Lore of the Magi

The Mystery of Gurdjieffs Birth

he Three
(Note: An abbreviated form of this article appears as Endnote #4 to Chapter 2 of my book T
Dangerous Magi: Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley).
 Gurdjieff arriving in the United States in January, 1924 -- aged 58, 52, or 47?

The year of birth of a notorious early 20th century magus and unorthodox teacher of dance may seem
only a matter of interest to esoteric historians, but in Gurdjieffs case the whole matter is a fitting
metaphor for the mystery of the man himself. Gurdjieff officially appeared in 1912 in Moscow. When a 37
year old P.D. Ouspensky met him three years later, he described him as no longer young. That of course
is a description meaning little; indeed, some people show their age as much as others intentionally or
unintentionally dont.
Prior to 1912 Gurdjieffs history is largely apocryphal, the sole source of information being his own
bookMeetings With Remarkable Men (published posthumously in 1963), a work most agree is at the
very least embellished autobiography.
Gurdjieff had different passports over the years that gave different birth dates. Up to around 1990 the
most common years given for his birth have been 1872 and 1877, although few writers citing these dates
have provided any justification for doing so. James Moore, in his comprehensive biography Gurdjieff:
Anatomy of a Myth, argued persuasively for 1866, and since the publication of Moores book in 1991, this
date seems to have overtaken others (for example, John Shirley cites it in his 2004 primer on Gurdjieff),
based on these points:
A. Gurdjieff claimed to be 78 years old in 1943, and 83 years old in 1949 (the year of his death).

B. The photos of him taken shortly before his death (in 1949) seem (to Moore) more like a man in his early

80s, rather than a man in his mid or early 70s.

 The Andrieux Portrait, taken in 1949. Moore claimed this pictured is 'redolent of a man of 83',
consistent with a birth year of 1866.

C. Gurdjieff claimed that when he was a seven year old boy his fathers cattle herd was wiped out by a
plague. There was in fact a disastrous outbreak of cattle disease (rinderpest) in 1872-73 in Asia Minor.

D. Gurdjieff and his family arrived in the Turkish city of Kars not long after a Tsarist military victory in
1877, at a time when Gurdjieff already had four younger siblings.

E. This point is not mentioned by Moore, but it is worth listing: when Ouspensky first met Gurdjieff in
1915 in Moscow, he described Gurdjieff as a man appearing no longer young. If Gurdjieff was born in
1877, he would have been 38 at the time of meeting Ouspensky; if born in 1872, then 43; and if born in
1866, he would have been 49. I think it safe to assume that no longer young fits more closely with 43 or
49 rather than 38. Ouspensky himself was 37 at the time of this meeting; it is unlikely he would describe
someone around his own relatively youthful age as no longer young.

Gurdjieff did have a passport that gave his birth year as 1877, but as mentioned he had several passports,
some with different datesone indicated as early as 1864and all of them he burned in 1930 before one
of his trips to America (see Patterson, Struggle of the Magicians, p. 216). While Moores points are
interesting, they are not foolproof, and he does appear to make one mistake. The counter-views are as
follows:

A. The fact that Gurdjieff claimed a certain age for himself means little, as he was commonly known to
have no fear of saying whatever he felt like saying at any given time, regardless if it was based in fact or
not. Moores first argument, that Gurdjieff claimed to be 78 in 1943, does not add up arithmetically78 in
1943 would mean he was born in either 1864 or 1865, not 1866. And this appears to be Moores mistake,
because he states that one passport of Gurdjieffs listed his year of birth as the wildly discrepant
1864when Gurdjieff himself apparently stipulated this year (or 1865) when describing his age in 1943.
[Note: Ive had occasion to reassess this comment of mine, and will adjust it in the 2nd edition of the book,
owing to the fact that Moore reports that Gurdjieff made this remark on December 16, 1943, and claimed
to have been born in January. Accordingly, he may have been just a few weeks shy of his next birthday,
and conceivably could have referred to himself as 78, even if technically still 77, in December of 1943, if
in fact he was born in January of 1866.] Further, according to J.G. Bennett in his autobiography, he
reports that Gurdjieff in January of 1949 claimed that he was now 80 years old. That would make his birth
year 1869, not 1866. Bennett indicates that he believed Gurdjieff was not telling the truth, that in fact he
was a good deal younger. (See J.G. Bennett, Witness: The Autobiography of John Bennett
(Wellingborough: Turnstone Press, 1983), p. 251.

B. The photos of Gurdjieff supposedly looking 83 years old could easily be pictures of a 72 or 77 year old
man who had lived a very rugged life (which was certainly true in Gurdjieffs case). This was further
suggested by the doctor who performed the autopsy on Gurdjieffs body, declaring that he should have
died years before as most of his organs were in very poor shape.

C. Some video of Gurdjieff surfaced in the early 2000s on the Internetmostly short silent clips of him
interacting with students in public places during the last years of his life (1947-49). Examining those
videos it is surprising to think that the short, portly man (as he was at the time) is in his early 80s. Very
few overweight people live into their 80s. He moves around in a fairly nimble fashion that seems a bit
quick for an 82 or 83 year old. (But he was, after all, a teacher of dance as he liked to describe himself,
and was clearly a very rugged man, so it is not impossible).
J.G. Bennett favored 1872. In his book Gurdjieff: A Very Great Enigma, he wrote:

So far as I myself can make out from various sources, from what he himself and his family have told us,
it does seem probable that he was born in 1872, in Alexandropol, and that his father moved to Kars soon
after it was taken by the Russians, that is to say, somewhere about 1878, when he was six or so years
old.(Bennett, 1963).

The Armenian town of Gyumri (named Alexandropol when Gurdjieff was born there).

About ten years after that Bennett wrote his loose biography of Gurdjieff (Gurdjieff: Making a New
World) and had this to say:

The date of Gurdjieffs birth, as shown on his passport, was December 28th
, 1877. He himself said he was
much older and also claimed that he was born on January 1st old style. I have found it hard to reconcile
the chronology of his life with the date of 1877, but his family asserts that this is correct. If this is so, he
began his search at the early age of eleven, because he refers to the year 1888 as a time when new vistas
opened up to him. He first went to Constantinople in 1891. He says he was a lad at the time of this
journey, so the dating is not obviously inconsistent. Nevertheless it does seem strange that, if he was
born in 1877, he should not have mentioned that this occurred during the Russo-Turkish war. ( Bennett,
1973).

Despite these misgivings, Bennett goes on to state:

In October of 1877, the city [of Kars] was in its last throes, and the tsar sent his brother, Grand Duke
Nicholas, to lead the final assault. With an overwhelming superiority in numbers and armaments, the
defenses were overrun on the night of November 17-18. Six weeks later, Gurdjieff was born in Gumru,
already renamed Alexandropol in honor of the tsars father. (Bennett, 1973).

So apparently Bennett either forgot that a decade before hed declared Gurdjieffs probable year of birth as
1872, or he changed his view. Jeanne de Salzmann, Gurdjieffs chief administrator and designated leader
of the world-wide Gurdjieff community at his death in 1949, held to 1877.

