TOWARD A CELTIC NUMEROLOGY by Mike Nichols
Taliesin_2

Thu Dec 24 22:49:09 1998
Koren #1 @7314*br*Thu Apr 19 12:28:26 1990*br*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*br*This article was written by Mike Nichols for the Magick Lantern BBS.It may be*br*freely  distributed  provided  that the following conditions are met:*br*(1) No  fee is charged for its use and  distribution and no commercial use is*br*made of it;  (2)  It is not changed or  edited in any way without the author's*br*permission;   (3)  This  notice  is not removed.*br*This article may be periodically updated by the author; this version is current*br*as of 9/28/88. Contact Mike Nichols at  The Magick Lantern BBS [(816)531-7265,*br*7pm. to 11am., 300 baud ONLY]  for more recent updates, or to leave your own*br*comments.*br*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*p**br*             TOWARD A CELTIC NUMEROLOGY*br*             ==========================*br*                    by Mike Nichols*p**br*        '...I have been a word among letters.'*br*             --the Book of Taliesyn, VIII*p**br*   What's in a word?  Or a name?  What special power resides in a word,*br*connecting it so intimately to the very thing it symbolizes?  Does each word*br*or name have its own 'vibration', as is generally believed by those of us who*br*follow the Western occult tradition?  And if so, how do we begin to unravel*br*its meaning?  Just what, exactly, is in a word?  Well, LETTERS are in a word.*br*In fact, letters COMPRISE the word.  Which is why Taliesyn's remark had*br*always puzzled me.  Why didn't he say he had been a 'letter among words'?*br*That, at least, would seem to make more logical sense than saying he had been*br*a 'word among letters', which seems backwards.  Unless...*br*   Unless he was trying to tell us that the word is NOT the important thing*br*-- the critical thing is the LETTERS that make up a word!  The Welsh bard*br*Taliesyn was, after all, a pretty gifted fellow.  He certainly put all the*br*other bards at Maelgwyn's court to shame.  And over the years, I've learned*br*never to take his statements lightly -- even his most enigmatic statements.*br*Perhaps he was really suggesting that, in order to understand the true*br*meaning of a word or name, one must first analyze the letters that comprise*br*it.  Of course, this is certainly not a new theory.  Any student of arcane*br*lore would at once recognize this concept as belonging in the opening remarks*br*of any standard text on numerology.  But to read the same meaning behind a*br*line of poetry penned by a 6th century Welsh bard may be a bit surprising.*br*Is it possible that the Celts had their own system of numerology?*br*   Let us begin the quest by asking ourselves what we know about numerology*br*in general.  Most of our modern knowledge of numerology has been gleaned from*br*ancient Hebrew tradition, which states that the true essence of anything is*br*enshrined in its name.  But there are so many names and words in any given*br*language that it becomes necessary to reduce each word to one of a small*br*number of 'types' -- in this case, numerological types from 1 to 9 (plus any*br*master numbers of 11, 22, etc.).  This is easily accomplished by assigning*br*a numerical value to each letter of the alphabet, i.e. A=1, B=2, C=3, and so*br*on.  Thus, to obtain the numerical value of any word, one simply has to add*br*up the numerical values of all the letters which comprise the word.  If the*br*sum is a two digit number, the two digits are then added to each other*br*(except in the case of 11, 22, etc.) to obtain the single digit numerical*br*value of the entire word, which may then be analyzed by traditional*br*Pythagorean standards.*br*   The problem has always been how to be sure of the numerical value of each*br*letter.  Why SHOULD A equal 1, or B equal 2, or Q equal 8?  Where did these*br*values come from?  Who assigned them?  Fortunately, the answer to this is*br*quite simple in most cases.  Many ancient languages used letters of the*br*alphabet to stand for numbers (Roman numerals being the most familiar*br*example).  Ancient Hebrew, for instance, had no purely numerical symbols --*br*like our 1, 2, 3, etc. -- so their letters of the alphabet had to do double*br*duty as numbers as well.  One had to discern from the context whether the*br*symbol was meant as letter or number.  This was true of classical Latin, as*br*well.  Thus, in languages such as these, it is easy to see how a number*br*became associated with a letter:  the letter WAS the number.