I find that difficult to imagine. By his own description, between March 23 and April 8, the only thing he is sure he did is work on the paraphrase. It was possibly the only thing poetically on his mind for those two weeks, so it seems unlikely that he would misremember the foremost intellectual work he was doing. The pencilled-in part of III,37 was, as HB suggests, surely made for the instruction of the typist, and that typescript had to have been made within a few days, a week or ten days at most, of the dictation (he and Rose were back in Paris by April 26, and he says that the three typescripts were made in Cairo).
The Great Invocation quotes III,72 verbatim, including Rose's phrase "Force of Coph Nia" (see p. 244 of the 1907 proof), so it was written sometime after the reception, and, I believe, after the typescript was made.
Therefore, the phrase "fill me" is the earliest witness we have to what the original paraphrase said. I think it is equally if not more likely that "kill me" is the afterthought (or alternative), not "fill me".
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.
Well there's something new to me. Thank you. I'll have to wait to see this manuscript of CXX; every copy I know has "fill me", but of course this could be an editor's harmonizing of the text with III,37.
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.
I think what is written in the manuscript is correct, and really does represent what Crowley wanted there in the first instance.
I'd like to propose a sort of a Solomonic solution to the problem. If I remember correctly, several people noted that there seems to have been ambiguity in Crowley's mind whether to use "fill" or "kill" and that this ambiguity needs to be preserved (whether it existed in his mind or not is a bit of a metaphysical issue). Several people opined that a footnote would serve the purpose. H.B. is certain that Crowley clearly corrected the word "fill" into "kill" and that this should be definitive - in Liber CCXX. Since the manuscript (Liber XXXI) is of course not changed, and since the correction only concerns Liber CCXX, which differs from the manuscript in several instances (numbers were added to the verses in first chapter; some words are omitted and some phrases added; the strange symbol at AL, I:57 was changed, post-dictation, into Hebrew for Tzaddi, etc.), I think that, by preserving "fill me" in the manuscript and correcting it to "kill me" in the typescript, with this proposed correction we in fact have it both ways: BOTH readings will be available simultaneously and even the ambiguity (if an ambiguity it is) will also be preserved.
Then, Liber L vel Legis is The Book of the Law, (Liber XXXI), the Class A Document.
And Liber AL vel Legis 220 is a spin-off. Class B, since it is "scholarship" that is wanting to change it?
Well, Crowley obviously made changes to the manuscript, still, he considered the typescript (incorporating those changes) an A class document. I think that not changing the style of the letter implies to the manuscript - yet again, Crowley did intervene in the manuscript in several instances. But if we want to be really, really literal, then we should not argue that "fill me" was in the manuscript (if by manuscript we understand, and I think we should, the dictation). It was not.
On the weight of the manuscript witness of "fill me" as to what the original paraphrase said, here's another thought. Since they pencil quote of "I am the Lord of Thebes... fill me" were instructions to the typist, the scenario is that Crowley gave the vellum book with the paraphrase and the manuscript of Liber L to whomever it was. At III,37, they were to turn to the vellum book and copy out this poem.
Crowley wrote "fill me", and the typist, working from the vellum book, also wrote "fill me". This is very strong indirect evidence that the first paraphrase versification Crowley made had "fill me" in it.
Well, I won't be the one to say "Go ahead, split the child!" The paraphrase, whatever it said originally, is a document of secondary importance, Libers XXXI and CCXX are primary. And those latter say "fill me" (or at least, the second one did until this year). I vote to keep the child whole, even if I must lose it.
I accept that it is almost a fait accompli at this point, and that HB is unlikely to change his mind. He regards the discovery of the 1909 book with its marginalia as providential, directed by the Secret Chiefs; all of our protests are nothing compared to this kind of superior direction.
Whatever the reason Crowley wrote "K" in that margin, the fact remains that he did not change it for the 1913 Equinox printing of The Book of the Law, nor in the two printings in the 1930s, nor did he teach his followers about the "kill me" form of this poem. I think their silence speaks much more loudly than the margin note.
Aha! You have discovered the key to it all, er kill, um, fill. 😉
If I move the Knight in Chess 3 squares by 1 instead of 2 squares by 1, I'm not playing Chess any more, but some other game I've invented. If I want to call this new game I've invented "Chess" I have to persuade those who've played Chess as it was to follow me.
The Class A and "not to be changed" business is a game too, part of a mystico-religio-philosophical game that by now has a fairly long-standing tradition.
So you either play that game or you don't.
WB seems to be playing a different game now, a game in which his own spiritual intimations, and some frankly odd rationalizations, supersede his official role as a player, and to some extent referee, of the original game.
Still and all, it's a storm in a teacup, and so long as the manuscript keeps getting reproduced, which seems highly likely in this day and age, there's no great danger to those who like playing the original game. All people need to be aware of is that WB isn't playing that game any more, and they are free to follow him in his new game, or not. And even if he wants to retain the old name for his new game, it doesn't matter; what used to be called a rose still smells as sweet.
Fixed.
I’ve hesitated to comment on this before now, but since you bring it up, I’m curious about the extent to which a superstitious belief in oogity-boogity spirits called “Secret Chiefs” played a role in this decision.
To be clear, I’m an admirer of what OTO and HB have accomplished over the years, and I’m eager for the new publications that will (eventually) see the light of day – their efforts in making Crowley texts and rituals available to the public have been great – but I’ve also been critical of the bizarre supernaturalism that seems to exist in the organization, at least paid lip service to by some members of the OTO, and apparently tacitly encouraged.
