V.b.26

MSS Folger V.b.26 Book of Magic, with Instructions for Invoking Spirits - ca. (1577-1583)

The Goetia of Solomon relied on the English translation of Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum that appeared in Reginald Scot's The Discoverie of Witchcraft. Weyer cited as his source a manuscript called Liber officiorum spirituum, seu Liber dictus Empto. Salomonis, de principibus & regibus dæmoniorum ("Book of the offices of spirits, or the book called Empto. Salomonis concerning the princes and kings of the demons").

The original Book of the Offices of Spirits was probably written in Latin, but MSS Folger V.b.26 contains a copy of the Book of the Offices of Spirits which is mostly in English. You can read it by clicking HERE.

The Importance of Pseudomonarchia Daemonum

The Goetia of Solomon did not just appear spontaneously. It has sources. One of those sources is the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum of Johann Weyer. I just gave a link to the text. If you follow that link and read what Joseph H. Peterson wrote, you will see that it was not the Latin of Weyer that was the source for the Goetia of Solomon. The GoS used Reginald Scot's translation from The Discoverie of Witchcraft.

Weyer cites as his source a book called Liber officiorum spirituum, seu Liber dictus Empto. Salomonis, de principibus & regibus dæmoniorum ("Book of the offices of spirits, or the book called Empto. Salomonis concerning the princes and kings of the demons"). Weyer omits and alters the content of this source work in the creation of his Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. He omits information on Satan, Lucifer, and Beelzebub as well as the Demonic Princes of the four cardinal directions.

Right before Reginald Scot translates Weyer's work, he writes "These are no small fooles, they go not to worke with a baggage tode, or a cat, as witches doo; but with a kind of majestie, and whith authoritie they call up by name, and have at their commandement seventie and nine principall and princelie divels, who have under them, as their ministers, a great multitude of legions of pettie divels; as for example." This quote is important for two reasons. First, Reginald Scot is aware of the number of demons that should be in the list he is about to give (72 demons, 4 cardinal demons, plus Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Satan = 79) and he could fill in some of what Weyer left out, but chooses to leave the list deficient. Although Scot is aware of Weyer's work, I do not believe he translated it directly. He was copying another person's English version which was slightly different to Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. In the margin between the second and third chapter, he writes, "This was the work of one T.R. written in faire letters of red & blacke upo[n] parchment, and made by him, Ann. 1570. to the maintenance of his living, the edifieng of the poore, and the glorie of gods holie name: as he himselfe saith." This manuscript by T.R. quite possibly contained the missing demons that would push Scot's count to 79.

Oh, yeah... The second reason that first quote is important?

In this art we are not dealing with Hebrew Kabbalah or the Angelic Orders and Choirs of the Christian church, "but with a kind of majestie, and whith authoritie they call up by name". Weyer uses the words "Pseudomonarch Daemonum". That has been translated as "False Monarchy of Demons". Weyer's source work uses the words "Princes", "Kings", and "Offices of Spirits" right in its title. What does this mean to us?

This is a subject I will return to again on this blog, but the offices and titles used in the Pseudomonarchy of Demons and the Goetia of Solomon describe an order not to be found in the works of Agrippa or Crowley. Kings, Princes, Marquisses, Dukes, Earls, Presidents... to understand what these titles mean and how to use the names, seals, and lamens of this art with majesty and authority, you need to put down 777 and pick up some books on Heraldry.

The Ring or Disc of Solomon?

In the Mathers/Crowley edition of the Goetia of Solomon, you can find an odd diagram of the Ring of Solomon. The text tells us, "This is the Form of the Magic Ring, or rather Disc, of Solomon, the figure whereof is to be made in gold or silver."

Disc of Solomon? Where else can we read about this Disc of Solomon? Is it in the Testament of Solomon? Maybe the Talmud? Josephus? No, those all mention a finger ring.

What about all the manuscripts of the Goetia of Solomon? Unlike Mathers, we can search the internet and in a short period of time collect PDF versions of most of the manuscripts. A very good version of the GoS can be found at Joseph H. Peterson's site (click HERE). That's where I snagged this image:

This diagram shows a simple band with the word TETRAGRAMMATON inscribed on the inside and ANEPHENETON-MICHAEL written on the outside (the X is a correction to ANEPHEXETON). There is no mention of a "Disc of Solomon" in any manuscript of the Goetia of Solomon. The diagrams just looked like discs to Mathers and Crowley.

A ring like this would have been easy to acquire in the 16th and 17th centuries. All you would have to do is purchase a band like the ones used in common posie rings. For a little extra charge, the smith or jeweler would probably stamp or engrave the words for you. Or you could put your burin to good use.

Xpus? What Does Xpus Mean?

The Hexagram of Solomon found in the Goetia of Solomon had many versions before it made its way into the Lemegeton. In some of those other books and manuscripts you will see the mysterious word "Xpus".

Here is the Hexagram of Solomon as it appears in the Heptameron:

Here it is in Les Veritables Clavicules de Salomon:

You can also see Xpus in Tractatus de nigromatia [necromancy]: 16th centuryMun.A.4.98:

Note that the Xpus in this last diagram is beneath a form of the Tetragrammagon which would later be incorporated into the Hexagram of Solomon found in the Goetia of Solomon (see THIS POST).

So, what does Xpus mean?

The answer is found in that line above the word. You are looking at a Latinized Greek word. CHRISTUS

The first two letters are Chi and Rho.

