Yes, the version of Liber Trigrammaton included in Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law does have the English letter attributions. Liber Trigrammaton there forms part of the New Comment to AL.II.55, where the letter attributions are part of the commentary.

These attributions very largely agree with the letters pencilled into the Windram copy, but there are some differences. It can be seen from the Windram copy that this work was still speculative, since in some cases the letter initially attributed has been crossed out and replaced by another. However, the basis is clearly there.

Crowley neer seemed to reach a definitive relationship between the trigrams and the English letters. Personally, I don't think they relate at all. I consider the trigrams to relate to the sephiroth, the letters to the paths on the Tree of Life.

Agreed. But AC didn't just use the 8 traditional trigrams. he used a solid line (yang), a broken line (yin) and a zero/dot (tao).

[/align:2u9wvq8d]

Anyway, you seem to be correct in denying a "definitive relationship," even if a lot of people claim it is a valid tool.

One may laugh, but I have a Trigrammaton font on my computer. I have my screen saver set to say "Do what thou wilt", in Trigram font.

I'll be damned if it doesn't almost look like English, especially as 3D Text.

Shiva..look at my explanation of the trigrams as describing sephiroth.  how the 27 trigrams are reduced to the sephiroth on the TL.

Dwtw

I think herupakraath raises an important question here. While the comment to Liber Trigrammaton has been published, what was the provenance, and does that ms still exist?

This short Comment includes the English letters attributed to the trigrams, as well as a description of their phonetic values and symbolic meaning. It is undoubtedly the text referred to in Crowley's "Old Comment" to Liber Legis verse 2:55 --- "Done. See Liber Trigrammaton, Comment" The Old Comment appeared in the Equinox 1(7) in 1912. But where was the Trigrammaton Comment that AC refers to in 1912? Had it already been published at that point? I thought it wasn't published until it appeared in the New Comment. It does seem a little odd that in 1912 he would refer to a document that the reader could not have access to.

(IIRC, Liber Trigrammaton was only published in the 1909 'Thelema', with no Comment, and did not appear in the Equinox series. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about that, as I don't have my Equinox to hand at the moment.)

As the OP pointed out, some of the letter attributions in the Windram copy differ from the published Comment, and some letters are not there at all. Since the Windram copy was given away in 1913, a year after the Old Comment on Liber Legis and its mention of the Trigrammaton Comment, then this may undermine the assertion of Bill Breeze in his first essay regarding the Fill/Kill change:

“Crowley’s Thelema has fifteen marginal comments scattered throughout the book, in addition to dozens of notes to “Liber XXVII (“Trigrammaton”)—basically his earliest versions of his English letter-attributions to its verses.”

I'm not convinced that these are the 'earliest'. Looking at the annotations in XXVII, the letters that are written over are the same as those published later in the Comment on XXVII. The overwritten letters could only be his 'earliest versions' if he changed his mind and reverted to his underlying attributions in those instances. However, if BB is saying that these annotations - as a whole - are the first attempt at attributing letters, then that could possibly be the case.

In any event, the Windram copy is obviously not the source of the Comment on Liber Trigrammaton. So there must be another copy of Liber XXVII with all of the attributions intact. It seems possible, if not likely, that AC (if in fact it was him that wrote these letters in the margins of the Windram copy) was referring to an existing Comment, probably from memory, and toying with alternative arrangements of letters, but never finished the attempt, thus leaving some letters unused. Otherwise, the Windram copy represents an attempt at attributing letters that was not finished in that copy, but in another copy instead, while at the same time reverting to the original letters written in the margins. I think it would be very useful to know the timeline of the Windram copy vs. the version of Trigrammaton that was published with the New Comment to Liber Legis.

Litlluw
RLG

Looking at the letter 'G' written in the margin of Liber Trigrammaton in the Windram copy, it looks very similar to the 'G' seen in the riddle of verse II:76 of TBOTL: possible evidence Crowley wrote the letters in the margins.

It seems unlikely that Crowley already had a working order of English letter assignments to the trigrams when he wrote the letters in the margins of the Windram copy of Thelema; it seems more likely that it records his first attempt at assigning letters to the trigrams. One can see how in the process of proofreading his copy of Thelema, he might have viewed the trigrams as incomplete without English letters assignments and felt motivated to provide them.

