Since we seem to be having a solstice season of cypher-solving, i'm opening a topic for a question i asked in the complementary "RPSTOVAL" thread:
What, if anything, do the assembled sages have to say about the fact that the glyph generally transcribed as a "G" in "ALGMOR" is very clearly not a "G"?
Which drew only one reply, from @threefold31:
The G is indeed a capital G, despite being drawn in an odd way. The same letter, drawn the same way in Crowley's hand, can be found in the (in)famous Windram copy of Thelema that started the whole Fill/Kill debacle. In that instance, it is unambiguously a letter G.
While it is interesting to know that AC made a capital "G" using that slightly-"G"-like glyph from the cypher in at least one other place, it certainly is not the way he, or anyone else in history, routinely wrote a capital "G". In what context did he do so? Perhaps this Windram use is in some way an allusion to the cypher.
A "G" simply does not include an upper "cross-bar" corresponding to the lower one, and does usually include an upright line below that "cross-bar". The letter-shape is normally oval not circular. That is not a "G". I have no idea what it is, however.
What do others think?
What do others think?
I think it would be nice if the clearest magnified images possible, of said Gs or pseudo-Gs, were to be posted in this thread.
We could all do our own research, by searching the threads and buying said fill/kill book, but I have these other life-threatening emergencies to attend (gov, business, taxes, borg machines, bills, Bobby constantly barking at the baby Jesus in the manger across the street, and so forth), so either you, Ignant, or said Threefold, or some other scan/image expert is hereby nominated to do the dirty work and post the elusive G, or not-G, right here. A pic is worth 418 words.
See here:
http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=42
Credit where credit is do to the oft-maligned (c)OTO for this useful bit of promulgation.
It is more oval than i recalled, so never mind that bit; still, ain't no "G".
What a mortifying typo- credit is due to the Caliphornians, obv. Doh.
@ignant666 – A questionable ‘G’ isn’t the only issue. There’s a ‘6’ that started off as a dot, a ‘K’ that started life as a ‘1,’ an ‘a’ that morphed from an ‘l’ and a ‘y’ that began as a ‘1.’ Did I miss any... anyone?
The "X" that looks more like a multiplication sign? I agree there are some issues with the upper-case lower-case "A" ( that is totally different from the other two "As"), and the odd-looking "Y"- the "6" and the "K" look kosher to me. And then there are the marks around "24" and "89" that seem to indicate that the order should be switched?
@ignant666 - "... seem to indicate that the order should be switched?" - Or, perhaps, inclusivity - An unrelated, hypothetical instance would be, say, 'I will be 'somewhere' between 2pm and 4pm on the 8th and 9th.' As for the afterthought 'X,' does that not, literally, mean 'times.' 😉
Since we seem to be having a solstice season of cypher-solving, i'm opening a topic for a question i asked in the complementary "RPSTOVAL" thread:
What, if anything, do the assembled sages have to say about the fact that the glyph generally transcribed as a "G" in "ALGMOR" is very clearly not a "G"?
Which drew only one reply, from @threefold31:
The G is indeed a capital G, despite being drawn in an odd way. The same letter, drawn the same way in Crowley's hand, can be found in the (in)famous Windram copy of Thelema that started the whole Fill/Kill debacle. In that instance, it is unambiguously a letter G.
While it is interesting to know that AC made a capital "G" using that slightly-"G"-like glyph from the cypher in at least one other place, it certainly is not the way he, or anyone else in history, routinely wrote a capital "G". In what context did he do so? Perhaps this Windram use is in some way an allusion to the cypher.
A "G" simply does not include an upper "cross-bar" corresponding to the lower one, and does usually include an upright line below that "cross-bar". The letter-shape is normally oval not circular. That is not a "G". I have no idea what it is, however.
What do others think?
It did not look like a G to me but @threefold31 seems to show that it is.
It has been my fortune to study and (sometimes even apply) graphology. AC's handwriting is "rushed script." It tends to run downhill, indicating a skeptical or pessimistic outlook.