All this is contradicted yet again in another of Bennetts books, his 1961 autobiography (Witness: The
Autobiography of John Bennett), where he writes of his first meeting with Gurdjieff in 1920:

It was only when he removed his kalpak after the meal that I saw his head was shaved. He was short
but very powerfully built. I guessed that he was about fifty, but Mrs. Beaumont was sure that he was
older. He told me later that he was born in 1866, but his own sister disputed this and affirmed that he
was born in 1877. His age was as much as an enigma as everything else about him. (Bennett, 1961, p.
55).

That particular anecdote does not bode well for the 1866 date, as a mans sister would generally have little
incentive for lying about such a thing, nor would she be likely to make such a large error as eleven
yearswhen estimating her older brothers age. (Although it is conceivable, if she was incompetent with
arithmetici.e., an honest mistake).

Finally, it bears mentioning here that one of the better more recent chroniclers of Gurdjieff and his Work,
William Patrick Patterson (who has written several books and produced three good videos on the matter),
weighs in with his vote for 1872. In the notes section of his Struggle of the Magicians, he remarks:

I believe that Gurdjieff was bornnot in 1877 nor in 1866but in 1872. This is based on dates Gurdjieff
gives in Meetings with Remarkable Men. (Patterson, 1996, p. 216).

He then goes on to provide a series of arguments based on events in Meetings, which are essentially the
following:
1. In 1888 Gurdjieff first witnessed the Yezidi trapped in a magic circle. This was also the year that he
drank (vodka) for the first time. His exact words were It must be said that that year I had already begun
to drink, not much, it is true, but when invited to so, as sometimes happened, I did not refuse (Meetings,
p. 67). These would seem questionable words to use for a man already 22 years old (which would be the
case if Gurdjieff was born in 1866), all the more so given that, generally speaking, further back in time
people grew up faster. If born in 1872 he would have been 16 when he already began to drink, not much,
it is true, a more likely age for such a choice of words).

2. Patterson claims that it was in 1888 that Gurdjieff was smitten by a young girl of 12 or 13; his friend

Piotr Karpenko was also infatuated with the same girl, and the two young men eventually did battle over

her, culminating in an absurdly risky duel. Patterson reasons that such events would be unlikely for a 22

year old man, but would be likely for a 16 year old boy.

3. According to Meetings, one of Gurdjieffs important early mentors, Father Evlissi (Bogachevsky),
arrived in Kars in 1886, the year after Gurdjieffs sister died and he first became interested in abstract
questions. Patterson concludes that this is all more likely for a 14 year old boy, than a 20 year old man.

Kars, the city in northeastern Turkey where Gurdjieff grew up.

Another point not mentioned by Patterson: Gurdjieff claimed that in 1888 he was given a job ordered by a
neighbour to fashion a monogram on a shield to commemorate the neighbours nieces wedding. While
doing this work, Gurdjieff remarked on the children playing nearby who made incredible noise and
commotion but who never disturbed my work. If true, that event argues strongly against the possible
1877 birth year, as it is doubtful that an 11 year old boy would regard a situation in such a way.

However as I neglected to mention in the book, Pattersons observations are not foolproof either.

1. While unlikely, its not impossible that Gurdjieff did not begin to sample alcohol until age 22.

2. While by todays standards a 22 year old man infatuated with a 12 or 13 year old girl might seem
peculiar, young girls in older times often married young (Juliet, the archetypal lover of Shakespeares
iconic play, is only 13). Further, although Patterson claims that Gurdjieff had his silent romance with this
girl in 1888, evidence for this date is lacking; in Meetings, the chapter on Karpenko (pp. 199-224) in
which this romance is mentioned, fails to specify a year.

Amusingly, Patterson also notes that Olga de Hartmann, a close student of Gurdjieffs, always believed
that he was older than the 1877 date, but was unable to prove itdespite the fact that her own passport
listed her year of birth as 1896 when in fact she was born in 1885. At any rate, to me the most logical date
does indeed seem to be something closer to 1872, particularly judging from the video clips taken of
Gurdjieffs last years. Bennett, though originally promoting this year, gives no real argument for it.
Patterson (for 1872) and Moore (for 1866) seem to be the only researchers who provide solid arguments
for their dates.

This business of attempting to date Gurdjieffs life is of course all a good metaphor for the natural desire
to give shape to the amorphous nature of personal identity. Few made the 'amorphous nature of personal
identity' more apparent than Gurdjieff himself. Obviously it doesnt ultimately matter when exactly he was
born, but if nothing else reflecting on our attachment to the story of an individual can yield insight into
the attachments we have to our own personal story.

Copyright 2011 by P.T. Mistlberger

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________
 Osho, John Dee, and the Greatest Library in the
World

(The following article appears as Appendix IV in my book T

he Three Dangerous Magi).

Osho was without question the most literate Eastern guru in memoryand possibly the most well read
mystic ever. From his teenage years he began collecting books and by the time he was twenty years old he
was already very well read. Throughout his college years both as an undergraduate and later as a
philosophy professor his collection continued to grow.

A rare early picture of Osho (seated, with his patented leg-cross, on the far right in white robe) from his

days as a young graduate student of philosophy, approximately 1955.

Near the end of his life in the late 1980s it was estimated to be around 100,000 volumes. Osho himself
mentioned the figure of 150,000. The Danish professor Pierre Evald, who is also a disciple of Oshos, did a
study of Oshos library and estimated the actual number to be closer to 80,000.1 He reports that about
70,000 of these have been read, signed and dated by Osho. The remaining 10,000 have been gathered
since 1987 at which point Osho was no longer reading (he said in an interview in 1985 that hed basically
stopped reading in 1981).
For a private library the figure of 80,000 is extraordinarily large (and indeed, Evald suggested that it may
be the largest private collection in the world). As a point of comparison an entire main library in a
mid-sized city might hold around a million books, barely ten times more than Oshos collection.2 The most
important library of the ancient world, in Alexandria in northern Egypt, is estimated to have had a
collection of several hundred thousand scrolls. However an entire piece of writingwhat we would now
call a bookcould take several scrolls to contain and so the actual number of books in the Alexandria
library would have been smaller, perhaps around 100,000, similar to the size of Oshos library. The
Alexandrian library was famously destroyed in a series of calamities, most notably in what are suspected
to have been burnings instigated by Julius Caesar (accidentally) a fourth century Christian bishop
(intentionally) and a seventh century Muslim Caliph (intentionally).
In England in the late 16th century during the time of Queen Elizabeth I and Shakespeare, the largest
library in the country (and possibly all of Europe) belonged to the queens court astrologer, advisor, and
magus, John Dee. He had around 4,000 volumes.3 Much of this collection was eventually destroyed by a
mob convinced that Dee was a conjurer of spirits. He was, amongst other things, but what today would be
regarded as channeling unfortunately was in those days highly suspect and possible grounds for being
burnt at the stake. Dee survived, but alas, many of his books didnt.
To give some idea of the impressiveness of Dees collection, the main library at Cambridge University in
the late 16th century only had about 450 books in all.4 In fact Dees library was the true academic center of
England at his time and was known to have received visits from a number of notable people, including the
queen herself. As for content his collection reflected the fact that he was a Renaissance magus: he had
works on science (he was one of the leading mathematicians, cartographers, and navigators of his time),
as well as the complete works of the major Greek philosophers, the Neoplatonists, poetry, theology,
alchemy, magic, and so on.
Osho may not have been a conjurer of spirits (at least in the classic sense) and nor was Indias head of
state sufficiently open to use him as an advisor5, but one thing he did have in common with Dee was that
he was a man with a universal outlook and (especially in his younger years) an interest in reading
anything of quality he could get his hands on.
Osho said that for much of his life he read twelve hours per day, sometimes eighteen hours.6 This again is
reminiscent of Dee who famously recorded that he allowed himself only four hours sleep a night, two
hours for eating and other essentials, and eighteen hours a day for study. Assuming that Pierre Evalds
estimate is accurate and that Osho had read about 70,000 volumes of his collection; and assuming that
Osho was reading consistently from around ages fifteen to fifty (that is, around 1946 to 1981 when he gave
up reading) then that would suggest that in roughly 35 years he read about 2,000 books per yearor,
around six books per day. And when its considered that he did not actually retain a copy in his collection
of every book he readEvald reports that there are libraries in northern India that still have Oshos name
on them as the only person who ever borrowed the bookthen we can safely assume that the number he
read is even higher. Osho was a known speed reader and was reported by those close to him who used to
supply him with books that he was devouring between ten and fifteen per day. So the above figures would
indeed seem to be legitimate.

