Lack of progress report 2025.09.23

Some heavy "citation needed" here, but the characterisation by Skinner & Rankine (I don't remember where exactly) of the "Invocation of Angels" texts (Janua Magica Reserata, Clavicula Tabularum Enochi, &c.) as "aristocratic angel magic" is frankly bizarre.

Labelling them thus appears to derive from the belief that (a) John Sommers collected MS. works on magical subjects specifically in order to practice them (rather than for antiquarian interest, or, as Han Sloane did, to debunk them and study the subject as a department of psychopathology), and (b) of all the materials Sommers collected, and which later passed to his brother-in-law and protégé Joseph Jekyll (including the MSS. now designated BL Additional 36674 and Sloane 3677-79, 3821-22, 3824-26, 3846-57 & 3883-85: encompassing versions of the Clavicula Salomonis and Lemegeton, the Picatrix and other works on astrological image magic, English translations of the Heptameron, De occulta philosophia liber quartus and Arbatel de magia veterum, the Liber Iuratus, &c. &c. &c.), his primary interest was in the ceremonial crystallomancy of the Janua and the texts making up the bulk of what is now Sloane 3821.

I would submit that these latter are rather magic--not necessarily for the masses, but at least for the middle classes.  Full-dress Solomonic ritual with its magic circles, elaborate preliminary ceremonial, and a wheelbarrow full of Instruments of Art, requires a great deal of private space, leisure time, and resources.  The processes of the Picatrix require sourcing obscure and frequently dangerous materia, and complex astrological calculations.  "Invocation of Angels" rituals can be done with a small private room, a table of practice, the "crystal stone or glass receptacle" and its stand, two or three people (skryer / invocant / scribe) and a few hours per session.  The one person at the time for whom there is better than circumstantial evidence of actually practicing this stuff, Thomas Britton, was a charcoal merchant.  There's no indication that the group that created Sloane 3624-28, a group of angel-magic journals, the last volume of which includes the Celestial Keys of the Janua were members of the aristocracy.

Meddling with the Goetia again (13)

So, this came out of a discussion on r/occult not long ago, sparked by someone asking why no works on magic refer to any angels as "Duchesses" (possibly because (a) the view expressed by Trithemius in Liber Octo Questionum that good angels never appear in female form was widely held, or (b) there was an established system of Angelic Hierarchies from the works of pseudo-Dionysius, so no impulse to apply European feudal titles to them like there was with demons).  

Anyway, one of the commenters on that thread drew my attention to the Pauline Art of the Lemegeton depending, not merely on Jean Belot's Oeuvre des Oeuvres, but more specifically on the 1671 second edition of Physiognomie, and chiromancie, metoposcopie, &c. &c. &c. of Richard Saunders, large chunks of which are barely-credited English translations from Belot's works.  Specifically, the table of Hebrew letters, which forms the basis for the names of the angels of the degrees of the Zodiac in the second part of the Ars Paulina, varies due to printing errors over the various editions of Belot's works, and was further changed by Saunders, and according to Alan Thorogood in the Teitan edition of the Pauline Art of Solomon, the names in the Lemegeton are more consistent with Saunders than any editions of Belot.

If this was indeed the source, this would push the earliest possible date for the Lemegeton existing as a compilation to six years later than the date I claimed in my notes on the Goëtia.

On the other hand, with a closer look at the Ars Theurgia-Goëtia, I have to concede that the work, or at least its scheme of spirits and aspects of its praxis, existed in some form prior to its being incorporated into the Lemegeton.  In Sloane MS. 3824, fol. 53-71, is found "The Second Parte of the Art of King Solomon," an incomplete copy by Elias Ashmole of a magical work with the same scheme of spirits as the Theurgia-Goëtia, and the same rubric of conjuration with the "Table of Solomon."  This copy omits the lists of "Dukes" under each chief spirit, as well as practically all the spirit seals (the text indicates they were in Ashmole's source but not copied), and cuts off in the entry for Cabarial.

Crucially, "The Second Parte" omits the references back to the Ars Goëtia found in the Lemegeton text: the passing reference to the "garments and other materiall things" at the end of the introduction, and the instruction to "make a circle in the forme as is shewed in the book Goetia" in the rubric of conjuration that follows the description of Pamerisel.  The latter instruction, indeed, is also omitted in Sloane 3825, and also makes little sense in the texts in which it does appear, as read literally they imply that you make the circle then go and do the ritual somewhere else with a crystal set on the table of practice.  Further, it has a completely different form of conjuration, repeated at length for each chief spirit.  This conjuration does not have the blatant dependence on the Turner Heptameron found in the Goëtia ("by the name PrimaUmaton, who commendeth the whole Host of Heaven" parallels an expression in the "Exorcism" but is differently worded to Turner's rendition).  Some expressions suggest the English of Dee's Claves Angelicae ("come away"; "move, descend & appear"; "him that liveth for ever") but, compared to the borrowings in the "Invocation of Angels" texts these are short and inconclusive.

