Full text of "Stephen Skinner - Techniques Of Graeco Egyptian Magic"

See other formats

Humanities & Social Science Faculty

University of Newcastle

Magical Techniques and Implements present in Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri,
Byzantine Greek Solomonic Manuscripts and European Grimoires:

Transmission, Continuity and Commonality

(The Technology of Solomonic Magic)

Stephen Skinner

2013

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Classics)

Statement of Originality

The thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or
diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where

due reference has been made in the text.

Stephen Skinner

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge a debt to my supervisors Dr Marguerite Johnson and
Terry Ryan, who between them guided me through the process of writing this thesis, a
process I discovered is somewhat different from writing a book. I also owe a considerable
debt of gratitude to my very erudite Greek teacher Tai Yu Hsiang. My thanks to the
librarians (especially those responsible for the manuscript collections) of the British Library,
Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Bodleian Library, Warburg Institute, Wellcome Library,
Canterbury Cathedral library and various university libraries including London, Bologna,

Kassel and Newcastle for their help in locating some of the more obscure manuscripts.

“Magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle think, utterly incoherent, but, as the
experts in these things prove, is a consistent system, which has principles known to very few.”
- Origen, Contra Celsus 1.24. (transl. Henry Chadwick, 1953)

“Magica est scientia arctandi spiritus malignos et benignos per nomen dei et per nomina sua.”
- Berengarii Ganelli, Summa Sacre Magice.

Kassel MS 4° Astron. 3, f. 2.

Contents

AUAMOWILER COMICIES 23:c.nsys vincesss tities atecete kak iielass ets BHA Na her den pa a ase 3
COMPO IUES ss sie sh sickest ees eee react eset eyotiee ee eos teitice nh Se es eta hae oes eae eR eee i ees D
PRDSERA GE c isundisvstivede sata ceatncse ses tmcar ys eave tase ea sesese vote cub avSaevasta ceeebuave debe vtnseres Seer aaa ater edep ee avornaspeNts 8
DASE OF PICT eS os5 seebscek eothvsseucbenes cocetinenebvcek ect banhoky voik coewbamibnpobvenk to suasing tebotigal aasirsin nena wend gag beun labo weal sbeebinnnpebowed eothbinn 9
MA SEIOE Taal ss yssssiesas vxsuchysssonuvgn ep cays aeseiveises inde una onosep csv ns Sug unedensievc seen tavucosiatea vate casedengasaleylayssueasunsssaeavsahieds 11
PCT OTS V Veh td ONES 3 cee ast icb aahany Pau aac ieve be tba tbe vault unateegany bauetdusehdioan viele iccanattonc eateries via lonaaeitans tees 12
Te, TMP OCUICHOM jaFssiva ossatdavplosict ipruaysd tekbygh eee bateseaborst expe pakbbek tes unghysasehonbucks tage psaelanereabantbngeloekuch uae vemtighetentacyens 14
dL -SUMMIMALY OF CODJSCH VES isc: tecniten’ titans santas ag bevass deen tes teutdes Sates ongca eshte subd a tusks sataeaboon saab Nedeenataveuias 14
1.2 Review of the Scholarly Literature and: Source TEXts,....ccsccssssvcesseienscsansbesessvnctosoinancessestenterotees 18
WD NICER OC OLOGY sec sidaseyes fae cess sacs tases aesta che ocd eho Paces reacts Beha tee cued BaseapvoaenaoRarte ophaeeheve apes danse eaeaest 25
1.4 Scope of the Study and Definitions of Terminology .......... cee eseeeescecesseeeeesesseecessessseseeseseeees 30
1.5 The Relationship between Magic, the Mysteries and Religion... ceseeeseeseeseeeeeeees 30
2<-Theatre of Operation: the Historical Back erouind vs iosias ssticewenssaiaiteve i Herter ote o Maman isunta nia 53
Dy PATA YSIS OF CAS OIE CSS cvs ors Soap zack open d eb so Vp de See ew osebu sedation Sngbns hd Fakes onekn LOR uae wnboce ng Soden eee a7
3.1 The Ancient Eeyptian Demotic Magical Papyi i. .ivsi.cesccsssescncsessevsvesssovsvassenbecegvsoredeuvonsteevety vevnes 57
9.2, be Gracco-F ey ptian, Mia eical Pap yn aarescascccsssaiucsdehacauoncuwrse lacey eles eassteveuasiosecs tations ieee 61
inalysis OF heP GM by SOURCeS ss ianraiudavteconsnd deity edivhy down tn Gur aamue men me 62
Analysis of the PGM by Objective and Rite Types 00... ccccccsseeseseseeesscsessseesesesesssecsesseneas 66
3.3 The Input of Jewish Magic to Graeco-Egyptian Magic and the Clavicula Salomonis............... 81
The Case against the Hebrew Roots of the Clavicula SAlOMOmis .0....cccccccecssssseeseseeeeseseeeeseeees 89
The Case for the Hebrew Roots of the Clavicula SAloMonis .......ccccccscecesecsesseseseeseesesesesseeesess 93
oA BY ZANUNe SOLOMODIC MaciCall TERS cist sin ceecbsxosontounst encvbssanehvenleneobinavenbvons gnutbsan ishomeabontromennyetoces tngtts 96
Analysis of the Contents of the Ely Qromian tetas cv cascssssssovccsavsecoeuistondvnesvnoveauvenvsvbaem opeeenionses 114
BO LG CLG MC HID SALOMON 1S saves inaitansntdaaticstonieness whe gecvuaas oye ist eenvalacuns oti tes hettnas beeen sageecen ennai nse 122

4. Transmission of Specific Magical Techniques and Instruments from the Hygromanteia to the
CI ROCHLE DRLONIONIIS vcs xesorhaxgvseh ses henshbstsanvthues’ sbeub xavetbyea tavahbugnisbavenseprbtanegslonce ope bsenlonsslesdetertncalbenoath eae 136

5. The Commonality and Transmission of Method between the PGM, the Hygromanteia and
EVE Dh) BS aL OPI OIET St asc syslocus soe tea eceslard Bee ySARSe oo teased adage ty EMRE Toca th sue ee aes roe 144
Dall The Fi erarchy Of Spirited 'G rea tne ss tes tune dee dav esp cute gerovat eens tedge Staoslagsbsiesegovah tipnonennge tele 149
5.1.1 The Hierarchies of Spirits, Angels and Daimomnes..........ccceecesese sees cscesseeesescsesseesseseeeeees 149
els 2 NG GOds e's cere aeons ahah et nanceenesunian mine ee Woden ae a tarn aaa anal neem 154
SlgaheHierarchy-OL Amel s cii.o:o.luss esa cscesucaslscsloctlaenh uesny sae Ment noose sioldeb on tgveapucsctbaphe anaes uetess 157
OLee. The Fiierarel y Of DCm Ons sist usss aaccvses ecpsansesenuehcneeescsgeboesh enetpswanivesea lia pobacevunbucahanteyaeniseetentaats 159
3:2. Preliminary Procedures: and Preparatiomisicc:.iscensietsccdsevtssednsestenesedeeacnstasncnesvatensndoeshicneseVideenvbevess 164
5.2L bocahon for CO perabonicn.irincsiicdatinumni nan atania nue n baMenadammarnmate at 164
5.2.2 space-— Orientation. and the Four DemiOn Kime... jsctiscesdasiecsaniiestetgvosssoueatieeeatesyouchess 166
Ps) LATADITT EC) ccd cas Serre sredand cs ge absense baka ime vada angen ge vob soes aupoenvet etyeentenontaaeucas ashoealenaeheags 178
O24. PUPiby and. Dexa A DSEMCMCe 5s, gas ata sass sbi ts nica lox wees ga nanadara rbwbip Saeaoaeare eeapesacoducaeaedeba Gs reas 196
Did Pasting anid FOO Pro bib Ones siesta: saecil rete Socassthccouiniadeven cauiecusdueesad heuratorauomeeeleveouseeneetss 199
OO EO tECHON LOR EAS WEA CICT A 34.028 exxsbssolshe seed toretsnoorsbuneh encepaeneks sok cgrbsmanpnb veal smetbvaatabbucntanprbnenvorbncatanel 202
sero Bs Gf oy 0 2140.6) 8 ee DC re re 202
Do.2) PEANEIe-OF ATE ANG (Brass: V ESSE secais sd xiesuassvess cieeurbuaantues ele Ciessuetnas hatte eagetenr st eeretoaanis 230
o.0.0 Phydacteny, LamiemOr Breastplate: (UI) roc ier ancosenss soy eeGovged vepdarvBeaconPeavsnss Reeuiyoe ie 237

BA WHItCET WOrdS 3: 03 ciecssssescbse bs teh cess sok ae aeaee Se ech cose eel ah 247

DAA AMULets, (Fs GIs ) stares soateecsasscbalasoaasta entrar ade w tar tocneas ieee tenieemasee 6 oetncae amma nes 247
o4.,2 Folismians and Pentacles (T)ss.2.iiaiscccesapuscvortiecet aesepor Mets taoeeaideb en tgeapeceaaeee edie 251
DA. DICH MONCS: (VV) ba catch setacgspcaoisebeaes cusntl eapeosnnseenephecpepsalneboesh enstpamaneeesea lia pbbacevnnbuce’ astepuanistenabings 266
DO-OPOKER: WOES isis cssiiiinsSidinacts tavadeaieusdtunsdbaitonabeuessatiesasiatanidieabiluadeia buceswisieacheaneieenidanlbentbuhadshdibocte taba 268
9.0L COMPUTA HON OF PR CC LS asia. caes aig asieeesatoorecar ios tastes sersoenunstacvsthariceriasee s beuneanss eenmaneaea ries 268
5.0.2 EVOCaHOR. OF Daimones and Spirits fowsiscieic, cuidate sespusbheaesctocioiseaty curs solbegheabliserovuscs 270
Bo) NOMINATE SICH esis valnsaninapsegnns yt sccainetonsh eapep sunieuenephncrsbia ioabueek eaghpsunnonedem lus pobicvanb need inpeyaeslereteanaays 242
5.0:4 Fistonola-and: Commemoration nj. chetint saints bsndiovsetagnonddasvanivein Davsendere vaeaieasnneta dean seee 284
D0 LICENSE LO DG DATE scstic cele wtsuaeetelennnssstesalbeduavessedeue trustees east est aaa een a ateiisntaas eaten veyade 285
6. The Commonality and Transmission of Equipment between the PGM, the Hygromanteia
AIG EAS CG) AOLCIE SALOMON IS cckectesqsiccosnousten cathe senlan eng shasesbannteabonst encepaeeneneseatsaguescavonbucas sveipaanistenanaee 290
Op Ta Dle Ob E VOCAt Oita axsiiets whi dooveeaguss sone tasisla ut vbekan ds osckdata vat sates Sedalia, gaokdaenogepesseonuleea wean veh 292.
2s VN isin te 8 cia ea aap SS oA ela acl an ease Fa drone thin et delat asl chade 297,
GS WOT a sects Gusts Bech usc ae demu G nay ee out, «Aeouy Gp eti ea taesy anee Noe aa yaa ewe Teese Saeed 300
6.4 Dap eer Or Black Wand led ini Fe is cic. cicctuiicceai cg sio tax Bivhuaiss 0d vakepenbuea susuts ev one g ho teeupoconeansea tales 302
6.0: Virgin: Papyrus Or Parchnaent sas,.tsice.aiaenanessatiansaticntse to tunss weesdoedatinnaa tucsahs Waeanoed euichtaen eden pees 306
6.6: Pens Quill Or REG s2.c: acta eaten seat a e eR sk Sh EO te SE ah cat SE ak 307
Loge Cg ier er PE Ne Ee Rana PER TPT PEE em OPE a SENSE PERNT Or PoE NFR oP Nne Pen Pea 309
G5 Gatimemits cis csesctsinsa SAvsinesdednend sncsosuets beamed iesobsmatecdvnsh eotepsie abe leabamebamesgstswed gosheg tte ven coevesuneaebawanais 313
OPEL Re SyiH0Gl Gs OF TROLS OS. ise encsu scavenge spesvapetleats vesauvarsspeng toners venpe nt arudeco secuasennani novia 315
GAO Macical StAtIES Or SOLER UI) ssn ecatvMecesersaaWieest shccenovsanouns nti tre niweenaeune eagovens ative rssleetoneeetn DLy
6:1 Ma cical Rin ss:aid Csemistomes (IC) 82 igen sei divs ctu ssiese ves ay sttastvas Secor vaca Speen thot ioe ee 320
2 VV ae GANG LOY RI OS Scns ne csc gts vv hres cao phe entuten gu tamer en mgt pedo ge Pats 324
Ol ICONSES xetecseclcnacreie crt cbusntheesttuss eauuteea slat epee em atuceat ped ubessuetem ies catstnseh weancnrccectateenn cat etas, 328
GTA TACOS (1G) 25 dsscckes acti iastes tua ates sashes oanleo ai car baa ss tues caahasicicenitlcoea saad veg i tace wana Miabaape ee Svaacy 335
7. Specific Magical Techniques and Objectives in all three SOULCES ........ eect tees esesesseeeetseseseeeeees 341
FEES DUAMIMELS Ol PATEA Is (i) iucensnzcnsretscatsige eZcelatetenrs fe zen cde aisval dtc btevshtes dattzen atiata at deovan sees ntede 341
/.2 Sending’ Visions and: Dreams: (V)) s.ccasietenszitenstis tects teleassereceasletaatistueaiiytadanea nea yleesialess 342
Po lOve Spells Lise cathe uw exdancaksnanin Gn ialecna tea Comuinlaa hires aleatankattG ue 344
LA NIVISI TIL (1) 5 soustspubiaysineia ade cvoucavaedganss ecu sessaranh psunetRarh he cus nlonyNenh see splay Rios ighwaeronettesenoswasriajnes 345
Fi B. SA CTINICO Hs Gre soak iag concn tnpuracdeceebeanlusbasesaak neh ede epscesaapsea baa iobscencabseal apt ptuncon ates binge bsckvenincasantcvnetisnehestaed 347
Fale INGCTOMMATICY (IN) s.cissesiuts eanbiieventhuss soncataslala act behinn ts osehiaea vsti aadaiaesraebelte Sheaeeeroaeaeonteneleia iene ved 349
Pod NEG LT FMI ATTN i cuss tastes east clea otek valves cana ion detitie can ilu Ae Ran ee eesheasneeavles shee etd 353
7,0 A PrisOnMent OF Spirits Ia, DOCS ist, dehed. da cecscianseitinaieinn an nebdetael aiedavee Desanteh. atuesulauctaisaise 357
8 The “manterar Or BvOcatory Skery ie MiCHHOdS ws secps.ctcicsbacalzcbocnlbebnch eopepsznlosetestneyebnantasbontdeonenislonenetenes 359
8.1 Lychnomanteia - Evocationary Lamp Skrying (D)......c cece cece csesseeeseseesececsesssenseseseeees 362
8.2 Lekanomanieig:= Bottle and: BOW! SKI YVine (B) disscaccswecaavanee saaviebnn Suvtnns ewes dovcu sen sauceinsdesi veyhts 364
BO PLU CHOTA IETCLE a: VALET. IV LINE ss wae vhy Ss Pan year devo vOsee oo Sug aev vase vb eRe oRuae eh Soetihy Rds 369
Ds KIMONOS as iss sosisss ance ete ys os hiptsn esa liens Geena songs balla odes ia Sata sada on Suey vat Saban opeliasobues 374.
CRUST cas cc eats eens Weatogue RepeasiehGi ov estar aao ds to ick ea ig Venter ua Gg Beasties ce aaa mea atcha ae tas da 381

PT PINTS EO nese ceietentd breterep aden ctarcseiescieta me wea hts clones Setind ct sussehves Su Omiathorem hatte ct tua tteedsteocchcue testa bal, 386

Appendix 1 - Analysis and Statistics for Graeco-Egyptian Magic... cece escsesssseseseeetssscseseeeeees 387
Appendix 2 - Analysis of the Taxonomy of Graeco-Egyptian Magic in the PGM....... cece 389
Appendix:3 ~ The Manuscripts GF Me Fy oromanttentscscssceasscgesicossevs csgencsviundvestansseveveasonsbontyaevovautvntenystvnes 411
Appendix 4 - The Manuscripts of the Clavictila Salomomts .........cccsssssssssossesssssssssesssssesssnsscsesssessensensesss 412
Appendix 5 - Transmission of the Names of Gods, Daimones, Angels and Spirits............. 415

PUTO STI occen 2 sceerccbe goatee Saeed Sore psverrod ng canines avd gaa Rev oneka Seba tan Cee redngeabatpeetvan ee Sotinnteet 420

Abstract

This thesis sets out to research and identify the transmission, continuity and common
elements of magical techniques and implements present in magicians’ handbooks, from the
Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri (2nd century BCE - 5thcentury CE) via the Byzantine Greek
Solomonic manuscripts (6th century - 16th century), to European Latin and English Solomonic

grimoires (13thcentury - 19th century).

The evolution of magical techniques is traced from one period to another, using the papyri,
manuscripts and printed editions of handbooks actually written, used or owned by
magicians, rather than the literature about them. In this way magic is treated like any
evolving technology, where a surprising degree of continuity and commonality has been

found, stretching over periods up to two thousand years.

There is no intention to examine social, political, economic or religious issues, or the reaction
to magicians of their surrounding lay community, or to assess the effectiveness of these
techniques, purely an intention to identify the commonality, continuity and transmission of

their techniques and equipment.

The nature of the blending of Egyptian, Greek and Jewish magical techniques, equipment
and nomina magica in Alexandria in the first five centuries of the Common Era is discussed,
and the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri are analysed from the point of view of methods,

materia and intended outcome, with a detailed breakdown of sources and rite types.

The commonality between these methods and ingredients so established, and_ their
reappearance in the Byzantine Greek Hygromanteia and related texts is demonstrated, with an

analysis of why some methods persisted and others faded away.

The migration of these methods and nomina magica from the Greek Solomonike to the Latin
grimoires, particularly the Clavicula Salomonis, is analysed on a technique by technique basis,
with illustrative passages drawn from vernacular Solomonic manuscripts like the Lemegeton.
Areas of discontinuity are evaluated, and the sources of material from other sources, such as

the pentacles of the Key of Solomon, ascertained and identified.

List of Figures

Figure 01: Bird-footed demon or yazata portrayed on a 579 CE Zoroastrian sarcophagus. ...145

Figure 02: Bird-footed demons with tails, wings and upturning beards from 1425................ 146
Figure 03: Schematic illustration of an invocation to the four Cardinal directions. ................ 167
Figure 04: The Demon Kings Maymon Rex and Vercan ReX.......cccceeeeeseeeeseecesseeeseseneneeeesenes IZA
Figure 05: The Demon Kings from the Clavis Inferni: Urieus and PayMo0...........ccccseeeseeeeees T72
Figure 06: The Demon Kings from the Clavis Inferni: Maymon and Egy. .......ccceesseeeees 175
Figure 07: Theurgia, a 1583 manuscript showing the Martial spirits for each direction........... 176

Figure 08: Two “spirit compass roses’ in the Theurgia-Goetia, dated 1687 and 1713 ........ 175-178
Figure 09: The angels and demons of each hour of the week in the Hygromanteta. .............0++. 186

Figure 10: The planets ruling the 24 hours of Sunday from a 1796 Clavicula Salomonis.......... 187

Figure 11: Ouroboros circle in a grimoire the Treasure of the Old Man of the Pyramids. ........... 206
Figure 12: The frontispiece of the 1757 grimoire Clavis Inferni showing the ouroboros ......... 207
Figure 13: The magician Apollonios and virgin boy Skryet......cceeceeeese tees cseenseeeeeseeeeeeees 211
Figure 14: Magical circle of protection used in an experiment of evocatory water skrying...212
Figure 15: The second ty pe of Byzantine: Circle yy ari... weliveys aatepnserectrasseeoiieecreiieaek tenons aes 214
Fieure 16: The third ty peor Byzantine Circle: pss; sists weacsras susp tucnenternvdeiinss sounieentoeayeseseansonsbelia ty 215

Figure 17: A full Solomonic protective circle from a French Clavicula Salomonis of 1795. ......216

Figure 18: A 14th century magician within a turf cut circle receives a treasure-bearing spirit.217

Figure 19: A protective circle from the Sepher Maphteah Shelomol, .......cc.ccccsseceseseseesesesesseseseees 218
Figure 20: A simple circle of protection from The Worke of Salomon the Wise... 220
Figure 21: A more complex circle of protection from The Worke of Salomon the Wise ...........+. 221
Fisure 22; Circle-for Sunday I: Fhe HepraMter ont :osscesasss vicctienbedntsvatnenessdeseensos ech Gentarstsvagaeerdadsaresis 223
Figure 23: Circle for Wednesday in a Clavicula Salomonis derived from the Heptameron........ 224.
Figure 24: Circle for Sunday from a manuscript of the Herpentilis ........cccccccsssessssseseseseseseees 225
Figure 25: Crowned ouroboros used in a circle design in a Faustian grimoire............ cee 226
Figure 26: rele from the (coeha manuscript dated, 1667... cs cideensssevsns cavtnononeniseavesbeseninenage eae 227
Figure 27: Circle ina 20th century edition. of the Goed <iss.idssstevavsnien wnianaiiteenuaneeie 228
Figure 28: Circle as it appears in the Mathers’ edition of the Key of Solomon .......cccceeeeees 229
Figure 29: Triangle of Art in an English manuscript (1572) showing corrupt Greek.............. 231
Figure 29a: A triangle within a circle containing the magician’s equipment..................65 252.

