Excellent work, Lutz, which HB refers to appreciatively in the latest document (see link above).

I was already persuaded, but HB's second paper surely settles matters for all but the most bloody-minded! 😉

93 Lutz!

I'd really love to see this. Timothy D'Arch Smith, in The Books of the Beast, p. 42 note 113, says that this book was typeset in England by the Ballantyne Press.

They must have then been sent to Crowley in New York, who proofed them. Or is there another scenario? For how long was this book in the pipeline - could it have been long enough that these proofs too belong to 1912, and Crowley brought them with him?

You are doubtless right that, given the density of corrections, he could not have overlooked "kill me" in proofing the stele paraphrase. The spelling "Revelling" clearly indicates that it was set directly from the text printed in The Equinox I,7, of course. But his lack of correction speaks to a preference for "kill me" at this time.

Sorry Paul (really - I want to believe!) I hate to be "bloody-minded", but I guess I'll have to live with it. I'm still not persuaded that, 1) "kill me" was the reading in the original paraphrase, or that 2) Crowley really wanted CCXX III,37 to read "kill me" here, notwithstanding his annotation in ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. It really puzzles me that being so adamant on the reading "kill me" in 1912, he didn't have CCXX set to read "kill me" in the 1913 Equinox I,10.

Nor, of course, did he do so at any time afterward. That is a lot of negligence and forgetting for such an important change, or one that seems so important in just this year.

I suppose I still think it was a brief fad of his, and that the original reading of "fill me" from both the manuscript of Liber Legis and the typescript derived from it trump anything he did for those brief years. From the textual evidence, I think it is still more likely that "fill me" was the original reading, and that "kill me" came later, even if he came to prefer it for a certain time.

The relevant pages are produced in HB's document: http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/legis2.pdf

A photographic facsimile of the book (including proof marks) was published by First Impressions/Mandrake Press and is relatively easy to track down.

93, belmurru!

I'll post it to you. I don't think that it has been long in the pipeline in 1915. It's hard to say if the annotations were all made at the same time, but if this is so, they date from ca. 1924, because AC annotates that it is nearly 10 years after he wrote the foreword (The Vindication of Nietzsche by the way) which he wrote in 1914. The book has also been apparently stolen by "the thief" Norman Mudd, so the proofs were long in the pipeline, but long AFTER 1915. It's a real shame that the project was aborted, it's a fabulous poetry book.

In short, if the annotations were all made at the same time, AC did not change his mind about "kill me" between 1914 and 1924.

Love=Law
Lutz

Wonderful, thank you both! It looks like we are getting instant feedback here - thrilling!

93,

The problem is that OTO has any authority to change anything. The Book is very clear, even Crowley had no authority to change the name of The Book. The name is Liber L, not Liber Al vel Legis. In this sense, I really don't care what Crowley wanted. What is written in the manuscript - this is The Book.

93  93/93

I'll have to think about this. But, being "bloody minded", I have to say that those proofreading marks, and the handwriting itself, don't look like Crowley's.

Take a good look. If this is the case, it is not evidence of Crowley tacitly approving the "kill me" reading. It is someone else not catching it.

You're joking, right?! The marks throughout the book are clearly by AC as anyone with even a passing familiarity with his handwriting will confirm.

Oh dear Belmurru, seems you cant see the wood for the trees.

As it is written "Unity xx"

He published x number of works with "kill" and x number of works with "fill".  Which works had "kill" and which works had "fill"?  Was he on drugs?  Did he want to "fill" himself with the "ways of Khabs" or "kill" himself with the "ways of the Khabs"?  Is it literal or figurative?  Did he try to kill AL through the publication of the 'paraphrases' of the Stele?  His only way of striking back?  Or vice versa, he refused to write "kill" in the manuscript, and struck back by using "fill"?  Did he remember what he wrote?  Or is his entire life a living play in which every action and ambiguity is meant to instruct?

The title page for The Giant's Thumb has Mitchell Kennerly| 32 West 58th St [New York]|1915 as the publisher and "Printed at the Ballantyne Press|London| England" at the foot of the rear of the title page.  Crowley's numerous corrections were not all done during the American period because Norman Mudd is twice accused of stealing the volume (Cefalu period) and there are dated corrections to Vindication of Nietzsche (1923).

