Talk:Enochian/Archive 1

Agrippa? Trithemius?
I have no objection over what you said about Agrippa or Trithemius. But why is it required to add it in an article about enochian? The alphabets are vastly different and any comparisons are conjectural at best. I think you should make seperate articles for Malachim, Crossing the River, Celesterial, and Theban alphabets and have this article only focus on Enochian alphabet. Jaynus _Izanagi 11:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I feel it is relevant is because Enochian as a language is a tradition of Angelic alphabets, for which the term "Enochian" is generally applied. I am open to being corrected, and perhaps elements of the article could be moved to other entries altogether, but, I think it is a misnomer to believe that "Enochian" applies only to John Dee's angelic language. John Dee had all these angelic alphabets, and probably used them as source material in the construction of his language. Does that make sense? Is that even valid? I'm open to opinion! cameo 00:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I waited about a year and more people seemed to have an issue with this article and its rather opinionate stance on Enochian rather then factual. So I removed the things that it seems most people agree are just opinions and probably should have been removed.

206.251.12.87

Failure to account for Kelly fatal to argument
Has anyone noticed the Gaping hole in this article? WHERE is Kelly -- mentioned once in passing without explanation!? I suspect the author has deliberately avoided explaining this pivotal part of the Enochian story because acknowledging the real role of Kelly as the channel of the language is completely fatal to the hypothesis: That the Enochian alphabet is derived from scholarship, interests, and source materials available to John Dee. The narrow focus on Dee obscures the fact that it was NOT Dee that received the alphabet. According to the best primary sources we have (Dee's own diaries), the production of the language was entirely channeled through the mind and tongue of his magickal partner Edward Kelly. Kelly not only fails the arguments of scholarship, interests and source materials the author wishes to apply to Dee to explain the origins of the Enochian language, it actually begs the question "How could the alchemist Kelly produce a language good enough to fool the linguistic scholar Dee?"

"The library holdings and common languages of those who claimed to discover angelic language must be taken into account in order to best interpret the origins of their languages, and to understand the differences as they evolved. These men were voracious book collectors, all, and without doubt had collected at least script samples from most languages."

When you replace Kelly into the above thesis instead of the intended Dee -- who didnt have  the "library holdings and common languages" of Dee  at all -- the article fails. While Kelly was certainly an above average fellow in terms of education and sheer ingenuity, his own interest was most definitely alchemy rather than languages, nor did he have free access to Dee's books, nor the requisite years of scholarship and interest to make the kind of use of them this author suggests was possible for Dee -- in fact, had Kelly attempted such a ruse on Dee, Dee's linguistic savvy would surely have caught up to and "busted" Kelly sooner or later! It was Dee that had the linguistic genius, not Kelly, but it was Kelly who received the language -- once again, rather than "Debunking" Enochian, the linguistic "expertise" approach to the Dee-Kelly partnership only *heightens* the mystery.

The whole rest of the article is built down the same wrong track, generating highly misleading statements like "John Dee's angelic language" IF it properly read "Edward Kelly's Angelic language"  the article could not have been written and floated.

Until this article not only acknowledges but actively deals with Edward Kelly's centrality to the documented reception process of the Enochian language, we need to flag this article as biased (or whatever proper flag) to keep people from thinking that this mystery has been solved, rather than curiously deepened, by an examination of the scholarly abilities and resources available to John Dee...


 * Unless, of course, John Dee made the whole story about Kelly 'receiving' the language up so as to lend credence to his own claims, and invented the language himself. Not that I'm necessarily saying I believe that either, but it's just as likely as what you're saying. Seems as though you may have something of a biased POV yourself...? Tev 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That last argument would go against the majority of Dee's private journals about what he sought in his studies; if all he needed was a boost to his credibility, he could have used any "seer", however his first partner was thought by Dee to be a fraud, and Dee got rid of him. Kelly came on board only after Dee had verified his legitimacy, and having spent considerable expense of time to search for alternatives, all of which is expounded in the article on John Dee himself in Wiki; interesting that those details have not found themselves here in this article.


 * Edward Kelly probably should be mentioned more BUT You are giving edward kelly far too much credit. Edward Kelly was thought to be a fraud by John dee from the start, He was not a respected occultist. In fact, John Dee only figured kelly was not faking the whole thing because he believed kelly to be too intellectually inept to fake it. Outside of kelly being used by john dee to recieve special messages. Kelly had no influence on john dee's ceremonial structure, dee's interpretation, etc. etc. All Edward Kelly did was recieve the messages, all the work came from john dee. A lot of this is covered in John Dee's and Edward Kelly's own articles. JaynusofSinope

Images
This article would benefit a lot from some images of Enochian script. There might be some in these scans from the British Library but the files are way too big for me to open (28000x3000 px). If someone can look at the scans, determine if there's a suitable section to crop and use, and then obtain permission from the British Library to reproduce on Wikipedia, that would be great. Yeah, yeah, I'm asking a lot, I know... Maybe someone can just render some Enochian text using some Enochian fonts? --Six.oh.six 17:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rewrite
I would agree that this article is lacking in many respects and could use a complete rewrite, although it's basically par for the Wiki-course.

I'd say it's relevant to any serious discussion of the "Enochian" language as employed by Dee to consider the various other "angelic" languages and ciphers that were around in his day, and to analyze their similarities and differences with each other and with Dee's system. The reader is always free to accept the theory of "inspiration," viz. that Enochian was communicated directly to Dee and Kelley via the Angels Themselves; but responsible scholarship demands a more rigorous approach. This article is at least on the right track in citing Trithemius, Agrippa, Pantheus et al as Dee's precedents in respect of certain aspects of his methodology. I'd agree that the sections are misleading and in some cases factually incorrect, and overwhelm the sections on Enochian itself.

The problem ultimately is that so much of this ball of twine remains for legitimate modern scholars to unravel.

