Lack of progress report 2022.01.21

Well, back to Sloane 3824 for now.

The second set of talisman designs are going to be a nightmare to redraw: much of the writing on them is borderline-legible and some of them were very hastily scrawled with more detail crammed into the circle that was reasonable given the size of the thing, the pen being used and the scribe's general standard of line-work: many have notes by the side indicating some detail to be corrected.

With that in mind I switched instead to working on the variant Heptameron at the end instead.  This is also making my head hurt in trying to work out its stemma.  Like printed Heptameron, it is split into two parts, but their order has been reversed: the "considerations" of the seven days with their specific conjurations make up the first part (fol. 131-139), followed by some summary tables of names and examples of the Circle design; then there is:

An Introduction, teaching the use of the foregoing treatise & thereby other experiments & operations of the like nature orders or offices as a president refer'd to the Spirits of the Atr, being a sufficient exemplification for any Phylosopher Skillfull in the Art of Magick, & well Knowing how to make a trew & racionall distinction beetweene the Cœlestiall blessed Angells, or inteligence, and the Cœlestially Dignified Elementall Angells, or Spirits of light, & also of other Elementall powers, or Spirits, both of light & darkness;  & so by nature and office, both good & Evill, together with others, called wandering spirts of the Aijr, of the like nature & office, but of no orders, mansions, or proper place of Residence; but moving even like as flies in the son, without sensible subjection any superiour powers; together with Infernall powers, called spirits of Darkness, or Devils, who are saide by nature & office to be wholly evill, & therefore of themselves not to be invocated, Moved, or called forth to visible Appearance, as the other Elementall powers, or Spirits are; & may bee; but other Spirits of their nature, orders, & offices may by them, & the power given to them (by Divine permission in the blessed Trinity) & in their names be moved & called forth to visible Appearance, for such, or those purposes, which may, & usially doth serve to the benifit of mankind; &c.

. . . and that's just the title, for the general rubric and conjurations (fol. 141-154), starting with the composition of the circle, corresponding roughly to the first part of the printed Heptameron.  The two sections almost seem to be by different authors: the second part, as previously remarked, completely cuts loose bloating pseudo-Abano's text with verbiage, as well as adding an entire additional section of increasingly strongly worded constraints with accompanying rubric for uncoöoperative spirits, whereas the former has some minor rearrangements and paraphrases (and incorporates the description of the forms familiar to the spirits of the Planets from pseudo-Agrippa) but is nowhere near the Invocation of Angels level of verbosity.

In the former section, while there are a few hints that the redactor used the 1655 Turner text in some respects, the bulk of it appears to have been independently translated from the Latin, either from a printed edition, or from a manuscript copy (various magical MSS. in English and Latin of the late 16th & early 17th century contain substantial copies from pseudo-Abano, usually untranslated).  Possibly the planetary section significantly pre-dated the second part and was copied and slightly modified by the redactor of the Invocation of Angels series (for example, replacing the conclusion of the conjurations of the days with wording that strongly recalls the Claves Angelicæ) prior to going all-out.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that on closer examination it's not entirely clear whether passages that I initially tagged "sec. man." were in fact by someone other than the original copyist of the text that now forms the last article in Sloane 3824: that is to say, the text that is clearly in the same scrawl as the first major division of that MS., is not confined to marginalia or intralineal corrections, but includes substantial parts of the body: problem is, the alternative explanation is that the copyist (i.e. Ashmole) randomly switched handwriting style for no clear reason between different sections.

[Header image: Heptameron circle for the first "magical hour" of the day on a Friday in Winter -- well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.]

Meddling with the Goëtia again (9)

The more I look at it, the more complicated the stemma of the Mathers-Crowley Goëtia gets.  That is:

1. The original 17th-century redaction depends on the 1665 Robert Turner translation of the Heptameron (and thus the Harley Lemegeton, which was further heavily redacted from the text represented by the Sloane copies, can. not. possibly. derive from the work of someone who died in 1656).  There are two citations in the Heptameron's Exorcismus Spirituum Aërorum that were omitted in Turner's translation, though included in his typeset of the Latin (addressing the spirits as vos qui, vestra culpa, de coelo eiecti fuistis usque ad infernum locum, "you who, for your sin, were cast out of heaven even unto the infernal region" -- and exorcising them per eam quæ Ecclesia Dei nominatur, "by she who is called the Church of God") and were similarly skipped over in the corresponding sections of the second conjuration of the Ars Goëtia, and two instances of sedem ("seat") being rendered "seal," that are perpetuated into the Goëtia, as well as the questionable translation of "nona cohorte" as "in the ninth Legion" in the "Beralanensis" conjuration.  All these points differ, for example, in the other known 17th-century English translation of the Heptameron, (BL Sloane MS. 3851 fol. 61r-74r -- see specifically fol. 64v, 65v).

2. The redactor of the Ars Goëtia (going on the Sloane MS. 3825 version), while perpetuating the aforementioned errors and omissions, besides the major rearrangements (e.g. displacing the concluding section of the Exorcism / Vinculum into "The Constraint," and moving the bulk of the "Beralanensis" conjuration into the first conjuration), freely rephrased citations in the second conjuration and made minor rearrangements in their order.  Other passages remain, barring vagaries of spelling, capitalisation and punctuation, verbatim from Turner.

Since the Vinculum Spirituum was a floating text, extant exemplars of which show a great deal of variation, that was incorporated into the Lucidarium prior to that being turned into the Heptameron, it is of course possible that the redactor of the Goëtia had a variant copy in Latin or English, probably not under that title (else why, as previously remarked, make up something else to meet the demand for the "Spirits' Chain"?): on the other hand, there are no citations in the second conjuration of the Goëtia that are not in the Heptameron version of the Vinculum; there is no mention, for instance, of the great and terrible name Gin which Noah heard and spake and was delivered from the Flood, which appears in other English texts of the period deriving from the Vinculum (Sloane MS. 3824 fol. 14r, 144v; see also Sloane MS. 3847 fol. 14r).

