I agree they'll do what they want. I just hope that, should it be printed this way (it hasn't yet, to my knowledge, it is only in the online version so far), they will take my suggestion of a footnote at this word into consideration.

There is no need for a schism over the issue, like the Christian "homoousios/homoiousios" controversy, or the filioque clause in the Creed.

Yes.

Thought I wouldn't live to see the day where Thelema became corrupted by egomaniacs like the ones in question, but maybe I have. And it didn't even take 150 years for it to happen.

Or maybe they have better "evidence" than what is known? If so, I think we would all like to (read: deserve to) see it, because the current "evidence" is simply not sufficient enough for H.B. to change a Class A document. At this point, it appears he's basically shitting on it.

The Holograph Manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis sub figurâ XXXI A∴A∴ Publication in Class A

It's clearly an "f".

Azidonis,

Undoubtedly, it is. The crux of this issue is a difference between the last words of the verse as it is rendered in the manuscript, and the last words of the verse in the poetic rendition of the hierogryphics on the stele - a difference that Crowley was in all likelihood aware of, but did not correct; his negligence is now being made good posthumously, on his behalf.

Yes. This (holographic) page was referenced earlier in the thread. It clearly is an "f." Although it appears as looking like a straight line connected to the "i," there is nothing whatsoever to suggest a "k."

Yes again. And again, how are we to know what the original stele says? Somebody translated it for AC, then AC created a poetic "paraphrase." Since error is inherent in the human species, even if one is a prophet, I'd like to know what the original stele says, and anyone changing f's to k's would be advised to consult the same ... in modern-day real-time, not even the original "translation that AC received. Again I ask, "Anyone here able to read hieroglyphs?"

This is all fine and dandy. I can see 1,500 years from now, scholars coming along and learning that "Ankh-f-n-khonsu" is a bastardization of a completely different name (for example). Does that mean whoever has the ability (read: ability, not "Authority") should go ahead and change Liber AL to whatever the new scholarship at that time thinks it should have been? No.

The manuscript itself a Class A document. Is it not THE Class A document of Thelema? And it says, "f". And since it says, "f", and a Class A document is not to be changed even the style of a letter, and the Book itself even says, "Hey, leave me the fuck alone," then it simply should not be changed. That's all I'm pointing out.

If Crowley didn't change it, who is Bill Breeze (Hymenaeus Beta), to change it?

And what cowards are going to sit by and let him do it?

"Class [A] consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization." - Source

Sacrilege.

You are assuming and stating incorrectly here. Liber XXXI is Class A, but the pencil note that states "fill me" is added post-dictation. The same argument applies to the previous post with a holograph of the manuscript: yes, there is a word "fill" there but it was not dictated, but added later.

My understanding is this: Crowley produced poetical paraphrase of the French translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs from the Stele prior to the dictation. After the event, he added a pencil note that an insertion needed to me made, from a velum book, where THIS poetical paraphrase was written. Crowley states, in the Equinox of the Gods, that he was given order to quote from that vellum and if he quoted correctly, he would have inserted a reminder to add the text up to "kill me." Instead, and this is the assumption, he misremembered and wrote incorrectly to add words up to "fill me."

The basis of the current correction again stems from Crowley's own hand. It was not Bill Breeze's idea but Crowley's own correction, inserted in his own handwriting, that "fill" is incorrect and should state "kill."

Taken from a slightly different angle: the order to quote from the poetical rendition of the Stele assumes that this rendition is the original source. Each and every time Crowley published that rendition, the word used was "kill." But the text inserted in Liber CCXX had "fill." This was the textual difference mentioned by H.B. in his account. The burden of proof lies in the newly-discovered evidence that definitely points towards "kill" as the correct word, because it was from the hand of the Prophet correcting the printed text of The Book of the Law in aligning it with the original text of the poetical rendition of the Stele that he was ordered to quote.

It seems that people resist Crowley's position and opinion. They do not seem to mind that Crowley changed other things in the manuscript. Rather strange. People talk of sacrilege. That would make Crowley's poetry a holy matter. This particular phrase was neither dictated nor is it written anywhere on the Stele. Keep that in mind.

In the first place, Azidonis, I agree that the change is unwarranted.