Jonjon358 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the various other angelic languages, I think these should certainly be mentioned, at least for interesting comparison. Not to mention that there is at least one other "Enochian" script, the one I know of being from Pantheus' Voarchadumia, from memory. I'll upload an image of this if I get around to it. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, This article is an encyclopedic entry. It deals with the facts, not with your own theories and opinions. If you include any other languages other then Enochian. Then your not making an encyclopedic entry, your making an compare and contrast essay where there may possibly be nothing to compare and contrast. (there is no definitive relationship between John Dee's enochian or any other language. When I say definitive, I mean that there is no comparisons made by john dee himself and john dee never said he was inspired by any other language. Any comparisons made of enochian to any other language would require the reader to accept that john dee was inspired by, copied, or influenced by a language while there are no facts behind such a statement) So, regardless how interesting it may be, there is no justification for adding it to the article unless it DIRECTLY relates to enochian. Otherwise it should be excluded. JaynusofSinope

Article mis-named
I believe this article is mis-named. At no point in Dee's journals does he refer to the Angelical Language as "Enochian." He does call is "Angelical" and he refers to its alphabet once or twice as the "Adamical Alphabet" (but only because the Angels told him it was used by Adam before the Fall).

The term "Enochian" is a literary classification. For instance, the Keys of Solomon are "Solomonic" literature, because they are based upon/incorporate the mythology of King Solomon. Dee's journals are considered "Enochian" literature, based primarily upon two speeches recorded from the Angel Ave - where he explains to Dee and Kelley that the system they are revealing was once given to Enoch, and where he gives the "Prayer of Enoch" as the key to working with the Book of Loagaeth (also called the "Book of Enoch"). Dee's journals- and thereby his magick- are therefore classifiable as "Enochian", along with the various apocryphal Books of Enoch.

I certainly understand that the langauge has been called "Enochian" for a while by modern occultists. However, we should at least add a disambiguation here so the reader knows that by "Enochian" he could be looking for "Enochian literature" (which extends far beyond Dee's work), or "Enochian magick" (that contained in Dee's journals) or the mis-named "Enochian language"- which is really called "Angelical." Kheph777 05:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of occultists refer to the language and its associated magical system as "Enochian". In fact this is the first time I've come across anyone who calls it anything alse. Surely popular usage counts for something? I'm also intrigued, why "Angelical" rather than "Angelic"? "Angelic language" means "language of angels", while "Angelical language" would mean something more along the lines of "language like that of angels". It just doesn't seem grammatically correct. Where does the phrase "Angelical Language" come from? Fuzzypeg ☻ 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the majority of folks do call it "Enochian" - which is why I suggested we disambiguate. Even if most folks do call it that, it is not a correct term.  To answer your questions:  The word "angelic" is an adjective.  So, the "angelic language" is descriptive, but it isn't the given name of the specific "angelic language" Dee recorded.  "Angelical" (actually spelled "Angelicall") is the name given to the language in Dee's own journals.  I believe that is what we should stick with- along with a disambiguation at the top of the article. (Unless someone can provide a reference where Dee called the language "Enochian"?) Kheph777 09:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that seems pretty convincing. Agreed then, and good work. Now I would guess at some stage we need an Enochian magic article to document a) the system that Dee and Kelly discovered (although they may not have called it "Enochian" themselves); b) the further developments made by the GD, Crowley, Rowe etc.; and c) other unrelated magical bits and pieces that happen to have been called "Enochian". This would also presumably include a discussion of how/why the term "Enochian" came to be applied. I'm not necessarily volunteering... Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree! We do need an Enochian magic link that explains from Dee to the Golden Dawn to Thelema and beyond.  It is true that Dee and Kelley never called it that - however, in this case, they also failed to give it any name at all.  And, because Dee's Angels associated this magick directly with Enoch, it is technically correct to refer to it as "Enochian magic (or magick, etc)."


 * In fact, I'm glad you brought up the derivation of the term "Enochian." First and foremost, we have to remember that the term "Enochian" is a literary classification- used to designate books that feature the prophet Enoch.  (I believe Blavatski uses the term "Enochian" in some of her work- in regard to Enoch rather than Dee's system.)  Dee's journals are certainly "Enochian", because they feature the mythos of the prophet Enoch.  For the same reason, we can call the system of magick he recieved "Enochian."  (In the same light, the magick in the Key of Solomon is "Solomonic.")


 * SO - I think we first need to set up a page called "Enochian" that begins with 1Enoch, 2Enoch, 3Enoch and the overall tradition surrounding Enoch in the West. (Said page could mention Dee's work as well.)  THEN we can have the page you suggested for "Enochian magick (Dee and Kelley)" (are there other systems of magick out there that focus upon Enoch??) and the current Angelical Language (aka "Enochian Language") page.  (I've also seen a page for "Enochian Angels" - do we keep this page or incorporate its information into the "Enochian Magick" page?) Kheph777 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, however I would be loath to start several new articles simultaneously, simply because of the amount of work required. My approach would be to just create an Enochian magic page and split the Dee and Kelley stuff into its own article once it reaches sufficient size. You choose though.
 * I also note in terms of naming, throughout most articles relating to magic(k) the spelling has been standardised to not use a k, since it is more generic and doesn't connote a specifically thelemic approach etc. I realise that Dee spelt magick with a k, but that's because he was using old-fashioned English, not because he was on Crowley's bandwagon! Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this article as it currently stands is over-reliant on personal research/opinion and is likely to confuse. For reasons I go on to explain I suggest reverting to the title 'Enochian Language' and limiting the scope of the article to what is popularly known by that description, John Dee's 48 Angelic Keys or Calls.
 * First, 'Enochian': the term was first used in relation to Dee's material by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn for reasons that are not to the best of my knowledge recorded, but since Aleister Crowley made the first published references to the "Enochian Calls" and "Enochian Language" in The Equinox around 1909/10 and Regardie published the Golden Dawn papers in the 1930s the term has stuck. I agree with Kheph that it is not an accurate description and was not used by Dee, but it's worth remembering that the only reputable published analysis of the language, by the linguist Donald Laycock, is titled The Complete Enochian Dictionary. Other scholars, such as Nicholas Clulee (John Dee's Natural Philosophy) have followed suit in describing the language as 'Enochian.' I'm sure future publications will set the record straight but for now I consider it appropriate to title the article 'Enochian Language' but point out the source of the term and indicate that it was not a description used by Dee.
 * Second, the present article conflates the two languages received by Dee. The first language forms the book 'Loagaeth' and the second is the language of the 48 Angelic Keys. It is only the second that has been described as the 'Enochian' language and again I would turn to Donald Laycock's published description of their respective linguistic properties. There may or may not be a case for creating a new article describing the first language (perhaps a 'Loagaeth' page?) but either way I would argue – based on current published sources – that the two should be distinguished.
 * Third, what is the language actually called? 'Angelical' is simply one of the descriptions recorded by Dee in relation to the first language rather than a specific name or title. He describes it variously as "lingua et vox angelica," "the first language of god Christ," "angelicall language," "this angels language" and "that holy language." The angels on the other hand describe it as "our celestial speche" and "a language taught in paradise."  The second language, of the Angelic Keys, is described on only a couple of occasions by Dee as "this strange language" and "lingua angelica vel adamica" (I think there is a third reference but I can’t locate it right now).
 * So, my inclination would be to rewrite the article completely sticking to relevant, published information. Emeth6332 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On your first point: I do have to agree (even though I added the material myself) that the material on how to pronounce the words relies on new research.  The publication containing it should be out relatively soon, but now I better understand Wikipedia's rules on the matter and will gladly agree to having the material removed until the publication is out and the info becomes citeable.  For the rest of the article, though, I don't see a reliance on original research, so I don't see where a complete re-write would be necessary.