3. Mathers' redaction, while retaining the major rearrangements, reverts some minor rearrangements and is generally phrased much closer to Turner's translation than to the Sloane Lemegeton MSS.  It also has major variations that are not attested by any of the BL Lemegeton MSS. and, in so far as they relate to the general rearrangement of the conjurations between the Heptameron and Ars Goëtia, are not simply derived from Turner; this may have been based on an otherwise unknown Lemegeton text, or may have been invented by Mathers.  For instance, the first conjuration in Sloane MS. 3825 runs as followeth:

I Invocate and conjure you spirit N. & being with power armed from the supreame Majesty I throughly [sic] command you by Beralanensis, Baldachiensis, Paumachiæ & Apologiæ Sedes, and the most powerfull princes, Genio Liachidi ministers of the Tartarean seat, cheeefe princes of <of> the seat of Apologia, in the Ninth Legion; I exorcize & powerfully command you spirit N, in and by him that said the word and it was done; and by all the holy and most glorious names of the most holy and true God,  and by these his most holy names Adonai, El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebeoth, Elion, Escerchie, Jah, Tetragrammaton, Saday, that you forthwith appeare and shew yourselves here unto me before this Circle, in a fair and humane shape, without any deformity or ugly shew, and without delay, doe ye come; from all parts of the world to make <make> rationall answeres unto all Things which I shall ask of you, and come yee peaceably visibly and afably without delay, manifesting what I desire, being conjured by the name of the Eternall living and true God, Helioren, I conjure you by the especiall and true name of your God that you are obedient unto and by the name of the King, which beareth rule over you, that forthwith you come without Tarring  and fullfill my desires, and command, and persist unto the End, & according to my Intentions and I conjure you by him by whome all Creatures are obedient and by this ineffable name Tetragrammaton Jehovah, which being heard, the Elements are overthrown, the aire is shaken, the sea runneth back, the fire is quenched, the Earth trembleth, and all the hosts of Celestialls, Terrestialls & Infernalls doe tremble, and are troubled and confounded together, that you visibly and affelby speak unto me with a Clear voice Intelligible, and without any ambiguity, therefore come ye in the name Adonai Zebeoth, Adonai Amiorem, com com why stay you hasten Adonay, Saday, the Kinge of kings commandeth you.

The other Sloane Lemegeton texts have only minor variations with this.  Whereas Mathers' text runs:

I do invocate and conjure thee, O Spirit, N., and being with power armed from the Supreme Majesty, I do strongly command thee, by Beralanensis, Baldachiensis, Paumachia, and Apologiæ Sedes; by the most Powerful Princes, Genii, Liachidæ, and Ministers of the Tartarean Abode; and by the Chief Prince of the Seat of Apologia in the Ninth Legion, I do invoke thee, and by invocating conjure thee.  And being armed with power from the Supreme Majesty, I do strongly command thee, by Him Who spake and it was done, and unto whom all creatures be obedient.  Also I, being made after the image of God, endued with power from God, and created according to His will, do exorcise thee by that most mighty and powerful name of God, El, strong and wonderful; O thou Spirit N.  And I command thee by Him who spake the Word and his Fiat was accomplished, and by all the names of God.  Also be the names Adonai, El, Elohim, Ehohi, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, Zabaoth, Elion, Iah, Tetragrammaton, Shaddäi, Lord God Most High, O thou spirit N., that thou dost forthwith appear unto me here before this Circle in a fair human shape, without any deformity or tortuosity.  [&c., &c., &c. -- see the CP Goëtia for the rest.]

"I, being made after [...] O thou Spirit N," is displaced from the start of the "Exorcism of the Spirits of the Air" and does not appear anywhere in the Sloane 3825 Goëtia.

4. Mathers had access to one or more Lemegeton texts in unspecified private collections.  At least one of these was separate from the Frederick Hockley transmission line (an incomplete exemplar of which is in Wellcome MS. 3203): Mathers gives four versions of the introductory description of the work detailing the separate books, three of which include the Ars Notoria: Hockley's source (which he described as "a MS. in two volumes, about the date of 1680 to 1700") only had the first four "books" (see his copy of the introductory description in Wellcome MS. 4665); and of the four BL Lemegeton MSS., Sloane MS. 2731 omits the Ars Notoria and Harley MS. 6483 omits the outline description.  Hockley's version of the first conjuration is also closer to the Sloane copies than to the Mathers redaction (the copy in Wellcome 3203 omits some phrases, possibly by copyist eye-skip).  The copy which was later acquired by Professor E.M. Butler (who reproduced an illustration from it in her Ritual Magic) also apparently lacked the Ars Notoria (she characterises it as being similar in content to Sloane 2731).

5. Mathers, or someone in an otherwise unknown MS. tradition, while generally modernising spelling and standardising the orthography of names of God of Hebrew origin, introduced archaic English inflectional forms that weren't in the 17th-century versions.

I have uploaded a tabulation of the parallel passages to Scribd.

Lack of progress report 2021.11.25

A few pages of the "Invocation of Angels" texts that are actually legible in my copies have been keyed (26 or so leaves of "Practice of the Tables" from Sloane MS. 3821 mainly), and a bit more progress made on 3824, although the condition of the final section (specifically the large amount of rubricated text that is completely unreadable in the images I'm working from) makes it unlikely that the project can be satisfactorily completed with the materials I currently have.

The final division of 3824 (fol. 131-154) has the snappy title, "The Magick and Magicall Elements of the Seven days of the week, with their Appropriate hours, and the four Annual Seasons," which, as one might suspect from the title is a rearranged and expanded (bloated, rather) English version of the Heptameron seu elementa magica of pseudo-Abano.  Certain readings (specifically the suffumigation for Sunday, which is given the double reading "Red Wheat or Red Sanders") indicate the work's redaction history involved both the 1655 and 1665 editions of Turner's translation.  The considerations and conjurations of the days of the week occupy fol. 131-139r, concluding with a table of the Angels of the hours; fol. 139v / 140r are summary tables with the names of the 7 days and four seasons, with some example figures of the circle.

The latter part of the text is the ritual rubric and general conjurations.  For an illustration of what I mean by describing this text as "bloated," consider the prayer to be said at robing (variants of which occur frequently in Solomonic magical texts).  The Vadian Lucidarium (Vad Slg MS. 334, p. 16) reads:

Ancor, amacor, amilces, theodomas, Iancor, Per merita angelorum tuorum domine induam vestimenta salutis, ut hoc quod desidero possim perducere ad effectum per te sanctissime Adonay, cuius regnum permanet per omnia secula seculorum.  Amen.

In the Latin Heptameron (ed. 1559) it runs as followeth:

Ancor, Amacor, Amides, Theodonias, Anitor, Per merita Angelorum tuorum sanctorum Domine, induam vestimenta salutis: ut hoc quod desidero, possim perducere ad effectum: per te sanctissime Adonay, cuius Regnum permanet, per omnia secula seculorum, Amen.

Turner (1665) translates this thus:

Ancor, Amacor, Amides, Theodonias, Anitor, by the merits of the Angels, O Lord, I will put on the Garment of Salvation, that this which I desire I may bring to effect: through thee the most holy Adonay, whose kingdome endureth for ever and ever, Amen.

For comparison, a 17th-century (per the BL catalogue of manuscripts) English "Key of Solomon"  version (Sloane MS. 3645, fol. 14v) has:

Antor, Anator, et Anabis, Theodomas, Ianitor, By the deserts [an obsolete usage] of the holy Angells I will put on the vesture of health that I may bring to pass my desire by thee O holy Adonay, whose kingdome hath noe end.

