Yes, the anomalies in The Book of the Law are fascinating, and a part of its fascination. I doubt that these anomalies will be resolved, and why should they? Doubtless some scholarly minds abhor anomalies, but sperhaps that's too bad.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

Love=Law
Lutz

The posts earlier this morning by threefold31 and belmurru are, to my mind, compelling.

I think Azidonis raised a couple of excellent & important points back in Reply #108 and #Reply 135, which should not be under-estimated: 

If “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"[his emphases],

then ANY such changes which are made make it no longer a Class A book - and then what is the prime published document of Thelema "cannot then be considered to be a Holy Book".

Not so - you have forgotten "kill and torture" from III.18

(Fortean type) Anomalies seem to abound as part & parcel of the whole kit & caboodle of Thelema and in particular A.C.’s life, times and circumstances.  Perhaps it is all a reflection of “there is a factor infinite and unknown & all their words are skew-wise” and that we live in a quantum, indeterminate universe in which “there is no certain test” about anything.

No need to worry (with a tin of hurry curry - drowning in miracle sauce),
N. Joy

That's a huge misrepresentation of what I said. It was obvious from the post that I was referring to the paraphrase and not the book in general.

’Fraid I cannot agree with you Candide: with all due respect, your words quite clearly state: “not once does the word ‘kill’ occur within the text of liber al”[sic], and although I quite naturally accept that might not have been your intention, in the context that was unequivocally what you said.  And don’t you think that in the circumstances “a huge misrepresentation” is, in itself, "a huge” amount of hyperbole?

Incidentally, I presume by ‘stele of revelling’ which you mention twice without a [sic] you are actually referring to the misprinting as such cited in The Equinox of the Gods, and not specifically to the “Stélé of Revealing” [sic]?  We must all of us be as correctly precise/ pedantic {delete as applicable} as possible, wouldn’t you agree?

Incidentally welcome back to Lashtal as I think it your Introduction Greetings you said you had been before but gone away & now like the Prodigal come back again.  (It saves me having to do an acceptance welcome there too!)

(Singing tunelessly off-key to you in welcome) “We’ll meet again - don’t know where, don’t know when - but I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day…”
N. Joy

You would rather let our children's children's children sweep up the mess than getting it over with now?

Here's another question for those supporting the change to "kill". Would you be willing to assert that every printing of "fill" (excluding the MS), and every recitation of "fill", has been a misquote, has been wrong, has been a derivation from the "truth"?

Can't really be bothered to play semantics to be honest, you know exactly what I meant, so no need to deliberately stir the pot. But cheers for the welcome. I hope my time here is useful to all of us.

Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior O.T.O., does believe the Secret Chiefs are paying attention to the work of the said O.T.O., and to have been provided by the Secret Chiefs with a text correction to The Book of the Law. As stated in the said O.T.O.'s News from International Headquarters April 10, 2013 e.v., under the subheading "ARCHIVAL NEWS".

Very much expecting communication from the Secret Chiefs is a relevant temptation if one is committed to Aleister Crowley's as some kind of great World Teacher and Supreme Guru, as "communication with those "gods" or "masters"" - or Secret chiefs - according to Crowley, as quoted above from Magick without tears, is the one hope remaining for our species, and the purpose of The Great Work.

"Our business is solely to obey orders: our responsibility ends when we have satisfied ourselves that they emanate from a source which has the right to command." The preceding sentence (typed in bold by me) is a quote from Letter 9: The Secret Chiefs, in Magick without tears. And from this Aleister Crowley quote it follows that an order emanating "from a source which has the right to command" - in other words, the Secret Chiefs - ends our responsibility, and is something which it is our business "solely to obey".

My point is that Hymenaeus Beta does believe to have been provided by the Secret Chiefs with a text correction to The Book of the Law, and that the Secret Chiefs according to Aleister Crowley have supreme authority and are "a source which has the right to command."

93, Az!

What mess? I don't see any mess. What I see is that another intriguing and mysterious puzzle piece seems to have been appeared. The correction of "fill" to "kill" in a copy that belonged to the scribe in the hand of the scribe. What can this mean? To me it seems (not un-)logical that AC wrote erranously "fill" during the dictation, although he was supposed to later fill in a part from his "poetised" stele translation which originally said "kill". There! He made a mistake. But the manuscript is not to be changed! He never did. He also never changed the text version. But he didn't change the "kill" versions either.

