THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

[from http://www.oakgrove.org/GreenPages/bos/0453.txt ]

   453

Subject: TOWARD A CELTIC NUMEROLOGY
                 ==========================
                       by Mike Nichols


          '...I have been a word among letters.'
                    --the Book of Taliesyn, VIII


                  What's in a word?  Or a name?  What special power reside
s in a
          word, connecting it  so intimately  to the very  thing it  symbo
lizes?
          Does  each  word or  name have  its own  'vibration', as  is gen
erally
          believed by those of us who  follow the Western occult tradition
?  And
          if so, how do we begin to unravel its meaning?  Just what,
          exactly, is in a word?  Well, LETTERS are in a word.  In fact, l
etters
          COMPRISE the word.  Which is why Taliesyn's remark had always pu
zzled
          me.  Why didn't he say he had  been a 'letter among words'?  Tha
t,  at
          least, would seem to make more logical sense than saying he had
been a
          'word among letters', which seems backwards.  Unless...

              Unless he was trying to tell us that the word is NOT the imp
ortant
          thing -- the critical thing is the LETTERS that make up a word!
 The
          Welsh  bard  Taliesyn was,  after  all, a  pretty gifted  fellow
.   He
          certainly  put all the other bards at  Maelgwyn's court to shame
.  And
          over the years,  I've learned never to take  his statements ligh
tly --
          even  his most enigmatic statements.  Perhaps he was really sugg
esting
          that, in order to  understand the true meaning of a  word or nam
e, one
          must first analyze  the letters that comprise it.   Of course, t
his is
          certainly not a new theory.  Any student of arcane lore would at
          once recognize this concept as belonging in the opening remarks
of
          any standard text on numerology.   But to read the same meaning
behind
          a line  of poetry penned  by a  6th century  Welsh bard may  be
a  bit
          surprising.  Is  it possible that  the Celts had  their own syst
em  of
          numerology?

              Let us begin the quest by asking ourselves what we know abou
t
          numerology in general.  Most of our modern knowledge of numerolo
gy has
          been gleaned from ancient Hebrew tradition, which states that th
e true
          essence of anything is enshrined  in its name.  But there are  s
o many
          names  and words in  any given language  that it  becomes necess
ary to
          reduce each word to one of a small number of 'types'  -- in this
 case,
          numerological types  from 1 to 9  (plus any master numbers  of 1
1, 22,
          etc.).  This  is easily accomplished by assigning a numerical va
lue to
          each letter of the alphabet, i.e. A=1, B=2, C=3,  and so on.  Th
us, to
          obtain the numerical value  of any word, one simply has  to add
up the
          numerical values of  all the letters which comprise the  word.
If the
          sum is a two digit number, the two digits are then added to each
 other
          (except in  the case  of  11, 22,  etc.) to  obtain  the single
 digit
          numerical value  of the  entire word,  which may  then be analyz
ed  by
          traditional Pythagorean standards.




   454

                  The problemhas always been howto be sure ofthe numerical
 value
          of each  letter.  Why SHOULD  A equal 1, or  B equal 2, or  Q eq
ual 8?
          Where did these values  come from?   Who assigned them?   Fortun
ately,
          the  answer to  this is  quite  simple in  most cases.   Many  a
ncient
          languages used letters of the alphabet to stand for numbers (Rom
an
          numerals being the most familiar example).  Ancient Hebrew, for
          instance, had no purely numerical symbols -- like our 1, 2, 3, e
tc. --
          so their letters of the alphabet  had to do double duty as numbe
rs  as
          well.   One  had to discern  from the  context whether  the symb
ol was
          meant as letter or number.  This was true of classical Latin, as
 well.
          Thus, in  languages such  as these,  it is  easy to  see how a
number
          became associated with a letter:  the letter WAS the number.

              It is a bit more difficult to see how the associations in 'm
odern'
          numerology came into being.   The modern numerological  table co
nsists
          of the numbers 1  through 9, under which the alphabet from A thr
ough Z
          is written in standard order:


             1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
             ---------------------------------
             A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I
             J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R
             S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z


          This arrangement seems somewhat arbitrary, at best.  At the very
          least, it is difficult to sense any 'intrinsically meaningful'
          relationship between a letter and its numerical value.  After al
l, our
          modern alphabetical symbols and  our modern numerical symbols (A
rabic)
          come from  two completely different sources and cultures.