There probably are or were two original source documents for Liber Trigrammaton: one that contains the comments on the trigrams, and one that contains the English letter assignments.

According to trial testimony of Marcelo Motta, his source for Liber Trigrammaton was an expensive vellum copy of the Holy Books, of which he claimed there were no more than 50-100 copies made, and that Karl Germer had given him a few of them. Since Motta's publication of The Commentaries of AL contains a complete version of Liber Trigrammaton, including English letters, it can be concluded the vellum copies contained the letter assignments also.

If Germer was responsible for the creation of the vellum copies, their content was probably sourced from other documents in his possession. Given the now notorious plundering of the Germer library by the Solar Lodge, and its ultimate fate of going up in flames in the desert, the possibility exists that one or more of Germer's source documents are gone.

Symonds and Grant also published a complete version of Liber Trigrammaton within months of Motta doing so, which suggests they had either the original source documents or a copy of what Germer had. It would be interesting to learn if any collectors in Thelemaland have one of the vellum books in question, and if there were early copies that differ from later versions in regard to trigram attributions.

Interestingly, the catalogue of the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warburg includes the folllowing item:

P2.
Buff Spring-back folder
Volumes of Holy Books mimeographed in Canada by Alexander Watt
1. Liber VII. Val Lapides Lagule
2. Liber XXVII. Trigramenaton
3. Liber DCCCXIII. Anarita
[Mic. 29pp]

Obviously, whoever catalogued these was unfamiliar with the subject matter. I've not examined this material, so do not know whether there are three different volumes or whether the three texts are published in one volume, let alone whether they are vellum-bound or not.

This suggests that it was amongst the material of which Kenneth Grant and Gerald Yorke made typed copies before despatch to Germer. I don't have my copy of Magical and Philosophical Commentaries to hand at the moment, but I seem to recall that Liber Trigrammaton was included in the course of commentary on a specific verse, suggesting to me that Crowley had placed it there in the typescript of his commentary. It might be worth looking at the copy typescript in the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warburg, therefore. Although Crowley's original document is unlikely to be there, a typed copy will exist.

As I remember, the text of Trigrammaton in a vellum notebook at the Warburg had been excised. I was anxious to see an early handwritten copy, but was disappointed some years ago. There is a reference in the index at the beginning of the volume, but no text.

I have the view that Trigrammaton refers to the sephiroth, and described the conversion from the trigrams to the sephiroth in my book. This complements the path descriptions in Liber 231, Therefore, I feel that Crowley's attempt to relate the alphabet to the trigrams is erroneous. He was not satisfied with his commentary. Things like "Nothing under its three forms",  "Master of the Temple" and "holy nuns", etc. in the Trigrammaton text suggest sephiroth more than paths. Each sephira as a vessel and  a light. Lights without vessels are usually described as "off the tree". Is that possible in a model purporting to be universal?

The name Alexander Watt excapes me - was he just a bit player in the pageant or had he a more significant role?  It is unlikely he would still be living at this advanced stage but presumably he or his descendants/ executors/ colleagues might also have further information.

Unfortunately they were working in the days before scanning or even the humble photocopier, and although I think proto-xeroxing devices might have been available in the late ‘40s, like the Polaroid Land camera they would have been at a prohibitively expensive price for then.

I don’t have my copy of Mag & Phil Comms to hand either, But I recall it appeared within the commentary to II.55.  Maybe someone could supply some further information if it is germane?

Since Trigrammaton appears to refer to the letters of the (English) Alphabet, of which there are 26, it cannot refer exactly to either the paths alone (22) or the sephiroth (10), or the paths and the sephiroth together (32, which is half of 64 & the primary 2 to the fifth power (2[sup:2d6eejjy]5[/sup:2d6eejjy])).  The English Alphabet could be reduced to 22 if one cuts out four letters – for example, there are partial duplications with at least C & K, I & J and U & V (as with the Latin for the last four).  Maybe then either one of X, Y or Z, as being comparatively little used, could be regarded as superfluous to requirements.

What would be your actual source for saying that A.C. was “not satisfied” with his [which specific] commentary? – it may well be the case, but it would be useful to have a reference to have to hand. 

