[aleister] crowley

239 Pages·2007·11.1 MB·English

A REEVALUATION OFTI-IE LITERARY WORKS OF
EDWARD ALEXANDER [ALEISTER] CROWLEY
A Thesis
Presented to
The School ofGraduate Studies
Drake University
In Partial Fulfillment
ofthe Requirements for the Degree
Master ofArts
by
Charles Nicholas Serra II
April 1991
A REEVALUATION OFTHELITERARYWORKS OF
EDWARD ALEXANDER [ALEISTER] CROWLEY
by
Charles Nicholas SerraIl
Approved by Committee:
~~.;.,.
Dean ofthe School ofGraduate Studies
Dedicated to four instrumental people:
For Aleister Crowley, who quested after "the light
that never shone on land or sea"; for B. H. who
provided patronage and patience; for Grace Eckley,
who managed to nurse me through; and for L. L.,
"my Gitana, my Saliya," who has all the answers I
lack, now in the ineffable.
Unpublished Copyright. all rights reserved. 1991
1
A REEVALVATIONOF THE LITERARYWORKS OF
EDWARD ALEXANDER [ALEISTER] CROWLEY
Table ofContents
Page
Abstract ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u
Section One: Yeats and the Golden Dawn .
Section Two: Augoeides, Maturity and Mysticism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Section Three: Literary Decline, the War Years 36
Works Consulted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Textual Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IA
11
A REEVALVAnONOFTHE LITERARY WORKS OF
EDWARDALEXANDER[ALEISTER] CROWLEY
Abstract
For the last fifty years the poetry and prose of Edward Alexander [Aleister]
Crowley (1875-1947) has been systematically ignored by scholars and critics on the
narrow grounds that it deals with the occult sciences, is pornographic, or simply
because detractors did not agree with Crowley's personal philosophy or life. Since
the mid 1970's, however, academics have become increasingly interested in the
mystical and occult content of William Butler Yeats's poetry, praising it for the
same characteristics which have always been labeled "defects" in Crowley's work.
Section One, "Yeats and the Golden Dawn," describes the formative matrix to
which both men belonged, and to a certain extent their relations with each other as
members of an esoteric fraternity. It comes as no surprise that the magical system
ofthe Golden Dawn shaped the poetry ofboth; however, one finds that the mystical
content is much more pronounced in Crowley's poetry as typified in six pieces
from this period of his life. Among these also is one which has traditionally been
considered a detraction due to its "pornographic" content. A close examination is
given to the topics ofsex and mysticism as Crowley perceived them.
Section Two, "Augoeides, Maturity and Mysticism," explores and analyzes how
Crowley advanced on his own after the original Golden Dawn split into various
schismatic subgroups, again as typified by six works of poetry and prose. Though
iii
the emphasis is on Crowley's maturation as both a poet and an adept, so that the
thread of symbolism from the Golden Dawn forms a basis for comparison, other
experimental pieces which are ofonly marginal magical significance are considered
in order to portray the breadth of his interests.
Section Three, "Literary Decline, the War Years," focuses on the work which
Crowley did at the end ofhis life, and how he was influenced by the trend of world
events to write in "popular" forms. It further traces the germ of the Golden Dawn
magical system through the permutations ofCrowley's own "magickal" belief, and
gives a picture of the poet as he was at the end of his life.
My thesis suggests, quite simply, that Crowley was a poet whose work demands a
critical reappraisal, If modern critics still used the mores of Victorian culture as a
yardstick tojudge the "worth" ofa piece ofwriting, then perhaps this would not be
necessary. That this measure is not still in use is evidenced by the recent trends in
Yeats scholarship. This being the case, it is obvious that Crowley's writings
should be given more than a passing glance. The question of which of the two is
better is immaterial to the discussion; if one applies a new standard, as has been
done with Yeats and his occult interests, then all who fit under its aegis deserve like
treatment.
Section One
Yeats and the Golden Dawn
Perhaps the most debated question that faces the critic of today is "Which
texts shall be accepted into the canon and which shall be relegated to the
apocrypha?"1 David Richter has pointed out that out of the whole body of the
canon ofliterature, evaluations are constantly changing; there are phases, so that
writers such as Longfellow and James Russell-classics to the pre-World War II
generation-are virtually unknown to students entering American schools today.
Despite this apparent openness to change, the writings of the late Victorian poet
and novelist Edward Alexander [Aleister] Crowley (1875-1947) have been
neglected and/or ignored by serious modern critics in the nearly forty-five years
since his death. A survey of eighteen representative works throughout his early
association with Yeats, his middle period of maturity and mysticism, and the
literary "decline" of the war years will help to clarify the merits of Crowley's
literary contributions.
Crowley's main obstruction to recognition comes from the fact that he has
been seen, bycritics, both his contemporaries and those of a later generation, as the
most infamous "magician" of modern times. Thankfully, this stigma is being
slowly removed by serious scholars; however, at this point, investigation of the
"occult" and its place in art concerns those figures like William Butler Yeats, who
already occupy a place in the canon. Statements such as this by William H.