In the second place, you call me a coward since I "sit by and let him do it". What exactly do you suggest I do? Take up arms? Employ a hit-man?

This isn't a change to The Book of the Law, which I have in my copy of The Equinox of the Gods, in my paperback reprint of the 1938 edition, in my copy of The Equinox Vol. I No. 7, in my copy of Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, in my copy of The Magical Record of the Beast 666, etc etc etc.

Palamedes, You wrote "Crowley states, in the Equinox of the Gods, that he was given order to quote from that vellum and if he quoted correctly, he would have inserted a reminder to add the text up to "kill me."

Can you reference a page number for this quote? I cannot find this in my copy of The Equinox of the Gods... In fact, I cannot find this anywhere at all!

If this is so, Palamedes, then don't you think it a little odd that Crowley left the printed word as "fill" in the many editions of The Book of the Law that were published after this single pencil annotation that you regard as a "correction"? Doesn't this suggest that either he was ambivalent, or regarded it as of little consequence?

It is on p. 125 in New Falcon edition, commenting literally on AL, III: 38, but since both AL, III: 37 and AL, III: 38 include the paraphrase from the Stele, the logical assumption is that the comment addresses both verses. Crowley states: "He [God] then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stele, and bids me quote my paraphrases. The order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible nor audible, but sensible in some occult manner." Even more to the point, in my opinion, is Crowley's comment on AL, III: 37: "It is to be noted that the translations from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards."

Crowley also incorrectly quoted AL, II: 39 in every publication of the Gnostic Mass. Personally, I consider this particular stanza quoted in Liber CCXX, III: 37 pure Aleister Crowley: it is not in the manuscript of Liber AL and it has no parallel in the text of the Stele. If he was ambivalent about it, fine. If you read the text aloud, and it says "kill" on the page, and you don't like it or are at least as ambivalent about it as Crowley was, happily pronounce it as "fill." Or the other way round. If it really bothers you, make a correction in your book - Crowley obviously did it. Much more change happens with any and every translation of Liber AL into other tongues, yet it is something that the Book itself suggests as the thing to do. The stipulation is that this should be done together with the original writings, and the original writings have not been altered. 

I really must get myself a New Falcon edition to fill a gap in my understanding.

Does it really say "He [God] ........ ?

Nice to know someone is finally sorting out those crappy old first editions from the misremembering Beast.

OK

If indeed "Crowley obviously did it", then why didn't he correct subsequent printed editions of The Book of the Law? Clearly he was in a position to make the correction. That he didn't, suggests that he didn't consider it important.

God? Not Aiwass?

The New Falcom edition was a facsimile of the original, from which it differs in size, and which incorporates the typographical errors listed in the errata slip.

It does not say "He [God" - it says "He" and I have supplied God in square brackets, as is customary when making changes or additions to the original text. The previous sentence mentions Crowley's address to God, and since this antecedent was not obvious from "He then refers..." (Who is "he"?), I have supplied the information and made it obvious that it was an interpolation by placing it in the square brackets.

There you go.

Palamedes, I will acquire the New Falcon edition... However, it is important to note that edition was NOT printed by Crowley. If it differs from The Equinox of the Gods that Crowley printed, then it is not of consequence and matters little more than the 2 times HB changed the paraphrase of the Stele to "fill me"... only footnoting it the second time he did so.

However, my question was to your earlier statement "Crowley states, in the Equinox of the Gods, that he was given order to quote from that vellum and if he quoted correctly, he would have inserted a reminder to add the text up to "kill me."

You skirted the issue by posting other words by Crowley in your modern publication and giving me a location for your claim. However when looking at the section you reference the issue of kill/fill is not mentioned at all.

So, were you making it up or does this "statement" by Crowley actually exist?

So the Book was first published when? And how many years after that did Crowley live? So he had how long to change it, if he thought a change was actually necessary?

He obviously decided to continue with the MS, which says, "fill".

Whatever else he said, what he DID was decide not to change the book.

In fact, this was no ordinary book. It is the foundational document for his entire system. So... it being so important, if he felt a change was necessary, for any reason, is it not logical to think that Crowley would have made an actual effort to change the book? He obviously made other changes that he felt were necessary, and would have rightly reasoned that as either the A) author or B) Prophet, he was well within his rights and bounds to make the changes.

