Multiple letters on the Table of Watchtowers in Regardie’s The Golden Dawn.

One of the many things for which “Golden Dawn Enochian Magic” has been criticsed and mocked is the fact that the
version of the Tables of Enoch published by Regardie and the writers who cribbed from him, and apparently those used
in the original Order, feature up to four letters on a number of squares. Practically, the reason for this was quite simple:
the source documents apparently used by the founders of the G.D. (Sloane MS. 3191, the True and Faithful Relation
(henceforth TFR) and Sloane MS. 307 apparently being the main ones) disagreed on a number of squares, and even
Dee‟s “fair copies” in 3191 have a number of corrections and crossings out, or instances of one letter being writ in small
below another. Being unsure which was correct, Mathers and Westcott simply wrote all the variants in, and in “X,” one
of the instruction papers concerning the Tables, remarked:
Some squares have more than one letter. In these cases, either letter characterises the Square. The higher one is
preferable. The lower is weaker. If two letters are side by side, the presumption is in favour of equality.
Where two letters are in one square, the best plan is to employ both. But one alone may be used with effect.
This was garbled into Schueler & Schueler‟s instruction in the laughable Enochian Magick: The Angelic Language
Revealed to attempt to pronounce all two, three, or even four letters together.
Even leaving aside copying or typesetter‟s errors, we can identify three distinct versions of the Great Table (Table of
Earth, Table of Watchtowers, Tables of Enoch, Elemental Tables) in the Dee MSS. The following list examines all the
squares in the Regardie Tablets with multiple letters and compares with these three versions. It also includes some
squares where Great Table versions vary but Regardie only gives one letter, and some squares where Great Table
versions agree and Regardie only gives one letter, which is not that in the Dee MSS. Red is used to indicate spurious
letters arising from copying errors or compositor‟s mistakes in TFR. The first general lesson is: in regard to the letters
of the Table of the Earth, don‟t trust Casaubon, don‟t trust the scribe of Sloane 307, don‟t trust Mathers or Westcott,
don‟t trust Crowley, don‟t trust Regardie, don‟t trust Geoffrey James, Jerry Schueler, Bob Turner, Don Tyson or Lon
DuQuette, definitely don‟t trust me, be cautious about Dee who demonstrably made mistakes in writing things up from
his own spirit diaries, and check your own transcriptions at least three and preferably seven times.
Key to columns
Angle. The four Angles or Watchtowers of the Great Table or Table of the Earth are denoted by the first three letters
on the linea Spiritūs Sancti (row 7) of each; thus ORO is the Eastern angle, referred to Air in the G.D.; MOR is referred
to the South in Sloane 3191. but to the North and Earth in the G.D.; and so forth.
A. The Table delivered by Ave in 1584, from which the Angelic names given in the manuscript of the “Book of
Supplications and Invocations” were taken.
A1. Found in Cotton Appendix XLVI part i (the four angles separately, ff. 199ro, 200ro, 201ro). Three squares in
angle OIP are illegible owing to damage to the MS.
A2. Fair (ish) copy in Sloane MS. 3191 ff. 56vo-57ro.
AT. Typeset of A1 in TFR pp. 175-177.
N. The table which can be reconstructed from the names of the Parts of the Earth as delivered by Nalvage, and their
characters, the arrangement of which on the Great Table appears on Sloane MS. 3191 fol. 55vo-56ro.
Some of those characters are ambiguous (cannot be traced in a single continuous stroke), two differ slightly
between the table of Ayres in Liber Scientiæ, Auxillii et Victoriæ Terrestris and the arrangement of the characters
on the Great Table, one of the Parts (leaving aside those whose names are drawn from the central cross and the
reversed letters) has no character in the table of Ayres, and two characters on the Great Table do not appear in Lib.
Sci. (The last two are connected. Of those two characters, one generates the name LAZDIXI on A and R; this
appears as the name of Part 13 in Lib. Sci, with no character given in the table of Ayres. The other produces
LAXDIXI on A and LAXDIZI on R.) In reconstructing N, in the case of ambiguous characters I took whatever
order of letters produced fewest discrepancies with A.
R. The Great Table “as reformed by Raphael” in 1587.
R0. Presumed original in the hand of Edward Kelly, now lost.
R1. Fair-ish copy in Cotton Appendix XLVI part ii fol. 200ro.
R2. Fair copy in Sloane MS. 3191 fol. 53vo-54ro.
RT. Typeset of R1 in TFR, second p. 15.
Reg. Tables in Regardie (ed.), The Golden Dawn, vol. IV pp. 270-273.
 A1 is damaged and three letters in angle OIP are unreadable. One of these was set as „i‟ in TFR, but A2 has „a.‟ A2
in particular includes a number of corrections, crossings out and variant letters written in small, possibly due to Dee
noting variants between that and the both the Raphael table and the names of the Parts of the Earth (in one case due to a
clear transcription error by Dee). Where A1 is legible, that has been preferred to A2 for establishing A.
AT and RT contain a number of compositor‟s errors; most notably A T, owing to the typesetter‟s inability to render the
reversed „N,‟ „R‟ and „P‟ has instead „yl,‟ „Æ‟ and „Q.‟ They were consulted here solely in order to identify the source
of some of the spurious extra letters. Further, in AT two of the three letters which are now lost in A1 were not readable
when it was typeset and were just printed as dots; the third was set as „i‟ which disagrees with A 2.