The A Paraphrase of the Hieroglyphs ....Stele has 'kill' typeset as it invariably is in that piece and wherever it is quoted other than in Liber Al. It is not hand corrected to 'kill' by AC in The Giant's Thumb, it's already printed that way.

Liber Al equally invariably always has 'fill' and the single instance of the marginal 'K' is the 1909 Holy Books.

So, although the impression may be given that evidence is accumulating the situation is actually the same as it was at the beginning of the thread.

OK

I'm sorry, I'm not joking. That word "HIEROGLYPHS", and the "m" of "Margin", don't look like his (actually, the whole word "Margin" - none of those letters is typical Crowley).

That capital "A" is pretty suspicious too.

You really think the proofing of the Paraphrase in the Giant's Thumb looks like Crowley's handwriting?

The fact that Crowley used 'kill me' in other places doesn't for a second change the fact that in XXXI he decided on 'fill me'. This is a class A text so it's not for me to interpret, all I can do is reproduce it faithfully according to the directions left by AC in the manuscript itself. Anything more than that would risk falling into pits of because.

http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/legis2.pdf

scrolled down to page 4...

...what the hell is that supposed to be?

It looks like an "f"/"k" merger, more like an "f" than a "k", or like an "f" with an extra hump at the end. Was it also written in pencil?

Did they not have erasers, or what?

Nobody is suggesting that Liber XXXI be changed in any way. We are discussing Liber CCXX. There are already many differences between the two. David Hulse's "Genesis of the Book of the Law" Part 2 discusses them in length.

My original conception when I was a kid was "kill" was like a bold dare after the fact of the writing, or if we want to think he was that energetically enthused, after he received AL so great was his enthusiam he said f-it!  Kill me Lord!  F-Yeah!  But the Lord is Wise and the Lord Knows!

Hello belmurru,

You wrote:

“I'm sorry, I'm not joking. That word "HIEROGLYPHS", and the "m" of "Margin", don't look like his (actually, the whole word "Margin" - none of those letters is typical Crowley). That capital "A" is pretty suspicious too”.

I have a letter written by Crowley to Anne Macky dated January the 4th 1944 and the ‘m’ in this letter is almost exactly the same as the one you mention above from the word “Margin”.

He writes “Mrs. Anne Macky” and both the ‘m’ letters in the same sentence look completely different, the first being the same as in the word “Margin” mentioned here. Crowley’s writing style was very fluid, not entirely uniform and altered not only over the course of time but also within the same piece of writing. It really was very spontaneous.

If you look at the word "ABRAHADABRA" on the MSS of Ritual CXX, you will note three different types of “A”. The final “A” looks very similar to the capital “A” that you suggest looks highly suspicious. In fact if you look at many examples of Crowley's writing you will find instances of all the letter types in the examples you find suspicious.

Magmus

You seem to overlook two facts. One: nobody has the slightest intention to correct or change anything in the manuscript. If you consider this manuscript The Book - and which is absolutely your prerogative - you have no problem with the OTO, because the OTO does not intend to intervene in the manuscript in any way. Two: you apparently forget that "fill me" (I assume that this is the bone of contention) was not dictated. There are some other additions to (and omissions from) the manuscript in the typed version (Liber CCXX), which apparently do not provoke an outrage. In other words, there is no problem and hunky dory.

Dwtw

I must concur with OK on this, the argument has not been advanced any further than it already was. As a matter of fact, it has gone over in favor of 'fill' after all.

The Giant's Thumb reference continues the already-established pattern that the Paraphrases include the word 'kill'. It is typed, and NOT corrected. It is obviously a copy of that which appeared in the Equinox.

What IS corrected is the letter 'o' in three places, signifying that they should be capitalized. Note that they ARE capitalized in CCXX v. 3:37 in the 1907 CWIII Appendix, and they have ALWAYS been capitalized in Liber CCXX. However, those same letter O's are NOT capitalized in the Paraphrases from the Equinox, or the EOTG, (which is a reprint of the Equinox, as we have established).

