Thanks for the link. I trust participants here will study the text.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
Very nicely argued, but not to me particularly convincing.
Thanks "Palamedes".
I proofread Liber Legis as it appears in Thelema (1909) against its appearance in The Equinox I(10) (1913), and Thelema is an editorial train wreck, with no less than seventeen wrong words, five missing words, two extra words, one word transposition and a great many capitalization changes, extra, missing or changed punctuation, wrong accents, and the consistent use of “and” wherever the MS. has an ampersand.
It seems clear that the proofreading for the 1913 setting was done by an Equinox editor, or editors, possibly with Crowley participating, using the Paraphrase as published in 1912 (possibly the actual notebook as well), and the MS. of Liber Legis.
Crowley returned to London from Russia on August 30, and wrote the sub-editor, Victor B. Neuburg on September 1:
Here's the big flashing sign that I mentioned pages ago.
I'm actually glad that H.B. points Crowley out on his virtual negligence (and rightly so). As someone who has written quite a bit, and who is a Virgo, I absolutely cannot stand typographical errors. I cannot stand typos, or anything of the sort. Hell, in actual writing (not on forums) I go through all the little things - no passive voice, etc. (Even on forums I go over most posts 3 or 4 times before hitting Submit.) So, I admit, it's hard for me to even conceive of Crowley being so negligent in what would be the 65 most important pages of his life.
But, as someone with aforesaid attention to detail, I must also say that if I make a correction in a personal copy, that is the "new" correction. Were it my own writing, it would not even be debatable. I have written things before, printed the writing, and made remarks in pen, or pencil, or highlighter, or even crayon (I'd use charcoal too, if I had to), if I felt a correction needed to be made. I've done it many times before. Even in published works, I do not consider them "correct" if I make a revision to my own copy, even if I don't have the opportunity to change the published copy.
I can understand the note in the MS to use "fill" as a personal reminder to Crowley. I can also understand if he was so drugged out, his intention to "fill" the blank with "kill" simply turned to "fill", if that makes sense. Who actually knows what the guy was thinking?
Alas, Crowley did not have the ability to simply pull up his copy of 220 in MS Word, make a couple corrections, and contact his printing company to print a new revision. And, apparently, even if he did have such capability, the bald fart probably would not have used it anyway.
I also took note of H.B.'s "demeanor" in the letter linked. For what it's worth, as best as I can tell "demeanor" from internet writing, it does seem like he has his head screwed on straight with regards to respecting the Law.
In summary, Crowley could have made the change in publications, but didn't - due to his own failures, though not due to his intentions, which were contained in his personal copy of Thelema. He did make corrections in his own private copy, and somehow expected everyone to learn about said corrections before the termites ate the evidence. It's a travesty, really, that such a great thinker, and such a great Qabalist, can pay so much attention to detail with the "Aethyr" that he neglected part of the physical responsibility that he took on. "Head in the clouds" syndrome, and Crowley was definitely guilty of it on more than one occasion.
I'm admittedly okay with the change after reading H.B.'s explanation, which thankfully didn't include a Mathers'-esque "appeal to the Secret Chiefs". I also think that his explanation should be published, in some form, perhaps in a new version of "The Equinox" in which the matter is thoroughly discussed, the correction made clear, and all of the evidence made readily available. It would be a good time to take a serious and complete look at all of the Holy Books as well, and explain their editorial differences, if any.
As an aside, one might ask, "How can Ankh-f-nKhonsu have 'thy light is in me' if he is dead"? To begin to answer that question, I think it would assist any questioner to consider Chapter 40 of Liber 333:
ΚΕΦΑΛΗ Μ
THE HIMOG 19
A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is
therefore the one colour that it is not.
This Law, Reason, Time, Space, all Limitation blinds
us to the Truth.
All that we know of Man, Nature, God, is just that
which they are not; it is that which they throw off
as repungnant.
The HIMOG is only visible in so far as He is
imperfect.
Then are they all glorious who seem not to be
glorious, as the HIMOG is All-glorious Within?
It may be so.
How then distinguish the inglorious and perfect
HIMOG from the inglorious man of earth?
Distinguish not!
But thyself Ex-tinguish: HIMOG art thou, and
HIMOG shalt thou be.
COMMENTARY (M)
Paragraph 1 is, of course, a well-known scientific fact.
In paragraph 2 it is suggested analogically that all
thinkable things are similarly blinds for the Unthinkable
Reality.
Classing in this manner all things as illusions, the question
arises as to the distinguishing between illusions; how are we
to tell whether a Holy Illuminated Man of God is really so,
since we can see nothing of him but his imperfections. It
may be yonder beggar is a King.
But these considerations are not to trouble such mind as the
Chela may possess; let him occupy himself, rather, with the
task of getting rid of his personality; this, and not criticism of
his holy Guru, should be the occupation of his days and
nights.
NOTE
(19) HIMOG is a Notariqon of the words Holy Illuminated
Man of God.
Azidonis, I must say I am impressed by your post. You have been very much against this correction - and we all have strong feelings about the issue, so it is not surprising - nevertheless, you read a detailed argument, considered the facts, and decided that it makes sense. That is remarkable and I admire for that. I think that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that this is not a change but a correction, and that H.B. is simply honouring Crowley's own intention. By the way, thanks for drawing teh attention to the relevant chapter from The Book of Lies.
That's an impressive post, Azidonis, and the revision of your previous conclusion, based now on HB's compelling and good-natured paper, does you credit.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
It is certainly clear that HB believes this to be not a change but a correction; what is less clear is why he believes he has determined what is intention, and what is negligence, in AC's proofreading practices, and why marginalia in one particular copy provides such compelling evidence for this after so many years and so many editions that we must ignore the "f" in the original ms. in favor of this later change/correction based on such very ambiguous & conflicting evidence. He presents that evidence in an admirably dispassionate & scholarly way but as I said I am still not persuaded.
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.
As described in Jim Wasserman's fascinating memoir/autobiography, In The Center Of The Fire...
Paul, I'm just looking through Wasserman's memoir right now. Where specifically can I find the description given?
RE. the adorations to be performed after Liber resh
"I would recommend that O.T.O. groups use the Paraphrase, thus setting any question of the correct reading of Liber Legis to one side in the interests of social harmony" ~ H.B.
- classic, and a clear indication of why H.B. has remained at the helm of the largest and most successful Thelemic organisation in existence 😉
Well, I remain vehemently opposed to any change of the manuscript.