Angle Row Col Reg. A N R Remarks

ORO 1 8 yu u y y „u‟ crossed through in A2. „y‟ written in small above.
1 10 il l l l „i‟ spurious.
3 9 vY Y Y Y „v‟ possibly due to misreading capital „Y‟ in A2, but spurious.
4 6 zx x x z „x‟ amended to „z‟ in A2; „X‟ capitalised in AT.
5 7 nm m n m
6 12 li i i i „l‟ spurious, probably transcription error.
7 10 z z s z
8 1 tc c c t
8 5 ra r a r
8 11 sz z z s
10 10 uv * * * Written „u‟ in A2, R2, „v‟ in A1, R1; the same letter anyway.
11 11 ua a a n „a‟ amended to „n‟ in A2; „u‟ probably a copyist error for „n‟
MPH 1 6 uv * * * Not significant; the letters used interchangeably in the Dee MSS.
2 1 ao a o a
2 3 bl b l b „l‟ written in next to „b‟ in A2.
3 2 oa o a o „a‟ written in small below „o‟ in A2, but crossed through.
3 7 xz x z x „z‟ written in small above „x‟ in A2.
3 8 mi m i m „i‟ written in small above „m‟ in A2.
3 9 nau a n a „n‟ written in small above „a‟ in A2; „u‟ spurious, probably transcription error.
4 8 i l l l Transcription error.
4 9 la e a e „e‟ misprinted as „c‟ in RT; the „l‟ perhaps a misreading of Dee‟s „e‟?
5 1 fp p f p
5 3 tc t t t „c‟ a typo in AT.
5 7 vo o v o
5 11 xs s s s „x‟ spurious.
5 12 yl n h N N N „yl‟ a compositor‟s error in AT; „h‟ probably transcription error.
6 5 zx x z x Something barely-legible written under „x‟ in R2.
7 11 o o c o Some typesets of Lib. Sci. „correct‟ the name of Part 8 to make this „o.‟
7 12 l l h L Some typesets of Lib. Sci. „correct‟ the name of Part 8 to make this „l.‟
9 6 na a a n „a‟ crossed through, „n‟ written in beneath in A2.
11 6 zx x – z „x‟ crossed out and „z‟ written in beneath in A2.
12 1 ri i i i „r‟ spurious, possibly transcription error.
13 3 ir i i i „r‟ spurious, possibly transcription error.
13 9 na n N n „a‟ spurious, possibly transcription error.
MOR 2 1 uv * * * Not significant; these letters not really distinguished in English at the time.
3 8 ao o a o
8 1 RO R R O One of the reversed letters, misprinted Æ in AT.
8 2 CO O O c In this row in A2, readings from R written in under all letters.
8 3 ac c c a
8 4 na a a N
8 5 cnm n m c The only square on which A, N and R all disagree.
8 6 hc c c h
8 7 ih h h I
8 8 iabt i i a „b‟ and „t‟ spurious, source unclear.
8 9 sa a a s
 Angle Row Col Reg. A N R Remarks
MOR 8 10 os s s o
8 11 mo o o m
8 12 tm m m t
9 8 il i I i „l‟ was a transcription error by Dee in A2, corrected to „i.‟
10 6 lB * B l „l‟ in A1; in A2, possibly l was written then changed to „b‟; „B‟ written under.
10 12 TL L L P In A2, „L‟ written and crossed out, „O‟ written underneath, likely misread „T‟
11 5 PF P F P In A2, „F‟ written and crossed out, „P‟ written next to it; A1 has „p.‟
11 6 l i i I Probably transcription error; all MSS. and both TFR typesets have „i.‟
OIP 2 11 uv * * * Not significant; same letter in the Angelic script anyway.
2 12 ai a a a A1 damaged and unreadable here; typeset as „i' in AT; A2 clearly „a.‟
3 7 vo O O V „O‟ crossed out and „v‟ written in in A2.
3 9 mn m M m „n‟ spurious, probably transcription error.
4 2 pb p B p
4 7 cd d D d „c‟ spurious, source unclear.
5 5 O o A o The „a‟ in the name of Part 40 could be in col. 6, the character is ambiguous.
6 8 bv b B b „v‟ spurious, was a compositor‟s error in RT.
8 3 uv * * * Not significant; same letter in the Angelic script anyway.
10 3 lb l l l In A2 and R2, „b‟ written in small below and to right of „l‟; A1 and R1, both „l‟
13 8 OP P P P One of the reversed letters; „O‟ spurious, possibly from „Q‟ in AT.