When he switches to the cypher/code, the letters tend to move from his usual script into block letters. The block letters, however, still retain the downward slant of the lines, and they still retain the slant of his script mode. So he's not really oriented toward any form of true, block lettering.
A person who uses true, block letters, like myself, has the letters clearly formed and standing straight up and down. You know ... A B C Y G
So, due to these varieties, we find a "whole big bunch" of questionable letters and numbers, and there's enough questions to keep a person busy for decades as they attempt (with their mind) to decipher the cipher.
I suspect the code will not be broken by the mentat, but rather discovered by some savant who will intuitively grasp the concept. And his or her solution will be simple and obvious. This is not a prophecy; it's just me thinking out loud.
@ignant666, et al. (but especially for your pleasure, ignant666)
Capital G in the manuscript of the Book of the Law (p.=the page of the manuscript)
First Chapter:
11. "both their Gods" (p.2);
21. "With the God" & "no other God" (p.4);
40. "Three Grades" (p.10);
49. "the Equinox of the Gods" (p.13);
57. "the House of God" (p.18).
Second Chapter:
19. "Is a God" (p.4);
22. "fear not that any God" (p.6);
23. "there is no God" (p.6);
40. "the Equinox of the Gods" (p.10);
78. "or among Gods" (p.21).
Third Chapter:
10. "Get the stélé" (p.2);
34. "the Great Equinox" (p.8, the word "Great" is the very last one on that page) & "soul of God" (p.9);
36. "unto the God" (p.10);
61. "word of the God" (p.18).
"What do others think?"
At the moment I don't know what to think, so I'm just looking at the manuscript & noticing:
All the capital G letters "tend to run downhill," as Shiva noted. Yet, it also seems all the uppercase letters (mildly "suspicious," as @therealrtc noted above) in the cypher (in AL II, 76.) are slightly different in comparison to the same letters throughout the manuscript. Or even not so slightly, as in the case of the said G-spot, as the actress said to the bishop.
If I can make an observation... If one is taking dictation at speed, one writes the word given, then quickly moves the pen to the starting place for the next word. Sometimes the pen will be in the wrong place. Eg one places one's pen on the line, but the next letter dictated is an "f". One has to relocate the pen to the top of the line.
If one is writing from one's own internal thoughts then that doesn't happen, as one almost always knows what the next word will be.
I traveled to a remote point
where i was taught to truncate the Capital letters.
looks more like a C= than a G
Though i seem to access a remote point
in which the Capital letters were taught to be written by truncating the ends with lines
C< = G / -
To truncate something is to shorten it, or cut part of it off. In computer science, the term is often used in reference to data types or variables, such as floating point numbers and strings. For example, a function may truncate the decimal portion of a floating point number to make it an integer.
but you know
how that goes
What do others think?
I think it would be nice if the clearest magnified images possible, of said Gs or pseudo-Gs, were to be posted in this thread.
We could all do our own research, by searching the threads and buying said fill/kill book, but I have these other life-threatening emergencies to attend (gov, business, taxes, borg machines, bills, Bobby constantly barking at the baby Jesus in the manger across the street, and so forth), so either you, Ignant, or said Threefold, or some other scan/image expert is hereby nominated to do the dirty work and post the elusive G, or not-G, right here. A pic is worth 418 words.
Dwtw
The "G" image is included in the pdf called "AC-Windram Thelema Annotations", which used to be available for download here on Lashtal, but I don't see it in the downloads section.
Litlluw
RLG
What do others think?
I think it would be nice if the clearest magnified images possible, of said Gs or pseudo-Gs, were to be posted in this thread.
We could all do our own research, by searching the threads and buying said fill/kill book, but I have these other life-threatening emergencies to attend (gov, business, taxes, borg machines, bills, Bobby constantly barking at the baby Jesus in the manger across the street, and so forth), so either you, Ignant, or said Threefold, or some other scan/image expert is hereby nominated to do the dirty work and post the elusive G, or not-G, right here. A pic is worth 418 words.
