Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Tablet of Union (Was: Practical Angel Magic of John Dee's Enochian Tables)

Expand Messages
  • tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb
    Hello. . . I m hijacking this thread and renaming it. The original subject line was pointing to Ian Rons, aka Sir Anon s, excellent review of Skinner and
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello. . . I'm hijacking this thread and renaming it. The original subject line was pointing to Ian Rons, aka "Sir Anon"'s, excellent review of Skinner and Rankine's book on John Dee's Enochian tables:

      http://www.themagickalreview.org/reviews/practical-angel-magic-update/Practical-Angel-Magic-Updated-Review.pdf

      As the article above demonstrates, the GD Tablet of Union seems ultimately derived from the work of Dr. Rudd which seems to come from Causabon, rather than directly from the work of Dee.

      On another list devoted to the study of Enochian, I asked the author what he saw as the ramifications of this as connected to the GD Tablet of Union (and other ceremonial magicians who are using GD-style magic.) He said I could repost his response here, so you can find it below.

      --- In enochian@yahoogroups.com, "ianrons" <ianrons@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Terri,
      >
      > Glad you enjoyed the review!
      >
      > As regards the "Tablet of Union", so-called by the G.D., it seems from
      > the Cotton MS. that it was not intended to be used separately, and was
      > only written down as such ([L]exarp/hcoma/nanta/bitom) in the "rough
      > working", simply as a means to divide up the names
      > Lexarph/Comanan/Tabitom (governors of the 10th Ayre) into four. As Ave
      > says: "That shall make the cross that bindeth the four angels [sic] of
      > the table together." (26th June 1584)
      >
      > Without it, the Table of Earth is an incomplete representation of the
      > angelic powers of earth (missing the governors of the 10th Ayre); and
      > similarly, the "Tablet of Union" on its own is arguably an incomplete
      > fragment.
      >
      > Of course, the G.D. regarded the "Tablet of Union" as representative of
      > Spirit; but it should first be noted that each angle the Table of Earth
      > already contains its own "linea spiritus sancti" (or "line of the holy
      > ghost"). Furthermore, in each angle, whilst the central horizontal line
      > represents spirit, the upright double line represents the Father and Son
      > (25th June 1584 passim), and thus the cross represents Father, Son and
      > Holy Spirit. This concept is seen elsewhere, e.g. "[h]is 7 secret
      > angels proceeding from every letter and cross so formed, referred in
      > substance to the Father; in form, to the Son; and inwardly to the Holy
      > Ghost" (20th March 1582), and it would seem natural to extend this
      > concept of Father/Son/Spirit to the central "black cross". I think this
      > a reasonable interpretation because it seems key to Ave's own message:
      > at his appearance on 20th June 1584, practically the first thing he said
      > was "Divided with a straight line, is one and two", which parallels his
      > later comments on the Father/Son/Spirit cross within each angle of the
      > table.
      >
      > Therefore the G.D. notion that the central "black cross" (and by
      > extension the "Tablet of Union") represents simply the quintessence or
      > Spirit in the four elements seems rather to miss the point, although
      > there is nothing specifically to suggest that in its formulation as a
      > tablet rather than a cross it serves no purpose. I would, however,
      > refer you to the way the "Round Table of Nalvage" was formed (10th April
      > 1584), and point out that it would seem perverse in that case to take
      > each of the fragments of dictation that make up that table and suggest
      > they are somehow useful on their own, even if (as in the case of the
      > Table of Earth) the manner of dictation gives clues to its function.
      >
      > In short, it seems to me that the Table of Earth should only be
      > considered as a complete whole (as per Sloane 3191), not piecemeal.
      >
      > In Sloane 307, of course, the "Tablet of Union" (rather than the "black
      > cross") is mistakenly placed at the centre of the Table of Earth, and is
      > treated as something of a separate entity in the discussion of the
      > angelic names derived from the table; and for the G.D., who based their
      > understanding of the Table of Earth on this manuscript, this seems to
      > have been the cause of their understanding of this item as a separate
      > entity, and (perhaps more importantly) their mistaken representation of
      > the four angles of the Table of Earth as separate entities. In other
      > words, they simply failed to "bind together" the four angles of the
      > Table of Earth as indicated in the Cotton MS., and so it all comes down
      > to a simple error made by the author(s) of Sloane 307, repeated by the
      > G.D. and latterly by Skinner & Rankine.
      >
      > It is easy to see how the author(s) of Sloane 307 made this error,
      > because the Cotton MS. is quite difficult on that point, and he/they
      > didn't have access to the only MS. where the "black cross" is
      > illustrated (Sloane 3191), but it's less easy to see why the G.D. didn't
      > correct it; and nowadays things are a lot clearer, so no excuse!
      >
      > Best wishes,
      >
      > Ian
      >
      >
      > --- In enochian@yahoogroups.com, "een_the_beguining" <burnst@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm just now getting to this review-- fantastic! Is anyone here still
      > interested in discussing some of the issues Ian brings up?
      > >
      > > I do enjoy some of Skinner and Rankine's work, btw, but their approach
      > in this one seems quite "off," because of many of the reasons brought up
      > in the review. For instance, Ian Rons establishes that:
      > >
      > > "the editors repeatedly dismiss Dee's actual manuscripts to the
      > preference of Sloane 307, such as again with the statement, "The cells
      > in the tables in [other] books sometimes include both correct and
      > incorrect letters within the same square. It is clear that Dee did not
      > do this." (p.37), which is rather to ignore the important primary source
      > Sloane 3191 (which does contain such corrections).
      > > Having thus established a position with respect to Sloane 307, Skinner
      > and Rankine are drawn to conclusions about Dee that are at odds with
      > Dee's own manuscripts, his public statements and biography."
      > >
      > > And, as he points out, they're more in keeping with Causabon, which
      > one might consider a large problem.
      > >
      > > In particular, he notes "another striking feature of the table in
      > Sloane 307 is the way the central 'black cross' (illustrated below in
      > black, though coloured grey in Dee's original) is missing."
      > >
      > > What might be the implications for this regarding the Tablet of Union?
      > ("Quite a few," seems the obvious answer, imho.)
      > >
      > > LVX,
      > >
      > > Terri
    • tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb
      Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss. It s
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.

        It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs the question of: why? Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.

        Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.

        We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?

        We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?

        The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:

        First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.

        Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.

        If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscovery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.

        Whomever—Mathers, almost certainly—who crafted the Portal initiation seemed to know the governors of the 10th Airs were missing, and so added them into the Opening of the Veil, which as mentioned is really GD shorthand for the first Enochian key with the Governors added in.

        Here's the GD Opening of the Veil, or one of the many ways to transcribe it:

        OL SONUF VAORSAGI GOHO IAD[A] BAL[A]TA.
        ELEXARPEH!
        COMANANU!
        TABITOM!
        ZODAKARA, EKA ZODAKARE OD[A] ZODAMERANU. ODO KIKLE QAA PIAPE PIAMOEL OD[A] VAOAN[U]

        Most of this is condensed from the first Enochian Key.

        Translation:
        I reign over you, says the God of Justice.
        (Next, the three names of the three governors of the abyss, which are not part of the first Enochian Key, but are the names omitted from the Black Cross when it becomes the Tablet of Union per the mistransmission Rons describes)
        Move, therefore and appear! Open the mysteries of creation!
        Balance, righteousness and truth.

        Meanwhile, here's the first Enochian key, as it appear's in Crowley's Liber Chanokh. (See http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber084.pdf) :

        OL sonuf vaoresaji, gohu IAD Balata, elanusaha caelazod: sobra zod-ol Roray i
        ta nazodapesad, Giraa ta maelpereji, das hoel-qo qaa notahoa zodimezod, od
        comemahe ta nobeloha zodien; soba tahil ginonupe pereje aladi, das vaurebes obolehe
        giresam. Casarem ohorela caba Pire: das zodonurenusagi cab: erem Iadanahe. Pilahe
        farezodem zodenurezoda adana gono Iadpiel das home-tohe soba ipame lu ipamis: das
        sobolo5 vepé zodomeda poamal, od bogipa aai ta piape Piamoel od Vaoan!†6
        Zodacare, eca, od zodameranu! odo cicale Qaa; zodoreje, lape zodiredo Noco Mada,
        Hoathahe I A I D A !

        That invokes the whole Tablet of Spirit; its translation into Dee-, Mathers- and Crowley-esque English:

        I REIGN over ye, saith the God of Justice, in power exalted above the Firmament of Wrath, in whose hands the Sun is as a sword, and the Moon as a through thrusting Fire: who measureth your Garments in the midst of my Vestures, and trussed you together as the palms of my hands. Whose seats I garnished with the Fire of Gathering, and beautified your garments with admiration. To whom I made a law to
        govern the Holy Ones, and delivered ye a Rod, with the Ark of Knowledge. Moreover you lifted up your voices and sware obedience and faith to Him that liveth and triumpheth: whose beginning is not, nor end cannot be : which shineth as a flame in the midst of your palaces, and reigneth amongst you as the balance of righteousness and truth!

