|
Correspondence from Aleister Crowley to Jane Wolfe
10 Hanover Square W.1.
March 20 [1942]
Dear Jane,
93.
Last night I started to write to you, and was [illegible] on to another line by your par 4 (yours Jan 29) about Max [Max Schneider]. I wrote him a red-hot letter on how—not to "kill students", but to raise Commandos.
I quite appreciate the other side of Smith [Wilfred Talbot Smith], much more than he can possibly believe, since I am usually nagging or denigrating him. But that's natural; why pay special attention to what is going well? If a doctor is called in to a car smash and finds a leg broken, he doesn't stroke your arm and say how soft and smooth the skin is.
I have no doubt at all that Smith's qualities outweigh his defects by 85 to 15; but our problem is like Katisha's. People came hundreds of miles to see her left heel.
Put it this way. I'm a stranger. I pick up a stray Liber OZ or an "Eight Lectures" [Eight Lectures on Yoga] or a copy of the Mass [Gnostic Mass]. I am fascinated by the beauty and dignity of the language, by the scholarship and humour, or by the poetry of the whole atmosphere. I take a lot of trouble to find my way to this Temple of Souran Light, more and more keyed up to expect something to make High Mass at Easter in St. Peter's look bogus; and Korda's best production a mere quota quickie. And I arrive at Smith.
What's my first impression" A cheeky Cockney, destitute of atmosphere, lacking presence and personality, who doesn't quite know what to do with his hands. I must be a person of quite extraordinary powers of penetration, even to reflect that (after all) this curious animal has been working with this high literature for all those years. Nor will it be easy to stomach the sordid middle-class amateur theatrical effect. the lack of every sort of appearance which is consonant with so much as the style of printing of the Books. Smith cannot either overcome me by mystery and grandeur, or lead me up the garden path by diplomatic skill. In other words, to like and respect Smith I must already have known him for a long while.
Now for a leader there must be some quality, instantly apparent, strong enough to present sound all around judgment, something that will carry the stranger away, and [illegible[ enquiry until he is in the toils. E.g. the F.D.R. smile, the pipe and the moniker "honest Stan Baldwin." H.P.B.'s [Helena Petrovna Blavatsky] overwhelming presence and brusque brutalities of speech, Mohammed's fiery eloquence—even his epileptic fits! All these things go for nothing when it comes down to it. Put the solid qualities, the ability, the power of organization, the threats and promises, the practical advantages, the satisfaction of soul-hunger, all that really counts:—these things come after the fish has taken the fly. And it has got to be the right fly: [illegible] is no good in May; the trout must believe that what he sees is what he has been looking for.
Now you don't have to remind me that I'm the world's worst flop. I can't suffer fools gladly: I tell the truth: I frighten people out of their lives. Generally speaking, I can't bear people at all, unless there's something I can learn from them. But I am all right for externals; I can be seen (and even photographed) or heard without exciting repugnance. And I can hold my own in any company. Monsignor Barton Brown came to see me last week; he was very much impressed by my knowledge and understanding of theology, and the inner workings of Papal policy. [He is one of the Pope's Private Chaplains, and the king-pin of Romish intrigue over here. Regards Hinsley as a nasty (and negligible) nuisance.] Sir Frederick O'Connor came to tea yesterday, and was amazed to find that I knew as much about the Himalayan valleys as he did, and had plenty of height, and intimacy with Mahayana Buddhism, to set against his years in Nepal and Tibet.
But there you are! With the big shots I am at home, all right; but that only makes them nervous! As Lord Tyrrell said in Paris: "he's the most able and most dangerous man in Europe". None of them can understand more than that I represent a totally mysterious and terrible element in "Power politics"; and I should have been squashed years ago if it had not been that they reflected on the results of imprisoning John Bunyan, Lewis, Hitler, and a few dozen more.
I can't find any sold virtue in Regina [Regina Kahl]. In U.S.A. flamboyance is expected, even required. But not, I think, likely to bring success, even superficial, unless there is a real passion behind it. Aimée McP[herson] put over the 4 ÿ [square] Gospel because she was a sexual maniac. (Look at how she beat up her mother!) Also, there must be business ability to land the fish that you hook. Mrs. Eddy, No. 1, R. splashed herself over a party, and spends the next week before her mirror, purring "Oh boy! What a point I made!" Is that just? Helen sounds much better. But is she her own mistress. Does she really understand the Law, and feel that the only thing worth while doing is to get it accepted everywhere as the basis of the "New Order"? Does she believe in Magick, in the Masters, in the Plan of the New Aeon?
I have dealt with K's ignorance of the rituals. There are more ways of killing a dog than choking it with caviar. Some Masters don't know any rituals at all. I hold bunches of degrees in various Masonic Orders, never went through them, never saw the rituals, never knew the Words, Signs etc, never remembered even the names of 90% of them.
I wrote Max a note on Strategy, based on your paragraph about his failure to "hold students". Have asked him, also Karl [Karl Germer], to send you, and others, a copy. Gist of it: "Yoga and the like absurd in times like this. Work on Romance of Order, on Marvel Story of the "Cairo-Working"; get them going on fighting to get AL accepted, on putting over Liber OZ (77)."
Love to all of you! But especially to my dear old pal in the Tent on the Beach.
Yours,
Aleister.
|