Dwtw
The "G" image is included in the pdf called "AC-Windram Thelema Annotations", which used to be available for download here on Lashtal, but I don't see it in the downloads section.
Litlluw
RLG
Here is a picture of the "G" from Windram -copy and with the letter G from Algmor for reference/comparison.
Once again, courtesy of the Caliphornians, and the magick of google, here it is:
https://www.oto.org/legis3/AC-Windram%20Thelema%20annotations.pdf
It is on page 43, in marginal notes to The Book Of The Trigrams Of The Mutations Of The Tao With The Yin And The Yang aka Liber Trigrammaton sub Figura XXVII. Each trigram has an upper-case letter in the margin. The "G" here has the normal upright line below the lower cross-bar, but does have the unusual upper cross-bar from the "ALGMOR" cypher.
The verse annotated with the unusual "G" is
Likewise also did certain sons and daughters of Hermes and of Aphrodite, more openly ["concealed the Light of Purity in themselves, protecting it from the Persecutions."]
I think you guys are reaching here. Didn't Crowley publish typewritten versions of the manuscript in his lifetime? Therefore he would know what it was and it would be clear in the typewritten version. That alone would end all debate for me. Crowley proofread the book many many times before publishing it and if Crowley says it's a G then it's a G.
24 & 89 are clearly written as the number "24" and the number "89" as opposed to 2 & 4 and 8 & 9, unlike the numbers 4 6 3 8 which are clearly separate.
I use upper and lower case when writing quick notes and I am not consistent. Crowley's handwriting is generally atrocious. Not every letter is always going to look the same. Have you ever taken dictation? Not easy to do.
Also, have you ever used one of those old fashioned dip ink pens or whatever style was used at the time? You are bound to scribble a little extra here and there or have slightly thicker and thinner lines depending on how hard you press and at what angle.
And if your in the middle of a dictation there isn't any time to go back and fix it. Good enough will have to do. It will all be clear in the typeset version, no?
As for the "G" it is common in in calligraphy to see an extra horizontal line at the end of any leg of a letter as you can see on many of the letters in this alphabet:
Here is an olde English letter "G" I just now pulled from duckduckgo search engine:
As you can see it has TWO horizontal lines parallel to each other.
The verse annotated with the unusual "G"
A.C. seems to rather like "making a fuss" of writing a letter G sometimes, as the Windram annotation at least shows. Perhaps there was a slightly longer pause than usual in the dictation (after A and L and before the M) which then allowed him a bit of extra time to embellish the G more than he normally would do, and in his favoured fashion? I do not think there's any "hidden meaning" in his orthography otherwise.
Graphically yours
NormaN Joy Conquest
It does not even look like a "G", and is not anything like his normal handwritten "Gs". The Windram "G" is a peculiar "G", but it is the letter "G"; the cypher pseudo-"G" is not any English alphabet letter.
There is no doubt AC transcribed it in printed versions that way, but then he was what is known in literary criticism as an "unreliable narrator". Perhaps this transcription is one of his famous blinds, intended to dissolve on examining the original ms.?
elitemachinery: The tiny flourishes you mention are called serifs. Some "Gs" have serifs on the the upper part, no "Gs" anywhere else look like the glyph in the AL ms.
@ignant666 your arguments are very weak. Crowley was an well respected editor and publisher who edited and published this document more than once. Reading behind that is pure hogwash and wishful thinking, And the search result speaks for themselves. Clearly a serif is used on the upper part of the G in some instances. Not all but some. Regardless, it's Crowley's word vs yours. I'll go with Crowley thanks.
Same goes for the kill/fill debate. He may have notes with the word "kill." But he published it as "fill" repeatedly so HIS choice as editor makes it end of story.
Here is the result in Google just now searching for "capital letter G with serif" where u can see that there is also a latin version of the letter G that has two horizontal lines.
Any of these could've have been his intention. Or not. But he chose what he chose as editor and that is final.