        Move therefore, and shew yourselves! Open the mysteries of your creation! Be friendly unto me, for I am the servant of the same your God: the true worshipper of the Highest!

        So,

        OL sonuf vaoresaji, gohu IAD[A] Balata, = I reign over you, says the God of Justice, the first words in the first Key.

        "Iada" [God] is also repeated at end of first key, with five letters instead of three. The next three, the governors fo the Abyss (28th-30th governors, 10th Air) also appear in the Black Cross, with the addition of an L. In the commentary to Liber Chanokh referenced above, the writer notes that "This L is one of the 8 reversed letters in the four watchtowers, the other seven forming the word PARAOAN."

        IAIDA has five letters at end of first Key; Dee is also instructed to shorter the names of the Governors of the Abyss so they have five letters; hence "LEXARPH" (which is what appears in Dee's records rather than "ELEXARPEH") becomes EXARP; Ave says this is "the whole Tablet of Air." "TABITOM!" becomes "BITOM."

        Zodacare, eca, od[a] zodameranu! odo cicale Qaa = Move therefore, and shew yourselves! (Open the mysteries of your creation!) = from the end of the first Key.

        Key no pun intended ending of First Call skipped- why? Because of Enochian Godnames used to open the Tablets have already established this, one hopes.

        If so, the Golden Dawn shortening of the Opening of the Veil implies that one has already opened the Tablets. If one has not, one should do the entire First Key/Call. At least that is one way of understanding it.

        So. . . how does Mathers know to put the names of the Governors of the Abyss back in? Why doesn't he just put back in the Black Cross? How does he know to do these things, but not understand some of the other sacred geometry involved? That geometry comes directly from John Dee, most likely.

        Also, as discussed many times earlier on this list and as Alan Moore and I have written about here (http://www.jwmt.org/v2n13/sign.html), the analysis of the keyword as used by the early GD and later by Crowley has as its only possible source the Hieroglyphic Monad of John Dee.

        The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.

        It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.

        Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.

        Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.

        Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further. Neither does anyone else's, unless we want to consider the Church of Scientology as a bad example. (That was a bad joke-- google away to get the punch line.)

        To circle back to an earlier topic and repeat: the use of the names of the three governors of the abyss in the GD opening of the Veil fascinates me. I can think of no one other than Mathers who may have understood the Enochian well enough to add them in here, perhaps as a compensation for unintentionally removing them (or discovering that Westcott had unintentionally removed them), so to speak, from the Black Cross when it was recast as the "Tablet of Union."

        I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would have reflected the additional knowledge. It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.

        Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.

        Any thoughts from those of you who know more about early GD history than I do? I see one GD historian who previously unsubbed as rejoined the list. . . feel free to chime in, if you feel inclined.

        LVX,

        Terri


        --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello. . . I'm hijacking this thread and renaming it. The original subject line was pointing to Ian Rons, aka "Sir Anon"'s, excellent review of Skinner and Rankine's book on John Dee's Enochian tables:
        >
        > http://www.themagickalreview.org/reviews/practical-angel-magic-update/Practical-Angel-Magic-Updated-Review.pdf
        >
        > As the article above demonstrates, the GD Tablet of Union seems ultimately derived from the work of Dr. Rudd which seems to come from Causabon, rather than directly from the work of Dee.
        >
        > On another list devoted to the study of Enochian, I asked the author what he saw as the ramifications of this as connected to the GD Tablet of Union (and other ceremonial magicians who are using GD-style magic.) He said I could repost his response here, so you can find it below.
        >
        > --- In enochian@yahoogroups.com, "ianrons" <ianrons@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Terri,
        > >
        > > Glad you enjoyed the review!
        > >
        > > As regards the "Tablet of Union", so-called by the G.D., it seems from
        > > the Cotton MS. that it was not intended to be used separately, and was
        > > only written down as such ([L]exarp/hcoma/nanta/bitom) in the "rough
        > > working", simply as a means to divide up the names
        > > Lexarph/Comanan/Tabitom (governors of the 10th Ayre) into four. As Ave
        > > says: "That shall make the cross that bindeth the four angels [sic] of
        > > the table together." (26th June 1584)
        > >
        > > Without it, the Table of Earth is an incomplete representation of the
        > > angelic powers of earth (missing the governors of the 10th Ayre); and
        > > similarly, the "Tablet of Union" on its own is arguably an incomplete
        > > fragment.
        > >
        > > Of course, the G.D. regarded the "Tablet of Union" as representative of
        > > Spirit; but it should first be noted that each angle the Table of Earth
        > > already contains its own "linea spiritus sancti" (or "line of the holy
        > > ghost"). Furthermore, in each angle, whilst the central horizontal line
        > > represents spirit, the upright double line represents the Father and Son
        > > (25th June 1584 passim), and thus the cross represents Father, Son and
        > > Holy Spirit. This concept is seen elsewhere, e.g. "[h]is 7 secret
        > > angels proceeding from every letter and cross so formed, referred in
        > > substance to the Father; in form, to the Son; and inwardly to the Holy
        > > Ghost" (20th March 1582), and it would seem natural to extend this
        > > concept of Father/Son/Spirit to the central "black cross". I think this
        > > a reasonable interpretation because it seems key to Ave's own message:
        > > at his appearance on 20th June 1584, practically the first thing he said
        > > was "Divided with a straight line, is one and two", which parallels his
        > > later comments on the Father/Son/Spirit cross within each angle of the
        > > table.
        > >
        > > Therefore the G.D. notion that the central "black cross" (and by
        > > extension the "Tablet of Union") represents simply the quintessence or
        > > Spirit in the four elements seems rather to miss the point, although
        > > there is nothing specifically to suggest that in its formulation as a
        > > tablet rather than a cross it serves no purpose. I would, however,
        > > refer you to the way the "Round Table of Nalvage" was formed (10th April
        > > 1584), and point out that it would seem perverse in that case to take
        > > each of the fragments of dictation that make up that table and suggest
        > > they are somehow useful on their own, even if (as in the case of the
        > > Table of Earth) the manner of dictation gives clues to its function.
        > >
        > > In short, it seems to me that the Table of Earth should only be
        > > considered as a complete whole (as per Sloane 3191), not piecemeal.
        > >
        > > In Sloane 307, of course, the "Tablet of Union" (rather than the "black
        > > cross") is mistakenly placed at the centre of the Table of Earth, and is
        > > treated as something of a separate entity in the discussion of the
        > > angelic names derived from the table; and for the G.D., who based their
        > > understanding of the Table of Earth on this manuscript, this seems to
        > > have been the cause of their understanding of this item as a separate
        > > entity, and (perhaps more importantly) their mistaken representation of
        > > the four angles of the Table of Earth as separate entities. In other
        > > words, they simply failed to "bind together" the four angles of the
        > > Table of Earth as indicated in the Cotton MS., and so it all comes down
        > > to a simple error made by the author(s) of Sloane 307, repeated by the
        > > G.D. and latterly by Skinner & Rankine.
        > >
        > > It is easy to see how the author(s) of Sloane 307 made this error,
        > > because the Cotton MS. is quite difficult on that point, and he/they
        > > didn't have access to the only MS. where the "black cross" is
        > > illustrated (Sloane 3191), but it's less easy to see why the G.D. didn't
        > > correct it; and nowadays things are a lot clearer, so no excuse!
        > >
        > > Best wishes,
        > >
        > > Ian
        > >
      • tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb
        Hello again, all, I m adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I ll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it. As a lot of you know, I
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello again, all,

          I'm adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I'll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it.

          As a lot of you know, I can talk to myself about this stuff all day, but the reason I'm adding comments this time has a more specific cause. This material, imho, is already very hard to grasp for most people, and several of the comments I made below need clarifications if any of you here are pursuing this line of study on your own. Of course, you can always ask questions here, or take them to Vincent's Fifth Way list, or the Enochian list (both of which I reposted from yesterday, so you can get list names from those messages.)

          --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@...> wrote:
          >
          > Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.
          >

          I should have been more precise here, though one can fill in the blanks if one cares to from the comments of Ian Rons which I reposted. These names are derived from the latter; the method of doing so seems to imply greater insight into the geometries involved than anyone has discussed in print.