Figure 30: The protective Circle and Triangle of Art from the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh......233
Figure 30a: The magician Virgil releasing spirits from a bottle.................:ccceeceeee eee eens 234
Figure 31: Form of the Brass Vessel in which Solomon reputedly shut up the Spirits. .......... 239
Figure 32: The Brass Vessel designed by Dr Rudd as an alternative to the Triangle of Art...236
Figure 33: A Graeco-Egyptian phylactery designed to protect the magiciaN.............ccee 209

Fipire 34: A wing formation amulet from: thé GM ects sscseccssinsssteisetocersinticetnatsetuitescts eadstovsee 249

Figure 35: Bronze amulet showing Solomon with Hermes wand, lance and cauldron.......... 250
Figure 36: Byzantine Amulet showing the rider St. Sisinnios identified with Solomon.......... 250
Figure 37: Solomonic pentacles in a mid-13" century Latin manuscript, Verso...............04 255
Figure 37a: Solomonic pentacles in a mid-13' century Latin manuscript, recto................. 255
Figure 38: ‘Seals’ or proto-pentacles found in the Hygromanteia as used in the ourania.......... 207
Figure 39: The much simpler apprentice’s or skryer’s phylactery. ........ccccecesesseeeseeeeeeeeeenes 257
Figure 40: Free-standing ‘seals’ or proto-pentacles from the Hygromanteia.......cccccceceeeeeee 258
Fisureal: Pentacles: from: Mathers: ‘Key Of SOL OMOM 0s ccsscst en cbbesavsbs veaiaaeebinaterbncatanetbientsbonentaeeroaeets 260
Fipure 41a: Some-of the pentacles from: the Sepher Ma-O10k sii. ie ccis cies ois ares teecstiivdain 262
Pipure 42-The-Secret seal of Solomiom ity the Goes citicn ccvsssscsverts sca areciterchhatebiaesid cabin 264
Figure 43: The Secret Seal of Solomon in Mathers’ Key of Sol01Mon.......cccsecesesesesseeeseeeeseeeseees 264
Figure 44: A typical late grimoire composite planetary talisman of Jupiter... 265
Figure 45: The Table of Evocation (1440) used to summon the black demon Mortzé............. 293
Figure 46: Table of Evocation (1346) in the Summa Sacre MagQice .......cceccessseseesesseseeseeeeseeesenes 294
Figure 47: Dr John Dee’s Table of Evocation or Table of Practice (1583)... cece 295
Figure 48: A 20th century Table of Evocation carved in marble ..........cccccccceceeeee sees eseeeseeeeeees 296
Figure 49: Graeco-Egyptian magician wearing a crown and holding a sword and wand. ....299
Figure 50: 20th century Golden Dawn wands showing Egyptian motifs.............ccccceeeeeees 299
Figure 51: The magician’s Magical Sword of Art in the Key of SOLOMON. .........ccccccceceeeeeeeseees 301
Figure 52: An evocatory circle showing five swords and five Infernall Kings...............00 302
Figure 53: The extended Instruments of Art in a French Clavicula SaloMonis «00.0... 305
Figure 54: The other iron Instruments of Art by Mathers with their inscriptions ................... 306
Figure 55: Solomon's ring from the Hy Qroman betta. i..scscacis vienisenteceasesgnahesyiadeansog task den tecensiaveiberonee 323
Figure 56: Solomon’s ring from the Goetia made of silver Or GOI. «00... eseeeseeeeeees 323
Figure 57: Bes-Pantheos. Note the wands and the Ourobor0 Circle .......ceeeseeeeeeeteteeeeeees 327

Figure 58: A page from the Italian Clavicula Salomonis used in the trial of Laura Malipiero..349

Figure 59: Magicians attempting to take possession of a treasure possessed by spirits ......... 355
Figure 60: The “Route du Tresor’ from the Grand Gamotres. cco olen claknas dees 356
Figure 61: Schematic of the lines of transmission of Solomonic magical texts... 373

Figure 62: An extended Venn diagram schematically showing the basic commonalities......380

Table 01:
Table 02:
Table 03:
Table 04:
Table 05:
Table 06:
Table 07:
Table 08:
Table 09:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:

List of Tables

Summary of the chapters of the Hygromanteia in 17 manuscripts. 118-120
Comparison of the contents of the Hygromanteia and the Key of Solomon. —_ 138-141

God names derived from various cultures in the PGM. 156
The Correlation of the Angels with the seven Heavens. 158
The Seasonal Angels of the Heptameron. 159
Correspondences between Testament of Solomon and Hygromanteia Demons. 163
Animal, tree, stone and bird Correspondences of each hour in the PGM. 182
The names of the gods of the hours of the day, and the form they take. 183
The functions, animals, names and gods of the hours. 184
The PGM table of angels of each hour of the day. 184
Egyptian year, with names of months and bad days for magical operations. 190
The month with corresponding Egyptian god/name. 192
The suitability of specific Egyptian months for particular magical objectives. 192
Correspondence between the Sun Station and the day of the Lunar cycle. 195
Planetary inks in the Hygromanteia. 312
Planetary Incenses spanning 1800 years. 333-334
Egyptian code names for common ingredients used in magic in the PGM. 338
The Zodiacal herbs according to the Hygromanteia and Harpocratio. 339

Commonality between the PGM and the Skrying chapters in the Hygromanteia. 361
The objective-based and rite type based categories used to analyse the PGM. 387

Objectives and Rite Types ranked by Percentage with Keywords. 388
Every passage in the PGM corpus analysed by Objective and Rite Type. 389-410
Comparison of the Manuscripts of the Hygromanteia. 411
Manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis listed by Text-Family and Date. 412-414

The migration of god, angel, daimon, spirit names and nomina magica. 415-419

Abbreviations

Printed Sources

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CCAG Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers

Goetia Goetia (volume 1 of the Lemegeton)

ATR Harvard Theological Review

Juratus Liber Iuratus Honorii (ed. Gésta Hedegard)
JWCI Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
PDM Papyri Demoticae Magicae

PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae: The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (ed. Betz)
Raziel Sepher Raziel [the Latin text]

SWCM Source Works of Ceremonial Magic

TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

LEE. Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Manuscripts:

GV Grimorium Verum

Hygromanteia The Magical Treatise of Solomon or Hygromanteia
KoS Key of Solomon

Otot Sepher ha-Otot

SMS Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh

SSM Summa Sacre Magice - Berengarit Ganelli

Manuscripts of the Hygromanteia:

A Atheniensis 1265, National Library of Greece.

A2 Atheniensis 167, Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens.

B Atheniensis 115, Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece.

B2 Bononiensis 3632, University Library of Bologna.

B3 Bernardaceus, private library of the Bernardakédes.

D Athonicus Dion. 282, Dionysius Monastery of Mount Athos.

G Gennadianus 45, Gennadius Library of Athens.

H Harleianus 5596, British Library.

M Monacensis Gr. 70, Bavarian Regional Library of Munich.

M2 Mediolanensis H 2 infer., Ambrosian Library of Milan.

M3 Mediolanensis E 37 sup., Ambrosian Library of Milan.

M4 Metamorphdseds 67, Metamorphoseds Monastery of Meteora.

N Neapolitanus II C 33, National Library of Naples.

P Parisinus Gr. 2419, National Library of France.

P2 Petropolitanus Academicus, Paleographic Museum of the Science Academy
of Saint Petersburg.

P3 Petropolitanus 575, National Library of Saint Petersburg.

P4 Petropolitanus 646, National Library of Saint Petersburg.

iD, Taurinensis C VII, National University Library of Turin.

V Vindobonensis Ph. Gr. 108, Austrian National Library of Vienna.

Manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis: Text-Groups!

Rabbi Abognazar Group

Abraham Colorno Group

Armadel Group

Clavicule Magique et Cabalistique Group
Expurgated Group

Gregorius Niger Group

Greek Originals Group (i.e. Hygromanteia)
Geo. Peccatrix Group

Key of Knowledge Group

Rabbi Solomon Group

Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh Group
Secret of Secrets Group

Toz Graecus Group

Universal Treatise Group

Zekorbeni Group

1 These are not specific manuscripts but groups of manuscripts as per Mathiesen (2007), pp. 3-9,
amended in Skinner and Rankine (2008), pp. 28-31, 412-414. Each group represents between one and 15
manuscripts, a total of 146 manuscripts in all. References made to these groups are valid for every
manuscript in the group.

1. Introduction
1.1. Summary of Objectives

This study is primarily a study of learned Solomonic ritual magic, geographically restricted

to Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt.

The objective is to research and identify the transmission, continuity and common elements
of magical techniques and implements present in Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri (2nd
century BCE - 5th century CE), Byzantine Greek Solomonic manuscripts (6th century - 16th
century) such as the Hygromanteia, through to European Latin and English Solomonic

grimoires? (13th century - 19th century) from both manuscript and printed sources.?
Research Question being Addressed

The research is designed to answer the question: “What are the sources of the material in
European grimoires (or handbooks of magic), specifically the manuscripts of the Clavicula
Salomonis?” The research will look at specific identifiable techniques, diagrams, consumables,

nomina magica and implements, and not just generalized themes.

Grimoires such as the Juratus or the Ars Notoria circulated in manuscript in Western Europe as
early as the 13 century. The most popular grimoire, the Clavicula Salomonis appeared in
Europe apparently fully fledged in the 15 century, rather than evolving from simpler works.
The usual assumption, voiced by a number of scholars is that it must derive from Jewish
originals. The assumption of a Hebrew origin is based on their typical attribution to Solomon
the Hebrew king, a typical target for pseudepigraphic authorship. This assumption was
given further credence by the discovery of the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, or the Book of the
Key of Solomon, a grimoire written in cursive Hebrew dating from 1700.4 The present thesis
intends to disprove that assumption, and discredit this support by demonstrating that this
specific Hebrew manuscript cannot be the source of the Latin Clavicula Salomonis, as it was

itself translated from a Latin and Italian original.®

The thesis will then break new ground by establishing a lineage for the Latin Clavicula
Salomonis back to the Byzantine Greek Solomonike, specifically the Hygromanteia. This
transmission will be based on a detailed analysis of the specific techniques, equipment,

nomina magica and chapter contents in relevant source texts, not merely on their thematic

? Grimoires are handbooks of ritual invocation and evocation. The word is usually derived from the
French grammaire meaning ‘grammar,’ as in a grammar or primer of magic.
3 Obviously the Byzantine Empire straddled part of Asia Minor and Europe, and so in that sense is
also European. The distinction is more of a linguistic one (Greek versus Latin) than a geographic one.
4 Gollancz and Skinner (2008).
5 See also Rohrbacher-Sticker (1993/94), pp. 263-270.

content. No researcher has, as yet, shown in detail the transmission of specific sections and
procedures from the Greek manuscripts of the Hygromanteia to the Latin Clavicula Salomonis,
although Richard Greenfield has indicated its possibility.6 At the same time the origin of one
part of the Clavicula Salomonis, the pentacles, appearing in a few Text-Groups of the Clavicula

Salomonis, has been traced to a previously unnoticed Hebrew manuscript.”

Furthermore, it is planned to explore commonality and a possible line of transmission
between the Greek Hygromanteia and the PGM of Egypt, a connection that has not been

investigated in any detail before.

In summary, the theory to be tested is that mediaeval Solomonic grimoires, and indeed most
of the Solomonic magical tradition in both the Latin and Greek worlds, owe their earliest
origins to the Graeco-Egyptian papyri, not to some unknown Hebrew antecedents, not just in
a general or thematic sense, but in the transmission of specific techniques, words and
implements from one culture to another. I intend to prove that the use of Hebrew god names
is simply a by-product of their having filtered into Graeco-Egyptian magic practice from

Jews living in Alexandria rather than an indication of the origin of these techniques.

There is no intention to look at social, political or religious issues, their reception by the
surrounding community, or to assess the effectiveness of these techniques. The intention is
purely one of identifying their commonality, continuity and transmission using handbooks
written by or used practically by the magicians themselves. I therefore propose to approach
magic as another form of technology, establish how its techniques evolved, and chart their

development and evolution.’

The original idea for the thesis came from two passages in Richard Greenfield’s Traditions of
Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology in which he sets out his work on Byzantine demonology.
His book takes two distinct approaches to defining the place of demonological belief in
Byzantium. The first is made within the context of the Orthodox Church and establishment
view, which is then contrasted with the view of magicians and the less orthodox monks of
the period who had access to, or owned, magical handbooks. It is this second approach, in
which he examines texts like the Hygromanteia, Testament of Solomon and the Book of Wisdom of

Apollonius of Tyana or the Biblos, which I wish to use as my point of contact with Byzantine

6 Greenfield (1995), p. 161.
7 Sepher ha-Otot.
8 The exclusion of social, political, economic and religious issues has been made in an effort to
narrow the focus of the thesis, but also because to a large extent, the transmission of magical
knowledge was achieved by a closed master-pupil apprenticeship system, or the rediscovery
of techniques in books and manuscripts by each new generation of students, rather than the
teaching of the subject in open schools regulated by either civil or religious authorities.

magicians’ methods:

It is clear from even a brief reading of the Treatise [the Hygromanteia]? and material related to it
that it has close connections with texts and practices of ritual magic which were current in the
West in many languages and in many countries from the 13th century onwards, although again
the best and most elaborate of these texts only survive in manuscripts of the 16th or 17th
centuries. Very little comparative work has been done on the literature of this ritual magic, the
magic of the notorious Claviculae and Grimoires of the later Middle Ages, and not much is
known of its precise development and origin. Although any attempt to answer such
questions...must be the subject of a great deal of further research, it is nevertheless clear from
the Greek Treatise [the Hygromanteia] and related material, which is what is of concern here, that
traces, and in some cases quite large portions, of much older traditions are preserved in these
now rather muddled and confused texts.!° Some of the material here is thus very similar to
techniques and rituals preserved in the very much older Greek magical papyri..."

As part of his literature review Greenfield remarks that there is also a need for a study that
relates his work back to Hellenistic, Classical and other branches of eastern Mediterranean

and Near Eastern magic:

What has been, and still is needed is a systematic and comprehensive study of the history and
content of Byzantine beliefs about demons and other supernatural evil beings... Ideally such a
study would also enable these beliefs to be placed in relation to their antecedents in early
Christianity and in Classical, Hellenistic, Jewish and other branches of Near Eastern thought, as
well as to contemporary and parallel beliefs in Western Europe...

Obviously much more detailed work has yet to be done in the same arena, but identification
of parallels between these different traditions in terms of practice and equipment is a

beginning. The specific questions that arise from this passage are:

a. How do the techniques and practices recorded in the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri

relate to the Byzantine Greek Solomonic manuscripts, specifically the Hygromanteia?

b. To what extent have the techniques and practices found in the Byzantine Greek
Solomonic manuscripts been transmitted to the Western European grimoires, specifically the

Clavicula Salomonis, and how were they transmitted to the Latin West?

c. To what extent is there a commonality of techniques, texts, nomina magica and ritual
practices between the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri of Late Antiquity, the Byzantine

Aygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis?

There are obviously dangers implicit in examining such a wide geographical and literary
range, and perhaps a detailed study of just one of the periods or cultures, or just one item of
practice, would have been more prudent. But it is sometimes necessary to draw the wider

outlines of a subject, in order for the specialists working on just one facet to be able to

° Correctly referred to by Greenfield as the Magical Treatise or just the Treatise.
10 The present thesis will also show that, once the specific strands making up the magical techniques
are clearly identified, the degree of confusion and muddling is much less than has commonly been
supposed.
4 Greenfield (1995), p. 161.
1? Greenfield (1995), p. xi.

appreciate its origins and later development. I am emboldened by Mastrocinque’s observation:

Let us then, just for once, leave aside the endless and often fruitless arguments about method
and abstract philosophical concepts, and concentrate on ancient texts and monuments. This
procedure carries with it a risk of error, of course. Personally I admire the errors made by great
scholars such as K. Reitzenstein, W. Bousset or A. Dieterich, who have taken risks in order to
open up new fields of inquiry and to advance research, far more than the sensible and impartial
critiques and discussions on method of so many others.

Research will therefore be primarily from ancient texts, many still in manuscript, especially
those written by the practitioners of magic themselves rather than those written by their
(predominantly Christian) adversaries. My approach to magic and current research position

is very similar to Ritner when he wrote of Egyptian magic:

To date, no treatment of Egyptian magic has concentrated upon the actual practice of the
magician. Both general studies and textual publications have emphasized instead the religious
elements in the contents of recited spell, while the accompanying instructions with their
vignettes and lists of materials, instruments, and ritual actions remained uninvestigated. This
study represents the first critical examination of such “magical techniques,” revealing their
widespread appearance and pivotal significance for all Egyptian “religious” practices from the
earliest periods through the Coptic era, influencing as well the Greco-Egyptian magical papyri.

My objective is to take this enquiry forward from the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri to the
grimoires of 19th century Europe. In the course of researching the main questions, a number
of subsidiary questions arose, some of which needed to be answered before further progress

could be made with addressing the main question:

a. What are the defining qualities of Solomonic magic?

jon What is the relationship between ritual magic and astral magic?

c. What is the relationship between Greek and Hebrew Solomonic magical texts?
d. What were the inputs from Jewish magic into the PGM, Hygromanteia and

Clavicula Salomonis?

ei What is the date/ place of first assembly or composition of the Hygromanteia?

i What was the original or correct title of the Hygromanteia?

g. What is the origin of the pentacles section of the Clavicula Salomonis?

h. What is meant by “manteia’ in the context of the Hygromanteia, and how does it

relate to skrying?

13 Mastrocinque (2005), p. 7.
14 Ritner (2008), p.2.
17

1.2. Review of the Scholarly Literature and Source Texts

The core of the thesis is to examine source texts, in the first instance to identify and define
specific techniques, after which these techniques will be pursued across the boundaries
between cultures with the aid of secondary sources. The main texts in each category are

therefore:

Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian Sources. These are in the broadest sense the Pyramid and
Coffin texts, as have been edited by R. O. Faulkner (1973-78), followed by some chapters in
the Book of the Dead. These texts by definition focus on post-mortem magic, and are not for
the most part for the use of the living. Specific magical handbooks from the Dynastic period
are therefore few. The most significant Demotic texts are from The Demotic Magical Papyrus of
London and Leyden, which was originally edited and translated by F. L. Griffith and Herbert
Thompson (1904). Their translation has however been improved upon and incorporated in

Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, including the Demotic Spells (1996).

Robert Ritner’s The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (2 Vols., 2008) is undoubtedly
the best secondary text (for the purposes of this thesis) as it concentrates on the mechanics of
specific magical techniques. The ten essays in Panagiotis Kousoulis’s Ancient Egyptian
Demonology: Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic
(2011) expand Ritner’s work, and underline the point that demons/ daemons in the Egyptian
world do not have the negative connotations that later accreted to them, but act as
intermediaries between the gods and man in a ritual context. Otto Neugebauer’s Egyptian
Astronomical Texts III (1969) gives useful background to the selection of auspicious times by
Egyptian magicians. Wallis Budge’s Amulets and Talismans (1970) shows the mass produced
nature of many Egyptian amulets as opposed to the “made for one purpose’ talismans.
Despite no longer being held in such high scholarly regard, the breadth of Budge’s research
(across a wide range of cultures) and linguistic reach has seldom been matched by

subsequent researchers.

Erica Reiner’s Astral Magic in Babylonia (1995) is one of the best organised summaries of

Mesopotamian magic, a source of some of the techniques examined in this thesis.

The Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation edited by Betz
(1996) is the key text for the Graeco-Egyptian magic in the Ptolemaic period and the first five
centuries of the Christian era. To Betz must also be added Robert Daniel and Franco

Maltomini’s Supplementum Magicum (1990/1992). Jacco Dieleman’s Priests, Tongues, and Rites

15 Budge (1967).
18

(2005) supplements this with very useful background material.’ The original Greek texts,
which are very useful for checking the exact meanings of key technical words, are to be
found in Karl Preisendanz’s Papyri Graecae Magicae, Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri (1928/1931,
revised and reprinted in 1973-74).

William Brashear’s The Greek Magical Papyri: an Introduction and Survey (1994), is still the most
systematic and well organised summary of the PGM. Other important secondary sources
include Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki, Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (1995), and
Christopher Faraone and Dirk Obbink, Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (1991)
both of which contain key essays on the topic. John Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells
from the Ancient World (1992), is a very thorough study of one specific method (the defixiones)
but also contains useful material on other forms of Graeco-Egyptian magic. Naomi
Janowitz’s Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2001), although a relatively
slim volume, makes a number of very useful observations on the intersection of these three
cultures, and draws a clear line between learned magic and witchcraft.!”7 Matthew Dickie in
Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (2001) provides cogent background on the
various shades of meaning of Latin and Greek terms for the different varieties of magic and

divination.18

Greek and Roman Necromancy by Daniel Ogden (2001) ventures into the mechanics of
necromancy and evocation from a classical Greek perspective, with excellent chapters on
lecanomancy (bowl skrying) and the technology of necromancy and magic. Ogden takes a
linguistic approach carefully distinguishing the different shades of meaning of the original
Greek and Latin technical terms of magic, a very necessary approach. His Magic, Witchcraft,
and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds (2002) provides an excellent selection of classical

sources, with incisive comments.

Ioannis Petropoulos’ Greek Magic (2008), on the other hand, is a slim and disappointing
collection of very short (some only two pages long) essays which treat their topics at a
superficial level. A notable exception in this collection is the essay by Sarah Iles Johnston on

“Magic and the Dead in Classical Greece.’

Theurgy. Undoubtedly the most important source for theurgy is Iamblichus. The most usable

editions of the Greek text of De Mystertis are those of Gustav Parthey (1857) and Des Places

16 Especially chapters on the various scripts (chapter 3); ingredients (chapters 4.3.1 and 6.2) and
specific rituals (chapter 5). Dieleman (2005), pp. 64-80 also spells out the methods by which the scribes
indicated the correct pronunciation of the nomina magica.

wv “The ancient practitioners [of magic] would have been horrified to be lumped together with
“witches” and “warlocks” ” - Janowicz (2001), p. 3.

18 Interestingly his cover illustration is taken from the 1440 B2 manuscript of the Hygromanteia, rather
than from a Late Antiquity source as one might have expected.

(1996). The English translations of De Mysteriis include the charming but wordy translation
by Thomas Taylor (1821), and that of Alexander Wilder (1911), but these have been
surpassed by the 2003 translation by Clarke, Dillon and Hershbell. Emma Clarke’s Iamblichus
De Mysteriis: a Manifesto of the Miraculous (2001) and Finamore and Dillon’s Iamblichus, De
Anima (2002) provide useful background material. More recently, work by Ilinca Tanaseanu-
Dobler in Theurgy in Late Antiquity has provided a window on the development of theurgy
after Iamblichus. Although not directly involved with theurgy, Hans Lewy’s classic
Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (1978)
is necessary reading. Algis UZdavinys in Philosophy & Theurgy in Late Antiquity (2010)
provides useful, if somewhat controversial, links between magic, theurgy and Neoplatonic

philosophy in Late Antiquity.

Byzantine Sources. In the early 20th century, most of the scholarly work on the Byzantine
Greek texts was confined to the astrological rather than the magical aspects.!9 The Testament
of Solomon, published by Chester McCown in 1922, helped establish the existence of three
important early (1st/2nd century CE) magical techniques: the procedure of binding spirits;
the procedure of listing them in the form of a register, along with their powers, a procedure
which became a hallmark of later Solomonic grimoires like the Lemegeton; and the mechanics
of linking each daimon/demon” with a corresponding thwarting angel.2! The Testament of
Solomon provides a useful list of these demons and thwarting angels which partially maps on

to the demon lists of the Hygromanteia (see Table 06).

The most significant increase in the availability of texts of Byzantine manuals of magic
occurred with the publication of a wide range of key Solomonic texts by Armand Delatte in
his Anecdota Atheniensia in 1927. Delatte brought the magic of the Hygromanteia to public
notice, as he also did for the Greek versions of geomancy.” Of the Byzantine Greek
Solomonic magical texts the Hygromanteia is the most numerous, relevant and detailed. For
the most part it is still in manuscript, but some sections appear in transcript, translation and
chapter summary in the secondary literature, as listed in Appendix 3. The most complete
manuscript source is British Library Harley MS 5596. The publication in 2011, some time
after the commencement of this thesis, by Ioannis Marathakis of partial translations of 12
manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, and his attendant commentary, is a welcome step forward

in the study of this key text.

19 For example Heeg (1911) in CCAG, Vol. viii, 2.
20 Both spellings will be used in this thesis, with ‘daimon’ indicating a Greek source, and ‘demon’ a
Latin or Christian source.
21 Each of these techniques will be enlarged upon later in this thesis.
22 Skinner, Geomancy (2011), pp. 42-44.
20

The main secondary source is Richard Greenfield’s excellent Traditions of Belief in Late
Byzantine Demonology (1988) which traces the antecedents of the Hygromanteia and where it
fits into the continuum of belief in demons, both orthodox and popular. Pablo Torijano’s
Solomon the Esoteric King: from King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (2002) is more
focussed on Solomon in various contexts, as king, magician, etc. It also helpfully provides
partial Greek transcripts of some of the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, specifically
manuscript M, but fails to give a coherent sense of the overall content, which appears only in
a very sketchy form in several widely separated pages. Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi
provide necessary background material in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (2006), together
with useful insights into the career of Stephanos of Alexandria, a potential candidate for

authorship. Henry Maguire’s Byzantine Magic (1995) gives much useful further analysis.