 * On your second point, I disagree. Wikipedia is not compossed of what is "popularly known."  If you want to support reverting the page to "Enochian Language", I feel you should have to show where Dee or Kelley called it that.  Otherwise, I support keeping the title "Angelical Language", making sure that "Enochian Language" redirects to here, AND making it very clear in the article that Dee's "Angelical" is popularly known as "Enochian" today.  (Of course, we also have to remember that "Enochian" is not a term limited to John Dee's work.  That will have to be addressed in the future.)


 * Next, we have the discrepency between the language in Loagaeth and the language of the Keys. Looking at the published sources, I see no reason to assume the two are different languages.  I can't find a reference of Dee or Kelley saying such a thing, and I can see several words from the Keys (and letter-names, Angel names, etc) also appearing in Loagaeth.  SO - we have to admit that any idea that the languages are separate is strictly the opinion of later scholars.  Donald Laycock, for instance, seems to think they are different - and I fully support our adding that fact to this article.  But it should be stated as his opinion, rather than an unreferenced "fact" of the language.  (My personal opinion is that they are two dialects of the same language - but that's just my opinion so I won't be adding it to the article.)


 * I DO like the idea of a Loagaeth page. But, right now the subject is so poorly understood I wouldn't attempt such a thing.  The upcoming publication I mentioned has a LOT of material on the subject - but we can't use that info here until it is published.


 * And finally- you mention that Dee calls the language by several terms in his journals. All of them are descriptive, and could also apply to subjects other than Dee's work (i.e. - see Divine Language.  The Angels never give an Angelical word for the language, only calling it "our Celestial Speech." (But again, this term is not restricted to Dee's work.)  On March 31, 1583 Dee does refer to it as the "Angelical Language" in a marginal note.  I agree that it seems more descriptive than it does a proper noun- but it is the only term Dee used that is specifically unique to his work. Kheph777 07:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kheph, you may wish to re-read the Wikipedia policy on original research as there is probably more here than you give yourself credit for. I think you should consider if the information included in your version of the article has been published elsewhere. If so, you should be able to offer citations; if not, could the information or interpretation be based on anything other than your own research? What about, for example, "...the Patriarch Enoch had been the last human ... to know the language - thus prompting later scholars to refer to the language ... as 'Enochian'" and "...the patriarch Enoch - who recorded the 'Book of Loagaeth' ... but the book was lost in the Deluge of Noah"?


 * Regarding the name 'Enochian,' Wikipedia policy states 'the threshold for inclusion ... is verifiability, not truth.' If you re-read my previous message you will note I agree that 'Enochian' is not an accurate description. However, the reason I know that is because I have spent many years studying all of the primary sources. There is no reliable published analysis anyone can turn to in order to verify for themselves that the languages are not called 'Enochian' short of similarly reading the primary sources extensively. The only published doubt that I am aware of is from Deborah Harkness who mentions that scholars have "complicated the situation by using the term 'Enochian' to denote the language of the angel conversations." Against that are numerous works published during the last 95 years that describe the language of the 48 angelic keys or calls (and very occasionally Loagaeth) as 'Enochian.' If you wish to present an argument that all of those previous descriptions are incorrect – and to reiterate, I share your view – then I'm sure you can do so and explain the reasons in your book, producing citeable references. But there’s an awful lot of inertia to overcome so I think it's premature to air the argument here and expect readers to simply trust that your (or for that matter my) judgement is correct and all others are wrong.
 * The term 'Enochian' is used outside Dee's work, but infrequently. The usual term to describe the pseudepigraphical books of Enoch is 'Enochic' and there are already Wikipedia articles on Enoch and the Books of Enoch. There are other uses, such as in the title of Jane Lead's The Enochian walks with God (London, 1694), but I don't think use of the term in the present context is likely to cause any more confusion than it already has over the last century.


 * Concerning Loagaeth/the Claves Angelicae, you are correct to say that Dee's libri mysteriorum do not state that the languages are different; but equally the records do not state that the languages are the same. We can't read anything in to that – there is a great deal Dee didn't record – so I see no reason to assume (or infer) anything. For the purpose of a Wikipedia article we are obliged to rely on published and verifiable sources and in relation to the lingua angelica that means Laycock's Complete Enochian Dictionary. Laycock refers to "the first 'angelical' language" and suggests it may be glossolalia, and then to the "true Enochian language" which is structured more like a natural language. Laycock points out that the differences between the first and second languages are "considerable." Laycock's opinion, as you describe it, was published 28 years ago, remains in print and is the only serious study of the languages currently available. I am not aware of any reputable published sources that challenge or dissent from Laycock's findings. So on the one hand we have the published analysis of a professional linguist and on the other your view, based on as yet unpublished research. I look forward to reading your arguments when they are published (only then can I, and others, verify what you say and test the plausibility of your arguments), but for now would cite only the published and verifiable analysis of Laycock.