                  For this  reason, many  contemporary numerologists  pref
er the
          ancient  Hebrew  system  because, at  least  here,  there  is a
 known
          connection between letter  and number.   However, when  we attem
pt  to
          adapt this system to the English language, a whole new set of pr
oblems
          crops up.   For one,  the entire alphabet  is arranged in  a dif
ferent
          order and some of our modern letters have NO Hebrew equivalents.

          Thus, based on the Hebrew alphabet, the only letters for which w
e have
          numerical values are the following:


            1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
            ------------------------------------
            A    B    G    D    H    V    Z    P
            Y    K    L    M    N    W
            Q    R    S    T


                  Obviously, a modernnumerologist wouldn't get veryfar wit
h this
          table.   In order to compensate for  the missing letters in the
Hebrew
          system,  most modern  textbooks  on numerology  'fill in'  the m
issing
          letters  by 'borrowing' numerical values from the Greek alphabet
, thus
          mixing cultural symbols in  an eclectic approach that is  not en
tirely
          convincing.




   455

              Another problem is the exclusion of the number 9 from the ta
ble --
          which  modern textbooks often 'explain' by saying that the Hebre
ws did
          not  use the number 9, since it  was a 'sacred' and 'mystical' n
umber.
          The  real truth,  however, is  far less  esoteric.   The fact  i
s, the
          Hebrew alphabet  DID have letters with the numerical value of 9
-- the
          letters  Teth and  Sade.    But,  since  Teth and  Sade  do  not
  have
          equivalents in our modern English alphabet, the 9 value must be
left
          out.

              And finally, it is once again difficult to see any INTRINSIC
          relationship  between a Hebrew  letter and  the number  it repre
sents.
          Why  should one symbol stand for  1, or another for  2, or yet a
nother
          for 3, and so on?  The whole superstructure seems somewhat shaky
.

                  But letus now turn our attention to a Celtic alphabetic
system
          called the  'Ogham'.  This alphabet  is written by making  a num
ber of
          short  strokes (from 1  to 5) below,  above, or through  a 'base
 line'
          (which  in practice tended to be the edge of a standing stone).
 Thus,
          A, O, U, E, and I would be written, respectively:


           ---/----//----///----////----/////---


          Of course,  in this system  it is  easy to  see how  a letter  b
ecomes
          associated with  a number, since the numerical value of each let
ter is
          implicit. Thus,  A=1, O=2, U=3,  E=4, and I=5.   (It is true  th
ere is
          much  disagreement and confusion among  modern scholars as  to h
ow the
          Ogham alphabet should  be rendered.   Further, a  number of  dif
ferent
          Oghams seem to have been employed at various times by different
          Celtic  cultures.  But this  confusion usually centers  on wheth
er the
          strokes should be above, below, or through the base line -- NOT
on the
          number of  strokes used.  On  that point, there is  general agre
ement.
          And  though  orientation to  the  base line  is important,  it
is not
          essential  to our discussion of numerology, since we need only c
oncern
          ourselves with the NUMBER of strokes used.)

                  Thus, based on  the work  of such scholars  as P.C. Powe
r,  S.
          Ferguson, D. Diringer,  I. Williams, L. Spence, and D.  Conway,
I have
          synthesized the following table of Celtic numerology:


             1       2       3       4       5
             ---------------------------------
             A       D       T       C       I
             B       G       U       E       N
             H       L       V       F       P
             M       O       W       J       Q
                     X               K       R
                                     S       Y
                                             Z




   456

          Using this table, the student of Celtic numerology would then pr
oceed
          to analyze  any word in the generally accepted manner.  One shou
ld not
          be  concerned that the numbers  6, 7, 8,  and 9 do not  appear i
n this
          system,  as the  Ogham alphabet had  NO letters with  these valu
es (as
          opposed to the Hebrew alphabet which DID have letters with the m
issing
          9 value, as  mentioned earlier).   Another consideration  is tha
t  the
          Ogham alphabet is just that -- an alphabet.  It never represente
d
          any particular language, and historically it has been employed b
y
          many different languages.  Again by contrast, the Hebrew alphabe
t was
          structured  for a particular language  -- Hebrew --  and many pr
oblems
          arise when we  attempt to adapt it to  a language for which it
is not
          suited.