I 36:
My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
Google result: "latin capital letter G with stroke:"
Certainly a possibility...
For reference:
1. Windram notebook, excerpt from Liber Trigrammaton
2. Holograph manuscript, excerpt:
1. The Windram note clearly demonstrates that, on at least one occasion, AC used the "serif" version of the letter G.
2. The letters in the Liber Legis manuscript are tilted downward and to the right.
3. The "serif" in the letter in the Liber Legis manuscript is curved.
4. Without the "serif", the letter in question would look like this:
There is no G in Winter Solstice. This is the longest night of the year. Ra's barque has fallen into the darkest chamber of the Tuat. But it's now about half an hourus past the pointus, and we're still here. So rejoice that we're off on another annum.
Astrologically, that is. According to the Gregorian, there's another ten diem to go, right on through the Jesus festival and the psuedo-new year.
Solstice Greetings
to anyone who observes these things
So this Wind-ram text shows margin notes that also display astrological symbols, upper case and lower case letters, numbers, and doo-dads. I did not see a G, except our mystery letter. I did not check to see if the entire AlphaBeta was accounted for..
@shiva:
If you take a look at the Windram notebook I think you will see that the notes to Liber Trigrammaton are letters of the English alphabet, one per (almost all of) the trigrams. There are some accompanying punctuation marks (!!!) to some of the trigram notes, and some interesting differences between the Windram Trigrammaton notes and those published in the Commentaries to Liber AL II:55 (here's a link).
the notes to Liber Trigrammaton are letters of the English alphabet, one per
Yes, this would be correct. Trigam.'. was AC's attempt to fulfill his instruction to get the English letters and attribute new signs to them. I saw no G there, except for the 🤐 under current investigation.
I always felt this was pointing toward an English QBL, but it seems he wanted it to be Chinese symbols. His comment was that it was unsatisfactory. Personally, I find it strange that an "unsatisfactory" document or paradigm would be held out as a "holy book," and poor acolytes are required to memorize it.
I remember that Jim Eshelman points out again and again that the English Alphabet "mappings" are not part of the Class A text. But the published commentary to verse in question assigns the letter "G" to the trigram. I think it's reasonably clear that the symbol in the Windram notebook represents the letter "G", as ignant666 acknowledges here.
Jim Eshelman points out again and again that the English Alphabet "mappings" are not part of the Class A text
Well, yes, the English Alphabet "mappings" are merely notes written by hand in the margins. The so-called "Class A" publication does not include said letters.* This assignment of letters was Crowley's "Class C" (my attribution) attempt to match "new symbols" to English letters. - the result of this attempt was what AC described as "unsatisfactory."
* http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0027.html
Trigrammaton is sort of a condensed Tao Teh Ching, and I have trouble seeing it as any sort of Class A material.
Jim Eshelman points out again and again that the English Alphabet "mappings" are not part of the Class A text.
I'm interested to know if this mean he is pronouncing with any (A,'. A.'.) Authority on this matter of textual classification assignment? Or is his opinion just the same as any other interested party (e.g. any one of us on Lashtal) and in which case is there a reason why his repeated pontifications might therefore carry more weight than anybody else's?
On an associated matter, although not explicitly related to the OP and without my having a text immediately to hand, does anyone know if there's any letter(s) from A to Z in the English alphabet which A.C. doesn't include in his attempt to "match new symbols" to them in Liber Trigrammaton ?
N Joy
On an associated matter, although not explicitly related to the OP and without my having a text immediately to hand, does anyone know if there's any letter(s) from A to Z in the English alphabet which A.C. doesn't include in his attempt to "match new symbols" to them in Liber Trigrammaton ?
There are 27 trigrams, which allows all 26 letters to be assigned to one, with a trigram left over, if that's what you're asking.
Or is his opinion just the same as any other interested party
Well, what with the "letters" in question being written by hand only in the margin of one copy of Trigrammaton, that thing called commonsense would tell anyone that said letters are not part of the printed book, and thus not part of the Class A imprimatur.