*br*   It is a bit more difficult to see how the associations in 'modern'*br*numerology came into being.  The modern numerological table consists of the*br*numbers 1 through 9, under which the alphabet from A through Z is written in*br*standard order:*p*   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9*br*   ---------------------------------*br*   A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I*br*   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R*br*   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z*p**br*This arrangement seems somewhat arbitrary, at best.  At the very least, it*br*is difficult to sense any 'intrinsically meaningful' relationship between a*br*letter and its numerical value.  After all, our modern alphabetical symbols*br*and our modern numerical symbols (Arabic) come from  two completely different*br*sources and cultures.*br*   For this reason, many contemporary numerologists prefer the ancient*br*Hebrew system because, at least here, there is a known connection between*br*letter and number.  However, when we attempt to adapt this system to the*br*English language, a whole new set of problems crops up.  For one, the entire*br*alphabet is arranged in a different order and some of our modern letters have*br*NO Hebrew equivalents.  Thus, based on the Hebrew alphabet, the only letters*br*for which we have numerical values are the following:*p**br*  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8*br*  ------------------------------------*br*  A    B    G    D    H    V    Z    P*br*  Y    K    L    M    N    W*br*  Q    R    S    TT*p*Koren #1 @7314*br*Thu Apr 19 12:28:55 1990*p*   Obviously, a modern numerologist wouldn't get very far with this table.*br*In order to compensate for the missing letters in the Hebrew system, most*br*modern textbooks on numerology 'fill in' the missing letters by 'borrowing'*br*numerical values from the Greek alphabet, thus mixing cultural symbols in an*br*eclectic approach that is not entirely convincing.*br*   Another problem is the exclusion of the number 9 from the table -- which*br*modern textbooks often 'explain' by saying that the Hebrews did not use the*br*number 9, since it was a 'sacred' and 'mystical' number.  The real truth,*br*however, is far less esoteric.  The fact is, the Hebrew alphabet DID have*br*letters with the numerical value of 9 -- the letters Teth and Sade.  But,*br*since Teth and Sade do not have equivalents in our modern English alphabet,*br*the 9 value must be left out.*br*   And finally, it is once again difficult to see any INTRINSIC*br*relationship between a Hebrew letter and the number it represents.  Why*br*should one symbol stand for 1, or another for 2, or yet another for 3, and*br*so on?  The whole superstructure seems somewhat shaky.      But let us now*br*turn our attention to a Celtic alphabetic system called the 'Ogham'.  This*br*alphabet is written by making a number of short strokes (from 1 to 5) below,*br*above, or through a 'base line' (which in practice tended to be the edge of*br*a standing stone).  Thus, A, O, U, E, and I would be written, respectively:*p* ---/----//----///----////----/////---*p* Of course, in this system it is easy to see how a letter becomes associated*br*with a number, since the numerical value of each letter is implicit.  Thus,*br*A=1, O=2, U=3, E=4, and I=5.  (It is true there is much disagreement and*br*confusion among modern scholars as to how the Ogham alphabet should be*br*rendered.  Further, a number of different Oghams seem to have been employed*br*at various times by different Celtic cultures.  But this confusion usually*br*centers on whether the strokes should be above, below, or through the base*br*line -- NOT on the number of strokes used.  On that point, there is general*br*agreement.  And though orientation to the base line is important, it is not*br*essential to our discussion of numerology, since we need only concern*br*ourselves with the NUMBER of strokes used.)*br*     Thus, based on the work of such scholars as P.C. Power, S. Ferguson, D.*br*Diringer, I. Williams, L. Spence, and D. Conway, I have synthesized the*br*following table of Celtic numerology:*p**br*   1       2       3       4       5*br*   ---------------------------------*br*   A       D       T       C       I*br*   B       G       U       E       N*br*   H       L       V       F       P*br*   M       O       W       J       Q*br*   X       K       R        S       Y*br*    Z*p* Using this table, the student of Celtic numerology would then proceed to*br*analyze any word in the generally accepted manner.  