Also, I would not endeavor to correct anyone who continued to use the word "fill". But, I have decided not to condemn anyone using "kill".
I came onto the 'occult scene' back in 1997. I arrived at the Thelema scene in 1999, and joined lashtal.com in 2006. I remember that one of the pains I took in the beginning was finding a copy of anything that wasn't 1) complete shit, and 2) decently edited. Even to this day, I make a version preference according to how I perceive the original author may have meant to write, say, the Daodejing, for example. But it was hard to find good copies of books back then, and the older the books were, the more atrocious the editing was. It has always been my opinion that a large part of Lewellyn's success is due to the quality (not always the content) of their books.
(As an example of this, I recently went to order a copy of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Instead of ordering one copy, I ordered two different copies, so that I could cross-reference them and decide which rendition resonated more. I've gone the same with the Gita, Daodejing, Dhammapada, etc.)
Also, I recall seeing, at one time, what was described to me as, "Crowley's Goetia". It was a large black book, and the contents were of course, the Goetia. Whether it was truly Crowley's or not, I had no reason to doubt the source (Feel free to dazzle me with facts.). The entire Goetia was filled with side notes. I remember thumbing through it, and thinking that all the owners of the book after Crowley must have been in for a real treat. And, if Crowley were still living, and had possession of that book, and wanted to issue a new copy of the Goetia, he would most certainly use the side notes to help revise the current copy.
I see no reason why this issue isn't the same, given the history of the book Thelema. I do not doubt that it contained massive editorial errors. Given that, the typescript has undeniably undergone many more changes over the years than a simple "f" to "k". But, when I read the copies of 220 that I have now alongside the manuscript, I am able to see the accuracy in the modern typescript.
As for the MS saying "fill" and the TS saying "kill", I think that Crowley used the Invocation saying "kill" prior to receiving Liber AL, so the legitimacy of the word "kill" is not a question. Also, if Crowley intended to fill in the blank with the poem, I think he would have ideally done so using the word "kill". It just makes sense.
I can't answer why his marking in the manuscript says "fill". I do know that when I am typing, sometimes I will think of a word or phrase, and type something completely different than what I was thinking. So I could see Crowley thinking, "I should fill in that spot with the poem up to kill", and then write his pencil note containing "fill", and moving on to the next part without a second thought.
But, the note does say:
37 I adore thee in the song
"I am the Lord of Thebes &c from vellum book
Unity ++ [?]
______" "fill me"
The publication fulfills that. It begins with "I am the Lord of Thebes", includes the stanza beginning with "Unity", and ends with "fill me".
What concerns me at this juncture is the extra " after the line. This may indicate, to me anyway, that Crowley had, in his mind at least 'written' the poem, and closed it with a quotation mark. Then, the "fill me" has its own set of quotation marks.
In verse 38, he wrote:
"The Light is mine" &c.
from vellum book to "Ra-Hoor-Khuit"
So, I'm not thoroughly convinced that "fill me" was ever even intended as a part of the poem. Given the quotation marks, it seems tacked on and out of place. Either that, or the two quotation marks about the line were meant to indicate a continuation of the poem, leading up to "fill me".
Overall, I think it is at best an editorial mess, and a sign of Crowley's negligence more than anything.
If he were alive, I'd say this to him: "Let me get this straight. You spent your entire life on this idea you called Thelema, and spent every hour of every day with it, and you couldn't even get off your high-horse long enough to make sure it's founding document, at the least, was exactly the way you wanted it in every way? So, you decided to leave a half-assed printing for 'posterity'? Was it fun trying to figure out all of those 'riddles'? Riddle me this: Why didn't you take the time, just one day out of your life, to go over the Book in its entirety and make sure a typeset it was completely exact in every way? Do you expect to be so negligent in this endeavor, yet at the same time expect us to pour our own lives into that endeavor as well? Do you really like the fact that people have spent over 50 years since your death trying to clean up your messes? Put the drugs down, grab your razor, and cut yourself."
One other part that grabbed my intention is the fact that the line in question was not even on the stele. Seeing how I haven't read anything strictly Thelema-related other than Eshelman's book for, um, a long time, this detail was nice to know. It also made me want to start a thread concerning interpretations of the stele, aside from Crowley's poem.
"I would recommend that O.T.O. groups use the Paraphrase, thus setting any question of the correct reading of Liber Legis to one side in the interests of social harmony" ~ H.B.
- classic, and a clear indication of why H.B. has remained at the helm of the largest and most successful Thelemic organisation in existence 😉
I don't agree with him on that point. I do see what he is saying, but I don't think it should be covered up and hidden. It should be openly discussed, and people should be made aware of all the present facts, and be trusted to arrive at their own decisions about it. Otherwise, major changes like this may fester, and become a malignant tumor to the community as a whole, rather than just a nice sharp cut that will eventually heal.
But, a change from "f" to "k" isn't going to kill anyone... I don't think. And it most certainly is not going to bar anyone from Attainment (read: enlightenment). So, it should be viewed in its proper sphere, or perspective, whatever that happens to be for the viewer.
It is clear to me what this says.
The MS here seems to have a " just above the underline.
It's probably has something to do with how it was posted on the website. Anyway, please disregard such remarks about said erroneous ".
Thanks "Palamedes".
I proofread Liber Legis as it appears in Thelema (1909) against its appearance in The Equinox I(10) (1913), and Thelema is an editorial train wreck, with no less than seventeen wrong words, five missing words, two extra words, one word transposition and a great many capitalization changes, extra, missing or changed punctuation, wrong accents, and the consistent use of “and” wherever the MS. has an ampersand.
It seems clear that the proofreading for the 1913 setting was done by an Equinox editor, or editors, possibly with Crowley participating, using the Paraphrase as published in 1912 (possibly the actual notebook as well), and the MS. of Liber Legis.
Crowley returned to London from Russia on August 30, and wrote the sub-editor, Victor B. Neuburg on September 1:
Dwtw
I am grateful that H.B. has seen fit to give a lengthier explanation for changing Liber CCXX, and it has answered a few questions I raised earlier about the logistics of proofing and publishing that Holy Book. And given the ancillary evidence, I will take it as well established that the marginal note with the letter 'K' is in AC's hand.