As far as I’m aware, there are a number of Order-types who use the concept of “Secret Chiefs” in a manner largely indistinguishable from the way that “God” is used by other types of religious folk (except, of course, “Secret Chiefs” is far goofier). We know that HB is apparently a believer in this goofy god-concept, going so far as to say that he wouldn’t be editing the Holy Books if he didn’t believe in these beings (!). That’s quite a statement, for a number of reasons.
Anyway, I haven’t quite gotten my head around the issue of why the supposed correction to the Book was made so speedily and why there’s not – or, at least, not that I’ve seen – clearer explication of what gives the evidence the conviction with which HB accepts it.
Is it possible that this is one more example of supernaturalism lending extra weight to insufficient evidence, merely because coincidences appear special to the human mind?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
My choice is to boycott every edition of Liber L with kill instead fill.
Love is the law, love under will
Could not agree more with the views expressed above by gurugeorge.
Los: Is something additional added to your often cogent arguments against wooly-mindedness by the habitually sneering and pejorative language you insist on using ("oogity-boogity spirits" here, or your frequent references to the belief of your interlocutors in "goblins" and "spacemen")? Do you think this renders these arguments more or less persuasive to those you seek to engage?
You believe in coincidences?
"It's tragic magic, there are no coincidences, but sometimes the pattern is more obvious." --Vivian Stanshall
at least, not that I’ve seen – clearer explication of what gives the evidence the conviction with which HB accepts it.
Los, whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, i found HB's explanation here
http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/
relatively clear - and no mention of 'Checret Siefs'.
WilliamThirteen,
The reference people are alluding to isn't that link it's this other one and it's near the bottom of the page just after the last of the illustrations.
OK
Jerry Cornelius Statement about this (Apri 14th at 07:40) :
"NOTES ON LIBER AL VEL LEGIS
AND THE HOLY BOOKS OF THELEMA - "fill me" or "kill me"?
(1. The Collected Works Vol. III appeared in 1907 but Liber Al vel Legis, which was supposedly to be published in the Appendix, was removed before publishing. The proof copy is at the University at Austin, Tx – it clearly states – “fill me.”
(2. In the first few months of 1909 the A.’.A.’. was created.
(3. June 28th 1909 Crowley discovers the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis in the attic. In the original manuscript Crowley wrote next to III:37 – “I adore thee in the song “I am the Lord of Thebes” & c from vellum book --- fill me” ….. The spacing in the original handwritten manuscript between verse 36 and 38 clearly shows that the above statement about verse 37 had to have been written at the commencement of Liber AL vel Legis, not scribbled in later. Oddly, it is as if the Gods knew that this would someday be a controversial issue spawned by centers of Thelemic Pestilence. The only piece of the original prayer from the vellum notebook which Crowley inserted into the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis (in his handwriting) on April 10th 1904 is “fill me.”
(4. The Holy Books, Third Volume, 35 pgs, proof dated September 24th 1909, housed at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, Austin, Texas. It states ‘fill me.’
(5. March 1910 James Thomas Windram joined the A.’.A.’. … He receives The Holy Book, and in the margin next to verse III:37 is the letter ‘K’ while the first letter of ‘f’ in ‘fill me’ is crossed out. Some are now claiming the ‘K’ was written by Crowley but if anyone examines Crowley’s letter ‘K’ in the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis, this ‘K’ in the margin is highly suspicious and may well be that of Windram’s, not Crowley’s.
(6. The Equinox Vol.I No.7 1912. Granted, when the Stele was published herein, the translation for the front states – “Aum, let it kill me.” ... But this is, by Crowley’s own admission, a “Paraphrase” of the original … The definition of ‘Paraphrase’ in the Webster’s dictionary is : “A restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.” … Hence ‘kill me” is simply a rewording of the original manuscript which states ‘fill me.’ ... Which is more important? The rewording, or the original? ... Also, the manuscript itself was published in this book, and it clearly shows ‘fill me.’
(7. The Equinox of the Gods 1936. The typed version of Liber AL vel Legis in this book, on p.33, clearly states “fill me.” Later in the book Crowley states – “It is to be noted that the translation from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more that instantaneous thought to be inserted afterward.” P.125. ... Again, the manuscript was published, and it clearly shows ‘fill me.’
The bottom line, it is obviously 'fill me' in Liber AL vel Legis and anyone or any A.'.A.'. lineage who changes this Class A manuscript should be shunned as a centre of pestilence. And swearing any magickal Oaths using such a volume only ties you to 'them' and not the Lords of the Aeon."
Coincidences happen all the time. The claim that it’s something more than simple happenstance – particularly the claim that it’s oogity-boogity magic – requires substantiation.
http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/
relatively clear - and no mention of 'Checret Siefs'.
Thanks for that, William. I had missed this explanation, which I found to be fascinating reading. Here is the explanation HB gives for a point that had been troubling me:
Crowley did pay more attention to the MS. the following year with the typesetting of Liber CCXX for The Equinox I(10)—or at least, he had his editorial staff do so. This was its second typeset publication, and it appeared in the fall of 1913, probably in middle or late fall, as the issue ran late.
Hmm. I’m going to have to mull this over for a while. It’s certainly not an unreasonable argument that HB is making, and I suppose it does square with Crowley’s apparent off-again on-again antipathy to the Book (glimpsed in, for example, that page in Magick in Theory and Practice in which Crowley slightly misquotes every quote from the Book). I guess it is possible that after a certain point, Crowley was “done” with the Book and didn’t give it close scrutiny in terms of proofreading.
