Crowley/Harris letters - Observations and Questions

Zephyros

Last night I re-read the letters between Frieda Harris and Crowley, and it always makes some fascinating reading. The letters show how good friends they were, each chiding the other in personal, familiar ways. He tells her she's stupid while she gives as good a she gets, making jokes about his inflated ego and unintelligable books. The letters also show a somewhat darker side, as Harris refuses Crowley's apparent requests for more money. Although she loved and respected him, I do think she saw him as somewhat too reckless for his own good. If anyone hasn't read these letters I firmly recommend it.

Now, like all historical records the letters do not show a complete picture of the events. Not only are his letters mostly missing but some are fragmented, some lack a date, some apparently consisted of multiple pages and some were lost. In this sense trying to understand them is a bit like like eavesdropping on a telephone line filled with static. In addition to the lack of written record, we also lack their conversations and meetings, so we have an even murkier picture.

Still, one specific episode did catch my eye, and raises some questions. One letter is addressed to a Pearson, a photoengraver, in which Crowley complains about Harris in far from flattering terms. It implies that after sending the pictures to this Pearson, Harris took them back because of her own reasons which seem to have a lot to do with her mistrust of Crowley handling the business side of things.

[Crowley to Pearson, the photoengraver]

STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

140 Picadilly,
W.1.
May 29th, 1942.

Dear Mr. Pearson,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Thank you for your letter received this morning. In view of future relations I think it of the utmost importance that I should make the situation clear to you. I should have preferred to do this by word of mouth; and yet perhaps a letter may, in the long run, serve the purpose better. As you know, odd cards have been reproduce. by you as funds became available. My very old and very dear friend Mr. Hylton was good enough to send me [L]15.-.-for the purpose of producing one more trump, but on discovering that two could be done for an extra [L]5.-.- or a little less, I sent you the additional amount out of my own pocket. Lady Harris, naturally, accepted this enthusiastically, and sent you the originals
necessary.

Let me say in parenthesis that one of the principal points in wishing this to be done was that a friend of mine, who is proposing to finance the entire production, wanted tosee one of the smaller cards, so that he might feel sure that they would stand up to the trumps. The next thing is that, to my amazement, I received . letter from Lady Harris, including the following passage:--

"I am concerned at this part payment and buying single blocks. It is not a good proposition because the question arises is the new block the property of Hylton, yours or mine or whose? I foresee great complications & would suggest we should have a third party to whomall subscriptions should be paid, even if it means forming a limited Tarot Co. with a treasurer.

How would Madge Porter do if I could get her to take it on? If you don't like that idea--would Hylton do it or Cecil. You and I with the possible chance of profits (I don't think) should not be recipients of casual cheques or we shall soon be accused of embezzling same."

Lady Harris never reads my letters carefully. I had told here that these blocks were a present to us.

Madge Porter is a dear little old lady, who lives in a remote cottage in a wood some distance from Newbury. She is only approachable by a cart-track through the wood, and has no telephone.

I wrote to Lady Harris explaining the situation and then received the following letter:

"May 14, 1942

"My dear Aleister,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I am sorry I cannot allow my pictures to be reproduced as a pack of cards unless I know who the person is who is putting down the money, the exact details of your plan and how you propose to raise so large a sum and am satisfied that the securities are real business proposition and the scheme is a sound one. As all this fuss and worry is too much for me will you kindly write fully to my bank manager and not to me, as in future I want to leave these complicated business agreements to experts.

I shall not reply to you again about them or discuss them with you.

Love is the law, love under will.

Yours,

Frieda Harris"

If only she would have stuck to that! But instead of leaving things to her Manager, she takes away the originals from you. I suppose that you had already started work on the two cards. I can well understand your annoyance. I should like to emphasise that I am absolutely devoted to Lady Harris, and have the evidence of countless acts of kindness on her part, indicating that her feelings toward me are similar. But from time to time she is subject to fits of panic in which she does the most incomprehensible things. For instance, she writes to people who are perfect strangers to her with the object of interfering with their relations with me. I do not wish to quote incidents, but I assure you that the facts are astounding. To recur to the present situation. In the first place, I have a two-thirds interest in this work on the Tarot. As to the cards themselves, in nearly every case she has done her painting from sketches made by me, and in every case the design and meaning of the card and the particular colours to be used have been entirely my work. There has been no cause of dispute. In fact, she has been most docile in adapting herself to my requirements; in some cases I have made her do the card over again as many as six or seven times. There is no reason whatever why she should go back on the proposition to reproduce these two cards. You told me that her reason was that she though four should have been reproduced at once. But in that case why not tell me? I should gladly have put up the additional money required.

I am sorry to have had to write to you at such length, about what is, after all, nothing at all; and I daresay that you were quite right in suggesting to me over the telephone that if she were left alone she would come to her senses.

But the point at issue is this: I cannot possibly ask my friend to put up [L]1600 if at any moment she is liable to dash in on an impulse and whisk the originals away!

For this reason, I am going to ask my solicitors, Messrs. Gisborne & Lewis, 10 Ely
Place, W.1., to draw up a proper business Contract, which will make it impossible for her to interfere with the work, once the financial arrangements with my friend are completed.