So what the Giant's Thumb is showing is that somebody proofread the Paraphrases, made changes to certain letters, but left 'kill' alone. If that somebody was Crowley, and I'll grant that it probably was, he made no indication of any other changes. Which means that he did not want to change 'kill' to 'fill' in the Paraphrases. So we are pretty well established now that AC felt the Paraphrases should have the word Kill. (Of course, he didn't change anything at all for EOTG 1936, so this proofreading was apparently lost at that point).

Since the original Paraphrases required correction here, they DO NOT correlate with the lost typescript of Cairo 1904, because Thelema 1909 and CWIII 1907 both already have the capital O's in the Paraphrases. Therefore, the Paraphrases are not an exact copy of the vellum book, or whatever document was used to create the typescript. The Paraphrases have errors in them, and the Giant's Thumb more or less proves that AC at least once noted these errors and tried to correct them. He fixed the title, (he even changed the title), he fixed the O's, and did nothing beyond that.

Keep in mind the injunction to 'change not as much as the style of a letter'. Generally, 'style' has been taken to mean whether it is capital or lower case. That is a safe interpretation, one that does not exclude others. The point being that, had the Paraphrases been inserted into CCXX the way they appear in the Equinox, the 'style' of the O's would certainly have been changed, which is contrary to the injunction in the Book. One has to assume that the typist for the 1904 typescript had the vellum book at hand. I find it hard to believe they would have made a mistake on the word Fill, on the capital O's, and on nothing else. The simpler explanation is that the typist got it right in this case, and that what was entered in CCXX is a copy of the vellum book Paraphrases.

I think The Giant's Thumb, with its emendations, makes a strong case that the Paraphrases, as they were first published in the Equinox, were typeset especially for that volume, and do not necessarily represent what is in the vellum book containing the original poetry. For all we know, the vellum book was already lost by that point.

The other evidence brought forth is Liber Cadaveris. And again, it shows the word 'kill' used in the Paraphrases, (and tellingly, it seems as if he may have begun to write 'fill' and corrected that to 'kill'). This again is not Liber CCXX, it is a ritual probably contemporary with the publication of the Paraphrases in the Equinox. But all this shows is that AC wanted the Paraphrases to have 'kill' in them. It shows it unambiguously, whereas before we only had typeset versions, which clearly had typos, one of which may have been the word 'kill' itself.

So as I said at the beginning, we have not progressed toward proving Kill should be in CCXX, or that it was in the vellum book originally. We HAVE proven, (at least to my satisfaction), that AC unambiguously desired to have Kill in the Paraphrases. But he never once took that further and published CCXX that way, and this missing linkage is what HB has yet to prove.

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post- show me at least one instance where AC made this correction in a copy of Liber CCXX other than the 1909 Thelema - because that book had only a few corrections to CCXX, all of which were implemented EXCEPT the change from Fill to Kill.

Thank you, Lutz, for finding this extra bit of evidence. None of us had mentioned the lower case O's in the Paraphrases before, but this shows that Crowley certainly noticed them. Nice job!

Litlluw
RLG

Yeah I noticed that, it's actually quite hilarious in the present context, it looks like "fkill me" lol

Dwtw

Addendum:

The other discrepancy between the Paraphrases of 1912, 1936, Giant's Thumb on the one hand and Liber CCXX on the other is that the name Ankh-af-na-khonsu (as it is typed in Liber CCXX) appears as "Ankh-f-n-khonsu' thrice in the Paraphrases. So if one claims that the Paraphrases are the legitimate copy of the vellum book, and that they should have been incorporated wholesale into Liber CCXX, then how is it that the name of the scribe is spelled differently?

Therefore, the differences in the name of the scribe and the capital letters demonstrates that the published Paraphrases are NOT the source of the original poetic material to be incorporated into Liber CCXX; the vellum book is the sole source of the original poetry. Lacking that book as evidence, all we have to go on is the Cairo typescript, (lost), and the first and subsequent typesets (1907, 1909, 1913, 1936, 1938), as well as the pencilled note in the original ms., all of which have the word 'fill'.  And out of ALL those copies, only one contains a correction to the actual verse 3:37.