The one thing HB doesn't mention -- and I'm going to have to give his explanation a more thorough once-over because apparently I'm missing stuff today! -- is Crowley's New Comment, which makes no mention at all of the discrepancy and gives an interpretation that seems to resonate more strongly with "fill." I guess the argument would be that Crowley forgot his original correction -- since it was a small correction made along with lots of other corrections made so many years prior -- and he ended up commenting on the text as it appears, forgetting about the discrepancy entirely.
In other words, HB's argument implies that this little correction wasn't such a big deal to Crowley (as it is now to all the hysterical folks who are starting up "petitions" and making all kinds of childish accusations about the OTO). Crowley probably wouldn't have gotten his panties in a twist and thrown some kind of tirade over one silly letter. He noticed an error, changed it -- along with lots of other errors -- and didn't really give it too much thought after that and probably forgot about it. As HB points out, there's no reason to think that Crowley used the verses in his Resh adorations, so it's possible that he didn't have as close a personal relationship with those lines of poetry as some of us do.
All in all, some very interesting things to think about. Obviously, the "Secret Chiefs" stuff is exceedingly silly, but HB's explanation here is in line with the high editorial quality and scholarship I've come to expect from his generally excellent work. It's gone a long way toward answering some of my concerns about the thought process behind his decision.
Uh huh....Sure thing, Jerry.
Some are now claiming the ‘K’ was written by Crowley but if anyone examines Crowley’s letter ‘K’ in the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis, this ‘K’ in the margin is highly suspicious
It's ridiculous to compare a letter printed as part of a proofreading effort to the same letter scribbled down when Crowley was writing at top speed, in cursive.
6. The Equinox Vol.I No.7 1912. Granted, when the Stele was published herein, the translation for the front states – “Aum, let it kill me.” ... But this is, by Crowley’s own admission, a “Paraphrase” of the original … The definition of ‘Paraphrase’ in the Webster’s dictionary is : “A restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.” … Hence ‘kill me” is simply a rewording of the original manuscript which states ‘fill me.’ ... Which is more important? The rewording, or the original?
Oh, brother. The verse itself is a paraphrase of the Egyptian on the Stele: what Cornelius is implying here -- that the verse that appeared in the Equinox is a paraphrase of the verse that appears in the Book -- is ridiculous. The two versions of the verses are exactly identical to each other, with the exception of one word. You don't "paraphrase" something by changing one single word.
Again, the manuscript was published, and it clearly shows ‘fill me.’
But this argument fails to consider the actual claim being made, that Crowley made a mistake when he later penciled in "fill me."
anyone or any A.'.A.'. lineage who changes this Class A manuscript should be shunned as a centre of pestilence. And swearing any magickal Oaths using such a volume only ties you to 'them' and not the Lords of the Aeon."
Jeez Louise, some people have really bizarre ideas about the way the world works....
The reference people are alluding to isn't that link it's this other one and it's near the bottom of the page just after the last of the illustrations.
OK
Thanks for the link. Added:
Perhaps it's unfair of me to pounce on this quote, but it's just flabbergasting to read such a thing, and it really jumps out amid otherwise sane discourse. The reason the guy is doing this work is that he thinks super-duper disembodied ascended master spooks are secretly controlling the universe? And if someone persuaded him that there's no good reason to think that they exist, he wouldn't want to edit the books any more?
Yikes....
Los: Of course, AC believed exactly the same thing as to the existence of, and intervention in human affairs by, the Secret Chiefs, as has been pointed out to you ad infinitum.
Surely you have noticed that your "skeptical"/"materialist" reading of AC is very much an outlier among serious students of his work.
Why you should be shocked to hear Breeze believes this is baffling, as baffling as why he believes that the scholarly reasons he presents justify this change.
Surely you have noticed that your "skeptical"/"materialist" reading of AC is very much an outlier among serious students of his work.
You and I have been over this, and I'm not rehearsing it here. Go and study: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/gems-from-forums-crowley-and-his-system.html
Why you should be shocked to hear Breeze believes this is baffling
It's not so much that I'm shocked that he (claims to) believe a goofy thing that Crowley (claimed to have) believed. I'm specifically flabbergasted by the implication that his entire interest in editing the Holy Books is a belief in goblins. He specifically says that if he didn't hold that unsubstantiated belief, he wouldn't be doing it.
That would be amazing all by itself, but keep in mind that Thelema commands that individuals perform actions only for the reason that they comprise the True Will: "thou hast no right but to do thy will." The idea that HB's editorial work hinges on a very questionable, unsubstantiated belief strikes me as weird. Thelema commands that people do things for no other reason that that they are authentically inclined to do them. Whether or not there are spooks should be, at best, utterly irrelevant.
Like I said, I don't want to pounce on this one quote -- which may be a rhetorical flourish, for all I know -- especially since I have a lot of respect for HB and the OTO's achievements. Just pointing it out as odd.
Los: I was certainly not trying to open the can'o'worms as to whether your reading of AC is correct, I was merely pointing out that your view is rare among serious students of AC. I appreciate your recommendation that I study your works and will certainly get to that should time allow.
As to your views on HB's belief that the change in AL is blessed by the Secret Chiefs: Perhaps it will surprise you that I largely agree with most of what you say in the first and third paragraphs below the quote from me (minus "goblins": again, why not tone down this obviously alienating caricature of views you oppose?), and the first sentence of the second paragraph. I think that's a fairly strange belief for a person to have too. It's just that I am not at all surprised that HB believes this- I'd be more surprised if he didn't.
I doubt very much the mention of the claimed role of the Secret Chief's in HB's decision to change AL is a "rhetorical flourish"; I am confident HB is utterly sincere here.