Jewish Sources. The input of magical methods from these sources is not as great as is
commonly thought. Bohak’s article ‘Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere?’® was a useful corrective
to this common conception. It therefore became necessary to consider this input in order to
correctly position the transmission of some magical techniques. The provenance and
chronological relevance of the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh are considered in chapter 3.3.
Amongst early texts, the Testament of Solomon is the most useful, as it enunciates features of
the Solomonic method such as the use of rings and thwarting angels.%4 A later source of
Solomonic style magic is the Sepher Raziel, particularly in its 16th century Latin and English
manuscript incarnations.2> Other Jewish works on magic are more concerned with the use
and manipulation of the Hebrew nomina magica, and do not utilise the Solomonic method as
such. Relevant texts which demonstrate the nature of Jewish magic include: Sepher ha-
Levanah, translated by Kalnit Nachshon in Karr and Nachshon, Liber Lunae, the Book of the
Moon & Sepher ha-Levanah (2011); Sepher ha-Razim edited by Mordecai Margalioth?> and the
Harba de Moshe (Sword of Moses) translated by Moses Gaster, The Sword of Moses, an Ancient
Book of Magic (1973). Regrettably, Gaster chose to replace many nomina magica with an ‘X,’ a

procedure that has sadly not been rectified in more recent editions.2”

Gideon Bohak in Ancient Jewish Magic (2008) and Joshua Trachtenberg in Jewish Magic and

Superstition (2004), provide solid background material on Jewish magic, but much updating

23 Bohak (2003).

4 Translations by Duling (1983) and McCown (1922).

25 Karr and Skinner (2010).

26 Translated in Michael Morgan, Sepher Ha-Razim, the Book of the Mysteries (1983).
2” This omission has been partly rectified by Joseph Peterson on his website
www.esotericarchives.com.

needs to be done in the light of magical texts now emerging from the Cairo Genizah.?8
Mastrocinque, in From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism (2005), provides an excellent and very
useful bridge between Gnosticism and the progress of Jewish magic in the first few centuries
CE. Surprisingly, the Kabbalah does not become relevant to the Solomonic method till the
Renaissance, and then only through the medium of the Christianised Kabbalah. Much useful
material on the use of amulets for the purposes of health or general protection can be found
in Don Skemer’s Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages (2006). At least one of the
manuscripts he examines has an importance for the history of the lamen, although simple

amulets do not intersect with Solomonic magic at many points.

Latin and Vernacular Grimoires. Of the Latin, Italian, French and English grimoires of the later
Middle Ages and Renaissance, the most widely disseminated of all magical manuscripts is
the Clavicula Salomonis. The 19th century translation by MacGregor Mathers (1909, 2000) is
still a useful reference, and has been edited from a handful of manuscript sources, mainly of
the Abraham Colorno Text-Group. Robert Mathiesen recently identified and began to
categorise over 100 manuscripts of this text.29 The Veritable Key of Solomon edited by Skinner
and Rankine (2008) has updated this classification, taking into account 125 manuscripts, and
providing a more extensive analysis, as well as including a full translation of three more of the

French manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis.

Skinner and Rankine also produced an edition of the Lemegeton, under the title of The Goetia
of Dr Rudd (2007),2° which looks at the techniques of the Solomonic method as it developed in
the 17th century in England.*! An increasing number of vernacular grimoires has been edited
and published over the last ten years, particularly by Joseph Peterson, providing much
material for analysis: Lesser Key of Solomon (2001); Grimorium Verum (2007); Clavis or Key to the
Magic of Solomon (2009); and Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses (2008).

Commentaries based on these and other grimoires include Claire Fanger’s Conjuring Spirits:
Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic (1998), as well as her excellent Invoking Angels:
Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries (2012). John of Morigny, the
Juratus and the Ars Notoria are central to her interests. Although the latter ascribes its
authority to Solomon, it does not contain Solomonic ritual magic. Richard Kieckhefer’s

Forbidden Rites: a Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century (1995) is a major contribution

28 Although found over a century ago, the magical fragments have been ignored by scholars until the
last couple of decades. See Schiffman (1992).
29 Mathiesen (2007), pp. 3-9.
30 Based on Sloane MS 6483.
31 The earliest as yet unpublished manuscript of the Goetia that I have discovered dates from 4th
January 1494, 150 years prior to the earliest manuscript documented by Joseph Peterson.

to the fund of published Solomonic grimoires, and Benedek Lang’s Unlocked Books (2008),

provides an excellent survey of grimoires in lesser explored central European libraries.

Frank Klaassen’s The Transformations of Magic (2013) is, like Claire Fanger’s books, mostly
focussed on the Juratus and Ars Notoria, but does tend to blur the boundary between ritual
magic and astral magic. Where he notices interesting texts such as the Vinculum Salomonis or
Liber Consecrationum, he fails to explore their contents in any detail or to set them within the

continuum of the development of the grimoire.

Several significant journal articles have been published recently which have stressed the
evolution of god and angel names across the whole geographical and chronological
spectrum from the Graeco-Egyptian papyri through to European grimoires, although
omitting the intermediate steps passing through the Byzantine texts. These are Julien
Véronése’s “God’s Names and their Uses in the Books of Magic attributed to King Solomon’

(2010) and especially David Porreca’s ‘Divine Names’ (2010).

An as yet unpublished Ph.D thesis kindly lent to me by Liana Saif on The Arabic Theory of
Astral Influences in Early Modern Occult Philosophy (2011) provides information on the roots of
astral magic and its relationship to the ongoing development of magic in Europe. Although it
does not specifically touch upon Solomonic magic, it covers the parallel line of transmission
of astral magical knowledge via Harran and Toledo in such texts as the Picatrix, making clear
the distinctions between ritual and astral magic. Boudet, Caiozzo and Weill-Parot in Images et

Magie: Picatrix entre Orient et Occident provide an even clearer line of demarcation.

Among the more recent and wide ranging products of modern scholarship, mention should
be made of Wouter Hanegraaff’s Esotericism and the Academy (2012) and Bernd-Christian Otto
and Michael Stausberg’s Defining Magic: a Reader (2013).

The Corpus to be Analysed

The primary texts in each cultural area are:

The Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri, as edited by Betz in The Greek Magical
Papyri in Translation.>? All translations from Greek are from Betz (1996) and his
contributors, with some marked amendments derived directly from the Greek

in Preisendanz (1928, 1931) by the present author.

The manuscripts of Byzantine Greek Solomonic magical texts of the Hygromanteia
as they appear in 17 manuscripts scattered in various European libraries.*> All

translations are from Marathakis (2011), unless otherwise stated.

The Latin, Italian, English, French and Hebrew Clavicula Salomonis and grimoires
of the Middle Ages and later, specifically the Key of Solomon, found in over more
than 125 manuscripts. All translations from French are from Skinner and
Rankine (2008), supplemented by Mathers (1909). All translations from Latin

and Hebrew are by the present author unless otherwise noted.

Chapter 2 presents a very short summary time line purely as background material. Chapter 3

analyses these source texts, and examines their contents. This is followed by an examination

of the transmission of individual techniques and equipment from the Hygromanteia to the

Clavicula Salomonis in chapter 4. Chapters 5 and 6 analyse the commonality of method and

equipment, respectively, over all three sources. Chapters 7 and 8 deal with specific magical

operations.

32 Betz (1992). The Greek texts are preserved in Preisendanz (1973), and a number of other more recent
scholarly publications. See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for analysis.

33 See Appendix 3.

34 See the present Appendix 4 and Skinner and Rankine (2008), Appendix A, pp. 408-424.

1.3. Methodology

John Walton contended that a comparative study of religion and magic in a Near Eastern
context should have just four methods and goals: historical, archaeological, literary and
linguistic.°5 The present thesis touches upon the history in chapter 2; examines the literature
in chapter 3, but only of one specific genre (magicians’ handbooks); utilises linguistics to
trace the transition of god, angel, daimon and spirit names across cultures in chapters 4, 5
and Appendix 5; and touches upon archaeology only where necessary for the identification

of magical implements in chapter 6.
The history of magic, and related subjects, can be tackled in a number of ways:

1. as a history of the main figures involved in the subject. Typically a history of
literature might take this approach, outlining the lives of each of the great

authors.

Ai related to this is the setting of a subject in its social milieu. Norman Cohen's
Europe's Inner Demons (1977) is a persuasive example of this, in relation to

witchcraft history.

oP as a history of documents, manuscripts and books, an approach exemplified by

Lynn Thorndike’s A History of Magic and Experimental Sciences (1925-1958).

4. as a history of the development of the main theories or ideas, their adoption,

mutation, and abandonment.
ey as a history of the development of practical techniques.

Obviously some histories employ the whole range of modes. In the case of magic, popular
histories most often take the first approach of outlining the lives of famous, or infamous,
practitioners. More scholarly texts, before 1990, take the second approach and try to show the
development of attitudes to magic and witchcraft in terms of the social or legal setting,
particularly in the case of witchcraft trials, or where magic has clashed with Christianity.
Thorndike and Henry Lea’s Materials Towards a History of Witchcraft are examples par
excellence of the third approach. The recent history of theoretical physics is a good example
of the fourth approach, where successive theories have been discovered, discarded, or
radically modified, over time.*¢ A history of engineering or chemistry might very well be

written in the fifth manner.

35 Walton (2006), p. 28.
36 Only one subject, geometry, does not show this progressive overthrow of one set of theories by
another over time. Theorems set out by Euclid 2500 years ago remain unchallenged today.

In terms of magic, the fourth and fifth approaches have seldom been attempted. Modern
researchers, trained in scientific method, and conditioned to assume that there is nothing
methodical about magic, may have difficulty accepting that a discipline such as magic may
have well defined techniques which have been employed and improved upon by a

succession of intelligent and experimentally orientated practitioners over time.

This is precisely what I intend to do in this thesis, to examine the development of a selection
of key techniques used and recorded by magicians*®” themselves over the period 200 BCE to
1900 CE ranging from the Graeco-Egyptian magic of Alexandria, via Byzantine Solomonic
magic to the Solomonic grimoires of Western Europe. Although there is an historical and
geographical backdrop to the subject of this thesis, the methodology is primarily internal
textual analysis, rather than an examination of the historical or social context, which would
necessitate a much longer thesis. A pertinent passage sums up the methodological approach

to magic in this thesis:

The question of how to approach the subject of magic is belaboured unnecessarily. There now
exists consensus that, functioning within an appropriate causal framework, magic is just
another form of technology or applied science. This should be the simple and acceptable
starting point for an investigation. ..*8

The research methodology is therefore qualitative historical research based on archival
manuscript sources and published editions of primary texts, designed to identify specific
concrete techniques, formulations, nomina magica, and implements used by practitioners of
magic across this period. This is an intercultural study documenting the development and

transmission of examples of magical practice, rather than of magical beliefs, ideas or theories.

The first step in the analysis of the contents of the PGM was to analyse the various sections
and sub-sections of every single passage in every papyrus included therein, grouping them
by desired outcome and rite type. Clearly the invocation of a god is quite different from the
construction of an amulet to reduce fever, even if the same god’s name is used in both
procedures. A basic taxonomy of the rite-types of magical procedure was thus established,
and every section and subsection of the Graeco-Egyptian papyri allocated to one or other of
these categories, so that similar material could be analysed together despite a wide
separation by pagination, period, provenance or papyrus. This was then tabulated to bring

similar operations together for comparison, and to assist in the identification of patterns.°%?

The same approach was taken with the Hygromanteia, in which 59 sections or ‘chapters’ were

37 Used in the sense of ‘practitioners of magical techniques’ without any attribution of special powers
to them.
38 From a review by T. Langermann of P. Travaglia, Magic, Causality and Intentionality: The Doctrine of
Rays in al-Kindi, Florence, 1999, as quoted in Magdalino and Mavroudi (2006), p. 44.
39 See Appendix 2 for the full tabulation.

identified.*© This clarified the structure of the text, so that it became apparent that chapters
on, for example, skrying were all grouped together at the end of the text. It also pointed up
the presence of two different methods of evocation, and the segregation of a separate group

of chapters concerned with the equipment.

Much of the work of identifying the content of chapters in the Clavicula Salomonis has already
been done,‘! and this previous work was built upon. From these listings a clear indication of
which sections, or procedures have been transmitted, and which have not, has been derived.
The connections between the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis were then tabulated to

precisely identify the overlap or missing sections (such as the chapter on pentacles).

The research has been evidence-based. Having established a set list of discrete techniques,
formulations, nomina magica and implements; instances of their occurrence in each of the
sources were then identified. Any commonalities (or discontinuities) were then evaluated,
indicating how much of a particular technique/item is common, and possible reasons why it
has either evolved, transmitted but remained the same, or ceased to be part of the magician’s
repertoire. These commonalities were finally mapped on to an extended Venn diagram to

visually convey the results of this research in a more simplified form (see Figure 62).

The discovery of discontinuities has been one of the more fertile areas of research. For
example, the sudden appearance of pentacles in the Clavicula Salomonis, while only
rudimentary seals appeared in the Hygromanteia, resulted in research which uncovered their

previously unnoticed (Jewish) source.

It is not the purpose of this study to determine if the techniques were effective. It is sufficient
to note that the magicians using them thought them to be so. Nor is it the purpose of this
study to examine the reaction of non-magicians, or of society at large, to the use of these

techniques.

The Background of the Research

Because the subject is magic, many researchers in the past have approached the material as if
its procedures were inherently unworthy of close study and devoid of historical
development, content, consistency or interest. | propose to show that individual magical
practices and techniques are not arbitrary, nor simply invented, nor dreamed up by
practitioners in isolation. Further, that these practices are almost invariably based on earlier
practices in the same or a different culture, with a gradual modification of technique over

time, depending partly on the changing cultural and religious milieu, but more noticeably

40 The chapter numbering follows Marathakis (2011), pp. 362-365, with a few minor rearrangements.
41 Skinner & Rankine (2008), pp. 425-28.
27

changing because of refinements, improvements, or simplification of techniques. In other

words, these are the types of changes that occur within the development of any technology.

Nomina magica and nomina barbara are, | believe, simply words whose original roots, free of
corruption, have not yet been established, rather than being deliberately created nonsense
words. The exception to this is Greek vowel strings, which anyway indicate the seven

planets, and have no other meaning as such.

In the course of examining these magical techniques, a surprising degree of consistency is
apparent over a long period, and in various cultural contexts, from Alexandrian Egypt,

through Byzantine Greece and mediaeval Europe, to 17th century England.

Seldom has an analytical approach to the mechanics of the subject of magic been taken. This
is precisely what I intend to do in this thesis, to examine the development of these key
techniques used and recorded by magicians themselves over the time periods and in the

cultures defined above.

Almost all previous work in this field has concentrated on one or other of these groups of
documents, or just one of the periods mentioned above, in isolation. That approach means
that to a large extent the analysis of individual ritual practices tends to be difficult and
speculative, for without knowledge of their roots and evolution over time, it is difficult to see
their original rationale or even their current meaning. This is particularly true of magic,
where the sources can be sparse, and the understanding of their rationale limited. Once the
line of historical development of individual techniques is known, and the original modus
operandi behind each technique or practice understood, then the rationale for each practice,

its method, and its place in the history of magic, becomes a lot clearer.

By tracking the development of specific magical techniques through time, the ability to see
the development of the whole tradition is expanded, and the nature of what exactly magic
was, to those who practised it, will hopefully be clarified. Therefore the definition of ‘magic’
used here, must be one that its practitioners would have recognized and been comfortable
with, rather than one that fits the worldview of the modern historian, theologian,

anthropologist or sociologist.

The hoped for outcome of this study is that the actual methods of magic, and the
chronological relationships between the development of these techniques in each of these
geographical and cultural areas examined will be made much clearer, enabling future
researchers to more accurately understand the thinking behind the use of each of these
techniques, and so interpret them correctly in terms of their own area of specialisation, rather
than having to sometimes guess at their meaning. Hopefully this thesis will also aid in the

dating and tracing of the primary texts, the handbooks used by the magicians themselves.

The significance of this research is that by showing the historic development of these
practices over an extended time period, their roots can be ascertained and verified, and the
reasons behind apparently arbitrary ritual behaviour explored and explained. At the same
time some of the original words of invocation (nomina magica) can be restored, and the nature
of equipment, ingredients and otherwise previously inexplicable ritual actions will in many
cases become apparent, giving the whole field of research into Solomonic magical ritual

behaviour and method a more concrete basis and cogent framework of reference.

No comprehensive treatment of magic, as far as I know, has focused on the actual practices
of the magician in both a European and eastern Mediterranean context. General studies have
instead investigated the historical background, religious elements, or social and legal
conditions which perpetuated, or persecuted, or surrounded it (for example European
witchcraft histories). The actual magical procedures, the materials, instruments, sequences of

ritual actions, and the origins of many nomina magica, have to date remained uninvestigated.

1.4. Scope of the Study and Definitions of Terminology

By using the term ‘magician’ there is no implied or overt claim for special powers on the part
of the practitioners, simply an assertion that the people so designated were practitioners of
magical techniques.*2 The term ‘spell’ will seldom be used, but where it is used it simply
refers to any technique practised by a magician involving verbal invocation. The term ‘rite’

covers any magical or religious ritual procedure.

The fact that such techniques have been utilized consistently over long periods of time often
by learned people suggests that some apparent consistency of results was obtained.
Otherwise if no such consistency of results had been obtained, then one might expect to find
a wide and random diversity of fantasy techniques being independently invented and
speculatively tried out at different times and in different cultures: but this is not the case. Of
course the great conservativeness of magicians might be invoked to explain this consistency.

As William Brasher once remarked:

These two papyri, the Philinna papyrus and the Oxyrhynchus parallel, written as they were five
to six centuries apart from each other, provide remarkable testimony to the conservatism of
magic and magicians in antiquity.*

Although mankind has a long history of discarding methods that do not work, yet many

detailed magical techniques survived literally for thousands of years. As Betz puts it:

It is one of the puzzles of all magic that from time immemorial it has survived throughout
history, through the coming and going of entire religions, the scientific and technological
revolutions, and the triumphs of modern medicine. Despite all these changes, there has always
been an unbroken tradition of magic. Why is magic so irrepressible and ineradicable, if it is also
true that its claims and promises never come true? Or do they?“

However it is not the intention of this thesis to correlate these methods with their
effectiveness, but rather to chart the evolution of the methods themselves. Just as it is not
necessary to believe in Darwinism to be involved in the taxonomy of plant and animal
classification, so it is not necessary to believe in the efficaciousness of magic in order to chart

the different varieties and the evolution of its techniques.

Before proceeding I would like to clarify the scope of this thesis by eliminating from this
discussion a number of subjects and techniques often associated with magic, in popular

literature, but which are not a part of learned Solomonic ritual magic.

#2 Just as the terms ‘carpenter’ or ‘priest’ define a trade or a profession, rather than a claim to special
skill or special sanctity.
4 Brashear (1998), p. 374.
4 Betz (1996), p. xlvii-xlviii.
30

Magic versus Divination

Although divination is often seen as part of magic, divination is essentially a passive
method, whereas magic is nothing if not proactive. Divination seeks to foretell the future,
while magic seeks to change the future. Therefore those techniques relating to prediction like
astrology, geomancy, or tarot will not be part of this study. An exception will be made in the
case of electional astrology. Electional and katarchic astrology have been used from time
immemorial by magicians to determine the best time to conduct a rite. A second exception
will be made in the case of techniques like lychnomanteia, lekanomanteia and hygromanteia,
which were included in the PGM and practised throughout the Byzantine period, where

skrying is supplemented by active ritual evocation of spirits.

Oracles, although a few are present in the PGM, are not part of magic.* Emilie Savage-Smith

makes that distinction:

That magic seeks to alter the course of events, usually by calling upon a superhuman force. ..while
divination attempts to predict future events (or gain information about things unseen) but not
necessarily to alter them.*°

As Fritz Graf concludes, the confusion between magic and divination dates from the

Christian era:

Only when divination is read in terms of demonology, as in mainstream Christian discourse, do
divination and magic converge.*”

Otherwise these two fields of endeavour are not really connected.

Learned Magic versus Folk Magic

Secondarily, I would like to eliminate “village magic’, ‘low magic’ or ‘folk magic’ from this
study. The present study will concentrate upon ‘learned magic’ rather than folk or village
magic.*® The former is much better documented, as it was usually practised by literate
members of the ruling establishment or priestly class in every culture being analysed. The
latter is by its very nature passed on verbally, often by illiterate practitioners, and therefore
has left very little trace in terms of cogent written remains. If required, it can also be easily

demonstrated that the style of magic used by these two classes is also very different.

In the ancient world magic was considered to be very real, and not a random assemblage of

nonsense actions and words, and the insiders who practised it:

...were far from illiterate, and some of these magical texts even display the scribal hands,

45 In most cases these ‘oracles’ are in fact invocations of a god in order to receive answers or advice.
46 Savage-Smith (2004), p. xiii.
47 Graf (2011), p. 133.
48 See Benedek Lang (2008), chapter 1 for definitions.
31

writing styles, and modes of textual production which come only with many years of scribal
learning and practice. Moreover, when we do find evidence outside the actual magical texts as
to who practiced such magical rituals, that evidence repeatedly demonstrates the acceptance,
and even practice, of magic by members of the Jewish elite, including the religious
establishment itself... Most of these sources were not the product of Jewish “folk magic,” but of
“intellectual magic,” produced by learned experts who mastered a specialized body of
knowledge and consulted many different sources, sometimes in more than one language.*”

Although these comments were applied to Jewish magic, they are equally applicable to other
forms of European or Mediterranean littoral learned magic. Likewise, Egyptian magicians
were mostly of the priestly class, and later in the Europe of the Middle Ages, grimoires
beautifully written in Ecclesiastical Latin were found often in the possession of aristocrats or
highly educated clerics. It is this “specialised body of knowledge” in all of these cultures
which is the object of this study.

Learned Magic versus Witchcraft

Thirdly, I would also like to eliminate at this stage, the terms ‘witch’ and ‘witchcraft’ from
this discussion of ritual magic. ‘Witch’ is a much abused term. It reputedly comes from the
Anglo-Saxon word wicca which means “wise woman’ and implies village cunning woman,
who traditionally used techniques quite different from the practitioner of learned magic, as

outlined above.

There is in fact no word for ‘witch’ in Latin, because the concept in its current form was
absent from the ancient world, no matter how often commentators have attempted to impose
it retrospectively. When Heinrich Kramer decided to write his infamous Malleus Maleficarum,
he used the word ‘maleficarum’ as the best substitute. Despite this title often being translated
as ‘The Hammer of the Witches’, the word maleficus simply meant ‘wicked or criminal,’ and
initially had no specific tinge of “magic’ about it. Despite maleficarum being feminine, the

term still does not directly equate with witch.

As ‘witch’ is a word that was not used in antiquity, being of Anglo-Saxon derivation, it is not
relevant to the present study which is of techniques firmly rooted in antiquity. ‘Wicca’ (or
Wica) is a term which is not attested until 1086,5° and certainly not at any time in Middle
Eastern, Graeco-Egyptian or Roman practice.5! Witchcraft is therefore primarily concerned
with European village or folk magic from the 11th century to the late 17th century. Any
subsequent use of the term is a dilution or perversion of its original meaning, which helps to
obscure its original meaning. Modern neo-witchcraft reconstructed in the 1950s and 1960s by

Gerald Gardner, Alex Sanders, etc., has no part of this study, nor has the application of this

49 Bohak (2008), p. 36.
50 Latham (1965), p. 522.
51 Except where scholars have retroactively applied the term to ancient practices.

word to non-European, Asian or African cultures.

