|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Aleister Crowley
57 Grand River Avenue W. Detroit. Mich.
August 21st 1919
My Beloved Father,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Yours of August 19th. I did write you quite a long letter in answer to your last. I should have thought you would have received it before the 19th, but I have not the date of writing before me.
I wrote to Mrs. Bickers [Betty Sheridan-Bickers] a long time ago, but she has never taken the trouble to answer my letter, or at any rate, I have never heard from her so I don't see she can blame me for not writing.
In regard to Mines. I took the matter of "Equinox in exchange for review" up with him immediately I heard from you on the subject. I sent him the Equinox [Equinox Vol III No. 1] and the last I heard from him was that he had received same safely and would now begin to consider doing his part of the matter. He has never written again, nor has the review appeared as far as I know. Again, there appears to be some misunderstanding.
Re. Business. I mentioned this in my last letter. There is a stock-selling campaign under way. The matter is in the hands of a local firm. We have had no definite report yet. They seem slow, but we are still hopeful. Business itself is picking up and if the campaign is a success there should be every possibility of 'pulling through' and everyone getting what is coming to them in the way of money. If the "drive" fails, I can see nothing else than a big smash ahead, in the almost immediate future in spite of better business etc.
Re. O.T.O. Matter hanging fire. I have not seen Lodge [Frank T. Lodge] since his return from the West. This is a good deal my fault—if one can call it such. I haven't sought him out.
Re. Liber 165 [A Master of the Temple]. You have yet another section on hand, I think, which you have not as yet commented upon as requested. The record could be left there, or extended, and your remarks on the subject might well make a difference to the way I should treat the matter. I have another section on hand, but it does not properly follow on the record. It is in the nature of a separate "Extract" dealing with one particular matter only. I am as yet undecided about its publication just now, in its present form.
I will answer Bro. Eberling's letter without delay.
I haven't heard from Cowie [George MacNie Cowie] for a long time. Nor have I heard from Windram [James Windram]. Have you?
Love is the law, love under will.
Thy son,
|