And the variant of the Ars Goëtia (Sloane MS. 3825, fol. 113v, roughly contemporary with 3824): 

By the figurative mysterie of these holy vestures or vestments, I will cloath me with the armour of salvation in the strength of the highest Ancor Amacor Amides Theodonias Anitor, that my desired End may be effected through the [sic] strength Adonay, to whome the praise & glory will forever & ever belong Amen. 

Compare the following, from the fifth of the nine chapters of ritual material interpolated at the start of Book XV of the 1665 edition of Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft (given the dates involved it is possible that the redactor of the Ars Goëtia used this edition of Scot: but it is also possible that both derived independently from the same English MS. tradition):

By the figurative mystery of this holy Stole or Vestment, I will cloath me with the armour of Salvation in the strength of the highest, Ancor, Amacor, Amides, Theodonias, Anitor.  That my desired end may be effected through thy strength Adonai, to whom the praise and glory will for ever belong.

In "The Magick and Magicall Elements" (Sloane MS. 3824 fol. 142r) this has become:

Ancor; Amacor; Amides; Theodonias; Anitor; by the power of the blessed Trinity wherewith we are through faith dignified with Cœlestiall Supremisie & command over all spirits of what nature, orders, office, degree, Mansions, or place of being soever they are: Grant o Lorde that I putting on this vestment of safty, may powerfully (together with these my Associats) be defended from all the Assualts, surprises, frights, feares, & Amasements of wicked, or evill spirits, and that by the virtue & efficacy of our invocations we may effectually move, call forth, & constraine those Elementall Spirits, or Spirituall Powers, as we shall thereby move or call-forthe, whether by nature, name, orders, or office, visibly & peacibly to apeare unto us & faithfully to fullfill & to performe unto us whatsoever we shall accordingly request, & command them; without the least of hurt or iniury or any other evill deed to be don unto us, or to this place, or to any other place, or person whatsoever, through thee, o holy Adonai, whose mercy Endureth for ever, Amen. 

While it is widely theorised that the authors and users of magical texts in late mediæval Europe were typically renegade monks or low-rank members of the clergy, some of the language used in the late 17th-century English writings (specifically the "Invocation of Angels" texts and the materials collected in "Longobardus") suggest the writers of the latter were rather lawyers, or possibly failed law students trying to make a living as cunning-folk, treasure-hunters and the like.

Meddling with the Goëtia again (8)

Credit to the author of the "Brother Enoch's Goëtia" blog for pointing this out.  Now I need to fix the damn font, and I can't find the vector art files for it anywhere.  Still, I *have* fixed the colour plate, and the latest revision is now up on Scribd.

So, on the plates for the Mathers-Crowley Goëtia as originally printed, at the bottom of the figure of the Hexagram, is a barely-readable note mentioning that the glyph in the bottom point is "often reversed."

In fact, on checking, it turns out the "reversed" form appears in all three copies of the Lemegeton in the Sloane collection, as well as the 19th-century copy in Wellcome MS. 3203, made by a friend of Fred Hockley from a copy Hockley made from a late 17th-century MS. in two volumes (lacking the Ars Notoria), suggesting the form in the main figure was an error by Mathers or the engraver who made up the plates.  The figure (along with several others) is completely missing in the late & mucked-about Lemegeton copied by the infamous Peter Smart (Harley MS. 6483).

At the bottom of p. 212 of the Folger "Book of Magic" (Folger MS. V.b. 26, late 16th century, roughly contemporary with the publication of Scot's Discoverie & significantly pre-dating the redaction of the Lemegeton) occur two figures which appear to be earlier versions of the hexagram and pentagram of the Ars Goëtia (the similarity was noticed by a 20th-century owner of the latter part of the MS., who copied the figures from the De Laurence piracy of the Goëtia onto the back flyleaf).  The version of the hexagram lacks the letters A G L A outside, and TE / TRA / GRA / MA / TON (sic) is arranged around the lower five points, with SIGNUM in the upper.  Where the Ars Goëtia version has AGLA, the Folger version has four glyphs, the lower two bearing a close resemblance to the characters in the bottom point of the Ars Goëtia hexagram before Mathers flipped it.

The same four glyphs appear, in a row, as to be inscribed on the blade of a sword or dagger, on p. 213 of the Folger Book of Magic.  And also as part of two magical diagrams in a 15th-century magical miscellany, Bodleian MS. Rawlinson D. 252.  And eventually understanding dawns . . . they're the Tetragrammaton, IHVH, stylised practically beyond recognition through repeated copying, to the point where the designer of the figure in the Folger MS. didn't realise they were Hebrew and so read them left to right to arrange around the hexagram.

* * * * * * * * *

So, while it's been generally recognised for a long time that the Second Conjuration of the Goëtia was an adaptation of the exorcismus spirituum aërorurum of the Heptameron (with most of the final section displaced into "The Constraint"), I only recently realised just how far the antecedents of that go.

The Heptameron, as Peterson and Véronèse have shown, is basically an edited and rearranged version of the pseudo-Abano Lucidarium (variously Lucidarium in arte Magica, Lucidarium artis nigromantice, Elucidarium Necromantiæ, "Elucidation of Necromancy"), which in turn borrows from the Liber Iuratus, Liber Salomonis (Sepher Razielis) & other sources.

Now in the other main source for the Goëtia, the Pseudomonarchia Dæmonum, we find in the description of two of the higher-ranking spirits (Byleth and Belial) references to something called the vinculum spirituum (Spirits' Chain), which the exorcist might need to read in order to get them to submit.  The redactor of the Ars Goëtia, working from Scot's English translation, evidently was aware that this was needed for the ritual, but had no idea what the hell it was, so just made something up.

The joke is, if you get to the point in the Goëtia ritual where you're instructed to read the "Spirits' Chain," you've already rehearsed the vinculum spirituum.

In the Antipalus Maleficorum of Trithemius (written 1508 but not published until much later), the Abbot of Spanheim lists various works of demonic magic that were circulating in manuscript at the time, some now known, others possibly lost to the ravages of time and the zeal of the Inquisition.  Among these (immediately after the De officiis spirituum attributed to Solomon) is the Vinculum Spirituum, by which, we are told, many arrogant and lost folk believe they can constrain daemons to obey them.  The opening words of which text, are said to be De vinculo spirituum non est silendum.

Well, it turns out that one isn't lost.  Texts with that title and incipit, or something very similar (reading solvendum for silendum) are extant in two 15th-century manuscripts in the Bayern Staatsbibliothek at Munich, to wit Clm 849, the famous "Munich Manual of Necromancy" (from which the above image is taken), and Clm 10085, ostensibly an orthodox manual of exorcism.  Clm 849 also refers to the text as Vinculum Salomonis, under which title it is cited in a 16th-century Key of Solomon version in English and Latin that survives in BL Sloane MS. 3847.  