O'Donnell abound: "Today, most readers are willing to admit the existence of
Yeats's interest in ritual magic, even though they only vaguely understand the
implications of that admission,"? or this by Curtis B. Bradford:
I said next that my work Ion Yeats's manuscripts]
had forced me to discard as untenable the widely
accepted notion that Yeats's esoteric interests were,
2
so to speak, the price we had to pay for his poetry;
that though I could not yet define the relationship
between the poetry and the esoteric studies, I was
now convinced that the two were utterly involved
togetherand could not be separated.l
Modern scholars have gotten away from the so-called traditional critiques ofpoetry
which rigidly define what does and does not constitute art on the basis ofcontent,
message, and the "inspiration ofthe Muse." These were the prevailingjudgmental
criteria when Yeats was accepted into the canon; however, as times have changed,
readers must recognize that he has since been canonized for a different (but
interlinking) reason: his attempt to merge art and magical adeptship, As one must
concede that Yeats has been canonized for this specific reason by a widening group
ofcritics, it is not too much to expect then that Crowley might be at least looked at
in an unprejudiced light for the same reasons. Also, since Yeats and Crowley were
both members of the same esoteric Rosicrucian fraternity, it seems that the surgeof
interest in Yeats and his occult studies is a perfectjumping off place for the modern
critic of so-called "borderline" areas."
Laurence Fennelly remarks:
When the young W. B. Yeats joined several mystical
orders in the 18805 and 18905, it is doubtful if many
eyebrows were raised [His] involvement with
the occult was dictated by the spirit ofthe age ..
. . Many persons ofall classes were swept up by the
occult revival that occurred during the last years of
the nineteenth century; this was part of the inevitable
reaction against therationalism and materialism ofthe
Victorian culture.>
3
AUthis is in spite ofthe blatant bias against Crowley's involvement with mystical
orders. Some of the better known personalities with whom Yeats and Crowley
mingled as members of the Golden Dawn were Mrs. Constance Mary Wilde,
Florence Emery (an actress and mistress of Bernard Shaw), Maud Gonne, the
novelist Violet Tweedale, possibly Sax Rohmer, and Annie Horniman, patron of
the Abbey Theatre. None of these people are remembered primarily as practicing
occultists, Yeats included. Indeed, O'Donnell notes of Yeats's work The Speckled
Bird that
In comparison with the vast array of symbols that
Yeats encountered inocculttexts and rituals, he made
public use ofvery few. and many ofthose he did use
are confined to incidental details that are either self-
explanatory or easily accessible in non-occult
traditions. The process of selection was so random
that the individual items cannot be combined into a
significant, comprehensible aggregate.v
Despite this paucity of usage, however, one is constantly finding lauds
given to him, as in the following statement by Reynolds and O'Driscoll:
It is no small part of the measure of Yeats's genius
that he persisted, against the intellectual current ofhis
day, in exploration and experiment within a great
tradition that, for three centuries, had had only a
subterraneous Iife.7
Aleister Crowlev. conducted his own researches into a meldinz of art with
~
adeptship; in regard to the depth of his investigation and persistence against
contemporary feelings, he far outshines Yeats. Crowley has been systematically
vilified and shelved for the same reasons for which others have been awarded
4
laurels. John Symonds, writerofthe most well-known biography ofCrowley, has
totally dismissed the worth of his poetry in saying, "He was not a great poet,
although he wrote a few good poems," though the reason he is not a great poet is
given as "In most ofhis verse there are rarelyfound those strains which result from
a surrender to the poetic moment; instead, he mainly harnessed his talent to his
occult interests ... which are unsuitable for poetry.',g The current trends in Yeats
scholarship cast serious doubt upon this assertion. Further, P. R. Stephensen,
who wrote the only real biography ofCrowley during his lifetime, has this to say:
"Crowley's lyric powers are certainly not inferior to those of Yeats, his
[Crowley's] mystical thought is superior."? Obviously, as Keith Rhys notes in his
new introduction to Crowley's anthology The Stratagem and Other Stories, "The
fiction [including poetry] of Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) is long overdue for a
critical reappraisal.I'U' With this in mind the three obvious divisions ofhis work
are the early period, while he was still a member of the Hermetic Fraternity of the
Golden Dawn along with Yeats, the "middle" period which encompasses works
which Israel Regardie roughly equates with his performance of the Abramelin
Operation-the Augoeides period-and the late period, from approximately the start
of World War II until the end of his life.II The early material, which dates from
his association with Yeats, can be further divided into subjects drawn explicitly
from the Golden Dawn experience, sexual magic and erotic poetry.
From these examples, it is apparent that the place to begin an initial survey
of Crowley's work is with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as both he and
Yeats were members, and as Timothy d'Arch Smith notes:
Rail against it though he might (and did), it was the
magical order he [Crowley] had joined as a young
man of twenty-three ...[it] exerted, throughout his
life. the very strongest influence; and it is in the light