Azidonis has correctly excerpted the most critical part of HB's explanation for the change, or 'correction' if you will, but I believe he has overlooked some very salient points.
HB notes that there were numerous marginalia in the AC-Windram copy of Thelema, including corrections to the texts of Holy Books. He then goes on to list these. He further goes on to say that three of the four corrections to Liber CCXX, (although, oddly, he only lists three such corrections), were made in a subsequent edition, and even points out that the one correction NOT made was the word Fill. (A little further down, he gives the explanation that this was probably due to the editors using either Thelema as a backup reference, or a copy of the MS of Liber XXXI.)
Now we move on to the next paragraph, where HB makes his usual thorough accounting of minutiae, and shows how numerous the errors are in the 1909 Thelema: multiple wrong words, misspellings, capitalization, etc. (we can all see these for ourselves, thanks to the download available on Lashtal). But almost NONE of those errors in the proposed Appendix to CWIII are noted in Crowley's copy. He was clearly NOT using this 1909 Thelema as any kind of master copy of the Law from which to edit in the future. If he intended it to be used that way, there would be quite a few more than 3 or 4 corrections in his hand. And yet, HB calmly passes over this point, except to say, (in the same later passage), that the editors for the Equinox 1(10) didn't need to use his copy of Thelema 1909 because they had their own for reference.
So, while it is clear that AC made some annotations in Thelema, and it is reasonable to conclude that he wanted those corrections incorporated later, he not only left the numerous other corrections until a later time (making no note of them), but he clearly ignored the one correction that we're all talking about now. Even if AC had used this copy as a reference of sorts, he ignored his own 'directive' so to speak, and did not change Fill to Kill. So the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that Thelema 1909 was at best a preliminary source for the eventually published Liber CCXX, but by no means a definitive one that corrected all errors, nor one that was adhered to in every instance. This may be because the copy passed from AC's hands before it could ever be used as such. But while it WAS in his hands, he did not continue to use it to note the numerous errors in the existing typescript of CCXX. And talk about the timing of the 'Secret Chiefs', synchronicity, or what have you, he gave away his personal copy of the book at precisely the time period when he was editing Liber CCXX for major publication!
So let me put this a different way: AC noted some typos in Thelema 1909 and annotated them in the margin; but by no means did he note ALL of them, so even if the book had not been given away in 1913, it was not in a state to be used as a 'master copy' for proofing Liber CCXX. That proofing was done with other materials. And when it was done, Fill was left alone. This is not to say that the corrections are to be ignored because they are incomplete. It IS to say that the copy provides circumstantial evidence that AC intended to change Fill to Kill. And yet that change never happened, in all likelihood because the holograph manuscript was used, and it undoubtedly says Fill me! in the ms pencil note.
Honestly, the only thing that can solve this once and for all is the vellum book with the paraphrases. In the absence of that primary source material, or further corroborative evidence, I remain unconvinced that this so-called 'correction' is legitimate.
Litlluw
RLG[/font:1wbzoc5k]
Dwtw
to be a little more specific in what i wrote above, consider this quote from HB in his explanaion for the change (italics mine):
"This particular problem involves material of Crowley’s own composition (the Stèle Paraphrase) that he was ordered to insert into the received text. It also involves a pencilled note to himself, in the MS. of the received text, that conflicts with the text he was ordered to quote. But the correction he later made is not ambiguous, and has to be accepted as a directive from the prophet—not dismissed as some sort of aberration. I have to assume that he was doing his best to honor the “order” to “quote” his Paraphrase that he had received—which is in fact a reasonable assumption, since the surviving sources for the material to be quoted support the accuracy of his correction."
HB is correct that this problem revolves precisely on that point - a conflict between CCXX and the original Paraphrases. But he is incorrect in stating definitively that these Paraphrases were misquoted. That is precisely the point that needs to be proven, and cannot be used as a premise for an argument. It is begging the question. The "surviving sources" are typescripts, prone to typographical error, (one contains an egregious typo in all capitals in the very title Stele of Revelling, the other ritual is not extant in an autograph copy). Again, in absence of the vellum book, this simply cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. I think HB has made a good case for the change, but not a conclusive one by any means.
Litlluw
RLG
Thanks "Palamedes".
I proofread Liber Legis as it appears in Thelema (1909) against its appearance in The Equinox I(10) (1913), and Thelema is an editorial train wreck, with no less than seventeen wrong words, five missing words, two extra words, one word transposition and a great many capitalization changes, extra, missing or changed punctuation, wrong accents, and the consistent use of “and” wherever the MS. has an ampersand.
It seems clear that the proofreading for the 1913 setting was done by an Equinox editor, or editors, possibly with Crowley participating, using the Paraphrase as published in 1912 (possibly the actual notebook as well), and the MS. of Liber Legis.
Crowley returned to London from Russia on August 30, and wrote the sub-editor, Victor B. Neuburg on September 1:
Dwtw
I am grateful that H.B. has seen fit to give a lengthier explanation for changing Liber CCXX, and it has answered a few questions I raised earlier about the logistics of proofing and publishing that Holy Book. And given the ancillary evidence, I will take it as well established that the marginal note with the letter 'K' is in AC's hand.
Presumably. It would have to be undoubtedly A.C.'s handwriting for the change to even be considered, I would think.
HB notes that there were numerous marginalia in the AC-Windram copy of Thelema, including corrections to the texts of Holy Books. He then goes on to list these. He further goes on to say that three of the four corrections to Liber CCXX, (although, oddly, he only lists three such corrections), were made in a subsequent edition, and even points out that the one correction NOT made was the word Fill. (A little further down, he gives the explanation that this was probably due to the editors using either Thelema as a backup reference, or a copy of the MS of Liber XXXI.)
Now we move on to the next paragraph, where HB makes his usual thorough accounting of minutiae, and shows how numerous the errors are in the 1909 Thelema: multiple wrong words, misspellings, capitalization, etc. (we can all see these for ourselves, thanks to the download available on Lashtal). But almost NONE of those errors in the proposed Appendix to CWIII are noted in Crowley's copy. He was clearly NOT using this 1909 Thelema as any kind of master copy of the Law from which to edit in the future. If he intended it to be used that way, there would be quite a few more than 3 or 4 corrections in his hand. And yet, HB calmly passes over this point, except to say, (in the same later passage), that the editors for the Equinox 1(10) didn't need to use his copy of Thelema 1909 because they had their own for reference.
Good points.