Researchers such as Keith Thomas have made a clear distinction between the witchcraft
practised at the village level and the learned magic of more literate practitioners, often

priests or lawyers:

By this period popular magic and intellectual magic were essentially two different activities,
overlapping at certain points, but to a large extent carried on in virtual independence of each
other. Most of the magical techniques of the village wizard [or witch] had been inherited from
the Middle Ages, and had direct links with Anglo-Saxon [magical practice]... they were only
slightly affected by the Renaissance revival of magical inquiry or by the learned volumes which
were its most characteristic product.°4

There is a clear distinction between the simple spells or cantrips of witches or village cunning
folk, and the traditions of learned magic. Simple rhymed spells offered by local witches are
quite distinct from the full ceremonial of learned magic, which is primarily confined to the

class that could both read Latin and had the leisure and space to perform such rituals.

Witchcraft was handed down from one practitioner to another, often within the same family,
was seldom written up in books of practice, and relied upon herbs, dolls, images and
adapted household goods and simple materia magica. Learned magic is that form of magic
practised from complex handbooks (grimoires) requiring inscribed circles, much

preparation, robes, and pre-consecrated equipment such as pentacles and lamens.

Greenfield also makes the point quite emphatically that Byzantine Solomonic magic has no

connection whatsoever with witchcraft:

The first point to be made here is that evidence of late Byzantine belief concerning the use of
demons by men falls almost entirely into the realm of sorcery as opposed to witchcraft. The idea
of the inherently evil, inherently demonic man or woman, the classic figure of witchcraft, is
absent, and it is apparent that the Byzantines thought of magic as being almost exclusively
performed by sorcerers and magicians who learnt their techniques from teachers or books, who
practiced and perfected their...craft.*4

The term witch, not being a Greek word, also does not appear in any of the Byzantine
magical handbooks.®> Under the same heading, I would like to eliminate the study of ancient

Greek folk magic, especially as found in Thessaly, to which the label ‘witchcraft’ has been

52 Thomas (1978), p. 271. Strangely senior lawyers and politicians make up a high proportion of the
recorded angel magicians of the 17th century. See Skinner and Rankine (2010), pp. 43-47.

3 In the 20th century, with almost universal literacy, you might have expected such a division to have
broken down. This has occurred, but only in the last half of the 20th century where practitioners like
Gerald Gardner were aware of, and attempted to mix, both styles of magic to forge Wicca or modern
‘witchcraft.’

54 Greenfield (1988), pp. 249-50.

55 Only one figure that might be interpreted as a witch appears in the story of Kallimachos and
Chrysorrhoe, a well known Greek romance from 1310-1340, in the fairy tale genre. She is described as
demonic, and associates closely with demons, and at the end of the poem she is condemned to be
burned “like a witch.” But none of her actions in the poem relate to the magical texts we are
considering here.

retroactively applied by some scholars.*

Ritual Magic versus Astral Magic

Having now indicated the historic, geographic and taxonomical limits of this study, it is
necessary now to sub-divide learned magic. Magic first divides into ‘astral magic’ and ‘ritual
magic.’ It is useful to observe how the definitions of these two species of magic evolved

historically.

In the context of Islam, Ibn Nadim (c. 930-995/998 CE) in the encyclopaedic Kitab al-Fihrist
distinguished four different types of magic (sir):57

1. Mu‘azzimun, which is closest to Solomonic ritual magic, seeks to subjugate devils, jinn,
and spirits via the licit method of invocations reinforced by purity, devotion, prayer,

and fasting. This is effectively the Solomonic ritual magic method.

2: Deals with demons, jinn, and spirits, but involves instead offering them illicit

sacrifices, and probably concurrently leading a dissolute life;5®

3. Astral magic concerned with the passive charging of talismans and the associated

astrological calculations;*?
4. Tricks and sleight of hand.

Four centuries later Ibn Khaldtin (1332-1406), who drew some of his ideas from the Picatrix,

distinguished only two types of magic (amalgamating the first two types of Ibn Nadim, and

ignoring the fourth):
1. Illicit demonic magic, identified as sorcery (which includes Solomonic magic);
2. Talismanic magic, acting upon the world of the elements using the ‘spiritualities of

the stars,’ numbers, the corresponding qualities of physical things, and the position of

the stars in the firmament.

Perhaps the longest 16% century list of books on magic is to be found in the Antipalus
Maleficiorum of Trithemius, which contains in excess of 77 titles. It dates from 1508, but was

not published till 1605. This list clearly makes the distinction between books of ritual

5¢ The much quoted passage in the Greek text of Lucian (Vol. VIL, 281) Dialogues of the Courtesans is
translated by Macleod as: “Don’t you know that her mother, Chrysarium, is a witch who knows
Thessalian spells, and can bring the moon down?” The word translated as ‘witch’ is pappaxic. It is now
recognized that pharmakis is much more closely allied to root-cutting, the compounding of herbal
potions and poisoning than to magic, although it is recognized that such women may, like courtesans,
also deal in magic.

57 Ibn Nadim (1964). For English translation see Dodge (1970).

58 This is somewhat closer to the Faustian view of magic, where the pact is important.

59 See Saif (2011).

60 See Ibn Khaldoun (1967), 18, p. 372-3. He attributes the science of talisman to the Greeks and
Persians, who (he says) received it from the Chaldaeans and Syrians.

Solomonic magic and those of astral magic.*! Trithemius characterises the first 40 of these
books as necromancy (by which he meant nigromancy, or the black art, rather than the
conjuration of the dead), and most of these first 40 titles are Solomonic in nature. The
following 37 books in this catalogue, are separated by Trithemius who makes a clear
distinction between the foregoing books of necromancy (dealing with the evocation of spirits
and demons) and the following 37 books on astral magic that deal with planetary images,
figures, rings, seals often attributed to Hermes or Kyranides, the sympathetic connections

between stars, plants, stones and animals, and their use in talismanic magic.

In 1486 Ficino and Pico explored the possibility of the existence of another category, Natural
Magic, operated without the intervention of spirits or demons, and with only minor input
from the stars. Trithemius’ pupil, Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), divided magic into
three types, following the same split of ritual magic and astral magic, but with the additional

(and theologically necessary) category of Natural Magic: 4

1. Ceremonial Magic. Theological Magic, which is effectively Ritual Magic dealing with

invocation/evocation of angels and demons;

2: Mathematical Magic (which Saif equates with talismanic astral magic, but which also

includes astrology);

3. Natural Magic, such as is to be found in various ‘Books of Secrets.’©* Natural magic
might reasonably be seen as dealing directly with nature, utilising herbs, animals and
minerals to bring about surprising effects. Natural magic was considered licit because it
did not claim to involve the intervention of spirits. In a sense this was the prelude to the

scientific study of nature.

Amongst modern scholars, Ronald Hutton has divided the progress of magic in Western

Europe into three periods,®” and makes a distinction between:

1. Astral magic coming via Arabic texts translated into Latin (from Harran, via Spain and

Byzantium) in the 12th-13th centuries; and
2. Grimoire magic derived from the Hygromanteia in the late 15th - 16th centuries.

Maybe he should have presented these as separate streams, rather than separate periods, as

61 These are listed in full in Latin in Zambelli (2007), pp. 102-112. An abbreviated list in English can be
found in Couliano (1987), p. 167.
62 See Kaimikis (1976) for Greek text, Warnock (2006) for English text.
63 Zambelli (2007), p. 3.
64 Agrippa (1993), pp. 5, 689-699.
65 Saif (2011). The word mathematici was sometimes also equated with ‘magician.’
66 See Eamon (1994) for a survey of the Books of Secrets.
6” Hutton (2003), p. 191.
35

they continued to co-exist through to the 17th century.®

Frank Klaassen suggests that there were two streams of magic prior to 1500.9 This statement
is an over-simplification, but his geographic analysis is useful as it separates out the strand of
astral magic that derives from Persia via Arabia and Mesopotamia and contrasts it with

ritual magic which arrived via the Graeco-Egyptian texts, the route that is discussed here.

He categorises his first stream as “scholastic image magic...epitomized by certain texts of
Arabic image magic,” which is usually referred to as ‘astral magic.’ Works of this type
include the books of Thabit ibn Qurra’s De imaginibus (10th century), the De imaginibus of
Belenus,” Liber Lunae,”! the work of the Brethren of Purity, the [kwan al Safa and significant

portions of the Picatrix (11th century).”

The second stream he categorises as comprising “ritual magic texts, such as the notary art or
necromancy” which:
..employ complex Christian ritual and are, very much, the progeny of the liturgy and Christian
religious sensibilities.”
This is a far too limited a definition. He might be correct if he were only referring to a few of
the very Christianised grimoires (such as that of John of Morigny), but not if he is referring to
the whole corpus of ritual magic (‘necromancy’) prior to 1500, because it involved procedures
and elements of many cultures other than Christian. Additionally the Ars Notoria is a pietistic
and prayerful procedure rather than a clear-cut example of ritual magic. The Ars Notoria relies
upon a succession of prayers added to the contemplation of notae which provided for rapid

assimilation of a range of subjects. There is reliance upon angels, but no evocation of spirits.

Michael Greer and Christopher Warnock also make the distinction:

Unlike the later [ritual] magic of the grimoires, these workings [of astral magic] required little
ceremony and made only limited use of divine names and words of power; their effectiveness
came from the heavens [i.e. astrology].

To summarise the first stream, ‘image’ magic or astral magic, which came from the Hermetic
and Muslim world especially Harran in Mesopotamia, arrived in Europe via the translators
working in Spain from the 11th century onwards, but fell out of favour in Europe in the 17th

century. It relied upon the engraving or drawing of images at an appropriate moment of

68 He has a third category/stream which he defines as ‘archaeology influencing magic,’ but this does
not seem to be part of the same conceptual set, and is therefore omitted.
69 Klaassen (1999), pp. 2-3.
” Belenus or Balintis is the Arabic form of Apollonius of Tyana, formed by dropping the initial “A’ (as
if it were the definite article) and swapping ‘p’ and ‘b’ which sound very alike to an Arabic speaker.
71 Karr & Skinner (2011).
72 Boudet (2011).
73 Klaassen (1999), p. 3.
74 Greer and Warnock, (2010-11), p 13.
36

time, often in relationship to the 28 Mansions of the Moon. Astral magic is excluded from

this study.

Distinctions within Learned Ritual Magic

We are therefore left with learned ritual magic. This may in turn be subdivided. The Greeks
made a clear distinction between goetia (yonteia) the magic of the goes (yén¢),”> and that of
theurgia (Qeovpyia). Theurgia is a descendant via Porphyry and lIamblichus of the ancient

Mysteries. This usage has persisted through to 13 century (and later) grimoires.”

It has been suggested that theurgia, meaning “divine work,” was a term probably invented by
a group of Neoplatonically inclined magicians, including luminaries like Iamblichus of
Chalcis,”” probably based in Alexandria around the 2nd century CE.” The theurgists were
concerned with purifying and raising the consciousness of individual practitioners to the
point where they could have direct communion with the gods. The theurgists were in a sense
the inheritors of the ancient Greek Mysteries which aimed to introduce the candidate to the
gods. There are three sections in the PGM which give instructions in these procedures, and

these are categorised as type “M’ in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

The goes, the practitioner of goetia (yonteia), on the other hand, attempts to bring
daimones/demons onto the physical plane and to manifest them, or their effects.”? The
relationship of the practitioners of theurgia to practitioners of the goetia is that both attempt to
invoke/evoke a spiritual creature (god, angel, daimon, demon). The teletai (teAetai) priest
does it for the benefit of the client’s soul while the goes does it to benefit the client’s material
desires. Dickie is of the opinion that:

...although there are indications that goetes, epodoi, magoi and pharmakeis originally pursued

quite different callings, there is no indication when the terms are first encountered in the fifth
century that they refer to specialised forms of magic.®?

Although it may well be true that there is too little evidence available from their earliest
mentions to separate their specialised forms of magic, this is not true of later usage of the
terms, where goetes and magoi are quite distinct. Amongst the later European grimoires, titles
like the Goetia for example, use this term to specifically describe a particular style of magic

which involves the evocation of spirits or demons: this is the meaning that will be observed in

7 Goetia (yonteia) and goes (yons) are here used in the sense they acquired later in the Latin grimoires of
‘dealing with spirits,’ rather than in the sense outlined in Johnston (1999), pp. 102-103 of ‘dealing with
the dead.’
76 Juratus defines ‘theurgy’ as a “sacramental rite, [or] ‘mystery.””
77 Apart from Iamblichus, the other main source for theurgy is Proclus, a 5th century Neoplatonist. See
also Johnston (2008) and Struck (2004), chapters 6-7 on Proclus.
78 Johnston (2008), p. 150.
” “Goetia’ is used in this thesis in the sense used by Cornelius Agrippa rather than the ancient Greeks.
80 Dickie (2001), pp. 14-15.

this thesis. I will henceforth be using the word goetia in that sense only, rather than trying to

pin down its elusive meaning prior to the Christian era.

It is not surprising to find specific formulae or words migrating from one category to
another, or religion to magic, given that the priests, teletai-priests and magicians might often

be the same men (as they certainly were in ancient Egypt). As Betz states:

According to Egyptian practice, the magician was a resident member of the temple priesthood...
The papyri also provide many insights into the phenomena of the magician as a religious
functionary, in both the Egyptian and Hellenistic setting.*!

This overlap should not cause confusion, as (in the absence of a Victorian viewpoint like that of
Frazer) it is no longer necessary to see religion as higher and magic as lower. In fact the reverse
might be held to be true, if one conceives of the procedures of religion simply as the exoteric
and public forms of the Mysteries, which in turn might have been the doorway to training in

magic.
Solomonic Magic

Solomonic magic is a form of magic which concerns itself with invoking/evoking a wide
range of ‘spiritual creatures,’®? including the gods, daimones, angels, demons, spirits and

sometimes the dead. The hallmarks of Solomonic magic are:

1. Solomonic magic is learned magic, relying primarily upon written material for

its transmission.

Z, The magician will always be enclosed in a magical circle when
evoking/ invoking.
3. Procedures will involve a number of magical implements which will have been

consecrated prior to the main operation.

4, The nomina magica used to compel the spirits will often be of Jewish origin, but

not exclusively so.

5. The format of the invocations has a structure and specific sequential method:

consecratio dei; invocatio; evocatio; ligatio; licentia.8

6. Manuscripts of Solomonic magic are systematic treatises and not just a

collection of unconnected magical recipes.

81 Betz (1996), p. xlvi.

82 See discussion of this term later in this chapter.

83 See Agrippa (2005), pp. 39-55 and Skinner and Rankine (2007), pp. 91-94 for an explanation of this
typically Solomonic sequence of operations.

re The putative author is often (but not always) listed as King Solomon, and
mention may be made of his son Rehoboam, although these techniques were
almost certainly not invented by the historical King Solomon. They may not

even necessarily be of Jewish origin.®

8. Some Solomonic manuscripts include a second “book’ with a range of up to 49

planetary pentacles, whose origin will be considered in chapter 5.4.2.

The use of a protective circle, the prior consecration of implements, the nomina magica and
the five sequential steps will be in this thesis referred to as the ‘Solomonic method.’ Thus
some grimoires, like the Ars Notoria, do not use the Solomonic method as defined above, but

rather rely upon prayers and notae.*6

Working Definition of Magic

Before proceeding, it is necessary to define the term ‘magic’ as it is the subject of this thesis.
The most fundamental problem for modern academics in defining ‘magic’ is that any
accurate definition of magic must involved the concepts of another world of spirits, demons
and gods. For an atheist, for whom these entities simply do not exist, the problem of defining
the art or science that deals with them is insoluble. This is not meant as a condescending
statement, just one which suggests that analysis of any subject cannot be satisfactorily begun
if the basic premises of that subject (be they true or false) are overlooked or completely
omitted. This situation is what lies at the root of modern difficulties with the definition of
magic. Such attempts at defining magic are on a par with a scientist who does not believe in
the existence of radio waves, yet tries to explain the functioning of a radio: it cannot be done

without making a nonsense of the definition.

Maybe the procedure of physicists, who define a theoretical particle, and then proceed to see
if its behaviour fits their mathematical models, is an appropriate way of proceeding. The
equivalent of this is to accept the theoretical existence of gods, demons and spirits, and then
to move on from there to define magic in terms of their manipulation. In the ancient world
the existence of daemons, spirits and gods was a given. Any definition recognizable to, and
welcomed by, its ancient practitioners would have to include mention of daemons, gods,
spirits, etc. And, more importantly, it would then be a definition which allows for reasonable

discourse about the subject.

84 Other ‘Solomonic’ authors or pseudo-authors/editors include Rabbi Solomon, Toz Graec, Rabbi
Abognazer, Armadel, Geo Peccatrix, etc. Discussion of the real identity of these authors is only
incidental to the objectives of this thesis. The term ‘Solomonic’ will therefore be used as an identifier of
typical content rather than author.

85 Despite many of the god and angel names being of Jewish origin, the method appears not to be.

8¢ Elaborate drawings relating to specific subjects of the Trivium or Quadrivium.

As so many scholars have laboured unsuccessfully to create a modern definition of the term
magic, I intend to cut the Gordian knot by utilising a definition which is much closer to the
sense the ancients gave it, by returning to the original meaning of magia, with a meaning that

would have been understood by its practitioners in Late Antiquity.

If this involves a nod in the direction of the existence of gods, daimones and spirits, then so
be it. Without such a nod, the effort resembles that of the man who would describe chess
without acknowledging the existence of the invisible rules which govern the movement of
the individual pieces. Such rules have no real existence, but without them the game of chess
is impossible to play, or to write sensible commentary upon. Likewise it is very difficult to
examine or comment upon magic without acknowledging the ‘spiritual creatures’ which are

part of its basic premises as understood by its practitioners.

For the purpose of this thesis I would therefore like to propose a working definition of magic
that is based on how it was practised in the Greek speaking Mediterranean, and which

avoids modernization, social theory, or the moral challenges of theological definition:

Magic is the art of causing change through the agency of spiritual creatures rather than via directly
observable physical means: such spiritual creatures being compelled, or persuaded to assist, by the
use of sacred words or names, talismans, symbols, incense, sacrifices and materia magica.

Here ‘spiritual’ is defined to mean non-physical, with no ethical connotation, and ‘spiritual
creature’ to mean a non-physical entity, ranging in definition or substance from elementals,
spirits, demons, daimones, angels, archangels, even gods, to discarnate humans (both saintly
and prematurely dead).§” The use of this terminology which was in widespread use in
Europe up to the 16th century,88 might be hard for modern readers to digest, particularly
those who come from a Judaeo-Christian background where the notion of ‘spirituality’ is
totally opposed to the very existence of spirits. In modern times the word ‘spiritual’ surfaces
in the practices of ‘spiritualism’ or “spiritism’ where the medium deals with discarnate

entities and the dead alike, but the term is still not understood in its wider meaning.

So for the purposes of this thesis ‘spiritual creature’®? will be understood in exactly the way

Dr John Dee” (1527-1608) understood it in the late 16th century when he wrote:

87 The term ‘spiritual creature’ also saves the tiresome need to write out “gods, goddesses, spirits,
demons, daimones, angels, archangels and elementals” every time they all need to be mentioned.

88 This definition obviously does not cover ‘natural magic’ which was a category mentioned by
Agrippa, and in current use by the Renaissance, probably devised specifically to avoid opposition
from the Church, by eliminating spirits and demons from its definition.

89 A better term might have been creaturum incorporalis.

9% An Elizabethan polymath who wrote books on geometry, navigation, alchemy, rectification of the
calendar, and promoted the idea of the British Empire. His interest in angelic invocation lead him to
employ a succession of skryers, such as Edward Kelley, who provided Dee with a large amount of

Suddenly, there seemed to come out of my Oratory a Spirituall creature, like a pretty girle of 7
or 9 yeares of age...%!

According to Zambelli, “Ficino and his followers admitted the existence of spiritual beings
(demons, angels and devils, anthropomorphic movers of astral bodies etc.) to whom it was
possible to address prayers, hymns or innocent spells.”°2 Other precedents for this usage
exist, and at least one manuscript of the Key of Solomon refers in a similar fashion to angels as

“Créatures célestes.’%

There was no doubt in the minds of magicians of the period under consideration, that the
effects of magic were attributable to external ‘spiritual creatures’ be they gods, angels,
daimones, or spirits, rather than to either the innate powers of the magician himself, or to
some nebulous undefined pseudo-scientific ‘force’ or ‘vibration.’ It was considered, in the
ancient world, that the main skill of a magician was to constrain these entities using the
spoken and written word, sigils, talismans, suffumigations and sacrifices. This definition
therefore, leads naturally to the subject of this thesis: the examination of the evolution and
technology of these words, sigils, talismans, suffumigations and sacrifices that he used.
Indeed more recent scholarly definitions of magic have come much closer to defining magic

as a technology:

[Magic] is a reasoned system of techniques for influencing the gods and other supernatural
powers that can be taught and learned... Magic is a praxis, indeed a science, that through
established and for the most part empirical means seeks to alter or maintain earthly
circumstances, or even call them forth anew.”4

The centrality of spiritual creatures to the operation of any magic is confirmed by Johnston:

In short, it seems that many Mediterranean magicians considered the control of ghostly or
demonic entities to be essential to the completion of their work: the better one was at controlling
demons, the greater a magician one was.”

Magic divides the spiritual universe into a specific hierarchy of spiritual creatures in order to
deal with it more effectively. Like any science, one of the first steps is analysis, where the

constituent parts need to be identified and labelled.

If magic is looked at in historical terms, as a practice, something people actually did, then
magic can be examined and documented in the same way that one could research and

document the production of parchment for writing, without condemning the process as

dictated messages and instruction from entities claiming to be angels or spirits. Dee’s records of these
‘spiritual actions’ ran to many hundreds of manuscript pages.

% This description refers to the angel Madimi as described in BL Cotton Appendix MS XLVI, f. 1. See
also BL Sloane MS 3188, fol. 8. Clulee (1988), p. 179.

2 Zambelli (2007), p. 3.

93 BL Lansdowne MS 1203, ff. 7-8.

%4 Frantz-Szab6 (2007) as quoted in Walton (2006), p. 264.

% Johnston (2002), pp. 42-43, my italics.

% These labels are particularly important in magic, because of one of the primary axioms of magic is
that all spiritual creatures can only be addressed and controlled when their true name is known.

primitive, or judging the morals or efficacy of the method. Nobody who owns a computer
would now ever go to the trouble of pulling the skin off a sheep, soaking, stretching,
scraping, liming and processing it for several weeks, before writing on it with ink made of
soot and oak galls, but nobody can deny that this procedure produced a very durable writing

surface that can last more than a thousand years.”

My point is that it is not necessary to take a psychological or even a social anthropological
approach to magic. It is sufficient to examine what was done by magicians, and their reasons
for those actions, as documented by its practitioners, in their own handbooks. Utilising the
practitioners own world view, and their own records, could be construed as taking an
entirely emic point of view, but as the subject is treated from the point of view of a
technology, with an objective examination of the materials and methods of the practitioners,

the vantage point from which these are viewed is an etic one.

