Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Aleister Crowley

5 August 1936

Care Frater 666,

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

Your letter of July 22 came to hand yesterday, and has been carefully noted. I am glad that you feel that the night watch is over.

I think you will agree that the principles of truth and justice may not be vindicated and accepted on a universal scale until "the fall of the Great Equinox"—whatever that term may mean—they should still have their part during the aeon of Horus, which aeon, revolutionary though it may appear, would seem to have value insofar as it results in the final bringing about of such conditions in a lasting form. We should hardly, for example, wish to characterise the aeon of Horus as being opposed to such conditions, and therefore definitely one devoted to truth and injustice. It is for this reason, I think, that a good deal of cleaning up may be needed within our own ranks—for there has been injustice there, as well as in the less initiated circles which have opposed and tried to vilify your work. Unless, therefore, this need is recognised, accepted, and worked towards in future, any sort of cooperative action will be quite impossible.

My question, then, is: Have you and yours been holding this, the true purpose of the aeon of Horus, clearly in sight?

Further, I think we have both learned that the intelligences at work in this connection are quite far-sighted. There is no good reason, for example, to suppose that, because you were chosen as the prophet of the aeon of Horus, and your task in that connection more or less definitely set (whether you liked it or not), there were not complete plans in existence, at the very time, in the minds of other agents, who would continue to perfect them in readiness for the more stable and equilibrated condition of world affairs which might be expected to result from the use of the Horus current and formula. Such a possibility is, however, to my way of thinking beyond doubt, and it has been largely my task, as a Master of the Temple, to discover the existence of such plans of a properly coordinated universe, and to attain to a rightful custodianship of them. Such a task, while in no way clashing with your own, has necessitated my examination of many of the older traditional systems, with a view to a final synthesis which will rightly evaluate and embrace them all.

In this connection I have every reason to suppose that the words of Liber Legis—"Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all—have a further and deeper significance than may as yet have been attributed to them in your scheme of things. On this point, however, I shall the better to be able to judge after seeing the now completed commentary on Liber AL which you are about to publish and of which I suppose I shall receive a copy.

With a gap of so many years in our correspondence, and knowing that the initiatory currents in our lives are more or less continuous, only being apparent more clearly at certain times than others, and sometimes only to be clearly distinguished in retrospect, your life, as mine, must have been full of experiences, bitter or sweet, that we have in no sense shared on the outer and lower planes, while possibly having worked synchronously on the inner and higher ones. You feel that you and yours are sworn to accomplish certain tasks—such as for example the issue of Liber Legis in the proper form and at an appropriate time; the latter coming many years later, perhaps, than at first expected—and I likewise have felt and feel that my work has been gradually revealed to me, so that I have been trying to do it, when and as the conditions have been ripe.

 think that in the final reckoning it may become apparent that something in the nature of a dual (or triple) formula has been at work. Thus, for example, if it were found that in the year 1926 another Word issued forth which has since been reverberating in conjunction, as it were, with that of 1904 (or whenever you date your pronouncement), some of the mystery of the "word not known" might clear up, without in any way destroying the value of the "not" as an aspect of the Key to Liber Legis given you prior to that date.

The Word, and the formula therewith connected, above referred to, has during the last ten years (for it was in 1926 I think that we agreed to separate) proved itself to be the key to whatever work I have been engaged in during that period; and while connecting closely with many indications in Liber Legis, is of a type so synthetical in nature that its vibratory action can in no way interfere or conflict with what you might term "the Word of the existing aeon". Likewise, in am aeon such as that characterised by the Law of Thelema, the general rules whereby it would be quite unusual for two Words to find expression at once, or for a second one to be issued during the reverberations of the first, might well be abrogated; and in fact would indicate a proof of the law of "Do what thou wilt", rather than anything else.

You will remember, doubtless, that when Liber 31—my treatise issued under that number and title in 1918—was first prepared with the intention of delivering it to you at once, I was at that time prevented from doing so, and it was not until some time later that it came into your hands—when you were ripe to receive and use it, but not before. This was evidently arranged in accordance with a wider cycle than a personal one.

In like manner, if you will refer to one of the letters sent you in 1932—the one which seemed particularly foolish—you will find a reference to some new notepaper on which was to be displayed a symbol, which was my intention thus to convey to you. As it happened, the notepaper was not ready by the date on which I had determined to forward the letter, with the result that this symbol was not then sent you, and you did not receive that which would have put you on the track of the Word and Formula referred to above. And had you then received it, it is certain that you would not have treated the matter with the consideration deserved, despite all appearances at that time to the contrary.

Now, as I see matters, you have been led to go ahead with the publication of Liber Legis, and you have taken, or been allowed to take, my Number 31 (and the number of my treatise) and use it in place of the former one 220 in that connection. You have given me no indication of what your final commentary contains, whether you have used, misused or discarded any work I did in this connection, and delivered to you years ago. It seems evident, then (provided that this publication is issued shortly), that any new matter, which might throw further light on the subject, is not to be used at this time and only, if at all, at some later period when all is to be revealed.

This seeming to be the indication of the current of events, I am making no detailed mention of the Word and Formula, other than to indicate to you their existence and, I think, potency of working—for all of this I have good reason to be quite convinced.

These things, as you know, once started, have a way of working themselves out to a finish; and if, as may well happen, some friendly correspondence passes between us again, there need be no question of either seeking to unduly influence the action of the other, but rather, I think, attending to the straightening out of things, on the lines of truth and justice, as previously suggested.

Yours very fraternally,

777

P.S. T.L. [Tantalus Leucocephalus—(Charles Stansfeld Jones' Motto)] thanks you for your letter and information; there is a good deal to be cleared up in that connection if right order is to be re-established, and it may be well to think things over carefully and possibly to wait for your reply to this letter (above) before he deals with that aspect of affairs.

[293]