What we also know is that AC himself added to or altered the manuscript considerably after the dicatation was over. There might be other instances (I am currently resarching some other interesting phenomena) in Class A Holy Books that differ in various editions.

So: the only mess is: Not what is the "Holy" part of a "Holy Book", but what part of it is "Book"? Simply a hand-crafted book. Which has to be proof-set by hand, proof-read, re-set by hand, re-proof-read, printed at pretty high costs. No auto-correct, no spell-checker. What about typos in Holy Books?

Okay, it is clear that AC wrote "fill" in the holograph. Let's assume there is no doubt at all he had wanted to write "kill". What now? Is it a change in meaning? Or simply a typo? Or has the typo any meaning? These are interesting questions, it's not a mess at all. Check again your holograph, you'll find a lot of instances that one could read differently. If Crowley would have been run over by a bus after the dictation "Aiwass" might be called "Hiwass" by his followers. You will find stuff AC crossed out, and when you try to decipher what he crossed out, it looks not like a typo but like a different word, which also "sounds" differently. There are many inconsistencies.

The only mess is: How "Holy" is anyone's "Holy Book"? Think about that. I promise you, there will appear quite some more inconsistencies of this sort in "Holy Books". I think this is a good thing.

And, though I am not a SCK (supporter of a change to "kill"), I think is is a legitimate question if corrections of Holy Books are allowed. I don't obey to "The study of this book is forbidden" and I did not destroy my copy after reading. Why should I obey to "Class A"?

Love=Law
Lutz

93!

And while I am generally not too often in accordance with wellreadwellbread I think he also has a point.

Love=Law
Lutz

Thank you for your gracious demurral & acknowledgement of your error in the matter, Candie, however you generously overestimate my powers of clairvoyance in that I do not "know exactly" what other people - particularly total strangers – mean.  It would come in most useful if I did.    (This is reason why I sometimes have to ask for clarification - and if anybody in turn calls me out for being either imprecise, vague or otherwise unclear I always then try to provide a satisfactory, calm and thorough answer where possible in response, & you may check the history of my posts to verify this fact).  The meaning of your own reference was at least ambiguous & unclear and in terms of the usage of your vocabulary sounded categorical.

As for ‘deliberately stirring’ the pot: had I wished to do so I can assure you, you would have been left in no doubt over the fact!

But leaving it nicely simmering...
N. Joy

Yes, it's true what wellreadwellbred says - HB believes that the Secret Chiefs propitiously provided the discovery of the 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ with marginalia, so that it is they who are demanding the change.

It could be that it is with confidence in their guidance that OTO is now suing US Games.

I can only see all of this leading to further schism.

If so, I'm on the "fill me" side. I think Crowley meant this, and said it his whole life. He had plenty of opportunity to change it. He didn't need to wait to provide a "hidden hand" to some more courageous soul in the future to make the change for him.

I think "kill me" is the aberration; a choice of wording Crowley abandoned after 1912 (or earlier, depending on when the pages were set for the 1912 Equinox I,7, and when the annotations to the 1909 text were made, whichever came later).

Further evidence for his preference might come from any translations of Liber Legis that Crowley authorized in his lifetime. I know Reuss is supposed to have made one into German, but I can't find a trace of it on the web. Any others? French maybe?

The phrasing modern German translators use for this verse is either "Aum! Möge es mich erfüllen!" or "Aum! Laß es mich erfüllen!" Both "may it/let it fill me" of course.

The strongest point of the whole argument is that, when the 1936 versification is accepted as an uncorrected reprinting of 1912, then there is no trace of "kill me" after 1912. Crowley had changed his mind, if he had ever really questioned what he wrote in the manuscript of XXXI, III, 37 - "fill me".

93, belmurru!

Exactly this is what has to be found out: If Crowley changed his choice of wording after 1912, it would mean in 1904 he had a different choice of wording, i.e. "kill". Which would mean he misquoted himself in Liber L.

I stated more than once that I am not supporting the change, but am supporting the gathering of evidence what really happened, if possible. On this alone, together with eventual textual or contentual (is this a real word?) evidence, I will base my personal conclusions. And not on any "Class A" label (and of course not on any "Hidden Masters" order either, although this is a way Crowley himself silenced plenty of questions). Really, what is so A-classy about Liber 220? It's a textform of the holograph that differs quite a lot already from what's in the holograph.

