Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table 4 Table 5 Table 6
Table 1 Original Great table; plain & simple
Table 2 Original Great Table w/
· Dee’s order of emanation/reception coinciding with
· Round house order of emanation
· Round house directional attributions
· Round house elemental correspondences
· Round house alchemical color scheme [noted by Dean Hildebrandt & Cicero’s GD Book]
o green – pelican to raven – earth – raw
o black – raven to swan – water – alchemical salt
o white – swan to peacock – air – alchemical mercury
o red – phoenix – fire – alchemical sulphur
· ultimately forming inverted pentagram
Table 3 Original Great Table w/
· Dee’s order of emanation/reception
· Robert Turner’s p.63 Banner Directional Attributions
· Roundhouse elemental/directional correspondences
· Roundhouse alchemical color scheme
Copyright © klokw3rk Tues. April 2, 2007
Table 4 Tabula Recensa
· Golden Dawn Attributions w/
· Round house alchemical color scheme
Table 5 Tabula Recensa w/
· Round house directional attributions
· Round house elemental correspondences
· Round house alchemical color scheme
Table 6 Tabula Recensa w/
· Robert Turner’s p.63 Banner Directional Attributions
· Round house elemental correspondences
· Round house alchemical color scheme
Ultimately what I found is simple; if you take a look at Table 3 & Table 5, their elemental correspondences match,
though the actual tablet they are attributed to does not. Also, taken independently Robert Turner’s p.63 Directional
attributions do not coincide with either the Tabula Recensa OR The Original Great Table attributes [a la round
house vision]; this is noteworthy as it delineates a formulaic equation worked out by Dee. Is there any mention of
how Dee came to associate the 12 Banners with the directions [within the manuscripts at your disposal]?
Unfortunately, I’m not able to answer these questions myself as I do not possess TFR &/or any original manuscripts.
So I turn to you all for your input.
I also looked into the GD's elemental & subelemental attributions in the table of shewbread formula of the Cicero's
Self Initiation Book, and Document H in Zalewski's GD Enochian Magic book. These are directly tied to the
Circular table of the twelve banners in Robert Turner's (p.63) Elizabethan Magick (& therefore Dee’s manuscripts)
but they had to transpose the zodiac backward to get the attributions (sighting Document H in Zalewski's book). So,
I'm wondering, what does it mention of the twelve tribes of Israel in Dee's manuscripts?
One thing I'm confused about though is that although they technically used Dee's circular table to support their
theory, even in the Document H diagram, no supporting information is given to, well, support it. It basically lists the
twelve tribes of israel and their attributions of the zodiac, & the zodiac's attributions to the 4 elemental triplicities;
but that's it. Their is no evidence to support their attributions of either the elements or the subelements as Crowley
does in fact do, on page 286 of the Book of Thoth:
Angular equates to: Cardinal & Fire of Element
Succident equates to: Kerubic & Air of Element
Cadent equates to: Mutable & Water of Element
So basically I'm still at a loss of how the GD supports their conception. What is funny is, even though the 4
elemental triplicities are represented in Document H, instead of taking each threefold name (spiritu sancti) to
represent the whole element divided among the zodiac, they take each name (oip, ibah, aozpi) and divide the
element among the zodiac using the various Angular, Succident, Cadent; further divided/interspersed with the other
elements.
The whole ordeal is mindnumbing to me; especially since the zodiac is transposed backward in document H, it
essentially hides the fact that they aren't using the entire enochian element to break up the elements as they are
delineated in the triplicities of the zodiac. Does this imply “integration”? Or, is it just another blind.
I'm stumped.
Copyright © klokw3rk Tues. April 2, 2007