"I believe the Secret Chiefs are paying attention to our work and can arrange such things—if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be editing The Holy Books in the first place!"
Okay, OK, that's pretty clear, isn't it?
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.
Dwtw
JG, I have refrained from making any assertions based on qabalistic evidence because I want to avoid the impression that that is the sole reason why I disagree with this change. In fact, my disagreement is on three levels: first, I do not believe the argument is justified, based on the available literary evidence; second, I feel that my OTO oath has been abrogated by this change; and a close third is that the qabalistic evidence for keeping Liber CCXX intact is very conclusive - at least as much as this kind of evidence can ever be conclusive.
One must avoid begging the question - gematria results are derived from CCXX, they do not inform it, otherwise we have the cart before the horse. But once decoded, the text shows that the gematria of the whole Book is exquisite and extraordinary - as one would expect from a Book which insists that not a letter be changed in it, and that a new English gematria be created.
For the record, the Trigrammton Gematria, derived from Crowley's own letter-attributions to Liber Trigrammaton, provide a grand total for Liber CCXX of 267696 = 11 x 156 x 156. This grand total has numerous factors, all of which sum to 884,988. That sum of the factors is itself the product of 61 x 93 x 156 - a product that includes two numbers specifically mentioned in the text, and the value of the name Babalon, which AC presumed was the 'secret name' of Nuit.
The evidence is far more striking and detailed than just this grand total, but what is interesting is that the total itself is easily derived from four major sections of the Book: the first verse, the last verse, verse 1:46 and the Cipher in 2:76. Thus the Book seeks to corroborate itself.
Changing one letter of course affects the grand total, (but not the numerous other codes embedded within the Book). So from that qabalistic standpoint, it can be argued that the Book should not be changed any further. It has taken the form intended by Aiwass, its English Alphabet has a new order and value, and there is no further need to revise it.
Despite that qabalistic viewpoint, the primary argument for not accepting the change is that there is simply not enough evidence for it. Gematria is only an adjunct to sound reasoning. It is still the cart behind the horse. And if the gematria result from the change was actually some kind of improvement in the totals, I would still disagree with it, because the reasoning behind the change is flawed. (In fact, this is nearly the case, since the change to 'kill' actually results in a gematria total that indicates the precise day and year when the Trigrammaton Gematria was discovered: 7-13-1996).
As I've said before, the point is really this, and I'm sure HB would agree - what happened in Cairo, and what did Aiwass intend should go in the Book?
Litlluw
RLG
If if were a matter of what Aiwass wanted, then the manuscript's testimony of "fill me" is unquestionable. But I don't think that we are required to believe that the pencil note to III,37 is part of the dictation. It is most likely a direction to the typist of the extent of the poem that should be inserted in that place, referring to the "vellum book".
For me this "fill me", along with its typed equivalent in the Cairo typescript (as we have it represented in 1907 and 1909, where it formed the basis for the texts there printed), is sufficient evidence that the original paraphrase had "fill me". Subsequent uses of "kill me" in this line, in the Great Invocation and the Paraphrase as it appeared in 1912, therefore suggest that Crowley later changed his paraphrase to read "kill me". It was his poem, his paraphrase, he could change it if he liked.
But the best interpretation of the evidence is that when Crowley indicated the poem to be inserted at III,37, the paraphrase read "fill me" here.
I don't think it is so important to HB what happened in Cairo or why the manuscript reads "fill me". What is significant to him is Crowley's proof-reading of the text in 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, changing "fill me" to "kill me". Not only the existence of this note, but also the timing of the recent discovery of the 1909 volume, coinciding with a new edition of ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, as well as in view of HB's own past changes (mostly silent) of the text of the Paraphrase from "kill me" back to "fill me", which he details in the last paragraph of his apologia (they could in theory be extended back to 1983's Holy Books of Thelema, assuming Breeze was the real editor here, where the Paraphrase of the stele reads "fill me" here - a silent correction (p. 250)), lead him to consider that this unique marginal note carries far more weight than it might otherwise have.
93!
I find it on the contrary seemingly quite important for HB to acknowledge Crowley's (alleged) wish to correct the scribe. Crowley clearly states the paraphrase was done before and Aiwass ordered him (not by dictation) to fill in that or that part of the paraphrase. Since this was a direct order from the Gods to him, this one letter is not simply a typo, but a serious disobedience of Divine Orders.
If we assume that the paraphrasing like the invocation of Horus was "left unrevised, save perhaps for one glance" we can easily conceive of Crowley making this error during the dicatation, he simply wasn't too familiar with the "poem", it was more or less still "only" a translation, and he was of course absolutely unaware of the huge importance of the Cairo events.
Since HB is obviously convinced that the original paraphrase says "kill", I consider it quite understandable - following the above train of thought - that he make amends for AC's disobedience and correct this "blasphemy" (so to speak) immediately.
Of course, Liber 31 is not to be changed, but obviously AC thought that Class A does not forbid to make corrections in Liber 220. Though he seems to have hesitated about this one (probably because of the "Change not as much as the style of a letter" order), the current leadership of the order seems to feel obligated that the correction has to be made and interprets AC's annotation in Thelema as indicative of the correct version of the stele paraphrase. Thus the change is compulsary.
Love=Law
Lutz
93 Lutz!
But this wish - in the 1909 volume - is expressed only once in his life, whereas all of the other instances where he might have, including the manuscript itself (in pencil - he could have just made it "kill" if he liked), he didn't. Only once, in his entire life, did Crowley ever express dissatisfaction with that phrase. It is for this reason that people have to understand the importance HB places on the serendipitous discovery of the 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, in the context of his re-editing the text for publication, and in the context of his own past changes of the text of the Paraphrase. This marginal note carries disproportional weight, overwhelming weight, to HB.