          Several times I've mentioned this excellent edited version of Liber Chanokh:

          http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber084.pdf

          which is the one Vincent and I used in our introduction, and is the one he used in his article suggesting correspondences between Enochian leter groups and DNA codons. (By the way, has this anonymous editor ever identified himself? I wish I knew him.) I'll quote what the anonymous editor says about the shift from Black Cross to Tablet of Union:

          Footnote 6, page 39:

          "While there does indeed appear in TFR (p. 179) an arrangement of the letters from the black cross as a five by four table, this appears to have been a convenience adopted during the communication of the Great Table (Table of Watchtowers); as the letters were immediately afterwards written into the cross between the four tablets, described as the "crosse of union, or black cross" (ibid., p. 180). The importance it assumed in the Golden Dawn appears to derive from an intermediate source, possibly Sloane MS 307, an edited extract from which became `H', Clavicula Tabularum Enochii."

          Footnote 10, same page:

          The rules for prefixing black cross letters to names drawn from the Kerubic and Servient squares are nowhere stated in Chanokh. The rule apparently used by Dee (vide the lists of names in the "Book of Supplications and Invocations" in Sloane MS. 3191) was to use the
          black cross letter on the same row of the general view of the tablets as the name you were working with; thus only the letters E, X, A, R, P, H, C, O, M, A were thus used. These were used to (a) generate Divine Names ruling the angels of the four squares above the bar of the cross in each lesser angle, and (b) generate the names of cacodaimons from pairs of letters below the bar of the cross.

          The Golden Dawn rule, per contra (apparently deriving from Sloane 307), was to refer one of the four lines of the "Tablet of Union" to each Watchtower; thus EXARP to Air, HCOMA to Water, NANTA to Earth and BITOM to Fire. The first letter of each row was prefixed to names drawn from the Kerubic squares of each lesser angle, the second to names drawn from Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Air, the third to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Water, the fourth to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Earth, and the fifth to names drawn from the Servient
          squares of the Lesser Angle of Fire. As Crowley gives no examples it is not clear which system he intended.


          > It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to >work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet >knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs >the question of:
          >why?

          Of course, if anyone here would like to answer this or toss around possible answers, I'm game! I'll continue the conversation with myself, and clarify a few other points:


          >Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use >of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off >with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was >destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.
          >

          The more I study this, the more I'm convinced that Mathers had access to some lost information of Dee and Kelley's that he could not really understand, but perhaps he was the only one around who could even get a glimmer of how important it was. Or, maybe he just knew that it worked. As one of several examples, consider the names of the Enochian Kings. These have to come from Dee and Kelley. As far as I know, they do not appear written out anywhere in manuscripts we have. Yet the GD comes up with them and uses them. As the editor of Liber Chanokh points out, footnote 28 p 42, "These names are derived by the Golden Dawn from the perimeter of the Sigillum Dei Æmeth by an excruciatingly complex process which it is not necessary to describe here."

          That process reflects an understanding of Dee's material which I believe no one in the early GD had, but could be derived by understanding geometries implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad. . . geometries I am quite sure that Westcott, Mathers, and others like Yeats and Farr, were unaware of.

          So I work from the hypothesis that Mathers passed the information on to Crowley, as Vincent and I suggested in the part of our "Enochian Introduction" that was mainly Vincent's insights rather than my own. While Crowley had a conception of four dimensional geometry, I can find no evidence that Mathers did, and plenty that he did not. Without understanding the geometries underlying Enochian, or the Hieroglyphic Monad at least, one would not know why one would turn three governors into four five letter names. What about the reasons for correspondences laid out by Crowley in Liber Chanokh: correspondences that likely came from Mathers and which Mathers didn't understand, leading to my contention that Mathers had to get the information from an earlier document.

          There could be an intermediate source, but the incredible manuscript studying of Alan Thorogood and Ian Rons have convinced me that there is no intermediate source who would have understood well enough. . . Mathers, in my humble opinion derived from the insights of my lovely co-author, had to have an original document of Dee's. In fact I can point out at least four places in Liber Chanokh where you can find material Crowley has that had to come from the GD but points to geometric understanding that echo those in the Hieroglyphic Monad, and are beyond anyone in the early GD. That's not to put down a group of very talented individuals-- four dimensional geometry was just as beyond their ken as DNA codons. Its not surprising they did not understand things that had not been publically discovered. . . what is more amazing, much more, is that Dee had to intuitively grasp many scientific and mathematical concepts before they were publically "discovered."

          Probably only Mathers would have understood the significance of certain things (or at least, been able to make them "work," basing that on Yeats' descriptions of Mathers doing Enochian.) And it was Mathers, more than anyone else, who spent his time pouring over Dee documents in the British museum.

          We're missing some of those documents; the usual assumption is that a few hundred years ago a silly housewife used them to line pie pans. Maybe so. I'll float another hypothesis: maybe Macgregor lifted a few. Anyone want to run with that idea?


          > Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors >of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD >shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.
          >

          Not understanding implicit geometries but understanding how the Black Cross is supposed to bind part of the tablets together, it would have been a logical thing of him to do. If you explode the Great Tablet into 3D, the Black Cross no longer binds. It does in 4D and as a 2D projection of 4D.

          > We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of >hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) >going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what >did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?
          >

          Already commented on above. . . also, fwiw, it was watching Mathers work with Enochian that made Yeats want to join the Golden Dawn.

          > We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD >influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?
          >
          > The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:
          >
          > First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.
          >
          > Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.
          >
          > If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscovery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.
          >

          <long snip>
          >
          > The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.
          >
          > It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.
          >
          > Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.
          >
          > Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.
          >
          > Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as >part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions >emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further.

          <snip>
          >
          >
          > I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of >understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would >have reflected the additional knowledge.

          Her work, and Mather's work, of projecting onto the celestial sphere, ultimately look at the sphere as 3D, not a hyperphere.

          >It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered >the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not >include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.
          >
          > Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.
          >
          >
          > LVX,
          >
          > Terri
        • johnnaismith12
          Terry, But surely if documents were missing from the British Museum, someone would have noticed. They were catalogued and checked in and out even back then.
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Terry,

            But surely if documents were missing from the British Museum, someone would have noticed. They were catalogued and checked in and out even back then. Additionally, hadn't all of the angel diaries already been published by Meric Causabon in a "True and Faithful Relation" ?

            If there were indeed places in "TFR" where material is related and the originals are missing, that would be cause for alarm. But that has not happened so far as I can tell. If you or others know differently, I'd be most appreciative if you can point to where.

            Thank you.