I am just adding this has a side note to Laycock's "credentials". In his book "The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic" (Falcon Press 2nd edition) Israel Regardie relates the history over his bid to publish the first decent Enochian dictionary. He took it to a publisher who felt it would need a translator to give it a bit of academic weight behind it. Step forward Laycock. Now when Regardie was given the foreword and introduction by Laycock ,Regardie felt Laycock was disrespecting him and his work by saying the language wasnt "genuine". So he went back to the publisher and asked for Laycocks contribution to be removed. The publisher refused. And Regardie said the book wouldnt get published.... But it did has Laycock's. Has stated in Regardies book Laycock never studied Enochian or actually "practiced" and  the material and translations  were actually from Regardie's material notes. This has been known for years in occult circles, so Laycock's credentials should be treated with prejudice. (Bongo666")


 * On the 'angelicall language' description, I think it is just that and not a title intended to be used. I see no reason to prefer that over other descriptions such as 'holy language' or 'celestial speech' beyond personal taste. If however you can demonstrate that the other descriptions have been used in different contexts and that 'angelicall' has not then you might have a persuasive argument, albeit an argument based on original research.
 * Emeth6332 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If, as people like Emeth6332 claim, "Angelical Language" is simply a description rather than a title, then my vote would be to return the article to Enochian, Enochian language or Enochian (language). We could call this The second angelic language that John Dee and Edward Kelly were taught by angels, or any such arbitrary descriptive name, but it's preferrable to use a proper noun, the title that was coined for the language and has become its primary means of identification. Make it clear that Dee and Kelly never called it such, and it should be fine. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where it comes to the linguistic analysis of the language, we're pretty much in a stale-mate. I concede that we're stuck with Laycock in this regard (and there is precious little in the way of anaylsis even there!) - so we're just going to have to hold off on this debate until a better analysis is published.  However-


 * You also mention several points that I do not consider original research. The material about Enoch writing the book, being the last human to have recorded the language, the Deluge, etc. - all of that is straight out of Dee's journals.  What IS lacking (I admit) are page references to Dee's published journals - and I can get to work on fixing that.  (Or, are Dee's own journals not citeable on Wikipedia?)


 * As for the use of the term "Enochian" - it looks like even the scholars are still out on that one. Regardless of which title for this article wins out, I hope that we WILL include the fact that "Enochian" doesn't just indicate Dee's work, because it is a literary classification.  And, of course, that Dee never called his Angelical Language by that term. Kheph777 08:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons I suggested you read the 'no original research' policy is that it mentions the use of primary sources, particularly "...edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." I'm familiar with the primary sources and the remarks I mentioned (those are simply examples) seem to me to be interpretive rather than descriptive and not necessarily supported by secondary sources. You may be able to demonstrate otherwise.
 * Emeth6332 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazpsad
I can say nazpsad easily. lysdexia 14:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you can say something that seems like 'nazpsad,' but it would be an error if you were to claim it as a 'correct pronunciation.' enochian is a constructed language, and there is no clue as to how the individual letters are supposed to be pronounced. Auto movil 20:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Consonant clusters such as appear in 'nazpsad' are altogether common in Slavic languages such as Polish and Czech, which Dee and Kelley had some exposure to. For this example at least, we do not need to assume that extra vowels were inserted in pronunciation. &mdash; Stumps 04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel this way, for a) I did note that there is no strict rule for pronunciation, and secondly, the examples I was going to give were going to show thus. The only rule which was going to be bold-typed was that Z is pronounced as 'zoad' like ox-goad. Aside from thus, the technique which I was going to illustrate has proven successful for entering the Aethyrs and Watchtower's, as well as many invocations.


 * For example; The early stages of the "Twelfth Key,"


 * Nonci Ds Sonf Babage Od Chis Ob Hubardo Tibibp Allar Atraah Od ... (pron) no-ensee dahess sohnuf bahbahgeh odah caheeseh ohbeh hubahrehdoh et-ee-beebehpeh ahelelahreh ahet-rah-aheh odah.
 * Translation: O You that reign in the South, and are 28 Lanterns of ...


 * Pan (8=3) and ix degree. 61.69.208.43 20:24, 16 December 2005

There should be some material about the Golden Dawn pronounciations included in this matter. And this should be contrasted and compared with the guidelines that Dee gave himself.So that it can be shown that when the language has been used for magickal purposes it has varied amongst its users. Also the fact that the Golden Dawn use of Enochian actually ignored a lot of Dee's advice on pronounciation and added vowels which were not in the words given to Dee by the Enochian entities.(Bongo666)

First, this Zod Rule, you should bear in mind that this rule can be applied only if lack of vowel lender it necessary! And I absolutely agree with Bongo666/ Thereforethelord 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think this whole article needs a rewrite.
 * First: Enochian is not specifically an occult language, it's an angelic language. There is no citation for it as an occult one (although I do feel it can be called occult, as per the usage from the Golden Dawn, Crowley, and others).


 * I disagree with this. The Angels told Dee to use Angelical "before that which you call Hebrew."  Dee didn't speak Hebrew with his friends, nor did he write any texts in it.  Dee used Hebrew for occultism, as it is described in Agrippa's "Occult Philosophy."  Therefore, this is a citation of Angelical as an occult/magickal/sacred Language. Kheph777 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Second: Where Enochian comes from needs to be worked on. First mention Enoch, then anytime in between, then John Dee and Edward Kelly (I agree, Kelly is not in this article as he should), then others using enochian (and enochian magic).
 * Third: I'd like to see more citations. I see the primary sources section. But who is saying what here?
 * Fourth: The section heading for Enochian Tradition is heavily biased. Its not NPOV. This should be left up to the reader to decide.(Bongo666) Can someone elaborate on why the Enochian Keys are not listed on Wikipedia. A copy of the Keys can be found at the British library and used without any legal hassle. Also there needs to be explanation done on Liber Logaeth, there has been scant material published on Liber Logaeth .(Bongo666)


 * Lots of published info on Loagaeth coming soon. Stay tuned. Kheph777 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once I gather up all my resources, I'm looking to change a few things around and properly cite them. Zos 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There should also be reference to the issue over whether the entites who communicated with Kely and Dee where actually "Angels". Remember the entites made predictions that never came true. (Eg the Emperor of Bohemia). If they were "Angels" then they would have been infalliable because they were a representation of God's will. But they continually made life difficult for Dee and Kelly. In the scrying sessions Dee makes reference to entites who attempted to pass themselves off has legitimate angels.So there was a fair amount of deception on the part of the Enochian entites.("Bongo666")