Litlluw
RLG

In the list of "corrections" Crowley made in The Equinox of the Gods, where he notes every little 'adjustment' made to the MS, one would think that to be a wonderful time for him to write, "And those damn idiots over at XYZ printing press keep typing "fill" instead of "kill", and I'm just too lazy to erase the "f" with my own pencil."

My apologies if this has been asked before on the thread, but does anyone have any speculation as to why Crowley's marginal "K !" has an exclamation point?

I mean, of course, aside from the place my mind is inclined to go immediately (i.e. "Kteis and the phallus (!)).

Are there exclamation points attached to other marginal corrections? Why in this place and not others?

Something to consider...

In the Equinox I:9, p.129 within the Evocation of Bartzabel the full verse of Liber CCXX III:37 is used, beginning with

"I adore Thee in the Song:
I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
...
Aum! let it fill me!"

Was Crowley somehow wrong in his quoting of LIber CCXX? Was this another mistake, one which had to be newly typeset and routinely missed? No. This supports that "fill me" is correct in Liber CCXX since when Crowley quotes that book it ends with "fill me".

As far as I can tell, the scholarship behind changing Liber CCXX to "kill me" is based upon a single instance where Crowley made what looks like an author's correction. There were three such corrections in this single volume of CCXX. Of the three, two were to verse III:37 itself and yet only one was made in future editions. The "correction by the Prophet" claim is based upon his other works where pieces of the paraphrase are used which end with "kill me". Yet was not the Equinox I:9 produced right in the middle of the same time period? Yes.

The entire verse is quoted, but without noting its source, just like the other instances of verses from the paraphrase which end with "kill me".

Oh boy! Now I get to chase a different rabbit hole.... Where else did Crowley quote CCXX III:37? Hmmmmmm

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html

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

Class A

1 B vel Magi

This is an account of the Grade of Magus, the highest grade which it is ever possible to manifest in any way whatever upon this plane. Or so it is said by the Masters of the Temple.

7 Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli

Being the Voluntary Emancipation of a certain Exempt Adept from his Adeptship. These are the Birth-Words of a Master of the Temple.

10  Porta Lucis

An account of the sending forth of the Master Therion by the A∴A∴ and an explanation of his mission.

27 Trigrammaton

Being the Book of the Trigrams of the Mutations of the Tao with the Yin and the Yang.

An account of the cosmic process: corresponding to the Stanzas of Dzyan in another system.

31  The Holograph Manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis

Scanned images of the pages of the original 1904 manuscript of The Book of the Law.

65 Cordis Cincti Serpente

An account of the relations of the aspirant and his Holy Guardian Angel.

66 Stellæ Rubeæ

A secret ritual, the Heart of IAO–OAI, delivered unto V.V.V.V.V. for his use in a certain matter of Liber Legis, and written down under the figure LXVI.

This book is sufficiently described by its title.

90 Tzaddi vel Hamus Hermeticus

An account of Initiation, and an indication as to those who are suitable for the same.

156  Cheth vel Vallum Abiegni

A perfect account of the task of the Exempt Adept considered under the Symbols of a particular plane, not the intellectual.

220 AL vel Legis

This book is the foundation of the New Æon, and thus of the whole of our Work.

370 A’ash vel Capricorni Pneumatici

Analyzes the nature of the creative magical force in man, explains how to awaken it, how to use it and indicates the general as well as the particular objects to be gained thereby.

813 ARARITA

An account of the Hexagram and the method of reducing it to the Unity, and Beyond.

Very simply, boih are Class A documents. If 31 is consisting of "scanned images of the pages of the original 1904 manuscript of The Book of the Law." , and the Book of the Law is transcription of the Liber 31. It means manuscript and transcript are same book. Crowley had no authority to change ANYTHING written in manuscript and it is very logical it forbidds also changes in transcription of the Liber 31. Not because I think so, but because this is rule from the Book itself. And of course no one other has such authority  including HB or any other person including me, you and all other people. Of course it is rule if we accept the Book. If we don't accept then this is secular text like a lot of others. Just my opinion, but I think it is very logical.

