The phrase “Compassion is the vice of kings” from AL II, 21 is another in a long line of passages from The Book of the Law which modern-day Thelemites regularly attempt to pervert to their own moral and ideological ends. In particular, comments such as “we are told to indulge our vices” from Gerald del Campo in his essay “Ethics in Love” twist – in this case by referencing an unrelated verse in the form of “these vices are my service” in AL II, 52 – the meaning of the phrase into its exact opposite.

(Incidentally, in that essay, the quote is presented as “an email exchange which occurred between an unknown interested party and Tau Apollonius from The Thelemic Gnostic Church of Alexandria.” “Tau Apollonius” is, of course, Gerald del Campo himself. What it is with these whacked-out occultists giving themselves fancy names and then using them to quote themselves while pretending they are quoting someone else? “Aum418” AKA “IAO131” AKA “Isaac Aurelian” AKA “Victus” is probably the most egregious of modern examples, doing exactly the same thing on the legion of free websites, blogs, amazon.com book reviews [“If you want to actually learn about Initiation in the New Aeon, read the essay ‘New Aeon Initiation’ (i.e. by “IAO131″)”]  and discussion boards [“Why not read the ‘Psychological Commetnary on Liber AL vel Legis’ by IAO131 that talks about the psychology of Thelema?” and “IAO131 writes about psychology of thelema all the time.”] he has set up to promote his own “work” to himself. Perhaps they think they are dutifully emulating Crowley.)

As ever, the source is the best place to begin looking for the actual meanings of terms, so let’s look at the wider context in which this phrase occurs. From AL II, 18-21:

18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.

19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.

21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever.

Regardless of what may come later in the book, seeing this phrase in the context of others such as “We are not for the poor and sad”, “who sorroweth is not of us”, “We have nothing with the outcase and the unfit: let them die in their misery”, and “stamp down the wretched & the weak” should make it abundantly clear that this particular phrase – “Compassion is the vice of kings” – in this particular context, is not a code-word for “yay for compassion!” It is – obviously – an admonition against it. If the Book later says “these vices are my service” – which it does – then it could be that it’s talking about different vices, or it could be that such vices can sometimes be pressed into service, or it could be that the Book is completely contradicting itself, any of which could suggest that a broader study of the whole Book is necessary to get a full “Thelemic” view of “compassion” or “vices” in general, but it is beyond reasonable doubt that this phrase in this context is an admonition against compassion, and not a kind of nudge-nudge-wink-wink pæan in support of it. This, ladies and gentlemen, is fact.

Before we proceed further, it will regrettably be necessary to dispense with a couple of common objections. Firstly, although in many circles it appears impossible for people to objectively consider passages such as this without their rebelling moral sensibilities getting in the way and clouding their judgment, it is crucial to do so, particularly with a book like The Book of the Law. Although it certainly can be, this passage does not have to be read as a guide to action; it can be read as a simple statement of fact. If, for instance, we look at the 3.7 billion or so years that life was been around on this planet before the appearance of humans (indeed, until well after the appearance of humans and right up to the present day) it should be wildly and abundantly clear that the universe is not a compassionate place. “Nature”, as Tennyson said, is “red in tooth and claw”, and to deny this is simply foolish. It is not sensible to completely reject and twist the meaning of a passage in this or any other book simply because you do not like the plain facts it is presenting. If the universe is not a compassionate place, then that nice, cozy, comfortable, moral civilisation you may believe yourself to be living in is clearly existing within a universe that is not a compassionate place, and so the acknowledgement that the universe is not a compassionate place patently does not require you to immediately destroy that civilisation and start going around murdering and raping and committing all manner of other ‘orrible deeds. So, please, read this and all other books for what they actually say, not for what you’d prefer them to say. You are not required to change your own personal moral outlook as a result of acknowledging physical facts about the universe or about this book.

(Incidentally, it is no escape to say that morality is an evolved tendency and that cooperation is necessary for the survival of social species, with a view to arguing that the universe is indeed a compassionate place after all. The limits of any evolved tendency to cooperation extends only to the boundaries of the particular social group any organism happens to find itself living in, and no further. It is quite consistent to suppose that an organism which has evolved to play nicely with its fellow tribe members may also have evolved to viciously murder, kill and steal from other neighbouring tribes with whom cooperation is not necessary for survival, indeed with whom warfare and conquest may be a positive aid to survival in the same way that lions are greatly aided in their survival by killing and eating lots of antelope. That social animals may have evolved some tendencies to cooperate does not mean that “compassion for all sentient creatures” is some kind of natural and “proper” quality, and a brief look at any social pack hunters, for instance, will immediately reveal this to be true.)