Definitions of Charm, Amulet, Phylactery, Tefillin, Lamen, Talisman and Pentacle

A number of words related to magic have changed meaning over the centuries, and so it is
useful to revisit these definitions so that the discussion of category divisions in chapter 3.2
makes internally consistent sense. It is therefore necessary to define more closely the terms
Charm, Amulet, Phylactery, Tefillin, Lamen, Talisman and Pentacle, as the popular
perception (and even sometimes the academic one),%8 is that the above terms are roughly
equivalent. These words are often used interchangeably, even by professionals. These
distinctions are further blurred by some translators who translate, for example, pvAaKtiptov
by “charm” or “amulet.” Preisendanz sometimes translates the term “Amulet des Zaubers”1

which at least indicates its use by magicians, rather than just as an everyday charm for a client.
Skemer, in his note on terminology, makes some very useful and necessary distinctions: 1%

Imprecise terminology has been an impediment to the serious study of textual amulets...

Modern scholarship has used different terms to signify textual amulets and has applied them
inconsistently.1

71 am still surprised that I can easily read the contents of a manuscript from the Middle Ages, but can
no longer access digital work written by myself on an obsolete computer just thirty years ago.
Parchment may well prove more durable in the long run that easily deleted digital documents.
% Betz (1996), p. 281, for example, categorises PGM XLIV. 1-18 (in the Table of Spells) as a “ phylactery
for earache.” The fact that it is designed to cure earache, for a specific patient, definitely marks it out
as an amulet, not a phylactery. Furthermore the word gvdaktipiov ‘phylactery’ does not appear
anywhere in the Greek text of this passage.
° A recent exhibit in the newly refurbished Ashmolean Museum in Oxford showed a photograph of a
Rabbi who clearly had a tefillin bound to his forehead, captioned by professional museum staff as a
“Rabbi with an amulet.”
100 ‘Magician’s amulet.’ Preisendanz (1928), p. 17.
101 Skemer (2006), pp. 6-19.
102 Skemer (2006), pp. 6, 10.

It is important to make these distinctions before proceeding with the analysis of the different
rite types present in the PGM. The definitions used in this thesis are listed below in order of
specificity, ranging from the very general and all-embracing word ‘charm’ to the very
specific and technical term ‘lamen.’ The purpose of this detailed definition is to be able to
pinpoint the function of each in the context of the PGM papyri under consideration,

regardless of the sometimes too generalised translation of their descriptors.1°

The definitions set out below are formulated on the basis of their use in actual rubrics, and
will therefore often expand, or sometimes even contradict, the definition to be found in a
typical non-specialist English dictionary. The OED is fairly vague about these distinctions,

often simply defining one term in terms of another, which is not very helpful.

Charm

The word ‘charm’ is the most general, and non-specific term, and therefore not a very useful
term when considering detailed magical techniques. ‘Charm’ may be used as a verb. As it is
derived from the Latin carmen, meaning ‘song’ or ‘invocation’ it can also have a vocal
dimension as well as indicating the written form of such a song. It can also be applied to a
small item designed to be worn and bring good luck, where ‘amulet’ might be more
appropriate. Charm is therefore too general and imprecise a word for the present purposes.
Unfortunately some PGM translators have often used this blanket term where a much more
specific or technical term, like @vAaKktypiov “phylactery,’ or kataKAntik6v ‘summoning statue,’

occurs in the Greek. This term will therefore be used as little as possible in the present thesis.

Amulet

This is also a fairly general term, and simply means a thing worn on the person to attract
luck or protect the wearer generally from evil influences, danger or illness. Seligman,!%
quoted by Budge, was of the opinion that ‘amulet’ was derived from the Old Latin amoletum,
meaning “a means of defence.”1°7 Skemer may be closer to the truth when he states that

amulet is derived from the Latin amuletum which he traces back to the Arabic hamalet,

103 As the translations of these papyri have been undertaken by a range of scholars, it is sometimes the
case that a specific Greek word will be translated into a number of quite different English words.
Categorisation in Appendix 2 has therefore been done on the basis of either the original Greek
headword, or the function as embodied in the rubric, rather than the English translation or suggested
title. Table 20 lists the Greek rubricated headwords that were utilised for that categorization.
104 For example, phylactery, although a Greek term, is often incorrectly defined narrowly in English
dictionaries as a solely Jewish religious item (really a tefillin), whereas in the papyri it is only used to
describe an Egyptian magicians’ lamen.
105 A common mediaeval synonym for amulet was ligature, meaning something bound to the body.
106 Heil und Schutzmittel, Stuttgart, 1920, p. 26.
107 Budge (1961), p. 13.

meaning an object “worn on the body, especially around the neck, as a “preservative”

against a host of afflictions.*°°

An amulet may be made in the form of a gem (especially an engraved gem), a coin, pendant,
ring, or plant or animal part (like a rabbit's foot), or it may be a textual amulet. A typical
Mediterranean example, which is still current, is the blue circular eye-shaped amulet
designed to protect the wearer from the evil eye. Ancient Egyptian amulets were mass-
produced using certain standard formats such as the scarab (perhaps the most popular

form), ankh, tet column, djed pillar or the wedjat Eye of Horus.

The key distinguishing feature of an amulet is that it will either be mass-produced (for later
insertion of the client’s name), or made for a very specific client. In the context of the PGM,
textual amulets will be made for a specific reason (often the cure of an illness) for a specific
person, and will therefore often incorporate the name of the specific person for whom it has

been made, and to whom it is to be attached. It will not be used by the magician in a rite.

One example of an amulet which has been labelled as a phylactery occurs in an article by
Jordan. In his translation the repeated order to protect a specific woman from sundry
possible ills confirms, without doubt, that this particular lamella is an amulet for general

protection, not a phylactery for use during a magical rite:

Protect Alexandra, whom Zoé bore, from every demon and every compulsion of demons and
from demonic (forces?) and magical drugs and binding-spells...free Alexandra, whom Zoé bore
- quickly, quickly, at once, at once!10

The difference between an amulet and a phylactery thus is highlighted by both its usage and
user. The amulet is made for a client, often mass-produced with the client’s name inscribed
later, often in a different hand, but the phylactery is made by the magician for the magician.
Skemer usefully further narrows the definition of amulet by referring to ‘textual amulets.’ In

doing so he defines these as:

Textual amulets, as the term is employed in this book, were generally brief apotropaic texts,
handwritten or mechanically printed on separate sheets, rolls, and scraps of parchment, paper,
or other flexible writing supports of varying dimensions. When worn around the neck or placed
elsewhere on the body, they were thought to protect the bearer against known and unknown
enemies...1!1

108 Skemer (2006), p. 6. In this sense an amulet may be referred to in Latin as an alligatura.
109 Examples of Egyptian amulets can be seen in Budge (1970), Andrews (1994), p. 6 and Pinch (2006), pp.
104-119. Examples of Palestinian and Syrian amulets can be found in Naveh and Shaked (1985), pp. 40-
122. In each of these 15 examples (except number 6 which is missing at least four lines), the name of the
specific person for whom it was made is inscribed on it, thus guaranteeing that it is an amulet.
Mediaeval amulets are well covered in Skemer (2006).
10 Jordan (1991), pp. 66-67.
11 Skemer (2006), p. ix.

Phylactery

The phylactery (as the term is used in the PGM) is always for the use of the magician, and
only then during a rite, not worn on a day-to-day basis. It will also definitely not incorporate
his name.'!2 A phylactery is also worn, but it must include a written magical or religious text,
and be only used by him during a rite.!° This term will only be used in this thesis in the

meaning used in the PGM.
Taweez

In modern India and the Middle East the wearing of a small metal (often gold) cylinder with
an enclosed religious text for protection is quite widespread. These also occurred in ancient
Egypt." Although these items are sometimes referred to as phylacteries, the usual word for
these in Urdu and Arabic is taweez or tabeez. The taweez will be worn every day, and it must

contain a religious text. It functions like an amulet.

Tefillin

Phylacteries are defined in most modern dictionaries as mostly associated with Jewish
religious practice. Phylactery is however a Greek word. More correctly, the Hebrew word for
this very specific item is tefillin (pep). A tefillin is structurally quite different from any other
magico-religious pendant, and consists of a small leather case containing slips of parchment
or vellum on which are written very specific Hebrew scriptural passages and bound tightly
on the forehead and the left arm by orthodox Jewish men during their morning prayer.
Tefillin as such do not occur in the PGM, nor in any of the later magical texts, as their use is

and was solely for Jewish religious purposes.

Lamen or Magician’s Phylactery

In the PGM the phylactery is worn solely for protection during a magical rite. The purpose of
the magician’s phylactery is to personally protect the magician from the spirit, demon, or
(even) the god during the rite. “Lamen’ is an even more specific term, and one used
exclusively by magicians and never by laymen. In mediaeval and later magical texts,
phylacterium was often rendered as lamen. The lamen of the mediaeval magician is a direct

descendant of the PGM phylactery.

M2 Heintz (1996), pp. 295-300, analyses a mass-produced amulet, which interestingly uses just lines 6-9
cut from a much longer inscription recorded in PGM XIXa. 1-54. Heintz correctly identifies it as a
mass-produced amulet (p. 296) but nevertheless still entitles her article “A Greek Silver Phylactery...”
13 Phylactery (pvAaktnptov) is a Greek word and may have been derived from the Greek phylaktikos,
which means ‘fit for preserving, or a preservative.’
"4 TIlustrated in Pinch (2006), p. 115.

Talisman

Although this word is commonly used interchangeably with ‘amulet’ it will here be used in
its more restricted (grimoire) sense, which implies something used in a magical rite for a
specific end. For its precise derivation see chapter 3.2. A talisman is not personalised. A
talisman is something written or drawn on parchment, papyrus or metal, with a specific
magical objective in mind, often planetary. Unlike an amulet or a phylactery it is not

designed for personal or general protection, and it is usually not worn.
Pentacle

This term is almost synonymous with talisman, but carries the additional suggestion that the

figure inscribed may be a pentagram, and will relate to a specific planet.!5
To summarise the above:

A talisman or pentacle is not worn, but is a passive store of a specific magical force, all

the others are worn.

An amulet may be worn by a client, often for health or general luck, and usually does

not have detailed inscriptions.

A phylactery, taweez, tefillin and lamen are worn, but must contain written magical or

religious inscriptions.

A phylactery must have written magical inscription on or included within it, but the

text can be pagan, Jewish, Muslim, etc."6

A tefillin must contain a copy of very specific Hebrew religious texts, written in
Hebrew or Aramaic, and is worn specifically during morning prayer and only by a

Jewish male.1”

A lamen or ‘magician’s phylactery’ has inscriptions but is only worn by a magician,
during a magical ritual, and at no other time, for protection against the specific

spiritual creatures invoked /evoked at that time.

These defining characteristics, which are based on their actual usage and on the Greek text
of the PGM, rather than just on the limited dictionary definition of the English words, will be

used in this thesis to distinguish between the different items of equipment.

45 Pentacle is also the Earth suit in the Tarot pack, and is sometimes used to describe the figure drawn
on the ground to enclose a spirit.

116 OED phylactery = “a small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at
morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law. Origin: late Middle English: via late Latin from Greek
phulakterion 'amulet,’ from phulassein 'to guard.'” It is a Greek word, not a Hebrew word.

M7 Possible origin: from Aramaic tepillin, 'prayers.'

1.5 The Relationship between Magic, the Mysteries and Religion
It is useful to enter into a brief discussion of the relationships between magic, the Mysteries

and religion for three very specific reasons:

i) to further refine the definition of magic, in order to successfully avoid any confusion

with religion;

ii) to eliminate three large passages in one of the source texts, the PGM, which are in fact

Mystery and initiation rites, and not either magic or religion; and
iii) to appreciate the distinction between two types of magic: theurgia and goetia.

The dichotomy between magic and religion has caused so much scholarly controversy over the
last century or so, that it has even been categorized as an unsolvable dilemma by some
scholars.1!8 I propose to make some observations which might lead eventually to such a
solution, or at least a very different viewpoint from which to perceive such a solution. This is
done in an effort to simplify the present discussion of historical magical transmission, and to

avoid it becoming trapped in, or tripped up by, considerations of religion.

It is still often argued that religion deals with God or the gods, angels and saints, but only to
implore their help, not to constrain it. This view, which is now somewhat superseded, dates
back to the work of James Frazer in 1890.9 There is some truth in this contention, but some
techniques of magic overlap with the techniques of religion. Techniques such as prayer or
consecration span both practices, as shown in grimoires like the Juratus, Liber Sacer, the ‘Holy
Book.’!20 On the other hand, religion also sometimes uses compulsion, when, for example, it
indulges in exorcism. Even techniques such as animal sacrifice, as distasteful to the modern
reader as it may be, were originally used by both magicians and priests in the service of their
art or religion. One only has to look at the stupendous quantities of animals sacrificed by
King Solomon at the inauguration of his temple in Jerusalem in order to appease Yahweh/ El,

to see that sacrifice is not the exclusive province of the magician or polytheist.

Although it was in the interest of the early Christian church to draw deep divides between
magic and religion, an objective analysis of the two shows much identity. As Betz neatly puts

it when talking about the pre-Christian world:

The religious beliefs and practices of most people were identical with some form of magic, and
the neat distinctions we make today between approved and disapproved forms of religion -
calling the former “religion” and “church” and the latter “magic” and “cult” - did not exist in
antiquity. ..121

U8 Betz (1991), pp. 244-247.
19 For Frazer, and many other scholars since, religion was equated with Christianity.
120 See Hedegard (2002), pp. 60-211 for the critical edition of the text.
121 Betz (1996), p. xli.
47

My primary observation is that the question of the relationship between magic and religion,
has been inappropriately phrased, and that the discussion should not centre around two

opposing terms, but around the consideration of three terms.

I would like to propose that the reason why this dilemma has remained unsolvable is that in
fact the argument should have included three terms and not just two. To solve this one needs
to look at the whole spectrum of how man has attempted to relate to the unseen, to the gods
and to other spiritual creatures. It is not simply a matter of the differences and similarities
between religion and magic. For example Christ’s New Testament miracles have much more
in common with magic than they do with religion as currently conceived of by any

mainstream Christian church.!22
Brashear,!3 commenting on Kazhdan,!4 writes:

The difference between holy and unholy miracles, he suggests, is in the miracle's aim and result:
the saint rescues, feeds and comforts, creating good and exemplifying the Christian ideal.
Unholy magic causes death, confusion, sexual misbehaviour and the like. Yet, in the final
analysis, ambivalence is the order of the day, and the Byzantines seem to have had no real
criterion for distinguishing between a holy and an unholy miracle.

To a large extent, the problem has been created by the Christian doctrinal view of magic. The
early Church Fathers were in no doubt that magic was a real and internally consistent body

of knowledge. For example, Origen wrote:

... magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle think, utterly incoherent, but, as the
experts in these things prove, is a consistent system, which has principles known to very few.!25

But more than that, the basic problem is that the question has been treated as a simple
dichotomy of magic versus religion, whereas there is a middle term missing from this
equation. The missing “middle term’ is the Mystery religions, which are part of a continuum
of: religion - the Mysteries - magic. However, the problem is still a difficult one because the
Mystery religions are missing from our 21st century experience, and do not exist any more in

any form in any Western culture.
The nature of these three practices can be summed up briefly:
a) Religion is practised in public in temples in front of all adherents by priests.

b) The Mysteries (or holy teletat),!2° were celebrated in private by the teletai-

122 See Conner (2006) and Conner (2010).

123 Brashear (1998), p. 253.

124 Kazhdan (1995), pp. 73-82.

125 Origen, Contra Celsus in Chadwick (1965), pp. 23-24.

126 Teletai, which is often translated as ‘initiation, derives from the Greek root tele- which means
‘completion’ or ‘perfection.’ ‘Initiation’ is a word which has been somewhat devalued in the last
century. To the ancient Greeks it meant approaching the perfection of a god, or at the very least a
purification which enabled a mortal to meet with and converse with a god, in some form of

priests only for the benefit of one or a very small number of initiates. It is very

clearly different from religion which was practised openly in temples.12”

Magic is celebrated in private and/or secretly.!75 It was often practised by the

priests of a religion, but also by lay persons with the right training.

In the ancient world these were the three main ways that man sought to approach the

unseen. The differences between these three can be defined by a number of criteria:

Audience. The first category, religion, deals with the gods on behalf of the
congregation. The second, the Mysteries, takes a select few of the congregation
and exposes them to experiences which (by all accounts) change their view of the
world and their life for ever after. The significance of this change can be measured
by the very small number of initiates who have ever broken their vows and
written down an account of their experiences. The third category will often be

performed for just one client, or just for the benefit of the magician himself.

Degree of Secrecy. Religion embraces all-comers and in many cases seeks to convert
the non-believer or adherent of a rival religion. The Mysteries selected or accepted
only a few individuals from the congregation who looked for (or paid for) a
deeper spiritual experience. Magic was even more secretive, and in most cases,
actively discouraged new postulants or practitioners.!29 Clients were only

included in the practice on a need-to-know or disciple basis.

Degree of Specificity in Objectives. Religion dealt with the general good, and
assisted in various rites of passage such as birth, death and marriage, but the
objectives will be general in nature such as blessing (baptism for birth, blessing
for marriage, last rites for death). The Mysteries focused on the initiation or
introduction to the gods to a few candidates, at a personal experiential level, and
usually dealt just with one god, such as Dionysus or Demeter, with the single
objective of initiation or immortalisation. The prime objective of the Immortality
offered by the Mysteries should not be confused with “a place in heaven” offered
by religion. Magic operates with a very specific end or single objective, but drawn

from a very wide field of concrete possibilities: love, lust, money, power, etc.

fellowship, which was indeed the objective of the Mysteries. PGM IV contains several such Mystery
rituals, for example lines 26-51 or 475-820.

127 In the Dervani papyrus the practitioners were referred to as mystai.

128 In the Dervani papyrus these practitioners were referred to as magoi. See Edmonds (2008), p.17.

129 The degree of privacy was also used as a distinguishing factor between magic and religion by Emile
Durkheim. Michael Bailey (2006), p. 3, pointed out that Marcel Mauss (Durkheim’s nephew and pupil)
defined magic as “private, secret, mysterious, and above all prohibited, while religion consisted of
rites publicly acknowledged and approved.”

4. Range of Entities. Religion deals with the gods and the angels. The Mysteries dealt
with one specific god or goddess. Magic deals with the whole range of spiritual

creatures: gods, angels, demons, elementals, spirits and even the dead.

Yet a third possible way of looking at these three categories is in terms of subject and object.

i) Religion: the Priest presents the god(s) to the people.

ii) Mysteries: the teletai priest presents a specific candidate to a specific god.

iii) Magic: the magician presents himself to, and adjures, the god or other spiritual
creature.

To understand the soil from which European magic sprung, we have to look back to the
ancient world, within the same region, for a time when all three modes of communication
with the spiritual existed side by side, and at a time when magic was considered a worthy

and workable method.

It is my belief that it is precisely because of the Judeo-Christian bias, and because of the
missing experience of the Mystery religions, that the discussion of the relationship between
magic and religion has not, in modern times, ever reached a satisfactory conclusion. By
cutting out the middle term, the Mysteries, Christianity forever polarised magic and religion,
instead of seeing it as part of a natural continuum in man’s efforts to relate to the gods, the

angels and other spiritual creatures.

It is now popular to embrace the idea that religion and magic cannot be separated, as

MacMullen puts it:

Now, the lessons of anthropology grown familiar, it is common to accept the impossibility of

separating magic from religion and move on to more interesting subjects.1°°

Reliance upon the conclusions of anthropologists draws the argument back into the
anthropological analysis of primitive peoples, which is a world away from the discourse and
understanding of pagan and Christian intellectuals living under the Roman or Byzantine
Empires. Much of the main thrust of MacMullen’s book is concerned with the identity or
similarity of pagan religious and Christian religious practices, which may well be true, but
has little direct relation to magic.!*! The fact that religion sometimes used magic, or that

priests were often magicians, does not invalidate the basic distinctions in practice.

180 MacMullen (1997), pp. 143-144.
181 MacMullen (1997), p. 143.
50

The Application of the Categorisation of Magic, Mysteries and Religion

One simple example, taken from the Papyri Graeco Magicae,'* which is a key part of the
present study, helps to illustrate the usefulness of this three-fold categorization. One section
of the papyrus was designated by its early German translator, Albrecht Dieterich, as Eine
Mithrasliturgie.133 Dieterich, working in the Frazerian atmosphere of 1903, wanted to see this
ritual as a part of religion, allowing him to characterise it as worthy, so seizing upon one of
the few god names present, he called it the Mithras Liturgy.'54 Despite Dieterich’s undoubted
fame as a scholar, the text was neither Mithraic nor was it a liturgy. Cumont was quick to
point this out,!°6 but Dieterich was not to be moved, and the argument went on for the next
quarter century. An appreciation that the text could have been either religion, magic or a

Mystery rite, might have reduced this confrontation.

Even a cursory reading will confirm that “Mithra’ appears once, but only as part of a clear
reference to a previous event, rather than as the addressee of the current rite.!°” In addition,
none of the known theological or symbolic themes of Mithraic “ascent of the soul via the
seven planetary spheres’ appear. Therefore, it is clearly not a Mithraic religious text. But
Dieterich refused to be convinced, thinking that its complex and elegant structure must be
part of some formal religion, not a piece of Volkskunde. German scholars of that period, like
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, felt that classical scholars should only translate poetry, literature
and religious rites, and not sully their hands with what he called botokudenphilologie. Hence

Dieterich’s desire to see this text as a mainstream religious text.

In fact this particular passage, despite appearing in the PGM collection, is not in the strict

sense magic either.

Applying the definition of the three parts of the continuum proposed above in terms of
audience, degree of secrecy, specificity of objectives, and range of entities address, we can

clearly see:

i, Audience. The ‘Mithras Liturgy’ is not a religious rite as it is not one designed to be

performed in public.

2 Secrecy. The degree of secrecy is clear. The ritual is either a solitary one, or one “for an

only child,” and therefore it is not a religious ritual.

132 PGM IV, 475-829.
133 Dieterich (1966).
134 A title which does not appear in the text itself.
135 Liturgy refers to religious services, where the worshippers’ responses are complementary to the
priest’s work.
186 Cumont (1904), pp. 1-10.
187 PGM VI, 482.
oA

3: Objectives. The objective specified in the first line clearly marks it out as a Mystery
rite, it being for the benefit of the writer’s daughter, that she may become immortal

(the most common objective of the Mysteries) and/or for the benefit of the writer.

I write these mysteries handed down... for an only child I request immortality, O
initiates of this our power... so that I alone may ascend into heaven as an enquirer and
behold the universe.1%8

As Betz writes, “immortality is of course the primary benefit derived from the
Mysteries (uvotipia).”199 The objectives are not love, wealth, power, sex, and so it is
not a magic ritual, even though it is embedded amongst other magic rituals in the
same papyrus. The objective is the immortalization of the initiate rather than the
worship of a divinity (religion) or the constraining of other spiritual creatures

(magic).

4. Range of Entities. The number of spiritual entities invoked is very limited, but it
mentions Helios, Aion and Mithras (as a backward looking reference) and some other
lesser daimones, but does not constrain them or threaten them, as would be typical of

a magical text.

The conclusion is that it is a Mystery ritual imbedded in a magical papyrus, but not itself
either magic, or religion. The point of this excursus is simply to show an example usage of
the criterion set out above to practically distinguish between religion, the Mysteries and
magic, in one of the three main source texts utilised by this thesis. This illustrates the need

for such a definition in analysing these texts.

138 PGM IV, 475-485.
139 Betz (2005), p. 94.
52

2. Theatre of Operation: the Historical Background

Transmission of ideas and texts follows the broad outlines of cultural diffusion, but this only
happens gradually over time.’4° However the beginnings of such diffusion, or their
termination, often follow sudden political changes like the conquest of armies, which might
cause a mass migration, or the censoring of one way of thinking. Magic was particularly
susceptible to changes in the dominant religion, which in Egypt for example, changed from a
tolerant polytheistic pagan environment to a far more restrictive Christian monotheistic
environment, followed much later by an even more monotheistic Islamic environment.
Therefore it is worthwhile flagging some of the major political changes in the eastern
Mediterranean over the course of the period being analysed, as they throw some light on the

patterns of the diffusion of magic.