I am also curious which number “holy nuns” refers to?

Wouldn’t Daath be off the tree?  And then there might be the whole idea of the backside or “nightside” of the Tree also to consider, one interpretation of which is described at some length by KG especially in the book of the same title.

Norma N Joy Conquest

Dwtw

Indeed,  the letter G in the margin not only looks like the one in the Cipher of AL 2:76, but also confirms that the letter in the Cipher is G, and not a C with lines added later, or some other symbol, as has been suggested by some in the past. So it seems fairly certain that the marginal letters are in AC's hand.

It's hard to say one way or the other. It is a possibility, to be sure, but I don't know how likely it is. I suppose, since there are some trigrams with no letters, i.e., the list is incomplete, that it may indicate a first attempt. But if it was the first try, he later reverted to letters he had written over in this document, which was then published in the New Comment with the full list. It is also possible that the list eventually published was at hand, and that he wrote some letters in the margins, then later reconsidered and crossed them out. It's odd, since the list is not complete. I'm not sure one way or the other if this was earlier or later, which is why it would be good to have more evidence of the timeline.

I suppose it is entirely possible that this was a first try, it was left incomplete, AC gave away the book, then attributed letters in another copy later, working from memory, and reverted to the initial attributions. But the thing is, AC wrote in the Old Comment that the Comment to Liber Trigrammaton fulfilled AL 2:55. That statement was made before the Windram copy was given away, which is why I feel that this copy did not include the definitive list.

I was not aware of Motta's claim, but he definitely included the letter-attributions in his Commentaries of AL, as did Symonds and Grant in the MAP Commentaries. And to answer another post, I once had a copy of the mimeographed papers by Alexander Watt, (which also included the full commentary on Liber LXV). I can't recall if Trigrammaton had the letters with them or not. I sold the copies many years ago to either Lutz or Clive Harper.

But regardless of all the later occurrences, I'm still curious as to why AC referred to Trigrammaton in his Old Comment if the attributions had not been published yet. Where is this Comment to XXVII that he was referring to? Were there copies of the Holy Books that had the letters printed in them? Are the vellum copies of the Holy Books that Motta mentioned actually from the AC era, and not from the Germer era? Exactly when was the first publication of this list of letters? Symonds and Grant may have only been working from the Old and New Commentaries typescripts, which would have included Trigrammaton, so they wouldn't have needed a separate source document for that. IDK where Motta got his copy of the material.

So considering some of the above, this is why I think that the Windram copy contains an abortive second attempt to attribute letters to XXVII. As AC noted in his New Comment, he was unsatisfied with the attributions he mentioned in the Old Comment. He may have been unsatisfied rather early on, and began to swap around some letters, then never finished the task, and gave away the Windram copy, (which raises the slight possibility that it was Windram himself who overwrote the letters originally put there by AC). I think that the list is missing a couple letters because although the substitutions made look good structurally, he eventually ran out of places to put the D and K, which clearly do not resemble the remaining trigrams. Maybe he put the K in a different margin 🙂

Litluw
RLG

93!

Though not exactly a document, I have found this in a 2006 Caduceus catalogue.

Aleister Crowley, Liber Liberi vel Lapis Lazuli, Adumbratio Kabbalae Aegyptiorum Sub Figura VII; Liber Trigrammaton Sub Figura XXVII; Liber DCCCXIII vel Ararita Sub Figura DLXX, Typescript Typescript  60 leaves & 3 blanks, with simple sewn binding and card covers 19 handwritten corrections, inserts of Hebrew (some done on a large scale with considerable care) & Greek letters plus the sigils associated with Chap IV verse 44 of Liber VII, here rendered more clearly than in available reprints. An end note places study of each of each Liber in the context of the Grades of the A.'.A.'., this context not present in reprints. The officers of the A.'.A.'. listed as authorising it include, by motto, George Cecil Jones and Major J.F.C.Fuller. This item is from the collection of Frank Bennett who practised sex magick with Crowley at Cefalu and headed the OTO in Australia  Some wear to card covers but VG Order No. 370001 £450