Another very good point.
Honestly, the only thing that can solve this once and for all is the vellum book with the paraphrases. In the absence of that primary source material, or further corroborative evidence, I remain unconvinced that this so-called 'correction' is legitimate.
Litlluw
RLG
The one thing that has struck me, and which may have turned the tide in my thinking about this, is the assertion, that is being stated in so many ways indirectly, that the typescript of Liber AL vel Legis has never been 100% accurate. Even in the case it is accurate according to the MS (as of now, with "fill", yes?), it is still not accurate according to Crowley, with his handwritten side note in it's initial publication, remarking a change from "fill" to "kill". [Can we please get a picture of this sidenote, somehow?]
And so, we have the Invocation using "kill", Crowley throwing "fill" into the MS, and then remarking later that his remark in the MS is wrong, that it should read "fill".
I wonder why - since it's fucking pencil - he didn't just erase the damn "f" and make a "k"? Was he THAT negligent?
The more I think about it, the more I'm getting this picture of Crowley concerning this entire Ordeal (which is what it was for him, and now, for some of us), and this picture is indicating that he only really gave a fuck about it when it struck his little fancy. Not a solid picture at all.
to be a little more specific in what i wrote above, consider this quote from HB in his explanaion for the change (italics mine):
"This particular problem involves material of Crowley’s own composition (the Stèle Paraphrase) that he was ordered to insert into the received text. It also involves a pencilled note to himself, in the MS. of the received text, that conflicts with the text he was ordered to quote. But the correction he later made is not ambiguous, and has to be accepted as a directive from the prophet—not dismissed as some sort of aberration. I have to assume that he was doing his best to honor the “order” to “quote” his Paraphrase that he had received—which is in fact a reasonable assumption, since the surviving sources for the material to be quoted support the accuracy of his correction."
HB is correct that this problem revolves precisely on that point - a conflict between CCXX and the original Paraphrases. But he is incorrect in stating definitively that these Paraphrases were misquoted. That is precisely the point that needs to be proven, and cannot be used as a premise for an argument. It is begging the question. The "surviving sources" are typescripts, prone to typographical error, (one contains an egregious typo in all capitals in the very title Stele of Revelling, the other ritual is not extant in an autograph copy). Again, in absence of the vellum book, this simply cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. I think HB has made a good case for the change, but not a conclusive one by any means.
Litlluw
RLG
Agreed.
I also think it is important to go back to a previous question: Would it have been okay for Crowley to make the change? I think that answer is yes.
I also think that people would generally do well to keep in mind how this was being done back in Crowley's day. It wasn't like they had computers or anything.
HB provided a snapshot in his initial announcements. I did my best with it here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=75656#p75656
( http://www.oto.org/news0413.html, bottom)
The letter 'k' formerly made 220 appearences in Liber AL. With the change it's now 221. Umm. The Secret Chiefs sure move in mysterious ways. :-
"In my travels I have learned to be cautious. “The Great Invocation” and the Paraphrase were both “corrected” by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to “fill me”—a woefully misguided attempt to make these non-Class A texts agree with what I had every reason to assume was the correct reading in Liber Legis. I think I originally picked up the “fill me” version by “picking up” (a term of art for cutting and pasting from another electronic document) part of the Paraphrase from Liber CCXX to save time, and failed to catch the different wording. In a later revision I decided to let it stand, and just annotated it as such, thinking that one of the readings had to be wrong, and it couldn’t be the Class A, could it? This was an object lesson for me: wait for the source material. You might have to wait a hundred years, but it may turn up."
An object lesson evidently not learned! We're still waiting for the source material (vellum notebook) to show up, so it looks like "yours truly" is heading for another woefully misguided attempt. :-[
BTW: Isn't the word you're looking for 'abject?' "object" is what everyone is doing to another woefully misguided attempt. :-[
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I don't know why but I have had an extraordinarily difficult time of trying to put into words what I would like to say about all this? Not that it really matters.
I was not there nor knew anyone that was. I do not have access to all the pertinent documents, to experience and assess them for myself. I find myself unable to traverse the hundred plus years of time in my mind to understand why or what something scribbled in the margins of someone else's book means? It tends to feel to me like the trick of the stage magician in getting one to look here when they should be looking there. Some sort of mad, crazy ruse. And all this over something which does not even appear in the received text? It has to be taken with a grain of salt and viewed for what it is I suppose? I can do no better than to follow AC's comment.
Liber CCXX, to me, is an interpretation of the original reception. Written by AC or anyone else, it is an interpretation. His is the hallmark beyond doubt, but what I have found is that we must make it ours as well. To get the best, clearest copy of XXXI that you can, sit down with it and transcribe your very own copy. Do not refer back to CCXX, but go through it letter by letter, mark by mark. Work with it and study it. Contemplate upon it. What is clearly there print in black ink and that which isn't, that which is added (like what this thread is about) print in red. Dissatisfied with current copies of Liber AL I'm doing just that. It has been well over a year since That Little Voice whispered in my ear to print The Book and I am still fully immersed in that effort. I have not only looked at it but into it. I have seen something...perhaps glyph is not the right word? Perhaps new symbol or alphabet is? I have not been able to bring it into clear view which could well be a deficiency on my part. Time will tell. I also struggle with the nagging feeling that what we are presented with as "the original" is not that at all.
Anyway, far better minds than mine are arguing this all out. And to what end? The only thing that matters is what happens in your own mind, you. What transforms you.
Now off to get my hands dirty in the potato patch. Good luck and best wishes.
Love is the law, love under will.
I don't have the book to hand at the moment, but you could always try the advanced research technique I employed: Go to the end of the book and you'll find an 'Index'. Look for 'Breeze' in that 'Index' and Bob's your uncle!
😉
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
HB provided a snapshot in his initial announcements. I did my best with it here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=75656#p75656
( http://www.oto.org/news0413.html, bottom)
No wonder I missed it. Thanks for posting this, belmurru, and trying to zoom it in, which makes it considerably better than the picture we were given.
But I think we could use a copy that would allow us to examine this "k". From the way that one looks, it's just a standard "k", and could have been made by anyone, but it's blurry.
Really, you don't have to write your own book. Just learn how to read the manuscript. It's what all the "A:.A:. kids" do! "Paste the sheets..."
These books are just great for it.
Thanx very much to belmurru for posting the blown-up image of the marginal note in question.
