Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke

15 March 1948

Dear Mr. Yorke,

Air mail is a wonderful thing: your letters of the 9th [letter 1 & letter 2] instant have already reached me. Thanks so much for these and the photograph of A.C. which I shall treasure in remembrance of the old days and our best relationships.

I am glad things are as they are—which includes the fact that you wrote me as you did in the first instance re. the historical aspect. A.C. was labouring under a tragic misapprehension so far as I am concerned, or he would never have acted in just the way he did. I feel no ill-will whatever towards him, but, humanly, a deep regret that there should have been a misunderstanding. And from a wider view there seems no reason to oppose his will or ignore his wishes. At any rate you need have no fear that I shall use anything you have said in your long frank letter as ammunition in a quarrel relative to "succession". At present I am dealing solely with you, and simply along the lines you suggested and requested. I have never had any direct dealings or correspondence with Mr. Germer [Karl Germer]—and not with [Frater] 132 [Wilfred Talbot Smith] for a number of years. If any such correspondence crops up it will be dealt with according to my best light at the time. There is a great deal which perhaps should be straightened out—but then, again, time has a way of dealing with things and as it were sorting out the essentials and inessentials, and much which in the past seemed important at the time is perhaps better buried and forgotten.

I am glad Mr. John Symonds is ay least to some extent in your capable hands.

First, let me say that I have already had a true copy of Liber 31 made in response to your request—also four carbons. I have almost checked it, and added one note, also am preparing a Statement of authorship, etc., which will be attached as part of document and affirmed before a Notary Public—probably next Saturday which is as close to the Equinox as possible. It will have to be sent regular mail, so may not reach you for some little while. I will however refer to it further in the course of this air-mail letter.

     What I say to you, since it comes from me after the event and has nothing to do with A.C.'s Will, is to be taken more or less in confidence. We both, I think, want to see things straightened out cleanly—and perhaps more on the historical side than any other.

Yes, I do hold O.T.O. Charter direct from original headquarters [from Theodor Reuss]. There is, I think, one other X° alive in Germany [Heinrich Tränker]. It was this other and myself together who established A.C. as O.H.O. [Outer Head of the Order]. A.C. was never in a position (even as O.H.O.) to "expel" me, because my position was ad vitam, and for another his first written act as O.H.O. was to confirm, or re-confirm it. Therefore, strictly speaking, nothing legitimate has ever existed in the U.S.A.—at L.[os] A.[ngeles] or elsewhere. [Frater] 132 when he received A.C. notice to "expel" me only sent it along with a query, so to speak. I saw him in L.A. and had a long friendly chat with him later, and said I had no wish to interfere with his activities—nor have I now. I suppose A.C. could Will his O.H.O. job to Germer if he wanted to. He was probably quite unaware that X° in Germany still alive (and am sure he doesn't care). But that is all beyond my "Official" ken. I certainly don't come under Germer in that respect, or know anything about the matter except through your having told me it was A.C.'s will and wish. As long as they don't publish any untruths about actual past facts, it is not for me to concern myself at all at this stage. Let's let it lie fallow for the moment. Especially now you tell me that Fra. 132's venture has come to an end. (A.C. never brought up the Catholic angle so far as O.T.O. was concerned. That could be a reason for my connection with O.T.O. automatically coming to an end in 1928, but why, then, make such a gesture of "expulsion" in 1936—or whenever it was?)

In regard to the A∴A∴ and the extra "Word". This Word was pronounced—and might have been the "word not known". Again the word "not" known might have been NOT—and in one sense certainly was, since that is the Key of Liber 31. There may, then, in Liber Legis, be two senses of interpretation, both correct. However, if what is written in Liber Legis is to be taken as true, I may well have been over-optimistic in thinking that the Aeon of Truth and Justice is very near at hand—to follow, for example, the death of the "Logos" A.C. Liber CCXX, III, 34 does seem to indicate that the Aeon of Horus (and War etc.) continues for centuries. This is not a pleasant outlook. But there it is IF Liber Legis is to be entirely relied upon. There could be quite another aspect—A.C. may to some extent have been a dupe—along with others.

