9 was written as "V.1. of Spell called the Song" and was replaced with: Above, the gemmèd azure is The naked splendour of Nuit; She bends in ecstasy to kiss The secret ardours of Hadit. The wingèd globe, the starry blue, Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu! On page 6 of chapter 1, the following is in the original manuscript: And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality. along with a note: Write this in whiter words But go forth on. This was later changed to: And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body. (AL I:26) Again in chapter 1, on page 19, Crowley writes, (Lost 1 phrase) The shape of my star is—. Later, it was Rose who filled in the lost phrase: The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red. (AL I:60) Chapter 3 The last chapter contains a few spelling changes, and includes large chunks inserted from Crowley's paraphrase of The Stele of Revealing. The phrase "Force of Coph Nia", which is found in chapter 3, on page 64 (verse 72), was filled in by Rose Kelly because that place in the manuscript had been left incomplete as not having been properly heard by Crowley during the supposed dictation. Israel Regardie proposed that Coph Nia could have been intended to represent Ain Soph, the Cabalistic phrase for Infinity, and that Rose might not have known that Hebrew letters are written from right to left or their meaning The Comment Based on several passages, including: "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit" (AL I:36), Crowley felt compelled to interpret AL in writing. He wrote two large sets of commentaries where he attempted to decipher each line. In 1912, he prepared AL and his current comments on it for publication in The Equinox, I(7). However, he was not satisfied with this initial attempt. He recalls in his confessions () that he thought the existing commentary was "shamefully meagre and incomplete." He later explains, "I had stupidly supposed this Comment to be a scholarly exposition of the Book, an elucidation of its obscurities and a demonstration of its