After a brief prologue, the actual text begins.  In Clm 10085: Per potentissimum et corroboratum nomen domini dei el forte et admirabile vos coniuro et exorzio et contestor . . . [at which point my ability to read heavily abbreviated mediæval Latin blackletter gave out, but I could make out "per eum qui dixit et facta sunt" a bit further on].  Fortunately, a typeset of Clm 849 has been published (Richard Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites, Stroud: Sutton, 1997; reprinted Penn State University Press, 2012).  On examination of which, it turns out that the general structure of the Vinculum is a long string of citations of names of God, of Hebrew, Greek or unknown origin, by which various figures from the Jewish legends are said to have become wise, been saved, wrought various wonders, &c.; and later, a threat to curse the spirit, deprive it of its office, joy and place, hurl it into the abyss & and bind it in eternal fire and a lake of fire and brimstone until the day of the last judgement unless it gets its arse in gear and appears before the circle, sine mora.

In other words, it's an ancestor of the Exorcismus spirituum aërorum of the Lucidarium / Heptameron, and thence of the Second Conjuration and Constraint of the Ars Goëtia.

* * * * * * * * *

EDIT: Every. Damn. Time.  I upload the updates & then find something significant I missed.  Taking another stab at the Vinculum version in Clm 10085, I find (fol. 6v, lines 8-11): et per annulos Salomonis signa (?) et sigilla cum quibus inclusit trecentos septuaginta duos reges dyabolicos cum eorum legionibus.  Assuming I read that trecentos correctly, looks like this version of Solomon was a bit more ambitious that the one in the Liber Officiorum version copied by Wier, who only managed to seal up 72 kings with their legions in a glass vessel.  Either "72" was earlier and someone in one line of transmission decided that it wasn't impressive enough, or "372" was, but "trecentos" got misread as something else at some stage of transcription.

Also in a different procedure in Clm 849 (fol. 45v) we find et per hac duo nomina Ioth & Nabnoth per quæ Salomon constringebat in vase vitreo demones.

On the other hand, the Solomon cited in a spirit binding in Cambridge Additional MS. 3544 (typeset in F. Young, The Cambridge Book of Magic) was less ambitious, only managing tres dæmones in vase vitreo.

[Images from Clm 849 & 10085 taken from posts at https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/ -- released under Creative Commons Attribution / Non-commercial / Share-Alike license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).]

Meddling with the Goëtia again (7)

Correction / clarification to the previous post about the proto-Goëtia in Sloane MS. 3824 (now I actually have a copy of the MS., admittedly as a badly-digitised microfilm): the last spirit in the De Officiis fragment, is given as Sondenna, aliter Sendenna, which matches the printed TFR, thus removing the need for repeated copying.  Moral: never rely on dodgy copies of other people's transcriptions.  Also, the short entry following regarding two spirits, Maserien and Hermcloe who "were the Servants And familiars of the L. C. E. of S. 1607" is explicable with reference to TFR, page *34 (Action of 1607.03.24, Cotton Appendix XLVI part ii. fol. 229r).

The characters of Seere, Dantalion and Andromalius are written very small, the same height as a line of the text or slightly higher.

For comparison purposes, here are those characters (cleaned up / retouched from images of the MS.), followed by the Mathers versions:

From my initial studies of Sloane 3824, material in this collection does seem to be an important predecessor, working notes even, for the first two books of the Lemegeton.  

Fol. 22r-29v contain a series of "Consecrations & Benedictions" leading into a series of conjurations addressed to the "spirit Vassago or Usago."  This borrows heavily from the Heptameron; a slightly simplifed version of the "pentacle" appears, and the first conjuration is an English translation of pseudo-Abano's Exorcismus Spirituum Aërorum.  After that, the conjurations and rubric closely follows the Goëtia through to the license to depart; following the general instruction to "[make] prayer to God for the great blessing he hath bestowed upon you in granting you your desires and delivering you from  all the malice of the enemy the devil," an actual form of prayer is given (concluding with the Gloria in Latin).

EDIT: the text of this section is the Heptameron on its way to becoming the Ars Goëtia.  However, this particular copy is, well, a copy: the materials in the first 80 leaves or so of Sloane MS 3824 appear to be a collection of copies made by Elias Ashmole from various other MS. sources, probably at least three different: (a) "Longobardus," a collection of extremely verbose & legalistic conjurations for traditional concerns such as finding treasure & recovering stolen goods, (b) a partial copy of the Janua Magica Reserata with additional passages not found in Sloane MS. 3825 and (c) a proto-Lemegeton including the material mentioned above, and the incomplete Ars Theurgia-Goëtia mentioned below.

Fol. 53r-71v are titled "The Second Parte of the Art of King Solomon,"  The opening of this section (up to 54r) is more or less identical to the preamble of the Ars Theurgia-Goëtia, although the figure of the compass is either missing, or was too faint to show up in the crappy scans I'm using (there is a blank space where it should be, and the text refers to it).  This is followed by descriptions of Carnesiell, Caspiel, Amenadiel, Demoriel, Pamersiel, Padiel, Camuel, Aseliel, Barmiel, Gedial, Asyriel, Maseriel, Magaras, Dorochiel, Vsiel and Cabariel (i.e. 16 of the 20 chief spirits with fixed abodes, and none of the wanderers); only a few are given seals, and the names and seals of their chief subordinates are AWOL.  The conjuration for each is given at length, although these generally vary only in the name and the direction to which the Spirit is assigned.  At the end is another lengthy conjuration addressed to Padiel, with an oath to be sworn by the spirit. 

As previously remarked, fol. 110r-111v contains "An Experiment of the Spirit Vassago, who may be called upon to appear in a Christall Stone, or Glass or otherwise without," including a character for Vassago slightly simpler than the Goëtia version.  A similar "experiment" for Agares follows.  Following a ritual to cause the spirit Bleth to appear in a glass of water, are brief descriptions of eight more spirits (115v-116r), with simple seals for five of them, including Seere, Dantalion and Andromalius, the remaining additions to the Goëtia.

On fol. 116v are given "The Names of severall Spirits, both with and without their Characters."  25 spirits have characters next to their names, most fairly simple; while some have similar general morphology to characters of subordinate spirits in the Theurgia-Goëtia, I have yet to definitely identify any as being the same, and several of the names are unreadable in my copy.

Halfway down 117r begins an account of the chief infernal spirits and Kings of the quarters, an important part of the De Officiis Spirituum tradition that was apparently redacted out by Wier in order to make the Pseudomonarchia unuseable.  This concludes with a generic conjuration for the Kings and their chief ministers (to be varied by substituting appropriate names and directions).

