The Tongue of Angels: History vs Mythos

Be careful of conflating history with mythos. Academically, the Angelical Language of Dee and Kelley did not exist in any way before them. Hebrew could not have adopted anything from or been influenced by Angelical, because Angelical did not exist before 1581-2. In this light, Angelical would have to have Hebrew influence, not the other way around.

But the mythos – that is the “magical reality” – is different. For example, I was once told by my HGA that “Lapis Lazuli” has roots in Angelical. But I can’t make that claim on any kind of academic or historical or etymological basis. It’s no different than having Marduk, Ra, and Yahweh all claiming to have created the world single-handedly. Mythos isn’t literal history.

As for “Lapis Lazuli” (and I’m not even sure WHICH part of that is supposed to have Angelical roots!*) I would take this info as an invitation to incorporate aspects of one or both of those words into Angelical (like Dee did with Londoh and Madrid), rather than looking back in history for an Angelical basis for the mundane words.

* – As the Angelical for “stone/rock” is “-patralx” or “orri”, it seems unlikely “Lapis” has any link to those words. So perhaps “Lazuli” is where the Angelical is found – and a brief search suggests that word is of Arabic/Persian origin, and is simply the name of the place where the stone was mined. (Hence “Stone of Lazuli.”) So it at least has a mysterious origin to work with. 🙂

Get a signed copy of The Angelical Language (Vols I and II) and The Essential Enochian Grimoire at Doc Solomon’s Occult Curios.