But, judging by purely textual evidence, it does not seem so to me. "Fill me" has both priority in time, and in extent of witnesses. "Kill me" is the variant.
Crowley clearly states the paraphrase was done before and Aiwass ordered him (not by dictation) to fill in that or that part of the paraphrase.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying "done". We know he worked on it at least from "March 23rd to April 8th" (Equinox of the Gods p. 84), but that doesn't exclude reworking it afterward. It is hard work to transform ancient Egyptian prose (or prose or poetry in any other language) into rhyming English poetry.
If we assume that the paraphrasing like the invocation of Horus was "left unrevised, save perhaps for one glance" we can easily conceive of Crowley making this error during the dicatation, he simply wasn't too familiar with the "poem", it was more or less still "only" a translation, and he was of course absolutely unaware of the huge importance of the Cairo events.
But the "fill me" part wasn't given during the dictation - it was written in pencil, later. I can't accept that Crowley made a mistake in remembering a poem he had been keenly working on for the previous two weeks, when he was, in all likelihood, giving instructions to a typist about what poem to copy out from another book, the "vellum book" mentioned in the manuscript, now lost. Crowley "unfamiliar" with his own poem, fresh in his own mind? I think that is hardly likely.
That the typist actually typed "fill me" indicates, more strongly than anything else, and especially since Crowley himself wrote "fill me", that "fill me" was what was in the vellum notebook.
Nothing prevents him from subsequently changing his paraphrase here from "fill" to "kill", in time for including it in the Great Invocation (which, because it quotes Liber Legis, including the Paraphrase and Rose's additions, was made some time - how long we cannot say - after that book's writing).
There is no basis - absolutely none - for claiming that Crowley made a mistake when writing "fill me" in the manuscript.
93, belmurru!
Well, it makes no sense being ordered to fill in something that's not done already. At least to me.
It can't be much later, probably minutes later. The beginning of the paraphrase sequences is in ink, followed by an empty line, indicating that he somehow "knew" the ending of the paraphrase sequence also, but - since it was not part of the dictation - there was no time to finish it. He had to go on. Writing it in pencil only indicates that it was not part of the dicatation, but we cannot know when it was written. To me, as just said, minutes later seems logical.
What typist are you talking about here? Is this a fact, or an assumption? Am I missing something?
Did he? Please clear this up for me. I only know that AC claimed to have Liber L typed while still in Cairo. But I'm at work and don't have my books at hand.
Thanks in advance
Love=Law
Lutz
It's a deduction. Here's HB: "There is good evidence that Crowley was not the typist, and that he hired someone in Cairo. While no copy of the original Cairo typescript is known to have survived, the typesetting in Thelema (1909) was based on this typescript, and it has misreadings that were the result of someone having trouble reading Crowley’s handwriting."
http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/
(paragraph beneath second set of quotes)
"belmurru" wrote:the typist actually typed "fill me"Did he? Please clear this up for me. I only know that AC claimed to have Liber L typed while still in Cairo. But I'm at work and don't have my books at hand.
Based on the deduction that Crowley wasn't the typist (or even if he - or Rose, perhaps? - were), the other deduction, that the Cairo typescript was the basis for both the 1907 proof and the 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ - HB's own deduction, as well as mine - is that the reading "fill me" was in the Cairo typescript.
The Cairo typescript, not the manuscript, was the basis for 1907 and 1909, and that typescript therefore said "fill me". Furthermore, there is reason to think that Crowley was not himself the typist.
Well, it makes no sense being ordered to fill in something that's not done already. At least to me.
Yes it was "done", in the sense that it was a complete work. In this case, it is also most likely that it had the reading "fill me".
It was not "done" in the sense that the poet was necessarily finished with it. Poets change their work, even work they have finished to their own satisfaction at a given time, sometimes days, months, and even years later. The Paraphrase was Crowley's work, not Aiwass' dictation, so it is possible that Crowley decided to change "fill me" to "kill me" after the dictation and typing of the book in Cairo.
All of the evidence is consistent with this scenario, and it does not demand that both Crowley and the typist made a mistake (or that Crowley made two mistakes - in the manuscript, and when he read over the work of the typist).
"belmurru" wrote:But the "fill me" part wasn't given during the dictation - it was written in pencil, later.It can't be much later, probably minutes later. The beginning of the paraphrase sequences is in ink, followed by an empty line, indicating that he somehow "knew" the ending of the paraphrase sequence also, but - since it was not part of the dictation - there was no time to finish it. He had to go on. Writing it in pencil only indicates that it was not part of the dicatation, but we cannot know when it was written. To me, as just said, minutes later seems logical.
Sure. But it doesn't matter when the pencilled part was done; we can be sure however that it was done before leaving Cairo, since the whole poem was in the typescript. I don't know what difference it would make if it were minutes or days. Either way, "fill me" was what Crowley wrote.
93, belmurru!
Thanks. I did understand your above sentence to mean that he had the paraphrase typed BEFORE April 8. I see no indication that the typist also had the vellum book to type the paraphrase. Crowley could have written it down for him.
Again, it's the vellum book. I really hope it shows up one day.
Why not? It was not really "his" poem at all. He had the translation in French from the museum and translated it into English, with some additions here and there to accomplish the verse form he wanted to.
I think both stories are possible. Obviously HB thinks that the original paraphrase said "kill", based on Crowley's own annotation. It is also obviously that HB regards the matter as way more important than Crowley himself. But if one accepts the original paraphrase being "kill", I guess one also has to accept the action the OTO is taking.