 * I don't think such a debate is appropirate for a Wikipedia page. Dee's journals quite specifically called them Angels.  Many of them have traditional Angel names (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, etc).  And scholars from Dee to today have called them Angels.  The debate over whether they were "really" Angels is for another forum, not Wikipedia. Even the concept that real Angels "would have been infalliable" is strictly a matter of opinion.  (Consider the "Sons of God" in Genesis - who were obviously fallable Angels.) Kheph777 11:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Resources
Anyone wishing to add to this article may want to look over some available resources online.
 * An Enochian Miscellany
 * The Enochian World Of Ben Rowe
 * John Dee

Rewrite In progress
I am currently tackling a rewrite of Enochian Magic and will likely do this article at the same time (perhaps propose a merger or some sort of reorganization, im not sure.. still thinking it all through). For the moment you can keep an eye on its progress at my user page. When i feel it is mature enough to warrant peer review i will post here to get everyones attention. I just wanted to mention this so no one else goes on their own to do a rewrite and does double work. My main focus on wikipedia for the future is the entire enochian section, id like to see it up to the same standards as other areas on wikipedia. All input is more then welcome of course. Debeo Morium 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrte In Process
I am currently in the process of completely rewriting this article (although i will use any cited sources in the current article that seem useful of course). there seems to be a lot o support for a rewrite (if you disagree please let me know, i dont want to do it if everyone opposes it). Right now im just at the point where im collecting facts that i will use to create the article. If you have any points of fact you think might be useful for this article please contribute it here: User:Debeo_Morium/Enochian_Notes. Dont worry about NPOV or any of the typical wiki rules when contributing to my notes. Its only a place to collect relevant facts. It will all be dismantled as i move it into the final article. In the mean time feel free to contribute your input to this effort either here, on my talk page, or at any one of my drafts in my userpage. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
When I read this article as it stands I get the impression it is written primarliy by and for "innsiders" of the occult communities practicing enochian magic. Particularly I find it strange to let the sentence "Due to some stylistic differences, the words in Loagaeth and those in the Keys may represent two different "dialects" of the language" stand alone without mentioning of the argument advanced by Laycock on the background of this, that the dissimilarities seem to mirror different methods of "obtaining" the language. When this stands as it does, it seems like "enochian is a real language" is taken for granted, and any anomaly is interpreted as "different dialects", while in fact there are lots of reasons to doubt this. The languages doesn't even have a family resemblance - they are radically different. I think that a wiki article about a historical phenomenon like this should try to avoid such presuppositions, and rather aim to give the contrary evidence as well to inform the reader about the controvercy which surrounds enochian. In stead one could include the specific interpretations given in various occult milieus in the article on "enochian magic", or in a specific chapter on "later interpretations" or "enochian in modern occultism" or something similar.

Furthermore, the article is fairly unsystematic and confusing, which also helps more to obscure the topic than to clarify. The difference between the Logaeth material and the keys should be emphasised and explained (perhaps with dates of reception and contexts). Chapters on (the lack of) grammar, on the alphabet et.c. would also be welcome. After all, the article is supposed to be about the language, not the system, and not the angels or on metaphysics or cosmology. (Emetflux 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree with aspects of your concerns. This entry needs to be greatly expanded in order to make it less "for insiders."  It needs expanded beyond that, too- as there is much that is not said here.  HOWEVER, there is so little published on the material as of yet, there isn't much to go on for a Wiki article.  (We've got Laycock- but I suggest we give him his own section, rather than presenting his material as fact.)


 * I have to disagree with your opinions about Loagaeth vs. the language of the Keys. Words from the Keys do appear in Loagaeth, suggesting they are the same language.  HOWEVER - this is a debate that can't be solved on Wikipedia.  Again we have to wait for more published material on the subject. Kheph777 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [comment deleted by author]. Emeth6332 10:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure pure objectivity is what I just suggested- even to the point of not presenting Laycock's views as "facts" about the language. Laycock (who did not believe in Angels or magick) had his own preconceived notions about the language before he began his work.


 * You are quite clever in discovering that I am an author with an upcoming book on this subject. What a shocker that I might be here, editing an article on the VERY same subject!  (Surely there is a rule on Wikipedia against that???)  All sarcasm aside, however, I take neutrality VERY seriously.  *Of course* I have my own opinions about this subject- and when I start drifting into my own theories (aka- "original research"), my fellow editors point it out and I accept it.  (Notice the article isn't called "Angelical" anymore?  I never balked.  I explained my position, and I lost out fair and square.)  So, dude, if you have some kind of "personal" problem with me, take it to private email.  Since you were so adept in finding the Angelical Linguistics Group, surely you already have my email address.  Kheph777 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted my previous comments as they probably were over-critical and I didn't set out to cause offence; sorry if that was the result. My second contribution was intended more as a brake on your enthusiasm, if I can put it that way. I have no personal issue with you, and I think there are many points on which you and I would agree. Equally, there are some issues on which we have differing views, one of which appears to be Laycock. Perhaps I can explain my view. Irrespective of Laycock's opinions concerning magic or the source or efficacy of the Angelic Keys, as a linguist his findings concerning the qualities of the languages in question - considering them simply as languages, distinct from magical tools - carry weight. I have seen nothing to date to contest those findings. You may do so in future - for all I know you might have academic attainment in that area, or can show that Laycock was so biased against the subject that it impaired his professional judgement, or you might be another Michael Ventris. I am not in a position to judge until I have seen your results, which will no doubt be described here once they are published. But I think Laycock's findings concerning the languages as languages - a matter apart from the magical use of the material - should be given prominence, alongside the other information on the reception of the Keys and so forth by Dee and their intended use. I propose editing the article when I have more time so we'll see what emerges.
 * By the way, I found the angelic linguistics group through the link to your website you posted here. I'll probably join once your book appears. I'm sure then we'll have something to discuss. Emeth6332 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this response - it is very heartening. Really, I can understand being very suspicious of authors who want to edit Wiki articles to "support", or at least include, their own work.  I just hope my actions speak louder than those suspicions.  I believe in the Wikipedia system, and I'm here to work with you guys, not promote my own material.


 * As for Laycock- I don't actually disagree with your basic stance on him. He is the only professional linguist to have analysed the language- even though I found his analysis to be fairly superficial.  (It feels like he looked it over and made some educated observations, but he hardly provided an Angelical grammar course.)