I am aware of the risks of examining history as discreet chunks of internally homogenous
culture defined by specific dates. The scope of this thesis does not allow me to examine the
difficulties of too rigid a periodisation, but certain historical markers need to be laid down to
enable the transmission to be outlined. In the case of the Eastern Mediterranean, turning
points such as the sack of Constantinople in 1453, and rapid and radical changes in the
religious backdrop from pagan to Christian to Muslim are key events with far reaching
effects, and so need to be noted. Such changes in religion are much more likely to have
affected the practice of magic than, for example, the practice of agriculture. Key to these
cultural transitions has been the activity of translators, whose access to manuscripts has also

been radically affected by these cultural shifts.
Ancient Egypt

Ancient Egyptian magic had existed over several millennia prior to the Christian era. Greek
colonists and settlers moved to Egypt in search of work or a better place to live from the 7th
century BCE onwards. From the time of Pythagoras and Herodotus, Egypt was seen as a
land of mystery, and of commercial opportunity. The melting pot where ancient Egyptian
and Greek magic blended was the city of Alexandria, in Egypt, and it is the history of that
city which is central to the history of Graeco-Egyptian magic. The main subsequent changes
in the political, cultural and religious environment are mapped out below. The dates are
merely a guideline, as the process of cultural transmission is of course more gradual. Where
appropriate there will be a backward glance at the magical practices of ancient Egypt, but

these connections are not central to the main thrust of this thesis.

140 See Pingree (1987).
53

Alexandria under the Greeks 332 - 30 BCE

Graeco-Egyptian magic was a direct result of the mixing of Egyptian and Greek cultures. This
began in earnest with the invasion of Egypt by Alexander in 332 BCE, although it was
practised before this in Egypt, particularly in the Hellenic city of Alexandria, and in the eastern
Mediterranean. Betz defines the date range of the relevant extant papyri as from 2nd century
BCE to 5th century CE."! It is probable that the materials incorporated in these papyri date
back a further century to 332 BCE (the point where Greek and Egyptian magic may first have

begun to interact seriously).
Alexandria under the Romans 30 BCE - 395 CE

Although the Romans conquered Egypt in 30 BCE, they seemed content not to interfere with
local religious and magical customs, hence their culture added very little to the prevailing
system of magic. Although Alexandria had a Jewish community from early times,'#? the
Romans’ crushing of the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the destruction of the
Second Temple in Jerusalem, created a surge in the migration of many Palestinian Jews to
Alexandria, which for a while became a world centre for Jewry. In fact the Jews in
Alexandria in the 1st century CE are said to have made up 40% of the total population.1%
Around this time Jewish magical formulae, holy names, and figures like Solomon and Moses
most strongly entered the practice of Graeco-Egyptian magic.14 The few papyri that can be
definitely dated as prior to that date (70 CE) have very few occurrences of demonstrably

Jewish formulae.145

The next most significant change in the region was the replacement of paganism with
Christianity. The main events which saw the overthrow of paganism happened in just the
space of 30 years. These events included the death of the Roman Emperor Julian, called the
Apostate in 363 CE, an event which effectively finally withdrew official backing for the
pagan world in the Roman Empire. In Egypt it was also the decrees of the Coptic patriarch
Theophilus which resulted in the looting and burning of the Alexandrian Serapeum in 391
CE (which contained the last remaining scrolls and papyri saved from the great Library of

Alexandria). This saw Christianity rise to become the dominant religion in the region.

141 Betz (1996), p. xli.
12 When Alexander founded the city he looked favourably on Jewish colonists: “Having found among
them brave and loyal allies he granted that they might settle in a quarter of the new city with legal
rights equal to those of the Greeks.” - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, I, 18, 7.
143 Philo Judaeus in Flaccum, 6, 8. Even allowing for exaggeration, it was probably only rigid Jewish
monotheism that prevented them contributing more to the development of Solomonic magic.
144 Moses and Solomon are simply used here as the names of famous magicians, whose names can be
called upon in any adjuration, and do not specifically indicate a Jewish provenance for the invocation.
M45 On dating see Brashear (1995), pp. 3491-3493.

Christianity then began a steady persecution of pagans and magicians (often one and the
same) resulting in the destruction of a vast corpus of magical manuscripts.!46 On 8 November

392 CE, the ancient gods were reclassified as “evil spirits.”147
Alexandria under the Byzantines 395-636

Rome lost Egypt back to the Greeks four years after the destruction of the Serapeum, but this
time to Christian Greeks, not pagan ones. The grisly murder of Hypatia, the last head of the
Platonic Academy in Alexandria, at the hands of the Christians in 415 CE, sealed the fate of
paganism in Alexandria. Finally, the loss of Egypt to Islam in 636 CE resulted in the
migration (which had begun some years earlier) of Greeks (with their culture, magical
practices and manuscripts) northwards to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine

Empire which had been designated as the capital three centuries before.
The Byzantine Empire 324-1453

The Byzantine Empire spans over a millennium from the declaration of Constantinople as
the ‘New Rome’ in 324 CE, through the loss of Egypt in 636 CE to the sack of Constantinople
in 1453. The cultural focus is however still Greek, but now it has moved from pagan Greek to
Christian Greek, in line with its geographical move northwards from Alexandria to
Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Orthodox empire. Finally in 636 CE the Orthodox
empire lost control of Egypt to the Muslim invaders, cutting off this magical tradition from
its roots. Magical practices, which by now had a small Jewish, and a much smaller Christian
admixture, began to be referred to as Solomonic magic, or in Greek the Solomonike. The final
loss of Constantinople (and the rest of the Byzantine Empire) to Islam in 1453 CE,'48 resulted
in a transfer of much Greek culture and magic to its closest Christian neighbour, Italy, where

the Byzantine Greeks already had a territorial presence.
The Latin World from 1453 - 1641

In Italy the Solomonike were soon translated into Latin to become the Clavicula Salomonis, and
Latin Solomonic grimoires. Once having become available in the Latin world these grimoires
rapidly migrated from Italy to France and thence to England. Although 1641 is an arbitrary
date, because Latin continued to be used, in England anti-Popish sentiment around this time

contributed to the more frequent use of English and the beginning of the long decline of Latin.

M46 The bulk of the surviving Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri are reputed to have come from just one
tomb in Thebes. These were bought by Giovanni Anastasi who subsequently sold them to European
museums and libraries. See Dieleman (2005), pp. 12-16.

147 Codex Theodosii, 16.10.12. Godefroy et al (2012).

“48 The Fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, occurred as a result of a siege laid
by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. The fall marked the end of the independence of the Byzantine
Empire, which was until then the centre of Greek learning and Orthodox Christianity.

English and Vernacular grimotres (1641 — present)

The translation of the Clavicula Salomonis into the Key of Solomon,'4? opened up the whole
world of grimoire magic in England and later the US. Other grimoires, like the Lemegeton,
were translated into English in 1641 and subsequently. Between 1641 and 1663 a significant
number of magical texts were printed in English rather than Latin. Part of the reason for this
might have been the abolition of the Star Chamber in July 1641, which amounted to an
almost de facto abolition of censorship, replacing it by a system of registration of publications.
Books on magic published in this time frame included the English editions of highly
influential magical works such as Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy, Scot’s Discovery
of Witchcraft, Weir’s Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, de Abano’s Heptameron, and Ars Notoria just
to name of few. Puritanism and an interest in practical magic would, on the face of it, seem
like strange bedfellows, but perhaps the freedom to seek direct communication with god
(without the intervention of priests) also meant an increased interest in communicating

directly with other spiritual creatures.

Although the time frame and the geographic scope (Egypt through the Levant, Turkey,
Greece, Italy, and then to the rest of Western Europe and to England) are both very wide, the
specific techniques examined here are clearly definable and traceable. One might
instinctively assume that if magic were a ‘made up’ subject, then each successive generation
would invent something completely new, fanciful and different, whereas the reverse is
actually true. Betz concludes that “no magician who is worth his reputation would ever
claim to have invented or made up his own spells.”45° Although the techniques were
polished and adapted by each successive culture that they passed through, it is extraordinary
to note that these procedures changed very little in essence or even in detail. The nomina
magica gathered Christian additions as they moved out of the purely pagan milieu of Egypt
into the Christian world of Byzantine Greece, and then the Latin world of Western Europe,
but the method of invocation, and the form of the circles, incenses and equipment changed
very little, apart from the obvious effects of scribal deterioration. Even the subjects covered
by typical chapter headings included in magicians’ handbooks remained the same over

many centuries of transmission, despite changes in language and culture.

49 For the first time in 1572. See Sloane MS 3847 #1, dated 1572.
150 Betz (1982), p. 162.
56

3. Analysis of the Sources
3.1. The Ancient Egyptian Demotic Magical Papyri

Hieroglyphic and Hieratic Texts

Although discussion of purely Egyptian texts is not part of this thesis, it is necessary to
consider them briefly to “set the scene,’ in order to see what Egyptian influences passed into

the Graeco-Egyptian papyri.

The oldest hieroglyphic Egyptian texts are the so-called ‘Pyramid Texts’ (2500-2200 BCE),
which are found on the walls of pyramids such as those of the Pharaohs Pepi and Unas.
These are almost solely concerned with the happiness and safety of the dead in the next
world, and not at all with the usual magical objectives of this world. So although they are
‘magical,’ the limitation of their aims to the resurrection and the reunification of the dead
with their ba makes them less relevant for this study. These are primarily for the use of the

dead rather than for any living person or magician.

The “Coffin Texts’ (2250-1784 BCE) are the lineal successor to the Pyramid Texts, being
inscribed on the inside of the coffin rather than the wall of the sarcophagus chamber.!5! These
are found in the coffins of less exalted but still powerful members of Egyptian society, and

perform the same tasks, but more economically.

The lineal successor to both of these groups of texts is the many copies of the Egyptian Book
of the Dead.'52 This book contains about 200 passages, sixty percent of which are drawn from
the above two classes of text. As such these rites still have the limited objectives of releasing
the dead, guiding him through the Judgement Hall of Double Order, and reuniting him with

his ba so that he can take his place amongst the gods.

Amongst the additional rites in the Book of the Dead however are procedures for animating
the shabti, the small statuettes of servants found in many tombs and designed to serve their
masters (or mistresses) in the afterlife. These are of relevance to the present study, as they

bear upon later magical practices of statue ensoulment, and stoicheia (otowyeia).

Although the majority of purely Egyptian texts that have come down to us from the above
collections are designed to help the dead, there are formats that would also have been used in
magicians’ rites designed to assist the living. One example of these techniques is the

identification of the priest or magician with a specific god, for example, the repeated

151 Faulkner (1973-1978).
182 Budge (1967).
57

identification of the magician with Osiris. In a Babylonian context, the identification was

usually either with Eridu or with his son:
Iam the magician born of Eridu, begotten in Eridu and Subari.1%3

One of the few exceptions to the preoccupation with the needs of the dead is exemplified by
the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus! which was found, not surprisingly, in the tomb of a
magician and which includes rites relevant to all the usual magical objectives. It is this sole
text plus a handful of passages in the Book of the Dead which concern us.1°>5 Presumably many
other magicians’ books either perished with their owners or may have been blended into the

Graeco-Egyptian texts.

That part of the PGM magic which is undoubtedly Egyptian in origin is the part concerned
with threats made to the gods. The Egyptians, in common with the Jews, also used and

valued the knowledge of the ‘true name of the god’ or spirit:

...threats to the gods and knowledge of the true name are commonly agreed to be original
Egyptian contributions to magic.'*°

Both these techniques, threats to the gods/spirits and the utilisation of the knowledge of
their true name, lasted from dynastic Egypt right through Byzantine Solomonic texts to 20th

century Latin and English grimoires.

A third technique, which had it roots in early Egyptian magic, was the threat made by the
magician to interrupt natural processes such as the rising of the sun each day, or other
cosmological processes such as the ceremonies which supposedly revivified the Egyptian

gods each day. Other Egyptian magical techniques included:

Execrations, whose goal was total destruction of the enemy, identified by name, whether alive
or dead, human or divine, as well as damnationes memoriae conducted on inscriptions, individual
hieroglyphs and statues deposited in cemeteries are all commonly attested.”

Heka

In strictly Egyptian texts, magic is often personified as the god Heka, whose image is two
extended forearms pointing skywards.'% This god does not appear at all in the Graeco-

Egyptian papyri, but the Greek goddess Hekate frequently does.15? It is strange that the most

153 Thompson (1908), p. xxiii.

154 British Museum papyrus 10057.

155 Relevant chapters in the Book of the Dead include 17, 20, 122, 77, 119, 167 and Supp. 99.

156 Brashear (1995), p. 3391.

157 Brashear (1995), p. 3392.

158 Ritner (2008), pp. 14-28.

159 It is conceivable that there is some link between Hekate and Heka, but to date one has not been
found, apart from a superficial lexical similarity.

prominent Egyptian god of magic is not found in the PGM whilst lesser gods are.1°

Most spells of the pharaonic period were apotropaic, that is designed to ward off evil
influences. The uniquely Greek contribution to magic was the generation of spells designed
to achieve more personal ends, such as the acquisition of a lover, or the binding of an enemy,
rather than the warding-off of snakes or ensuring that the bark of Ra passes safely through

the Duat or Underworld.

Demotic Texts

Demotic is a form of script Egyptians adapted for writing on papyrus with a cut reed pen,
rather than chiselling onto the walls of a tomb. Demotic texts concentrate upon the pantheon
of ancient Egypt, especially the myths surrounding Osiris. It is interesting that even though
quills would have become the norm in Byzantium after the 7th century, five exemplars of
chapter 20 of the Hygromanteia still preserve the techniques for cutting and consecrating a
reed pen, showing the antiquity of this line of transmission of that formula.!°! However, the
reed pen did not survive the next cultural transmission from Byzantium to the Latin

grimoires of Western Europe.

The time span of Demotic texts has been calculated to be about 1100 years (from 643 BCE to
452 CE). The magic that is found in these texts is more adapted to everyday needs and
desires (love spells, money, destruction of scorpions, etc) rather than the more cosmic
objectives such as ensuring the rising of the sun. As such they form a bridge between the
hieroglyphic/hieratic texts and the Graeco-Egyptian papyri, and they are written on the
same medium as the latter.!©4 In fact the Demotic papyri are much closer in content to the

PGM than to their ancestor texts from dynastic Egypt.

The best known of the PDM (Demotic Papyrus) is the London-Leyden papyrus.!© To quote
just one example of continuity from ancient Egypt to the PDM papyri, the Ouphor
invocation, designed to make carved statues come alive, is clearly an adapted version of

the ancient “Opening of the Mouth’ procedure which was an essential part of any burial.197

160 One possibility that I have not checked is the possibility that many occurrences of this god’s name
have simply been translated by the common noun ‘magic.’

161 e.g. H, f. 25; A, f. 14v; P, f. 218v, etc.

162 As the use of the reed pen petered out in Byzantium around the 7th century, this is circumstantial
evidence for a date of composition of the Hygromanteia around, or before, that time. It is also an
example of the very conservative nature of magical handbooks.

163 Brashear (1995), p. 3396.

164 Translations of the extant PDM are included with the PGM in Betz (1996).

165 PDM xii and PDM xiv.

166 PGM XII. 270-350, especially 316-350.

167 Dieleman (2005), p.290. The procedure of ‘washing the mouth’ of the god to vivify it also occurs in
other oriental religions.

Here it is adapted to a more personal magical objective:

... that you may give divine and supreme strength to this image and may make it effective and
powerful against all [opponents] and to be able to call back souls, move spirits, subject legal
opponents [to your will], strengthen friendships, produce all [sorts of] profits, bring dreams,
give prophecies, cause psychological passions and bodily sufferings and incapacitating illness,
and perfect erotic philtres.16

This is truly a wide ranging list of magical effectiveness. The crux is the phrase:

Here is truly written out, with all brevity, [the rite] by which all modelled images and
engravings and carved stones are made alive.

The Mesopotamian origins of this practice are confirmed by Reiner:

The most elaborate ritual performed at night with appeal to the stars is the "washing of the
mouth" (mis pi). It deals with the all-important ceremony of breathing life into the statues of the
gods, a process called empsychosis!® in Greek. In Babylonia, the ceremony is called the
"opening of the mouth" (pit pi), which is preceded by the "washing of the mouth" (mis pi) of the
divine statue. Divine statues, we know, were made of wood, and overlaid with precious
materials, usually gold; incrustations of precious stones adorned them.” Their fabrication was,
therefore, placed under the tutelage of the patron gods of carpenters, goldsmiths, and jewellers.
Only after the inert materials were infused with breath through the mouth-opening ceremony
could the statue eat and drink the offerings, and smell the incense.!71

The typical Demotic rites are much longer and more detailed than the earlier hieroglyphic/
hieratic rites, and resemble in structure, objectives, and method the PGM rites. They are
therefore likely to have been written by magicians who were more comfortable in the
Egyptian language rather than Greek, but who were working with the same materials,
methods and assumptions as their fellow Greek magicians. Rites were preserved in Demotic
rather than Greek to specifically preserve the correct pronunciations of the invocations.
Another feature of the PDM is that they have a preponderance of Egyptian deities, whilst the
PGM have fewer Egyptian deities but many more Greek and sundry lesser known entities.
While this seems perfectly logical, it shows that as magical techniques passed from one

culture to the next, practitioners added new names of gods and new nomina magica.

Most of the extant PDM rites date from the time of the Roman occupation of Egypt,
especially the early 3rd century CE. Hieratic appears occasionally in these Demotic texts, but

never hieroglyphic, which was not adapted to writing on papyrus.

Harpocrates, Bes and Khnum are the minor but important Egyptian gods of magic who will
later be found in the PGM, alongside the major Egyptian gods which were limited to:
Anubis, Isis, Osiris, Thoth, Horus, Hathor, Apophis, Ra, Phre, Ptah, Amoun, Khepera,
Nephthys, Set, Sekhmet, Apis and Geb.

168 PGM XII. 301-306.
169 This word is not italicised in the original text, which is why it is not italicised here.
170 Oppenheim (1949), pp. 172-93.
171 Reiner (1995), pp. 139-140.
60

3.2. The Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri

Translations of these papyri were first made available in German by Preisendanz in
1928/1931. His work on the Greek texts has been supplemented by Betz, who collected and
edited English translations, adding in more recently translated Graeco-Egyptian papyri,
increasing their number from 80 to 120 papyri. Betz also included translations for the
Demotic and Coptic contents of these papyri, which were originally completely ignored by
Preisendanz. Betz followed and expanded Preisendanz’s numbering system beyond PGM

LXXXI, which was the last numbered papyrus in Preisendanz’s collection.

The oldest Graeco-Egyptian text (PGM XL, the “curse of Artemisia”) dates from shortly after
Alexander the Great’s death,!” and the most recent from the 5th century CE. The second
oldest papyrus (PGM XX) was written by, or was in the collection of, two magicians Philinna
of Thessaly,!”3 and an unnamed magician from Syria, despite the fact that it was found in
Egypt. This suggests that this style of magic was already well spread over an area which
included at the least Thessaly, Syria, Palestine and Egypt.!4 It is therefore probably

representative of magic in the eastern Mediterranean and near Middle East in that period.

There are just four Demotic papyri included in the collection (the PDM), all found by
Anastasi!* around Thebes, all dating from the early 3rd century CE, and all written by the
same scribe, so they form a consistent whole. This shows that the methods outlined were
used by Egyptian and Greek speakers alike. As well as Demotic (and some hieratic)
Egyptian, there are passages in Greek and, fortunately, glosses in Coptic which clearly
indicate the correct pronunciation for the words so glossed. Although Egyptian hieroglyphs
had some phonetic indications, it was not an alphabetic language, so most indications of
pronunciation would have been lost without the Coptic glosses, especially of nomina magica
and the names of gods, where correct pronunciation was crucial for the magician. These
ancient Coptic glosses show the importance placed upon the correct pronunciation of the
Egyptian words of power, nomina magica, and god names. We will see later that
pronunciation, rather than exact palaeographic form, is the best tool for tracking the

migration of these names over a range of successor cultures.

172 Brashear (1995), p. 3413.

173 Thessaly has always traditionally been the home of ‘witches’ as far as the Greeks were concerned.
See Luck (1987), p. 31.

174 Of course this is only an indication of the origins of the practitioners, rather than a certain mapping
of the actual areas of practice. This is suggestive nonetheless.

1% Jean d’ Anastasi (1780 - 1857) purportedly obtained it from a tomb in Luxor in 1827. Anastasi was an
Armenian who worked as a Swedish/ Norwegian diplomat at the court of the Khedive of Egypt, based
in Alexandria.

The first of the Demotic papyri to be translated into English was published as the Demotic
Papyrus of London and Leiden.1”° The magical methods outlined in the four Demotic papyri
were overwhelmingly Egyptian, suggesting that they had survived in this form for at least
seven centuries without significant Hellenic reworking. Methods included the typically
Egyptian compulsive formulae, where the magician threatens the god that he will disrupt the
smooth working of the universe if the god does not carry out his commands, formulae that
are also found in the earliest Egyptian Pyramid Texts. The threat to disturb the smooth
workings of the universe is not typical of Greek magic, just as formulae to ensure the smooth

working of the universe are not characteristic of Greek religion.

The gods were usually Egyptian, or Egyptian disguised under the name of their Greek
counterparts. Often, as in the case of PGM XII, both Greek and Demotic rites would occupy

the same papyrus, written in the same hand.

Finally the publication of the Supplementum Magicum and a number of small recently
discovered papyri make up the entire available corpus of Graeco-Egyptian papyri. There are
very few discovered papyri that remain outside of this corpus, untranslated in any European
language. Therefore a textual analysis of the above resources on a line-by-line basis (see

Appendix 2) adequately covers the whole scope of the Graeco-Egyptian magical papyri.

Analysis of the PGM by Sources

The material in the PGM comes from a range of sources and languages.!”” The contents are a
mixture of Egyptian, Greek, Coptic, Gnostic, Jewish, and Christian magic.” It is important to
establish the range of contributing strands, so that onwards transmission can be attributed to
the correct source. These strands can be most easily recognized by the type of spiritual

creatures or gods called upon by each:

a. Egyptian magic, which calls upon traditional indigenous Egyptian gods such

as Harpocrates, Horus, Anubis, Thoth, Isis, Osiris, Set and Bes, preserves elements of

1% The title refers to the present geographical location of its two halves. See Griffith and Thompson
(1904). Betz’s numbering is PDM xii (and PGM XII). The same scribe also wrote PDM xiv, Ixi, and
PDM Supp. An exorcism drawn from the original publication of this papyrus, variously entitled “The
Bornless One’ or the ‘Headless One’ was adapted in the late 19th century for use in the ritual of the
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

7 Some Babylonian input may have come via Jewish practices adopted in Babylon during the
captivity (597-538 BCE). Brashear (1995), p. 3429 also tentatively suggests the possibility of some
Buddhist influence, but this seems very unlikely, and is not supported by examples of imported
practices.

1% Christian magic is very much in the minority. Interestingly, there are no obvious traces of Roman
magic, despite the fact that Egypt was under Roman domination from 30 BCE - 395 CE, during which
time most of the papyri were written.

Egyptian magic. Magical names like Bainchoodch are also of Egyptian derivation.!”