A central chamber in Osho's library at his ashram in Pune, India

Any way it is looked at Oshos accomplishment in this realm is extraordinary. Evaldin his critically
researched and balanced studysimply calls him the greatest bookman of India and the most voracious
reader worldwide in the 20th century. He further claims that Osho actually read between 150,000 and
200,000 books in his lifetime. That indeed translates as his followers claimed to between twelve and
fifteen books a day over thirty-five years. Even if we use a low figure of ten books per day this works out
to about a book per hour of available reading time. The average book is about 60,000-80,000 words long.
This means Oshos speed reading amounted to at least 1,000 words per minute. The average reader can
comprehend and retain about 150-300 words per minute; high achievers can approach 600 words per
minute. Speed readers however are capable of spectacular rates: the current record holder is a man named
Howard Berg who can read (if you can believe it) 25,000 words per minute.7 He has been repeatedly
tested on this and demonstrated his ability to actually recall in detail what he reads. That rate is sufficient
to read the Bible in half an hour and Leo Tolstoys War and Peace in just over 20 minutes.
Sam, in Life Of Osho, reports that in the mid-1970s Osho was a recluse. He ominously notes, After the
morning lecture he went back into his houseand stayed alone in his room. No one knew what he did
there.8 Perhaps the mystery is hereby solved. However the most remarkable paradox about Osho has
always been the substance of his teachings: emphasizing Being, heart, mindfulness, the bodybut never
the intellect. And yet there he was, with one of the most extraordinary intellects of any mystic everand a
bibliophile to top it off.

Shortly before Osho died he gave specific instructions for his library: no more than three books to be lent

out at any given time. It appears as if he left his body with at least one remaining worldly attachment.

Notes

1. Pierre Evalds is the only serious attempt at a scholarly study of Oshos library that I am aware of. His
excellent paper can be viewed at www.pierreevald.dk/osho.php
2. The largest library in the world is the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. As of 2008 it holds
around thirty-two million books.
3. Peter French, John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1987), pp. 43-44.
4. Ibid., p. 44.
5. That would suggest that either Queen Elizabeth was unusually open-minded for a head of state, or that
John Dee was a tame fellow compared to Osho. Somehow I more suspect the latter. Although granted,
Osho did not have to worry about being roasted at the stake (at least, not that type of stake). Dee was
considered fortunate to escape the Inquisition.
6. www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography6/06-10-library.txt
7. www.docstoc.com/docs/10454192/Speed-Reading-Study
8. Sam, Life Of Osho (London: Sannyas, 1997), p. 37.

Copyright 2009, by P.T. Mistlberger, all rights reserved.

_____________________________________________________________________
____________

The Tale of a Painting

by P.T. Mistlberger

In late July of 2011, I was checking some online material in relation to a chapter of a book Id published in
late 2010 (The Three Dangerous Magi). The chapter concerned the legendary encounter between the two
famed 20th century magi, G.I. Gurdjieff (1872?-1949) and Aleister Crowley (1875-1947). In so doing I
accessed a blog that had been written on the leap-year day of February 29, 2008, by one John Robert
Colombo1. The blog featured a photo of British historian Ronald Hutton and some discussion of his recent
book The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. In addition, the blog made
mention of the legendary Gurdjieff-Crowley encounter of 1926. I had originally looked at this blog in the
summer of 2009, while knee-deep in research for my book, and filed away an intention to contact the
author of the blog when the time was more favorable for that.
I enjoy collecting books, a practice Ive sporadically continued for the past thirty years (interrupted by a
couple of periods of extended travel in the 1980s, during which I gave away or sold most of my collection
at those times). A few weeks prior to re-checking John Robert Colombos blog I absent-mindedly picked
up a book in a used bookstore titled True Canadian UFO Stories. In all honesty I did not pay much
attention to the book, let alone the name of the author, when I picked it up. (UFOs and related matters
have long been a side-line interest of mine). I bought the book because the subject matter (Canadian UFO
lore) is relatively rare, and the book itself, though it had been printed in 2004, was in immaculate
condition (clearly whoever had owned it, had not read it).
As matters had it, when I got home I tossed the book on my night table but did not get around to opening
it for some time. I was too involved in work-matters, and was also well into the writing of a new book on
the modern cultural distortions of the esoteric wisdom traditions (a work that has involved a large amount
of research into classical horror subjects such as monsters, werewolves, ghosts, aliens, and so forth). But
one evening in late Julytwo years after first discovering itI accessed John Robert Colombos
Gurdjieff-Crowley blog again, noted at the bottom of it how he invited any with additional information
on this encounter to contact him, and proceeded to send him an email, as I was confident that my
research into this meeting of the Magi was as least as extensive, if not more so, than any attempted up to
this time.
I received a prompt and friendly reply from JR, and then decided to see if there was a Wikipedia entry on

him. What I discovered left me somewhat embarrassed, because despite being a fellow-Canadian and a

reasonably literate man of 52 years of age, I had never heard of Colombo before, at least by immediate

conscious recall. And yet according to his Wiki page, and to the substantial documentation on his own

website, he is one of Canadas more prolific, and interesting, authors. (My lame excuse here being that as a

Canadian having lived most of my life a few miles from the America border, I am saturated with American

cultural contentIve read more of William Faulkner than I have of Robertson Daviesand I get my news

from NBC and CNN, not CBC. But I have read Farley Mowat and some of Pierre Berton, so I am not a

complete cultural turncoat). John Robert Colombo has been involved in the publication of some

two-hundred books, as author, compiler, editor, and translator. Although chiefly a poet, I still think he

compares favorably to a Canadian version of Isaac Asimov (1920-1992), the famed American

science-fiction author who was renowned for his broad scope of interests, accessible writing style, and

prolific and intelligent literary output.