Love=Law
Lutz
HB assumes it, and I agree - "It is safe to assume that both the vellum notebook with the Paraphrase and the MS. of Liber Legis were on hand when the Cairo typescript was made. Perhaps the typist turned from typing the MS. to the vellum notebook to insert the Paraphrase from the vellum book, and then on returning to the MS, saw the "fill" reading in Crowley's pencil note, and assumed "fill" was the intended reading. This would not likely have been caught since, as Crowley told Mudd, the typescript was never proofread. It is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what happened."
The typist needed the vellum book in order to type out the poem - how else was he to know it completely? Unless the typist were Crowley himself, which seems unlikely because of the reason HB says - the typist misunderstood words that the writer of the manuscipt - Crowley - would not himself have.
Again, it's the vellum book. I really hope it shows up one day.
It would be great if it did. But HB's argument is informed more by the 1909 note and the circumstances of finding that copy than by what Crowley originally wrote in the paraphrase, so it would not change his mind.
"belmurru" wrote:Crowley "unfamiliar" with his own poem, fresh in his own mind?Why not? It was not really "his" poem at all. He had the translation in French from the museum and translated it into English, with some additions here and there to accomplish the verse form he wanted to.
It was very much his poem. Translating the French to English was just a simple gesture - translating - or paraphrasing - the text into verse is something else entirely.
Just try it on an ancient text, and tell me that you don't know exactly what you have written. You have weighed every word, every phrase, especially when difficulties of metre and rhyme and involved - you have it memorized, along with alternatives that you have rejected.
93!
While I agree with everything you say - I myself feel so comfortable with "kill" probably only because I very rarely used Liber 220, and quite more often had the stele inscirptions from EOTG before my eyes - I do not agree with this:
I think HB simply thinks that the 1909 note is a clear indication of what's in the vellum book, and what's in the vellum book HAS TO BE PUT into the Liber L text. It's not about some aesthetic preference of Crowley, it's only about the "vellum book" order. If the book would show up showing "fill" I am very sure he would correct his correction (he did it before).
Love=Law
Lutz
93 Lutz!
I think HB simply thinks that the 1909 note is a clear indication of what's in the vellum book, and what's in the vellum book HAS TO BE PUT into the Liber L text.
This is only the on the assumption that Crowley corrected his 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ on the basis of the vellum book, AND, that the vellum book's version itself was not changed by Crowley later, after April 10, 1904, to read "kill me".
Neither assumption can be proven, and the earliest evidence points unambiguously to "fill me".
The "K" stands alone; it could very well have been Crowley's preference at the time it was made - it was still his poem, it was not Aiwass' dictation.
It's not about some aesthetic preference of Crowley, it's only about the "vellum book" order. If the book would show up showing "fill" I am very sure he would correct his correction (he did it before).
The earliest evidence for what the vellum book said are 1) the manuscript, and 2) the typescript made in Cairo, used as the basis for 1907 and 1909, both of which say "fill me".
It is only in his 1912 (HB's plausible idea) note to the 1909 book that Crowley shows a preference for "kill me", so it is only on the strength of this book being Crowley's "temple edition" of ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, and the timing of its discovery recently, that give HB the confidence to say that Crowley really wanted it that way, despite never doing it.
Would he change it back if the vellum book says "fill me"? How then to explain Crowley's marginalium in ΘΕΛΗΜΑ? He would have to do what I am doing - assume that Crowley changed it on a whim.
My bet is that the vellum book, if found, will have "fill me" crossed out, and "kill me" put in the margin or under the line. The vellum book was given to the typist before Crowley changed his mind on "fill me", so this phrase was what Crowley was thinking when he wrote III,37's pencil note, and it is what the typist read. It is only later that Crowley came to prefer "kill me" here, and that made it into the Great Invocation, and was set when the Paraphrase went to print in 1912.
The evidence can be presented, without ornament or argumentation, as such:
1904 paraphrase - lost
1904 manuscript - "fill me"
1904 typescript - lost.
1907 proof of CCXX - "fill me"
1907 proof of Great Invocation - "kill me"
1909 CCXX - "fill me"
1912 paraphrase text - "kill me"
Circa 1912 marginalium - "kill me"
1913 CCXX - "fill me"
1936 CCXX - "fill me"
1938 CCXX - "fill me"
If you accept that the lost Cairo typescript is the basis for 1907 and 1909 - which is an argument, although virtually certain - then you can add "fill me" to the lost typescript of 1904. The list will then read:
1904 paraphrase - lost
1904 manuscript - "fill me"
1904 typescript - "fill me"
1907 CCXX - "fill me"
1907 Great Invocation - "kill me"
Now you can see that the phrase "kill me" appears for the very first time in 1907, in the Great Invocation. Since the Great Invocation was written after April 10, 1904 (Chapter III of Liber Legis), because it quotes III,72 almost verbatim, then both examples of "fill me" predate it, and would seem to indicate directly, without speculation about multiple errors and laziness on the part of Crowley and the typist, what was in the lost paraphrase.
It can't be much later, probably minutes later. The beginning of the paraphrase sequences is in ink, followed by an empty line, indicating that he somehow "knew" the ending of the paraphrase sequence also, but - since it was not part of the dictation - there was no time to finish it. He had to go on. Writing it in pencil only indicates that it was not part of the dicatation, but we cannot know when it was written. To me, as just said, minutes later seems logical.
