APPENDIX E

Statement of Relations between Myself, Aleister Crowley, and Heinrich Tränker (1925)

By A. Crowley

In my adolescence I studied German with some thoroughness. I could read most classical authors and books on such subjects as philosophy, chemistry, alpinism and chess. But I could only make out newspapers with a good deal of aid from the dictionary and though I could converse fluently on simple subjects with casual strangers, I could never call myself a German scholar.

I had little occasion for the language since 1902 and forgot much of what I knew. In 1925, I could understand German only when spoken clearly and slowly with special consideration for the state of my knowledge and an occasional recourse to paraphrase.

I could, however, follow the merits of German composition especially in the case of translations of my own work where I already knew the meaning.

I note these facts so that the investigator may form a clear idea of the value of my testimony in case it were my ability to understand is the question.

I should, however, add that I have traveled a great deal in savage countries and accustomed myself to understand the gist of conversations in totally unknown languages and communicate with the natives by means of gestures.

I have also devoted many laborious years of research to psychology.

In the autumn of 1924, my then representative in America [C. Stansfeld Jones] wrote to me that he had got in touch with a man named Heinrich Tränker whom he believed to be the true representative of the ancient Rosicrucian Brotherhood, adding that he was certainly in the possession of a certain secret science known to extremely few people [i.e., IX° O.T.O.]¹. He regarded this latter fact as certifying Tränker to be a man of proven honesty and ability.

From the year 1898 I had myself been in touch with a body which claimed to derive its teachings from the Rosicrucians [the G∴D∴]; but historic proofs have never been supplied. I wrote at once to Tränker, asking him if he could furnish this proof: and certain other information on kindred subjects. I received answers voluminous indeed but vague and evasive. I gathered however, that the Proof required was to be obtained at Tränker’s headquarters. From the correspondence which ensued, I obtained the following main impressions:

(1) That Tränker was a man of independent means and one who, if not actually wealthy, would have been so had he not devoted his fortune unselfishly to the good of the Order.

(2) This Order, with an inner circle of few but distinguished names, international in scope, was working openly in Germany, under the title of Pansophia or Lodge of the Pansophic Orient, or some near variant of this term.

(3) That Tränker was the supreme head of this Order in Germany for that he had over one thousand members working under him and pledged to support him in every way in his Work.

(4) That Karl Germer who translated the correspondence between us was his paid secretary or acting as such.

(5) That Tränker derived at least part of his authority from the late Theodore Reuss, known as Frater Merlin or Frater Peregrinus. (I had known Reuss and understood that he left Germany in consequence of a scandal connected with his Order. It would be too much of a digression to discuss the rights and wrongs of this matter especially as my information of this matter is very imperfect and of doubtful value.)
    Only the last two of these assertions of Tränker proved in the end to have any basis in fact. He showed me documents signed by Reuss conferring upon him certain authority. This authority was formally valid for me because whatever may have been the merits or demerits of Reuss personally, he was undoubtedly the legitimate heir of persons eminent and worthy of all respect and he was certainly in possession of certain secrets. An analogous case would be that of a King of questionable kingliness, but who was without doubt the son of his father and the father of his son; and as such an authentic monarch.

(6) In the course of this correspondence Tränker invited me to assume the leadership of the whole movement which he controlled.

He invited me to his house as a guest for the summer. The main object of this was twofold:

Firstly, various Brethren of the Order from many countries were to be invited to meet me there in order to acclaim me as the supreme authority on the planet. (This is explained and confirmed by Tränker’s published statements in Pansophia nos. 3 and 7, o4 [sic], and by various private letters.)

The second object was to come to a closer agreement on various obscure points both of theory and practice and to work together at the issuing of my instructions as translated by Herrn Karl Germer. (This is explained and confirmed by the above mentioned nos. of Pansophia; the former promises and the latter publishes a varied selection of translations from my writings.) For various reasons these translations were not carefully examined after publication, for some months, when it appears that, after Germer had passed proof for the press, Tränker secretly altered them in all sorts of ways thereby completely destroying their value by misrepresenting my work.

This barefaced outrage on hospitality and literary honesty and decency seems to show that he clearly contemplated an early overt breach of faith in any event; as his trickery was bound to be discovered sooner or later and was inexcusable.

