Oh, that... Yeah, I used to, er, do that too...sometimes...

😯

Still half asleep - thanks (also to Richard) for pointing it out!

RT Cole, have you had access to the manuscript? and have you any evidence to back up the 1906 date for the paper?

The $64,000 question, of course, is: Do any photographs exist of the pages that clearly show this 1906 watermark? One might need to back-light the pages, or resort to other high-tech methods, to get a decent image of such a faint feature. I have a feeling the current owners of the manuscript might have a problem with beta-radiography, for example! 🙂

Might it be remotely possible that watermarks could be hiding in existing high-res scans or photographs in books? Time for some image processing....

Yes. Casts the term "THE METHOD OF SCIENCE, THE AIM OF RELIGION" in a new light, doesn't it . . .

I just wish Richard didn't post this on 1st April...

well spotted paul 🙂

the watermark is visible in high res scan, (esp. under , none breather the light..etc pg 7) with standard typewriter /or typewriting around a sheild topped with a crown and alex p something and sons london...but no sign of a date that i can see.

This topic came up three years ago on Jerry Cornelius' blog, oddly enough, just about this time of the year; there is a reverse scan of one of the pages that shows the watermark:

http://www.cornelius93.com/Blog08-4April1.html

If the title page is a sheet of stationary from a hotel, it is slightly problematic as far as the title of the book is concerned. We know that Crowley was instructed to write whatever he heard starting at noon on April eighth, and according to his commentaries, he heard Aiwass say Liber L, only to assume later that he misunderstood Aiwass, convinced that Aiwass had said Liber El, (Liber Al). If Aiwass stated the title of the book first, then why was it not written down on one of the sheets of the holograph? Of course, all of this depends on the title page actually being hotel stationary, which would explain why the page was treated differently than the rest of the pages, meaning the doodling and liquid stain.

It's interesting how the views of so many with regard to Thelema depend upon when, where by whom Liber AL was really written.

Out of all of this comes a remarkable find. I had noticed the watermarks on the pages in the first chapter of the Liber L holograph when examining the centennial edition of the Book of the Law printed by Red Wheel Weiser, due to the excellent quality of the facsimile included with it; it never occurred to me to examine the watermarks on all of the pages. What a close examination of the pages with a magnifier shows is the watermarks are all upside down on the pages in second and third chapters, which is strong circumstantial evidence the stack of blank sheets was inverted between the time the first and second chapters were written, an indication the chapters were written on different days. 🙂

Tim

Considering Crowley's own emphasis on not only the reception of AL but also the fact that he attacks followers of other religions for having not only doctored the writings of their Prophets but also their origin stories and in many ways base the authenticity of his movement on this being set in stone, I don't find this surprising at all.

That being said, as there is no actual water-mark with "1906" on it as far as I know I doubt that this is anything but an april fools joke. If it is not I would like to have some good documentary evidence as it would be the most important historical find in the movement of Thelema since the death of its founder.

To me the regular manifestations of the fraudulent nature of the reception of AL having been proved claim, reminds me too much of the constant outpouring of Jesus' family grave has just been discovered and other most important archeological finds ever, for me to be anything but a skeptic before I have seen more evidence and evaluated it myself. After all, despite the best efforts of various people, these claims either still lacks the evidence they have promised to come forth with or they have been disproven.

Paper bearing this watermark was commonplace throughout Britain by 1888.

Here is a link to their "Conqueror" watermark (scroll down the page to the year 1888):

http://thepapeterie.com/stoneywood_mill_19_century.aspx

To read the Liber Legis watermark on p.65 of ch.3, one has to save it in an image program, turn it upside down and reverse it, then adjust the contrast and gamma correction just slightly. It reads "Standard" atop, "Typewriter" beneath the watermark of Alex Pirie & Sons, London. But no year is stamped anywhere.

Watermarks can be dated quite accurately in many cases. I'd be very surprised if this was an exception, given how recent it was and the fact that the company is still around.

It'd be ungentlemanly of me to reflect upon how incoherent-with-anxiety the news of the "post-Annunciation Myth" provenance of Al may make seem to make some people, so instead I'll just re-assert what I've said for quite some time, which is that in my view, I couldn't care whether it was written over an eleven year period with substantial revision, or on three days in a single sitting for each, exactly as published in the first-person, witness-free account of its infallible, semi-divine author, who of course would never ever ever lie about anything, especially not if he was going to invent a religion - no, that would be wrong, and Aleister was a - well, he was a Magus, wasn't he. It's the value of its contents, myth, bathwater and all, that is where the magick lies.

Actually I'd be quite pleased if it was in fact proven to be 1906 paper, because it would enable me to laugh coldly and magnificently whilst stroking my beard, and I'm always up for that sort of thing.