Discounting spurious letters, (those arising from typos in TFR and various copyist errors or not attested by any version
of A, N and R), and u/v variations, but including the three variant Linea S.S. (row 7) squares, where the „N‟ letters were
not included on Regardie tables (nor, probably, on his source), this gives us 41 squares with variant letters; of which all
bar one have two different letters.
A and R agreeing, disagreeing with N: 20 (4 in ORO, 12 in MPH, 3 in MOR, 1 in OIP)
A and N agreeing, disagreeing with R: 18 (4 in ORO, 1 in MPH, 12 in MOR, 1 in OIP)
N and R agreeing, disagreeing with A: 1 (ORO)
A and R disagreeing, square not represented by N: 1 (MPH)
All three disagreeing: 1 (MOR)
So:
A and N disagree on 22 squares.
A and R disagree on 21 squares.
N and R disagree on 39 squares.
[If there are any disagreements between A and R not represented by multiple letters in Regardie, they are currently
omitted in the above. All disagreements between A and N should be in there now.]
Additionally, in angle OIP, row 8 col 1 is „x‟ in R1 (and RT) and „p‟ in R2 (and A, and N); the same variation occurs
on row 12 col 4. It should be noted, though, that on row 4 col 2 of angle OIP in R1, „x‟ has been written and corrected to
„p‟; since R1 is a fair-ish copy of a table written down by Kelly, it is possible that Kelly‟s „p‟ and „x‟ were hard to tell
apart. Also row 13 col. 12 looks more like an „x‟ in R1 but reads „r‟ in RT and R2.

Shortly before the reformed Table of Watchtowers was delivered by “Raphael”, Kelly claimed to have been told by
“Ben”, one of a group of “little creatures of a cubit high” that the “Tables of Enoch were in some places falsely written,”
but this was in the course of a series of apocalyptic prophecies which proved false without exception (1587.04.18; TFR,
second p. 12), and this alleged communication was received when Kelly was on his own in his alchemy lab rather than
in a formal skrying session with Dee. So, for that matter, was the “reformed” table itself: Kelly presented it to Dee
already written out, and it was first used to deliver a crudely enciphered message in bad Latin, with many errors in the
coding, as part of the “cross-matching” episode.
Even after eliminating copying errors, typos in TFR, &c., we essentially have three versions of the Table of Earth.
Possible responses to this include:
(a) Pick one version (usually R), use that for everything, „correct‟ all names where necessary to be consistent with it
(Aurum Solis solution – see Denning & Phillips, Mysteria Magica). Some modern practitioners have apparently
preferred N, to the point of changing the 5-letter “Mystical Names of God” on angels ORO and MPH accordingly.
(Source: Google search on MPH ARSL GAICH).
(b) On each square where two or three Table versions disagree, put all the variant letters on (R.R. et A.C. solution).
(c) On each square where two or three Table versions disagree, pick one of the possible letters on a case by case basis
(e.g. by skrying the square, though at that point one needs some way of „addressing‟ the square without using the
names in which it appears) and thus form a „reconciled‟ Table (this is possibly how the Great Table version in
Crowley‟s “Liber Chanokh” which has only one letter per square and does not entirely agree with A, N, or T, was
created).1
(d) Assume that “the Tables be true”: each Table version is correct, within a particular field of operation: which
version is to be used depends on the kind of work intended. Each of A, N and R, besides variations as to letters, is
associated with a different way of reading the Table; on A, names are mostly read on horizontal lines; on N, names
are read according to the “symmetrical Characters”; on R . . . well, the only thing ever read off R in the Dee MSS.
was a ciphered message where a sequence of numbers was decoded as a Latin text by numbering the squares of the
joined Table sequentially, (omitting the black cross, the first row of ORO as 1-12, the first row of MPH as 13-24,
&c.) and reading the letter from each number in turn. (The diagonal reading used to derive the words dlasod,
roxtan, audcal, &c. was probably done on A, given the dates involved, but it is consistent with R; one of the A / N
variations would possibly change dlasod to dlasad, although the character is ambiguous, so the „a‟ could be in a
different square).

1
Zalewski in Golden Dawn Enochian Magic (Llewellyn, 1990) claims that the Chanokh Watchtowers match the original Mathers tablets and
that in the original H document, Clavicula Tabularum Enochi, only one square has two letters. H however was taken almost verbatim from
pre-G.D. materials, before being variously worked over by Mathers and Westcott; the one square with two letters was the „yl‟ that came
from trying to render a reversed „N‟ in typography. In any case two web-published versions of „H‟ both contain multiple letters on a number
of squares, not quite identical to those in Regardie.