jmd
It would be only fair to suggest that both Mathers and Wescott did indeed each hold the correctness of the attributions they each made at the time made.
In a similar manner, it may be worth assuming that the latter Mathers changed his personal views based on GD attributions (for better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint), and that he adopted Wescott's version as he imbued himself ever more in GD work.
This is simply spelling out in only little more detail the precise view I suggested earlier.
In any case, developing a sequence of phrases for the sequencing of the Atouts (whether GD order or other) becomes both meaningfully useful and at the same time potentially problematic if the set becomes dogmatic mnemonic.
In a similar manner, it may be worth assuming that the latter Mathers changed his personal views based on GD attributions (for better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint), and that he adopted Wescott's version as he imbued himself ever more in GD work.
This is simply spelling out in only little more detail the precise view I suggested earlier.
In any case, developing a sequence of phrases for the sequencing of the Atouts (whether GD order or other) becomes both meaningfully useful and at the same time potentially problematic if the set becomes dogmatic mnemonic.