He didn't publish a change from "f" to "k".

A sidenote in another book counts as little to nothing, in my opinion.

Also, Mr. Staley, you have obviously decided not to accept the change. As you stated, many copies of the Book that you have do not have the change within them. I assume that you plan on simply not going along with said change. That, in my opinion, is not cowardice. You have done "something" about it, in refusing to accept it, even though you may not be in the position to actually change the change.

It crossed my mind that yet another division may occur within Thelema. It may end up with the "f-ers" and the "k-ers".

93!

To me (maybe only to me) it seems blaringly obvious that AC meant "kill" not "fill". That's what's in the poetic translation he was to fill in AFTER DICATION. In EVERY publication of the poem. For some reason, may it be haste during the writing, not remembering it correctly then (it was just a few days old, not to forget), or simply a typo, he wrote "fill" in the manuscript. Of course he did not change it, he was forbidden to do so. But he REALLY MORE THAN ONCE states that this was not part of the dictation. He simply scribbled the beginning and the end of what was to be filled in later on to the paper. He made a mistake there, and he never changed it because he wasn't supposed to change it. So there is a misquote in a Class A paper, but it CLEARLY IS A MISQUOTE. I can't imagine there's any deeper meaning to it. And I also would not change it - a footnote seems to be the right way to handle it. Maybe the O.T.O. wants to simply end the debate (which started long before). Understandable, but unwise, I guess. Anyway, I doubt that there will occur "a division within Thelema." People who fear/dislike/envy/hate the O.T.O. will feel confirmed, people who blindly follow will still do so, and people who argue about the book (though advised not to do so) will continue to argue. In short: AC was not allowed to change the manuscript, ergo he didn't do it. He would have been allowed to change his poetic translation of the Stele, but he did not. To me it seems clear what's going on there...

Love=Law
Lutz

Nicely argued, Lutz. Some much-needed pragmatism and common sense in your post.

Yes, it exists and it is in my modern publication. There it says that Crowley should quote the paraphrase, and the paraphrase says "kill."

MS says "fill". The state of mind that he was in while 'receiving dictation', caused him to write "fill". Maybe later, when he was sober, or the opposite, he thought, "Man, kill would go so much better there." But, while enwrapped in the state that caused Liber AL to exist, he wrote "fill".

This is a fragment. Are you saying that every publication of the poem says "kill"?

Should we start questioning what he "meant to write" in other places? I mean, he already did that in some spots. Even Rose did so. But he just conveniently forgot about this? I don't buy it.

Actually, if it is part of the 'poem', and not part of the 'dictation', as people keep saying, then surely Crowley himself could have used said reasoning to go ahead and make the change.

But he didn't change it. And, if he was forbidden to change it, then it doesn't matter one bit whether or not he really wanted it to be kill, because it is fill, and he's forbidden to change it. It also follows then, that Buddy Breeze is forbidden to change it.

But he was forbidden to change it, right?

But he didn't change it when he published the typescript as 220, did he?

And we should all live with the apparent error, which actually makes more sense in the poem (fill as opposed to kill), than to just change it, since we are forbidden to do so.

To changing it? Do you not think that if Crowley wanted it changed badly enough, he would have said, "Fuck it. I'm the Prophet. I'll change the thing, either on the manuscript or on the typescript"?

I agree wholeheartedly.

Unwise indeed. Hell, I never even knew there was a debate until this thread! The manuscript clearly says fill, so I always said fill. And, if I ever read it as kill, then I most probably read fill instead. 

There are already so many divisions within Thelema. What's one more?

I would take this stance towards anyone attempting to make said change, not just the (c)O.T.O.. Of that, be assured.

Btw, these are the "cowards" I was referencing earlier. You know, the type that A.C. so fondly labeled as "fans".

Probably.

Yes. Crowley, no matter how badly he may have wanted to change it, didn't change it. Crowley did not change it.

Do you two have different editions or something?

The text "I am.... me" appears to be in pencil, not ink, in the Centennial Edition.
Thus the lines, while in the writing of the Beast" are not part of the "original"
transcription by "the Beast", but added later, hence secondary.

Some may use this argument, to support the interpretation it is not "Class A".
The implication would not deny a change in a typeset version, and still follow
the definition for Class A.