 To return briefly to the matter of the book on Canadian UFO stories
on my night table. A few days after some correspondence with JR, I was preparing to sleep one night when
I decided to reach for the book, and as is my usual habit, do some reading before turning out the lamp. To
my surprise I beheld the name of the author of the UFO book: the same John Robert Colombo. There was
definitely no getting away from this author that particular week. (I cracked open the book to one Twilight
Zone-esque tale that involved a young family driving down a placid highway road in Saskatchewan in 1964
when their car suddenly levitated on one side into an utterly impossible position, maintained this for a
while, then slowly rebalanced itselfall on a perfectly flat highway with no apparent natural way for this
to occur. The title of the chapter was the wonderfully unadulterated The Car Started to Rise Up. Its these
kinds of stories that are always such a good shakeup to our staid reality tunnels, as Robert Anton Wilson
called them).
As part of JRs reply email to me, he made casual mention of an original watercolor he owned by Aleister

Crowley, and included a jpeg attachment of the painting. Art runs somewhat in my family; my father has

painted (oil and acrylic) for some 60 of his nearly 80 years on Earth, and in his retirement has been quite

prolific. A number of his works hang on the walls of restaurants and small businesses in his town

(Ottawa). I have also done some painting, though not as much as I would like over the years, owing to lack

of time. My personal preferences have inclined toward the Dutch: Rembrandt and Van Gogh, in

particular. A highlight of one of my trips to the Middle East and North Africa I made in the late 1990s was

a stopover in Amsterdam during which I was able to see the works of these masters up close. (And, like

many tourists seeing Van Goghs canvasses for the first time, was surprised at how small they were).
Back in my university years Id once written an essay on Van Goghs Wheatfield With Crows, in which Id

argued that the impossibility of determining whether these crows were heading toward the viewer, or

away from him, was a solid metaphor for the uncertainties of perception and psychological perspective in

general. (The essay had the merit of at least impressing my professor at the time, a fact perhaps dampened

by the reality of his love of the bottle. One never knew if he was marking ones efforts whilst sober or not).
 That said, it had been Van Goghs self-portraits that
Id long found most haunting. Rembrandt, though of a completely different style, imbued many of his
portraits with a similar quality, what I could only describe as brooding intensity. Id long thought that
this was perhaps best captured in his Man With The Golden Helmetbut discovered that this painting
was determined by experts in the mid-1980s to probably not have been painted by Rembrandt after all,
but presumably by one of his students. As Otto Friedrich lamented upon finding this out, Sometimes it
seems that all of education consists of first learning things and then learning that they are not true. As has
been pointed out by some who have studied the matter, sales of prints of the iconic Golden Helmet Man
declined drastically as it became known that this was probably not a Rembrandt work -- despite the fact
that the work is obviously both powerful and exquisitely executed -- an interesting testament to our
fixation with personalities, and subsequent glorification of whatever it is they lend their hand to.
The Crowley watercolor JR sent along was an interesting study of two peopleat first glance, I assumed
them to be a woman and a manrendered in Crowleys inimical style, featuring (perhaps) some sort of
intense blend of impressionism, semi-surrealism, and an almost child-like simplicity. Id assumed upon
this first glance that the woman was Leah Hirsig, Crowleys lover and spiritual partner from
approximately 1919 to 1924. I guessed the man to be Cecil Russell, but after posting mention of the
painting at the chief Aleister Crowley discussion website, L
AShTAL.com, the general feedback was that
this was in fact a portrait of two women. Various speculations were ventured, a reasonable one being that
the women were Hirsig and Jane Wolfe, the latter an established silent film star of Hollywoods earlier
years who became Crowleys apprentice (and one of his more successful ones, it should be noted).
With JRs permission I forwarded the jpeg of Crowleys watercolor to Richard Kaczynski, who is the
erdurabo: The Life of Aleister
current pre-eminent Crowley biographer (his 2010 revised version of P
Crowley,being a truly encyclopedic chronicle of the Beasts journey, unlikely ever to be surpassed).
Richard did not immediately recognize it, but suspected it was a significant find and quite possibly
authentic. He then forwarded mention of the painting and the image to William Breeze, the current
custodian of Crowleys estate (and the Frater Superior of Ordo Templi Orientis, a.k.a. Hymenaeus Beta).
Breeze took an interest in the matter, and soon identified the painting as having been crafted by Crowley
likely in early 1918. He had a photo of the work, a monochrome copy of which, as it turned out, was
already in the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas, in Austin. (This latter was also
independently confirmed by a poster at LAShTAL. Another poster then matched the color jpeg with the
monochrome copy in Austin, and the identity of the painting was confirmed). The signature is
accompanied by a blurry dating; a close up magnification of this dating appears to indicate Anno XIV,
followed by the astrological symbols for Sun in Gemini. That would suggest 14 years after 1904 (the date
Crowley received The Book of the Law), i.e. 1918. Sun in Gemini falls sometime between May 21 and June
21, as per Western astrology. (This was initially detected by Marco Pasi, the first person with whom
Colombo had shared the watercolor image).
 Ladies of the Liberal Club, painted by Aleister Crowley in May/June, 1918, New York City. The caption

with the painting is (penned with Crowley's typical wit) 'Mrs. Tyler says it is a wonderful portrait of Mrs.

White, and Mrs. White says it is a wonderful portrait of Mrs. Tyler.' (With thanks to LAShTAL.com poster

'OKontrair').
There was initially some confusion about the dating of the painting. Despite the May/June 1918 dating, I
could not find any mention of Crowley painting at that time, from either his Confessions or any of his
previous biographers. In Confessions he states that he began his first attempt at painting in oil sometime
after September 9th
, 1918.2 This was shortly after his return from his magical retirement on the Hudson,
during which he claimed to have accessed memories of a number of previous lifetimes. This mystery
appears to be solved by the question of the medium Crowley worked in. John Robert Colombo had
confirmed that the painting in question was in fact a watercolor. Apparently Crowley initially worked in
watercolor, and after September 1918, began to experiment with oils.
It turns out that the painting was part of the New York Collection, a group of works by Crowley that arose
out of his years in New York City. According to Breeze, Crowley had exhibited the painting in
questionwhich had been officially identified as being Two Ladies of the Liberal Clubat said Liberal
Club, which was located in Greenwich Village in Manhattan, on a six-block avenue known as MacDougal
St. This street has quite a history, having had residents as notable as Bob Dylan, Jackson Pollock, and
Eleanor Roosevelt, and housing pubs and cafes that had been frequented by the likes of Ezra Pound, e.e.
cummings, Jack Kerouac, Ernest Hemingway, Marlon Brando, and Henry Miller. Bette Davis and Jimi
Hendrix were said to have launched their careers at venues there and Anais Nin self-published her first
three books at a print shop on the same street.
 MacDougal St., Greenwich Village

The Liberal Club itselfa meeting place for those interested in new ideashad been founded in 1913, and
as with many such intellectual ventures of the time, was something of an outgrowth of the 19th century fin
de siecle (end of the century) European cultural ambience, during which great change was anticipated
while at the same time cynicism with existing worldviews was markedsomething that is usually ripe
ground for needed innovations in both intellectual and artistic realms. The MacDougal Street Liberal Club
was frequented by such types as Jack London, Upton Sinclair, Max Eastman, and Theodore Dreiser. It
was situated on top of a restaurant that was run by an anarchist couple, Polly Holladay and Hippolyte
Havel, the latter renowned for his volatile manner and brash views on organization of any sort, much of
which was allegedly vented as he served his customers.
Hippolyte Havel, the fiery anarchist himself, serving tables at his restaurant on MacDougal St., circa 1915.