On fol. 121ro-130vo, in a different hand to the preceding (and bound up with it later) is a text called Trithemius Redivivus, an English translation of a portion of Book i of the Steganographia, from which the Ars Theurgia-Goëtia derived its spirit names (while apparently missing the point of the book, which uses a variety of techniques to encode messages in what appear on the surface to be innocuous passages or strings of barbarous words).

The final article in Sloane 3824 (131r-154v) is a rearranged and heavily modified version of the Heptameron, "The Magick and Magicall Elements of  the Seven days of þe week, with their Appropriate hours, and the four Annual Seasons."  After the considerations and conjurations of the seven days, and various tables of names for the hours, days and seasons, follows an "Introduction," not found in the printed Heptameron, which I reproduce in full:

"An Introduction, teaching the use of the foregoing treatis of thereby other experiments or operations of the like nature orders or offices as a president refer'd to the spirits of the Ayr, being a sufficient exemplification for any Philosopher Skillfull in the Art of Magick, & well knowing how to make a trew & racionall distinction beetweene the Cœlestiall & blessed Angells, or intelligences, and the Cœlestially Dignified Elementall Angells, or Spirits of Light, & also of other Elementall powers, or Spirits, both of light & darkness; & so by nature and office, both good & Evill, together with others, called wandering spirits of the Aÿr, of the like nature & office, but of no orders, mansions, or proper place of Residence; but moving even like as flies in the son, without sensible Subjection to any superiour powers; together with Infernall powers, called spirits of Darkness, or Devils; who are saide by nature & office to be wholly evill, & therefore of themselves not to be invocated, moved, or called forth to visible Appearance; as the other Elementall powers, or spirits are; & may bee; but other spirits of their natures, orders, & offices may be them, & the power given to them (by Divine permission in the blessed Trinity) & in their names be moved & called forth to visible appearance, for such, or those purposes, which may, & usually (?) doth serve to the benifit of mankind; &c."

The instruction in forming the circle and preliminary rites from the Heptameron follows; the "ANCOR: ANACOR: AMIDES" prayer for robing is significantly extended and for the remainder of the work the text diverges significantly; the conjurations are padded out with additional verbiage while the general rubric is retained.  After the License to Depart follows a series of increasingly strongly worded "constraints" for uncoöperative Spirits, which with their rubric occupy the last four and a bit leaves of the MS., concluding with "the great Chaine or Sentence" in which the exorcist (having placed the spirit's name on a parchment, wrapped about with an iron wire, inside a metal box, on top of a charcoal brazier) declares:

"so behold (o you Spirit N:) we do powerfully hereby cast you forth into þe bottomless pit of unquenchable flames or other place of darkness, even the most terrable Tophet of endless & unspeakable torments, wherein you shall remaine bound, or Chained up, untill the dreadfull and great day of judgement, and there shall never be more remembrance of thee; before the face of God, who shall come to judge the quick & the dead, & the whorld by fire, as a due & just reward of this your disobedience, obstinacy & Rebellion, fiat, fiat, fiat."

The "BERALANENSIS: BALDACHIENSIS" conjuration (first conjuration in Ars Goëtia, conjuration to be said after the exorcism of the Aërial spirits and prayer to the quarters in the Heptameron), I've not found in 3824 yet, but it's entirely credible I missed it.

Errata et corrigenda

Just uploaded an update to the 4th Book & Heptameron.  This fixes multiple errors in editorial material, trims some superfluous text in the bibliography, expands some notes and expands the "Testimonia" with Wier's denunciation of the Liber Quartus from the second and subsequent editions (not the first, as I incorrectly stated in the previous release) of De præstigiis dæmonum et incantionibus ac veneficiis and a brief excerpt from Thomas Willard's 2017 essay "How magical was Renaissance Magic?" touching on the Fourth Book.  There are still some minor tweaks that need to be made and a needlessly hostile passage that could use toning down / recasting.

I'm not planning on incorporating the material in the previous post into the Mathers-Crowley Goëtia, save for a general note referencing the Folger Offices of the Spirits.

In addition to the four BL Lemegeton MSS., a codex of similar content to Sloane MS. 2731 was in the possession of E.M. Butler, who reproduced one page from it as Plate II of her Ritual Magic (1949).  It is unclear if this was the same "private codex" mentioned by Mathers and cited as the source for his figure of the Circle.  Probably it is still in a private collection somewhere.

* * *

The edition of Agrippa's Opera in Duos Tomos (which I suspect, though this is on the basis of a single typo, was the one used by Robert Turner), with the pillars & crown device and motto Firmant consilium pietas politia coronam (also read Consilium, pietas et politia coronam firmant which means the same thing but flows a little better), which device (as I remarked in a previous post) was used ca. 1600 by Cornelius Sutor of Oberursel, is attributed by some bibliographers to Eberhard Zetzner of Strasburg, "ca. 1630."  Eberhard, it would seem, inherited his father's printing business in 1616; a German catalogue of printer's devices shows this among those used by E. Zetzner (Table LI & facing text).  I haven't so far managed to find anything on the Zetzner imprint with this device so far, but that doesn't mean much as I've not really looked very thoroughly (as in, ran a search -- inpublisher:"Zetzner" -- on Google Books).

What I *did* find was this -- a per Beringos fratres edition of an "Appendix Apologeticus" to a "Lyon" edition of Agrippa's Opera in duos tomos, with the date 1605 and the distinctive device of Lazarus Zetzner (head & shoulders of Minerva on plinth with motto SCIENTIA IMMUTABILIS).  This suggests Zetzner was responsible for the "1600" edition.  Since Zetzner senior worked with Sutor prior to relocating to Strasburg (e.g. on the original three-volume edition of Theatrum Chemicum), it is within the bounds of possibility that his heirs wound up with Sutor's device.

* * *

Pseudo-Agrippa's ritual for invocation of spirits of the middle / terrestrial order (p. 38 of CP edition, p. 61 ed. 1559, p. 68 in Turner, 1655) looks to be an ancestor of the procedure, mocked by A. E. Waite in Book of Ceremonial Magic (p. 302) in the Grimorium Verum (also the "1670" editions of the Grimoire of Honorius), "Pour faire venir trois demoiselles ou trois messieurs dans sa chamber après souper."

EDIT: actually, probably not.  While looking up some stuff in connection with some groups of 7 fairies cited in the Folger "Book of Magic" (where they appear with their queen, tacked on to the end of a Liber Officiorum version), Sloane 3851 (which incidentally contains English translations of the Heptameron and Liber Quartus independent from, and quite plausibly pre-dating, Turner's) and Folger X.d 234, turned up references to similar things in French folk tradition going back long prior to Agrippa's time (see for example K. M. Briggs, "Some Seventeenth-Century Books of Magic," published in Folklore in 1953; also the writings of Dan Harms concerning the "Table Ritual").  BTW, before attempting the procedure from Folger X.d 234, bear in mind that the 7 sisters were probably originally disease demons, as a very similar set of names is cited in 11th-century charms against fever.