I see no definitive conclusion favoring "fill" over "kill", or vice versa, in typeset
Libers AL in the present discussion.

The holograph should be changed no more! It fulfills the highest
definition of Class A, established by Crowley. If the typeset edition (220) is a
recognized copy of the holograph (31) (which it cannot be, so the facsimile is required),
then the two should agree. If they are different, they don't need to be correlated,
but it would be nice. Having two different documents purporting to be the same, and
both in Class A, causes confusion. Crowley addresses this to some extent by having
the holograph supersede all other Class A libers.

93, Az!

No, he obviously didn't. But not because of any Class A restrictions (the A.:.A.:. wasn't really founded then, the other Holy books were received only later that year) but simply because he was ordered not to change a word by the text itself. As for example the Great Invocation (also in the intended appendix to the CW) shows, the poem he was ordered to quote, says "kill", allegedly written before the dictation, and this part was not dictated at all, so it is obvious that "fill" is "wrong", but at the same time "unchangeable". By the way, when reading the Great Invocation, I feel that "kill" makes much more sense. Liber 220 should mirror the original ms. as much as possible, so of course no change allowed. But again, there weren't any Class A restrictions in 1907, and probably not even in 1908, when the proofs of the 1909 edition were made (these October 1908 proofs are also at Harry Ransom), he was simply true to the text.

Anyway, it is just another unfortunate circumstance that AC did not clear up when he had the chance to do so. It is a complicated issue, since he was ordered to fill in the poem containing "kill me". This he fucked up. But he was also ordered not to change his fuck-ups, and so he left "fill me". The manuscript is of course unchangeable, but I personally would have no problems with changing an Class A text like Liber 220 IF THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH EVIDENCE that AC had intended it so. But it really is a complicated case (this mixing of received and additional "technical" text and calling it Class A) and what is even more obvious that it is quite futile to argue about it. I feel both parties have good arguments.

It really is an interesting time with all the detective work going on all around the globe. Let's see what comes up next. It somehow reminds me of the "666 or 613" issue the Christians debate over.

Cheers

Love=Law
Law

93!

Also check out the translation from Hieroglyphs to French that Crowley also included in the aborted CW appendix:

Le défunt, prophète de Mentou,
seigneur de Thèbes,

I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
The inspired forth-speaker of Mentu;

à qui sont ouvertes les portes du ciel dans Thèbes,

For me unveils the veiled sky,

Ankh-f-n-khonsu, à la voix juste, dit:

The self-slain Ankh-af-na-khonsu
Whose words are truth. I invoke, I greet
Thy presence, O Ra-Hoor-Khuit!

O sublime! j'adore la gandeur de tes esprits,

Unity uttermost showed!
I adore the might of Thy breath,

âme très redoutable,
qui inspire sa terreur aux dieux.

Supreme and terrible God,
Who makest the gods and death
To tremble before Thee: --
I, I adore thee!

Appraissant sur son grand trône,

Appear on the throne of Ra!

il fait les voies de l'âme,
de l'esprit et du corps;

Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it kill me!

I only had French in school many decades ago, but I still know that "corps" is "dead body". So to say (I forgot who said it in this or another thread) there is no trace of "kill" or "death" in the French translation (made by museum staff Brugsch Bey and M. Delormant) is - especially when acknowledging AC's versifying liberties - not exactly correct. Anyway, the translations (as outdated as they might seem to today's egyptologists) that were the foundation of Crowley's translated and versifyed "poems" that led to the Great Invocation ritual that led to the receiving of Liber L, are also at Harry Ransom University, I am attaching one pertinent section (hopefully this is seen as "fair use", as it is intended by me):

Love=Law
Lutz

I get 58,500,000 google hits on "corps vivant".
"Corps" means "body", whether living or dead.

reminds me of the debate in Christianity - when Paul quotes the pagan Epidmenides in Acts 17: "in him we live and move and have our being" the issue arises of whether this was the literally inspired word of God when Epidmenides said it?, or only when Paul quoted him?

I can almost hear the Old Goat laughing down through the ages......lol

93!

You are correct. In the translation AC received from the museum the hieroglyph "n khab" is translated with "à l'ombre, au corps", "ombre" being "shadow". What I say is that to me it sounds quite convincing that AC "translated" it to "let it kill me", which he has done. It was intended as a reply to the alleged non-existence of anything that could be translated "kill me" on the stele*. Thanks anyhow.