 * And, I should say for the record, my work does not contradict Laycock in the least- so I don't have any stake in proving him wrong. I *disagree* with him about Loagaeth containing an entirely different language than the Keys, but such is life.  (I do believe they are different dialects of the same language, though.) Kheph777 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to come into this debate late, but there are issues over Laycock. Laycock hasnt done any work or study on Enochian. If there is we need references to back this up. Secondly Laycock was involved in controversy with Israel Regardie over the publication of the Enochian dictionary. The late Regardie asserted that Laycock essentially stole his work, after Regardie refused to allow his publisher of the time to allow a critical introduction by Laycock to Regardies Enochain dictoinary. Laycock himself remained silent about this over the years for fear of damaging his "reputation". Essentially if Regardie is to be believed ( and i have no reason to doubt his assertion) what constitutes Laycocks dictionary is essentially Regardies work. For reference purposes this is published in Falcon Press's The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magick.(1984). So Laycocks standing in the occult community is very low/poor. He is not a reliable subject on Enochian.--Redblossom 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Regardie was interested in 'establish[ing] the priority' of his dictionary, as he put it, and mentions that Askin 'must have formulated a Dictionary which they published with the Laycock Introduction' which is not quite the assertion you make. In fact, Laycock first published on the subject of the 'enochian' language in 1973, five years before publication of the Dictionary. We also have independent testimony from Jacques Guy, a former academic colleague of Laycock, that during a sabbatical from the Australian National University in the mid-1970s Laycock spent 'several months' studying the Dee manuscripts in the British Museum's reading rooms before compiling the book. I would add that far from being unreliable I think Laycock's book was amongst the first to expose original material untapped by the Golden Dawn; and speaking from the perspective of a Dee 'purist' (the GD's interpretation holds no attraction for me) it is of greater value than most works produced on the subject - just my opinion. Emeth6332

While I do see the initial concern regarding neutrality i feel it is flawed. While it is true that certain sentences seem to assume Enochian is an actual language with dialects and translations unfortunately its hard to give reliable sources for a counter argument. There are plenty of people out there who may claim it doesn't look like a real language, but i personally don't know of one that sets out to scientifically assert this. So its hard to cite a reference to disprove some of these claims. However if you can come up with any counter arguments to various points that might be worth including present it and im sure it will make its way into the article if it is a reliable source. Debeo Morium 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but I do perhaps feel that the burden of proof should just as much be on the "Enochian is a natural language" position, all the time the text corpus is as limited as it is, and all the time there exist a possibility that (at least parts of) the phenomenon is explicable through known phenomenas as glossolalia. That many occultists hold this position does not make it more true, if the position isn't backed up with evidence. At the very least I think that skeptical views such as presented by Laycock (who actually was a linguist and ipso facto speaks with some authority) should be mentioned and referred to. If we need more things to cite, there is another skeptical account building on Laycock, published in an online journal here: http://www.skepsis.no/marginalia/enochian_language_a_proof_of_t.html. (Emetflux 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC))