Also, the same section of the Liber Quartus depends more heavily on OP III.32 than III.16, from which much of it is slightly paraphrased.

Contrary to my statement in a previous post, Joseph Peterson did remark on the citation in the printed Ars Notoria of Lemegeton as the name of a Solomonic text, in a set of corrections posted online after the print edition of the Lemegeton went to press.

Meddling with the Goëtia again (5)

[This is an updated / corrected version of a post under the same title of a couple of days ago, as the original somehow got flagged and deleted by Blogger while I was trying to edit it.]

After all these years, I only just noticed I forgot to transcribe how many legions #70, Seere, rules (26, for what it's worth).  And while turning the sigils into a TrueType font seemed like a good idea at the time (I lost count of how many times the drawing program I was using crashed while I was editing the vector art), it had the unfortunate effect that those mapped to lower-case letters accidentally got changed in a few instances by MS Word's auto-correct capitalising them.  I think they're all fixed in the most recent upload.

So, as is well known, there are four spirits in the Goëtia that do not appear in Wier or Scot: #3 (Vassago), and #70-72 (Seere, Dantalion, Andromalius).  Vassago, as I had previously remarked (citing A.E. Waite's Book of Ceremonial Magic (p. 197 n.), which cited no source), was reportedly also called on in ceremonial crystallomancy in a ritual tradition distinct from Solomonic / Goëtic conjurations (simply calling it "White Magic" in scare-quotes would have been insufficient for Waite: his actual phrasing was "[...] White Magic--as the most dubious of all arts is called in the scorn of its professors").

Anyway, in the course of looking for other instances of a group of planetary angels mentioned in the conjurations in the Heptameron (Salamia, Orphaniel, &c.) but not elsewhere in the same text, I turned up a reference by Joseph Peterson to an earlier work by Waite, The Occult Sciences (Kegan Paul et al., 1891) where Waite treats of more detail on the subject (p. 107), alluding to MSS. copied by Frederick Hockley.  One of these -- published as facsimile and typeset as The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon (Lake Worth, FL: Ibis Press, 2009), edited and introduced by Peterson -- includes an "Experiment of Vassago," with the variant sigil (similar to, but significantly less elaborate than, that in the Goëtia) printed by Waite, in which the spirit is called to appear in a "Crystal Stone or Glass."

[Copies can also be found in Wellcome MSS. 2842 and 3203.]

This "experiment" was not, though, written by Hockley, nor by his source, Ebenezer Sibley; a version appears in BL Sloane MS. 3824 at fol. 110r-112v (the notebook containing this is mid-seventeenth century, has identifiable cribs from printed works such as J. French's translation of De Occulta Philosophia (pub. 1651) and Casaubon's True and Faithful Relation (pub. 1659), but also features material from multiple earlier sources such as the 16th-century English MS. traditions compiled in Folger MS. V.b. 26 or put into print by Scot in Book XV of the Discoverie of Witchcraft).  This MS.'s close proximity to those numbered 3821 and 3825 (the latter containing the earliest known complete Lemegeton) in the collection predates their cataloguing by Hans Sloane's librarian; all three were previously in the possession of John Somers (d. 1716) and after him, Sir Joseph Jekyll (d. 1738), and according to an account by David Rankine who edited a partial typeset of 3824 (The Book of Treasure Spirits, London: Avalonia, 2009) and had previously co-edited works drawing on the other two, portions of all three are in the same hand [1].  The "experiment of Vassago" is immediately followed by a similar one for Agares (#2 in the Goëtia as well as the Wier / Scot Liber Officiorum).  

[1] 17th-century handwriting is scarcely my specialism, but based on the copies I have seen (after first writing the above), the first half or so of 3824 (fol. 3-79), along with many notes, corrections, &c. to the originally independent texts in the latter part; the prayers on fol. 188-193 of 3821 along with some corrections and an inserted leaf of notes to the text on fol. 1-157, and some corrections to the texts in 3825, are in the hand of Elias Ashmole, who probably owned all three prior to their acquisition by Somers.

Later in 3824 (fol. 114r-120v) is found what looks to be part of a different Liber Officiorum version.  This has a lengthy account of a spirit called Bleth, "who is mostly called upon and appeareth of a glass of water" and shorter accounts of subordinate spirts: Sonoryan (said to have been the familiar of Cardinal Richlieu), Mamon, Seere, Asmodiah, Dantalion, Andromalius and Sondenna alias Sendenna.  Seere, Dantalion[2] and Andromalius[3] are, of course, the three other spirits not in the Wier / Scot list that were added to the Goëtia to make the number up to 72.  Their offices are more or less as in the Ars Goëtia, descriptions of their appearances and numeration how many legions they rule are omitted, and the characters recognisably similar to, but far less elaborate than, the Lemegeton forms.  Of Sondenna alias Sendenna, it is said "This Spirit was the Servant and familiar to Mr. E.K." (i.e., Edward Kelley) and whose description is copied from A True & Faithful Relation, p. 185 (Cotton Appendix xlvi part i fol. 201v, where the first 'n' in both forms of the name looks more like a 'u';[4] not (?) to be confused with SONDN, one of the ruling names of the upper right lesser angle of MOR).

[2] A probable variant of "Dantalion" appears as Dentalion, cited alongside Lucifer and Sathan in a process in Sloane MS. 3851 (date uncertain, likely mid 17th century) fol. 59v-60r; the procedure (which the scribe claimed to be "proved") is a coercive agoge "love spell," consistent with the offices of Dantalion in the Ars Goëtia.

[3] A probable variant / antecedent of "Andromalius" appears as Andrew Malchus, mentioned as a spirit called up by treasure hunters in Norfolk during the reign of Henry VIII.  Also Andromalcus or Andromalchus is cited in minor procedures in 16th & 17th-century magical MSS. such as Sloane MS. 3846 (fol. 83v), BL Additional MS 36,674 (fol. 89v) and Bodleian Rawlinson D. 252 (don't have exact reference), typically involving recovering stolen goods or identifying or punishing a thief.  The orthography Andromalius perhaps originates from an ink blot, piece of dirt or squashed fly above an ill-formed 'c' being taken as the dot on an 'i'.

[4] While Dee's scrawl in Cotton Appendix xlvi is frequently extremely hard to read, this name was lettered out fairly carefully, and Soudenna as a mis-hearing of Seudenna (Dee initially wrote the name as he heard it spoken during the Spirit Action, then added the marginal note with the second spelling following a later discussion with Kelley) is more believable than Sondenna as a mis-hearing of Sendenna.