Secondly, it should go without saying, but unfortunately usually does not, that just because The Book of the Law might tell you to do something, it really doesn’t mean you have to do it. If we end up concluding that The Book of the Law is opposed to being compassionate, and you, personally, want to be compassionate, then go be compassionate, and to hell with the Book. If you don’t like what it says, then don’t accept it. There are no secret chiefs controlling the universe, so you don’t have to worry about incurring their wrath and setting yourself up in opposition to “the forces ruling this earth at present” if you don’t automatically and unthinkingly do whatever the Book tells you to do. But once again, don’t pervert its meaning simply because you’d like it to say something a little more palatable to you.

With that out of the way, let’s take a brief moment to confirm that Aleister Crowley wasn’t an illiterate goon, and was able to see the same thing that anyone else reading that phrase in context without blinkers on is able to see. From his “New Comment” to AL II, 21:

There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature’s way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!

Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!

Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!

He also says in the Djeridensis Comment to this verse that:

Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.” True men know their own needs and find ways to supply them. To judge the sick by the healthy is pregnant with error. The wretched and the weak are simply not real beings; they cannot be helped or mended. They must be expunged as falsehoods likely to infect the truth. This is the law of Nature, and it is the Law of the Lords of the Aeon. Put into force it will fill the world with joy.

So, Crowley was able to read the plain English in the Book just as competently as we can. In contrast to a prior remark, Crowley clearly is here suggesting an actual course of action in the brand of social Darwinism that he is presenting, but yet again we tediously have to be at pains to point out that considering the actual merits of such an idea is beyond the scope of this entry, which is concerned solely with what the Book says, regardless of whether or not it’s saying something sensible or saying something stupid, and certainly regardless of whether or not Crowley interpreted it in a sensible or a stupid way.

Crowley continues in his commentary (emphasis added):

These [i.e. the “‘Happiness’ of Wedded Love”, “eating Marrons Glaces”, and “beauty” – EH] suffer from the same defects as the other forms; ultimately, “Happiness” wearies itself in the effort to invent fresh images, and becomes disheartened and doubtful of itself. Only a few people have wit enough to proceed to generalization from the failure of a few familiar figures of itself, and recognize that all “actual” forms are imperfect; but such people are apt to turn with disgust from the whole procedure, and to long for the “eternal” state. This state is however incapable of realization, as we know; and the Soul understanding this, can find no good but in “Cessation” of all things, its creations no more than its own tendencies to create. It therefore sighs for Nibbana.

But there is one other solution, as I have endeavoured to shew. We may accept (what after all it is absurd to accuse and oppose) the essential character of existence. We cannot extirpate or even alter in the minutest degree either the matter or manner of any element of the Universe, here each item is equally inherent and important, each æquipollent, independent, and interdependent.

Putting aside for a moment the suggestions of “reincarnation mak[ing] whole”, we can see that Crowley is clearly emphasising exactly what we have stated above: “accept[ing] the essential character of existence”, since “it is absurd to accuse and oppose” this character. Failure to accept such an essential character is, quite necessarily, to reject it, and we have already given this notion thorough treatment in Let there be no difference made (pdf link) (which also goes into more detail on the idea from the Djeridensis Comment that “to ‘suffer with’ some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way”, concluding that descent into compassion “demonstrates that the individual making that judgment is not attending solely to his own will” and therefore not acting in accordance with the Law of Thelema). While there are certainly good evolutionary reasons why a tendency to perceive things that are not there may have developed, it is undeniably a hindrance to anyone wishing to understand the truth of their own beings and the circumstances of their existence, and the aspirant must therefore make a significant effort towards learning to perceive what actually is, as opposed to what his mind is telling him it would like to be.