(I will also remark, that while the rubric of conjuration in the Sloane 3824 text makes no mention of a circle and refers only to a "Christall Stone or Glass Receptacles" set on the "Table of Art," the conjurations generally call on the spirit to appear "here before this circle."  Amenadiel and Padiel are called to appear "before this Christall" at one point in their conjuration and "before the Circle" later in the same text.  I am inclined to regard those two instances of "Christall" as a slip; other conjurations of the period based around evocation to crystal tend to call on the spirit to appear in the crystal or glass rather than before it.)

Since the latter half of "The Second Parte" was not copied into Ashmole's "Longobardus" notebook, and no other copy is known, it is unclear if there is anything at the end of the spirit catalogue, where the third reference to the Goëtia in the Theurgia-Goëtia is found (for the procedure to be followed once a spirit actually turns up).

It is thus doubtful that the "First Parte" implied by the title is, in fact, the Ars Goëtia; it was likely some other Solomonic text, perhaps even pre-existing and completely unrelated (e.g. a Clavicula Salomonis version) but which the writer of the "Second Parte" wanted to ride off the success of.

(I also note with amusement that the Google "AI Summary" if you search for "Second Part of the Art of King Solomon" claims that the title refers to the Ars Goëtia.)

Meddling with the Goëtia again (12)

Given it's been a year and a half since the last update, I'm not sure anyone's still reading this, but going over my notes on the Goëtia again, it occurred to me to check something, which has tended to reinforce my suspicions that the redactor of the Lemegeton used the 1665 "third edition" of Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft.

A brief reminder: the 1665 "third edition" interpolated nine additional chapters of magical processes at the start of Book XV, two others of which contain passages (the prayer for robing in ch. v and the prayer to the Guardian Angel in ch. vii) that are very close (word-for-word identical in places) with ritual speeches in the Lemegeton.  The last of these is titled, "How to Conjure the Spirit Balkin the Master of Luridan" (Luridan being the subject of process which occupied ch. viii).  The spirit is conjured, amongst other things, by "the mighty Prince Coronzon," whose name is also to be written upon a girdle worn by the magician.

Anyway, at the end of the procedure, as is customary, Balkin is licensed to depart, thusly:

Because thou hast diligently answered my demands, and been ready to come at my first call, I do here licence thee to depart unto thy proper place, without injury or danger to man or Beast; depart, I say, and be ever ready at my call, being duly exorcized and conjured by sacred Rites of Magick; I charge thee to withdraw with quiet and peace; and peace be continued betwixt me and thee, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  Amen.

Compare the Ars Goëtia (Sloane MS. 3825, fol. 116r):

O thou spirit N Because thou hast very dilligently answered my demands and was ready and willing to come at my first call I doe hear Licence thee to depart unto thy proper place without doeing any Injury or danger to any man or beast depart I say and be ever reddy to come at my call being duly exorcised and conjured by the sacred rites of magick, I charge thee to withdraw peaceably and quietly, and the peace of god be ever continued between me and thee, Amen.

Mathers rendered it thusly:

O Thou Spirit N., because thou hast diligently answered unto my demands, and hast been very ready and willing to come at my call, I do here licence thee to depart unto thy proper place; without causing harm or danger unto man or beast.  Depart, them I say, and be thou very ready to come at my call, being duly exorcised and conjured by the sacred rites of magic.  I charge thee to withdraw peaceably and quietly, and the peace of GOD be ever continued between thee and me!  AMEN!

For comparison purposes, the license to depart in the Heptameron (the source for much of the verbiage in the conjurations of the Ars Goëtia) runs:

In nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, ite in pace ad loca vestra: et pax fit inter nos et vos, parati sitis venire vocati.

which Turner translated thus: 

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, go in peace unto your places & peace be between us and you, be ye ready to come when ye are called.

The English Key of Solomon version in Sloane 3645 (fol. 6r) simply instructs the magician, "thou wilt command every one to returne peaceably into his place and say, Peace bee betweene you and mee.  After this let the Conjurer say St. John's Ghospell and the 12 Articles of the Creedo, and goe out of the Circle."

The Key of Solomon version (late 16th-century) in Sloane 3847 (fol. 22v) has: "Let every one of you turne into his place peaceably, and peace be between us and you," followed by a similar instruction to to repeat "St. John's Gospell, In principio erat &c. credo in deum."