I have my own reasons for repeating, like said authority Eshelman, that I (personally) do not consider said book to be Class A material. I am not speaking on be-half of the A.'.A.'., and absolutely anyone (a.'.a.'.) can make up their mind in relation to anyone else's viewpoint on this, or any other subject.
... which A.C. doesn't include in his attempt to "match new symbols" to them in Liber Trigrammaton ?
I wondered the same. Since the book is duplicated for us (see link above), you or I, or any otherguess fool, can simply go and count the letters.
With 27 "chapters" or "verses," but only 26 letters in Anglican, one "chapter" is bound to be missing a letter. I nominate the Ø to fill in the gap.
93!
I would argue IT IS a G! See another one of his G here:
Love=Law
Lutz
93 again.
I just found numerous instances of the weirdly formed G in his handwritings whenever he is doing capital letters (one for one) only. I guess he did it so that a typist wouldn't confuse it with a C. When nested inside "normal" handwriting, his Gs look different.
Love=Law
Lutz
There are 27 trigrams, which allows all 26 letters to be assigned to one, with a trigram left over, if that's what you're asking.
It was (more or less), thank you.
Well, what with the "letters" in question being written by hand only in the margin of one copy of Trigrammaton, that thing called commonsense would tell anyone that said letters are not part of the printed book, and thus not part of the Class A imprimatur.
Yes - I was querying the (act of) pronouncement rather than the specifics of which bit/s it actually referred to
Since the book is duplicated for us (see link above), you or I, or any otherguess fool, can simply go and count the letters.
Hmm, the reason I simply didn't do that was that I thought it had only been "page 43" which had been reproduced, and hadn't delved within. "Counting the letters" now, though, I find that D, K and M have been omitted and N apparently counted twice; one also has a "?" against it and nothing else. Did nobody else manage to spot these? They don't exactly constitute what I'd call any sort of comprehensive assignation.
Incidentally, there is a case to be made for reducing the English Alphabet from 26 letters to 22 ( and so to align it with the 2 x 11 of the Hebrew & also the Tarot paths) by (similarly to Latin) getting rid of I or J, U or V; one could also do the same with Q or K and X or Y, say...
N Joy
93 again.
I just found numerous instances of the weirdly formed G in his handwritings whenever he is doing capital letters (one for one) only. I guess he did it so that a typist wouldn't confuse it with a C. When nested inside "normal" handwriting, his Gs look different.
Love=Law
Lutz
nice find. this makes sense when u consider the context of the cipher not being actual words but individual capitalized letters.
some valuable researchers here at lashtal. it's nice to have this confirmation.
but please folks if Crowley says it's a G then it's a G. Crowley is the supreme authority as it was his handwriting and he was also the editor and publisher of the book. what is it with people trying to change Liber AL?
kill/fill resulted in the book being altered ffs...now the g-thang debate...we are hitting peak boredom i guess. happy solstice!
"Counting the letters" now, though, I find that D, K and M have been omitted and N apparently counted twice; one also has a "?" against it and nothing else.
Oh, good, you did it. According to your results, it's no wonder AC said this arrangement was "unsatisfactory."
Did nobody else manage to spot these?
Apparently not. At least they're not sharing. You have broken new ground, and you are nominated for pioneer of the year. Since the year started yesterday, there may be other nominees (this year (dark solstice to the next one).
if Crowley says it's a G then it's a G. Crowley is the supreme authority as it was his handwriting and he was also the editor and publisher of the book.
This seems to be the case.
what is it with people trying to change Liber AL?
Ignant doesn't want to change the book, not even a letter. He simply questioned one very strange letter, which AC purposely changed in style. I guess we have to accept that odd formation, what with his other Gs being made the same way.
Ignant doesn't want to change the book, not even a letter. He simply questioned one very strange letter
OP:
That is not a "G".