But not so simply, both Class A documents have differences. Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX are two different books. Liber XXXI contains comments that are not found in Liber CCXX. Likewise, Liber CCXX has passages and paragraphs not to be found in Liber XXXI. They may be indicated for insertion, but they're not *in* Liber XXXI.

Exactly.
Liber XXI and Liber CCXX are two different things, intricately linked with more in common than differences.
BOTH are designated Class A.
Each deserves the same consideration regarding "intentional changes" !

Thank you for clarification. Here is the transcript of Liber XXXi.

http://www.themagickalreview.org/classics/liber_0031-transcript.pdf

What is difference from liber CCXX ? In fact never compared manuscript with the text, now I have to do this using this link.

Of course if one don't consider comment at the end. But I never consider this as a part of the text ...

This is not an exclamation point it is a proofreader's vertical line to draw the printer's attention to something in the text that may not otherwise be conspicuous. You can see more of them in the marked up example of The Giant's Thumb.

OK

93 RLG,

Excellent observation, I agree with everything you've said in your first post and this addendum on the differences of the spelling of the name Ankh-f-n-khonsu in the 1912 Paraphrase (and, I should note, the 1907 Great Invocation (pp. 246-248)), and that of the manuscript of Liber L (I,36 (chapter I, folio 9)), which seems to read "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" (although the first "af" could be "ef"), and the Paraphrase insertions which always read "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" (at I,14; III,37 and III,38).

I've been trying to make the same points throughout this thread, that the earliest evidence shows that "fill me" was in the original paraphrase, the one the typist used when making the Cairo typescript. And "fill me" is of course what Crowley had in his mind when he pencilled in "fill me" at III,37.

Your observation shows unambiguously that the typist in Cairo was reading "Ankh-af-na-khonsu", and was therefore reading a different Paraphrase than that published in Equinox I(7) (1912). I suggest that Crowley also changed "fill me" in the original Paraphrase to "kill me" some time after the Cairo typescript was made. But there is no reason to doubt that "fill me" was his first choice, is the one that appears in the manuscript of Liber L, appears in the Cairo typescript, and was therefore the version of the poem that Aiwass commanded him to insert at III,36.

That Crowley later, briefly it appears, came to prefer "kill me" and decided to correct his 1909 ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, can not in any way override the authority of the original. It remains, as you have said, for HB to prove that the original "Paraphrase" said "kill me" and that both Crowley and the typist made a mistake at III,37.

With this "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" evidence, it becomes even harder to argue that the Paraphrase of 1912 is simply a faithful printing of the original 1904 paraphrase, and that Crowley was "correcting" CCXX to reflect it. In fact it seems he was changing his 1909 CCXX to reflect his later preference for "kill me". It is evident that he soon thought better of it, and forgot about it, perhaps based on the bald fact of the manuscript itself saying "fill me".

Thanks Magmus. After having slept on it, I can see how "margin" is Crowley's, and accept that he is probably behind the correction of the lower-case "o" to upper-case, but I still can't get over the ugliness of that word "HIEROGLYPHS". It looks like someone not used to writing much, very unlike Crowley's rushed, flowing writing, both script and printing. And the capital "A" too, of course.

My point is not to try to deny that he looked at the text, but just to point out that from what I can see there, at least one word (and the illegible one beneath "HIEROGLYPHS" perhaps) doesn't scream "Crowley" to me.

But this text is really no more relevant than the 1936 Equinox of the Gods paraphrase being left as "kill me". It is just another example of  the paraphrase. No one here has ever argued that the Paraphrase should be changed to read "fill me", although that change has been made in past editions of the last 30 years.

It is Crowley's poem, and he could do what he liked with it afterward (he didn't mind changing "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" to "Ankh-f-n-khonsu" either, although he never corrected himself on the misspelled "Duant"). It remains that he wrote "fill me" in 1904, and this is what the poem said when he wrote the pencil note in the manuscript of Liber L.