            Jack


            --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello again, all,
            >
            > I'm adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I'll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it.
            >
            > As a lot of you know, I can talk to myself about this stuff all day, but the reason I'm adding comments this time has a more specific cause. This material, imho, is already very hard to grasp for most people, and several of the comments I made below need clarifications if any of you here are pursuing this line of study on your own. Of course, you can always ask questions here, or take them to Vincent's Fifth Way list, or the Enochian list (both of which I reposted from yesterday, so you can get list names from those messages.)
            >
            > --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.
            > >
            >
            > I should have been more precise here, though one can fill in the blanks if one cares to from the comments of Ian Rons which I reposted. These names are derived from the latter; the method of doing so seems to imply greater insight into the geometries involved than anyone has discussed in print.
            >
            > Several times I've mentioned this excellent edited version of Liber Chanokh:
            >
            > http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber084.pdf
            >
            > which is the one Vincent and I used in our introduction, and is the one he used in his article suggesting correspondences between Enochian leter groups and DNA codons. (By the way, has this anonymous editor ever identified himself? I wish I knew him.) I'll quote what the anonymous editor says about the shift from Black Cross to Tablet of Union:
            >
            > Footnote 6, page 39:
            >
            > "While there does indeed appear in TFR (p. 179) an arrangement of the letters from the black cross as a five by four table, this appears to have been a convenience adopted during the communication of the Great Table (Table of Watchtowers); as the letters were immediately afterwards written into the cross between the four tablets, described as the "crosse of union, or black cross" (ibid., p. 180). The importance it assumed in the Golden Dawn appears to derive from an intermediate source, possibly Sloane MS 307, an edited extract from which became `H', Clavicula Tabularum Enochii."
            >
            > Footnote 10, same page:
            >
            > The rules for prefixing black cross letters to names drawn from the Kerubic and Servient squares are nowhere stated in Chanokh. The rule apparently used by Dee (vide the lists of names in the "Book of Supplications and Invocations" in Sloane MS. 3191) was to use the
            > black cross letter on the same row of the general view of the tablets as the name you were working with; thus only the letters E, X, A, R, P, H, C, O, M, A were thus used. These were used to (a) generate Divine Names ruling the angels of the four squares above the bar of the cross in each lesser angle, and (b) generate the names of cacodaimons from pairs of letters below the bar of the cross.
            >
            > The Golden Dawn rule, per contra (apparently deriving from Sloane 307), was to refer one of the four lines of the "Tablet of Union" to each Watchtower; thus EXARP to Air, HCOMA to Water, NANTA to Earth and BITOM to Fire. The first letter of each row was prefixed to names drawn from the Kerubic squares of each lesser angle, the second to names drawn from Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Air, the third to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Water, the fourth to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Earth, and the fifth to names drawn from the Servient
            > squares of the Lesser Angle of Fire. As Crowley gives no examples it is not clear which system he intended.
            >
            >
            > > It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to >work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet >knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs >the question of:
            > >why?
            >
            > Of course, if anyone here would like to answer this or toss around possible answers, I'm game! I'll continue the conversation with myself, and clarify a few other points:
            >
            >
            > >Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use >of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off >with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was >destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.
            > >
            >
            > The more I study this, the more I'm convinced that Mathers had access to some lost information of Dee and Kelley's that he could not really understand, but perhaps he was the only one around who could even get a glimmer of how important it was. Or, maybe he just knew that it worked. As one of several examples, consider the names of the Enochian Kings. These have to come from Dee and Kelley. As far as I know, they do not appear written out anywhere in manuscripts we have. Yet the GD comes up with them and uses them. As the editor of Liber Chanokh points out, footnote 28 p 42, "These names are derived by the Golden Dawn from the perimeter of the Sigillum Dei Æmeth by an excruciatingly complex process which it is not necessary to describe here."
            >
            > That process reflects an understanding of Dee's material which I believe no one in the early GD had, but could be derived by understanding geometries implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad. . . geometries I am quite sure that Westcott, Mathers, and others like Yeats and Farr, were unaware of.
            >
            > So I work from the hypothesis that Mathers passed the information on to Crowley, as Vincent and I suggested in the part of our "Enochian Introduction" that was mainly Vincent's insights rather than my own. While Crowley had a conception of four dimensional geometry, I can find no evidence that Mathers did, and plenty that he did not. Without understanding the geometries underlying Enochian, or the Hieroglyphic Monad at least, one would not know why one would turn three governors into four five letter names. What about the reasons for correspondences laid out by Crowley in Liber Chanokh: correspondences that likely came from Mathers and which Mathers didn't understand, leading to my contention that Mathers had to get the information from an earlier document.
            >
            > There could be an intermediate source, but the incredible manuscript studying of Alan Thorogood and Ian Rons have convinced me that there is no intermediate source who would have understood well enough. . . Mathers, in my humble opinion derived from the insights of my lovely co-author, had to have an original document of Dee's. In fact I can point out at least four places in Liber Chanokh where you can find material Crowley has that had to come from the GD but points to geometric understanding that echo those in the Hieroglyphic Monad, and are beyond anyone in the early GD. That's not to put down a group of very talented individuals-- four dimensional geometry was just as beyond their ken as DNA codons. Its not surprising they did not understand things that had not been publically discovered. . . what is more amazing, much more, is that Dee had to intuitively grasp many scientific and mathematical concepts before they were publically "discovered."
            >
            > Probably only Mathers would have understood the significance of certain things (or at least, been able to make them "work," basing that on Yeats' descriptions of Mathers doing Enochian.) And it was Mathers, more than anyone else, who spent his time pouring over Dee documents in the British museum.
            >
            > We're missing some of those documents; the usual assumption is that a few hundred years ago a silly housewife used them to line pie pans. Maybe so. I'll float another hypothesis: maybe Macgregor lifted a few. Anyone want to run with that idea?
            >
            >
            > > Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors >of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD >shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.
            > >
            >
            > Not understanding implicit geometries but understanding how the Black Cross is supposed to bind part of the tablets together, it would have been a logical thing of him to do. If you explode the Great Tablet into 3D, the Black Cross no longer binds. It does in 4D and as a 2D projection of 4D.
            >
            > > We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of >hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) >going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what >did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?
            > >
            >
            > Already commented on above. . . also, fwiw, it was watching Mathers work with Enochian that made Yeats want to join the Golden Dawn.
            >
            > > We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD >influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?
            > >
            > > The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:
            > >
            > > First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.
            > >
            > > Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.
            > >
            > > If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscovery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.
            > >
            >
            > <long snip>
            > >
            > > The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.
            > >
            > > It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.
            > >
            > > Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.
            > >
            > > Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.
            > >
            > > Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as >part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions >emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further.
            >
            > <snip>
            > >
            > >
            > > I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of >understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would >have reflected the additional knowledge.
            >
            > Her work, and Mather's work, of projecting onto the celestial sphere, ultimately look at the sphere as 3D, not a hyperphere.
            >
            > >It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered >the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not >include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.
            > >
            > > Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.
            > >
            > >
            > > LVX,
            > >
            > > Terri
            >
          • tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb
            Hi, Jack, There s plenty of material of Dee s that is not in Causabon. Also, part of the whole discussion concerning the Tablet of Union revolves around
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Jack,

              There's plenty of material of Dee's that is not in Causabon. Also, part of the whole discussion concerning the Tablet of Union revolves around whether the source was Rudd from Causabon, or directly from Dee, with only some a very small window of possible cross-over via Ashmole. I believe you can find more about that in the archives here.

              There are several gaps in Dee's angelic diaries that we know of; in these cases, we know where he is because we have his personal diary. The assumption is that these parts of the angelic diaries were accidentally used up as scraps, hence my comment about using them to line pie pans. That's the legend.

              No, I'm not aware of any place where there is a record of an angelic diary of Dee's where we don't have the original, but that also doesn't mean it isn't possible.

              Some scraps of Dee's diaries that seemed to not fit in with the rest have come to light over the years; I can get you the exact references if you want them or if you have Fenton's edited version of Dee's diaries, there's an example of this at the end.

              As others have noted, the original GD themselves likely were not working from Dee's originals at least at first, though Mathers later clearly was looking at the originals. Others here know much more about the history of British library manuscripts in the Sloane collection than I do. I've only been to London once in my life, unfortunately, and never seen any of these documents first-hand.

              However, I did have to study the assemblage of different library collections in grad school and imho it would have been very possible a hundred years ago to take a couple papers out of a collection-- just as now it would be easy, though very wrong, to tear a couple of pages out of a book in the library's regular collection.

              Also, according to my grad school classes and my personal experience or observation, many rare document collections have a great deal of difficulty in labeling collections because the libraries themselves don't know what they have. Here, if you want to study the work of the first Wisconsin state geographer, you run into that problem as soon as you start looking at his papers in the Special Collections: his geography surveys and his poetry are filed together.

              With work as obscure as the Enochian corpus you can expect the problem to be even worse. In the case of the documents in the Royal Danish museum that refer to the "Garland" brother I take as Shakespeare, you have the same issue. If you're trying to label data and have no idea what it is, how can you know how to label it? Of all the people who looked through Dee's papers, Mathers was probably the one most likely to have some idea of what he was looking at.

              This is all in the realm of conjecture, but I don't mind conjecture.

              ;)

