|
Correspondence from Albin Grau to Aleister Crowley
[Translation]
Berlin,
An. XXI.
[10 December 1925]
Sir,
Your letter of Nov. 28 civil time came into my hands. Permit me to reply to it seriatim by repeating the paragraphs under reply.
1) "I took you for a gentleman and treated you as a literary colleague."
Reply: In spite of your letter I trust that the former assumption is still justified. I lay less weight upon the second; I am not a writer but a painter.
2) "I am surprised to find you responsible for the publication of a nonsensical travesty of my teachings contained in two pamphlets composed chiefly of garbled extracts shamelessly stolen from my published and unpublished writings, the latter entrusted to you under the seal of personal confidence and honour."
Reply: Certainly I could hardly rebut these charges if all the implications in them were correct. I remark however:—
This is not a matter of a 'publication'—in the sense of a work issued to the public. It is a private and confidential print. The paper has been given only to the Brethren of the Lodge. The copies were numbered and not purchaseable.
Unfortunately this was not clearly stated; and, without such indication, the note "Publication of the Pansophic Lodge" is, in this respect, misleading perhaps. The erroneous impression thus produced has no doubt largely determined Sir Crowley's present action.
The expressions "senseless travesty" and "pamphlets" I must dispute energetically—until the evidence which might justify them has been produced in full.
If these charges are really justified, I shall be glad indeed to have my errors shown to me, and to be compelled, here also, to agree with Sir C.'s essential point of view.
Here however I must state frankly to Sir C. my actual opinion:—That it is only in a limited sense that he can claim authorship in a doctrine which is rooted in the—O N E—the ultimate notion (Urgbegriff) of the I T and its emanations. Like the earlier (and the earliest) fundamental teachings, his doctrine must be drawn from that source (since there is no other)—just as much as those earlier doctrines; even, perhaps less deeply and firmly drawn!
But it would not occur to anybody, on this account, to accuse Sir C. of 'plagiarism'—and this, rather than 'pamphleteering' is evidently the essence of his charge against me.
There is, in actual fact, no ground for the charge "shamelessly stolen". When Liber I is given to any Brother he is told clearly that the work is offered as a tentative essay in bringing together Pansophia and Thelema; and he is referred expressly to Number VII of PANSOPHIA as the original source of the latter part.
It is this tentative essay which Sir C. denounces as a senseless travesty—a work done by me in all good faith and service to the Great Work, without any egoistic or profiteering motives. I was merely trying to the best of my understanding, to bring into the mind of Pansophic brethren some of the elementary ideas of Thelema.
As others have had to do, I must now atone for this rash attempt on other grounds as well. For—unhappily too late!—I have been made acquainted with the contents of Liber Legis—a book branded with the triple K E O U. I thus, to my horror, got a real glimpse of the future reconstruction—as planned by the A∴A∴ of a primitive world order which suggests the blackest days of Atlantis. If these ideas had been clearly in my knowledge at the time, Sir C. may rest assured that I would not have put myself so eagerly before the chariot of the A∴A∴—and invited the 'boot' for services rendered in good faith, however poor and defective they may be in Sir C.'s eyes. The Germans have had this "Boot" too often—without, unfortunately, learning wisdom thereby.
Moreover, I now find much food for thought in much that has been published in No. VII of PANSOPHIA: for example the Paragraph "Mistakes of Mystics" in the "Postcards to Probationers".
Sir A.C. may be assured that, in Germany, no constructive A∴A∴ work will be considered, on the lines of these and other passages.
I mention all this in order to convince Sir C. that I shall never itch to adorn myself with the feathers of the teachings of the A∴A∴
3) "I am willing to give certain of my writings without remuneration to the benefit of Mankind, but I have retained the copyrights precisely in order to prevent them being exploited by common thieves and swindlers like Heinrich Tränker of Hohenleuben for the purpose of duping the ignorant by misrepresentations."