Bb. Greek classical magic which calls upon a very specific subset of the Classical
Greek gods including Selene, Cybele, Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, Helios, Artemis, and specially
Aphrodite (for love rites), and then upon the gods of the Underworld, like chthonic Hermes,
Hekate, and Persephone. Thirdly, the gods which personify abstract qualities, such as Aion
(the All), the Moirai (Fate), Kronos (Time), Physis (Nature) and Tyche (Providence/ Chance).
None of these gods are portrayed or used in the Classical manner, but rather delegated to the
same level of functionality as their daimones.!8° For some reason Dionysos, Hephaistos, Hera
and other prominent occupants of Olympus never appear, presumably because they were
not as intimately connected with magic. The gods in the papyri were treated in much the
same was as they were in later Greek folk religion, as useful, but almost daimonic, tricksy

and dangerous. As Betz puts it:

In the older material, the Greek gods are alive and well. But Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, Artemis,
Aphrodite, and others are portrayed not as Hellenic and aristocratic, as in literature, but as
capricious, demonic, and even dangerous.181

Egyptian religion in turn influenced the imported Greek religion, so that the importance of
the Egyptian Underworld (the Duat), helped to emphasise the Greek divinities of the
underworld like Hekate,182 Persephone and Kore,!® and otherwise gods like Hermes and

Aphrodite became associated with the Underworld in their magical and chthonic forms.

c. Jewish magic, which calls upon the archangels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and
Uriel/Ouriel plus recognizable Hebrew god names like “JAS Adonai (and its Greek variants

like Adonias),!*4 7n" IHVH or Yahweh (frequently appearing in the guise of 1° Yah or the

179 Possibly derived from the Egyptian ba = one of the parts of the soul; and cho(oo)ch = darkness, or
‘soul of darkness.’ See Pistis Sophia, IV, 137.
180 Betz (1996), p. xlii, quotes Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s well known disparaging
comment: “I once heard a well-known scholar complain that [it was unfortunate that] these papyri
were found, because they deprived antiquity of the noble splendor of classicism.” Splendour or not,
this is how the Greek and Egyptian gods were treated by magicians in the first three or four centuries
of the Christian era. Occasionally the gods were asked to send their daimones to perform a specific
task, but more often they were commanded to do it themselves. The gods were effectively treated as
daimones, and feared, as the magicians wore phylacteries for the express purpose of protecting
themselves from the malice of these same gods.
181 Betz (1996), p. xlv.
182 Hekate becomes important and is associated with one of the few Babylonian goddesses in the PGM,
Ereshkigal.
183 Kore later becomes a demon in the works of the German Jewish grimoire, The Sacred Book of
Abramelin, the Mage. See Mathers (1900), Book IL, pp. 81, 83.
184 Tn fact the Hebrew “J simply means ‘Lord’ and is often used in Hebrew texts to replace the actual
names of god. Despite Judaism being nominally a monotheistic religion, a number of names of god
appear in Jewish scripture, which may be traces of separate gods that were later merged. The two
classical Hebrew groups of god names were the Elohistic (ss El, Elohim) and the Yahwistic (M7
THVH, Yah, Yahweh).

Greek version 1a@/IAQ, or the Samaritan version Ipos/Ibas),!8° Elohim (often misspelled),
and Sabaoth.18¢ Of course, since the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the
form of the Septuagint, in Alexandria, dating from the 3rd century BCE, some Jewish
material, including magic, entered directly and more easily into the predominantly Greek
culture of the eastern Mediterranean, but the main period of importation was immediately
after 70 CE. Jewish magic brought with it some Babylonian elements (such as the angels),

and an elaborately stratified cosmology of the heavens.

d. Gnostic elements, and other words derived from creative combinations (or
scribal degeneration) of the other traditions listed above.!8” For the purposes of this thesis,
Gnostic material will be treated as a phenomenon separate from Christianity, as even those
Gnostic movements which may have started out as an offshoot of Christianity, were later

rejected and discarded by the religion which is now accepted as Christianity.

Although scholars have argued over the origins of Gnosticism, it seems clear from the work
of Quispel, Stroumsa, Segal and Fossum that the main elements of Gnosticism were derived
from Jewish heresies rather than Christian heresies.!88 Furthermore, the Jewish heresies
identified by the above scholars sprang up immediately after the destruction of the Second
Temple in Jerusalem, with the tide of dispirited Jewish immigrants who arrived in Egypt

(and to a lesser extent Asia Minor) just after 70 CE.189

This disillusioned Jewish Diaspora were the seedbed of Gnosticism therefore giving us an
approximate terminus a quo of 70 CE for the introduction of Gnostic names and gods into
Egypt, and then into the PGM. It was probably this major Jewish Diaspora that cross-
fertilised Egyptian and Jewish magic. Very soon after, in 74 CE, the Romans destroyed the
second most important Jewish temple which was Onias’ temple located in Leontopolis near
Heliopolis, Egypt which must have completed the Jews’ sense of total abandonment by their
god.1% Finally after bar-Khokba’s revolt failed in 135 CE, Jews were totally banned from

Jerusalem by the Romans. This must have stimulated a second wave of Jewish migration to

185 The transformation from M1 or IHVH to JIAO is easier to understand if you take into account that 4
can be transliterated as V or O, depending on its use as a consonant or a vowel, just as“ can equally be
transliterated as I or Y. IHVH then becomes YHOH, which might then be speculatively pronounced as
YaH-OH or too.

186 Sabaoth retained its use to constrain spirits right up to the later European grimoires.

187 Of course it could well be that these names, instead of being later corruptions, are in fact earlier strata
of genuine Egyptian magical practice. As Barb (1964, p. 4, note 16) suggested: “much that we are
accustomed to see classified as late ‘syncretism’ is rather the ancient and original, deep-seated popular
religion, coming to the surface when the whitewash of ‘classical’ writers and artists began to peel off...”
188 Mastrocinque (2005), p. 82.

189 The idea of an evil creator god obviously found fertile ground in the disillusioned post-exilic Jewish
community in Alexandria.

190 Ornias’ temple was said to have stood for 243 (or 343 years according to source) before its final
destruction by the Romans.

64.

Alexandria (as well as to other destinations). It also helped to launch a number of Jewish
heresies. If this date is accepted as the terminus a quo for the generation of Gnosticism, we can
fairly safely assume that any interaction between Gnosticism and Graeco-Egyptian magic

only began in the early 2nd century CE.

e. Christianity was, in reality, just another Jewish heresy, that managed to
survive rather better than its competitors. The fact that the Christian church attacked these
other heresies so vigorously was a function of the competitive fear felt by the early Church
Fathers, who were concerned to preserve the purity of their nascent religion against the other
Jewish heresies springing up around them.1!% Christianity, in the sense of that religion
preserved under that name today, added very little of significance to these magic texts,
except the occasional insertion of the name Jesus.!% Besides, Christianity did not reach its
status as a state religion till 391 CE, and during most of its subsequent existence,

disapproved of and sought to vigorously destroy magic.1%

f Strangely, although Rome conquered Egypt in 30 BCE, Roman religion and
magic added very little to Graeco-Egyptian magical texts.1% Romans still revered Greek
culture, and well-educated Romans spoke Greek. Presumably the same attitude prevailed

with regard to their attitude to magic.

g. Mithras appears once in one of the longest complete sections of the PGM, but
only as one amongst several gods and goddesses in the so-called ‘Mithras Liturgy.’!% I do
not believe that this was a Mithraic rite, as it has none of the usual Mithraic initiatory steps or
iconography, but a Mystery rite that happened to mention the god Mithra in a passing

reference to a previous event.

Although this list of sources sounds complex, and many of the papyri have two or more
ingredients, it is usually fairly easy to identify the main root of any particular rite. For

example, rites that make reference to all four archangels may be of Jewish origin, although

191 Marcion and Valentinus and others came from ‘Christian’ Gnosticism, which was formulated on
the basis of the Jewish heretical vision of an evil creator god.
192 Where Jesus was used his name was used in the same sense as Solomon, or Eleazar, as a great
magician of the recent past, who might strike fear into the hearts of the spirits conjured. Such
commemoration of the names of powerful magicians of the past remained a feature of magic right up
to modern times.
198 Volumes on early Christian magic, such as Meyer and Smith (1999) predominantly contain material
with the marginal addition of ‘Jesus’ as a word of power, plus spells generated in Egypt in a Coptic
environment.
194 To quote Tavenner (1966), p. 19: “The only two works in extant Latin literature which at all
resemble a treatise on magic are the Apologia of Apuleius of Madaura, his defence against the charge
of being a magician; and parts of Pliny’s Natural History, especially the first thirteen paragraphs of
book thirty.”
195 PGM IV 475-820.

the universal use of Jewish god names makes this less than certain. Likewise, a rite that
primarily calls on Anubis or Osiris, or is written in Demotic, will almost certainly have
Egyptian roots. Rites referencing Selene or chthonic Hermes will seldom mention an

Egyptian god, and will fairly obviously have sprung from Greek roots.

However it is not the purpose of this thesis to identify the roots of each Graeco-Egyptian
papyrus, but rather to show the onwards transmission of their elements. It is sufficient to
observe that as the Greeks traditionally deferred to the Egyptians in matters of magic (as did
the Jews), and that the rites with the predominantly Egyptian elements are likely, but not
always, to be the oldest.

Papyri owing the bulk of their content to Jewish elements are very few, but the god names
IAO and Sabaoth are to be found regularly distributed across many rites. The upshot of this
is (as a number of scholars have remarked) that the presence of these god names is not an
indication of the origin of the rite, but rather a symptom of the widespread use of such words
of power that were considered universally effective, regardless of their origin. With regard to
the provenance of the papyri, there is little to go on apart from the fact that Thebes was the

reputed source of the Anastasi papyri, which make up the bulk of the PGM papyri.!%°

One of the few clear statements of provenance of one papyrus occurs at the beginning of
PGM CXXII. 1-55 where it says:

[This is] an excerpt of enchantments from the holy book called Hermes, found in Heliopolis in the

innermost shrine of the temple, written in Egyptian [Demotic] letters and translated into Greek.
One can deduce that if the book was casually ‘found’ in the library of an Egyptian temple, it
is likely to have been removed at a rather late date, probably after 400 CE when the temple
had fallen into ruin. Alternatively ‘found’ might really mean stolen, which still argues for a
late date. The naming of the book Hermes is intriguing, but does not automatically assert that
this book was part of the Hermetic literature, merely that the god was an important part of
its contents, as he was in a number of magical papyri. For the theology and philosophy
behind Graeco-Egyptian magic, there is no better source for both Neoplatonic Greek and

Egyptian elements than Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis.1%”

196 Interestingly there is a Thebes in Greece as well, probably named after the Egyptian city, and with a
similar later reputation for magic. Juratus, a much later Latin grimoire (circa 1225 CE) was reputedly
written by Euclid of (the Greek) Thebes.
197 Tamblichus lived contemporaneously with the bulk of the writing of the PGM, and referred to many
of the same gods, people, etc. De Mysteriis was written between 280 and 305 CE. A new edition (2003)
of De Mysteriis, edited by Clarke, Dillon and Hershbell rectifies many of the problems of the older
editions, of which the previous edition closest in thought to lamblichus, but wearisome in expression,
was that translated by Thomas Taylor (1821). See Venice Codex Gr. Z. 244. See also Gersh (1978) and
Tanaseanu-Dobler (2013) for the development of theurgy after Iamblichus.

Analysis of the PGM by Objective and Rite Types

In order to relate the methods and implements used in PGM to the later Solomonic grimoires,
it is necessary to categorise the rites. What initially looks like a confusing mass of
heterogeneous material in the English translation is considerably clearer in the original Greek,
where specific headwords are often used in the first line of each rite to identify its type. For
example Bowl Skrying or Vessel Enquiry operations will almost always be identified as
exavopavteta, whilst operations designed to cause love or lust will almost always be
identified as dywyt, agoge or tdtpov, philtron. Following this categorisation to its logical
conclusion reveals that the original scribe has been quite systematic in his categorisation
using either the method or the objective as his criterion.1% Although upon first sight the
following may appear to be an overly ridged division of the rites, an examination of the
original Greek text justifies this approach, as it was the habit of the original scribes to clearly

designate the type of magical operation at the beginning of each rite.

Each of these categories has then been assigned an arbitrary alphabetic code for convenience
of analysis. A full list of the codes together with a count of the number of instances (and that

expressed as a percentage of the whole of the PGM) will be found in Appendix 1.

Categories by Rite Type

Amulets: manufacture and consecration!

Bowl Skrying/ Vessel Enquiry

Calendrical considerations (katarchic astrological timing)
Evocationary Lamp Skrying

Encounters with the Gods Face-to-Face

Familiar Spirit or Assistant Daimon acquisition

Gods: their invocation and association with

Health spells

Invisibility methods

Magic Statues: manufacture and consecration

Magic Rings and Gemstones: manufacture and consecration
Love spells

Mystery and Initiation rites?

Necromancy

Oracles2%

Cn ae ae ae omc ol om

1988 Where a particular rite has both an identifiable method and a categorised objective, then it is
classified under that method. This means that the bulk of objective-based rites will have little in the
way of defined method.

199 See also categories R and T.

200 Not magic per se.

201 Divination, so not technically magic per se.

Prayers or Hymns?02

Possession (daimonic) and exorcism
Restraining or binding formulae for anger?
Memory and foreknowledge

Talismans: manufacture and consecration?
Phylacteries, Tefillin, Lamen: manufacture and consecration
Visions and Dreams, sending of
Defixiones?

Excluded fragments2%

Use of Herbs and Plants in Magic

‘Evil sleep’ and Death?”

Minor magical procedures

PENKX SEK CHHA OD

Victory Spell
Greek Headwords of rites in the PGM

Appendix 2 lists out in full every single passage in the PGM allocated to one or other of the
above categories. This taxonomy relies upon the original scribe’s Greek categorisation. Where
this is missing the precise content of each rite is used to ascertain the category. The specific
Greek headword which exactly identifies the type of rite is given below in the description of
each category. This headword is often obscured by the English translation, which will
commonly use an imprecise equivalent like ‘charm’ rather than attempting an exact translation

of the Greek name for the technique in each case.

These Greek headwords are often found at or near the beginning of each rite, and will in some

cases be rubricated. These key words are also listed in summary in Table 21.

In the course of this analysis, three large sections of the papyri were seen to be complete
books within themselves, as indeed has been identified by other scholars.2 These relate to

the Mysteries and initiation rather than magic and have been categorised as “M.’

Some rites are listed by objective rather than rite type. Where one of these operations utilises
a specific technique (e.g. amulets or defixiones) this rite has instead been allocated to the
technique category rather than the objective (e.g. A - Amulets; W - Defixiones), as the

concern of this thesis is with method rather than outcome. For example if a rite uses an

202 As distinct from invocations.
203 These are often a form of amulet, but have been separated out from category A because of their
very specific objective. See also categories A and T.
204 See also categories R and A.
205 Magic via the offices of the dead.
206 Too fragmentary to have data significant enough for analysis in the context of the present thesis.
207 Technically pappakeia, pharmakeia which is concerned with drugs and poisoning, not magic per se.
208 For example the “Monas” PGM XIII, lines 1-733, the “Tenth Book of Moses” PGM XXX, 734-1077,
the so-called “Mithras Liturgy” PGM IV lines 475-829. The latter has been examined in Betz (2003).

amulet but has health as its objective, it will be categorised as Amulet (A) rather than Health
(FH). In the case of health related formulae the Greek title will often contain mpdc- followed by

the name of the disease.2® Therefore few conflicts of identification arise.

Very fragmentary or very short formulae with no identifiable method, have been categorised
as “X’ and passed over without comment, as the amount of material available for analysis of
objective, method or implement is minimal or non-existent. Other techniques which are
universal (like the ritual use of incense) will not be used as a category identifying criteria, but

will be later considered in some detail.
Rite types

A Amulets210

PGM VII. 218-221 is a classic case of the translational confusion of amulets with phylacteries.
The English translation of the title is “phylactery for daily fever with shivering fits” which
continues with the translated phrase “wear as an amulet.” As it is clearly to be worn by a

specific person to cure a specific disease, it is therefore an amulet.2!!

The title of PGM VII. 215-18 is translated as a “Stele of Aphrodite,” but its true nature is
revealed in the next line, which confirms that it is to be engraved on “a strip of tin...with a
bronze stylus” and carried by the client. Therefore it is an amulet, designed “to gain

friendship, favour, success, and friends” for that client.

This passage also throws an interesting light on the Egyptian understanding of ‘stele.’ Stele
in Egyptological literature is usually understood to mean “an upright stone slab or column
typically bearing a commemorative inscription or relief design.”2!2 In other procedures in the
PGM, ‘stele’ can equally refer to a simple square of natron to be written on (see PGM VII.
215-218). Here it refers to a strip of tin to be engraved. The actual text or formula of the
inscription can also be referred to as a ‘stele.’2!3 The meaning of stele is therefore much wider
than that usually used by archaeologists, to refer to any rectangular surface engraved or
written on with a (magical or religious) text. As demonstrated by the above examples, the
literal translation of the title does not always truly indicate the rite type, which may have to

be sought in a detailed reading of the whole text.

209 See Kotansky (1988), p.65.
210 Amulets do not often have a clear headword (like zepidupatd, periammata), but are identifiable from
their context and the presence of personal names identifying the client(s).
211 If it were worn by a magician during an invocation, rather than by a patient for health reasons, then
“phylactery’ would have been the correct term.
212 Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1999.
213 See also Ritner (2009), p. 68ff on magical healing stele.
69

One of the clear indications that a lamella is a mass produced amulet is where the name of
the person appears to have been added afterwards, sometimes by a different scribe, in a
different hand, or squeezed in to a previously blank space.?!+ A clear example of this is the
lamella now preserved by the Xerox Corporation in Connecticut, where the phrase “cure and
preserve Eugenia whom Galenia bore” is squeezed into lines 14-16. The mass-produced
nature of this amulet is confirmed by Faraone and Kotansky, yet the article’s title is “An
Inscribed Gold Phylactery...’ a phrase which is then contradicted in the first sentence which

correctly states that it is “an excellent example of a common type of amulet.”215

It is not my intention to be unnecessarily pedantic, but to clear the way to effectively
separating those items made for clients for everyday wear (amulets) from those items
specifically used by the magician in a ritual context (phylacteries). Amulets, which were the
day-to-day “bread and butter’ client sales of professional magicians, make up 10.5% of all the

PGM rites.216

B Bowl Skrying/Vessel Enquiry - Xexavowavteia (lekanomanteia)

Bowl skrying has a long history which clearly extends from the PGM period through the
Byzantine Greek Hygromanteia, and beyond. In fact lekanomanteia2"” is still practised in many

Muslim areas today. The demotic word for this practice is shen ben or ‘vessel enquiry.’

It does not however relate to the Aramaic, Hebrew and Babylonian bowls which were found
buried (usually inverted) in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, which appear to occur only in
the 5th and 6th centuries, and which serve a totally different purpose as ‘demon traps.’2!8 The
Mesopotamian bowls have been found buried under houses or near graves. They do not
have a corresponding textual record, but are fairly obviously apotropaic, specifically for the
binding of demons, a totally different objective to the bowls considered here. Furthermore
they bear no trace of ever having contained liquids, an essential part of lekanomanteia.
However they do attest many god and angel names in common with other PGM texts (but

not specifically those of bowl skrying/vessel enquiry):7!9 however this simply demonstrates

214 In Jewish amulets the give-away phrase is Peloni bar Peloni. This is not a nomina magica, but an

indication that this is the point where the client’s name should be inserted, when the amulet is sold.

215 Faraone and Kotansky (1988), p. 257.

216 See Appendix 1 for a full percentage breakdown of the contents of the PGM.

217 Lexy simply means ‘pot or pan,’ referring to the vessel that holds the liquid (water or oil).

218 For which see Montgomery (1913) and Naveh and Shaked (1985).

19 Including Gnostic: Ablanathanalba, Abrasax, Ialdabaot, lao Zouka; Hebrew: Akatriel, Angatam,

Azriel, Barqiel, Dalqiel, Dfuniel, El, Gabriel, Hadriel, Hafkiel, Halusiel, Haniel, I-am-who-I-am,

Kadutiel, Kariel, Kouriel, Lilith, Masagiel, Metatron, Michael, Moriath, Nuriel, Paspasim, Pastam,

Payumiel, Puriel, Qoriel, Raphael, Sabaot, Samael, Samarel, Sandalphon, Sarafiel, Selah, Shakniel,

Shamish, Shamriel, Shamshiel, Soutiel, Suriahel, Suriel, Tetragrammaton, ‘Uziel, Yah, Yahu, Yehoel,

Yequtiel, Zebuth, Zotiel; Greek: Ares, Bar-Theon, Diyonisim, Eros, Gyllou, Helios, Hermes, Morphous,
70

that they are part of shared Middle Eastern magical conventions.

The bowls used in lekanomanteia were used for evocatory skrying, specifically by a virgin
skryer gazing into a bowl (AeKévn) of liquid, accompanied by the magician’s invocations of
the god or spirit involved.” The practice is therefore one of active invocation rather than
passive divination. The vessel is also referred to as an &yyoc. On the whole the god most often
called upon in the PGM for bowl or vessel divination was Anubis, lord of the Underworld,
also very suggestive of the rite’s Egyptian origin. These operations are found mainly in the
Demotic papyri, specifically PDM xiv. Therefore lekanomanteia or bowl skrying/vessel
enquiry is almost certainly of Egyptian origin.2#! Vessel enquiry makes up 3.0% of the PGM

rites.

C Calendrical Considerations (Katarchic Astrological Timing)

Timing was considered very important for magical operations, and each hour of every day of
the week had an angel (and later a demon) assigned to it. These attributions occur in
fragmentary form in the PGM, but again in much greater detail in Byzantine Solomonic texts,
and in the European grimoires, right through to modern times. However it is only in the
PGM and the Hygromanteia that it is stressed that it is technically essential for the magician to
call upon the angel of the hour before launching his ritual in that hour in order to gain
credibility and help from those spiritual creatures he is attempting to command. By the time
the material reached Latin Europe these angel names had been reduced to a look up table
without any indication as to how they should be used. This is therefore one of many
examples where the techniques outlined in the PGM or the Hygromanteia can throw
considerable light on the exact function of often unexplained data in the European grimoires.

Calendrical calculations make up 1.7% of the PGM rites.

D Evocationary Lamp Skrying - kwxyvopavteia (Lychnomanteia)

Just as lekanomanteia involves a skryer looking into the water or oil in a bowl, so
lychnomanteia or invocationary lamp skrying begins with the skryer concentrating on the
flame of a lamp (Abyvoc) whilst listening to the invocations of the magician. These rites occur
predominantly in PGM VII and PDM xiv, and are confined to the PGM/PDM, not being

transmitted to either the Hygromanteia or the Clavicula Salomonis. Lamp skrying makes up

Pelagia, Sideros; Egyptian: Horus, ntrws syh, Ptah, tinyt, twinyt; Mesopotamian and sundry: Labartu,
Bagdana, Danahish, Dlibat, labezebut, Iurba, Musagaoth, Sanoy, Sansanoy, Samangalaf, Sesegen bar
Pherenges (sic), Smamit, Thraphiari. These are predominantly a mixture of Greek and Hebrew names,
which you would expect by the 5th and 6th centuries.