              LVX,

              Terri


              --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "johnnaismith12" <johnnaismith12@...> wrote:
              >
              > Terry,
              >
              > But surely if documents were missing from the British Museum, someone would have noticed. They were catalogued and checked in and out even back then. Additionally, hadn't all of the angel diaries already been published by Meric Causabon in a "True and Faithful Relation" ?
              >
              > If there were indeed places in "TFR" where material is related and the originals are missing, that would be cause for alarm. But that has not happened so far as I can tell. If you or others know differently, I'd be most appreciative if you can point to where.
              >
              > Thank you.
              >
              > Jack
              >
              >
              > --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hello again, all,
              > >
              > > I'm adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I'll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it.
              > >
              > > As a lot of you know, I can talk to myself about this stuff all day, but the reason I'm adding comments this time has a more specific cause. This material, imho, is already very hard to grasp for most people, and several of the comments I made below need clarifications if any of you here are pursuing this line of study on your own. Of course, you can always ask questions here, or take them to Vincent's Fifth Way list, or the Enochian list (both of which I reposted from yesterday, so you can get list names from those messages.)
              > >
              > > --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb" <burnst@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.
              > > >
              > >
              > > I should have been more precise here, though one can fill in the blanks if one cares to from the comments of Ian Rons which I reposted. These names are derived from the latter; the method of doing so seems to imply greater insight into the geometries involved than anyone has discussed in print.
              > >
              > > Several times I've mentioned this excellent edited version of Liber Chanokh:
              > >
              > > http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber084.pdf
              > >
              > > which is the one Vincent and I used in our introduction, and is the one he used in his article suggesting correspondences between Enochian leter groups and DNA codons. (By the way, has this anonymous editor ever identified himself? I wish I knew him.) I'll quote what the anonymous editor says about the shift from Black Cross to Tablet of Union:
              > >
              > > Footnote 6, page 39:
              > >
              > > "While there does indeed appear in TFR (p. 179) an arrangement of the letters from the black cross as a five by four table, this appears to have been a convenience adopted during the communication of the Great Table (Table of Watchtowers); as the letters were immediately afterwards written into the cross between the four tablets, described as the "crosse of union, or black cross" (ibid., p. 180). The importance it assumed in the Golden Dawn appears to derive from an intermediate source, possibly Sloane MS 307, an edited extract from which became `H', Clavicula Tabularum Enochii."
              > >
              > > Footnote 10, same page:
              > >
              > > The rules for prefixing black cross letters to names drawn from the Kerubic and Servient squares are nowhere stated in Chanokh. The rule apparently used by Dee (vide the lists of names in the "Book of Supplications and Invocations" in Sloane MS. 3191) was to use the
              > > black cross letter on the same row of the general view of the tablets as the name you were working with; thus only the letters E, X, A, R, P, H, C, O, M, A were thus used. These were used to (a) generate Divine Names ruling the angels of the four squares above the bar of the cross in each lesser angle, and (b) generate the names of cacodaimons from pairs of letters below the bar of the cross.
              > >
              > > The Golden Dawn rule, per contra (apparently deriving from Sloane 307), was to refer one of the four lines of the "Tablet of Union" to each Watchtower; thus EXARP to Air, HCOMA to Water, NANTA to Earth and BITOM to Fire. The first letter of each row was prefixed to names drawn from the Kerubic squares of each lesser angle, the second to names drawn from Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Air, the third to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Water, the fourth to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Earth, and the fifth to names drawn from the Servient
              > > squares of the Lesser Angle of Fire. As Crowley gives no examples it is not clear which system he intended.
              > >
              > >
              > > > It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to >work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet >knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs >the question of:
              > > >why?
              > >
              > > Of course, if anyone here would like to answer this or toss around possible answers, I'm game! I'll continue the conversation with myself, and clarify a few other points:
              > >
              > >
              > > >Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use >of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off >with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was >destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.
              > > >
              > >
              > > The more I study this, the more I'm convinced that Mathers had access to some lost information of Dee and Kelley's that he could not really understand, but perhaps he was the only one around who could even get a glimmer of how important it was. Or, maybe he just knew that it worked. As one of several examples, consider the names of the Enochian Kings. These have to come from Dee and Kelley. As far as I know, they do not appear written out anywhere in manuscripts we have. Yet the GD comes up with them and uses them. As the editor of Liber Chanokh points out, footnote 28 p 42, "These names are derived by the Golden Dawn from the perimeter of the Sigillum Dei Æmeth by an excruciatingly complex process which it is not necessary to describe here."
              > >
              > > That process reflects an understanding of Dee's material which I believe no one in the early GD had, but could be derived by understanding geometries implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad. . . geometries I am quite sure that Westcott, Mathers, and others like Yeats and Farr, were unaware of.
              > >
              > > So I work from the hypothesis that Mathers passed the information on to Crowley, as Vincent and I suggested in the part of our "Enochian Introduction" that was mainly Vincent's insights rather than my own. While Crowley had a conception of four dimensional geometry, I can find no evidence that Mathers did, and plenty that he did not. Without understanding the geometries underlying Enochian, or the Hieroglyphic Monad at least, one would not know why one would turn three governors into four five letter names. What about the reasons for correspondences laid out by Crowley in Liber Chanokh: correspondences that likely came from Mathers and which Mathers didn't understand, leading to my contention that Mathers had to get the information from an earlier document.
              > >
              > > There could be an intermediate source, but the incredible manuscript studying of Alan Thorogood and Ian Rons have convinced me that there is no intermediate source who would have understood well enough. . . Mathers, in my humble opinion derived from the insights of my lovely co-author, had to have an original document of Dee's. In fact I can point out at least four places in Liber Chanokh where you can find material Crowley has that had to come from the GD but points to geometric understanding that echo those in the Hieroglyphic Monad, and are beyond anyone in the early GD. That's not to put down a group of very talented individuals-- four dimensional geometry was just as beyond their ken as DNA codons. Its not surprising they did not understand things that had not been publically discovered. . . what is more amazing, much more, is that Dee had to intuitively grasp many scientific and mathematical concepts before they were publically "discovered."
              > >
              > > Probably only Mathers would have understood the significance of certain things (or at least, been able to make them "work," basing that on Yeats' descriptions of Mathers doing Enochian.) And it was Mathers, more than anyone else, who spent his time pouring over Dee documents in the British museum.
              > >
              > > We're missing some of those documents; the usual assumption is that a few hundred years ago a silly housewife used them to line pie pans. Maybe so. I'll float another hypothesis: maybe Macgregor lifted a few. Anyone want to run with that idea?
              > >
              > >
              > > > Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors >of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD >shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Not understanding implicit geometries but understanding how the Black Cross is supposed to bind part of the tablets together, it would have been a logical thing of him to do. If you explode the Great Tablet into 3D, the Black Cross no longer binds. It does in 4D and as a 2D projection of 4D.
              > >
              > > > We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of >hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) >going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what >did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?
              > > >
              > >
              > > Already commented on above. . . also, fwiw, it was watching Mathers work with Enochian that made Yeats want to join the Golden Dawn.
              > >
              > > > We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD >influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?
              > > >
              > > > The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:
              > > >
              > > > First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.
              > > >
              > > > Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.
              > > >
              > > > If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscovery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.
              > > >
              > >
              > > <long snip>
              > > >
              > > > The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.
              > > >
              > > > It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.
              > > >
              > > > Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.
              > > >
              > > > Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.
              > > >
              > > > Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as >part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions >emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further.
              > >
              > > <snip>
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of >understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would >have reflected the additional knowledge.
              > >
              > > Her work, and Mather's work, of projecting onto the celestial sphere, ultimately look at the sphere as 3D, not a hyperphere.
              > >
              > > >It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered >the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not >include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.
              > > >
              > > > Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > LVX,
              > > >
              > > > Terri
              > >
              >
            • Alan Thorogood
              Terri, Just a few general comments. The notion of elemental tablets and the tablet of union derive from the GD cipher manuscript, a transcript of which is
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Terri,

                Just a few general comments. The notion of 'elemental tablets' and the 'tablet of union' derive from the GD cipher manuscript, a transcript of which is available at
                http://www.hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/
                The source for these tables seems to have been Sloane MS. 307, later adopted as 'Book H.' Irrespective of whether Westcott and Mathers were aware of the black cross, I can imagine a reluctance to abandon the 'tablet of union' given its appearance in the cipher MS., in Book H, and the expansion of the tables into pyramids in the GD's 'Book X.'

                In my view neither Westcott or Mathers had a particularly deep understanding of the Dee-Kelley material, and their objective seems to have been to integrate it with the rest of the Order's teaching rather than explore it in its own right. I've found no evidence that Westcott or Mathers had located any 'lost' material (trust me, I've looked!) or indeed removed anything from Dee's original papers (pedant that I am, I've compared all the known copies and examined every catalogue description of the Dee MSS.). The Alpha et Omega Enochian papers from the 1920s/30s that I've had access to were not authored by Mathers and are based simply on further study of the Sloane manuscripts.

                I'm sure the GD system is fine for those who wish to pursue it, but I regard it as something of a dead end so far as the Dee material is concerned.

                Alan



                --- On Wed, 2/12/09, tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb <burnst@...> wrote:

                From: tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb <burnst@...>
                Subject: [AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee] Re: Tablet of Union, and the "problem" of Mathers
                To: AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wednesday, 2 December, 2009, 17:14

                 

                Hello again, all,

                I'm adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I'll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it.

                As a lot of you know, I can talk to myself about this stuff all day, but the reason I'm adding comments this time has a more specific cause. This material, imho, is already very hard to grasp for most people, and several of the comments I made below need clarifications if any of you here are pursuing this line of study on your own. Of course, you can always ask questions here, or take them to Vincent's Fifth Way list, or the Enochian list (both of which I reposted from yesterday, so you can get list names from those messages.)

                --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvis orDrJohnDee@ yahoogroups. com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb " <burnst@...> wrote:
                >
                > Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.
                >

                I should have been more precise here, though one can fill in the blanks if one cares to from the comments of Ian Rons which I reposted. These names are derived from the latter; the method of doing so seems to imply greater insight into the geometries involved than anyone has discussed in print.