A medieval convention for marking a contraction was to place a line over the word starting where the contraction begins and ending where the contraction ends. Some writers were more precise than others. So, remember, X pus is a contraction for Xpistus and is pronounced "Christós" or "Christus", but never "Eckspoos".

Veritable Clavicles of Solomon

A while back I searched google books and came across this PDF. I cannot seem to find it there again. So I uploaded it to google drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B35PCojjzWTTZnZCYzV0QWtaUTg/view?usp=sharing

There are excerpts at Joseph Petersen's site:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/l1203.htm

 

This Sigil Is Not a Sigil

MS. Rawl. D. 252 fol. 028v-029r

A friend and I studied The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the King together about twenty years ago. My friend had been studying magic already for a few years and had expensive esoteric books and obviously knew much more than I did. When we came to the Hexagram of Solomon we saw a footnote. After much squinting, I was finally able to read the footnote: "This sigil is frequently reversed thus:" and then there appears to be a reversal of the sigil appearing in the bottom triangle of the Hexagram of Solomon.

After a few weeks of study in his library, my friend was certain he had identified the spirit that belonged to the sigil. He was also certain the correct form was the one shown in the Hexagram.

My friend and I had a sudden parting of ways and I never found out what spirit belonged to that sigil. I have been searching for it again over the last year, but to no avail. And then...

This February I decided to visit some of my browser bookmarks and see if there was anything new and interesting. I visited one of my bookmarks and read a great blog post. There is a link to MSS Folger V.b.26 Book of Magic, with Instructions for Invoking Spirits - ca. (1577-1583). This is, in more than one way, interesting and important for anyone interested in Solomonic evocation. For now, though, I would like to point out that the manuscript contains two versions of the Pentagram of Solomon and also of the Hexagram of Solomon.

Toward the end of the manuscript you find the Hexagram of Solomon as it appears (complete with explanatory note on the reversed sigil) in the Mathers/Crowley GoS. But in another part of the manuscript you can see the origin of the reversed "sigil".

As you can see, the "sigil" originally had four pieces. Looking more closely at this and other manuscripts, you should be able to tell that what we are looking at is a stylized form of the Hebrew  Tetragrammaton. I had actually seen this representation of the Tetragrammaton before, but never connected it to the sigil in the Hexagram of Solomon.

Some people may be skeptical that these four characters are the Tetragrammaton. Look at this web page about Tractatus de nigromatia [necromancy]: 16th century Mun.A.4.98. There are five images of the document on this page. Look at the left half of the second image. There you will see the Tetragrammaton in the text of the book. Look at the fourth image. There you see the stylized Tetragrammaton written over a sword or knife (turn the image upside down to read the word). In De Nigromancia you can see this same circle and see the four characters written in a more recognizable Hebrew form. In the fifth image on the page you should see the stylized Tetragrammaton not once, but five times.

Look closely at that last image. Now compare that image to the form of the same circle as it appears in Folger V.b.26. It's almost as if the person copying Folger V.b.26 was unaware of exactly what he was copying.

If we strip away the other elements of the Hexagram of Solomon and compare different manuscripts, we can see the progression and draw a rough timeline.

---

This is the old form in Folger V.b.26

---

As it appears in Sloane Ms. 3824. You will find it on page 114 of The Book of Treasure Spirits by David Rankine. The Hexagram of Solomon is used in that manuscript as a "Magic Circle for Fairy Conjuration".

---

This is the form in the earlier versions of the GoS. You can find this version in Joseph H. Peterson's The Lesser Key of Solomon: Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis.

---

And then, in later versions (seen in the Mathers/Crowley GoS).

Within Folger V.b.26 you can see two versions of the Hexagram of Solomon which were brought together in one document after hundreds of years of separation. The version of the Hexagram appearing at the end of the document tells us:
 "At the bottom of the sheet 212 verso are two diagrams which indicate a familiarity with the "LEMEGETON.""

The text by the Hexagram reads:
"see: THE LESSER KEY OF SOLOMON.
GOETIA
THE BOOK OF EVIL SPIRITS
 Ed. de Laurence 1916". This is a reference to the plagiarised de Laurence edition of the GoS. And mention is also made to "Waite/Shah/etc." These versions of the Hexagram and Pentagram of Solomon are found Idries Shah's The Secret Lore of Magic: Books of the Sorcerers (1958). Although they were added by someone who could see their relationship to the Lemegeton, the nature of the "sigil" still escaped them.

Now I will stop looking for what spirit belongs to this sigil and in which direction it should be made. As you can see, this sigil is not reversed because this sigil is not a sigil. 

If this article has been of interest to you, bookmark this blog now. If you know anyone who may be interested in this and articles like it, please share with them. I will write more and make videos on related subjects.

First Post

I have decided to make my own Goetia of Solomon. What do I mean by that? Well, my favorite GoS is old and worn. And it has things in it that I don't want in it. And it is missing things I think should be in it. I can either moan about this situation or I can make the book I want.

In this blog I will blog about the different versions of the GoS and what I like and do not like about each. I will also blog about related material. As I begin looking at all the books on old magic and grimoires, I realize I could easily acquire a small library of quality books related to Solomonic magic. Many of these books have information I do not know. Chances are I will create my GoS before reading a fraction of those books. If at some point in the future I find something I think should be covered in my own book, I will add it.

So, that's what this blog is about.