[Citation needed] 🙂

JT, do you have any source which would confirm that the watermark in use since 1888 is identical to that on the Al Manuscript?

the watermark image listed as coming into use in 1888 on the stoneywood papermill site is totally different.

Ah thanks Davy, I didn't realize it was a different watermark from the 1888 one.

That's not the impression I have from the participants in this thread. Although considerations of the provenance of The Book of the Law are certainly interesting, it's the content and meaning of the Book which is of primary interest to myself and, I think, many others.

I've been aware of this watermark issue for some time now, and like many I'm interested to see where it leads.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Likewise.

Anyone know when the 65 sheets were backed with linen, making analysis of the watermark, er, "tricky"?

I suppose it all depends on the conclusive evidence that the paper with this particular watermark was actually introduced in 1906. I don't think this should be too difficult to find out.

93,

When you get your hands on the actual MSS please do let us know.

93 93/93

Yes, I've been aware of the issue for some time, as well, Michael. But my observation of the posts to this thread since yesterday differs from your own, not that this matters very much. For example, I take the participation of a number of members who don't come out and play in these forums very often as evidence of more than casual interest, if not serious concern, regarding the ramifications here. Of course there are also those who would be delighted were a hoax to be revealed. These are obvious.

But no, I was thinking not of this thread or these forums, actually, when I posted that comment yesterday, but of the considerable number of Thelemites that I have known over the last 43 years of my being one myself, for so many of whom such a revelation, were it to be substantiated, would be devastating; as it would be to the legacy of Crowley himself, in the eyes of so many.

I differ on this last point, because I see Crowley's post-Cairo Working analysis of the meaning and import of true Will as his crowning achievement. His success as a Prophet is perhaps questionable, judging purely by the results thus far - but it is early yet. His successes as a Magician were good on higher planes while only fair on lower ones, judging by the results either recorded or evident. As a writer on all of these subjects he was outstanding, of course.

As for me, I am assured by the evidence of my own experience that the veracity of the principles of the Law of Thelema stand alone perfectly without support from the story of the genesis of Liber AL, if need be. And this assurance by way of experience extends even to the existence of consciousness independent of the brain, regardless of whether or not the author of Liber AL was an example of such.

In general, I see too many believers among self-identifying Thelemites, and too few knowers, because really knowing requires resolute doubt coupled with the urgency for experiential verification. This is a relatively rare pairing.

I hope Mr. Cole had a good laugh on us all on April 1st........

I found a PDF file online that lists the different watermarks used by Pirie & Sons: if the writing were in the form of script, it would include a date of manufacture, but in the case of block writing, which is used in the watermark of the Liber L sheets, sometimes it had a date, sometimes not, which means the sheets used in the holograph have no date, otherwise it would be visible.

While examining page seven of the first chapter, I could see something illegible immediately beneath the word 'Standard': an examination of page eight revealed what it was after cleaning up the image a little; it's not a date, but the same crown symbol seen in the upper left hand corner on the title page, which debunks Mr Cole's theory (or prank) about the blank sheet used for the title page originating from a different source than the rest of the sheets.

Tim

Tim, whatever with april fools, they are two different paper types, the image here clearly shows the arabic and crown printing on the top right of the cover page;

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=0

which isnt on the manuscript pages..though of course this is no big deal, if there is no evidence for a date of the watermark on the paper of the book itself.

According to the abstract Red Wheel Weiser provides for the Book of the Law, Liber L was written on hotel stationary; the crown symbol on the title page may be a case of the first sheet in a box of hotel stationary having the symbol in the upper left hand corner, while the other sheets have it embedded in the watermark. As far as the sheets being different sizes, I would have to have it confirmed by someone who has actually seen the title page alongside the holograph: if the pages are different sizes, it would not necessarily mean the sheets came from different sources--the first sheet in the stack may have been intentionally larger than the rest.

Tim

If that's what it says, then it contradicts what William Breeze (who is present custodian of the manuscript, as C.E.O. of the corporation bearing the trademark once used by Crowley's order, the O.T.O.) says in his editorial notes to the manuscrupt (in the Blue Brick), where, as Richard has already mentioned, he misleadingly (but more accurately) states that the paper used for most of the manuscript was manufactured by "Alexander Pipie & Sons" of London (the correct name is "Pirie", google them, but google Pipie and you get no result), the first page only being hotel stationary. This has been reasonably established beyond any doubt that the watermark (space-mark?!) is one of theirs.

For those who are new to this sort of thing, watermarks almost never have the date actually printed as part of them (e.g. you won't find "1906" actually present in the design), but they are very often carefully recorded somewhere or other as having particular designs belonging to particular years of manufacture and not others. This enables researchers to date manuscripts going back a very long time, many centuries in fact.

