|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Albert H. Handel
26 May 1948
Dear Brother Handel,
During the night I, also, did a bit of thinking on one point in your letter of May 20th which I did not touch upon in my earlier letter. I decided to mention it to you quite frankly. You write:
This morning I received your first blue letter and also a copy of a letter dated May 18th from Germer [Karl Germer] to yourself.
The notepaper and the interpretation is, or course, typical of your sense of the fitness of things. It also contains your defects—i.e., a straining after Qabalistic numeration. You give Ma-ion as having a value of 107, but it can only have such a value if you substitute Hebrew letters for the Greek letters of ion, and if you substitute a V for an O. But you probably feel justified in making such a substitution even though it may cast doubt on your entire approach to the subject.
This is neither truthful nor just. You will not mind if I show you why and point to probable reason.
This statement: "It also contains your defects, i.e., a straining after Qabalistic numeration" is a straight imitation of Germer—whose letter you had just read. This "fogged" your mind and caused you to say the wrong thing—hurriedly. Or so I feel. In any case I will explain.
The letters "Ma" and "ion" represent the "key" ones in the Word Manifestation which has just been discovered and symbolised. Having used the numeration 257 to represent the whole word, why should I take the first two and the last three letters and change the numeration of the last three to Greek Qabalah, when the chief word is not Greek at all? Had I done so, you would have had some cause for your remarks. As it is, they are uncalled for. The use of the number 6 to represent the letters o, v, u, or f is established. For example Yod is IVD—the "o" is not taken as 70.
Before continuing further I want to say this. I'm very grateful indeed for every bit of criticism you can make, or try to make. This applies even more to York [Gerald Yorke], so far, for his eagle eye misses very little. He gets after me even for such an error as quoting "the" rather than "a" incorrectly—and I admitted the error. He discovered in that long series of coincidences that I said I had never seen Liber Legis until—whenever it was. Surely you are in error, says he: there was that miniature one in The Equinox Vol. I, No. VII a few months before that date. I reply: please change "seen" to "read", but I don't think that will alter the mathematical odds very much; and so on.
Now your remarks at the end of paragraph 2, quoted and underlined above, are about equivalent to saying that my whole life-work is at stake and in doubt over a minute (apparent) miscalculation.
Now let's take the facts. "My entire approach to the subject" depends upon contents of that first "blue" letter. Have you noticed that when my letters go to more than one person they are so marked, e.g. Yorke, Handel and Germer, etc. The letter in question was sent only to you as a sort of souvenir. It says so clearly at the end. I have told no-one else the meaning of my special personal symbolism as M.T. [Magister Templi]—not even Yorke. So what your statement amounts to is that your reaction could cast in doubt my entire approach to the Ma-ion. Well, I hope that your objection is now removed, so far as the symbolism of the new paper is concerned. Others can find out what that is, or not, at their good pleasure. You alone know it at present. It is as perfect as I am able at present to make it. If you can do better, please say so.
Now to change the subject. There is some talk of a double-wanded one in Liber Legis, and elsewhere of rods of gold and iron—or one which acts as either. So far there has been some evidence of the golden rod; and very little of that on Saturnus [Karl Germer]. For the moment, for magical reasons, things seem well as they are. But, as a business man, on terra firma, I should like to say to you: If there's any chance of getting a real estate com. out of S.[aturnus] on his land deal—get it while the going's good.
My reason for this advice is what you reveal in para. 1 of your letter—underlined above. Achad is not merely a motto, but an established business name as an author of some reputation which is shown on all publications and also appears in connection with given name on my U.S. Consular Passport. It is one thing for a man to write a personal letter to another telling him off privately. It is another actually to publish the letter by making copies and sending them to other people behind a man's back. If such a letter contains any defamation of character there is ground for immediate Court Action. S. has made a very serious slip on that score. There is nothing in all my correspondence with him that could not be shown in Court. In the letter he mentions A.C.'s full name, which is not popular in U.S.A. He also accuses me of not taking A.C.'s advice. What advice? A.C. did strongly advise me to take (make) a Court Action and fight it as "a poor just man". That is on record. All that S. is kicking about is my introduction of an Aeon of Truth and Justice. Why should he object to it?, says the Court. But also A.C. strongly advised some most extraordinary conduct which he suggested should be tried in one of the big American cities. That is on file. I did not take his advice. That is true. But when the Court saw A.C.'s letter and the nature of the advice, what then? Could S. produce one shred of written evidence to prove what kind of advice I did not take which caused the "fall"? Then begins to come out the fact that S. has no right whatever to run the "Order" which is able to hold property and deal with financial matters, publications etc. IN THE U.S.A. or CANADA. He might have some right in other countries under A.C.'s Will (which he has not produced). There is a long list of unpaid subventions etc. which are in question. A.C. (and one other in L.A.) knew perfectly well that all action in this country was of the nature of running clandestine work. Documents prove it. Has S. raised money under this aegis? I'm not seriously enquiring: officially I just don't want to know just now. BUT . . . iron's a hard metal. Liber Legis says: Strike hard! (If at all.)
Your letter also shows that S. "said" even less moderate things (with very much less cause) before recent events. Since then he has written, sweetly, trying to get an invitation into my private home, where he thought I had some things he would find useful. Why the sudden change of face? All my letters to him were open and above-board and trying to help him at his own and Yorke's request. How would that look in Court? He certainly made a bad break in putting himself, apparently, in line for legal action. It's a good thing he is dealing with the "dove" aspect which at worst might land a little dropping down his neck.
I was thinking last night and this morning of a fair way of terminating this "Witness" business and getting into some more companionable relationship if you and Yorke accept my recent offer. The result is enclosed. I think that you will not be committing yourselves in any way to the magical or mystical or mythological implications of our correspondence if you give me this "bill of health" as Chancellor of A∴A∴—for my name will not be allowed to be used as such on any publications S.[aturnus] may put out. But it was so used by A.C., as his official publications show. I am sending one of these statements to both you and Yorke. After you have checked up my figures to your own satisfaction, will you kindly sign them and return them to me. Then that aspect will be justly cleared up. Thanks for the co-operation so far. You can then store the records for a year or so, if you don't mind. Time will show.
This of course in no way prevents me from telling my own people that in my opinion we have entered a new Aeon. There would be no object in giving others a lot of details. They will not think of asking for them.
Yours in Truth and Love,
Achad.
|