Reply: I am of opinion that all spiritual teachings, from no matter what source should be given and obtainable free of charge. How would Humanity have listened to Jesus of Nazareth if he had tried to do a roaring trade with the 'Sermon on the Mount'? The denunciation 'Swindler and thief' against Brother Recnartus [Heinrich Tränker] would have been better unsaid. My view of him is still not that of Sir C.
By the way: 'Whoever of you is without sin—let him cast the first stone'. I am not referring to Sir C. but to those who brought about his adverse judgments against Brother Recnartus, and incited him to this vituperation.
Nor do I know where or when Br. Recnartus has tried to exploit the teachings of Sir C. to dupe the innocent. It looks as if Sir C. were giving him a credit in advance on criminal exploits. Any references to the doctrine of Thelema which occur in No. 3 of PANSOPHIA can be disregarded in this connection; while as for No. VII (if the charge is referred to that) I must respectfully point out that it bears the editorial imprimatur of Fra[ter] Saturnus (that is, Germer [Karl Germer]) and not that of Fra[ter] Recnartus.
4) "Unless I receive by telegram before the 10th day of December
1) a satisfactory explanation of your conduct
2) a formal apology
3) a guarantee that the mischief will be repaired as far as possible, I shall not hesitate to take the most drastic measure to expose the blackguardism."
Reply: I comply, conditionally, with this ultimatum by declaring:
1) I have already given this
2) I heartily regret my undertaking—in every respect. Also—as Sir A.C. wishes it—I apologize. I shall never again give him an opportunity to proceed against me in such a fashion.
3) As no mischief has been done—except to myself (which is not Sir C.'s concern)—there is no call for me to give any guarantee.
The term 'blackguardism' does not touch me in the least. But from Sir C., whom we have been compelled to think of as a Master, the word is unworthy, and inexcusable.
5) "Unless you are extremely careful, you will find yourself on the wrong side of prison bars—with Traenker."
Reply: If this statement is to be taken exoterically it is a piece of bottomless impudence. Further, as a threat, it is itself ripe for the attention of the lawcourts.
If however it is to be understood esoterically, then I affirm on the contrary that every human brother who is consciously seeking for light has already escaped from the wrong side of the prison bars. Further it is absurd for Sir A.C. to arrogate to himself the office of prison-warder, for he can only be found in our own hearts. The threat, also, taken in this esoteric sense, is in any case one of which a man of pure heart need not be afraid.
Finally I refer A.C. to his Oath, as Brother T. M. O. (see No. VII Pansophia, p. 86.); I myself, aspiring in all humility to T A O, remain a neophyte of this Cosmic Manvantara.
6) "I still believe you to be an honest and decent man; how you have allowed yourself to be dragged into such filthy dishonour by such a witless knave, passes my comprehension."
Reply: Sir C. evidently thinks that I wrote Liber I and the 'Pflichten' on the instructions of Brother R[ecnartus], or in collaboration with him. I must therefore state plainly that the work both of Liber I and the 'Pflichten' is wholly my doing. Indeed, when he receives the books Brother R. will probably be quite as angry as C.—and with more justification, in that I did it on my own initiative and tried to bring about a harmonious synthesis without his knowledge. At the time of writing Brother R. is still ignorant of the existence of these works. (I have forbidden the further distribution of them, and have put the stock under lock and key.)
I now see also that, for the present, any further steps towards a synthesis is a grave offence against the Pansophic system. I again emphasize the fact—ohne Lügen gewiss—that Brother Recnartus had nothing whatever to do with my action.
As for these crude vituperations of Br. R.—fit only for the mouth of a vulgar stable-boy—I must say peremptorily that I will not tolerate such things in future in letters to me. I must inform Sir C. that if this is one of the practices of the A∴A∴, I have no use for it. I should still hold to this even if everything that is alleged against Br. R. were true ten times over. Everything!
I note by the way that the Ascendent of Sir A.C.'s glyph of life is the Descendent of mine. And I am resigned to the idea of a complete breach, in the event of Sir C. being unable to discover (though that is his self-proclaimed Mission) how to construct the bridge of reconciliation between the 'I' and the 'Thou'.
With all fraternal greetings.
Albin Grau.
|
18°
.