The hospitality of Heinrich Tränker was indeed of a singular kind. I personally would not have treated a dog as he treated me and my wife [Dorothy Olsen], both of us in poor health, after the first few weeks. In fact, immediately after the first publication of No. 4 or 7 of Pansophia his manner markedly changed. There was practically nothing for us to eat; while he and his wife devoured enormous meals secretly in the kitchen.

On the question of motive I can only explain this conduct in one way. There was no quarrel of any kind, his manner was always that of deference and reverent affection, but he had succeeded in stealing as much of my work as he could and he had no further object in making life tolerable for me.

During this period in the first few weeks of which he had treated me extremely well within the limits of his imagination which in that direction were not large, I had formulated certain proposals to which he agreed enthusiastically. Up to and including the time of what is here called the Hohenleuben Conference [elsewhere the Weida Conference] there was no difference of opinion between us on any “but minute points” and these differences were commonly the result of misunderstanding owing to the language difficulty. Mr. Germer’s tactful translation usually removed these obstacles at once.

The increasing discomfort of life at Hohenleuben forced us to spend more and more of our time at Mr. Germer’s house near Weida. The events of what is called the Weida Conference are best explained by the following episodes from the correspondence which took place at the time. These should be studied in conjunction with statements of the various witnesses present. (choose passages from letters.) It will be seen from the above that my real conviction that Tränker was a common thief and swindler and therefore an impostor in his claim to represent the Brotherhood was first implanted in me by my observation of his treatment of Herr Hopfer. Cross-examination of Germer made it clear to me that Tränker had deliberately set himself to delude and defraud Germer.

I must add that Germer was a most unwilling witness and defended Tränker’s integrity with the greatest loyalty until the facts became too strong for him and his eyes were opened. But even after that his extraordinary nobility and generosity of character has hitherto prevented him from taking firm steps to recover the money stolen from him by means of false pretenses. This revelation led immediately to the disclosure of Tränker’s motive in the incidents to be recounted in the following section of the statement.

At the time of my arrival in Germany, Herr Germer was seeking a divorce from his wife. They were, however, for convenience’s sake, both living in his house near Weida.

On my first visit to Weida (fill in date) I caught a distant glimpse of Frau Germer in the garden. She was dressed in white and was walking swiftly into the woods beyond the front gate to call her mother to lunch. She gave the impression of remarkable grace, energy and buoyancy.

I looked at Germer in the greatest surprise; he told me: “That is my wife.” I had been given to understand that she was a hopeless morphine addict and in an advanced state of diabetes. It was evident that any such story was sheer nonsense. (I studied medicine at Cambridge and King’s College Hospital London and have specialized in insanity and particularly drugpneurosis [sic].) I asked Germer to present me to his wife saying that I was perfectly sure that their quarrel was a lover’s tiff and that I could put things right between them in a few minutes. Germer replied evasively. I did not realise that he and his wife were not on speaking terms. Germer was very much impressed with this diagnosis of Morphinism and diabetes, quoting Tränker as his authority. Note that at that time I had some reason to suppose that any statement of Tränker’s was reliable. I subordinated my own superficial judgment to his supposed intimate knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, on my return to Hohenleuben, I brought up the question, and expressed an earnest hope that an early reconciliation might be possible. Tränker opposed any such idea, dilating at some length on Frau Germer’s inveterate wickedness; but I certainly found it strange in the following weeks that he should return to the subject again and again without provocation. In Germer’s absence, he would frequently bring up the subject saying emphatically: “Frau Germers—morphinismus” with a knowing look, at the same time going through the motions of making hypodermic injections.

In this conduct there was nothing suspicious; because no bad motive was apparent, it seemed merely eccentric. But as soon as it became clear that Tränker’s only interest in Germer was to rob him of his last pfennig, the whole plan became abominably clear. Frau Germer, the woman of the world, the highly educated doctor of medicine, was just the one person he had to fear as capable of protecting her husband from his frauds.

It will be seen from the varied incidents in the above statement that every action of Tränker becomes intelligible only on the hypothesis that he is perfectly unscrupulous, a cunning, ignorant peasant who is exploiting rare odds and ends of recondite knowledge with intent to defraud.

[From a typescript with alterations in A.C.’s hand.]