There are several issues brought to light by a careful reading of Liber 49 and the extant records of the Babalon Working, including the recorded correspondence between Parsons and Crowley as well as the details in the Book of Babalon itself, that are not directly addressed in Key of the Abyss, particularly the technical aspects of the Working. There are, of course, broader questions as well, not least of which is simply just what the hell Parsons thought he was doing, but I want to address the more specific question raised by verses 27 and 28, as I am in no way convinced that a final solution to the first question is forthcoming short of conjuring Parsons shade and putting him to the question.

One omission that I made in Chapter 21: Liber 49 Decoded was in discussing my perception of the function of the reference to Astarte in the text which reads:
27. The working is of nine moons.
28. The Astarte working, with music and feasting, with wine and all arts of love. [1]
On pages 138-9 I wrote (after discussing the NAEQ6 values of Astarte and the Notariqon of verse 27)
We may then consider that Astarte is more than a reference to the Syrian Goddess that has been identified with the Greek Aphrodite in regards to wine and all arts of love and is another clue to the identity of Babalon. [2]

The issue here is the probability that Astarte is a reference to Crowley’s “Class A” document of the name, Liber Astarte[3] , at least in part. This has been taken, justifiably, as obvious by some writers, most notably John Carter, the author of Sex and Rockets [4]. After all, the document in question is the Book of Uniting (the magician) to a particular Deity by devotion [5], the techniques outlined being integral to the Moonchild ritual described in Crowley’s novel of the same name, Moonchild. I should have noted that regardless of how the name of Astarte is used in the context of Liber 49, Parsons could not have failed to make the connection, so to speak, with Liber Astarte. This is, as noted, a technical question, which I expect to address in detail at a later date. Having failed to so, however, I should explain my (still tentative) view of this issue.

The first thing that strikes one as odd is the idea that, if the reference is to Liber Astarte, in what sense shall we take the idea that Babalon was familiar with Crowley’s work? In other words, is Crowley so important the very gods quote him? While the standard answer to such difficulties in “received” texts is that the message given to the scribe or channel uses material from the unconscious of the magician to formulate the actual text of the communication, it does not really explain anything. This (or some other explanation) may be correct; it is problematic insofar as the message, if it does derive – at least in its concrete form[6] – from the unconscious of the magician, it seems obvious that this is only possible because the contact itself also arises from the same unconscious. In what other way might the “contact” interface with the depths of the operator?

Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence for this position in the text itself; compare v. 21-2 from Liber 49 (t)he sigil of devotion. Be it consecrated, be it true, be it daily affirmed. I am not scorned. Thy love is to me. Procure a disk of copper, in diameter three inches paint thereon the field blue the star gold of me, BABALON.
It shall be my talisman. Consecrate with the supreme rituals of the word and the cup. [7]

With this quote from Liber Astarte;
37. "Concerning minor methods adjuvant in the ceremonies. II. Talismanic Magic." Having made by thine Ingenium a talisman or pantacle to represent the particular Deity, and {53} consecrated it with infinite love and care, do thou burn it ceremonially before the shrine, as if thereby giving up the shadow for the substance. But it is useless to do this unless thou do really in thine heart value the talisman beyond all else that thou hast. [8]

So maybe the Goddess had read Crowley[9] . In the verses quoted above (27-8) the first reads The working is of nine moons which is the generally accepted gestation period of a human baby (moon=month). The next says The Astarte working, with music and feasting, with wine and all arts of love, and this, too, is taken as referring to Liber Astarte. There is just one problem. The “Astarte” working, if it refers solely to the enactment of the Moonchild operation more or less as Crowley described it, was never performed. What’s more, if, as others and myself have speculated, the goal was a not a literal child, then the rite could never have been carried out.

This is borne out in a letter to Crowley on March 6, Parsons wrote; for the last three days I have performed an operation of birth…last night I performed an operation of symbolic birth and delivery[10] . John Carter points out – correctly – that the operation is not a part of Liber Astarte and that, if it was this book referred to in Liber 49 concerning the “Astarte working”, it was never executed. If it were simply a matter of Parsons failing to follow-through it would hardly merit a mention in passing. The problem with that answer is the fact that Parsons didn’t abandon the operation, he immediately took action and performed an operation of symbolic birth and delivery. Therein lies the dilemma; if Parsons knew at this point (as it seems he did) that the result of the operation would not be a literal incarnation we presume he gleaned that understanding from the communication itself. It was too soon for him to have decided the Astarte working was a failure and switch tack; he had never even begun. More importantly, if the goal was a non-physical child, Babalon would have been well aware that there would be no need for this ritual and so her instructions make no sense. Why charge Parsons with this task if it was meaningless? The answer, it seems to me, is that the instructions were meant as a double entendre or perhaps a form of code; a reference to the book that conceals a deeper meaning [11].

In any case, this provides ample proof that, whatever one might say about Liber 49, there seems to be a level of complexity to the text that rewards analysis beyond the surface reading.

1. Jack Parsons, The Book of Babalon and the Book of Antichrist, 2555 Working Group at http://www.timestation-z.com/l49.pdf
2. Anthony Testa, The Key of the Abyss: Jack Parsons, the Babalon Working and the Black Pilgrimage Decoded, Lulu Press 2006, pp 138-9
3. Aleister Crowley, Astarte Vel Liber Berylli Svb Figvra CLXXV
4.John Carter, Sex and Rockets, Feral House 1999
5. Aleister Crowley, ibid.
6. which is to say, language, metaphor and symbol etc.
7.Jack Parsons, ibid.
8.Aleister Crowley, ibid.
9. or it was, in the end, all Parsons.
10. John Carter, ibid.
11. See Key of the Abyss, Chapter 21 for a stab at unlocking the subtext. As mentioned, I think the underlying purpose is related to the desired result of the Working which does not seem to have been the generation of a physical incarnation even though the text of Liber 49 seems to support this view.