Love=Law
Lutz

*I found the post:

*cough*
"à l'ombre" translates roughly as "in the shade", "au corps" as "in body" - making "fill" a closer reading...

(This is going to run and run and run.)

(Disclaimer: also some years since I studied French, but Google Translate agrees with me (fwiw))

93!

Well, I stand corrected! Google Translate makes "it is the way of the soul, of mind and body;" out of "il fait les voies de l'âme, de l'esprit et du corps;". It is only in the word for word translation (the attached pic) that says "à" and "au".

"Fill" might fit better.

"Kill" might fit better also.

Well, I only wanted to point out, that "kill" also fits and that it cannot be simply ruled out as a possibility.

Reading the Great Invocation, I tend to prefer "kill"...

Anyway, this is way more fun than work...

Love=Law
Lutz

Just as a sideline from the thrust of the main debate, I would “argue” that “argue not” could equally as well refer to “debate the reality of 0 (Zero = LA) as being the fundamental resolution of the intracies of two” (and many)?  And are we not all here, at nine pages and 134 replies (& counting), rather “talking over much” about The Book, let alone “discussing the contents” of the third chapter?  And, furthermore, also trying to “convert” one another to the belief of F rather than K (or vice versa!)?

Just a thought (or, three).

“Confusion will be my Epitaph”,
N. Joy

Someone also said, pages ago, why the hell would a dead man want to be killed? How does that work, exactly?

It makes much more sense, to me, that the dead man is wanting to be filled with the Light (consumed by it), and brought to the appropriate 'afterlife'.

Anyway, my point is still this: that although Crowley may have wanted dearly to change it, he didn't.

In my opinion, any printing of the Book that contains "kill" is not to be considered Class A, but a deviation from the original manuscript. If the manuscript did not explicitly have the word "fill" - whether by Crowley's drugged out memory or not - then it would be a different issue.

If considering that each letter in a body of writing constitutes a "Qabalstic DNA" sequence that is the entire writing, changing even one letter changes that sequence, thereby making the changed work not an exact replica of the initial work, and therefore not a replica of the Class A document, and thus not Class A.

Further, if it is not Class A, then it cannot be considered a Holy Book.

The case for "kill me" doesn't appear to be as strong as that for "fill me" in another respect.

The versification of the stele that appears in Equinox I,7 misspells it as "Stélé of Revelling". The printing of this text in Equinox of the Gods in 1936 also has this misspelling "revelling". It seems possible that after preparing the 1912 edition, Crowley never proofread the versification again. 1936 appears to simply reprint 1912 blindly. But it is inconceivable that he never read AL III,37 again in the three further times (?) it was set to print in his lifetime (1913, 1936, 1938; these in addition to the original typescript of 1904, 1907, and 1909).

So the weight of precdent, Crowley's editing, and the pencil note in the manuscript - all side with "fill me". The argument for "kill me" rests only on two sure instances: in the poem as it is in "The Great Invocation", and the first, apparently only, edition of the versification itself. The marginal "K !" in 1909 may or may not be Crowley's, and constitutes at best weak evidence for Crowley's ultimate preference.

One other possible source for the text of the stanza that I am unable to see is the manuscript of Liber Pyramidos that appears in the Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers volume. Some versions of this ritual contain the versification of the stele, but I don't know if this one does, or when exactly it was written. But if it is there, and is that which was written in 1909 itself, it would provide another witness to one or the other options.

"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

For me it's that simple and anything else which I have to say would be a cross-wiring of the threads.

And, as if the point needs to be further belaboured, we might consider how Crowley said his Resh throughout his life (the "long form" at least). Presumably, he said "fill me!" for his entire life.

Students like Grady and Kenneth Grant surely learned directly from him, and there must be evidence of what earlier students were taught - so, does anyone know exactly? I didn't learn from Grady, but I learned from a student of Grady, and it was "fill me".

Nice observation.

Hi all,

Below is undoubtedly a rough translation of the French rendering of the hieroglyphs given by Crowley in the Texas Proof- my French is not great. However, I am confident that there is nothing in the French to suggest that the already dead Ankh-f-n-khonsu would like to die again. He clearly says that he is given the light and thus equipped can go forth to the place of the gods.