I had not previously realized that the marginal "k" appears to be printed, rather than written in the script AC employed in the AL ms. & all other samples of his handwriting I've seen. Identification of handwriting on a sample of one printed letter strikes me as a difficult task.
While HB is undoubtedly more familiar with AC's handwriting that I, this seems like a slender reed upon which to hang this claim of having clear evidence of his editorial intention sufficient to over-ride every edition published in the author's lifetime.
His response to the Resh argument also strikes me as a bit of lineage-sniping: the evidence that those with the clearest, most direct line of discipleship from AC say Resh with "fill" is dismissed as a quaint local custom in the Bay area.
I had not previously realized that the marginal "k" appears to be printed, rather than written in the script AC employed in the AL ms. & all other samples of his handwriting I've seen. Identification of handwriting on a sample of one printed letter strikes me as a difficult task.
While HB is undoubtedly more familiar with AC's handwriting that I, this seems like a slender reed upon which to hang this claim of having clear evidence of his editorial intention sufficient to over-ride every edition published in the author's lifetime.
The "k" doesn't seem very convincing to me, either. It's too hard to tell, and I would rather see it placed up against 100 of Crowley's "k's" than take anyone's word for it. If it is indeed Crowley's, then it can be considered acceptable, imo.
Don't forget that Breeze and Gunther would probably just love it if all of the other A:.A:. 'claimants' (as some have put it) would just fizzle by the wayside.
I think it is acceptable as a Crowleyan K (but it IS uppercase rather than lowercase, which might raise the issue of what kind of letter K he meant here (just kidding!)). Remembering that there are other notes in the same hand in the volume, I have no doubt that HB is right in taking it as Crowley's.
Here are some of Crowley's capital Ks, taken from folio 20 of chapter 2 of the manuscript, compared to the best image I can make of the 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ:
(any ambiguity in the lines might be taken as the difference between at least five years and in different circumstances, on a different writing surface with a different writing implement)
I want to thank HB for writing this, in response to what must be a groundswell of indignation. It is THIS kind of thing I want to see more of from him - passionate and erudite defence of historical interpretation of the corpus.
I particularly want to thank him for investigating my point about the "oral" tradition - how Crowley's immediate followers and their descendants used "fill me" in the longer adoration. He presented sources I have no way of checking.
I nevertheless remain unpersuaded by his case for the necessity of the change. It'll take me a little time to gather my thoughts for a response, but to address this question of the weight of the K correction in the context of the whole tradition, I think that it should be noted that it seems to me that for HB's argument it does not matter what the original draft of the versification might say (that in the lost vellum book). Even if it turned out that it was "fill me", for HB, the marginalia of this edition of 1909 are sufficient authority that Crowley had finally decided, even if for the next 35-odd years he exclusively used "fill me."
Note that the "k" specimens belmurru posts tend to reinforce my point above that AC almost always wrote in script rather than printing as in the case of the all-important marginal "K", which to my eye resembles the trademark of K Records rather more than AC's typical handwriting:
http://krecs.com/
http://krecs.com/
I agree that it's not a persuasive identification in isolation. But there are other marginal notes, which must be fuller and must be clearly in Crowley's hand. It would be easy to tell if it they are all part of the same proofreading session, written in the same pencil, by the same person. I am happy to accept that HB has done this, and that this K is written by the same person who did the other notes, and so who, to anyone familiar with Crowley's handwriting, would clearly be Crowley.
This doesn't mean I think the change is justified. I think, like HB says, that Crowley promptly forgot about it. It wasn't important to him to make that change, as the rest of his life's involvement with the book and that poem proves.
Well, this is just the gift that keeps giving.
Mr Breeze says "I believe" and "I think" a lot in his preamble to making a definitive statement. I see a problem there.
Best though are the typographical errors...
My favourite, if it is one, "he himself deferred wherever possible to the instructions of Aiwaz." Now I'm no expert but I'd always thought it was Aiwass. Out of interest I searched the oto-org.us site for both versions.
Result: Aiwaz - 2 hits including the page in question.
Aiwass - 5 hits including Liber AL vel Legis and The Holograph Manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis.
(I'm sure that there may have been some official OTO statement in the past re this issue - not that I'd know - but in context I find it hilarious.)
Perhaps Mr Breeze has an eye to Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." and is hoping not to be taken for a "little ... divine"?
Hello amadan-De,
Crowley used both Aiwass and Aiwaz. It was Aiwass in Liber Legis and later he discovered the Aiwaz spelling.
See Crowley’s ‘A few indications for the student of the line to be adopted in his elucidation of Liber AL” his first sketch of a Qabalistic Key to Liber AL -The Equinox of the Gods, p.138 and Magick, p.446.
Also the following from ‘The Confessions of Aleister Crowley’ p.835:
“Besides his Americanized signature "Samuel A. Jacob", he gave his true name: "SHMUEL Bar AIWAZ bie YACKOU de SHERABAD". I could hardly believe my eyes. Till that moment I had had no idea that Aiwass was anything but an artificial name, like Ahitha. I had tried to find a spelling for it, having never seen it written except in the English in The Book of the Law, but only heard it. I had decided on AIVAS = 78, the number of Mezla, the influence from the highest unity, and therefore suitable enough as the title of a messenger from Him. I wrote to Mr Jacob for the Hebrew spelling which he gave as OIVZ, whose value is 93. The import of this discovery was terrific; 93 is the value of Theta Epsilon Lambda Eta Mu Alpha , the Word of the Law proclaimed by Aiwass, and of Alpha Gamma Alpha Pi Eta , Love, part of the interpretation of Theta Epsilon Lambda Eta Mu Alpha . It was also that of the Lost Word of freemasonry, which I had re-discovered, thus linking up the mysteries of the O.T.O. with those of the A.'. A.'.. 93 is also the number of the Secret Word of the Neophyte of A.'. A.'., a word indicating symbolically the whole course of existence. It is in fact a completion of the ideas contained in the Sacred Word of the Hindus, AUM. It was to be discovered later that the Secret Key of The Book of the Law is the number 31, 1/3 of 93. There are three words, each of the value of 31 which represent perfectly the whole mystery of existence. That Aiwaz should have, so to speak, signed himself with His Law, was irrefutable proof of his existence.