Is this another of those “where’s my damned pen?” moments? Crowley, presumably, came out of temple and at (say) 1.11 pm, decided to add the correction, couldn’t find his Swan fountain pen, grabbed the nearest writing implement to hand (Rose’s eyeliner pencil?) and made the adjustment. It sounds just as eminently reasonable & sensible & likely to me as some of the other way-out/ goofy explanations I’ve come across so far…!
What typist are you talking about here? Is this a fact, or an assumption? Am I missing something?
Did he? Please clear this up for me. I only know that AC claimed to have Liber L typed while still in Cairo. But I'm at work and don't have my books at hand.
Yes, this typist (is it the same one throughout this period, anyone know?) should be held to account. He or she has a lot to answer for, all told…
Could Crowley actually type himself? And assuming he could, did he ever do so or did he think it was toil beneath him & therefore better off delegated to some prole?
Wondering if there's actually enough hours in the day to read all this stuff...
N. Joy
Crowley could type. See Confessions 1929 Vol2 p62.:
"I revised Tannhäuser, wrote an introduction, typed it all out, and sent it to the Press. "
N. Joy
Read faster &/or practice concision.
OK
Crowley could type. See Confessions 1929 Vol2 p62.:
"I revised Tannhäuser, wrote an introduction, typed it all out, and sent it to the Press. "
Thank you for kindly elucidating this matter, OK, I wasn’t aware of that before. I wonder when he started? Is it remotely conceivable A.C. could have had a "portable" in Cairo? Did they even have such a thing in those days? (Questions, questions...)
N. Joy
Read faster &/or practice concision.
OK
I’m working on that - I wish I could! (read faster). As for better concision - I thought at first hurried glance you'd written “practice circumcision”!?!
(The unkindest cut of all?)
N. Joy
93, Jamie!
What can I say? I've read more boring threads...
Anyway, to "sensibly" speak about that matter at all, one has to accept the basic facts like Crowley told them. If one decides this is too goofy, there is no need to talk about orders/dictations of Higher Intelligences at all, and much less about Class A documents. If it's simply a book by AC, than he should have the last word and one could argue he wanted "kill", or "fill". But it's about a Divine Order, and therefore it would be nice to know what in God's name was in the vellum book. Nobody knows, so we have to guess and argue by certain evidence. This might be highly important to some or quite boring to others, I think it's quite refreshing and interesting to go through this stuff and look for evidence for one or the other side. I am sure something will come up which nobody had in mind so far.
While there is the possibility of a "Where's the pen?" incident, it sounds quite logical to me that any additions made to the original dictation should be clearly distinguishable from the Divine stuff. Therefore - what's easier than that? - take a different pen. Take a different colour, take a different paper, whatever - keep it distinguishable from the rest.
I just thought that the beginning of verse 38 is another pro for the "fill" fraction.
Love=Law
Lutz
93 Lutz!
Very nice (and clever)!
As I see it, when Crowley was writing, he didn't pause to hear the poem recited - he just knew which one it was that "the song" referred to. The only words jotted down at the moment were "unity etc.", just so he would know what to put in there when he had it printed (always with that in mind, of course!)
So, what he heard was:
"I adore thee in the song; so that thy light is in me..."
(the semicolon indicating the brief pause where he recalled the paraphrase)
It makes a lot of sense. And yes, I'd love to take "fill me" as being intrinscially more appropriate in this context, but I have to admit that I don't think the full poem, including its last line, was "heard" between song and so.
But, I am willing to take it as indirect evidence of "fill me" being what was in the original version of the paraphrase, since light being in one is more likely to be expressed as "filling" one than "killing" one. But others will no doubt disagree, so the utility of the argument from context is limited.
Just to emphasize this once again: Liber L is an A:.A:. publication in Class A. While it is also an O.T.O. Class A document, it is still an A:.A:. publication. And there is no head of A:.A:.. Furthermore, the O.T.O. does not supersede the A:.A:., and this was made apparent in Crowley's own lifetime.
While there is merit, on another level, to this argument, my attempt on this thread has been to debate it as a textual and historical issue, as HB does at http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/
I think the "don't change it" camp can win, at least symbolically, on this plane. If hidden masters, those "Pro Collegio Summo" of the A.'.A.'. are arguing from the privilege of their authority, I can't respond.
Looking back over my copies of Liber AL from the 1970s until today, I see that OTO has been responsible (for some of them), and that on the "Imprimatur" page, they say only "A.'.A.'. [sigil] Publication in Class A"; they don't use the same complicated list of authenticating grade-representatives that Crowley used in his lifetime, as for instance in the Equinox of the Gods.
I wonder then, if the invisible head is the one authorizing the only significant change to CCXX since ... 1909 (or 1907, or 1904), if we may not demand an imprimatur page with a similar list of authorities to that appearing in 1936, for example. It would be informative and edifying to know what the names/numbers of the 10=1, 9=2, 8=3 are, I think.
Yeah, good luck with "demanding" anything from O.T.O. Inc. and getting it, much less "demanding" a list of the S.'.S.'. members from....I dunno which lineage of the A.'.A.'. ::)
While there is merit, on another level, to this argument, my attempt on this thread has been to debate it as a textual and historical issue, as HB does at http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/
I agree that the level that we have been debating it on (the scholarly level) is appropriate.
I'm only pointing out the difference in Orders so that the two different Orders do not get confused.
I think the "don't change it camp" has already won. If there was hard evidence to prove beyond all doubt that the letter/word should be changed, I'm sure there would be a unanimous scholarly acceptance, and the 'naysayers' would be what some like to call 'religious looneys'. But that is not the case. Regardless of what anyone may say or think on a religious, or metaphysical, or any other level - on the scholarly level the evidence does not prove beyond all doubt that a change should occur.