                Several times I've mentioned this excellent edited version of Liber Chanokh:

                http://www.hermetic .com/crowley/ libers/liber084. pdf

                which is the one Vincent and I used in our introduction, and is the one he used in his article suggesting correspondences between Enochian leter groups and DNA codons. (By the way, has this anonymous editor ever identified himself? I wish I knew him.) I'll quote what the anonymous editor says about the shift from Black Cross to Tablet of Union:

                Footnote 6, page 39:

                "While there does indeed appear in TFR (p. 179) an arrangement of the letters from the black cross as a five by four table, this appears to have been a convenience adopted during the communication of the Great Table (Table of Watchtowers) ; as the letters were immediately afterwards written into the cross between the four tablets, described as the "crosse of union, or black cross" (ibid., p. 180). The importance it assumed in the Golden Dawn appears to derive from an intermediate source, possibly Sloane MS 307, an edited extract from which became `H', Clavicula Tabularum Enochii."

                Footnote 10, same page:

                The rules for prefixing black cross letters to names drawn from the Kerubic and Servient squares are nowhere stated in Chanokh. The rule apparently used by Dee (vide the lists of names in the "Book of Supplications and Invocations" in Sloane MS. 3191) was to use the
                black cross letter on the same row of the general view of the tablets as the name you were working with; thus only the letters E, X, A, R, P, H, C, O, M, A were thus used. These were used to (a) generate Divine Names ruling the angels of the four squares above the bar of the cross in each lesser angle, and (b) generate the names of cacodaimons from pairs of letters below the bar of the cross.

                The Golden Dawn rule, per contra (apparently deriving from Sloane 307), was to refer one of the four lines of the "Tablet of Union" to each Watchtower; thus EXARP to Air, HCOMA to Water, NANTA to Earth and BITOM to Fire. The first letter of each row was prefixed to names drawn from the Kerubic squares of each lesser angle, the second to names drawn from Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Air, the third to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Water, the fourth to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Earth, and the fifth to names drawn from the Servient
                squares of the Lesser Angle of Fire. As Crowley gives no examples it is not clear which system he intended.

                > It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to >work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet >knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs >the question of:
                >why?

                Of course, if anyone here would like to answer this or toss around possible answers, I'm game! I'll continue the conversation with myself, and clarify a few other points:

                >Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use >of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off >with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was >destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.
                >

                The more I study this, the more I'm convinced that Mathers had access to some lost information of Dee and Kelley's that he could not really understand, but perhaps he was the only one around who could even get a glimmer of how important it was. Or, maybe he just knew that it worked. As one of several examples, consider the names of the Enochian Kings. These have to come from Dee and Kelley. As far as I know, they do not appear written out anywhere in manuscripts we have. Yet the GD comes up with them and uses them. As the editor of Liber Chanokh points out, footnote 28 p 42, "These names are derived by the Golden Dawn from the perimeter of the Sigillum Dei Æmeth by an excruciatingly complex process which it is not necessary to describe here."

                That process reflects an understanding of Dee's material which I believe no one in the early GD had, but could be derived by understanding geometries implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad. . . geometries I am quite sure that Westcott, Mathers, and others like Yeats and Farr, were unaware of.

                So I work from the hypothesis that Mathers passed the information on to Crowley, as Vincent and I suggested in the part of our "Enochian Introduction" that was mainly Vincent's insights rather than my own. While Crowley had a conception of four dimensional geometry, I can find no evidence that Mathers did, and plenty that he did not. Without understanding the geometries underlying Enochian, or the Hieroglyphic Monad at least, one would not know why one would turn three governors into four five letter names. What about the reasons for correspondences laid out by Crowley in Liber Chanokh: correspondences that likely came from Mathers and which Mathers didn't understand, leading to my contention that Mathers had to get the information from an earlier document.

                There could be an intermediate source, but the incredible manuscript studying of Alan Thorogood and Ian Rons have convinced me that there is no intermediate source who would have understood well enough. . . Mathers, in my humble opinion derived from the insights of my lovely co-author, had to have an original document of Dee's. In fact I can point out at least four places in Liber Chanokh where you can find material Crowley has that had to come from the GD but points to geometric understanding that echo those in the Hieroglyphic Monad, and are beyond anyone in the early GD. That's not to put down a group of very talented individuals- - four dimensional geometry was just as beyond their ken as DNA codons. Its not surprising they did not understand things that had not been publically discovered. . . what is more amazing, much more, is that Dee had to intuitively grasp many scientific and mathematical concepts before they were publically "discovered. "

                Probably only Mathers would have understood the significance of certain things (or at least, been able to make them "work," basing that on Yeats' descriptions of Mathers doing Enochian.) And it was Mathers, more than anyone else, who spent his time pouring over Dee documents in the British museum.

                We're missing some of those documents; the usual assumption is that a few hundred years ago a silly housewife used them to line pie pans. Maybe so. I'll float another hypothesis: maybe Macgregor lifted a few. Anyone want to run with that idea?

                > Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors >of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD >shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.
                >

                Not understanding implicit geometries but understanding how the Black Cross is supposed to bind part of the tablets together, it would have been a logical thing of him to do. If you explode the Great Tablet into 3D, the Black Cross no longer binds. It does in 4D and as a 2D projection of 4D.

                > We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of >hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) >going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what >did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?
                >

                Already commented on above. . . also, fwiw, it was watching Mathers work with Enochian that made Yeats want to join the Golden Dawn.

                > We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD >influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?
                >
                > The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:
                >
                > First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.
                >
                > Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.
                >
                > If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscov ery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.
                >

                <long snip>
                >
                > The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.
                >
                > It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.
                >
                > Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.
                >
                > Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.
                >
                > Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as >part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions >emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further.

                <snip>
                >
                >
                > I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of >understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would >have reflected the additional knowledge.

                Her work, and Mather's work, of projecting onto the celestial sphere, ultimately look at the sphere as 3D, not a hyperphere.

                >It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered >the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not >include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.
                >
                > Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.
                >
                >
                > LVX,
                >
                > Terri


              • tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb
                Alan, Thank you as always for your comments. Yes, I m aware of the notion of Elemental Tablets and the Tablet of Union as deriving from GD cipher manuscripts,
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Alan,

                  Thank you as always for your comments.

                  Yes, I'm aware of the notion of Elemental Tablets and the Tablet of Union as deriving from GD cipher manuscripts, and sadly, after many years of studying and going through the GD process, I must agree with you that the GD is really a dead end so far as understanding Dee material is concerned.

                  The cipher mansucript itself is a subject we could take on for weeks, though having done that already, as it seems you have also, I may pass for now. We could add on to this stack of GD problems yet another. . . if all cipher-manuscript derived Outer Order rituals are supposed to prepare one for the R.R. et A.C. (and if the Portal initiation continues in style and substance what one has come to expect from the Outer-Order Rituals; that is, basically is a kabbalistic pathworking that also exposes one to the energies of the Enochian Tablets). . . then how does one explain the seeming lack of connection (from an Enochian point of view, anyway) between those Rites and the Adeptus initiation? Its baffling, or a blind, and maybe both.

                  That's not to say that the Golden Dawn system is not very valuable in other ways. . . except that if you think, as I do, that what "powers" the Golden Dawn initiations to begin with is the Enochian material, and then you realize much of that material is wrong but not quite wrong enough to not work, then you have a serious problem, imho.

                  I would not advise anyone to go through the Golden Dawn system as a way to learn Enochian. Its a good way to to learn about ritual drama, Kaballah, and many other things, but not Enochian. (Also its a pretty poor way to learn about Samothrace, lol.)

                  To shift subjects: of course I'm aware of how much time you've spent comparing manuscripts. You're the main authority I turn to when I have a question about such things, and I have scoured the archives of the few groups on which you post, reading over your insights. I feel very honored that you occasionally choose to post here! I hope you will continue to, when you have time.

                  Yes, my argument about lost material is very speculative. Its based, reverse engineered in fact, from my co-author Vincent pointing out things in Crowley's Liber Chanokh that seemed to come from the GD rather than Crowley's own work, but noticing (among other things) that Crowley appears to be relying on material that most likely would have had to come from Mathers, which Mathers (in my opinion, not speaking for Vincent) was not capable of understanding. How Mathers got as far as he did amazes me--he must have been a genius--but there is some "missing link" between GD Enochian and Liber Chanokh which I can best explain in terms of Mathers having information he didn't understand, which Crowley did understand better but not completely.

                  (Maybe AC really was the reincarnation of Kelley and remembered enough to know there was something wrong going on, who knows. Maybe a mysterious initiate took Mathers aside on the streets of Paris; there are other explanations than the one I am floating, that's for sure.)