I must add one cumulative proof which came to light only in 1923. The Book of the Law claims to express its ideas not by its literary meaning alone but by the actual letters of the manuscript. It had annoyed me --- after the above demonstration --- that in the manuscript the name was spelt AIWASS, which does not add to 93. But this year, reflecting that "The Book of the Law" is connected more with the Greek Cabbala than with the Hebrew, I transliterated AIWASS into Greek off-hand. Its value is 418! and this is the number of the Magical Formula of the Aeon. It represents the practice of the Book as 93 does the theory. It is now evident with what inconceivable ingenuity AIWAZ has arranged his expression. He is not content to give one spelling of his name, however potent; he gives two which taken together are not merely twice as significant as either alone, but more so, in a degree which is beyond me to calculate”.
Magmus
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.
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.
"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. [...]" Source: III, 47 in The book of the Law.
Is it certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the holograph manuscript of The book of the Law in possession of the O.T.O. U.S.A, is actually the original?
Should it be a copy written by Crowley, the quality of the copy is likely to be influenced by his habitual negligence concerning proof-reading.
"Proof-reading is an art which I strongly recommend you not to learn; as long as there are any sewers to clean, you would be ill-advised to adopt it as a profession." Source: Aleister Crowley in a letter to Gerald Yorke, quoted by Timothy d’Arch Smith in his book The Books of the Beast.
Well, it seems thus:
First, I learned Liber AL by learning 220, the typescript. Once I knew that well enough, I taught myself how to read the manuscript. Once I knew how to read the manuscript, the typescript became a mere convenience. It has been that way for years.
In my opinion, the manuscript is what carries the message. The typescript, apparently, has been so ridden with buffoonery over the years that it frankly just disgusts me. Whether by Crowley's hand, or the hands of others, I find it irresponsible, disrespectful, and well, lame that people couldn't muster enough mental energy and other resources to make sure that 65 pages of handwriting were typed up right. The book was written in 1904, according to Crowley. It is now 2013, 109 years later, and those involved in printing the book still don't think they have gotten it right, for one reason or another. (Oh, but of course - THIS change is the change to make it 100% correct, and thus there will be no more changes to it... whatever.)
Personally, I'm sick of such bullshit. It's the same type of bullshit, repeatedly, found in so many cases throughout the history of Thelema, both isolated and open.
So really, I think I'm done worrying about it. The manuscript says "fill", and it's in pencil. I would much rather be having a debate over erasure marks, where Crowley erased the "f" and changed it to "k", and we could all sit and ponder what he erased and why.
Instead, we are here on this forum, and in others, debating over why a letter that is on the manuscript should not be on the manuscript, with various parties attempting to justify their claims and what-not, and it's all just really so much nonsense over a letter.
The manuscript says, "fill". I will continue to use "fill", and I will continue to use the manuscript, not any typescript, as the source material for The Book of the Law. It seems the only correct course of action from my perspective.
For everyone else, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." What you say in your rites and your temples is your own business. I could really care less. May you all Attain, no matter what any book, or any person, says.
Yes. Unless you think it is reasonable that Crowley asked Rose to re-write her parts into it again, and rewrote and crossed out again "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality", etc., at some point afterward in a new copy, then I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that the manuscript reproduced in The Equinox I,7 is the original, and is the same as the one currently in the possession of the OTO, and reproduced on its website.
To put it another way, wellreadwellbred: what reasons do you have for suspecting that it might be a copy?
On the basis of our fellow member obscuruspaintus's "nagging feeling that what we are presented with as "the original" is not that at all.", quoted in my previous post in this thread, I wondered if there were any reasons for suspecting that the holograph manuscript of The book of the Law in possession of the O.T.O. U.S.A. corporation, might be a copy, and not the original.
On the 'O.T.O. U.S.A. Library'-page - http://lib.oto-usa.org/ - of said corporation's net site, the following is written concerning The book of the Law:
"This book is the foundation of the New Æon, and thus of the whole of our Work."
And in III, 47 in said book the following is written:
"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
My point is that the O.T.O. U.S.A. corporation on its net site states that The book of the Law "is the foundation [...] of the whole of our Work.", and that The book of the Law contains a demand to always be published "with the original in the writing of the Beast; [...]." And my point is also that it in this context is of major importance that it is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the holograph manuscript of The book of the Law in possession of the O.T.O. U.S.A. corporation, and reproduced and presented as the original manuscript on its website, actually is the original manuscript.
So the only reason you have to raise these doubts is a "nagging feeling" mentioned by obscuruspaintus.
Rather a slender basis, I'd have thought.
So a scribble in a book over-rides years of publishing that Crowley didn't change? It over-rides the decades Crowley had to make the change directly? Yeah.... No. I'm not buying it and I'm shocked that so many people here seem so willing to accept Bill Breeze's slip-shod scholarship as legitimate.
This is disingenuous at best; fraudulent at worst. This doesn't only impact the Caliphate OTO -- it impacts all Thelemites everywhere.
Once again the (c)OTO is playing "gate keeper" with sacred writings and we're all supposed to accept it? I think not! There is a world of difference between "Fill me" and "Kill me" (as was previously shown via the pork pie example... PIG = 93 so good choice of meat filling.)
Breeze has lost his mind. He has stepped out on a limb and it has snapped. Those who accept this violation of Liber Legis do not understand the mechanics of genuine scholarship. Bill Breeze is a hack. Shame on him. Shame on the (c)OTO.
Say there, I agree about "not buying it." But I'm not shocked, and there's no need to attack Breeze and OTO in a public forum. We all have our feelings about HB/OTO, but ranting and raving and calling names will have little effect.
"May the Lord [whoever that may be, according to your perspective] grant me the wisdom to change the things I can change, and to not get upset about those things that I can't change."
- A loose quote from some proverb or prayer.
93!
Az, I agree. Liber 220 should be nothing more but a reference book. What really can be Class A about the printed version of a book, where this little "fill" and "kill" thing is only one of so many preferences that a human mind has to make before it goes to the printer? All the crossings-out and verse numbers and grids and stains and what not. If someone really believes in Class A - and obviously Crowley did - it should be clear why 220 was ordered to only appear together with the manuscript.
I guess the next step would be a manuscript edition of the other Holy Books.