That's due to factors that I'm not sure are relevant to the thread at this time, but might be later. Thanks for mentioning it though.
My remarks really were intended to draw the distinction between 'who' is making these changes. As it is, there is H.B., head of the O.T.O. (copyright holder?), and one, possibly two A:.A:. 'claimant groups' (as they like to call themselves), that are involved in this change. The other 'claimant groups', as far as I know, have either expressed that they do not accept the change, or have withheld public comment.
There is no invisible head if you are aiming towards a "Secret Chiefs" type of thing. If you are talking about invisible head as in someone that the general public does not know about, then this could turn into quite a debate, and a bunch of Grade slinging, which would do nothing more than make any head turn his/her... well, head, away from the discussion.
But, if we want to go into technicalities, anyone claiming to be a 'head' must at least be 8=3. Anyone in contention for an 'invisible head' spot would have to be a 9=2. Anyone that might happen to be 10=1 would not be in consideration due to the very nature of the 10=1, and "having no will in any direction."
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.
Dwtw
JG, I have refrained from making any assertions based on qabalistic evidence because I want to avoid the impression that that is the sole reason why I disagree with this change. In fact, my disagreement is on three levels: first, I do not believe the argument is justified, based on the available literary evidence; second, I feel that my OTO oath has been abrogated by this change; and a close third is that the qabalistic evidence for keeping Liber CCXX intact is very conclusive - at least as much as this kind of evidence can ever be conclusive.
One must avoid begging the question - gematria results are derived from CCXX, they do not inform it, otherwise we have the cart before the horse. But once decoded, the text shows that the gematria of the whole Book is exquisite and extraordinary - as one would expect from a Book which insists that not a letter be changed in it, and that a new English gematria be created.
For the record, the Trigrammton Gematria, derived from Crowley's own letter-attributions to Liber Trigrammaton, provide a grand total for Liber CCXX of 267696 = 11 x 156 x 156. This grand total has numerous factors, all of which sum to 884,988. That sum of the factors is itself the product of 61 x 93 x 156 - a product that includes two numbers specifically mentioned in the text, and the value of the name Babalon, which AC presumed was the 'secret name' of Nuit.
The evidence is far more striking and detailed than just this grand total, but what is interesting is that the total itself is easily derived from four major sections of the Book: the first verse, the last verse, verse 1:46 and the Cipher in 2:76. Thus the Book seeks to corroborate itself.
Changing one letter of course affects the grand total, (but not the numerous other codes embedded within the Book). So from that qabalistic standpoint, it can be argued that the Book should not be changed any further. It has taken the form intended by Aiwass, its English Alphabet has a new order and value, and there is no further need to revise it.
Despite that qabalistic viewpoint, the primary argument for not accepting the change is that there is simply not enough evidence for it. Gematria is only an adjunct to sound reasoning. It is still the cart behind the horse. And if the gematria result from the change was actually some kind of improvement in the totals, I would still disagree with it, because the reasoning behind the change is flawed. (In fact, this is nearly the case, since the change to 'kill' actually results in a gematria total that indicates the precise day and year when the Trigrammaton Gematria was discovered: 7-13-1996).
As I've said before, the point is really this, and I'm sure HB would agree - what happened in Cairo, and what did Aiwass intend should go in the Book?
Litlluw
RLG
Which oath would that be?
93!
I found another good one.
It's from the never published "The Giant's Thumb", of which proofs survived. These proofs are EXTREMELY corrected and annotated by Crowley. On page 229 you will find "A PARAPHRASE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS UPON THE OBVERSE OF THE STÉLÉ OF REVELLING", promptly and very clear-cut-ly corrected by Crowley: INSCRIPTIONS becoming HIEROGLYPHS and REVELLING becoming REVEALING. There are 6 corrections in this short poem, it is a newly typeset version, NOT the Equinox 10 or the EOTG version, and it clearly says
"kill me !"
I think this is a pretty good indicator how Crowley wanted it. Really, every single page of the over 300 pages is heavily annotated with corrections. If you see these pages it is totally unimaginable that he simply overlooked this one. No, he wanted it like this.
I am at home already, but will upload a scan (if anyone wishes so) tomorrow morning.
Love=Law
Lutz
93!
By the way, "The Giant's Thumb" is from 1915.
Love=Law
Lutz
More evidence for "kill."
Thank you very much for pointing this out, fraternovaeres, and to HB who provided it! Palamedes already hinted that this might be forthcoming yesterday -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=76220#p76220
HB notes of the "kill me" that "it does not strike me as a typical Crowleyan cursive 'k'. To my eye, it looks as if Crowley started to write 'fill' and changed to 'kill' in mid-character".
I don't think there's any doubt about it, actually. Crowley's cursive (lower-case) "f" always has a very deep descending line, whereas the "k" in "kill me" does not. He just follows the dash of indicating the presence of poetry lines, straight up into the "k" of the word "kill", creating an uncharacteristic loop in the letter. For comparison, in the "k" of the word "keep" in the phrase "let them keep silence" (line 8 of the first manuscript page he reproduces), we can see how Crowley lifted the pen from the "m" of "them" and brought it down from above, curving from left to right as he began to write the "k" of "keep". In both cases, however, the knee of the "k" is the same. In other words, I don't think he started to write "fill" and changed his mind, I think "kill" was his clear intention in this piece.
So far, all of the positive evidence for "kill me" constellates in 1912, except for the Great Invocation of 1907 (whenever it was really written, I can easily believe it was 1904, but who knows?).
Kudos Lutz, thanks for the link Frater Novaeres. Sorta settles it for me.