 * The thing is, most places where it talks about the language as if it was a real language is referring more to the practitioner view of the language, and not to assert that it is scientifically valid. Perhaps the wording doesnt make this clear (and if that is the case feel free to change around the wording in those cases, i would support it). As for opinions of people who disagree with the validity of the language, well it seems kinda pointless to mention everyone who doesnt believe in a religious view. I mean thats like in an article on the new testimont including a quote from a Muslim that disagrees every time a story in the bible is pointed out. Since we really aren't arguing about scientific fact here i think NPOV needs to take a slightly different perspective. Its all one big gray area though, and to be honest its a tough topic to properly NPOV. I wouldn't be opposed to laycocks interpretation being added per se, im just not sure. Why dont you propose a way in which it could be added and we can mull over it together. Also check out my section below regarding "rewrite in process", if you'd like you can add bullet point notes to the rewrite im actively working on. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unclear whether it wants to convey what practitioners think or what can be reasonably said and argued for in a rational discourse. I will see if I can maybe do something with the wording to make that clearer. That said, I only partially agree with your second point. It is clear that this shouldn't be a propaganda channel for skeptical inquiry - but I do think that kind of evaluation deserves space, nonetheless. I don't completely agree with the comparison with the NT. Rather, I think this compares to for instance if the article about the NT should exclude historical-critical approaches. Or if the one on Genesis should embrace creationism, and the book of Mormon pass off as fact. I think it is in its place to point out some criticism to points which actually are more or less empirical statements. But I realize I am just criticising now without actually contributing... I will try to be more constructive though, and help composing the new article. Cheers (Emetflux 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I did some changes now, trying to clarify a bit more the reception of the language. Also included a section on skeptical and linguistic evaluations. In addition I tried to lift the critical standard a bit by adding more notes and sources. Although I did try to let as much of the original text remain, only expanded. Please check it out and see if it looks ok or not. (Emetflux 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Looks like a wonderful improvement as far as im concerned. It looks like you had a chance to look over my notes too if im not mistaken. I really hope it helped. The only point i picked up on (and im sure ill have more tomarow when i reread it after some sleep) is when you mentioned Enoch. He wasn't exactly the only person who was supposedly given the language. Enoch asked god to pass on the knowledge to others. So he wrote a book, and several people (it isnt clear how many generations) learned of this "wisdom" until the time when they abused the power and god took it from them. I believe there are some notes on my user page (Enochian notes section) about this. But I can do the changes myself tomarow. Just wanted to give you some feedback before i ran to bed. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 05:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, actually that part was already there. I saw that it was a bit scanty, but it wasn't my main concern at that point. If you'd go over it, that would be nice though. Cheers, (Emetflux 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Enochian related organizations
Hey i noticed in your recent edits to the Enochian page you used themagickalreview.com as a source. Im suprised you know about it. You wouldnt happen to be the guy who runs the site? I actually know him rather well. He is where i got a copy of the enochian manuscripts before he published them. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't run the Magickal Review. But I am doing some research on the development of Enochian magic, and have found their publication of the Sloane MSS extremely helpful. I think it ought to be better known, since when the digital revolution is used in this way we don't have to rely on secondary sources so much anymore. So kudos to them ;)(Emetflux 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Oh well in that case you might find my own site useful. Its a bit in its infancy but has a lot of great resources. You can see it here. I also have scanned high resolution copies of the manuscripts on themagickalreview as well as a few manuscripts of enochian they dont have, you can find the manuscripts here. Let me know if you found any of it useful or if you enjoyed the resources on the site. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed this looks very helpful. PDF files are much easier to handle for one thing, and the additional material here is interesting. Especially the Ashmole documents were something I wanted to consult. Say, do you have any connection with the Order of the Cubic Stone? (Emetflux 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Funny you should ask. Very few people know of the order of the cubic stone, and even fewer know anything specific about it. However the order has been an interest of mine for about 10 years now. I certainly know more then most. I even think I have a dozen or so of their early news letters from back when they were official and active. It even partially inspired the name for the site. What in particular did you want to know about them? - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. The name of the site combined with the nature of your interest and obvious knowledge of the topic and sources led me to suspect a connection. I too have found it hard to dig up information about them. I was mostly curious more generally, as I think the phenomenon they at least seem to represent is interesting. I would be very curious to find out what the content of their newsletters consisted of, and what kind of practical work they did. I have also been meaning to find out which background the members came from (especially occult-wise). Since they seem to have been "back-to-the-sources" purists it is interesting to watch their whole enterprise in comparison with earlier occult trends, especially following the grand G.D. synthesis, but also Thelemic, Aurum Solis and other receptions. I take it you are in contact with some of the original members? (Emetflux 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I have been in contact with members of many occult organizations. While my focus is enochian i like to study all religions and all aspects of the occult. I don.t like the idea of faith in one viewpoint at the expense of all other knowledge. This seems to be common amongst occultists. I have had contact or continue to have contact with people from: OTO, AA, Cubic Stone, Aurum solis, Golden Dawn, Church of Satan (I am not a satanist, but i dont discriminate when it comes to understanding), and many others. Im happy to share anything i may know about this organizations or religious/occult topics. As for the order of the cubic stone, they are very much a purist order. They encouraged all members to read Dee's original journals and draw their own understanding from it then disseminate it as a group. Their newsletters often included passages from the journals with translation. In fact the majority of their newsletters were just that, with the occasional member essay or bulletin thrown in for good measure. Any rituals they had were directly from the source material and very little of their own opinion was added to any formally accepted ritual (contrary to the other Enochian orders i listed). Would you like me to try to dig up those newletters and post them on my site for you? Is there anything else you'd like to know on the topic? - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries about the Satanists; I have good friends in that camp myself. As I also do in OTO, AA, GD and other occult circles. But back to the point; I would be very grateful if you put out those newsletters - that would have been a great resource. Or else, if the guys from the Cubic Stone don't like it to get online, I would be very happy to just have it e-mailed.. ;) Apart from that, it seems like we have many shared interests and there is probably many things that could be interesting to discuss with you. One thing springs to mind though: I have been wondering about the Aurum Solis' claims about their past (i.e. their being founded in the 1890s). It seems to me that at least a lot of what they are about in their present incarnation dates mostly to the 70s with the publication of the Magical Philosophy. Especially, the Enochian material there seems to be rather much influenced by G.D. sources as published by Regardie (with some additional research into the sources probably having been done). Would you happen to know how much Enochian material would be present in the early A.S. - if indeed such an Order actually existed (some sources tell me there has been some creativity involved in writing their history)? (Emetflux 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I think this thread should be moved to the Enochian talk page. Since we are talking about things that to me seem like they could be useful to the article. I would like to add brief mentions of most of those orders/organizations and add pages for the organizations that dont already have their own. Ny the way i should point out im not in any of these organizations, i just know a lot about them. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I am currently researching the history of the development of Enochian from and after Dee/Kelley, and could probably help contributing to some of the periods (for instance the obscure period of the 17th century). One problem is that some of my knowledge on this would count as original research at present. Although I am in process of getting some of it published. (Emetflux 08:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Im going to try to put together some historical and scholarly papers on the subject (host it at the cubicpath and then use that to extend many of these sections. I havent been able to find "the order of the cubic stone" newsletters unfortunately. But they may come up. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Learning this language
Does anyone know where to to learn this language such a site somewhere?


 * Yes, but the resource is not yet available. You can see the page for the upcoming publication here (including an upcoming "Course in the Tongue of Angels"):  http://kheph777.tripod.com/indexangelical.html  Once this material is published, we can vastly expand this article with citeable references.


 * [comment deleted by author] Emeth6332 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes cee the Adamic Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.218.23 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelology Info Removed
I have removed the following text from the article. It concerns Dee's study of Angelology - which should go into the article on Dee himself, and not the article about the Angelical Language.


 * As evidenced by his book collection, Dee had more than a casual interest in angels; he specifically sought out all past conversations between man and angels with a passion. He had a number of texts by Ficino, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, and Johannes Trithemius as well as the more common biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.  He studied the similarities of the angelic conversations in these works, immersing himself in angelology and the specific study of communication with angels.  All of these mathematicians, cryptographers and philosophers that had revelations with angels had authoritative knowledge that divine messengers, guides on revelatory journeys and angels of the apocalypse were the most common and trustworthy sources of information for the patriarchs of old.


 * Angelology was a pervasive element within Dee's library collection. He was acquainted with one of the greatest mathematicians of his time, Girolamo Cardano, a man that credited a guardian angel with inspirational "visions of power."    Agrippa encouraged his readers to seek "a voice from Heaven, a voice that teacheth from above."   Agrippa's teacher, Johannes Trithemius, wrote De septem secundeis, which discussed a method of long distance communication based on the seven planets and their guardian angels "according to the tradition of the wise men of old."    Dee had at least 16 works by Robert Grosseteste, with whom he shared a great synergy with their common interests in angels as well as optics, mathematics and astronomy.