There are minor differences in phrasing between the Goëtia and Discovery texts, but much is word-for-word identical and we have seen a similar thing with the material adapted from Turner's translation of the Heptameron.  It does of course remain possible that the compiler of the Lemegeton derived all three of those passages from the same manuscript or MS. tradition used by the editor of the 1665 Discovery rather from the printed text, but the dependence on Scot in other respects (i.e., the catalogue of spirits), and the fact that other considerations make 1665 the earliest possible date for the redaction of the Lemegeton, tend to make use of the 1665 Discovery the simplest explanation.

Lack of progress report 2022.08.01

Latest version of Longobardus (Sloane MS. 3824) is now on Scribd.  This now includes all the text sections but still omits the second collection of talismanic figures as well as the page of circular designs with planetary characters in the middle of "Magical Elements."  It also now has a bibliography.  A bunch of notes on the various names of spirits cited therein (mainly regarding their occurrences in English magical works of the period & century or two preceding) is still under construction.  

Also, after uploading it I managed to track down a source for the first of the "Dr. R" interpolations into the Janua Magica Reserata: Excerpt "A" is taken, with minor paraphrasing and verbal alterations, from the 1633 third edition of The Philosophers Banquet (first pub. 1609 as The Philsophers Banquet: furnished with few dishes for health, but large discourse for pleasure &c. &c. &c., in turn represented as an English translation of the Mensa Philsophica of "Theobaldus Anguilbertus" (Michael Scot, fl. early 13th cent. c.e.)).  The third "book" of this work is a miscellany of material for "after-dinner conversation," wandering over various topics.  That particular passage wasn't in the 1614 second edition (I couldn't find a copy of the first edition online) and was probably added by the "translator," known only as "W. B., Esquire."

Lack of progress report 2022.07.27

Well, have Internet back since last week (kinda-sorta had it before then but the idea of updating this blog on a touch-screen phone isn't all that appealing) although my situation is still somewhat precarious & I'm now in a different city -- hopefully fairly short-term, so won't be changing the imprint just yet.  Been pretty slack the past month (& also tired most of the time owing to only drinking a fraction of the amount of coffee I used to).  

Anyway, after another extended period of slacking and minor tinkering with various documents, made another start at Longobardus (Sloane 3824), largely this meant giving it some semblance of a proper bibliography.  Maybe I'll read Religion and the Decline of Magic next & see if it contains any clues to the social / religious background that produced the "Invocation of Angels" texts.

Lack of progress report 2022.06.30

This will likely be the last update for a while as I have to be out of the place where I'm currently set up today, and do not currently have anywhere long, or even medium, term to relocate to: so rectifying that is going to be something of a priority.

Recently put out an update to On the Invocation of Angels; this is mostly relatively minor tweaks / fixes, though: added the invocation of "L.B.S." from Longobardus to the appendix to "Operations of the Angles of the Air" but the rest is just updated notes / bibliography.  The work still needs a general introduction even if that does end up snowballing into an MA thesis (I can dream...).

My head hurts.

So, I've been going over the Longobardus and Invocation of Angels texts, mainly in preparation for the next updated release of the latter, and decided to run a more detailed comparison of the Sloane 3821 text of "A Select Treatise" with the fragment in Sloane 3825.  So here's the thing:

* The opening of the conjuration of Agiel in 3825 (fol. 99r, v) is with one or two exceptions (e.g. it has "art" for "are" at one point) word for word (i.e., differing on spelling, capitalisation and punctuation) identical to that in 3821.

* The fragment in 3824 (fol. 37r), which was part of the above (handwriting is the same and the page numbering and text continues directly from where the 3825 copy breaks off) until Ashmole detached the sheet on which it was written from the rest of that book and appended it to his "Longobardus" notebook, deviates significantly from the 3821 text before trailing off.

3824: "[…] same to transmit your true & reall presence, Corporally, in your Appearances plainly & Visibly, to the Sight of our Eyes, & Voyces to our Ears, that We may also as plainly & Visible see you & Audibly here you, speake unto us: or otherwise to Appear out of the same Visibly here before us, as it shall please God & you his Servants, or Servants as Messagers of his paterniall grace, & mercy, Seemeth Most Meet, proper, pertinent, or best befitting this action, Appearance, Occasion or Matters &c."

3821: "[…] same to transmit youre true and reale preasance In splended Appearance plainely unto the sight of our Eyes uter your voyces unto our Eares that we may not only visible see you but audibly heare you speake unto us and that we may Convers with you or otherwise forthwith Appeare out of them visibly upon this Table or ffairely upon the flore and shew plainely & visibly unto us A Suffitient signe or teste of youre Coming and Appearance" [&c. &c. &c.]

This almost suggests that the introduction, description of Agiel and the opening of the conjuration was written by one writer: that either the original writer left it unfinished, or whoever was copying it after the 3825 Janua gave up a short way into the conjuration of Agiel, and that the work was subsequently completed by someone else based on that copy after Ashmole detached one sheet.