Following this truncated catalogue of spirits is a page and a half with "The names of Severall spirits, both with and without their Characters" (omitted by Rankine and barely readable in the crappy images of the MS. that I'm currently working from) followed by (117r-120v) an account of the demon kings of the four quarters, and the three chief infernal spirits, Lucifer, Beelzebub and Satan (the first of whom, we are informed, cannot be called up directly although it is implied he should be cited in summoning and binding lesser demons), which appears to have been part of the Liber Officiorum tradition that was redacted out by Wier and remained largely AWOL in the Goëtia.[5]  This has parallels to the start of the "Offices of the Spirits" section of Folger MS Vb 26 (p. 73 sqq.) and the French Le Livre des esperitz (Cambridge Trinity MS. O.8.29 fol. 179ro-182vo).

[5] This section was also included by Skinner and Rankine in their earlier Keys to the Gateway of Magic (Golden Hoard, 2005), the bulk of which is a typeset of the Janua Magica Reserata.

In fact, the discrepancy in Wier between the number of spirits actually listed (69) and the number said to have been sealed up by Solomon in the br^H^Hglass vessel (72) could be accounted for by the missing three being the remaining Kings of the quarters, Oriens (E), Amaymon (N), and Egyn (S), since Paimon (W) does get an entry as #22 in the Pseudomonarchia.  Of course Wier also gives an almost completely different set of names for the Kings (Amaymon appears among them, but assigned to a different quarter), which was perpetuated into the Goëtia, but he also openly admitted to tampering with the text to make it unusable.

No, the *other* Book 4 about Magick

De Occulta Philosophia, seu de Cæremoniis Magicis, Liber Quartus; cui accesserit Heptameron, seu Elementa Magica.

After much prevaricating, getting distracted, and fine-tuning of the balance of pedantry and sarcasm in the footnotes, the previously-threatened Latin text of the Fourth Book of pseudo-Agrippa and Heptameron seu Elementa Magica of pseudo-Abano, an important Renaissance work on ceremonial magic and possibly the first Grimoire to actually be printed (1559, if the date on the title page is to be believed), can now be read on Scribd.  While I did some cross-checking with the 1565 and 1567 printings (links are to copies on Google Books with everything that implies) and the texts included in various of the "per Beringos Fratres" printings of tom. i of Agrippa's Opera, this makes no pretence at being a critical text.  

I have inserted things like paragraph breaks and section headings into pseudo-Agrippa's walls of text,  rearranged some of the lists of names in the Heptameron into tables for ease of reference, identified (most of) the chapters of De Occulta Philosophia libri tres cited, added a bibliography as well as an overview of the "supplements to Agrippa," the collection of texts on magic, divination & the like that were bound up with various posthumous printings of De Occulta Philosophia.

What I have not (yet) done, is indicated quite how extensive the borrowings in the Heptameron from the Liber Iuratus Honorii (Sworn Book of Honorius) are, largely due to my lack of familiarity with the latter work.  While BL Royal MS. 17 A XLII (not 15th century despite what the BL catalogue claims, as it has multiple identifiable cribs from De Occulta Philosphia) almost certainly took the seals of the planetary Angels from the Heptameron, or possibly a Lucidarium MS. -- the sigils being AWOL in the earlier surviving Liber Iuratus MSS. (similarly for the names associated with the 4 seasons at fol. 72ro sqq.) -- the remaining parallels go way beyond the lists of names in the second part of the Heptameron.  In particular, a large chunk of the ritual procedure beginning with the "Prayer to God, to be said in the four quarters of the world, in the circle" through to the charge to the spirits, appears to have been taken, with variations and expansions on some points, verbatim on others, from cap. CXXXIII of the Liber Iuratus (see for example Joseph Peterson's online edition of the text, and apparatus ad loc.).

The strange phrase, on which I have previously remarked, "Bathat vel Vachat super Abrac ruens, supervivens [v.l. "superiruens," "superveniens"] Abeor super Aberer" appears in the equivalent passage of Liber Iuratus as "Bachac super Abrac ruens, Abeor super Aberor" (apud Hedegård; Peterson, apparently working from the same MS., has "Bathac" in his online text).

Grant us eyes . . .

So I've been going through the Heptameron and 4th Book again lately, and finally accepted that my schoolboy Latin (well, formally, equivalent to undergraduate 1st-year I think, but it was a long time ago and I've forgotten a lot of it) really isn't enough to provide an improvement on Robert Turner's translation of the latter, but I have nearly completed a re-set of the texts with some annotations that may or may not be helpful, as well as a more thorough bibliography than the excuse for plugging his own books that Stephen Skinner appended to his 2005 re-set of Robert Turner's translation.

The 1559 printing of the Heptameron includes in its conjurations appeals to "Bathat vel Vachat," "Ima vel Ina" and the planetary Angel, "Caphriel vel Cassiel."  As another example of this phenomena, I cited "Kos, or, some say, Kosm" -- which is not, in fact, from a Grimoire at all but is part of a prayer recited by a character in a 2015 video game called Bloodborne.

So the simplest explanation for this kind of thing that I could come up with, is that scribal glosses, notes on variant readings, or queries of doubtful or unclearly written words get incorporated into the main text of repeatedly hand-copied documents.  The name Buné, one of the spirits of the Goëtia, for instance, appears as Bimé in Sloane MS. 3648 and Harley MS. 6483, probably due to the name being written cursively in their source text and a piece of dirt or squashed fly on the MS. being taken as a dot on an 'i.'  Bathat sometimes appears as Bathal owing to the final 't' being indistinctly crossed (compare comments in previous post about "Seal of Adonay").  Caphriel is written Cafriel in at least one of the proto-Heptameron MSS., and a cursive fr might have been taken for ß, the German double-s ligature (which in the earliest print editions is used to write the name Cassiel).  [The forms "Cafziel" and "Casziel" apparently occur in some copies of the Liber Iuratus Honorii, an earlier magical text which includes many of the same names of Angels &c. as the Heptameron.]

If the name is genuinely ambiguous, the scribe might put the most likely reading in the main text and asterisk it with a note on the other possibility in the margin; alternatively, the scribe might have access to more than one copy, with different readings; for example, the version of the Goëtia in Sloane MS. 2731 has marginal notes by the names of seven of the spirits such as "in another copy Sabnock," "other copy Gromory," &c.  When, in order to save time or ink, the variant reading is accompanied by simply "or," "vel," "some say," and the like, there arises a risk that this gets incorporated into the text by a subsequent copyist.

So, here is the not-entirely-serious in-universe origin of that line in Micolash's prayer.  One scribal abbreviation used to save time / space / ink in mediæval-renaissance Latin manuscripts (also appearing in printed works of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) was a tilde ~ placed above a letter, usually but not always a vowel, to indicate an 'n' or 'm' to follow (this sort of thĩg, for exãple).  So someone wrote out that prayer, with only the name 'Kos.'  Then a squashed bug on the MS. above the 's' caused a later copyist to read it "Kos̃," pronounced "Kosm."  Other copies made prior to this persisted; a second copyist, aware of both readings, kept the first in the main text but put a marginal note "or, some say, Kosm" ("say" since it was a liturgical formula used by members of the sect).  Then copyist #3, possibly tired or light-headed from excessive consumption of the blood of eldritch abominations, takes the marginal note as an insertion and incorporates it into the main text, producing the version Micolash recites.