Aleister Crowley, Liber Trigrammaton, 1909 10pp Being pp from the 1st Ed. of the Holy Books. Liber Trigrammatton conveniently falls upon one sheet which, when folded, forms a signature of the book. However this sheet was never sewn into a book but, having three portions removed which carried six pages of the previous text, has then been issued to members of the A.'A.'. For a price of one guinea to be paid to ones superior in the Order, there being a space where the new owner can record their name. Comparision with a first edition set of the Holy Books confirms that Vol.I was thus issued to the probationer, Vol.II was issued to the Neophyte. The sheet forming the first section of Volume III plus some additional pages giving the text of Liber L was issued to the Zelator. Liber Trigramaton, in this unbound form offered here, was issued to the Practicus. The following section, comprising Liber DCCCXIII Ararita was issued to the philosophus. Thus this present item is an important testament to how the Holy Books were circulated within the A.'.A.'., in the early days. It is printed on high quality paper, each page being bordered in gold and the title page having the gold embellishment using the die with the Egyptian columns surmounted with the winged disc that Crowley used on Book of Lies etc. The lush gold printing symbolised Tiphareth abnd Crowleys Master of the Temple status.  Fine Order No. 370006 £300

If those typescripts are roughly from the same period (post-Cefalu), this would mean that there are quite some annotations by AC which were made far later than those in the Windram copy (which iirc was annotated prior to 1913). Maybe Ben remembers to whom he has sold these items and access can be granted?

Just a guess

Love=Law
Lutz

It's been a while since I last attempted to fathom the meanings of Liber Trigrammaton, but this thread stimulated me to go back to the sources available to me in published works:

1. Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law (1974), pp.219-223.  As Michael has stated, Trigrammaton forms the bulk of the commentary to AL.II.55.  It contains the English Alphabet attributions to the verses 1-26, along with brief and tentative (?) explanations of the attributions, printed in italics in the text.

2. The Commentaries of AL (1976, Routledge Kegan & Paul), pp.144-147.  Again, Trigrammaton is included in the commentary to AL.II.55,  The text contains the English Alphabet attributions and they tally with those given in the preceding.

When I looked at both of these, I thought what is going on here ?  The Book is Liber XXVII, so why are there 28 Trigrams ?  So I went to -

3. Thelema, The Holy Books of Thelema (1983).  This is the text of Trigrammaton as published in Crowley's 'Thelema', I believe, no letter attributions of course, and presumably as received through V.V.V.V.V. on 14 December, 1907 e.v. (following on Liber X and Liber CD on the 12th and 13th respectively).  Reference to the 10th verse regarding the Brothers of the Left-hand Path explains the 'extra' Trigram in versions 1. and 2.  Trigram 18 is referenced in the verse, whereas 1. and 2. include it after the verse in the same font as the other trigrams.
(It would have made it easier to show this by pasting in the verse, but when I attempted this the trigrams would not copy).

As to the significance or validity of the English Alphabet attributions, I do not really have any formulated opinion, but I do feel that one needs to come to a significant understanding of Trigrammaton as the Holy Book published in 3. before venturing into such areas of complex speculation.  In his comment to AL.II.55, Crowley himself reflects on whether the attribution will really go anywhere.  It does seem to me, however, that Trigrams to the permutation of 27, neither fit well with 22 paths on the Tree of Life, nor with the 26 letters of the English Alphabet.  Nor with 10/11 Sephiroth for that matter.

Trigrammaton.com

Dwtw

A partial answer to one of my questions above may be found in the Editorial Notes section, p. 364 of Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers The Equinox Vol. IV No. 1:

“Commentary to Liber XXVII. This commentary is actually made up of multiple cumulative commentaries. An early version in a typescript of the commentaries to Liber Legis gives only the letters and a few parenthetical remarks; this is probably the commentary cited in Crowley’s “old commentary” to Liber Legis in The Equinox I(7) (1912), p. 397. Other sources - none original, vary in completeness. A minor change was made to attribute the note “Vulva” to the last trigram in the series; it had been misattributed to the Fire trigram.”

So Crowley’s referral to the “Liber Trigrammaton Comment” in his Old Comment to Liber AL seems to refer to an existing set of letter attributions that were already in typescript form by 1912. Yet apparently this had not been formally published at that time, so again I think it odd that AC refers to a comment that most readers would have had no access to. Did his students have access to a copy, and they wrote their own letters in the margins of their personal copies of Thelema 1909 ?

