Regardie

The Tetrgrammaton, or “four-letter” Name of God, given as “Yod” (Y or I), “Heh” (H), “Vav” (V or
W), “Heh” (Final H), and prounced variously “Yahweh” or “Yod-Heh-Vau-Heh,” can be correlated
to represent the 4 elements. Use of this method could be seen as profane unless the attribution of
the given letters to the 4 elements were absolutely accurate. Unfortunately, again, in Mathers’
case the attributions he derived by this method are far from perfect.
Mathers began by assigning “Yod” (the large letter in the lower-right of the diagram on the facing
page) to the element of FIRE, Heh (upper-right) to WATER, etc. not according to the order in which
he placed them on the “Tablet of Union,” but on the order they occur according to his diagram of
the pentagram on the Zodiac round (given initially). While this ordering is sufficient for working
out the elemental attributes on the 4 Watchtowers, it is far from being the only method applicable
by which to do so. In point of fact, assigning the same letters in the same order as given in this
diagram to the elements in an order other than that given here will yield wildly different results,
as well as vice versa, substituting different orders of elements for the same order of letters. The
good student is encouraged to find their own method of extrapolation based on this given system.
My own investigations into applications of this method took weeks, however for someone without
days at a time to devote solely to its study, the matter may take longer.
Following this initial assignation of the Tetragrammaton to the 4 elements, Mathers next assigned
one of each of the 4 letters to each of the columns and rows of the 4 Watchtowers of John Dee’s
“Enochian” System. The result is that each of the 16 squares of every “sub-angle” per “quadrant”
(Watchtower) on the “Great Table” is assigned a unique re-combination of the 4 letters, and thus
of the 4 elements, such that no two given “sub-angle’s” re-combinations are the same. In effect,
what Mathers has done is apply the 16 possible re-combinations of the 4 X 4 combinations of the 4
elements to the 16 sub-angles of the 4 Watchtowers. While this idea is pure genius, Mathers’
application of the method leaves much to be desired. For example, consider that neither the
lower-right sub-angle of the upper-right quadrant, nor the lower-left sub-angle of the same
quadrant, nor the lower two sub-angles of the lower-right quadrant, nor any of the sub-angles of
the lower-left quadrant, have both sets of interior-numbering, as do the rest; note also that the
upper- and lower-right sub-angles of the lower-left quadrant, and the lower-left sub-angle of the
lower-right quadrant, do not even have any interior numbering at all. This is not an error. It is
because, as Mathers recognised, his working of this system required that not only must he repeat
4 of the 12 sub-angles in order to complete the 16 total sub-angles of the 4 Watchtowers, but that,
by his choice of order of the 4 elements relative to the 4 letters, he would have to select the 4
sub-angles he wanted to repeat not based on their locations in the 4 Watchtowers arrangement,
but on the attributes given for the 4 elements in his diagram of the Pentagram’s relation to the
Zodiac round.
As we will soon see, each of the 4 X 4 elemental re-combinations per sub-angle (the 16 squares
Mathers described as “subserviant” to the sub-angle’s central “Calvery” Cross of 10 squares)
yields its own variation of the initial “Tablet of Union,” and that, ultimately, these can be applied
to the different signs of the Zodiac round using this same method of the “Concourse of the Forces.”
Next, let’s look at the completed version of Mathers’ diagram of the 4 Watchtowers’ elemental
attributes as derived by application of the Tetragrammaton, compiled by Donald Tyson.