                  Althoughthe Ogham alphabet onlyhas letter valuesfrom 1 t
hrough
          5, all of the numbers from 1 through 9 (plus any master numbers
of 11,
          22, etc.) will be used in the final analysis (just as in the Heb
rew
          system).   To understand  how this works,  let us try an  exampl
e.  We
          will use the name of the Welsh goddess Rhiannon:


             R + H + I + A + N + N + O + N
             5 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 5 + 5 + 2 + 5 = 29
                                     2 + 9 = 11


              Most numerologists will agree that
          11 is a 'master number' or 'power number' and therefore it is no
t
          further reduced by adding the two  digits (although, if one does
 this,
          1 + 1 = 2, and 2 is  considered the first even and feminine numb
er  in
          the numerical sequence, certainly appropriate for a Welsh Mother
          Goddess).  Viewed as an 11, the analysis is usually that of some
one
          who is on a 'higher plane of existence' (certainly appropriate f
or
          a goddess), someone who brings 'mystical revelation'.  Often thi
s is
          someone who feels slightly distant from the people surrounding h
im or
          her, and  who has trouble  feeling any  real empathy  for them
(which
          seems  to fit  a faery  queen  who has  come to  live in  the  l
and of
          mortals).  Also, this is sometimes the number of the martyr,
          or  of someone unjustly accused (which is certainly true of Rhia
nnon's
          story as  told in the 'Mabinogi',  in which she is  falsely accu
sed of
          destroying her own son).

                  By way of contrast,the 'modern' system would haveRhianno
n be a
          3, a  somewhat inappropriate masculine  number (not that  all fe
minine
          names should  always yield a feminine number -- but one would at
 least
          expect it to do so in the case of an archetypal mother goddess).
   The
          Hebrew system would yield an even more inappropriate 4, that bei
ng the
          number  of the  material  world and  all  things physical  (and
 since
          Rhiannon hails from faery, she is definitely not of this materia
l
          plane.)




   457

              By now, some of my more thoughtful readers may think they se
e some
          inconsistency in my approach.  Why have I gone to so much troubl
e to
          point up the flaws in traditional systems of numerology (even go
ing so
          far  as to  suggest an  entirely  new system),  only to  fall ba
ck  on
          interpretations of  the numbers  that are  strictly traditional?
   The
          reason is this:   all of my  objections thus far have  been limi
ted to
          METHODOLOGY.    When  it comes  to  interpreting  the  meaning o
f  the
          numbers, I have no  quarrel with the traditional approach,  sinc
e here
          we enter the field of universal symbolism.  All systems of
          numerology, be  they Hebrew,  modern, Oriental,  or whatever,  t
end to
          attach the same  interpretive meaning to the numbers.   When Thr
ee Dog
          Night sings, 'One is  the loneliest number that you'll  ever kno
w...',
          it  is a statement which is  immediately understood and agreed u
pon by
          people from  widely diverse cultures.  And the same holds true f
or all
          other numbers, for we are here dealing with archetypal symbols.

              It is worth repeating that, although I believe this system t
o have
          a firm theoretical basis, it is still in an embryonic state -- h
ighly
          tentative, highly speculative.   To the  best of my  knowledge,
it  is
          also  an original contribution to the field of numerology.  Whil
e some
          writers (notably Robert Graves in 'The White Goddess') have deal
t with
          the numerical values  of Ogham letters, I believe this  article
is the
          first instance of employing it specifically as a system of numer
ology.
          I have spent many long hours working with Celtic numerology -- p
utting
          abstract  theory  to use  in practical  application  -- but  muc
h work
          remains to be  done.  For this  reason, I would be happy  to hea
r from
          readers who are interested in the subject and who would like to
          share their own experiences and thoughts.