Malgwyn Evans wrote:
>> I have a copy of that 777, with the red cover and all. I couldn't
>> find what you were referring to.
>Exactly. You don't find it because it was deliberately removed. It is
>found in the first edition -- the one that Crowley published -- not in
>later editions, as edited by others.
Are you sure you are not confusing Liber 777 with Sepher Sephiroth?
Regardie published those two, separate works under one cover, first titling
the combination "The Qabbalah of Aleister Crowley" or something like that
(I'm not sure of the spelling he used on "Qabbalah"). Liber 777 was first
published in 1909 e.v. and is a table of correspondences to the system of
the Tree of Life. Sepher Sephiroth is an unrelated Hebrew gematria
dictionary, started by Allen Bennett and published with additional material
in Equinox Vol. I by Crowley later on.
I have a first edition, 1909 e.v., copy of Liber 777 here before me, red
cover. I couldn't find any remark of this sort in it. There is such a
remark (blood libel) in Sepher Sephirot in the original, Equinox edition,
in the prefatory portion. Regardie bowdlerized that out in his anthology.
I restored it for accuracy, in my transcription of Sepher Sephiroth from
the 1st, Equinox edition. Later editions of 777 have various introductory
texts included, and Liber 777 revised (1955 Neptune Press edition, Germer
edit) has an attack on Westcott deleted. The Chico edition follows the
Germer/Neptune edition. There's also a different format version of the
1909 e.v. edition, layed out on wider paper with the columns spread further.
In summary, there was a blood libel remark in the original Sepher Sephirot,
deleted by Regardie in an anthology edition and apparently never in Liber
777, a separate work.
It's difficult to deal with these hot allegations and assertions without
proper citation and/or quote. Ben's example from the Royal Court diaries
shows how it can be effectively done. I don't want to be too negative, but
without such a citation there's really not much point. It all comes across
as an unsupported slur and reflects badly on the person making it. People
remember impressions, sometimes confused and sometimes highly biased. With
a clear and direct reference to the source, mistakes of memory are cleared
up and we can all discuss things properly. Without that, on inflamatory
issues, we just junk bandwidth to no conclusion. It doesn't matter whether
you are pro or con on an issue. It's just that meaningful discussion of a
point in dispute has to be anchored solidly.