Love=Law
Lutz
Dwtw
One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that not only did AC publish Liber CCXX with 'Fill' every time, but there is not a SINGLE other instance of him writing this so-called 'correction' in ANY other copies of Liber AL that passed through his hands. Even ONE other instance of this happening would bolster the argument for change immensely. It would show a pattern. It would show evidence. Instead we have a purported 'master editor's copy' (Thelema 1909) being given away precisely when he would have needed it most. Or better yet, when he had used it for the Equinox to make changes, and then gave it away as being no longer necessary. Without changing fill to kill.
Litlluw
RLG
How's this for bibliomancy?
Interviewer: That doesn't mean that our heritage is false or that our values are false.
U.G. : What consolation is that to us? What good is that? That's like saying, "My grandfather was a very rich man, a multimillionaire," when I don't know where my next meal will come from. What is the good of telling myself all the time that my grandfather was a multimillionaire? Likewise, India produced great saints, spiritual giants, and we don't have even one in our midst, you see. So what is the good of repeating all the time that our heritage is so tremendous and so great, or praising the greatness of our heritage? What good is that? It must help this country. So why don't you question that? There may be something wrong with the whole business. In spite of the fact that the whole culture of India is supposed to be something extraordinary, a great culture, in spite of the fact that everybody talks of spirituality, dharma, this thing or the other, India has produced only a handful of great teachers, and these teachers have not produced others like them. Show me another Ramanujacharya. Only one Ramanyjacharya, only one Shankaracharya, and only one Madhavacharya, only one Buddha, only one Mahavira. They can all be counted on one's fingers.
We're not thinking in terms of these gurus, because these gurus are like the priests in the West. India has this freedom, so everybody sets up his own tiny little shop and sells his own particular wares. That is why you have so many gurus in India, just the way they have priests in the West. In the West organized religion destroyed the possibility of individual growth. The destroyed every dissent; they destroyed every possibility of individuals blossoming into spiritual teachers as in India. But luckily India had this kind of freedom, and it produced so many.
But in spite of all that, in spite of the fact that the whole atmosphere is religious, those teachers have not produced another teacher. To me the religious thing you are talking about is nothing but superstition. Celebrating all these fasts, feasts, and festivals, and going to the temple is not religion. There can't be another Buddha within the framework of Buddhism. There can't be another Ramanujacharya within the framework of that school of thought. Either they have left behind, or the followers have created, these small, tiny, little colonies. And so all those colonies are fighting all the time. They fight in the courts about whether the elephants should have a "V" mark or a "U" mark. The whole thing has degenerated and deteriorated into such a triviality nowadays.
So, "Is India able to produce an outstanding giant like those people?" is the question that everybody in this country should ask himself or herself. That is number one. Number two: Does this religion, the heritage that you are talking about, operate in the lives of the people? And the third question is: Can it be of any help to solve the economic and political problems of this country? My answer to all these questions is "No."
I think it's also worth noting that, while HB is clearly sincere (if in my opinion utterly misguided) in his belief he is making not a forbidden "change" but merely a "correction" (despite the fact that the original ms. quotes very little of the paraphrase but indubitably includes "fill"), this will always be the case with any change to a sacred text that forbids changes: it must always be seen as a "correction"- or else it would be forbidden.
Say there, I agree about "not buying it." But I'm not shocked, and there's no need to attack Breeze and OTO in a public forum. We all have our feelings about HB/OTO, but ranting and raving and calling names will have little effect.
"May the Lord [whoever that may be, according to your perspective] grant me the wisdom to change the things I can change, and to not get upset about those things that I can't change."
- A loose quote from some proverb or prayer.
Do spare me the moralizing. Bill Breeze is making a massive eff-up and deserves to be raked over the coals.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
As for the "paraphrase" let me meet it with another: "For Bill Breeze to succeed in the world, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
Eff Breeze. Eff his pseudo-OTO. Eff those who blindly rubber-stamp his stupid decision and blasphemy.
Say there, I agree about "not buying it." But I'm not shocked, and there's no need to attack Breeze and OTO in a public forum. We all have our feelings about HB/OTO, but ranting and raving and calling names will have little effect.
Thank you for saying that Shiva. Sorry I've been out of the loop, I've been rather sick, but am on the mend. I've been pondering the different viewpoints I've been reading here and elsewhere.
I'm intrigued that "kill" and not "fill" is in the 1936 edition of "The Equinox Of The Gods" as this is the same edition that states that the Master Therion must have received the First Chapter on "the first of April." (If you have the Gordon Press reprint, these two differences are supposed to be in it too, as it is supposed to be a facsimile edition)
So the strident claims by the Loyal Opposition that Crowley "never" corrected this change that the current editor is reinstating is are flawed claims.
No one is changing the original manuscript. Every book (besides the 1936 & 1937 Editions [which used the same unbound printing] until now will have the original "fill" and not "kill." Personally, I would have suggested a footnote describing the alternate word and the sources from which its inclusion instead of "fill" might be surmised.
On the other hand, I do appreciate the synchronicity of the rare hand-commented editions appearing at the exactly right time that the editor might make use of them. Crowley's personal copies given to the man he hoped would found the M.M.M. in South Africa, now property of the O.T.O. The Editor apparently chooses to regard this synchronicity as the Will of the Secret Chiefs. From personal acquaintance, I know this is not a matter that the Editor takes lightly.
So the strident claims by the Loyal Opposition that Crowley "never" corrected this change that the current editor is reinstating is are flawed claims.
The 1936 versification is not an independent witness to "kill me". Is just a photofacsimile of the 1912 Equinox I,7, uncorrected. I.e., it is the same witness as 1912. It remains the case that Crowley never used "kill me" again after 1912.
HB notes this himself -
"As for later printings of the Paraphrase, Crowley just had the original 1912 type reproduced in photofacsimile for the Stèle plate and Paraphrase in The Equinox of the Gods (1936). In his errata slip, which I believe appeared with the 1937 second issue, Crowley corrected “Revelling” to “Revealing,” but did not change “kill” to “fill.”"
(Nor, of course, it should be noted, did Crowley change the text of CCXX III,37 in 1936 to "kill me", either in preparing it for 1936, or in the errata sheet of 1937)
Wrong actually. The 1936 edition of the Equinox of the Gods has 'kill', but only in the Paraphrase, not within the text of Liber legis. I suggest you put your facts in context if you are going to use them to back up your flawed claims.
And as belmurru points out, that page is just a copy of the equinox 1:7, even down to the 'revelling' spelling mistake.
