Talk:Enochian
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. — 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
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)
Well, let me resay something that i said before because i don't think i was very clear. Agrippa never said he language was Enochian, nor did he say it was for communicated with angels. So, it wouldn't be called Enochian. Dee being exposed to these languages and dee using these languages are quite different. For example, I have a book right now by Pa Chin called "family" its a dorky little chinese book and although i like asian literature. I hate this book and use it more as a coster then a book. So, I don't think dee just having a book makes it valid enough for it to say "Well, since he had the book, he must have been influenced by it, and so thats where enochian came from!" after all, if that where the case, he would have mentioned it in his diaries, and he didn't. So this makes me feel very very very uncomfortible. Because a person who reads this will think that he developed enochian from agrippa is a fact, when its more of a hypotheisis. now... as i was going to say.... *ahem*
WOAH! Dude! Chill out! Ok, apartently my recomendation was a bit confusing. When i said, Seperate Articles. I ment totaly different pages! Not MORE ARTICLES! Oh lord, this is way to much.
Basicly, you need to seperate this into different pages because your just wallowing enochian all up into one. Thats like explaining all of greek philosophy from pythagorus to platonus all on one page. Its just absurd and daunting. You need to make a page for Enochian Language and Enochian Alphabet. Similarly to how you have seperate pages for Conlans, conlan alphabets. Even with regular languages like japanese has seperate links for the kanji/hiragana/katakana.
I do not like the quote "He studied the similarities of the angelic conversations in these works" There is no evidence of what he studied and if he compared them. Thats more opinionated. It doesn't have anything to do with enochian besides the conjectural.
Again, I also really don't like the mention of Trithemius's alphabet or agrippas alphabet. I like the information you found on these alphabets. But these alphabets are NOT ENOCHIAN. Enochian was founded by dee and bares very very very little resemblances to these languages. These languages where used primarily as ciphers. Not an alphabet for an entire conlan. I highly recomend that you put Trithemius's alphabet on its very own page with an explanation of how it works and its semantics but it doesn't belong here. Same with Agrippa. (speaking of which, you spelt the agrippan alphabets wrong, Its Celestial alphabet, Malachim, and "Passage Du Fleuve" or "passing the river") <-- see, stubs, they could use the help.
Even the Ethiopian article could be be its own page. Since its not enochian of how john dee envisioned it, and its rather large.
Very little is mentioned about the keys or the aethers and there should be. This is very important toward enochian magick. If you care to make both "the Enochian Keys" and "The 30 Aethers" that would be awesome.
Lastly, despite all the information you put down on ethiopian enochian influence. You have relatively little on the golden dawn, thelemic, Aurum Solis and benjamin rowe. These people where HUGE in enochian. Much more so then that ethiopian theory. Add them for christ sake!
Well, thats all about all I have to say. I thing its a damn good article. Just needs to be seperated into different pages then just one whole site or no one will read it. Also needs to be elaborated on in areas.
Jaynus _Izanagi 02:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Adding
Well, I added two articles * Agrippa's Angelic Alphabet and
- Trithemuis' Angelic Alphabet but wikiworld is being annoying and keeps saying its spam (this kinda stuff has happened to me before and usualy works in a day or two. So, We'll see. *cross fingers* at any rate, to make the article more readible I thought it would be good to give Thithemius and Agrippa there own alphabet articles (since agrippas individual alphabets already had bits anyway. and there not Enochian alphabets, or enochian at all.) I would like to remove the whole explanation of agrippa and trithemuis all togather but that cameo guy never responded to my objections, so I moved them over to there own little articles to see how that flows. At any rate, it would be kinda silly to have no article on them so long as that picture is up comparing the alphabets. so if you could add a picture of the enochian alphabet that only has the enochian alphabet on it. awesome, you can probably get permission from that esotericarchives.com guy.
Jaynus _Izanagi 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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).
- 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.
- 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)
Resources
Anyone wishing to add to this article may want to look over some available resources online.
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.