Crowley's paintings would be shown in the room directly above the restaurant, three years later.

William Breeze wrote to Colombo, and a couple of days later JR replied with a relatively detailed email
outlining the provenance of the Crowley watercolor. (With JRs permission, I repeat the salient details of
the email here). It turns out that hed first seen it in 1955, when he was around 19 years old, in the
apartment of one Alexander Watt (1890-1961), an investment dealer who lived in Kitchener (Colombo's
place of birth) a mid-sized town in southwest Ontario, about fifty miles west of Toronto. This town was
heavily settled by Germans in the late 18th century and had originally been named Berlin. In 1916, owing to
the anti-German sentiment of WWI, it was renamed Kitchener, after a British Field-Marshall. As a further
point of interesting trivia, this was the same town William Lyon MacKenzie King was born in, Canadas
most notable prime ministerhe led the country for most of the heroic years between 1921 and
1948and was famous for his deep interest in the occult, which included his usage of trance-mediums to
receive messages from spirit guides, one of whom he claimed was Leonardo da Vinci, to provide
essential political and spiritual guidance.
William Lyon MacKenzie King (1874-1950), Crowley's contemporary and Canada's 'occult' Prime Minister

Alexander Watt was English by birth, and held a seat on the Toronto stock exchange. Colombo described
him as a local character, and added that Watt owned a large personal library of occult books, something
unusual for that place and time. There was also mention of manuscript material and correspondence
with Karl Germer (1885-1962, outer head of Ordo Templi Orientis from 1947-62) and Manly Palmer Hall
(1901-1990), the Canadian esotericist whose massive encyclopedic work The Secret Teachings of All
Ages is practically required reading for any serious student of the history of the occult.

Karl Germer and Manly Palmer Hall

JR mentioned that at that time in the mid-1950s hed been part of a small, ad-hoc group of occult

students, to which Watt spoke occasionally about Crowleyanity, obliquely about Rosicrucianism, openly

about Anthroposophy, and knowingly about Theosophy. Some information on him is available via various

archived online sources. Watt was a Rosicrucian (among other things), and had an interest in linking the

exactly three centuries between the 1604 appearance of the Rosicrucian Manifesto, and the scribing of The

Book of the Law in 1904; he knew Crowley, at least via correspondence, as well as Karl Germer. Watt

apparently attempted to produce a series of editions of Crowleys Holy Books, but the production quality

was not good.(3) Watt was also an OTO initiate (his initiate name GADA.'. appeared in many of his

books). Crowley had given him twenty copies of a special edition of OLLA (1945), his very last published

work, as a token of appreciation for Watt's efforts. (See Queen's University note below).

There is a fairly extensive mention of Alexander Watt in numerous archived editions of The Canadian

Theosophist. For example, in the September 1935 edition (the year before John Robert Colombo was

born), he is listed as President of the Kitchener Lodge. He is also listed as president of the same lodge as
recent as the 1958 edition, so apparently he held this position for some time, though in certain years he

alternated roles with the lodges secretary.4

Its been my impression over the years that Crowley draws roughly two general kinds of seekers to his
flame. I would categorize these as those struggling with anti-authoritarianism in all its guiseswhich
Freud likely correctly identified as primarily an unconscious battle with the Fatherand what I would
call intelligent rebels. The first is drawn to Crowley because he seems to represent a big screw you to
authorities of the most powerful kind, beginning with the legacy of Judeo-Christian-Islamic Abrahamic
faiths. Such an anti-authoritarianism is both perverse and averse in the most striking ways, which of
course is part of Crowleys basic legend. Needless to say, however, many using him as such an outlet for
their own repressed hostilities will not be mature in esoteric practice, until such unresolved authority
issues are worked out to some degree in conventional life (necessary if one ever seeks real personal
empowerment for oneselfits hard to be a successful leader if youve spent your life resenting other
successful leaders).
The second type of seekerthe intelligent rebelis reasonably mature (physical age notwithstanding),
and has the intelligence to see past superficial appearances and appreciate genuine intelligence when it is
there. Crowley himself was a walking opportunity for a seeker to be tested in that regard, because his
loudly crude flaws made it easy to become distracted by these flaws and assume that there was nothing
beyond them, which, of course, included his absurdly dramatized reputation, as first shouted about by
Horatio Bottomley and other barons of the yellow press. (An excellent parallel for this matter was Oshos
Rolls Roycesit was always interesting to watch people react to these cars, as their various issues came
bubbling up, be they unresolved greed, jealousy, pious judgmentalism, and so forthto the point that it
became absolutely impossible for them to notice anything beyond the cars. Gurdjieff suffered similar
skewed perceptions, mostly in relation to his drinking, obscene language, and occasional flirtatiousness
with female students).
The following letter written by Watt, and published in the July/August 1956 edition of The Canadian
Theosophist, shows his sharpness and clear membership in the 2nd group just specified:
The Editor, The Canadian Theosophist,
Sir:
May we, the least significant of the Canadian Lodges, be one of the first to congratulate those
responsible for adorning the latest jewel in the Theosophical Crownthe Phoenix Lodge in Hamilton.
We wish them Bon Voyage and pleasant sailing.
While we regret to see a division in a long established Lodge like the Hamilton Lodge with all its cultural
associations, its record for tolerance, and the happy memories of its guidance by our beloved and
departed Brother Albert E.S. Smythe from his exalted exedra, we must perhaps realize that the
Ambitious City is growing up and that the recent dichotomy is due to the fact that the newcomers desire
a new type of theosophy - such is the Zeitgeist!and hence a new Lodge. This rare bird, however, must
not be in any way understood as arising from the ashes, or even embers, of the Hamilton Lodge, because
we know that body to be a brilliant and ever-burning lamp to lighten the gentiles in that city!
We read with interest the notes and comments of our General Secretary in the May-June issue of The
Canadian Theosophist, especially where he says that some members of the old Hamilton Lodge have
found the great Divide between those who live on the Mountains and those who live on the Plains is too
strenuous in a physical way. He omitted to mention the Valleys, perhaps as it is there the pilgrims view
the radiant Body of Isis as through a mist! Those on the Mountains, however, with eagle sight, should
not find it necessary to even consider the formation of a second Lodge in any one city. And this brings us
to what we consider a very important matter.
It is of course understood and goes without saying, that those in high places who dispense Charters to
newly formed Lodges, do so after applying every acid test to those making the application, especially as
to the brand of theosophy they have in mind propagating. The older Lodges and the inactive ones,
affiliated with the Canadian Section, are all voluntarily pledged to uphold Blavatskyan Theosophy, and
in these times, it should be a matter of responsibility to those issuing new Charters, to see that the
present day characterizations of theosophy do not creep into our august society.
We understand there has always been an esoteric section in the Theosophical Society and always will be
but we deplore the casting of pearls and the open exposition of pseudo occultism to all and sundry
newcomers, who find themselves attracted to the flame of psychism.
These remarks are occasioned by reading the report of the inaugural meeting of the Phoenix Lodge in
which its Secretary, Stella Ballard, states:
Regular meetings have been held on Wednesday evenings consisting of a series of helpful and aspiring
meditations, and Mrs. Gladys Miller has been conducting breathing exercises for daily use, together
with a method of utilizing the cosmic rays
We hope we are not doing an injustice to this new group and do not wish to say or suggest anything that
might retard their full flowering, or perhaps we should sayfull feathering, and it may be that the
report referred to a private and closed meeting of the Lodgewe do not know. We sincerely hope,
however, that publicly and in open meeting, subjects of this nature are not put forth as theosophy, as
we who hold our theosophy dear, would then find it necessary to dissociate ourselves from the new
thought. The first object of the Society is a full meal for most of us in this incarnation. The second is a
refection for epicureans, while the third is oft-times nothing more than a nauseous mess for gluttons.
Let all good theosophists in Canada sit down together at what will be our Last Supper for awhile, and
arise refreshed and sustained by a well-balanced meal that will not cause the least delicate to complain
of indigestion.
Yours very sincerely,
Kitchener Lodge,
Alexander Watt Pres.5
Watt was sixty-six when he wrote that letter, evidence that he had certainly not become apathetic in his

