raum215 wrote:That is, if you think those names are correct. Dee was told his work was FULL of errors. Personally, I think, as it was implied to him that there is a reason "BLUMAZA" did not appear to him. Keep in mind, the original table these names are derived from (Tabula Collecta) is severely damaged, especially the second and third tables. This means the potential reconstructions of the 2nd and 3rd letters of each of the names could be up for debate.
This is absolutely true. I guess I'm just of a pragmatic state of mind that we just have to go with what we have instead of starting to second guess the MS. Here are the tables raum is talking about for anyone who is interested:http://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/sloane_3188/img/37v-38r.jpghttp://www.themagickalreview.org/enochian/mss/sloane_3188/img/40v-41r.jpg
EDIT: Another thought arose, maybe the names of Murifri and Solgars could be used to calculate the third table of Tabula Collecta? I'll have to look into this. But from Casaubon p. 5 (or Skinner, p. 134-135):
M (49), V (43), R (35), I (47), F (9), R (33), I (42)
S (7), O (30), L (25), G (44), A (37), R (35), S (46)
Murifri then adds that these letters are in the third table of Tabula Collecta.
I did a quick comparison of the numbers from Murifri and Solgars and the Tabula Bonorum:
Bonorum row 3 (ie. table 3 of the Collecta, ie. the third letters of the names of the angels)
S F L O R L A I V G S I M
7 9 25 30 33 35 37 42 43 44 46 47 49
(Murifri and Solgars):
S F L O R R A I V G S I M
This at least confirms some of the letters and can be placed on the third table of Collecta except number 35 (L/R?).