Love=Law
Lutz

This is some indirect evidence of what Crowley's practice was in the Cefalù period -

Leah quotes it in the Invocation of Ra-Hoor-Khuit as "fill me" on February 8, 1924 (if the editors have not silently harmonized it, but I see no reason to think so) -

http://www.scarletwoman.org/swl_archive/swl_site_v3/scarletletter/v1n2/v1n2_leah1.html

So "fill me" is the form she learned.

How did Frank Bennet learn it? Does he record the adorations or any other invocation in his Magical Record?

All of these details might be overkill, but the force of Crowley's practice is the greatest authority for what his own poem should say. This is in addition to the fact of its being in the manuscript of Liber XXXI.

It doesn't matter what he originally paraphrased it as in the vellum notebook between March 23 and April 8 - he quoted it as "fill me", and he came to use this form exclusively in practice. If he liked "kill me" for a time, or even used that rhyme originally, it is an academic point - it has no bearing on what the text of CCXX should say.

93 Lutz!

This is the point I addressed above. It is purely an historical point what his original paraphrase said. The annotation he made to the manuscript, Liber XXXI - maybe in a moment of inspiration! - says "fill me". And "fill me" is the form he came to use exclusively afterward. It is the form that always appears in Liber CCXX in his lifetime (and until 2013!) - 1913, 1936, 1938. I don't think he was cowardly, thinking all the time "I really want to say "kill me" here, but I just can't. Maybe someone in the future will find that margin note I made in the 1909 Thelema and change it for me!"

I really don't see how a brief flirtation with "kill me" can overrride the whole tendency of the tradition, printed and oral.

To make that clear: That's exactly how I see it!

But the question remains: Is it okay to "correct" Holy Books?

I have just been pointed to another good one: Liber LXV, another Class A book. Crowley wrote "So came I to Duant, the starry abode, and I heard voices crying aloud." But there is no "Duant"! The translation he got from the museum CLEARLY says "Duaut", which is/was indeed a regular form of "Duat". But there is no "Duant"! The word doesn't exist! Yet is is printed everywhere, even if it makes no sense. Now it is very much easier to misread a "u" for an "n", but it's still a mistake. What do you say?

Love=Law
Lutz

Dwtw

Note that the following is not evidence of anything, but strictly an objective observation.

If one defines a 'word' in Liber CCXX as any string of characters that begins and ends with a space-mark, then there are a total of 6127 'words' in Liber CCXX, (hyphenated words are counted as one word by this definition), including the verse-numbers, the separate letters of the Cipher, and the ampersands (but disregarding the punctuation).

Of this total, the word 'Fill' occurs at place number 5022.

5022 = 54 x 93

do what you will with that information.

Litlluw
RLG

Lutz, I think you, as a collector, well know how suddenly replacing every publication with "kill" will, eventually, render the usage of "fill" to a small minority, and possibly into extinction. We aren't talking in the next decade or anything, but over the course of the next 1,800+ years, certainly.

As for the "Secret Chiefs" thing... generally, to everyone: There are no "Secret Chiefs", as commonly portrayed, some group of discarnate "Masters" who like to meddle in human affairs. They simply do NOT exist.

Recall Mathers' stint with the "Secret Chiefs", and how it eventually led to his downfall.

93, Az!

Believe me, I am not interested in any changes. It is out of strictly historical interest that I now would like to know if an actual misquote of AC himself made it into a Holy Book. I am just curious.

On the other hand I am quite serious about being not too picky with printed editions of Holy Books. Wouldn't the finding of an actual error justify a correction? Especially in the case of this consciously-to-be-filled in quote which was not part of the dictation, and the (possibly) wrong word "fill" being not more as an "end quote" marker? It IS worth to think about, in my opinion. Why should it be taboo? But relax: At this moment I am very far from being convinced that AC would have liked to have it changed, but what if one day everything points in that direction? These are legimitate questions. And I think that the prayer customs of Thelemic practictioners are of minor importance (to me at least).

And the Secret Chiefs? Well, AC founded quite a lot of his and the OTO's authority on them, didn't he?

Love=Law
Lutz

If it made it in, then it made it in.

What you have is the MS saying "fill me". Whether Crowley liked it or not, he didn't change it, and he wrote the book. Not only that, he had many opportunities spanning over many years and many "Initiations" to make a change, and he deliberately chose not to make the change. That he even notes a difference indicates that he was definitely aware of what he thought was an in-congruency, pherpas poignantly so, but he still refused to change the Book. That should give some indication of what other meddling hands and minds should not do, imo.