It is obvious that the letters in the margins of the Windram copy were not the final version, since they are incomplete. They also have letters overwritten that ended up in the final version, so either the overwrites were abandoned and those original letters were reverted to, (making this possibly the first attempt) or else this was an unfinished attempt at changing them (making it definitely a later attempt). In either case, it is difficult to determine conclusively that the Windram copy is evidence of the earliest letter-attributions. Some other copy of Thelema 1909 had to be used eventually, in which to put all 26 letters. That list was then put into the typescript mentioned above, and AC was happy enough with it to claim in the Old Comment that it fulfilled AL II:55.

So my other question remains: when was this Comment to Liber Trigrammaton first published? Did it really not get into print until the “New Comment” to AL appeared in the MAP Commentaries edited by Symonds and Grant in 1974?

A related question - did Regardie, Motta and Symonds/Grant use the same source material for their Commentaries?

Litluw
RLG

Dwtw

In the Holy Books of Thelema there is a reference on p. 269 to the first printing of the 'New Comment'
under its original title "An Extenuation of The Book of the Law".
Supposedly this was privately printed in Tunis-Tunisia in 1926.

Do any lashtalians have further information on this edition?
I believe its also mentioned on page lxxx of the big blue brick, but my copy is not available at the moment.
Was this the provenance of the material used by Regardie, Symonds/Grant and Motta in their editions of the Commentarires?

Apparenty the Univ. of Illinois at Urbana has a copy in their rare books room, which is a "retyped xerox copy of the original". I'm presuming the 'original' mentioned here was the 1926 edition, but don't know for sure.

Litlluw
RLG

I do have a xerox copy done from one which was in a three hole binder. There are no dates or publication information on the title page. Interestingly, the last line is: TO META OHRION 666 (a bad transliteration from Greek. The last page is 309. I don't have any clue how I got the copy...it has been many years. Is this any help? Anything specific I can try to answer?

Dwtw

I'm curious as to the exact contents.
Does your xerox contain all of the New Comment as it appeared in Regardie, Grant, or Motta?

Is there any of the Old Comment in it, or just the New?

Presumably it has the letter attributions to Liber XXVII in the section on II:55?

Litlluw
RLG

My copy has both the Old and New Comments. Liber Trigrammaton is interpolated, but it does not have Crowley's attribution of letters.

Frankly, I don't believe that Trigrammaton relates to the letters (the paths), but rather to the Sephiroth on the TL.

Dwtw

Without info on the title page, is there any certainty that this is a copy of the Tunis edition?
Sorry to be so persistent, just trying to pin down when those letter-attributions got published.

I agree with you, I don't think trigrammaton relates to the Hebrew letters at all. There is no reason why it should.
But then, there is also no reason why it should relate to the sefirot either.
Since it is "the ultimate foundation of the highest theoretical qabalah",  it supersedes the Tree of Life.

Rather than attributing the trigrams to the Tree, in the new Aeon, its the other way around 🙂

Litlluw
RLG

93

Be persistent! That is the only way to finally find out.

My copy of the Extenuation is of no help here. You have my title page information. Have you tried the microfilm record from the Warburg? I have an index, but can’t locate it at the moment.

Internal evidence in Trigrammaton does, in my view, relate to the sephiroth, The trigrams are in order for base three numbers. View a sephira as a light and a vessel combined (view from Zohar). Odd numbers of dots (3 or1) represent lights; “even numbers” (2 and 0) represent vessels. In my book, I showed how they reduce to the sephiroth on the Quantum TL (three dimensional). The correspondences between the Cube of Three and the 3D TL work out.