Unfortunately I don't think this sheds any light on the fill/kill controversy as Crowley's versification is so far removed even from the French (self-slain?) that it seems we're really dealing with his intentions as a poet. In any case I  hope this small contribution is helpful in some way.

All the best,
AE

Obverse:

The deceased prophet of Mentu, lord of Thebes, to whom are opened the doors in the sky of Thebes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu, with the True Voice, says:

"O sublime! I adore the greatness of your spirits, great fearsome soul, who inspires terror in gods. The one who appears on his great throne, opens the ways of the soul, of the mind and the body. Having received the light, equipped thereof, I have made my way toward the place where Ra, Toum, and Hathor are. Me, the deceased Prophet of Mentu, Lord of Thebes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu, son of a lord in the line of Bes-n-maut and of the preistess of Ammon-ra, the lady of house Ta-nech."

Reverse:

The deceased prophet of Mentu, lord of Thebes, to whom are opened the doors in the sky of Thebes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu, with the True Voice, says:

"O my father, my mother, the father who I had on Earth, put up no testimony against me, do not oppose me, judge nor burden me in the presence of great god, lord of the West, because I have joined the Earth to the great West, where I was flourishing on Earth!"

The deceased prophet of Mentu, lord of Thebes, to whom are opened the doors in the sky of Thebes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu, with the True Voice, says:

"O, *, who shines in the moon, the deceased Ankh-f-n-khonsu goes forth from the multitude and rejoins those who are in the light, he has opened the abode of stars (duat); the deceased Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is going forth by day to do all that pleased him on earth among the living."

*Very unsure about this as given in the Texas Proof. Translated "Unique of Arm" in the modern translation.

One good reasons to stay away from DRM ebooks like apple.  Someone could alter whats written in the book, and you might not even know it.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
Anyway, I am not in favor of the change.  It should remain "fill me." not out of any argument about the text, but rather as a ritual for new people coming to thelema.

I think it could have far-reaching implications. For us, we are aware of "fill" and "kill" and of a difference. But, how long until the mention of "fill" is gone altogether? And what ever will newcomers do when they read "kill" and learn it thus, and then actually paste the sheets to behold... "fill"?

Dwtw

I beg to differ. The only possible proof that 'fill' is a misquote of the paraphrases is contained in the vellum book, (the original poem as written by AC in March 1904) which is no longer extant. Yes, it was printed as 'kill me' in the paraphrases of the Stele of 'Revelling' (and reprinted, probably without even proofreading it, in 1936, as BelMurru suggests), but THAT might have been a typo or misquote, not 'Fill'. The crossed out F and penciled K in the margin of Thelema 1909 is certainly a correction, by someone, but by itself is weak evidence that Fill is a misquote.

I think the stance to take would be to say that the word Fill is *presumably* a misquoting of a poem in the vellum book that is no longer available to consult. And no one has commented on my previous post where I attempted  to discuss the logistics of actually inserting the paraphrases into the typescript which was published as Liber CCXX. But the gist of it was that a typist at some point had to put them in, and either used Fill because the note in the ms matched what was in the vellum book, or questioned why it didn't match and was told to use the word Fill anyway.

I'm not a researcher of Thelemic documents, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could tell me where the earliest typescripts of Liber AL are? And also the paraphrases? Is there nothing that predates the galleys and published books?

Litlluw
RLG

93!

Well, I would say that some of the most competent AC researchers just found a correction in a very early Holy Book. One might doubt that it's AC's handwriting at all, but I don't know why one should. I am confident Mr. Breeze recognizes the handwriting. Anyway, it seems to be established that "kill"or "fill" is just a matter of taste, and there seems to be evidence that Crowley meant "kill". Of course he saw that he wrote "fill" and of course he never changed it as he was ordered not to do. But yes, the earliest original holograph of the stele translations and the Great Invocation would be clearly (probably) able to settle the matter once and for all. The matter in this case: What Crowley was ordered to paraphrase. The other matter ( and probably the matter that arouses the most controverse): Is such a "mistake" by the scribe a reason to change a Class A book?

Yeah, what then?