Like I said, we aren't talking about some run-of-the-mill type of person. We are talking about Aleister Crowley, a guy who actually saw himself as the Prophet of an Aeon, along with [Insert Grand Pooba-esque title here]. To him, he was the king snake. To Thelema, he IS the king snake. One would think that if Crowley actually thought it was within his "authority" as Prophet, or as Beast, to change it, he certainly would have done so, and certainly would have expected us to accept his reasoning.

Do you not see a problem with that?

Really, Crowley's "appeal to authority" is as much a hunk of shit as anyone else's. It's useful for governing, and on a conventional level only.

Ultimately, Crowley has no more authority than anyone else to have ever existed.

The same goes for Bill Breeze.

Uh, oh!   Now we're treading the fine line of blasphemy.  😉

I see what you are saying. Very few books in history come with a stipulation to not change anything. Liber AL (even though the stops are fair game), the other Class A documents, I think the Quran, are the few. I'm not sure if there are any others, although "holy books" would be a good place to look. Probably the Adi Granth of the Sikh tradition.

I think if they are going to "revise" it, which is what they are doing/have done, they should at least make the revision not Class A.

What they should not have done, is claim the revision is the "correct" version, and that the "authority" for them saying so came from the "Secret Chiefs".

"Man has the right to fill those who would thwart these rights"- edited version of liber Oz.

😉

93!

Okay, he didn't change it. So he wanted it like it is. As I said, I am interested if he wanted to stick to his mistake (if he made one) and as I also said, no, I wouldn't change the book.

Okay, again, he is the master and he did not do it. The same goes for "Duant" in Liber LXV, but who cares?

Excuse me, then why again would it be forbidden to correct a Holy Book? Because of whose authority? H-h-hidden ma...? Or because the definition of "Class A" is "not to change it"?

So, since the Hidden Masters...

... they have all the authority? Or what is A-Classy about it? So that copyrights can run out?

And I think this is it once more. The evil ones.

I think - although I do not agree with changing "kill" to "fill" right now - it IS a very legitimate question to ask: Is it okay to correct a Holy Book? At which point becomes the typeset and printed book "holy"? The first edition? The last edition during Crowley's lifetime? Typos are holy too?

To say "Crowley would have been allowed to do it but Breeze isn't"" is simply childish, because that's the way Crowley's O.T.O. always worked. It is not a democratic club. It is an order whose leadership is based on certain principles, which Crowley himself brought into the order. Or on what authority do you think Crowley altered Reuss' version of the order? I am sure there were quite a few guys back then who screamed "Reuss would have been allowed but Crowley isn't!"

So again without any prejudices: What is a Holy Book? At which point does it become Holy? Did you check all the Holy Books against Crowley's manuscripts? What makes the fantasy place of "Duant" so holy?

Love=Law
Lutz

Apart from anything else, it's bad scholarship. I think somebody else mentioned it too, but forgoing all the arguments of Holy Books and whatnot, any decent scholar would leave a footnote to explain any perceived irregularity. Simply revising the works of another is bad scholarship.

I am not sure what you mean by "error", Lutz.

Crowley wrote a poem. He could write what he wanted. We don't have the first draft of that poem. The closest thing in time to that draft appears to be the pencil notation in the Liber XXXI manuscript, and it says "fill me". For all we know, the first draft of his paraphrase said "fill me".

It could be that "kill me" is the second thought, not the first. Is the stanza with the line "Aum! Let it kill me!" in the Great Invocation earlier or later than the annotation in Liber XXXI? I don't know.

The point is that Crowley came up with two versions of this line, and we can't say with certainty which was first. It is actually not important which was first, because we CAN say with certainty which version the author preferred for most of his life.

To the question of who or what justifies changing a "holy book", I think that is mis-stating the question. The question is what did the author intend?

If the author is Crowley, then we can demonstrate that for his entire life this passage in CCXX reads "fill me." In the five editions of this book prepared under Crowley's supervision (1907, 1909, 1913, 1936, 1938), it consistently reads "fill me".  Holy book or not, it is demonstrably contrary to the author's wishes to change the phrasing to "kill me". This is because despite the marginalium of 1909 (or whenever before 1913), three subsequent printings were supervised by the author, and he did not include this change. He clearly thought better of it, even if he had, once, indicated the change.