Meddling with the Goëtia again (2)

OK, this gets murkier.  For years I had glibly asserted that the conjurations in the Goëtia derived from Robert Turner's translation of the Heptameron that was bound up with the Fourth Book of pseudo-Agrippa.

On examining a facsimile of the 1655 edition posted at the Internet archive, it turns out that Turner didn't translate the conjurations at all, but (with the exception of the "Prayer to God, to be said in the four parts of the World, in the Circle") left them in the original Latin.  The translated conjurations do appear in a reprint of the Turner translation, "with great Improvements" issued without publisher, place, or editor's name, dated 1783 on the title page.  This of course significantly post-dates the Lemegeton MSS.; it now seems more likely that the compiler of the Goëtia did their own translations from pseudo-Abano (the additional sections from the Heptameron interpolated into the variant Goëtia in Harley MS. 6483, the "Dr. Rudd" Lemegeton, are verbatim with Turner, barring some minor variations in spelling).

EDIT: dammit my head hurts now.  Skinner apparently used an earlier and less complete printing of Turner's translation as the basis for the facsimile (Askin, 1978).  The translated conjurations do appear in another edition, dated 1665 (neither this nor the 1783 edition are mentioned in the chapter on Robert Turner in Elizabethan Magic by Robert Turner et al., which incorrectly describes the Askin facsimile as the "second edition").

The 1783 edition was the source for Barrett's The Magus: in the conjuration of Wednesday, Animalium in the Latin was misprinted as Ammalium, leading to et per nomen sedis Animalium, habentium senas alas being translated by the nonsensical "and by the name and place of Ammalium," which reading was then further corrupted by Barrett to "and by the name and place of Ammaluim" (I erroneously stated in an edition of the Heptameron I issued many years ago and which still lingers on in the dark corners of the Internet that the garbling was due to Turner or Barrett; in fact Turner (1665) translated it correctly).  Steven Skinner's 2005 re-set of Turner reverted "Ammalium" to "Animalium" but kept the rest of the citation.  "Animals having six wings" is probably a reference to the Apocalypse.

However, my characterisation of passages as being "identically or near-identically worded" to the Turner translation was based on the Mathers-Crowley edit, and not on any BL MSS., and Mathers took liberties with his texts that went beyond modernising English spelling and attempting to revert corruptions in Divine Names of Hebrew origin.

For example: in the Second Conjuration, after the reference to Moses calling on the name ADONAI to summon a plague of locusts, in the Mathers edition there follows: "and by the name SCHEMA AMATHIA which Ioshua called upon, and the sun stayed his course."

In the Exorcism of the Aërial Spirits in the Heptameron of pseudo-Abano, some texts (not the "Marburg, 1559" printing or the edition of Agrippa's Opera used as the basis for the 1970 Georg Olms facsimile, but it is in at least three of the other "per Beringos fratres" editions of Agrippa including that used by Turner), the reference to the plague of locusts is followed by et per nomen Schemes amathia, quod Iosua vocavit, et remoratus est Sol cursum.  Turner translated this: "and by the name Schemes amathia, which Joshua called upon, and the Sun stayed his course."

In the four BL Lemegeton MSS. (Sloane MSS. 2731, 3648, 3825, Harley MS. 6483) the citation appears slightly earlier, after the reference to Aaron becoming wise after hearing and speaking the name Anepheneton (or Anaphexaton, Anephexeton, &c.), and is worded (with minor variations in spelling): "and by the name Schemes-Amathia which Joshua called upon and the Sun stood still."

Conclusion: Mathers used the Turner Heptameron in the process of editing the Goëtia.  How heavily the original redactor did is less clear.

There is one noticeable variation in wording between Turner and Mathers & Crowley: in the three references in the second conjuration to Moses calling plagues on Egypt, Mathers or Crowley deleted specific references to, well, Egypt:

Compare:

Sloane MS. 3825: "And by the name Zebaoth, which Moses named, & all the Rivers and waters in the land of Ægypt were turned into blood; and by the name Escerchie Oriston, which Moses named, and the rivers brought forth froggs, they went into the houses of the Egyptians, Distroying all things [...] and by the name Adonay, which Moses named, & there came up locusts throughout all the land of Egypt and devoured all that the Haill at [sic] left"

Turner: "And by the name Zebaoth, which Moses named, and all the Rivers and waters in the land of Egypt were turned into blood; and by the name Ecerchie Oriston, which Moses named, and all the Rivers brought forth frogs, and they ascended into the houses of the Egyptians, destroying all things [...] and by the name Adonay, which Moses named, and there came up Locusts, which appeared upon the whole land of Egypt, and devoured all which the Hail had left"

Mathers & Crowley: "And by the name ZABAOTH, which Moses named and all the rivers were turned into blood; and by the name ASHER EHYEH ORISTON, which Moses named, and all the rivers brought forth frogs, and they ascended into the houses, destroying all things [...] and by the name ADONAI, which Moses named, and there came up locusts, which appeared upon the whole land, and devoured all which the hail had left."

And let's not get started on how entire heresies and schisms can arise from scribes neglecting to dot 'i' s or cross 't's.  It's quite clearly "seal [or 'seale'] of Adonay" in three of the four BL Lemegeton MSS., Sloane 2731 (at least in the badly digitised microfilm I'm using) is ambiguous, it could be a 't' or 'l' but it's not clearly crossed and differs from the scribe's other terminal 't's; but the corresponding citation in the Heptameron is sedem Adonay.  Turner's translation, as printed, has "seal" although the Latin is given correctly.  Suggestion: either Turner (assuming he was responsible for the additional translations in the 1665 printing, which is possible but by no means certain; Robin E. Cousins in the account of his works in Robert Turner's Elizabethan Magic suggests he died during the plague that year) neglected to cross the 't' in 'seat' or the typesetter misread his handwriting, and the error was perpetuated into the Lemegeton.

And so I come back to the stance I was on the point of recanting at the start of this post: the Goëtia (as distinguished from Book of the Offices of the Spirits) depends on and thus post-dates, not merely the Heptameron (a prototype of which under a different name but with the same pseudoepigraphal author credit apparently existed half a century or more prior to the Fourth Book), but a specific printing of a specific English translation of the Heptameron.

EDITED AGAIN: Blech, I can't read.  The second printing of Turner's translation was dated 1665, not 1655.  The above has been corrected accordingly.