I believe that this matter is presently being investigated by suitably qualified persons and an official pronouncement is due, in due course.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Crowley retrospectively made up the whole annunciation story, and more importantly it wouldn't change my opinion of his work one bit (possibly because I've tried to maintain a realistic perspective on it -and him- from day one). Actually it would probably make me think he was more of a genius than I presently do, which is saying something.

The myth is a good one regardless, there's no need for it to be historically factual to be a powerful "memory" upon which to hang the various religious celebrations, and I'm still going to celebrate the Three Days of the Writing on the days which Crowley's annunciation myth states (8,9,10 April).

What it may affect, though, is the way in which Crowley is viewed by his uncritical "followers" who view and paint him as somehow infallible or completely "scientific", rather than mostly magical and poetic, which I find to be rather different things.

That's only if it is proven the paper dates from not before 1906, of course.

Best regards
N

There is no doubt in my mind the paper used in the title page was made by Pirie & Sons; while researching this issue I came across a book that contained the details of a lawsuit filed against a company that infringed on Pirie & Sons watermark, so they evidently enforced their trademark vigorously.

I have highlighted the portion of the crown symbol that is discernable in the watermark on page eight of the first chapter of the holograph: if you compare the imagery with that of the crown on the title page the similarities are unmistakable. There is even more of the crown visible on page seven.

Tim

It's great that the watermark is so clear, despite the backing of linen.

"Paste the sheets from right to left, top to bottom, with linen - then behold!"

Link, please.

Without joining in the main fray, and going by internet photographs only, I notice that the paper of the cover sheet is laid paper and the main pages seem not to be. You can see the laid paper pattern most clearly in the cover sheet in the dark patch to the left of the smudged blot near 'Legis'.

Although a crown is a crown is a crown I also discern that the crown in the watermark, picked out in red above, is actually more of a Plantagenet style coronet and the crown on the 'hotel cover sheet' paper is a higher grade of crown; the sort with a fabric fill-in and arched superstructure.

OK

I would have posted a link initially, but I was unaware of how to retrieve the link from the Google search string:

http://www.canadianpsgb.org.uk/mpl/mpl-1947-10-v002n01-w005.pd f"> http://www.canadianpsgb.org.uk/mpl/mpl-1947-10-v002n01-w005.pdf

Also, in my haste and state of exhaustion, I was mistaken about the script logo having a watermark, it does not, but the block style logos may or may not have an accompanying date as originally stated.

For a variety of reasons (but mainly because I disliked the design) I don't own a copy of the "Centennial"[sic.?] edition put out by the Caliphate in 2004 e.v..

In the interests of clarity, could somebody who does please confirm that it does indeed state - as herupakraath says above - that The Book of the Law was entirely "written on hotel stationery" - which is clearly not the case? And if so, who authored this "abstract"?

I suspect that herupakraath is actually referring to this "abstract", which appears to combine several errors:

"With his wife Rose as the medium for what would become known as the Cairo Working, Crowley dutifully transcribed the communications on hotel stationery."

--- http://redwheelweiser.com/detail.html?id=9781578633081

Thanks for the clarification. Pretty poor form on the part of Red Wheel.

Not to mention the part about Crowley "who claimed to be re-incarnation of Dr. John Dee among others" and the fact that the sentence that he "lived in England from 1875 through 1947" would indicate (unless my English is really bad) that he lived in England all those 72 years, which is of course incorrect. Really sloppy writing. But I am convinced that Mr. Cole dropped a real April Fools bombshell, comparable, though less annoying, to Barbara Bush joke of a few years ago.

Time will tell, of course, though I'm less convinced that it is an April Fools jape, as those who saw my talk at Treadwells last year on "Crowley's Egypt" may recall…

Paul, do you plan to make the transcript of that talk available? I'm sure that many would be interested in reading it. And in the lieu of the transcript itself, could you summarize your point? It would appear that you are not convinced that the manuscript of the Liber Legis is of 1904 provenance. Could you explain why?

So was anyone able to confirm or deny the claim that the paper on which the manuscript was written can be dated to 1906?

A confirmation would help make sense of Crowley's odd note on the cover page of Liber AL, which claims that the Book "came into my possession in July 1906."

Happy Second Day of the Writing to all.

If the watermark had a date, the logo would read A. Pirie & Sons / (date), which is not the case, so it appears that the theory the paper Liber L is recorded on was manufactured in 1906 is not supported by any evidence, and is seemingly another conspiracy theory that has failed to pan out, like all the rest. 🙄

The 1906 date is a reference to Crowley finding the missing manuscript in the loft at Boleskine.

Correction: This story (including Kenneth Ward, Neuburg, a pair of skis, the Enochian Tablets and so on) takes place on June 28, 1909.

Of course AC had Liber AL in his possession in 1906 (at least as a typescript), as is shown by his using it with Elains Simpson on his travels in Asia (see the Timeline).