Proof of his preference is indicated in his adoption of the poem to daily ritual, where it is "fill me".

If the author is "Aiwass" (and copyright becomes tricky here - who owns Aiwass' copyright?), and Crowley is understood as being under inspiration, or some sort of secondary Aiwass dictation, when writing the pencil note in XXXI, then the answer is also "fill me".

"Fill me" wins in both cases. This was the author's intent. A lone marginal note in an edition decades earlier than the final one cannot be taken as enough evidence to override the overwhelming testimony of the author's preference in print and prayer throughout his life.

That was me, here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=75656#p75656

I agree, it is poor scholarship. It is not even a point of textual criticism, which is an art (and science) devoted to finding the original form of a text which exists only in copies - typically the Bible, but any text which exists in multiple copies but of which the autograph is lost, can be subjected to textual criticism.

For Liber Legis, we don't need textual criticism - we have the autograph.

Liber XXXI is an incomplete and multilayered text - two hands have added to it, the author has annotated it, and parts are not included (the poems).

What is going on with "fill me" in the versification of the stele may be considered textual criticism, since the autograph is missing. However, there are only two choices - "fill me" or "kill me". The poet used both. Which came first is one question (and an irrelevant one). Which was the author's intention for the composite Liber CCXX is another. It is overwhelmingly clear what the author's intention for that poem in the context of Liber CCXX was - "fill me".

I knew it was somebody on here, and it makes perfect sense. I'm sure if I submitted an essay full of misquotes of other peoples work in order to support my results then I'd be considered something of a cheat and get a big fat F.

93, belmurru!

Yes, I should have stated clearer that what I meant was: let's assume for a moment it is a fact that Crowley's stele paraphrasing was written first, and that it read "kill". If so, he did make an "error" when he wrote that he has to fill in later his paraphrase beginning here and ending there. Yet he wrote it. He stated clearly this was not part of the dictation. So what would make his error unchangeable? This is just a theoretical game, not an argument for a change. What about "Duant" from the stele paraphrasing? What about the other differences of Liber 31 to Liber 220?

I am really beyond the "fill" and "kill" with this. I agree that - even if "kill" would have been correct to fill in - he preferred to keep "fill" and used it all his life and it should be kept, maybe with an added footnote. I am asking about errors he wasn't aware of. And about the A-Classification of the printed version of a Holy Book.

That's it, I am playing with pro's and con's of Crowley's conscious intentions being the only justification for the A-classification of the printed version of a Holy Book. As we know he even changed classifications of some books. Wouldn't it be preferrable to have manuscript editions of the other Holy Books as the only Class A books? I mean, Class A is really very strict. And Liber 220 has many - erm - textual difficulties compared to Liber 31. And are we talking about Crowley's authority as poet only, or about his authority's as OHO of the OTO? Doesn't this sound quite a bit like Crowley worship?

Anyway, we know absolutely nothing about his intentions. If I remember correctly most of the Holy Books were not re-published after 1919. If there are any errors in the scarce Thelema editions or the Equinoxes, we are living with them since then. No correction allowed? Maybe they have been corrected already?

These are interesting questions, I think.

Love=Law
Lutz

I should note that I don't consider Breeze to be a poor scholar; I even consider his editing style (such as in Book 4) too conservative for my taste. He knows so much more - I wish he'd give vastly fuller notes, even at the risk of making mistakes. No, he generally has a very light touch, which as a purist I can appreciate, but which is annoying when you are left begging for more that he merely alludes to.

But in this case, he has changed the author's text based on dubious authority. It is nothing that a simple note would not solve: "In a copy of his 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, Crowley crossed out the 'f' of "fill" in this passage, and wrote "K !" in the margin. What he may have intended by this change is unclear, since he never adopted it in printings of Liber CCXX."

Even a good scholar can sometimes be prone to poor scholarship. I'll refer you to the following so you can make your own mind up:

https://www.facebook.com/SatanInBerkeley/posts/248459425293106

Thanks for the link Alrah!

That's hilarious. I know exactly who Alrah is and let me assure you that it ain't me 😉

93 Lutz -

For "Duant", it seems that Crowley mistakenly believed this to be the word (e.g. LXV, II, 2), so his error should stay in the Holy Books in which it occurs. The paraphrase of the reverse side of the stele is not a holy book, so Hymenaeus Alpha's editorial policy of correcting it there seems appropriately conservative and justified (The Holy Books of Thelema, p. 234, note).