twilight years. In particular is to be noted his courage and alertness in 'calling out' the tendency of many

esoteric groups to drift into a kind of mushy emotionalism that breeds excessive interest in psychic

matters. The letter upset some people connected to the fledgling Phoenix lodge, which fired back in

predictable fashion. Watts reply, in the January-February 1957 edition (selective parts of interest shown

below), sheds light on his extracurricular esoteric interests, and mentions the ad-hoc occult circle that

he led, and which John Robert Colombo had occasionally attended :

The Editor, Dear Sir:

...the writer has been deeply interested in the esoteric side of Theosophy for many years and while he is
the present President of the local Lodge, he has always kept Esotericism separate from the Lodge and
has conducted a class in his own home along esoteric lines, but has never called it a Theosophical study
group or any other class inferring as much. The Kitchener Lodge Chartered in 1935 has carried on
ralaya and a balancing
continuously since that time. During that time there has been a period of P
Manvantara. If on the surface the Lodge has not been active and numerically strong, that does not
suggest that Theosophy has not been active in the district. Some Lodges can be numerically strong and
Theosophically weak. Oft-times an insidious and iconoclastic worm will be found boring at the heart of
the most perfect apple.
As I have said earlier, I wish nothing but the best for the new Phoenix Lodge and its Members, many of
whom I count my very good friends, but their success will be measured in my humble opinion by the
quality of the Theosophy they present from their platform...
Yours fraternally,
Alexander Watt.6
The following book review (from the 1958 edition of The Canadian Theosophist) is of a short booklet of

Watts writings. The booklet makes reference to Crowley and a particular Tarot card:

BOOK REVIEW
Blessed Be He: A Tribute to Alexander Watt, a selection from his writings (The Hawkshead Press, Box
333, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada), 24 pages; edition limited to 126 copies which are signed and
numbered by the author for his private distribution.
The strange title of this booklet, Blessed Be He, is taken from an ancient Hebrew legend which describes
the creation of the universe. It is not as easy, however, to explain the contents of this booklet, for the ten
sections which compose it are varied, being selections from the lectures, articles and poetry of Alexander
Watt, a Canadian Theosophist and lecturer of no mean repute.
Outwardly Blessed Be He is a handsome piece of typography; it is printed in two colors on a textured
stock which resembles parchment. Inwardly Blessed Be He is a sustained rhapsody celebrating the
sensuous aspects of the spiritual life. Since the tone of the writing is oracular arid poetical, the booklet is
couched in symbolic references. These reflect the authors wide range of studies which include the
Qabala, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Crowleyism, Christianity and the Tarot, although
it will be noted that these diverse influences have been integrated into a greater whole.
While it is difficult to analyze Blessed Be He, since the booklet abounds in suggestive paradoxes, perhaps
its most beautiful sections are those two which describe Crowleys star-sponge and the authors
meditation on the fourteenth Tarot card. In the former the ecstasy associated with the souls merging
with the feminine pole of manifestation is described, and in the latter the author sets forth a parable
which is the archetype of the souls adventure along the mystical path.
Aside from a few obvious misprints, Blessed Be He is a beautiful presentation, in capsule form, of a
complete philosophy of life which holds that the highest life is the spiritual life. It is unfortunate that
Blessed Be He will be available to only so few, since its oracular tone necessitates frequent re-readings,
and, since it would be appreciated by many more than the author's immediate acquaintances.
Ruta7
Concerning the Star-Sponge, an insightful essay by Bill Heidrick on the matter can be read here.
Tarot trump #14 is typically called Temperance; in Crowleys Thoth Tarot deck, it is Art -- doubtless an

appropriate Trump card for an article about his painting efforts.