_________________________________________________________________ User Enochian Borg Page Change Suggestion: _________________________________________________________________
 * The fact this information should be in the biographical section about Dee is true and there is a link to that page and mention that there is more information as to the circumstances leading to the use of the word enochian.   I found the use of the word "occult" misleading to the reader since "occult" is often used in a negative way.  Although after reading "Occult" on wikipedia I find that it is the proper use of the word.   Perhaps there might be another more nuetral word that could be used to accurately describe "hidden" or a parenthesis next to "occult" to elaborate the use of the word?  That way it isn't confused with "Charles Manson" or "Cults".  This is only my suggestion to the main page editor.   I won't make changes to any pages even if I could.  Besides giving advice.  Unless of course WikipediA gives me the ability and authority. ENOCHIAN BORG (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ENOCHIAN BORG (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture
Updated the section to include a line on the television show Supernatural.Twobells (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Why are there no pictures?!? Please post them if you've got themLittletemchin329 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done: Added a PD image of the alphabet. Twobells (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Enochian alphabet
This article refers to an alphabet used to write the language, but no examples (and no description beyond the number of letters) is given. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Added the alphabet which is taken from a rare PD image. Twobells (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited section 'Enochian in popular culture'
Richard asr (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a "constructed language"
I think it is unprofessional for wikipedia to classify this in the category "constructed languages." That presupposes a sort of intent which all the history presented on this page belies. Given that the language is said to have features of glossolalia, and that its "creators" maintain that it was received through occult means, "constructed" just doesn't fit. Whether you think glossolalia is supernatural or simply some sort of religious psychosis, it's clearly not the same thing as Lojban, Interlingua, or even Elvish. Therefore, I move that this page be removed from that category. I have yet to investigate whether there may be another more appropriate - what do y'all think?

P.S. I may be misusing "category": I'm just reacting to the classification in the table at the top; I assumed that that represents category membership. Brad Gibbons (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Enochian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712100049/http://www.themagickalreview.org:80/enochian/alphabet.php to http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/alphabet.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826140151/http://www.themagickalreview.org:80/enochian/ to http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927183854/http://www.esotericgoldendawn.com/mysteries_enochian_font.htm to http://www.esotericgoldendawn.com/mysteries_enochian_font.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Enochian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230010212/http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/ to http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/alphabet.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410190925/http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/sloane_3188/ to http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/sloane_3188/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding
Well, I added a few articles that where in here and moved the topics to there own article. Mainly Celestial Alphabet, Malachim, and "Passage Du Fleuve" or "passing the river") The Angelical Language should be reheaded Enochian. Most oocult/Magick books published on the language and culture use Enochian. To call it "Angelical language is silly and snobby. Who ever decided not to use Enochian is misguided.(Bongo666) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.18.219 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Enoch
Who was Enoch?

Enoch walked with God and he dieth not for God, took him.

It is written:

Upon the earth was no man created like Enoch, for he was taken from the earth.

He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full: as the sun shining upon the temple of the most High, and as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds, and as the flower of roses in the spring of the year, as lilies by the rivers of waters, and as the branches of the frankincense tree in the time of summer and as a cypress tree which groweth up to the clouds.

The first follower of the Law was Enoch, the first of the healers, of the wise, the happy, the glorious, the strong, who drove back sickness and drove back death.

Enoch, the man of the Law, the wisest of all beings, the most glorious, the most worthy of invocations amongst all beings, the most worthy of glorification amongst all beings.

Who first thought what is good, who first spoke what is good, who first did what is good.

Excerpt: The Ancient Word Series, The Gospel of Peace

Enoch practiced no Magic.

Enoch was the only person that lived before the Great Flood, was taken up to Heaven and saw the demise of all flesh by the Great Deludge.

It was Enoch, the chosen Scribe of YHWH (GOD) that details the facts of creation.

Read the Book(s) of Enoch and the accounting of Enoch in the Gospel of Peace then you will know that he was the First Holy Prophet of God.

Sons and Daughters of Adam that walk in the path of Enoch the Holy Prophet and Scribe of YHWH are ENOCHIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.215.23 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Adamic / English Thesaurus
Enochian is the written form of Adamic. This post has now been moved to the Admic Talk Page and shows you how to speak the Adamic language, which is already in your head. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.218.23 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Noting Laycock's theories may be non-scientific, even fringe
Laycock's theories may actually count as fringe theories. He did certainly not follow linguistic best practice, which is to interview speakers of a language to determine how a population pronounces a language. However, Laycock interviewed and collected data from exactly zero angels. Looks like a misapplication of linguistic theory to me. Now, the reason pronunciation tables for actual languages become 'data' or a 'list of facts' is because research is done to determine the facts, the various researchers agree on the facts because they are working with the same populations. But the native speakers of this language can't be interviewed - science even denies the existence of the speakers as not proven. So, we have one highly speculative and unique "pronunciation guide" that isn't verifiable, hasn't been replicated, and which hasn't been established as fact or replicated by another linguistic authority in any way. This is the reason it remains copyrighted material - it hasn't moved into the realm of generally agreed upon fact.

Laycock seems to have a good reputation in the realm of actual languages, but his application of linguistics to the matter more resembles quackery than science. If someone came up with a medical theory of how to treat angels, that would be equally unverifiable and certainly considered fringe. How is Laycock's work with Enochian viewed by his peers? Did it get published in any linguistic journals during his life? Has his posthumously published work - published by occult and magical publishers, not linguistic or academic ones - been accepted as a viable work of linguistics by the broader linguistic community? I think we may be relying more on the appearance of the author as a linguist rather than evaluating whether what he did in his Enochian research was actually 'linguistics' as commonly defined. Skyerise (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're being intentionally ridiculous, and again acting in bad faith. I suppose we can't give the classical pronunciations of Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Sanskrit, because linguists haven't interviewed native speakers? I'm coming to the conclusion that you're little better than a vandal, which is a shame, because if you were to actually work to make WP better, I suspect you could contribute quite a lot. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I must admit that when told me about this on my talk page, I didn't quite believe it. But He did certainly not follow linguistic best practice, which is to interview speakers of a language to determine how a population pronounces a language. However, Laycock interviewed and collected data from exactly zero angels. Looks like a misapplication of linguistic theory to me. is certainly a group of sentences I had not expected to read today (or ever). Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Always glad to entertain. The real question is, does Laycock's analysis of Enochian pronunciation constitute 'a list of facts' which are exempt from copyright? Skyerise (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So which is it, FRINGE or COPYVIO? The fringe idea is just silly (I can't tell if you're being serious), and the copy-vio question's been answered. And no, I seriously doubt that Nthep restored the page history because I bullied them. They've explained their reason to you on their talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Both. A fringe theory can be certainly also be copyrighted. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a reasonable conjecture, clearly attributed and cited to the reputable linguist making it, and even paraphrased from the original. I see no problem with reporting it in this manner. Double sharp (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)