                  So, I could be wrong. I'm very fortunate to have more meticulous e-friends like yourself who allow me my speculations! Can you see, though, how I might take your comment below-- that "Alpha et Omega Enochian papers from the 1920s/30s that I've had access to were not authored by Mathers and are based simply on further study of the Sloane manuscripts"-- actually doesn't disprove what I'm saying-- I'm guessing, maybe wrongly, that Mathers' particular megalomania meant that if he thought he found something good later on, or someone in some other scenario passed on material that furthered the Enochian system and he passed it on to Crowley-- if that happenned, then Mathers' public personality at the least, and his sense of entitlement and very autocratic leadership style would suggest that he would keep that information within a chosen group loyal to him. For my argument to work, that group has to include Crowley (after all, C was enough under his spell to agree to break into the Isis-Urania Temple, this before their friendship blew up, of course), and Crowley's publishing a revision in the Equinox would simply be another way of dissing his former mentor or even, a way to keep information Crowley does not quite understand, but understands the importance of, to survive.

                  (The above assume that the "Concourse of the Forces" paper really was written by Mathers/Westcott, though it may have been copied by someone else. If I'm misunderstanding you, and you think that this paper was written by someone else, please let me know. I'm basing my comments on the Mathers/Westcott-Langford Garstin-Evan Campbell line of transmission Zalewski argues, which of course is not provable either.)

                  My possible timeline works. That doesn't mean my speculation is correct.

                  It also appears clear to me that the missing sections from the Books of Mystery One and Two are critical sections. Of course, that could be accidental, or it could have been Dee himself, but it certainly, imo, doesn't match the way one would remove pages to line pie pans. (ok-- that last was a poor attempt at a joke.)

                  Right now, I think the best way to support and take appart my argument is to look at the sacred geometry involved in the system, which is what I've been doing. I'm convinced that once I finish working my way through the last of the Hieroglyphic Monad translation (and we're now right in the midst of what I take as the hardest part, then DONE!), I'll be better able to articulate this argument or abandon it. My argument will either join with that Vincent makes about the Enochian system, or it won't. We'll see.

                  As I've said before, I think the key is 4 dimensional geometry. I think (to use the Golden Dawn set-up as a metaphor) that Dee's "outer order," 3D work is implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad Theorems 1-17, and 18 on function as "Inner Order" work. Just saying that in a sentence, however, is vague to the point of meaninglessness, but its the best I can do without giving the outlines of a long argument that I'd rather save for print. However, if the HM holds up as a functional system, which imo it does, then its fairly easy to postulate that Dee would expect the Enochian to somehow connect to that system, or for it (the HM) to provide a magical "base" or "interface," so to speak, that allowed the Enochian to come through.

                  (Craig, to further answer your question from the other list, that's the other Enochian "preliminary" I think Dee and Kelley used-- a deep understanding of 4 dimensional geometry, and casting complex tree dimensional structures that interface with 4D ones. I think Dee set up his magical space/circle/sphere/hypersphere by casting Euclidean structures and tried to map everything from Hebrew to ancient Greek onto those structures.)

                  Vincent has noted a couple other "smoking guns" in the manscripts that would support our argument, but I'll leave those to him to talk about or not.

                  One final comment about the Golden Dawn as a dead end when it comes to studying Enochian: I assume there are many here who disagree. Please speak up! The R.R. et A.C. is also supposed to have materials that further this study, which includes the Mathers-Westcott approach to deriving the names of the four Watchmen. Have many of you worked through that? Do you find it logical? Alan (Thorogood), I assume you don't, or am I wrong? Would you agree that the names are derivable just from the mansucripts themselves, but it seems quite a long shot that Westcott or Mathers, while still using the approach they derive from the cipher manuscript which informs outer order work, would come up with something like that?

                  This of course just a post to a newsgroup and not a final type-free footnoted and illustrated argument, so I'll state my best guess about those names as you can see if I abondon it later: 12/13/2009, my best guess is the names of the Watchmen logically fall in one of the places in the Books of Mystery that is missing. If the angels told Dee and Kelley these names in the sections where their naming is still clear, and if the Watchmen do in a sense help protect the rest of the system (another long subject!), its also true that Dee nor Kelley would be able to understand this idea in all its complexity in 1582. But, many people use tools without understanding what they are much less why they work, especially if an authority tells them to. (Especially authorities like these!)

                  With an understanding of 4D geometry that they had and used, and with Kelley's 1584 Vision of the Watchtowers, by 1584 Dee and Kelley would be able to understand what the words were and how they connected to other things.

                  Would one want to leave something that important in writing? It could have been Dee who cut off part of a page, years later. . . only thing is, that doesn't explain how Westcott/Mathers could have been so sure about names that are very hard to derive from the manuscripts. . . in fact you could come up with other names quite easily. Their using these names with such certainty smacks of reverse engineering.

                  LOL I know-- I'm good at reverse engineering. So I recognize it when I see it.

                  This was way too long of a post for Sunday morning. Hope you all have a good day!

