|
Correspondence from Aleister Crowley to Charles Stansfeld Jones
Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum, Cefalů, Sicily.
Apr. 6, 1923. e.v.
My beloved son,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Yours of no date about Pearson's. I think when you reconsider the matter you will perceive that your action was a little hasty. All I did was to quote you as an authority on a subject on which you are an authority. I should not hesitate to introduce people to an utter stranger (personally) in such a connexion. It is done every day; and no breach of etiquette is involved. I left you perfectly free to answer any possible enquiries in any way you chose. The publicity might have done you good, might have brought you into touch with enquirers, might have got you a commission to write or lecture on the subject, and I can't see how on earth it would have interfered with YOU building up YOUR work under YOUR chosen name in YOUR way. (This from an 8ş=3o!)
I am anxious not to interfere in any way with your plans, at the same time I cannot help feeling that really great men don't bother very much about their names unless some serious question of principle is involved, as in this case it is not. I see nothing in my letter to Pearson's which would commit you to deal with any other aspect of the Work than that which you have publicly professed to conduct. In your place, I should have welcomed the opportunity of getting Pearsons' extensive public familiar with your point of view. I should have written to Marky, saying you had been furnished with a copy of my letter, and asking him to publish side by side with it a letter from yourself defining your attitude and the scope of your work. That, I think, would have been a more constructive way to set things right; and, certainly, a more friendly one.
Alostrael [Leah Hirsig] thinks that I have not wholly understood your peculiar attitude about certain points of this kind. I must admit that sometimes it puzzles me. I get the idea that you have occasional fits of nervousness or prudence—I hardly know what to call it—in which you try to emphasize your individuality. She thinks it is simply your idea of good tactics. I am ready to believe it; and to rely entirely on your judgment. At the same time, you are committed by your record and your published writings to certain standpoints; and I cannot think it ultimately wise to attempt even the most harmless camouflage, for as soon as you get into an open controversy about your teaching, which you are bound to do before you can really call your work a success, you will of course be challenged on all such points. When this happens you will be compelled either to stick to the A∴A∴ as represented by me, (for your entire Magical career has been within the Order, and with me) or to disown me, in which case you would be asked when the breach occurred and on what grounds. This would flummox you, since we agree perfectly on all important points; indeed, I can hardly think of the most trifling detail about which we differ, at least to such a degree that we should not wipe out the apparent divergence in the course of a five minute's personal conversation.
I am sure that you do not want me to think that you are either ashamed of your relations with me or afraid to admit them. I think further that you ought not to leave it open for any one else to suspect that you are either; or even that you are sitting on the fence. Men would rather follow a bandit chief than Simon Lovet; and Simon didn't save his head after all! I don't ask you to emphasize our relations; but you have admitted them very frankly in Q.B.L., and I think you should be careful not to give occasion for any one to think that we are at odds. I really think that you should write again to Marky, explaining that your letter of Mar. 19 does not imply any recantation of your views as expressed in your book, perhaps asking him to let you write him an article on your Work.
Love is the law, love under will.
Thy sire, with all blessings,
The Beast 666.
|