Love is the law, love under will.

Yours sincerely

Aleister Crowley

[P.S.] It seems important that you should understand my motive. To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious "occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought for the next 2000 years. My one anxiety is that it should be saved from danger of destruction, by being reproduced in permanent form, and distributed in as many distant places as may be. I am not anxious to profit financially; if I had the capital available in this country, I should send (say) 200 copies to State Libraries in all parts of the world, and as many more to my principal representatives.

A.C.

In another letter to someone called Kerman, July 9, 1942, Crowley seems all up in arms and is on the verge of litigstion against Harris.

140 Picadilly
W.1. July 9 [1942]

Dear Kerman,

The Tarot is an Atlas of, and Guide Book to, the Universe. It has been my daily study since Feb. '99, and my researches have cost me several thousand pounds. I have long determined to construct a pack embodying all the new knowledge gained from Anthropology, Comparative Religion, & so forth. Lady Harris offered t. execute the cards from my designs. It was agreed that I should have a 2/3 share in the venture. From my rough sketches & descriptions, under my continual inspection, subject to my constant correction--I made her do some cards over again 5, 6 even 8 times in one case-- she made the set now on show at the Berkeley Galleries. (There is one exception: the card numbered I was not shown to, or authorized by, me. I suspect a trick in this.)

She has damaged the property by offering it for sale at cost price, thus alienating the libraries & booksellers, and reducing my 2/3 interest to nil. I value the copyright at something like [L]20000. (A crude, vilely drawn & coloured, ignorant, inferior pack, published in 1902 or thereabouts, has sold over 1000 copies every year since then at 15/- a copy. I am quite sure that these admirable cards, with my book on the subject, which was to go with them in an ornamental box, would bring in far more annual receipts. I have a large following in U.S.A.--they send me [L]50 a month or more- -which is growing rapidly. Especially now my "Hymn for Independence Day" has been set to music, and will be broadcast by the Cultural Garden League of Cleveland, Ohio, on Aug. 9. There is also my Free French song (proof enclosed). And the invention of the V-sign will ultimately benefit my work. I want first to establish my 2/3 claim in the copyright. Secondly, my controlling
interest in the cards themselves. If necessary, damages for her sly, underhand, sneaking, dishonourable and dishonest action in giving this show without my approval, and destroying the whole value of the copyright.

N.B. The property right is actually vested in the O.T.O. (Mr. Karl Germer 1007 Lexington Avenue New York City is my Grand Treasurer General, and we had perhaps better sue in his name.

N.B. Lady H's real motive is to conceal her 4 years' close association with me! Rather silly, then, to provoke a lawsuit!

I shall ring up Saturday A.M. early: perhaps you could lunch with me.

Yours sincerely,

Aleister Crowley

P.S. A friendly settlement is being tried; don't do anything until I see you again. A.C.

That's some heavy stuff there, although their letters about the work itself remain cordial. In fact, Harris speaks of the fun she had at the exhibition itself, without mention of her "sly, underhand, sneaking, dishonourable and dishonest action."

So, what happened behind the scenes in 1942? Did they have a falling out? Did they ever produce and sign the contract mentioned? Did they get to court? They met and spoke independently of their letters, such meetings are mentioned, but how did they get to the point where lawyers' names were bandied about? After all, the letters hint that they had discussed the issue but couldn't reach an agreement, leading to the letter writing.

What is the "crude and vilely drawn" deck published in 1902 that sold so much? Was he talking about the RWS and made a mistake about the year?

Crowley hints that there is a card he was not shown and had not authorized. Is this true? Was it included in the final deck, and if so which is it?
 

Babalon Jones

What is the "crude and vilely drawn" deck published in 1902 that sold so much? Was he talking about the RWS and made a mistake about the year?

I always assumed RWS but could it be Oswald Wirth's deck, done under dictation by Stanislas de Guaita? The deck was 1889 but De Guaita's book "The Serpent de la Genese" came out in 1902 and is mentioned in Waite's Pictorial Key as a commentary on the trumps.
 

Babalon Jones

Crowley hints that there is a card he was not shown and had not authorized. Is this true? Was it included in the final deck, and if so which is it?
Does it not say "the card numbered I" so, The Magus? One version?
 

Zephyros

I always assumed RWS but could it be Oswald Wirth's deck, done under dictation by Stanislas de Guaita? The deck was 1889 but De Guaita's book "The Serpent de la Genese" came out in 1902 and is mentioned in Waite's Pictorial Key as a commentary on the trumps.

Might be. Was it that popular, though?

Does it not say "the card numbered I" so, The Magus? One version?

Right! Must have missed that. Silly me. :)

https://www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowley/books/thoth_catalog_2/thoth_catalog_2.htm

The Berkely exhibition catalog describes it. Based on the somewhat muddled description of "juggling the four symbols of the elements, the Pqpyrus or Word, the pen or Will, and the Wand or Wisdom" along with the mention of the "shadow" of the Ape, it must be the one I call the "spaghetti-armed" magus (my least favorite)

That must be it. I like the "real" Magus the most, for some reason, but that might be just a case of confirmation bias.