The descriptions in the Trigrammaton text follow in order of sephiroth. Some of the more obvious landmarks inherent in Trigrammaton are:

Kether: Here is Nothing under its three forms. It is not, yet informeth (fills) all things.
Binah: By the Weak One the Mother…
Chesed: Also the Purity was divided by Strength, the force of the Deimiurge.
(for Strength refer back to the second trigram, in Chokmah)
Binah: And the Master of the Temple balancing all things arose…
Da’ath: The master flamed forth as a star and set a guard of water in every Abyss.
Netzach: Yet certain holy nuns concealed the secrets….
Malkuth: Therefore was the end of it sorrow;
yet In that sorrow a sixfold star of glory (hexagram)
whereby they might see to return unto the Stainless Abode;
yea, unto the Stainless Abode (Kether, or Ain)

By placing these on the TL, and filling in the other sephiroth in order, the logic of Trigrammaton relating to sephiroth becomes evident. The most difficult to accept are the Brothers of the Left Hand path and the Black Brothers (which are clearly differentiated, but “off the tree”, i.e., non-sephiroth). Along with Kether, they have no corresponding vessels, and hence don’t satisfy the definition of a sephira. Instead, Da’ath is a sephira, since it has both a vessel and a light.

The Kether and Da’ath sephira concepts clearly fit traditional  Hebrew qabalists.  See. Lachower, Fischel, and Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of he Zohar, An Anthology of Texts, Volume 1. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. This is a presentation of Zohar texts with commentary, organized by subject. It shows an earlier view of the TL (before the Christian or Golden Dawn interpretations) with which most Thelemites are not so familiar.

As a complement to Liber XXVII Trigrammaton, Liber 231 clearly relates to paths on the TL. Crowley definitely relates the paths to the Hebrew alphabet. The ideas follow the atus in the Book of Thoth.

93  93/93

Reading @abn53's Trigrammaton conclusions involving Liber CCXXXI in comparison to mine is fascinating. The difference highlights how Crowley's Class A material can lead to different conclusions for the reader based upon individual nature.

For me the trigrams and verses help set the foundation for new paths on the Tree and can have individual English letter correspondence.

To quickly outline:

In my current model of highest theoretical qabalah, for this instance and posted below, the spheres are numbered 0 to 10 and the paths are numbered zero to twenty-six in Roman numerals. The Roman numerals are partly a reference to Tarot but mainly being used to help reinforce the concept of increasing complexity as the spheres that are connected increase in value.

The verses and trigrams of Liber XXVII are attributed in their published order to the Roman numerals starting with zero. This order is to the key scale.

Spoiler

Yes, 0=2 is intentionally featured prominently and is important to the foundation of this qabalah.

Working with Liber CCXXXI helped me find an arrangement for the zodiac, planets and elements. This allowed the assignment of many more specific attributions and the development of a colour scale based on the Rose Cross.

Spoiler

Crowley's letter correspondences are instructive.

Some follow up:

Here's the Windram letter assignments taken from the link provided by the OP and attributed to the image in my previous post. The I A O in the center was a pleasing appearance when typing these assignments the first time.

I mentioned that Crowley's letter assignments were instructive and should expand on that. They are helpful to understand how the assignments were made and to develop from them. In one way he appears to have been basing the assignments on the similarity of shape between the trigrams and letters - in examples like A, T, Y.  In another way, like with the letters L, C and H, there seems to be the beginning of a pattern involving straight and curved lines based on tao, yang and yin.

If I were to have found effective English letter attributions I probably wouldn't publicly publish instead choosing to write directly to the O.T.O, E.G.C. and A∴A∴.

I wasn't going to publicly publish or post my zodiacal, planetary, elemental attributions either, however, with the coloured Iris/Rose and Tree in the previous post it's possible to figure those out. Some familiarity with Tarot, Tree of Life and Astrology should be enough to solve it as there's enough overlaps with those traditional assignments. If anyone wants to they can post their solutions for planetary and zodiac behind spoilers and I'll confirm if it's right to my model. No tricks. Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto for planets. Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces for zodiac.

Spoiler

Elemental, Planetary, Zodiacal paths on the Eternity Tree.

Dwtw

Have you read The Book of Mutations ? This material on the Trigrammaton Qabalah was covered over 2 decades ago, and is germane to your explorations.

Litlluw

RLG

As an inspirational work for the foundation of a highest theoretical qabalah. Been working on other aspects concerning capturing the balance in relationship to work with Liber CCXXXI. Saw the other fellow mention CCXXXI and thought it an interesting synchronicity. Big difference but I didn't go through the tunnels first.

English letters and 'gematria' are recent. Didn't really like the idea of that legwork, if you have a link to something good please share. I did a search and saw some stuff from around that time and thought the base 27 correspondences solid and was going to incorporate it.