The "first of April" issue was extensively discussed recently, beginning here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68.msg75559#msg75559
Crowley doesn't say that "the Master Therion must have received the first chapter on the first of April", he says -
"It must have been on the first of April that W. commanded P. (now somewhat cowed) to enter the “temple” exactly at 12 o’clock noon on three successive days, and to write down what he should hear, rising at exactly one o’clock." (Equinox of the Gods, p. 87)
The idea that this means that the first of April is beginning of the reception of the Book of the Law turns out to have been Grant's on page 34 of Beyond the Mauve Zone. Despite its categorical tone, judging by Michael Staley's comments about Grant's practice, it seems that Grant didn't really believe what he wrote here.
Actually, the problem of how "first of April" got into the text, and why Crowley didn't correct it, remains unexplained in any satisfactory way, I believe. My guess, for what it's worth, is that the typesetter made a mistake, reading "7th" in the original text as "1st", and then spelling it out. I suppose it could have been on the first of April (which was a Wednesday in 1936) that the typesetter was working, and had the date on his mind, absentmindedly slipping it into the text.
Pardon me if this point has already been raised: as far as the original intent HB believes he is restoring here, how do we know that the note in the ms. doesn't mean "insert paraphrase, changing 'kill' to 'fill', here", given that the ms. note says "fill me"?
Moderator's Note
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
As for the "paraphrase" let me meet it with another: "For Bill Breeze to succeed in the world, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
Eff Breeze. Eff his pseudo-OTO. Eff those who blindly rubber-stamp his stupid decision and blasphemy.
You need to calm down, to stop calling people names, to introduce some information or evidence to support your aggressive assertions, and, basically, to grow up.
Until that time, your posts will require moderation.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
I am surprised that you have not advanced any of the so called Qabalistic evidence in favor of either an 'f' or a 'k' - and at least we can agree on this - it screws up global sums with or without the verse numbers! No matter, anyone who has developed a literal Qabalah which is nulled with the changing of a letter can rest in "peace unalterable" at night if the editions of CCXX AC published in his lifetime with their errata sheets convince, along with an analysis of the manuscript, that what passes now in the general Thelemic or literal Qabalistic community as the canonical AC/Liber XXXI edition of CCXX is indeed such.
My personal view in light of the 1907 Galley Proofs is that AC had neither finalized Liber CCXX nor finished creating his "original" manuscript in the "writing of the Beast" by 1907, and that for literal Qabalistic, or other reasons, not least being to confound the "plain purpose of the historian", he continually changed his gnomic prose-poem up until the actual publication of a finalized "inspired" manuscript, at which time of course it became impossible to change AL if he was to adhere to the fable of its origin. But up until the date of the first known existence of a 'finalized' manuscript, replete with "mysteries" in the "chance shape of the letters" any prior publication of CCXX with differences can be construed in retrospect as typographical or proof reading errors, and not as Crowley leaving a trail of unfinished bread crumbs. Outside of the word of Crowley, is there any evidence for the actual existence of a manuscript as it is now known before its publication in 1912? I do not think it is sufficient to note a diary entry, or letter to or from the man, prior to this date as evidence, given the extra-ordinary tale of it origin, a story with all the classical hall marks of hucksters, snake oil salesmen, magicians, and miracle mongers through the ages. Why should anyone believe any of the tall tales of Crowley? It does not make any sense. Even if a letter is discovered in which some one says Crowley showed them the manuscript, how do we know that it was not one of his working manuscripts?
I am not "moralizing." I am pointing out the GUIDELINES of this forum, from which you might soon be expelled if you don't control yourself.
I would like to draw attention to AL, II: 14 as another possible indication that supports the reading of "kill."
Aside from that, as another possible angle to view the situation from: I think we may agree that Crowley's paraphrase of the Stele uses the phrase "kill me." So when the later note, added to the manuscript after the dictation, mentions the vellum book and "fill me," what "fill me" was that? It would appear, only as an incorrectly remembered (or written) phrase from the paraphrase. For whenever Crowley used that paraphrase from the Stele (I assume I am correct here), he used "kill me": In Equinox, in Great Invocation (recently available for download), and (I am told), in the manuscript for Liber Cadaveris. If this is accepted as correct, that the poetic paraphrase from the Stele includes "kill me" and that this was originally in the (lost) vellum book, then it should be obvious that the post-dictation note to include verses from the vellum till "fill me" is a typo.
There are several other words, even sentences, added to (or cut from) the manuscript after the dictation, and people do not seem to have problem with those. As Rodney Orpheus mentioned somewhere, we should remember that Crowley changed even the name of the book (originally Liber L). Also, please keep in mind that H.B.'s position is: Based on the best possible evidence we have so far, it seems obvious that Crowley considered "fill me" a typo; however, if people are not fine with that, that is okay - there is no crusade and excommunication and "you will burn in hell!" attitude. He acknowledges that even the members of the OTO may not be fine with this correction and there is no intention to force anyone to accept it - except by considering the facts based on the current available evidence and making one's own decision.
Aside from that, as another possible angle to view the situation from: I think we may agree that Crowley's paraphrase of the Stele uses the phrase "kill me." So when the later note, added to the manuscript after the dictation, mentions the vellum book and "fill me," what "fill me" was that? It would appear, only as an incorrectly remembered (or written) phrase from the paraphrase. For whenever Crowley used that paraphrase from the Stele (I assume I am correct here), he used "kill me": In Equinox, in Great Invocation (recently available for download), and (I am told), in the manuscript for Liber Cadaveris. If this is accepted as correct, that the poetic paraphrase from the Stele includes "kill me" and that this was originally in the (lost) vellum book, then it should be obvious that the post-dictation note to include verses from the vellum till "fill me" is a typo.
There are several other words, even sentences, added to (or cut from) the manuscript after the dictation, and people do not seem to have problem with those. As Rodney Orpheus mentioned somewhere, we should remember that Crowley changed even the name of the book (originally Liber L). Also, please keep in mind that H.B.'s position is: Based on the best possible evidence we have so far, it seems obvious that Crowley considered "fill me" a typo; however, if people are not fine with that, that is okay - there is no crusade and excommunication and "you will burn in hell!" attitude. He acknowledges that even the members of the OTO may not be fine with this correction and there is no intention to force anyone to accept it - except by considering the facts based on the current available evidence and making one's own decision.
It's more of a "write-o" than a typo (although typo is the technical word, I suppose)... a "write-o" in pencil.