"Fill me" is the "Aiwass-authorized" version, if you like.

Thanks OK. I mistook that too in earlier posts.

If Crowley knew proofreader's marks, why do you think that in 1909 (1912) he used this marginal bar, while in the circa 1924 notes to The Giant's Thumb, he additionally used three underlines for the "o" corrections in the paraphrase?

He was just inconsistent, I guess. Can we impose consistency on him?

Paul, I think it's the other way around for supporters of the "kill me" change. The wood is still called "Fill Me", from edge to edge, and there is a clump of trees called "Kill Me" in the forest.

The effort is to change the name of the wood to "Kill Me" based on this clump. But from edge (1904) to edge (1938), the wood clearly says its name.

Reproduced from http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12064&start=75

Re: "Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill" by Bryce Churchill » Tue May 07, 2013 9:02 pm

93

I'd like to hold up a bit of information for scrutiny here, if you will. I believe it's rather important, and I haven't seen it brought up anywhere else (at least in the Google searches I've made.)

There is evidence that Crowley quoted verse III:37 in its entirety, using the word "fill", separately from both Liber CCXX and the Stele Paraphrase, both before and after 1912 (when both the pencil edit to the Crowley-Windram copy of Thelema and the Liber CXX MS are believe to have been written).

The instance is in a ritual titled "An Evocation Of Bartzabel The Spirit Of Mars" that appears in The Equinox Vol I, No IX, which was published in March of 1913. On page 129, it includes the following:

"(The Magi kneel at three sides of altar, all clasping spears in the proper manner.)
I adore Thee in the Song :
I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
[…]
To stir me or still me !
Aum ! Let it fill me !

All say, repeatedly:
A Ka dua
Tuf ur biu
[etc …]"

I would guess that it was in the process of being proofed sometime after Jan 1, 1913. The original MS from which this was published also exists, however. The evocation was performed on May 9th, 1910, according to AC's Confessions. A version was edited and published the OTO in The Equinox Vol IV, No II (1998) as an A.'.A.'. Class C document, Liber CCCXXV (pages 257-285). This version is noted as being more identical to the actual MS:

"The MS of the ritual is preserved in a notebook at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, the University of Texas at Austin. […] For publication, abbreviations have been expanded and missing punctuation supplied; doubtful readings are given in brackets. The ritual has been made to conform to the MS in order to reproduce faithfully its original performance. Some ritual instructions and several diagrams only appear in the MS; there are also instances of variant wording. Some diagrams illustrating practical details have been taken from Crowley's sources, as cited. The opening titling, summary and Latin phrase are not in the MS; other material not in the MS, but in The Equinox, is noted. The Equinox version had two misreadings of the MS ("grey" for "fiery" and "enclose" for "unloose")." (page 427)

On page 274 of this version we also see the exact same adoration quoted, using the word "fill".

However, we'll only know for sure if Crowley wrote "fill" with his own hand in the 1910 MS if the original scans become available. (This could have been changed by HB, as in the contemporary works, without a footnote added.)

Regardless, we still have an instance of the verse being published immediately after the 1912 pencil edit and CXX MS where Crowley indeed uses the word "fill" in print. If he had wished to correct it to another word, being fresh in his mind after writing the note in the Windram book, this would have been the perfect opportunity as it would have had to have been inserted and re-typeset specifically for this piece regardless. Not to mention it also survived proofing by a man who had committed The Book of the Law to memory.

Note: I am presenting this here for purely academic reasons… I respect HB's decision, and he has a job to decide what goes to print. However, I believe everyone who cares about this should make a choice for themselves after investigating the evidence thoroughly. I invite your opinions on this.

93 93/93

Belmurru, I had originally, the persuasion of the "fill" contingent, my views have since morphed, as the debate and indisputable evidence for the correction, had been unearthed. I can personally understand why HB is correcting the text, as a logical researcher. I do not have to buy the OTO book releases that contain the corrected word, nor do I have to accept the change. I don't even have to be a member of the organisation. No matter what we discuss, for, or against, what difference will it make to the OTO's stance on the correction. None. It is being done and thats that.
Your own personal interpretation and belief is all that truly matters. I accept that some think it is not their place to edit the letter, maybe not the actual style (upper to lowercase and vice versa) but thats the bed the OTO has made for themselves. For me the original Holographs will always remain "untouched". Hence I do not see the issues of both camps finding solace in that. Thats me though.