My policy, if I were to edit the Class A texts from manuscripts for publication, would be to make them as close to the way Crowley wrote them as possible, mistakes and all. Of course pure typos happen in printed editions, and should be corrected when found, in subsequent editions. But "Duant" is not a typo.

On Crowley's intentions, I think we can know them by his actions. "Actions speak louder than words", and throughout his lifetime of printing CCXX, and in the adoration prayer he used and taught, he said "fill me". Don't actions reveal intentions? Especially repeated and consistent actions? Outside of explicit instruction, or even when action contradicts instruction, we can know intention through behaviour. I think we can say with confidence that it was Crowley's intention that the verse in CCXX should say "fill me."

Thanks for the link Candide. I agree that revisionism is a no-no. I am an extremely conservative editor, when it comes to bringing manuscripts to print. Ideally, every printed text not directly supervised by its author should come with its draft(s) (and manuscripts with their copies), but I know this is hugely impractical (although maybe not in the internet age). The text should never be "brought up to date", or silently corrected by an editor when the author's intentions are clear. If the author misspelled, the text should stay misspelled. The editor's superior knowledge should not be a fig leaf for the author's ignorance (or, much less, being out of date!).

I'm always cautious with texts, especially those as potentially contentious as Crowley's, so I'll read HB's editing with more scrutiny in the future.

I have to say that I do like HB's presentation of Liber CDXVIII in The Vision and the Voice. I'm deeply familiar with the text and can negotiate it well. I think it adds very much to the older editions. The only thing I would wish is to have certain pages of the manuscript, especially of the 2nd Aethyr.

The difficulty at the moment is that we are not even sure if the K was in A.C.’s own actual handwriting.  Maybe a graphologist could confirm?  (Of course, even if it was confirmed that it was, it still doesn’t clear up the problem: maybe, as someone remarked in an earlier reply, it might just have been a personal instruction to Windram himself to do this.  Maybe it was rescinded or superceded again at a later date.  Maybe, maybe, maybe…)

Incidentally, can anyone possibly inform what is the precise difference between an “autograph” copy and a “holograph” one?  There must undoubtedly be some fine distinction, but I am not curerntly aware of what it is.

Let us not forget that Liber AL and the other Holy Books of Thelema are AA and not OTO documents, and that any “change” would have to come from the AA and not from the OTO, whether by the “Frater Superior” or not.  The OTO is merely the copyright holder of some of his written works.  But by whose “authority” could this possibly be?  The “chain of command” in the AA - quite apart from the OTO! - has been very muddled and unclear since 1947.  Who now has the power, if indeed anyone, to sanction any adjustments for the remainder of the Aeon of Horus - and if the answer is “nobody” is that then necessarily a good or a bad thing??

And the Secret Chiefs? Well, AC founded quite a lot of his and the OTO's authority on them, didn't he?

Is H.B. actually making, as appears to have been suggested, a claim to transcend these muddied normal “line(s) of succession” in favour of a “direct authorisation” from these putative “Secret Chiefs” – as for example Crowley himself did in relation to the Golden Dawn, when he attempted to out-trump Mathers in the matter?  And also, arguably, as he did with Theodore Reuss himself in the matter of the OTO, since at the end of his [Reuss’s] life there is clear documented proof that he wanted nothing further to do with Thelema and 666 & that had he lived would have taken definite steps to have “disconnected” the OTO from The Book of the Law and the 93 Current.

Yes, nice one Ouch - what’s the jargon? – LOL!  Fill ‘em in (with lead) or fill ‘em up (with light), though?  That is the question...

Hey-Ho!!
N. Joy

There is no definitive distinction I know of. It's just that in textual criticism you'll hear "we don't have the autograph", but never "we don't have the holograph". Both mean a document written in the author's own hand.

My sense, and my use of the term autograph, implies that it is the original copy, and usually unique copy, written by the author. A holograph is any copy written by the author. So if Crowley had copied the manuscript, that would be a holograph copy of the autograph.

Of course if I copy out Liber XXXI by hand, then that is a holograph copy as well - it is my holograph copy of the book. It is written in my hand. You could say "That is Bel Murru's holograph of Liber Legis", but you could not say "This is Bel Murru's autograph of Liber Legis".

If you google "autograph holograph manuscript" you'll find that scholars, at least 20th century scholars, have not found much use for "holograph". It is usually limited, it appears, to musicology and legal documents like holograph wills, which don't require witnesses signatures because the whole document was self-evidently written by the signatory.

