|
Correspondence from David Curwen to Aleister Crowley
7a Melcombe Street, Baker St. NW1
Nov 26th, 1945
Dear Brother Crowley:
Many thanks for letter included with Liber Legis. For the latter, please tell me what I owe you, in next letter to me. Anyway thank you for that too.
But do not hurry to reply unless you feel like it; for I will be seeing you soon. You may call it settled then, I will come down to Hastings on Dec. 16th, and in the train you mentioned arriving 12.12 A.M., so long as the train is still running then. This visit, of course, for the special purpose.
As for fees into the O.T.O. it shall be as you say, I will be sending you in the near future 33 gns., and thence at the three six monthly intervals the same again. This will leave just 20 gns. For the following six months which will make up the fee you mentioned plus the yearly subscription, i.e. £160 for the two yrs. All this so long as it is within my power to do so, D.V.
I cannot understand your handwriting on the recipe for making the oil; but really does it matter what the oil consists of? Is it not rather the thought behind the oil rather than the oil itself that does the trick? This is re-holy oil?
The question that you do not understand comes from Magick [Magick in Theory and Practice] top of page 107, "The method of consecration etc., etc. . . . the supreme symbol of the force to which you dedicate it." My question is, how does one know what that "supreme symbol" is? Are they written down somewhere in your writings? Of course, I can hear you saying, why the fool won't even know the symbols for things. But do you mean planetary symbols for instance? Mars for action, or Venus for love and so on? If not, what sort of symbols do you mean?
Most of Liber Legis is simple to me; true, some—quite a few—lines make no sense, but most is plain to me. There are questions I would love to ask you personally, but in a letter it will not do. For instance, in the little book sent me; Part 3, line 23, the last four words; line 24, the first line in the para., of course I understand, but the second line of the para., where is this to come from? Did the author expect "Sweeny Todd" to take part, or have you found an alternative? Line 26 is magic of a nice shade of Black.
Oh well, I cannot and will not say more, but it's nice to know. As I said above, I would love to work through the book with you to understand what you have made of it. Re "The Comment" at end of book, are you serious about paragraphs two and three?
That's all for the present. If you feel in the mood, reply to this letter; if not, wait until I come to you. Meanwhile send me whatever papers you can.
Yours Fraternally,
|