Crowleys writings on this card, from The Book of Thoth, can be read here.
Alas, the Canadian Theosophical Society apparently did not hold Crowley in much regard, as the following
breathless article from the September, 1935 edition, suggests:
FRAUDULENT IMPERATOR OF AMORC
Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer has just issued a third extensive exposition of the false and fraudulent methods
of the Imperator of the AMORC, Mr. Spencer Lewis, and it should resolve the doubts of the many
correspondents who have been writing to us and trying to convince us that we are unjust and wrong to
denounce the methods of this gentleman in deluding the members of his organization as he does. We
have no quarrel with these members nor with any others who are gullible enough to be deceived and
misled by false teaching and baseless pretenses, nor can we boast of the Theosophical Movement in this
respect with the example of Mr. Leadbeater before us.
The AMORC has made such ridiculous claims and these have been so widely accepted that it is only fair
to the public and those who have been deceived, to let them know how fully these pretenses and
falsifications have been exposed. The present book of 128 pages issued by The Rosicrucian Foundation,
Quakertown, Pennsylvania, presents 34 fac simile documents proving that the alleged original
Rosicrucian teachings issued by Lewis, the Imperator, are pilfered from well-known works of such
writers as Dr. Franz Hartmann, Von Eckhartshausen, Dr. Richard Maurice Bucke, William Walker
Atkinson, Johann Valentin Andreae, and others, particularly the notorious Aleister Crowley from whom
he has derived his chief authority, and his title and such charter as he purports to possess being, as Dr.
Clymer points out, 'the Most Illustrious Master of Black Magic and a Most Adept Black Magician,'
whom, notwithstanding Lewis, is said 'to acknowledge to be his Secret Chief'.
This book and its companion volumes, 'A Challenge and the Answer,' and 'Randolph Foundation the
Authentic Body has Exclusive Rights to use of Rosicrucian Names,' completely shatter the deceitful and
misleading claims of Spencer Lewis. In an appendix the testimony of A. Leon Batchelor, a former
treasurer of the AMORC, is given in which he states that the whole object of AMORC is to supply funds to
the Lewis family, who built their homes with the funds and paid their household expenses out of the
property, valued at half a million, with $400,000 cash in the bank and an annual income of about
$350,000. Mr. Batchelor says 'it is a sad reflection on AMORC that about 400 members drop out each
month; that about an equal number each month are caught in the meshes of Lewis's untruthful and
unethical advertising, soon too drop by the wayside, and their places to be taken by new victims.' It is a
sad reflection also on the gullibility of the public that they are willing to pay heavily for the bogus
teachings of AMORC, and yet neglect, in Canada at any rate, to investigate the Theosophy which we
offer free.
The people appear to love to be fooled, and perhaps it is necessary that they should have such
experience. Yet they do not seem able to learn to discriminate. Dr. Clymer deserves much credit for
taking such pains to lay the evidences regarding this 'most successful deceiver, a vile impostor, a clever
charlatan and a crafty sorcerer,' as he terms him, before the world. These books are supplied free to
those interested. We observe that the cost of postage is 21 cents. 8
Alexander Watt died in a car accident in early 1961, aged 70:
IN MEMORIAM
Death came with tragic suddenness to Alexander Watt of Kitchener Lodge in a motor accident on
January 23, 1961. Mrs. Watt was severely injured.
Mr. Watt formed the Kitchener Lodge shortly after he moved from London, Ont. to Kitchener and from
that time he was the main support of the Lodge. He was an earnest student of Theosophy and the
Kabala and his lectures on these subjects were looked forward to by members of Toronto and Hamilton
Lodges as Mr. Watt always presented his material in dynamic and original manner. The last farewells
to this active worker were said at a Theosophical funeral service held on Thursday, January 26 at the
Toronto Crematorium.
Our deep sympathy is extended to Mrs. Watt and to Hugh and Alexander and to members of their
families.9
Watts library of rare books, along with his various letters of correspondence with Crowley, Germer, Hall,
and others, as well as his Crowley watercolor, was inherited by his son Hugh, an assembler of electronics
products. Hugh held on to the material for a few decades, and then decided, in 1989, to donate the rare
books and other material to the library of Queens University of Kingston (which is halfway between
Toronto and Montreal). The university accepted the books, but according to Colombo the chief librarian
took a pass on the cache of correspondence (which included four heavy cartons of unpublished material
as well as Crowleys painting), alluding to the ravings of a madman. Hugh Watt, now in his own senior
years and wishing to unburden himself of the cartons, then passed them on to John Robert Colombo
reasoning that he was the senior surviving member of Alexander Watts original ad-hoc group of occult
students. JR has quietly owned the material since then. And so the passage of the painting was from
Crowley, to Karl Germer, to Alexander Watt, to Hugh Watt, to the Queen's University librarian to
immediately back to Hugh Watt, to John Robert Colombo (since 1989).
Further details about Alexander Watt and his library can be read in the Queen's University Special
Collections page here.
It may comfortably be said that the power of all art resides in the personal mind and energy of the

craftsman. A work of art can no more be separated from the one who fashioned it than a beam of light can

be separated from its light source. Crowley himself would have had no cause to disagree with that. In

1908, when he was wandering through Spain with Victor Neuburg, he made the following observations:

In the galleries of the Prado there is no occasion to trouble about such matters. The place fills one
with uttermost peace; one goes there to worship Velasquez and Goya, not to argue. Perhaps I was
still too ingenuous to appreciate Goya to the full. On the other hand, there may be something in my
impression that he is badly represented at Madrid. Much of his work struck me as the mechanical
masterpieces of the clever court painter. Possibly, moreover, there was no room for him in my
spirit, seduced, as it was, by the vivid variety of Velasquez. Las Meninas is worshipped in a room
consecrated solely to itself, and I spent more of my mornings in that room and let it soak in. I
decided then, and might concur still had I not learnt the absurdity of trying to ascribe an order to
things which are each unique and absolute, that Las Meninas is the greatest picture in the world.
 Las Meninas by Diego Velasquez (1599-1660)

It certainly taught me to know the one thing that I care to learn about painting: that the subject of a
picture is merely an excuse for arranging forms and colours in such a way as to express the inmost self
of the artist.10

Initially Crowley did not have a great affinity with visual art; as with most intellectuals, his natural
pull was toward literature. He wrote:

As a critic of art I have curious qualifications. My early life left me ignorant of the existence of anything
of the sort beyond Landseer's 'Dignity and Impudence'. I suppose I ought to have deduced the existence
of art from this alone had I been an ideal logician. Such horrors imply their opposites. However, even in
my emancipation I never discovered art as I did literature. It never occurred to me that there might be a
plastic language as well as a spoken and written one. I had no conception that ideas could be conveyed
through this medium. To me, as to the multitude, art meant nothing more than literature.11

Gerald Kelly, brother of Crowleys first wife, Rose, and a painter himself, was to be a marked influence on
Crowleys eventual interest in visual art:
The first picture that awakened me was Manets wonder Olympe, enthusiastically demonstrated by
Gerald Kelly to be the greatest picture ever painted. I could see nothing but bad drawing and bad taste;
and yet something told me that I was making a mistake.12

Manet's Olympia, painted in 1863.

When I reached Rodin shortly afterwards I understood him at once, because the sculpture and
architecture of the East had prepared me. I knew that they were the expression of certain religious
enthusiasms, and it was easy for me to make the connection and say, 'Rodin's sculpture gives the
impression of elemental energy.' Yet this was subconscious. In my poems I have treated Rodin from a
purely literary standpoint.
As time passed my interest in the arts increased. I was still careful to avoid contemporary literature lest
it should influence my thought or style. But I saw no harm in making friends with painters and learning
to see the world through their eyes. Having already seen it through my own in the course of my
wanderings, I was the better able to observe clearly and judge impartially. Perhaps this circumstance
itself had biased me. It is at least the case that I have no use for artists who have lost touch with
tradition and see nature second hand. I think I have kept my head pretty square on my shoulders in the
turmoil of the recent revolutions. I find myself able to distinguish between the artist whose eccentricities
and heresies interpret his individual peculiarities and the self-advertising quack who tries to be original
by outdoing the most outrageous heresiarch of the moment. 13

Anyone who considers the entirety of Crowleys life will be struck by a few things, not least of which will
be his energy-level. The man had very high personal energy, an intensity that reflects pointedly in his
paintings. It is sometimes said that what marks an initiate of the inner schools is a certain personal
frequency or intensity that, if properly parlayed, allows them to concentrate two or three lifetimes into
one. The expression larger than life may seem odd upon inspection (how can anything be larger than that
which contains it?) and yet it is an apt metaphor for one whose intensity translates into a type of
personality that attracts many and varied experiences. Such a type is often involved in dramatic events,
because others, like moths to a flame, seek to manufacture such events and thereby work out various
personal unfinished business via the locus of the larger than life personality. (Freud identified this
process in a therapeutic context as transference, whereby a patient will seek to work out all sorts of issues
via the interplay of their relationship with a therapist, but it also takes place in the field of interaction
between highly charismatic personalities and those around them).
Of course, not all initiates are occult masters or Eastern gurus or even particularly wise. Some are
scientists, some politicians, some religious leaders, and some artists, writers, poets, leaders or initiators
(i.e., creators) of many stripes. A more advanced initiate may be said to be one who has what Gurdjieff
called a planetary aim (that is, is fundamentally concerned with the evolution of the human race), and as
such, is less self-absorbed.
It could be speculated that Rembrandt and Van Gogh, though far superior artists in contrast to an

art-dabbler like Crowley, were immature initiates, if only because of their near obsession with

self-portraits (although that said, Van Gogh's early death nullified any opportunity to blossom further in

vision and wisdom). But the fantastic energy is there, as it was with others like Leonardo and

Michelangelo, a single-mindedness that is basic to the seeker who penetrates the mysteries of existence.
 Self portraits of Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and Crowley

All maturation involves the movement from fascination with self, to interest in the Other (initially

manipulative, to an interest ultimately free of agenda), to interest in the non-dual (beyond I and Thou). I

think Crowleys art, though perhaps in places as visually nauseating as a Hieronymus Bosch or even a

Picasso, shows some of those countering influences that perhaps reflect his own maturation via his art --

from fascination with self (his highly charged self-portraits), with the Other (his many portraits of others),
to his ultimate interest in transcendence of both (perhaps embodied in his renowned figure called LAM,

shown below, and its implied potential for transcendent consciousness).