Added: Maybe a useful distinction is that an autograph is a work handwritten by the author, while a holograph is any work handwritten by any copyist. Therefore "holograph" is the broader term. It includes all signed or attributable manuscripts, whether original works or copies, while "autograph" is narrower, it means an original work in the author's own hand.

Many thanks belmurru for your marvellously full, clear, cogent & expert clarification of the matter.  Could you now possibly kindly clear up the remaining mysteries for us in the same brilliant fashion?! {Thinks wonderingly: “why can’t everyone respond like this on Lashtal?!”}

“Cigarettes - Ice Cream - Figurines of the Virgin Mary?” -
N. Joy

93 Lutz (and anyone else interested in thinking about editorial methodology) -

While I said that HA's policy seem justified in this instance (correcting the mistaken "Duant" to the correct form "Duaut" in his edition of the paraphrase on the reverse of the stele (Holy Books of Thelema p. 252), since it is not a Class A text (or incorporated into one)), my own decision would have been to leave it as "Duant", and noted Crowley's error. This is because the word "Duant" does appear in Class A texts, it is a "class A word" if you will, and it might be important to let people know that Crowley made this mistake early on, when he prepared the paraphrase for publication before receiving the Holy Books of 1907. It is just a detail that makes the story clearer, whereas correcting it might give people who are unaccustomed to critical reading the impression that "Duant" just comes out of nowhere.

On the other hand, I don't approve at all of HA's silent correction of "kill me" to "fill me" in the Obverse of the Stele (p. 250), harmonizing this text to AL III,37, exactly the reverse of what his successor, HB, has done.

I do, however, approve of his correction of the title, spelled "Revelling" in The Equinox I,7 (and the facsimile of this poem in Equinox of the Gods), to "Revealing". This was merely a typo and no justification is required to fix it.

So every editor will bring a slightly different methodology, or philosophy of textual presentation, to their work. I think attentive readers will gain some insight by imagining what they themselves would do when faced with particular problems in the publication of a text.

According to proponents of the change, Crowley didn't want it like it is, which is why they are changing it. But, if he wanted to change it, but intentionally did not, does that not say something concerning Crowley's feelings about changing the book?

Duant? Do tell.

Because the Book says don't change it. And because Class A classification says don't change it. These are the two "authorities" set in place for governing the integrity of the Book. And Crowley obviously respected them.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in these two. The Secret Chiefs, or "Hidden Masters" do not exist. I'm not sure what copyrights have to do with Secret Chiefs.

Eh, the "evil ones"?

First, please let me say that I am not affiliated with any Thelemic organization. Second, I have no loyalties to any (Outer Order) Thelemic organization on this planet. Third, I have very few loyalties to any people soever on this planet, and none of them are involved with any organization that would strictly call themselves "Thelemic".

So, there is no interest for me to paint pictures of good and evil.

The typeset becomes holy when it contains the designation "Class A". A "scholarly change", in my opinion, is acceptable when making a correction to a typo (or misprint) in going from the manuscript to the typescript in such a case when the typescript gets printed different from the manuscript. This is done to preserve the Class A integrity of the typescript.

What we are talking about is intentionally deviating from the manuscript. Such a deviation should not be considered Class A.

First, Crowley wrote the book! Breeze didn't write the book. Hell, has Breeze ever even wrote a book? Has he done more than edit?

But really, Crowley wrote the book. And Crowley didn't change it. Second, the book carries this Seal:

I'm certain you are familiar with it.

The Book is an A:.A:. Class A Document. It is published by the O.T.O., sure. But it is still an A:.A:. Document.

And we can continue with this, if you want, and repeat that Crowley affirmed, during his lifetime, many times over, that the A:.A:. and the O.T.O. are separate entities, and that initiation in one does not mean initiation into the other. Furthermore, Crowley indicated several times that the O.T.O. system could lead one to a "very full 5=6", but I do not recall any indication where Crowley said that the O.T.O. system can carry one specifically further. Hence, the importance of the A:.A:. System.

And so, the inference is that either a) this "5=6 at best" has received some "divine instructions from the Supernals" to make a change in an Official A:.A:. Class A Document. Either that, OR, the inference is that through one of the many "A:.A:. Affiliations" that Breeze has had during his terms with the O.T.O. (what's he at, three now?), he has at some point been conferred, at the very least, the 8=3 Grade. In such a case, he should have the balls to step up and claim an A:.A:. affiliation, and say he's making the change in the name of the A:.A:. ... but he didn't, did he? Just to stir the pot even more, shouldn't it take at least the Grade of Magus (9=2) to alter the Word of another Magus?

