kaos

the cat’s throat and prepare another cup of coffee, and while mulling over the possibility
we were looking at a typographical error, thought to look in The Equinox, at Crowley’s
“official” presentation of the 48 Keys. It seems that this document is an almost exact
transcription from his notebook, which I suppose isn’t that surprising, really. The most
obvious differences being that the Enochian versions of the Keys are not presented
interlineally in the Angelic character as they are in the notebook, and in his transcriptions
in Latin character, the zeds are not expanded into “zod”, as was taught in the G∴D∴
system.
On the first page of “The Call or Key of the Thirty Æthyrs” two footnotes appear
(“A Brief Abstract of the Symbolic Representation of the Universe Derived by Doctor
John Dee Through the Skrying of Sir Edward Kelly: Part II: The Forty-Eight Calls”.
The Equinox, Vol. I, No. VIII. New York: Weiser, 1972. p 125, n1 and n2). The first, on
the word lil, reads: “Or other Aire as may be willed.” The other glosses the word
idoigo, stating: “This name may be appropriately varied with the Aire.” I think that
rather solves our mystery, and in so doing speaks to any questions concerning the quality
of our Mr Tyson’s scholarship as well. It seems now that his entire argument falls flat, as
by his own reasoning, the Enochian version of the Key is most assuredly what Crowley
intended.
Incidentally, The Goetia was published by Crowley in 1904, complete with the
conjurations and such translated into Enochian. Again, it is just silly, or divisive, to
assert that he would not have used that language when reciting the Call of the Thirty
Aires. Well, I’ve had my fun for the morning, and it’s back to work.
SATYR
Hi Satyr—As soon as you mentioned Idoigo I recalled reading this years ago, which
surprises me since I never thought I took much interest in Enochian back then and
can’t think where I would have read it.
On “two words must be changed”, Tyson may be relying on Geoffrey James’s book,
which does indeed give the impression that two words need to be changed in the English
version of the Key, both the name of the Aire and its ordinal number. Although in
Tyson’s own version of the 19 th Key he doesn’t makes James’s error and only one word
has to be changed in the English version, such that it is hard to see what he is talking
about. Seems to me he may have formed his impression concerning the change of two
words by studying James initially, even though an ordinal number is hardly a “name”,
and has simply never revisited his thoughts on the matter. Stupid as it sounds, I can’t
think how else his statement could be accounted for.
139