Love=Law
Lutz

Whether "kill" or "fill" was intended, what strikes me is how inconsequential the change is. So there's an anomaly. So what? Why not leave the anomaly - flagged-up if necessary - rather than deem it mandatory to resolve the anomaly one way or the other?

93 Lutz -

Up to two days ago (April 30) I thought the evidence for Crowley's preference was inconclusive, but I think now that the preponderance of evidence shows that it was "fill me!". This remains the case whatever the original paraphrase of the lost vellum book was, as well as his apparent marginal correction in 1909.

This evidence is the combined weight of both the unanimous textual tradition of CCXX III,37, as well as the oral tradition of the daily recitation of the adorations, with the phrase "fill me!" used.

I think the importance of the latter cannot be overstated: if Crowley had said "kill me!" in his near daily - presumably - recitations of this poem, and taught this as the full form of the adorations to various students, we have to presume that the issue would have come up long before now. Ergo, he said "Aum! Let it fill me!" daily, or several times daily, for 30-40 years. I think everyone will accept that it is preposterous to think that Crowley was just too lazy to correct something that he said every single day of his life, if he had really wanted it changed.

And given the lineage of Germer, Motta, Grant, McMurtry, if any one of these people had heard that Crowley really said "kill me!" in that poem during the adorations, somebody somewhere would have mentioned it: "Hey, we say it THIS way in OUR adorations! Straight from Crowley, I hear."

It is clear from the evidence of the printed CCXX and the oral tradition, that Crowley said "fill me" all this time. He really preferred it.

I agree on HB's competence, but I think this slight evidence is far less weighty than the whole tradition.

So no, CCXX III,37 should not be changed from "fill me" to "kill me".

The matter in this case: What Crowley was ordered to paraphrase. The other matter ( and probably the matter that arouses the most controverse): Is such a "mistake" by the scribe a reason to change a Class A book?

I don't know of anything to suggest Crowley was "ordered" to paraphrase the stele's translation. Look at how he treats it (Equinox I,7, p. 383; Equinox of the Gods, p. 84):

"During the period March 23rd-April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stélé were translated for Fra. P., and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis."

There is no command, through Rose or otherwise. He just wanted to do it.

I agree this is the best approach. "Flagged" (noted, footnote or endnote) I mean. It seems possible that Crowley liked both in different contexts. My impression is that "kill me" is an early preference that he discarded by 1912 (or earlier; it depends when the "Stele of Revelling" plates were set, since we don't know when the marginal annotation was made. The 1936 Equinox of the Gods text of the "Stele of Revelling" seems to be merely a holdover from 1912, so it does not count as an independent witness).

93, belmurru!

Sorry for my bad English sometimes. I did not want to say he was ordered to paraphrase the stele inscription, but he was ordered (by Aiwass) to quote his paraphrasing during the dictation.

You may be right about "fill" fitting better. But: IF the correction in the Holy Book is authentic, then what?

"Liber Resh" is a good point.

The famous "vellum book" would really be helpful once more. Because even if he wrote "kill me" first, his "mistake" during the dictation would be enough reason, I guess, to use "fill me" during Resh, thus quoting Liber L and not the Great Invocation. I think we cannot find out for sure without knowing what he wrote first.

Love=Law
Lutz

93, Michael!

I agree also.

But I guess the big thing (though admittedly not for me) is the question of a) what constitutes to Class A in this case? "Uninspired" fill-ins after the dictation also? b) would it be okay to "correct" that part that's not so A-classy?

All this goes beyond "kill" or "fill". See the grid, the verse numbers, Rose's corrections and so on. It's a technical problem, I guess, not one of meaning or content.

Love=Law
Lutz

It seems obvious to me that all arguments based on what Crowley 'intended' to do are null and void, since he is dead. So lets stick to what we know shall we.

What we know is that in more than 40 years he never once saw fit to 'correct' the versification in Liber al to match the 'Stele of revelling'.

What we also know is that 'kill' only ever occurs in the 'stele of revelling', or elsewhere where the versification stands apart from Liber al, and not once does the word 'kill' occur within the text of liber al.

We also know; and this is crucially important because Crowley put this clause in place to avoid the kind of knavery that we are currently seeing; that Both CCXX and XXXI are class A documents, so any change is strictly forbidden. I would have thought that this point was obvious.