In the first place, then, we can reasonably agree with Crowley that The Book of the Law is, if nothing else, admonishing that we accept the plain and simple facts of existence, which is that the universe is not a compassionate place. If “here each item is equally inherent and important, each æquipollent, independent, and interdependent” then it is nonsense to place intrinsic value on any one state of affairs and to claim that compassion, for instance, is “necessary” because state of affairs “X” is self-evidently and intrinsically better than state of affairs “Y”.

Of course, just because the universe doesn’t “care” about how compassionate we are, it doesn’t follow that we either don’t care or are not just justified in caring. One may object, for instance, that “I couldn’t care less whether the universe cares about hungry homeless people dying all over the place in my town; regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, I just don’t want it happening here; I don’t like it”, and that’s a perfectly legitimate view to take, and if you don’t want to see it, by all means work to try to stop it happening. However, this is pretty much exactly what Crowley was suggesting, and, like it or not, that’s what the The Book of the Law is saying too.

It really is high time that the Thelemic community started recognising that The Book of the Law contains statements are ideas that, by what we might call modern Western moral proprieties, are unpleasant and objectionable, and this is one of those things. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, contains many such things which are objectionable by the same standard and which appear to contradict the core teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, and many Christians are rightly mocked for failing to acknowledge this, but the criticism applies equally to Thelemites. Once again, just because something is in the The Book of the Law it does not mean you have to follow it, but to dispute that those things are there is foolish.

We’ve already seen the context in which “Compassion is the vice of kings” appears, and that is sufficient in itself to demonstrate what the Book is saying here, but there are plenty of other independent examples to corroborate it. For instance:

• AL I, 10, “Let my servants be few & secret; they shall rule the many & the known” directly contradicts the modern Western values of transparent democracy;
• AL I, 30-31, “This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all. For these fools of men and their woes care thou not at all!” states that pain is “as nothing” which immediately removes any sensible basis for compassion, and then goes on to directly instruct the reader to “care…not at all!” about people’s “woes”;
• AL II, 17, immediately before the aforementioned context, reads “The sorrows of pain and regret, Are left to the dead and the dying, The folk that not know me as yet”, again instructing the reader to leave the “sorrows” of others to those others, and not to concern themselves with them;
• AL II, 24 -25 reads “on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath. Ye are against the people, O my chosen!”;
• AL II, 31 reads “If Power asks why, then is Power weakness”;
• AL II, 48-49 reads “Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.”
• AL II, 59-60 reads “Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!”

and we haven’t even gotten to the infamous “third chapter” yet!

A word on “interpretation” – there are those who will claim that “stamp down the wretched & the weak” in AL II, 21 refers to the “wretched & weak thoughts” (presumably this current entry qualifies!), or that the “low men” in AL II, 24 equally refer to “bad thoughts” of some vaguely specified nature, and that the entire war-like and aggressive tone in The Book of the Law is merely some kind of esoteric metaphor for perfecting oneself into a pure, humble and moral character. Bullshit. If we were to take the more fluffy sounding elements of this or any other book, and try to argue they were really esoteric metaphors for actual war and violence, it doesn’t take much to guess who the primary objectors would be. The “interpretation” given here and the “esoteric ‘interpretation'” are not equal – one comes from actually reading what the Book says, and the other comes from twisting the words until they mean the exact opposite of what is actually being said. All words must indeed be “interpreted”, but it is not true that “all interpretations are valid”, and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what the Comment may or may not say on the issue, either. An “interpretation” attempts to extract meaning from the words which are being interpreted, and while there is scope for difference, that scope is not unlimited. If it is possible to entirely reverse the literal meaning of The Book of the Law then the Book itself is entirely unnecessary; if the literal meaning is being reversed, then that “interpretation” has come purely from the mind of the person doing the “interpretation”, and is therefore not an interpretation at all, but an unrelated invention. Again, if your “interpretation” is not solidly grounded in the literal words of the text, then you are not interpreting it at all; you are just making random stuff up.

The existence of these ideas in the Book cannot then be sensibly disputed; the reader may not like them, and may not agree with them, but they are there. The reader may wish they were not there, but they are. The Book of the Law contains very definite exhortations to eschew compassion and for “Kings” to rule over “slaves” with something very much resembling an iron fist. If you are still not convinced of this plain and simple fact, then there is nothing further I can do for you.