Love=Law
Lutz

The watermark would almost never bear an actual date visibly itself, as mentioned earlier; it's likely to be identifiable by design alone if the manufacturer has maintained the records. Until this verification has been done and the results made transparently public, the questions regarding the various anomalies remain unanswered.

There is no evidence that it was written in 1904, except Crowley's retrospective and absent-mindedly-presented "memory", composed years after the events concerned.

I remember Colin S McCleod ("Excoriator") once did some research in this area, and had a website (The Tuat or The Secret Temple) which I remember raised some interesting questions for me back when I saw them. I haven't seen them for ages though. I wonder if they're still around.

Yeah, this is what I was asking about. I guess not yet.

I thought that was a reference to how he lost and then found the text again in 1906.

No. Crowley claimed to have found the text again in 1909. On the cover page, he drew a line from the "came into my possession in July 1906" remark and wrote that "I meant that I would be its master from this date."

This comment makes absolutely no sense (no native English speaker would ever use the phrase "came into my possession" to mean "I am its master") and seems like a very forced attempt to fit the "came into my possession in July 1906" line with the myth.

they myth that it was received in 1904? Are there any references to the text, or references to anyone seeing the text between 1904 and 1906?
Why do you think Crowley wrapped this whole conspiracy around receiving the text in 1904 then?

I don't know, of course, but one possible sequence of events is that Crowley was struck by the Stele 666 when he was in Cairo in 1904, so he had the reproduction made. Then, either at that time or at a later date (1906?) he (and/or someone else?) tried an "automatic writing" exercise based around the Stele (the cover page of Liber Legis describes the Book as "a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing").

The myth could have been invented later, revolving around a "divine reception" event that happened when he was actually in Cairo in 1904, but after the myth had been created, Crowley needed to explain away the "came into my possession in July 1906" remark.

Of course, I'm just speculating here, but even the scenario I describe above is much more likely than the story as Crowley tells it.

there is no doubt that the cover page is a little peculiar, however it clearly states that it was,

"Given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on april 8th 9th and 10th 1904"

underneath which it has smaller notes ... 'this came into my possession in 1906..etc" and signed AC.

this is a bit odd, but is it not simply a case of Crowley, making a distinction between the poet AC, and 'The Beast'?

after all Crowley refering to himself as if the varying personas and names related to his offices were seperate and distinct individuals is hardly unusual in his work.

the 1906 date is in the middle of his production of his collected works (1905-1907) which was where Crowley originally planned to publish Liber AL.

it seems to me perfectly plausible that Crowley intended to publish it in the collected works, but, as is clear from the notes on the cover, he was not presenting it as his own work,

" though I am in no way responsible for any of these (contents??) i publish them among my works, because i believe their intelligent study may be interesting and helpful"

seems to me likely that these notes were made to be included with its printing in the collected works. and that there is no big conspiracy or drama

davy

I'm confused. How is the scenario that Crowley presents any more or less unlikely than the story you speculate?
I don't find it at all unlikely that after he was "struck by the Stele" that he performed a series of invocations that resulted in the reception of the Book of the Law.
What is it you find so particularly unlikely?

The presence of supernatural creatures and events in his story makes his story far, far more unlikely than any mundane explanation of the events.

I don't recall the presence of anything supernatural. The only thing I found difficult to believe was the whole scenario involving the somatic trances his wife fell under that led him to the museum and to the item 666. Difficult to beleive, but certainly not out right impossible.
By supernatural creatures, are you referring to Aiwass? If that's the case, I must ask whether or not you actually practice ceremonial magick. It's not an uncommon scenario for a magician to find himself in the presence of such things, and to receive information from them. But I fail to see how that has anything whatsoever to do with the supernatural in any way.

Los is just performing his function as this boards 'no' man. As per usual.

The July 1906 note (with Oct '09 clarification): "This MS (which came into my possession in July 1906) {i.e. I meant I would be its master from that date. -a.c. Oct '09} is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing."

There is no reason to doubt Crowley's veracity with regard to the 1909 annotation. His experience of Samadhi in 1906 took him out of his profane bondage and shifted his consciousness to that of the Master, whence he started pouring out the other holy books: Liber Liberi Vel Lapidis Lazuli, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Stellæe Rubeæ, Liber Arcanorum, Liber Porta Lucis, Liber TAU, Liber Trigrammaton and a few non-Class A works. This mystical illumination, Shivadarshana, which took place in October of 1906 as a consequence of the Abramelin Attainment that took place on July 27, 1906, led ultimately to an Attainment that would fully crystallize in December of 1909, with his invocation of the Aethyrs. It progressed him to greater harmony with his Augoeides, or Higher Genius, Aiwass, true author and possessor of the book.