It does not even look like a "G", and is not anything like his normal handwritten "Gs". The Windram "G" is a peculiar "G", but it is the letter "G"; the cypher pseudo-"G" is not any English alphabet letter.
There is no doubt AC transcribed it in printed versions that way, but then he was what is known in literary criticism as an "unreliable narrator".
🤔
It does not even look like a "G
Right. It actually doesn't look like a G. That's what this inquisition is about.
Ignant doesn't want to change the book, not even a letter. He simply questioned one very strange letter, which AC purposely changed in style. I guess we have to accept that odd formation, what with his other Gs being made the same way.
well i guess it's Crowley's fault for sharing the original manuscript and notes. the title page is full of chicken scratch and doodles. which is bound to cause some confusion. I heard that Charlie Chaplin destroyed all the outtakes of some or all of his films so that people wouldn't mess with his work and rehash outtakes etc. I've also heard of painters destroying valuable lesser works that didn't live up to their standards. but in this case Crowley had to share the original due to its origins. I guess anything worth it's salt is worth testing. but in this case there is so much commentary with Crowley looking for solutions to the cipher and encouraging and discussing others solutions. there was never any question about the G-thing during his lifetime.
Thank you, @the_real_simon_iff - I guess that is a very peculiar "G" then. And thanx to all who chimed in towards allaying my confusion.
And the explanation that making standalone "Gs" in this peculiar fashion might be to avoid typist confusion makes sense. One does well to do all one can when working with typists- I can recall getting stuff back from the NYC Municipal Typing Pool (back when such things existed) with my marginal typist notes painstakingly typed into the document (like "This section ALL CAPS").
As to @elitemachinery 's point that "there was never any question about the G-thing during his lifetime": true, but i don't think the original manuscript was very commonly available until the internet age. I can't ever recall seeing it before the Blue Brick was published in the early 1990s.
93.
Just to end the discussion about the G (at least) and because it is so satisfying to see:
Love=Law
Lutz
P.S. But yeah, what a weird G!
According to your results, it's no wonder AC said this arrangement was "unsatisfactory."
It's a funny thing, but Y also seems to be missing although I could have sworn it was there the first time round. I notice another entry is marked "!!!" and there's at least one (maybe even 2 or 3) without anything next to it at all. (I was going to make mention of this last time, but the "Edit" timeout beat me to it and it didn't seem particularly relevant to be worth making any extra fuss...)
"Unsatisfactory" was clearly some sort of a wild understatement here.
You have broken new ground, and you are nominated for pioneer of the year.
Too kind, sir, too kind!
N Joy
The notes to Liber Trigrammaton in the Windram notebook aren't the same as the ones published in the commentaries (and on the COTO website, hermetic.com, etc). The published version includes all of the letters of the English alphabet.
and, for reference, (from hermetic.com, with what looks like a typo):
The Attributions in Liber Trigrammaton is good theoretically; but no Qabalah of merit has arisen therefrom. I am inclined to look further into the question of Sanskrit Roots, and into the Enochian Records, in order to put this matter in more polished shape.
The notes to Liber Trigrammaton in the Windram notebook aren't the same as the ones published in the commentaries (and on the COTO website, hermetic.com, etc). The published version includes all of the letters of the English alphabet.
and, for reference, (from hermetic.com, with what looks like a typo):
Thanks soz. As the Windram text is clearly excluded, for the benefit of those of us without one of these rare and expensive Commentaries, what source does it give there for this attribution of all the letters and does it clear up the anomalies (i.e., with the double and missing entries) ?
N Jy
As the Windram text is clearly excluded, for the benefit of those of us without one of these rare and expensive Commentaries, what source does it give there for this attribution of all the letters and does it clear up the anomalies (i.e., with the double and missing entries) ?
N Jy
The source of the published version of Liber Trigrammaton is a bit of a mystery; no one seems to know which document was used, or where it resides. Liber Trigrammaton appeared first in The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries issued by Grant and Symonds, and not long afterwards in The Commentaries of AL. Apparently both parties were using the same document, or copies of it.