Furthermore, as we have already seen, Crowley most definitely did not “interpret” these ideas in the “esoteric” way that modern new-agers would like to, but took the apparently unorthodox step of actually reading the Book instead. Crowley’s ideas, including the ones quoted above but also including the idea that:

There are no ‘standards of Right’. Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its own orbit. To hell with ‘moral principle’; there is no such thing.

and the idea that:

We should have no compunction in utilizing the natural qualities of the bulk of mankind. We do not insist on trying to train sheep to hunt foxes or lecture on history; we look after their physical well being, and enjoy their wool and mutton. In this way we shall have a contented class of slaves who will accept the conditions of existence as they really are, and enjoy life with the quiet wisdom of cattle. It is our duty to see to it that this class of people lack for nothing. The patriarchal system is better for all classes than any other.

all from his commentaries to the second chapter of The Book of the Law show pretty clearly that this notion of fluffy-bunny universal love and respect for every being that some modern “Thelemites” indulge in was just about the furthest thing from his mind. Sure, every man and every woman has the right to fulfill their will, but for the “bulk of mankind” that appears to be within the context of an elite band of leaders deciding for them what their will is in the first place. We needn’t assume Crowley to be infallible in his exposition of the Law, of course, but when the Book says something very clearly and its “prophet” emphatically agrees then the new-age occultist is going to have a very long hill to climb if he wants to claim that the Book actually means something else entirely, at least if he doesn’t want to be pointed and laughed at.

So yes, folks, The Book of the Law really is saying that you should go ahead and fulfill your will, to “care…not at all” about anyone who might be suffering because their suffering is “as nothing”, “stamp down” and “trample” any who would get in your way, and to generally “have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery.” That’s what it looks like it’s saying, and that really is what it’s saying. You might not like it, and you don’t have to go along with it, but that’s what it’s saying.

(For the sake of completeness, and to satisfy the pedants out there, it’s not really commanding you to do such things, because, as we know perfectly well from the Book, there is only one command it gives you, and that it “Do what thou wilt”. It is, however, telling you to disregard any lack of stomach for doing such things if such a lack would get in the way of fulfilling your will. Of course, in the event that it really were someone’s will to perform an act of compassion – and it can never be someone’s will to “be compassionate” because will is concerned with what you do, not with what you might think you are – then clearly that act would be required in accordance with Thelemic doctrine, but the possibility or likelihood of such an event is a subject beyond the scope of this entry.)

We almost forgot! The phrase “vice of kings” itself. The other notable instance of the phrase appears a few centuries earlier in Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV, with which Crowley was obviously very familiar:

A murderer, and a villain:
A slave, that is not twentieth part of the tythe
Of your precedent lord:— a vice of kings:
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule;
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole,
And put it in his pocket!…A king
Of shreds and patches

and is described by Samuel Johnson as “a low mimick of kings. The vice is the fool of a farce; from whence the modern Punch is descended,” “Vice” being, of course, a stock character of mediæval morality plays representing temptation, evil or iniquity, the “shreds and patches” of the harlequin’s costume making the allusion clear. In this sense, compassion would be described as just such a “low mimick” of kings, something indulged in by what The Book of the Law would describe as “slaves” merely playing at being kings. A mockery of similar effect, although of a very different intent, is described by Denethor to his son Faramir in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (which obviously postdates Crowley):

Ever your desire is to appear lordly and generous as a king of old, gracious, gentle. That may well befit one of high race, if he sits in power and peace. But in desperate hours gentleness may be repaid with death.

The implication is again of one “playing at” being a king, mimicking what appear to be their behaviours whereas kings actually act as is appropriate to the situation. The admonition is against “being compassionate” as a matter of principle, whereas in real life the compassion of kings would arise as a strategy to benefit their kingdoms, since a happy, healthy and productive peasantry may be presumed to be favourable to the propserity of the kingdom and therefore the king himself. Conversely, when needs must, the king cannot afford to be compassionate, and must instead act with severity and force. From another perspective, compassion is something kings can afford to indulge in when times are good, and this provides a linkage with the more common modern understanding of the word “vice”, namely a “bad habit”, as in “my only vice is a little tipple before Evensong.” The Djeridensis Comment quoted above remarks that compassion “always implies error…and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice.” In either sense, though, the mistake is in adopting an attitude, or moral position, as opposed to reacting appropriately to real circumstances, which brings us right back to Crowley’s comment: “we may accept the essential character of existence.”