I can keep running with this, but the point is that the A:.A:. and O.T.O. are two different 'entities'. And Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX is an Official A:.A:. Class A Document, and it is not to be changed even the style of a letter. Not by "new scholarship", not by "paying people off", not by "word from the Secret Chiefs", not by "copyrights", not by any "authority", including Crowley's or Breeze's, or anyone else's. It is not to be changed.

Again, the O.T.O. happens to be the publisher, since it didn't die when Germer was trying to kill it.

I don't have all of Crowley's manuscripts in my possession. And I was unaware of a "Duant" change. Do you have a photo of the MS? Would you share it? Should I tack that onto my argument?

I will have to learn more about "Duant", but just wanted to note that H.A. was, supposedly, a Magus.

I agree, belmurru. I also think this would be a totally different issue if the MS didn't say "fill".

If the MS didn't say "fill", and it just had a vague reference to the section, like the "Spell called the Song" (or w/e) reference, then I think this would be a totally different issue. But the MS clearly says "fill", and I think that is why Crowley said, "Balls!" Because he knew that no matter how much he liked the word "kill" in that place of his poetry, he had made it to where he had to use "fill" instead.

As you say. Anyone remember Camlion? In 1999, when I was on the CM boards on AOL, and Cam too, he mentioned going to a party of Thelemites, and they all got stuck on the question, "What do you Do". What Crowley did was his Will, in this case used "fill". So he knew of "kill", and he liked "kill" better, but he continued to print the book as "fill", and he continued to use "fill" in his ritual routine.

In my opinion, this was a clear-cut decision by Crowley to not change the book, and to go by what the book said rather than what he wanted. If Breeze would have taken a similar stance, then we would not be having this discussion.

Hell, did H.A. know of the "fill" vs "kill" issue? He obviously didn't change it either. And we know Germer didn't change it ; hell, even Motta didn't change it (assuming they were both aware of it).

(And, I'll say it again. This just happens to be Breeze. If it were Eales, or Cornelius, or anyone else doing this, I would be on their asses about it too.)

I see several people being confused regarding Hymenaeus Alpha and the edtiion of The Holy Books published by the OTO in the mid-eighties...

That edition was actually produced by... wait for it ... HB ! He was the editor and ghost-wrote the introduction. Grady had little to do with it other than issuing it from the OTO.

In this volume, HB *without notice* changed the paraphrase on *both* sides of the stele - replacing "kill me" with "fill me" on the front side and "Duant" with Duaut" on the back side. (and likely made other changes as well but I am at my day-job now so do not have my researches to hand.)

HB's revisionist history goes back to the very beginning of his publishing endeavors... My major compalint with his editorialship is that he does these changes without any footnote or mention> Unwary readers assume it is Crowley's writing while it is not.

It wasn't until he published Liber ABA over a decade later that he footnoted his reason for changing the paraphrase to match Liber AL. 

Now, another decade+ has passed and he wants to change Liber AL to match what he previously determined was an error in the paraphrase!

Please consider that the line "I am.....fill me." is in pencil. "The original in the writing of the Beast" is in ink. Did Crowley stop, add the pencilled line, and return to ink, or add it later? It is in the writing of the Beast, but some could question whether it is "original". How does this affect an individual's interpretation? Or, is the manuscript — in whatever form and with changes after 1904 — considered "original" in its entirety? How does one decide where to stop?

note the "I am... fill me." is in pencil. Is it the "original in the writing of the Beast". It is in the Beast's handwriting. Is it original? Did the beast stop writing in ink? add the comment in pencil? then continue in ink? Or is the pencilled comment not part of the April 8-10 original?  Or, is the manuscript..in any form...even with changes...meant to be the "original"? The answer to these questions is supplied by the individual. I doubt that definitive agreement is possible. Just keep in mind that 31 and 220 are different.

As described in Jim Wasserman's fascinating memoir/autobiography, In The Center Of The Fire...

The American O.T.O. site has posted the following text by Hymenaues Beta on the fill me/kill me correction to Liber Legis:

http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/

"Bill me"

An excellent link, Palamedes, thank you!

Markus