One should not be*br*concerned that the numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 do not appear in this system, as*br*the Ogham alphabet had NO letters with these values (as opposed to the Hebrew*br*alphabet which DID have letters with the missing 9 value, as mentioned*br*earlier).  Another consideration is that the Ogham alphabet is just that --*br*an alphabet.  It never represented any particular language, and historically*br*it has been employed by many different languages.  Again by contrast, the*br*Hebrew alphabet was structured for a particular language -- Hebrew -- and*br*many problems arise when we attempt to adapt it to a language for which it*br*is not suited.*br*    Although the Ogham alphabet only has letter values from 1 through 5, all*br*of the numbers from 1 through 9 (plus any master numbers of 11, 22, etc.)*br*will be used in the final analysis (just as in the Hebrew system).  To*br*understand how this works, let us try an example.  We will use the name of*br*the Welsh goddess Rhiannon:*p*   R + H + I + A + N + N + O + N*br*   5 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 5 + 5 + 2 + 5 = 29*br*                           2 + 9 = 11*br*      Most numerologists will agree that 11 is a 'master number' or 'power*br*number' and therefore it is not further reduced by adding the two digits*br*(although, if one does this, 1 + 1 = 2, and 2 is considered the first even*br*and feminine number in the numerical sequence, certainly appropriate for a*br*Welsh Mother Goddess).  Viewed as an 11, the analysis is usually that of*br*someone who is on a 'higher plane of existence' (certainly appropriate for*br*a goddess), someone who brings 'mystical revelation'.  Often this is someone*br*who feels slightly distant from the people surrounding him or her, and who*br*has trouble feeling any real empathy for them (which seems to fit a faery*br*queen who has come to live in the land of mortals).  Also, this is sometimes*br*the number of the martyr, or of someone unjustly accused (which is certainly*br*true of Rhiannon's story as told in the 'Mabinogi', in which she is falsely*br*accused of destroying her own son).      By way of contrast, the 'modern'*br*system would have Rhiannon be a 3, a somewhat inappropriate masculine number*br*(not that all feminine names should always yield a feminine number -- but*br*one would at least expect it to do so in the case of an archetypal mother*br*goddess).  The Hebrew system would yield an even more inappropriate 4, that*br*being the number of the material world and all things physical (and since*br*Rhiannon hails from faery, she is definitely not of this material plane.) T*p*Koren #1 @7314*br*Thu Apr 19 12:29:30 1990*p**br*    By now, some of my more thoughtful readers may think they see some*br*inconsistency in my approach.  Why have I gone to so much trouble to point*br*up the flaws in traditional systems of numerology (even going so far as to*br*suggest an entirely new system), only to fall back on interpretations of the*br*numbers that are strictly traditional?  The reason is this:  all of my*br*objections thus far have been limited to METHODOLOGY.  When it comes to*br*interpreting the meaning of the numbers, I have no quarrel with the*br*traditional approach, since here we enter the field of universal symbolism.*br*All systems of numerology, be they Hebrew, modern, Oriental, or whatever,*br*tend to attach the same interpretive meaning to the numbers.  When Three Dog*br*Night sings, 'One is the loneliest number that you'll ever know...', it is*br*a statement which is immediately understood and agreed upon by people from*br*widely diverse cultures.  And the same holds true for all other numbers, for*br*we are here dealing with archetypal symbols.*br*    It is worth repeating that, although I believe this system to have a firm*br*theoretical basis, it is still in an embryonic state -- highly tentative,*br*highly speculative.  To the best of my knowledge, it is also an original*br*contribution to the field of numerology.  While some writers (notably Robert*br*Graves in 'The White Goddess') have dealt with the numerical values of Ogham*br*letters, I believe this article is the first instance of employing it*br*specifically as a system of numerology.  I have spent many long hours working*br*with Celtic numerology -- putting abstract theory to use in practical*br*application -- but much work remains to be done.  For this reason, I would*br*be happy to hear from readers who are interested in the subject and who would*br*like to share their own experiences and thoughts. T*br*