The sketch of LAM was an outgrowth of Crowley's 'Amalantrah Working', drug and sex magick-influenced
visionary work he'd undertaken with his lover Roddie Minor in early 1918, just a few months before he
painted the 'Ladies of the Liberal Club'. Given LAM's association with non-terrestrial intelligence, this
perhaps brings us full circle to John Robert Colombo's UFO book I alluded to at the beginning of this
essay. But that's another story for another time.

Notes
1. John Robert Colombos homepage can be accessed here. His Wikipedia page can be viewed here.
2. The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography, edited by John Symonds and Kenneth
Grant (London: Penguin Books, 1979), p. 791.
3. See http://www.weiserantiquarian.com/cgi-bin/wab455/30860.html
4. These are available online via the Theosophical archives, for eg.,
http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-37-1-Theosophist.htm
5. http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-37-3-Theosophist.htm
6. http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-37-6-Theosophist.htm
7. http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-39-5-Theosophist.htm
8. http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-16-7-C-Theosophist.htm
9. http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-42-1-Theosophist.htm
10. Confessions, p. 586
11. Ibid, p. 585.
12. Ibid, p. 585.
13. Ibid, p. 585. A heresiarch is the founder of a heretical faith, movement or doctrine.

_____________________________

Crowley on Canada

I've long been greatly amused by Crowley's brief comments on Canada in his Confessions.
Canadians (in general) have the trait of a self-deprecating sense of humour, owing doubtless in no
small part to being in the immediate shadow of the jazziest nation on Earth (although China fast
creeps up). Accordingly we Canadians have developed a healthy ability for self-parody. Crowley's
remarks, delivered with his patented forthright take-no-prisoners style, only enhances the humour.

Aleister Crowley, apparently, did not especially care for Canada.

He was one of the great travelers of his era, among his fellow mystics rivaling Blavatsky and Gurdjieff for
sheer quantity of mileage logged in his wanderings. Commercial international airline travel did begin until
the 1920s, and in those early days was sporadic in availability. Prior to that (and for most people, well into
the 1950s) the standard means of long distance travel was by boat and train. By Crowleys mid-20s hed
already sailed across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and had traveled the Americas and parts of Asia. In
late April of 1906, aged thirty and already a seasoned traveler, he boarded the Empress of India and sailed
from Japan to Vancouver, B.C. He then took a train across the vast expanse from B.C. to Niagara Falls.
The words below are extracted from his Confessions.
 The Empress of India

I sailed on April 21st by The Empress of India, took a flying glance at Japan and put out into the Pacific.
A savage sea without a sail,

... Grey gulphs and green aglittering.

We never sighted the slightest suggestion of life all the way to Vancouver, twelve days of chilly boredom,
though there was a certain impressiveness in the very dreariness and desolation. There was a hint of the
curious horror that emptiness always evokes, whether it is a space of starless night or a bleak and barren
waste of land. The one exception is the Sahara Desert where, for some reason that I cannot name, the
suggestion is not in the least of vacancy and barrenness, but rather of some subtle and secret spring of life.
Vancouver presents no interest to the casual visitor. It is severely Scotch. Its beauties lie in its
surroundings.
 Exciting downtown Vancouver in 1906.

I was very disappointed with the Rockies, of which I had heard such eloquent encomiums. They are

singularly shapeless; and their proportions are unpleasing. There is too much colourless and brutal base;

too little snowy shapely summit.

As for the ghastly monotony of the wilderness beyond them, through Calgary and Winnipeg right on to

Torontowords fortunately fail.

The manners of the people are crude and offensive. They seem to resent the existence of civilized men;

and show it by gratuitous insolence, which they mistake for a mark of manly independence.

The whole country and its people are somehow cold and ill-favoured. The character of the mountains
struck me as significant. Contrast them with the Alps where every peak is ringed by smug hamlets, hearty
and hospitable, and every available approach is either a flowery meadow, a pasture pregnant with peaceful
flocks and herds, or a centre of cultivation. In the Rockies, barren and treeless plains are suddenly blocked
by ugly walls of rock. Nothing less inviting can be imagined. Contrast them again with the Himalayas.
There we find no green Alps, no clustering cottages; but their stupendous sublimity takes the mind away
from any expectation or desire of thoughts connected with humanity.

Himalayas on the left; Canadian Rockies on the right

The Rockies have no majesty; they do not elevate the mind to contemplation of Almighty God any more
than they warm the heart by seeming sentinels to watch over the habitations of one's fellow men.
Toronto as a city carries out the idea of Canada as a country. It is a calculated crime both against the
aspirations of the soul and the affections of the heart.
 Thrilling Toronto, 1906.

I had been fed vilely on the train. I thought I would treat myself to a really first-class dinner. But all I
could get was high-teathey had never heard the name of wine! Of all the loveless, lifeless lands that
writhe beneath the wrath of God, commend me to Canada! (I understand that the eastern cities, having
known French culture, are comparatively habitable. Not having been there I cannot say.)
I hustled on to Buffalo to see Niagara. Here I first struck the American newspaper reporter in full bloom,
in his native haunts. Before I had been half an hour in my Hotel I was tackled by a half a dozen
enthusiastic scribes. I naturally supposed that they had somehow heard of my Himalayan or Chinese
adventures, and talked accordingly. It gradually dawned on me that somehow I was failing to fill the bill;
and I presently discovered that they had mistaken me for some English lieutenant who was supposed to
have crossed from Canada and from whom they wanted information about some local foolishness.
I took a pretty good look at Niagara. It is absurd to shriek at the desecration cause by building a few
houses in the vicinity. It seemed to me that they helped rather than hindered one's appreciation. They
supplied a standard of comparison. All that has been said of the falls is, as the sayers admit, ridiculously
below the reality. In their way they challenge comparison with the mountains of Asia themselves. They
have the same air of being out of all proportion with the observer. They belong to a different scale; and
they impress one with the same idea of utter indifference by nature. They fascinate, as all things vast
beyond computation invariably do. I felt that if I lived with them for even a short time they would
completely obsess me and possibly lure me to end my life with their eternity. I felt the same about the
mountains of India, the expanse of China, the solitude of the Sahara. I feel as if the better part of me
belonged to them, as if my dearest destiny would be to live and die with them.
The Niagara Falls -- the Canadian side
 Crowley's remarks on Canada taken from The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Penguin Books, 1979, pp. 501-502.