I am starting to think that Thelema is entering dangerous territory and borderline fanatical, even being similar to the development and division of the early Christian sects. Just a thought though, with no real substance. Was not having a go at you Belmurru with my comment, it's obvious that we both see things differently.

Christ, it's been doing that for years.

Reviewing the situation yet again today.  I still think Bel is right, it looks like Crowley had a brief flirtation with "kill", but didn't stick with it. 

Bad form from WB, too much weight on too thin a strut; should have just been a footnote flagging a possibility.

Since HB's whole argument hinges on 'kill' being used everywhere except Liber legis, (In his latest essay he sites the Passing the Tuat to back up his assertion) the fact that in equinox 1:9 we can clearly see 'fill me' used in the invocation of Bartzabel pretty much blow's his reasoning out of the water wouldn't you say?

I matters not, what I say, Candide.

Would like to gauge individuals response to the content of the LAShTAL thread located here http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3 entitled 'Kill me!' or 'Fill me!'. The data will be available once the user has voted.

I do know these polls generally can be lame but feel that some sort of demographic could give a deeper understanding either way.

All I would add is that it is obvious that in some instances Crowley clearly meant 'kill me'. But that this reading only appears in one edition of liber CCXX, so to my mind its simpler and more authentic to just leave it as it is.

I second that opinion. The company of heaven only knows what substance or circumstance caused a momentary decision to make a one-letter change - followed by a lifetime of printing the message without that change.

Oh, snap! (the sound of the limb that HB has gone out on - finally cracking).

edit: it's interesting that Marlene and Bryce both found this Bartzabel evidence within about an hour of each other. Very encouraging that the Thelemic community takes this seriously and is doing the research to find counter examples.

Read what you wrote again and I think you might find you've got it backwards, since the evidence, which we all have copies of, shows that the 'change' was actually carried on throughout AC's lifetime

So, two versions of the poem around... Crowley uses the one with "fill" and never changes it in printings of the Book. He uses the one with "kill", but never in an official capacity. In his rituals, both public and private, and in the publications of the Book, "fill" was used, save for one or two cases. It appears obvious that "fill" was always used in an official capacity, while "kill" was more of a private variation.

I think in order to support an 'official' change from "fill" to "kill", one has to imagine a quite negligent and incompetent Aleister Crowley. Was Crowley negligent, and incompetent?

Actually "kill me" never appears in any edition of CCXX (the printed version of Liber XXXI), until this year.

The 1909 edition of ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, like all the rest, has "fill me". In one of these, Crowley has used a pencil to cross out the "f" of "fill me" and written "K" in the margin.

I agree with your sentiment, of course (just wanted to make sure the language was clear!)

Right now, the vote stands at 4 to 4 (surely it will rapidly change). I stand amazed at how all voting is so evenly divided. I refer to elctions in Venezuela and many other countries; I refer to votes in cogress and parliaments everywhere. The human race is so evenly divided in its opinions and wishes that I see no hope for any kind of unity on anything.

Yes, sorry about that, my mistake. As far as I can remember the only copy of CCXX where 'kill me' appears in in the pencilled note in the windram copy. I should have clarified that.

"The relevant pages are produced in HB's document: http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/legis2.pdf ", it is a very interesting link and information.
I regret to say though that I am unable to make the leap between that and The Book Of The Law. No matter where else kill may be used, for me The Book Of The Law will remain fill. And so the chasm widens.

What really jumped off the page at me from the oto/legis2.pdf was this line, "His first thought, as he composed the ritual, was to follow these with that part of the Stèle  Paraphrase indicated by “Unity &c.” "His first thought"...really? Oh that I could read the mind of and know the very thoughts of Aleister Crowley! Could this be a case of we are betrayed by our words and actions? or am I nitpicking?