                  LVX,

                  Terri








                  --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thorogood <alan_thorogood@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Terri,
                  >
                  > Just a few general comments. The notion of 'elemental tablets' and the 'tablet of union' derive from the GD cipher manuscript, a transcript of which is available at
                  > http://www.hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/
                  > The source for these tables seems to have been Sloane MS. 307, later adopted as 'Book H.' Irrespective of whether Westcott and Mathers were aware of the black cross, I can imagine a reluctance to abandon the 'tablet of union' given its appearance in the cipher MS., in Book H, and the expansion of the tables into pyramids in the GD's 'Book X.'
                  >
                  > In my view neither Westcott or Mathers had a particularly deep understanding of the Dee-Kelley material, and their objective seems to have been to integrate it with the rest of the Order's teaching rather than explore it in its own right. I've found no evidence that Westcott or Mathers had located any 'lost' material (trust me, I've looked!) or indeed removed anything from Dee's original papers (pedant that I am, I've compared all the known copies and examined every catalogue description of the Dee MSS.). The Alpha et Omega Enochian papers from the 1920s/30s that I've had access to were not authored by Mathers and are based simply on further study of the Sloane manuscripts.
                  >
                  > I'm sure the GD system is fine for those who wish to pursue it, but I regard it as something of a dead end so far as the Dee material is concerned.
                  >
                  > Alan
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- On Wed, 2/12/09, tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb <burnst@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb <burnst@...>
                  > Subject: [AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee] Re: Tablet of Union, and the "problem" of Mathers
                  > To: AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Wednesday, 2 December, 2009, 17:14
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hello again, all,
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I'm adding a couple comments to my comments below, then I'll back off the discussion unless any want to continue it.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > As a lot of you know, I can talk to myself about this stuff all day, but the reason I'm adding comments this time has a more specific cause. This material, imho, is already very hard to grasp for most people, and several of the comments I made below need clarifications if any of you here are pursuing this line of study on your own. Of course, you can always ask questions here, or take them to Vincent's Fifth Way list, or the Enochian list (both of which I reposted from yesterday, so you can get list names from those messages.)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvis orDrJohnDee@ yahoogroups. com, "tmbtmbtmbtmbtmbtmb " <burnst@> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Now, a little bit of background, for any interested in the Tablet of Union and the implications of it not having the names of the governors of the abyss.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I should have been more precise here, though one can fill in the blanks if one cares to from the comments of Ian Rons which I reposted. These names are derived from the latter; the method of doing so seems to imply greater insight into the geometries involved than anyone has discussed in print.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Several times I've mentioned this excellent edited version of Liber Chanokh:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > http://www.hermetic .com/crowley/ libers/liber084. pdf
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > which is the one Vincent and I used in our introduction, and is the one he used in his article suggesting correspondences between Enochian leter groups and DNA codons. (By the way, has this anonymous editor ever identified himself? I wish I knew him.) I'll quote what the anonymous editor says about the shift from Black Cross to Tablet of Union:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Footnote 6, page 39:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > "While there does indeed appear in TFR (p. 179) an arrangement of the letters from the black cross as a five by four table, this appears to have been a convenience adopted during the communication of the Great Table (Table of Watchtowers) ; as the letters were immediately afterwards written into the cross between the four tablets, described as the "crosse of union, or black cross" (ibid., p. 180). The importance it assumed in the Golden Dawn appears to derive from an intermediate source, possibly Sloane MS 307, an edited extract from which became `H', Clavicula Tabularum Enochii."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Footnote 10, same page:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The rules for prefixing black cross letters to names drawn from the Kerubic and Servient squares are nowhere stated in Chanokh. The rule apparently used by Dee (vide the lists of names in the "Book of Supplications and Invocations" in Sloane MS. 3191) was to use the
                  >
                  > black cross letter on the same row of the general view of the tablets as the name you were working with; thus only the letters E, X, A, R, P, H, C, O, M, A were thus used. These were used to (a) generate Divine Names ruling the angels of the four squares above the bar of the cross in each lesser angle, and (b) generate the names of cacodaimons from pairs of letters below the bar of the cross.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The Golden Dawn rule, per contra (apparently deriving from Sloane 307), was to refer one of the four lines of the "Tablet of Union" to each Watchtower; thus EXARP to Air, HCOMA to Water, NANTA to Earth and BITOM to Fire. The first letter of each row was prefixed to names drawn from the Kerubic squares of each lesser angle, the second to names drawn from Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Air, the third to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Water, the fourth to names drawn from the Servient squares of the Lesser Angle of Earth, and the fifth to names drawn from the Servient
                  >
                  > squares of the Lesser Angle of Fire. As Crowley gives no examples it is not clear which system he intended.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > It's a Golden Dawn invention or mis-invention, as Rons demonstrates. Yet it seems to >work. It ignores many of the safeguards that the angels told Dee he should use. Yet >knowing this, the GD still doesn't use those safeguards. All of this begs >the question of:
                  >
                  > >why?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Of course, if anyone here would like to answer this or toss around possible answers, I'm game! I'll continue the conversation with myself, and clarify a few other points:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >Keep in mind that the early Golden Dawn likely did develop a fairly sophisticated use >of Dee and Kelley's Enochian magic at least in the group that Mathers splintered off >with in Paris, and we know that much or most of their Inner Order material was >destroyed by Mathers' wife upon his death.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The more I study this, the more I'm convinced that Mathers had access to some lost information of Dee and Kelley's that he could not really understand, but perhaps he was the only one around who could even get a glimmer of how important it was. Or, maybe he just knew that it worked. As one of several examples, consider the names of the Enochian Kings. These have to come from Dee and Kelley. As far as I know, they do not appear written out anywhere in manuscripts we have. Yet the GD comes up with them and uses them. As the editor of Liber Chanokh points out, footnote 28 p 42, "These names are derived by the Golden Dawn from the perimeter of the Sigillum Dei Æmeth by an excruciatingly complex process which it is not necessary to describe here."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > That process reflects an understanding of Dee's material which I believe no one in the early GD had, but could be derived by understanding geometries implicit in the Hieroglyphic Monad. . . geometries I am quite sure that Westcott, Mathers, and others like Yeats and Farr, were unaware of.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > So I work from the hypothesis that Mathers passed the information on to Crowley, as Vincent and I suggested in the part of our "Enochian Introduction" that was mainly Vincent's insights rather than my own. While Crowley had a conception of four dimensional geometry, I can find no evidence that Mathers did, and plenty that he did not. Without understanding the geometries underlying Enochian, or the Hieroglyphic Monad at least, one would not know why one would turn three governors into four five letter names. What about the reasons for correspondences laid out by Crowley in Liber Chanokh: correspondences that likely came from Mathers and which Mathers didn't understand, leading to my contention that Mathers had to get the information from an earlier document.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > There could be an intermediate source, but the incredible manuscript studying of Alan Thorogood and Ian Rons have convinced me that there is no intermediate source who would have understood well enough. . . Mathers, in my humble opinion derived from the insights of my lovely co-author, had to have an original document of Dee's. In fact I can point out at least four places in Liber Chanokh where you can find material Crowley has that had to come from the GD but points to geometric understanding that echo those in the Hieroglyphic Monad, and are beyond anyone in the early GD. That's not to put down a group of very talented individuals- - four dimensional geometry was just as beyond their ken as DNA codons. Its not surprising they did not understand things that had not been publically discovered. . . what is more amazing, much more, is that Dee had to intuitively grasp many scientific and mathematical concepts before they were publically "discovered. "
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Probably only Mathers would have understood the significance of certain things (or at least, been able to make them "work," basing that on Yeats' descriptions of Mathers doing Enochian.) And it was Mathers, more than anyone else, who spent his time pouring over Dee documents in the British museum.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > We're missing some of those documents; the usual assumption is that a few hundred years ago a silly housewife used them to line pie pans. Maybe so. I'll float another hypothesis: maybe Macgregor lifted a few. Anyone want to run with that idea?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > Keep in mind also that someone, likely Mathers, adds the names of the three governors >of the 10th air back in as part of the Opening of the Veil, which is essentially GD >shorthand for the first Enochian key plus these three governors.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Not understanding implicit geometries but understanding how the Black Cross is supposed to bind part of the tablets together, it would have been a logical thing of him to do. If you explode the Great Tablet into 3D, the Black Cross no longer binds. It does in 4D and as a 2D projection of 4D.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > We also know, from the poet William Butler Yeats, that Mathers spent hundreds of >hours going over papers in the British Museum, and Yeats describes him (Mathers) >going through Dee's writing and dividing it into piles. What was he looking for; what >did he find? Are all of the papers he looked at still there?
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Already commented on above. . . also, fwiw, it was watching Mathers work with Enochian that made Yeats want to join the Golden Dawn.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > We also know that Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh, which shows a very heavy GD >influence, and which was published at the height of his battling with Mathers over publications in the Equinox, does use the Black Cross rather than the Tablet of Union. That's most odd. Where did Crowley get that information? From the British Museum, or, as seems more likely, from Mathers?
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > The further one digs into the situation, the stranger the possible stories become. But first, some key points, all puns intended:
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > First, as Rons says below, given the way the system was transmitted, its easy to see how the GD made this mistake (thinking the Tablet of Union was supposed to be used as a Table rather than using the Black Cross, and omitting the three governors of the 10th air, or governors of the abyss), but not why they didn't correct it.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Second, someone in the early GD either figured out or was told how to "explode" the Great Table in 3 dimensions; that is, to look at Dee and Kelley's Great Watchtower as a 2 dimensional projection of something that exists in three, and ultimately four, dimensions.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > If it was a person who understood this, it was likely Mathers, for various reasons we could argue other places. If it was Mathers, he likely understood how to expand things into 3D but not 4D, for still other reasons we could argue about other places. So we have the great GD innovation/rediscov ery/synthesis of using Enochian watchtowers as part of grade initiations from Zelator to Philosophus, and then drawing them all together, so to speak, with the Tablet of Union and using that with the Opening of the Veil in the Portal initiation.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > <long snip>
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > The answers to any of the questions posed above suggest an interesting dance between Mather, the original London Temple, Crowley, and the material Crowley publishes in the Equinox. Could Liber Chanokh be in part "lost" Golden Dawn material that Mathers simply doesn't want the London initiates, or the general public, to have? I'd say that is by far the most likely of any possible scenario.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > It's Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn-style presentation of various Enochian elements in Liber Chanokh, while simultaneously showing he is aware of the Black Cross, which makes me say that.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Liber Chanokh shows a heavy GD influence, much more so than anything in Crowley's Vision and the Voice. The keys in the second section (see link above) are integrated into a Rite that seems patterned on GD-style grade initiation rituals; the tables as presented in Liber Chanokh do not match exactly any of those of Dee's and Kelley's even though Crowley is aware of the Black Cross, leading some to speculate that he may be following a Golden Dawn "correction" of the tablets because there are few other plausible alternatives; and Crowley uses a variety of other material that comes from the GD rather than Dee and Kelley, including using the names of the four Great Elemental Kings as derived, GD-style, from the Sigillum Dei Ameth.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Given what was happening in Crowley's legal life at the time and shortly after re: Mathers and publication of material in the Equinox, it's not hard to speculate that what Crowley is doing in part is publishing "lost" Golden Dawn material. I'd be very curious to see what others think about this. It does not seem to me that he is in any way reworking something that came from what he and Neuburg were doing.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Liber Chanokh is the last of Crowley's presenting Enochian material on his own or as >part of the A.A.; after this his O.T.O years start, and a whole host of other questions >emerge, but his Enochian work seems to progress no further.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > <snip>
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > I'm fairly certain the original London group did not have access to this level of >understanding, or else what Florence Farr was trying to do in her Sphere group would >have reflected the additional knowledge.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Her work, and Mather's work, of projecting onto the celestial sphere, ultimately look at the sphere as 3D, not a hyperphere.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >It doesn't seem out of character for either Mathers or Crowley if 1) Mathers discovered >the error and rewrote material for the Paris GD, which included Crowley, and did not >include those he particularly disliked, like Annie Horniman, then 2) Crowley, as part of his falling out with Mathers, published the material recrafted as Liber Chanokh, which 3) was part of what enraged Mathers in the whole legal Equinox swirl, but 4) whatever GD version of this existed was destroyed by Moina Mathers later on, making Crowley's Liber Chanokh the best record we have.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Now: if what inspired this reworking was Mathers pouring through Dee's work in the British museum, what works would that be? Is it possible that there was something else there that Mathers removed? That would be very difficult to pull of today, but 100+ years ago someone as smart as Mathers could have done so fairly easily.
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > LVX,
                  >
                  > >
                  >
                  > > Terri
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.