I might have a copy of VI° Ritual somewhere, but, if so, don't know just where to lay my hand on it and don't intend to try. Reason for this is that since you are not a member (actually) I should not want to send it to you, and have no good reason to send it to Germer, whom I don't even know as a member. Whatever papers A.C. left him by Will is A.C.'s business. Further, I don't think, from memory, that it is of historical importance. Doubt if it ever was "worked"—and subject matter might be misleading. There were no rituals of VII°, VIII° and IX° that I know of.

I never saw the document Constitution of the Thelemites. It is probably the "proclamation" to which I referred, mentioned from Tunis. This could only (see my note to you on subject) refer to succession of the Beast. That mantle does not belong on my shoulders, and am glad to have been "scratched" and "out of the running" by the old man himself's own pen on paper. I think, by what you tell me, that the joke's rather on G.[ermer]—as sole survivor—so to speak. Anyway, he does seem to have done A.C. a good turn financially and to have been a loyal supporter to the best of his ability. Let us wish him nothing but the best in his present capacity. (The information you have given me as to your view of "affairs" is much appreciated, and will certainly remain confidential.)

I do think you are right to try and ensure some historical record of the most important aspects of this Work. Shall try and help you where possible and as time permits.

I think you will understand about VI° document. The paper about Fra. AUD [Raoul Loveday] was not a magical working—only a sort of letter saying he was enjoying his stay in Cefalù, which might have tended to offset the Morning Post articles re. the court action. There's nothing of importance, I think, historically—unless someone is going to try to write up and explain things like the court action, etc. from another angle. But what's the use now? I have never had any portion of A.C.'s memoirs [The Confessions of Aleister Crowley] dealing with his receiving The Book of the Law in Cairo—walk through Burma, etc." This is all news to me. It must have been some other "who held 3/4 of typescript at one time". Better look into source of information again. It was never I.

Your second letter of 9th. In regard to Liber 31. When you receive your copy and read it you will be in a better position to discuss certain aspects of this and other matters. I think its existence, date of preparation and delivery, and the note which I am including of A.C.'s response, are of importance to Symonds in preparing the Life of A.C. (Also, you might note now how the MS begins with the Pass-Word of A∴A∴ given out September 1918—Eleven. These A∴A∴ Pass-Words were supposed to indicate some very important thing which would arise in the next six months. The MS. itself was finished by November 3rd. 1918. So even then the importance of 11 o'clock on November 11 / Armistice Day / had not become apparent. But this was one occasion when the A∴A∴ Word really did mean something. Perhaps that should appear in Life.) I don't think Symonds will be able very well to deal with the contents of Liber 31 in the Life. The same applies, for the moment at least, to Germer. This paper, not being among A.C.'s effects, was not willed to Germer. It is doubtful whether A.C. ever intended that it should be. The original first copy could still be hidden somewhere—or may have been destroyed on purpose. Now you tell me that you have been unable to find the document referred to in One Star in Sight (which I had hoped you would have found—for now we shall never know, unless you do). I shall leave it to you, after reading Liber 31, to say whether you think it to be the document to which A.C. did refer in One Star in Sight. A.C. certainly, from my knowledge of all the facts, never wrote any such "secret document" as there referred to, before he received Liber 31. Whether he secretly wrote one later (and possibly got rid of 31) who can tell? You've raised a real "mystery". The copy I shall send you, therefore, is (as I had already intended before receipt of your letters) solely for the purpose you mention, viz: deposit with Liber Legis in B.[ritish] M.[useum] after your death. I give you no permission to copy, nor to circulate without my consent. But I should like to discuss the matter with you in correspondence later. We can then also discuss the rest of my diary which remained unpublished. This all seems to me to belong to another "story". Bits of it cannot just be put in print or referred to in a Life, when full facts are not known. Let us concentrate on the one important point. Liber 31 is the document which supplied the Key to Liber Legis, and is acknowledged to be such by A.C.—since is fulfils the prophecy in CCXX. Therefore it must be included with the historical papers. Perhaps that's all that may ever be necessary. I don't want my private magical affairs discussed by Germer, etc.: and as it turns out, "fate" did not allow the document to remain among A.C.'s papers willed to another.

Very fraternally,

Frater Achad.

[293]