrongly) assumed the matter might have been cleared up over a couple of replies.  If it is likely to continue much further it may be an idea, Paul, to perhaps remove Replies 13, 15-17 inclusive, and 21 onwards (except for 23) to a different thread?  If so, apologies for any inconvenience caused to anyone!  I genuinely thought there would be a simple explanation which would obviate the need for any protracted enquiry.  But

Goofy is as goofy does!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
22/04/2013 1:02 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
It would be instructive, especially for beginners to Grant, to know which aspects of his works that his lineal successor regards as "justifiably goofy" so that they/we could bear it in mind as a caveat.  In view of previous comments that KG was writing "fantasy" as opposed to fact, a list might prove useful indicating either the issues as a whole (e.g., reception of S'lba material, Necronomicon, Tunnels of Set?) or passages, pages and/or chapters in the relevant books themselves to which this assessment could refer?

Permit me to perhaps make things a little easier:

Goofy stuff
S’lba / Okbish material (?)
Necronomicon / HPL stuff
Tunnels of Set (mainly)
The ‘History’ of N.I.L.
The ‘plus one’ or ‘minus one’ School of inexact Qabalah
(or double it/ take away the number you first thought of)

Not so Goofy stuff
Atavistic resurgence
Zos Kia Cultus/ AOS
Aeonic Theory (mostly)
‘Orientalism’
Dream/ Sleep work
Sirian connection
Steffi’s artwork
Relevance of Surrealism

Open Verdict (undecided as yet)
Lam
The Enlightenment Intensive
Kalas

Now that I’ve made it all a lot more straightfoward, Michael or anyone else can take issue with any of the (my) categories, or add some of their own.  The lists above are not definitive.  What fun!

I know this has gone off the thread, but now I frankly no longer care with this one!  So sorry!  Things have got that far, so don’t anybody moan about it.  (Paul, you are of course excepted!)  I know this has now gone off the thread, but frankly I no longer care with this one!  So sorry!  Things have got that far, so don’t anybody moan about it.  (Paul, you are of course excepted!)  But just in case anyone should think I am not scrupulous (are you paying attention, OKontrair?), I have in several places tried to ensure as much ‘order’ in this regard as possible: e.g., to give one instance, not confusing Crowley copyrights with ‘The Crowley-Harris Paintings’ in ‘THE CROWLEY-HARRIS PAINTINGS” thread (q.v.)

Aw shucks Garn (is that what Goofy might say?  There appears to be no Latin phrase for it),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
18/05/2013 5:45 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Unless you have access to the first edition of The Equinox of the Gods then you may be unaware of this, since it has been silently edited by the copyright holder in posthumous editions.

Actually, it's in the 1936 1st Edition, the 1937 Edition, the 1956 Edition (that used remaining uncut unbound copies from 1937), the 1975 Gordon Press editon and an anonymous pirated 1970's hardback reproduction that has the Stele plates in B&W instead of in color, and has a 100% sized reproduction of Liber XXXI bound as the final pages of the book (instead of in an envelope pasted on the rear end-paper or back cover).


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
18/05/2013 9:53 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Unless you have access to the first edition of The Equinox of the Gods then you may be unaware of this, since it has been silently edited by the copyright holder in posthumous editions.

Actually, it's in the 1936 1st Edition, the 1937 Edition, the 1956 Edition (that used remaining uncut unbound copies from 1937), the 1975 Gordon Press editon and an anonymous pirated 1970's hardback reproduction that has the Stele plates in B&W instead of in color, and has a 100% sized reproduction of Liber XXXI bound as the final pages of the book (instead of in an envelope pasted on the rear end-paper or back cover).

Many thanks for the elaboration, Walter.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
18/05/2013 5:35 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Unless you have access to the first edition of The Equinox of the Gods then you may be unaware of this, since it has been silently edited by the copyright holder in posthumous editions.

Actually, it's in the 1936 1st Edition, the 1937 Edition, the 1956 Edition (that used remaining uncut unbound copies from 1937), the 1975 Gordon Press editon and an anonymous pirated 1970's hardback reproduction that has the Stele plates in B&W instead of in color, and has a 100% sized reproduction of Liber XXXI bound as the final pages of the book (instead of in an envelope pasted on the rear end-paper or back cover).

Many thanks for the elaboration, Walter.

You're quite welcome. I've been doing some studying on this. I wasn't even aware of the pirated 70's version, I found it listed from an Australian dealer for $250 the other day. Looking at it, I wonder if it's the same printer/binder that did a similar reproduction of "White Stains" about the same time.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/05/2013 7:38 pm  

Well, I own an edition of The Equinox of the Gods in white, presumably from the 70s e.v., with the stele in b/w, but it does have the Liber AL sheets in an envelope in the back. Is this yet another edition?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
18/05/2013 8:17 pm  

Does yours have the A.'.A.'. sigil on the cover between "The Equinox" and "Of The Gods", or does it just have the cover title in gold letters?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/05/2013 8:32 pm  

No sigil on the cover, just the title. It's a pretty fine edition actually. Some of the left hand pages aren't printed so well. But the loose AL sheets are printed very well. The cover page of the loose sheets is a little thicker than the rest of the pages. Got it really cheap off ebay recently and am quite happy about it 🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
18/05/2013 9:08 pm  

I saw a copy of that edition - gold lettering on the front of the book - in a Chicago occult bookshop in 2010. It was being marketed as a first edition of The Equinox of the Gods. I discussed this with the manager, assuring her that whatever it was, it wasn't a first edition, but she didn't seem particularly interested.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
19/05/2013 5:14 pm  
"terra_trema" wrote:
No sigil on the cover, just the title. It's a pretty fine edition actually. Some of the left hand pages aren't printed so well. But the loose AL sheets are printed very well. The cover page of the loose sheets is a little thicker than the rest of the pages. Got it really cheap off ebay recently and am quite happy about it 🙂

That's the puppy. It is a pretty fine reproduction. Interesting that it has a loose sheet variation of the printing, that's *bound* to have confused many would-be purchasers in the 30-odd years since its publication (you should pardon the pun).


ReplyQuote