Liber Trigrammaton appeared first in The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries issued by Grant and Symonds,
The source would most likely have been those papers of Crowley's which were retyped by Grant and Yorke, prior to their shipment to Germer in accordance with Crowley's Will. Though they did not have the resources to copy everything, I'm sure that they would have copied Trigrammaton had they come across it.
Jim Eshelman points out again and again that the English Alphabet "mappings" are not part of the Class A text
Well, yes, the English Alphabet "mappings" are merely notes written by hand in the margins. The so-called "Class A" publication does not include said letters.* This assignment of letters was Crowley's "Class C" (my attribution) attempt to match "new symbols" to English letters. - the result of this attempt was what AC described as "unsatisfactory."
* http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0027.html
Trigrammaton is sort of a condensed Tao Teh Ching, and I have trouble seeing it as any sort of Class A material.
Dwtw
You are leaving out an important point. In the 'Old Comment' to the Book of the Law, AC says of verse II:55 "Done. See Liber Trigrammaton" meaning, his annotations of letters attributed to Liber XXVII - which were published in the three-volume Thelema - constituted completion of this instruction from Aiwass.
Then, much later, in the 'New Comment', he expressed dissatisfaction with his attempt, and mentioned Sanskrit and Enochian as possible avenues to explore. It is incomplete to only acknowledge his later comment but ignore the former.
What is interesting in light of the current topic is that the Windram copy of Thelema has a 'G' among the letters attributed to trigrams, and a very similarly drawn 'G' is part of the Cipher. Not only do I agree with elitemachinery that Crowley's word is final on that - he published a typescript called Liber CCXX with the 'G' - but that the gematria value of that G forms part of a very succinct proof that his attributions to LIber Trigrammaton were the key to Liber AL, to wit:
In the Cipher of verse II:76, the sum of the numbers, times the sum of the letters, times nine, is 143 x 208 x 9 = 267,696 = the grand total of the entire contents of Liber CCXX.
Litlluw
RLG
"Counting the letters" now, though, I find that D, K and M have been omitted and N apparently counted twice; one also has a "?" against it and nothing else. Did nobody else manage to spot these? They don't exactly constitute what I'd call any sort of comprehensive assignation.
N Joy
Dwtw
The margin letters in the Windram copy were not the final assignments of letters to the trigrams; those can be found in the Comment. It shows the Windram copy to be an interesting transitional phase of his exploration.
The Trigrammaton Qabalah uses Crowley's assignments to the trigrams and gives them the base-3 values of those trigrams to determine a gematria for the English Alphabet.
Litlluw
RLG
As the Windram text is clearly excluded, for the benefit of those of us without one of these rare and expensive Commentaries, what source does it give there for this attribution of all the letters and does it clear up the anomalies (i.e., with the double and missing entries) ?
N Jy
The source of the published version of Liber Trigrammaton is a bit of a mystery; no one seems to know which document was used, or where it resides. Liber Trigrammaton appeared first in The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries issued by Grant and Symonds, and not long afterwards in The Commentaries of AL. Apparently both parties were using the same document, or copies of it.
Dwtw
I assume you mean Liber XXVII - with the English letters - first appeared in the MAPC. But since Crowley mentions these attributions in his Old Comment of 1912, there had to be a document that existed before that. And of course the Holy Book itself first appeared in the three-volume Thelema in 1909.
Litlluw
RLG
It is incomplete to only acknowledge his later comment but ignore the former.
Gee wiz(ard), From my point of view, the end result makes my memory remember what it came down to. We know that it was "done," because we saw the letters in the margins. I don't mind being incomplete if the part that gets left out is obvious.
It shows the Windram copy to be an interesting transitional phase of his exploration.
Right. Windram's copy/copies are loaded with letters, signs, doodles, and scribbles, apparently including the fill/kill debacle. Basing the universe on the Windram book foundation is like mistaking the construction scaffolding for the final edifice.