220 See Ogden (2002), pp. 205-206 for his comment on PGM IV. 222-260.

221 There are only three PGM examples in Greek as opposed to more than eight Demotic PDM
examples of lekanomanteia.

3.0% of the PGM rites.
E Encounters with the Gods Face-to-Face - avtowia, adtomtoc (autopsia, autoptos)

The direct vision of a god is avtowia (autopsia), a rite designed to enable the magician to see
the gods face-to-face with his own eyes. See also rite type “G,’ which involves interaction

with the god as well as vision. These make up 0.8% of all the PGM rites.

F Familiar Spirit or Assistant Daimon - napedpog (paredros)

The acquisition of a paredros, ‘familiar’ or ‘assistant daimon’ is a procedure which has always
been part of magic, and continues to be so. The rationale was that in dealing with spirits it
was always helpful to have one who is ‘tame’ and can act as a guide or intermediary with the
denizens of the other world. This theme appears first in the Graeco-Egyptian texts, then in
the Hygromanteia (and other Byzantine Solomonic texts), and later in the Latin and
vernacular Solomonic grimoires. In the 1s*/2°4 century Testament of Solomon, Solomon has
first to tame Ornias (which he does with the help of God, a ring and the archangel Michael),
after which Ornias acts as a magical assistant and introduces him to, and helps him bind, the
other 59 spirits listed in that text. In many later European grimoires, specific demons (such as

Paimon in the Goetia) are said to “grant good familiars.”

The concept of a spirit familiar is a long enduring idea. Although witchcraft is excluded from
this thesis it is worth noting that many 16th and 17th century witchcraft confessions involved
the admission that the witch had a familiar spirit in the form of a cat, toad or similar, and
searching for the ‘witch’s mark’ became a standard procedure for witch-finders like Matthew
Hopkins.222 This mark was reputedly the bodily point where the witch suckled her familiars
or imps.?% In the late 19th century, the Golden Dawn and some of its offshoots taught

methods of creating an artificial Elemental, which was effectively a ‘designer’ familiar.

Hence this technique is one of enduring importance, and a technique used by magicians in
almost every culture, over the whole time frame examined in this thesis. In fact this
procedure is not coincidently the subject of the very first two sections in PGM I. 1-195, and
was often considered an indispensable first step to magical practice. The opening line of the
first procedure explains that “A [daimon comes] as an assistant who will reveal everything to
you clearly and will be your [companion and] will eat and sleep with you.” This description

seems to be of a very concrete entity. The theme of eating and drinking with spirits is

222 He was a self-appointed ‘Witchfinder General’ born in 1620, and active 1645-1647.
223 Whether true or not, this re-confirms the common perception of the very physical nature of such
familiars.

repeated in the Hygromanteia,2 and again in later European grimoires, such as the Grimorium
Verum, where the magician is enjoined to lay out a physical table with choice foods in
preparation for the arrival of the spirits:
After supper, go secretly to the prepared room, light a good fire, and put a clean white
tablecloth on your table. Place three chairs around the table, and in front of the chairs
place three wheat rolls and three glasses of clear fresh water. ...The three people
[spirits], having arrived, will sit by the fire, eating and drinking... The three persons

will then draw lots to determine which one will remain with you... You will be able to
question him or her about any art, science, or anything you wish.?25

It is thus an excellent example of transmission and continuity of a technique. Rites for the

acquisition of a magical assistant make up 1.1% of the PGM rites.

G Gods: their invocation and association - ovotdosic (sustaseis)

The invocation of the gods and goddesses has formed an integral part of magic from ancient
times right up to the late 19th century revival of magic by the Hermetic Order of the Golden
Dawn. The face-to-face encounters of the magician with a god were referred to in the PGM as
ovotaoets (sustaseis). For direct vision of the god without interaction or specific form
(avtowta, autopsia)26 see rite type ‘E.’ The ‘god’s arrival’ is called peh-netjer in Egyptian.22”
This sometimes includes the god answering questions. These rites make up 6.5% of the PGM

rites.
H Health spells (npoc- followed by disease name)

There are a plethora of health spells in the PGM, most of them too short to establish much in
the way of detailed methods, some extending for no more than a few lines. These and love
spells are two of the rite types defined primarily by their objective rather than their method.
Health spells are one of the most popular categories, making up 11.2% of the PGM rites.

I Invisibility - dpavpmoic (amayrosis)

The Greek word dpobpwotg literally means ‘darkening.’ Although there are only three rites
for invisibility, being 0.6% of the rites in the PGM, this objective occurs in almost all later
grimoires, both Byzantine and Latin, and so is an important link between the magic of Egypt

and the later grimoires.

224 In B2, f. 346-7, the oldest extant manuscript of the Hygromanteia.
225 Peterson (2007), pp. 44-45.
226 Luck (1987), p. 23.
227 Ritner (2008), p. 214-220.
vis

J Magical Statues - otovysia (stoicheia)

Magical statues have been known in many cultures, from the giant statues of ancient Egypt,
to the otowsia of Greek magic. One of the standard magical procedures related to magical
statues was the opening of their mouth, or the introduction of breath, to enliven them, a
procedure derived from the ancient Egyptian practice of ensouling statues, which later
became the last step in the embalming process, opening the mouth of the deceased so he

could “breathe.” The manufacture of magical statues constitutes 1.1% of the PGM rites.

K Magic Rings and Gemstones - daxtoMov (daktylion)

Magical rings are most commonly associated with Gnosticism, especially those including
carved gemstones, but they have been used for much longer periods and in many cultures.
Solomon’s ring is a very specific magical ring, reference to which occurs in the PGM, the
Testament of Solomon, the Bible, The Arabian Nights, the Hygromanteia, the Clavicula Salomonis,
the Goetia and in many other derived Latin and vernacular grimoires. The manufacture of

magical rings and the use of gemstones in magic constitutes 1.5% of the PGM rites.

is Love spells - aywyt (agoge) piAtpov (philtron)

Love spells are a common objective of magic in every culture, but in Graeco-Egyptian magic
specifically, there is a twist. The unique feature of Graeco-Egyptian love spells (not replicated
in any other culture) is that instead of merely attempting to make the object of the spell fall in
love with the magician or his client, the god/ goddess called is ordered to torment the object of
the spell neither allowing him/her to eat or sleep till he/she comes and declare his/her love to

the magician or his client.

An even more extreme version of this is the addition of a “slander spell,’ in which the magician
accuses the object of his love/lust of some form of sacrilegious behaviour, and enjoins the
god/ goddess to take revenge on the object of the spell, until they relent. Spells for separating
lovers or friends are the reverse of this category but are also included here. Love spells are the

most popular category, making up 16.9% of all the PGM rites.
M Mysteries and Initiation Rites228 - pwootnpia / teAetai (mystéria / teletai)

These form three important sections in the PGM, as they include the three largest self-

contained books in the PGM collection of papyri. However these are initiation rituals,

228 Not magic per se.
74.

Mystery rituals, designed to invoke one of the gods/goddesses,?” for the benefit of the soul
of the candidate, and are therefore not strictly magic. The essential quality offered by the
Mysteries is spiritual immortality, through an intimate association with one god/ goddess,
rather than immediate gratification of more worldly objectives (as in magic). The fact of their
inclusion in the PGM simply points up the fact that pre-5th century CE magicians were often
also initiates of the Mysteries. One objective was to make the initiate conscious after death,

rather than leaving him as just a wandering shade with no memory of his previous life.°

The Mystery rituals are the missing link which has always been left out of the arguments
concerning the relationship between religion and magic. The Mysteries, and specifically
these passages in the PGM, were not transferred to Byzantium or the Latin West, and form

no part of later magical practice, as indeed they were not magic in the first place.

The three Mystery rites found in three completely separate books within the PGM are:

als The so-called “Mithras Liturgy’”232
2; The Monas?33 or Eighth Hidden Book of Moses?
35 The Tenth Hidden Book of Moses?35

These rites are not designed to achieve the many and varied personal objectives of magic
(health, love, lust, health, power, victory, injury, etc) but solely to provide immortality and

the companionship of the gods to the candidate, the main function of all Mystery rituals.”6

These rituals make up just 1.1% of all the PGM rites, but take up 11.5% of the lines. The fact

229 Although several gods are mentioned in the “Mithras Liturgy” they are essentially part of the
ladder to the supreme, unnamed, god. Mithras is not part of the process, merely named as part of a
backward looking reference to a previous experience had by the initiator.

230 Part of the Mystery process may have included a descent into Hades/ Amentet with a god/ goddess
such as Hermes as psychopomp. The fact that descent into Hades was one of the secrets of the
initiation, is partly confirmed by Nero’s sudden refusal to be initiated at Eleusis, after he was told this
was what to expect. When told, he may have thought that he may meet the shade of his mother,
whom he had just recently murdered, and so immediately declined the ordeal.

231 It should be remembered that the whole corpus of the PGM is a collection of many different papyri,
of which the longest is PGM IV. Even within each papyrus are a number of other texts brought
together by the magician who owned them. These three ‘books’ are not an arbitrary excision, but were
certainly separate books, with a separate existence, before being copied into these papyri.

232 PGM IV 475-820.

233 PGM XIII. 1-734.

234 There is no Ninth Hidden Book of Moses in this papyrus. However in a number of places, there are
references to the KAgwi or Key of Moses. Possibly this missing Key constituted the Ninth Hidden Book of
Moses. There are no less than six forward references to it in PGM XIII. 21-22, 30-31, 35-36, 59-60, 228-229,
382-383 [erroneously referred to by Betz as 282-83], 431-432 and one backwards looking reference to it in
the Tenth Hidden Book of Moses XIII. 735-743. In each case the reference is to just two things: the names of
the Lords of the hours and days and the preparation of the incense referred to as the Egyptian ‘bean.’
Speculatively, this Kiwi ti, Movoéme (sic) might later have given its title (and maybe its contents) to the
Key (aname used in some manuscripts for the Hygromanteia), and later to the Clavicula Salomonis.

235 PGM XXX, 734-1077.

236 They are not even meant to provide ‘enlightenment’ in the way that quality is thought of by current
New Age movements.

that they are (as Mysteries) quite different from the other rites is further confirmed by the fact
that they average 242 lines per rite. Every other rite in the PGM only averages 6 to 64 lines per

rite.2°7

N Necromancy - vexpopavteia (nekromanteia)

Necromancy is divination by the dead, or the temporary raising of the dead in order for
them to answer questions put by the magician.2°8 Quite often this operation will be
associated with bodies and/or grave goods. Such practices were very popular in classical
Greek times, and have endured also from dynastic Egyptian times, through Hellenic culture
and European grimoires right up to the modern practice of spiritualism. Necromancy makes

up 1.3% of all the PGM rites.

O Oracles - wavteiov (manteion) / Opnpopavteiov (homeromanteion), etc.

The four examples of divination using oracles drawn from Homer (ounpopavteiov), dice, lots

or isopsephy, are not technically magic. They make up only 0.8% of the PGM.

B Prayers or Hymns - evyi (euche)

There is a considerable difference between an invocation, a prayer and a hymn. The
simplistic explanation (which harks back to one of the popular distinctions between religion
and magic) is that prayers are supplications whilst invocations are expressed as commands.
Hymns can be added to either prayers or invocations, as they are designed to praise or flatter

the god/ goddess concerned. Prayers or hymns make up 1.7% of all the PGM rites.

Q Daimonic Possession and its Exorcism

Exorcistic formulae are not common in the PGM, but they do occur. One at least has been

heavily Christianised.“° These make up only 0.8% of all the PGM rites.

R Restraining or Binding Anger - «dtoyoc (katochos)

237 See Table 20.
238 Despite the obvious Greek derivation, in Mediaeval Europe, this term became identified with
‘nigromancy,’ and hence with evocation of demons. As noted by Benedek Lang (2008), p. 41, Jean-
Patrice Boudet suggested that ‘necromancy’ should be used in its original meaning of evocatory
divination by the dead, whilst ‘nigromancy’ should refer just to evocation of demons. Kieckhefer
(1997), p. 19 does not accept this logical division but sees ‘nigromancy’ as a relatively modern term.
See also Kieckhefer (2003), pp. 152-153.
239 Johnston (2008), pp. 171-175 identifies eight PGM necromantic rites, but these do not exactly map
onto this list of ‘N’ rites (see Appendix 2), as for example, PGM I. 262-347 is placed under lamp
skrying in category ‘D,’ as lamp skrying is more prominent than any mentions of the dead. Johnston
herself concedes that PGM IV. 154-285 is “actually part of an elaborate type of lecanomancy,” and it
has therefore been so categorized here. In addition two ‘drowned animal’ rites have been included.
240 PGM IV. 1227-64.

Rites for restraining anger are quite common in the PGM. They are usually in the form of an
amulet. However they are here listed separately from amulets, as they form a distinct group.

Restraining formulae make up 2.3% of all the PGM rites.
S Memory and Foreknowledge — wvnpovixy (mnemonike) and mpdyvwots (prognosis)

There are only a few operations for memory and foreknowledge. One highly significant
operation gives detailed instruction for the construction of a laurel wood Table of Evocation,
a protective floor circle as well as the names for each of the hours. All of this equipment is
transmitted to, and becomes part of the development of magic, in both the Hygromanteia and
in later Latin grimoires.241 Memory and foreknowledge formulae make up 1.7% of all the

PGM rites.

T Talismans - té\eop0 (telesma)

The word talisman is derived from the Byzantine Greek té\eoua telesma (“religious rite or
consecration ceremony”) and not from either teAeiw teleoo (“to bring to perfection or
completion”)? or from the Classical Greek téAeoua telesma (“money paid”).8 This word also
appears as an Arabic loan word, tilsam. Talismans are designed to embody specific magical
objectives, and are not designed for generalised protection or health like an amulet.
Talismans are drawn, painted, engraved or carved designs made on paper, parchment, metal
or occasionally stone. Their objectives are proactive and very specific, such as winning the

love of a specific woman, winning a specific chariot race, etc, and not for general protection.

For example a Venus talisman might be designed to accumulate the qualities of that
planet/ goddess to act for the magician in a specific operation of love for a specific woman.
Talismans are not usually worn (as are amulets), but can be simply created, charged, and then
left to do their work. A pentacle is a specific type of talisman, which perhaps originally
incorporated the figure of a pentagram inscribed within a circle. Now the term is often used
interchangeably with ‘talisman.’ The manufacture of talismans for specific magical purposes

makes up 2.1% of all the PGM rites.

241 PGM III. 282-409.

242 Johnston (2008), p. 155 associates tee, in the sense of ‘perfection,’ with the Greek words for
initiate and initiation. See PGM IV. 26-51 for this usage.

243 This shows that the word came into use via Byzantine Greek magical texts, rather than necessarily
being part of Classical Greek religion. The term is likely to have been a transliteration from Arabic,
and therefore possibly originally derived from the astral magic tradition.

uU Phylacteries, Tefillin, Lamen
Phylactery - pvAaktypiov (phylakterion)

A phylactery is worn and must include a written magical or religious text.24 Phylactery is a
Greek word which may be derived from the Greek phylaktikos, which means ‘a safeguard or
preservative.’ In Latin texts the word is usually rendered as phylacterium.2*° Despite

common perception, ‘phylactery’ is not specifically a Jewish religious observance.
percep phy y. p y &

Phylactery strips of parchment bound around the arms appear in a number of places in the
PGM,4” usually specified at the end of the rite where the ritual equipment is listed
separately. In the PGM, phylacteries are written on papyrus or parchment (black and white
sheepskin)48 and designed to be worn by the magician during a rite to protect himself from
the spiritual creatures, even including the gods, which he was invoking, not on a day-to-day
basis (as are amulets).249 The manufacture of phylacteries for the protection of the magician
makes up 1.3% of all PGM rites. This figure is however low, as there are at least 16 other
magician’s phylacteries imbedded at the end of other rites (as part of the equipment section
of those rites). These have been listed separately as U2 in Appendix 2, and are not
consolidated into the statistics, as they are parts of already counted rites. If they had been
added into the count of phylacteries in Appendix 1, the total would have been 5.3% of the

rites.
Tefillin (‘Jewish Phylacteries’)

Phylacteries are in modern times mostly associated with Jewish practice. Although they were
called by Hellenised Jews phylakteria, the more correct equivalent of ‘phylactery’ in Hebrew
is the word tefillin (mpn). A Jewish phylactery or tefillin consists of a small leather case
(originally cylindrical but now usually cubical) made either of parchment or of black
calfskin, containing slips of parchment or vellum on which are written the specific scriptural
passages Exodus 13: 1-10 and 11-16, Deuteronomy 6: 4-9, 11: 13-21. They are traditionally
bound tightly on the forehead and the left arm by orthodox Jewish men during morning
prayer, and rarely in times of potential danger, like a plane flight, but not used under any

other conditions. A tefillin is not used on a day-to-day basis (like an amulet), nor in magical

244 Hence many of the so-called amulets listed in the PGM are in fact phylacteries or talismans.
24 The word ‘phylactery’ only appears once in the New Testament (Matthew 23:5) where it is just a
slighting reference to the tefillin of the rabbis.
246 See Betz (1996), pp. 51, 54, 68.
247 For example in PGM IV. 813.
248 In “Mithras Liturgy” in PGM IV. 814-820.
249 The Christian habit of keeping the bodily remains of saints as relics also meant that the meaning of
“phylactery’ was sometimes extended to include cases for such relics.
250 The tefillin found at Qumran also had extracts from Deuteronomy 10:12 - 11:12 and 32:1-33.
78

practice, nor does it appear in the PGM, and so it will not be further considered here.
Lamen (‘Magician’s Phylacteries’)

‘Lamen’ is the most specific term. The lamen of the mediaeval magician is a direct
descendant of the phylactery of the Graeco-Egyptian magician. In mediaeval and later
magical texts, phylacterium was often rendered as lamen. Lamen always has the technical
sense of something worn solely by a magician for protection from the entities he invoked,
specifically at the time of the ritual. At no point was the word ‘lamen’ used in the sense of a
general amulet, or used in a context outside of ritual magic. Interestingly the lamen often
became a double (or double-sided) piece of parchment bearing both the sigil of the spirit

being invoked and that of the angel understood to control that spirit.25!

V Visions and Dreams Evoked by Magic - oveiparmtov (oneiraiteton)

Invocations to secure relevant dreams from a god, or even the visible appearance of a god,
are a common practice in the PGM. These techniques were also used to send dreams to a
third party (oneiropompeia). These procedures sometimes involve other subsidiary techniques,
like invocation or use of the evocatory skrying lamp. The invocation of a god in a dream and

the sending of dreams to third parties makes up 8.2% of all the PGM rites.

WwW Defixiones - katadeopot (katadesmot)

Defixiones are an appeal, or order, to the dead to affect a particular desired magical result.
The theory behind them is that the spirits of the dead buried can be constrained by the words
on the defixio to carry out the specific orders of the magician who created the defixio, or to
communicate with daimones or gods who can do so. The restless dead (especially the victims
of murder or premature death) are thought to be constrained by the defixio, to carry out the
wishes of the magician.*? The manufacture of defixiones for specific magical purposes makes

up 2.3% of all the PGM rites.

x Excluded Fragments

These passages provide too little material to properly identify either their purpose or
method. They are listed in full in Appendix 2 in order that the corpus of Graeco-Egyptian
magical material analysed there is complete. Although these fragments make up 8.7% of all

the PGM rites numerically, their actual extent in terms of number of lines is very small.

251 See Skinner & Rankine (2010), p. 103.

252 This practice resurfaces again in Europe where beans are buried in churchyards and subsequently
dug up to help confer invisibility. Food and drink offerings to the dead are a part of many cultures,
but the binding of specifically restless spirits to carry out magical acts appears to be unique to Egypt.

¥ Use of Herbs and Plants in Magic - Botévy (botané)

Lists of the magical properties of herbs are an important section in the PGM, as they provide
concrete items whose use in magic can be tracked across various cultures. This practice is
slightly more complicated in the PGM by the habit of priests and magicians of listing quite
common ingredients such as herbs and other items with flowery and alarming names. The

magical use of herbs and plants makes up 1.1% of all the PGM rites.
Z ‘Evil Sleep’ and Death - nktk bin (Demotic)

These formulae are the province of the @éppakocg (pharmakos) rather than the magician as
these are concerned with the use of drugs, herbs and poisons. These formulae are solely
demotic and only make up 2.7% of all the PGM rites in number, but a very small proportion

in terms of the number of lines of text allocated to them.

a Minor Magical Procedures

There are usually only one or two examples of each of these procedures, which are therefore
of less use for comparative examination of specific techniques. These procedures include
winning at dice, catching a thief, etc. Procedure for catching a thief do however re-appear in
later Latin grimoires. They do not form a large corpus like, for example, love spells or the
arrival of a god. All of these are small, being between one and 25 lines long. These single

operations and minor magical procedures make up 4.6% of the PGM rites.
B Victory Spell - vukntiKov (nikétikon)

Victory spells, particularly in the context of chariot races. These make up 1.3% of all the PGM

rites.

Aside from the rite specific headwords several Greek words in the PGM have a more general meaning.
AaBov which means to take hold of or bind is often weakly translated as spell or charm, but

the general Greek terms for a magical operation were npééic, mpaypateta,>? or oikovoptia.24

253 TIpayuateta is a term later used in the original title of the Hygromanteia: Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia.
254 See Pachoumi (2007), pp. 15-16. Pachoumi adds uvorrptov, but that term relates to the Mysteries rather
than to magic.

3.3. The Input of Jewish Magic to Graeco-Egyptian Magic and the
Clavicula Salomonis

“Ten measures of magic came into the world. Egypt received nine of these, the rest of the
world one measure.”
- Talmud, b. Qid. 49b.

As confirmed by the above quotation, even the Talmud acknowledged that magic came
primarily from Egypt, rather than from Jewish sources. There are no clear traces of the
methods of Solomonic magic in pre-Christian Jewish sources. Bohak is of the opinion that
there was no tradition at all (and therefore no surviving documents) of Jewish scribal magic,

apart from general exorcistic hymns, before the 3rd century CE:

In the Second Temple period, we already have much evidence for the writing down of
exorcistic hymns (Nitzan 1994: 227-72; Eshel 2003), but no real evidence for the use of magical
recipe books or even of written amulets (cf. Swartz 2001, Bohak 2008: 70-142, and Cohn 2008).
But from the 3rd or 4th century CE, and probably under the influence of Graeco-Egyptian magic, of
the kind reflected in the Greek magical papyri, we witness the rise of a fully scribal Jewish
magical tradition, in which writing is used both in the transmission of magical knowhow and in
the magical praxis itself (Bohak 2008: 281-85).255
The corollary of this statement is that as it appeared first, Graeco-Egyptian magic contributed
to the establishment of a Jewish magical tradition, rather than the other way around.
Although god and angel names were liberally borrowed from the Jewish tradition, it appears
that method was not. Although magical practice may have been frowned upon by the Jewish
community, it is however certain that many of the senior Rabbis were well acquainted with
its principles by the time of the Talmud (after 200 CE):
Rabbi Yohanan?* said (b. Sanhedrin 17a and b. Menahot 65a) that knowledge of magic was one
of the prerequisites for sitting in the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court of law — not only in

order to detect and deter magicians, but also in order to beat them at their own game, and to
gain the upper hand against other offenders as well.”

There are a number of very specific and well-documented contributions made from Jewish
magic to the PGM, and also to later Byzantine and Latin Solomonic grimoire magic. These
contributions apparently did not include the Solomonic method. The main elements that were

passed on from Jewish magic are clearly defined as follows:258

a) The god names in the PGM derive from a number of sources, including Egyptian and

Greek, but characteristic god names like lao, IHVH, Yah or Sabaoth without doubt come from

255 Bohak (1999), p. 125. My italics.
256 Probably Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai (30-90 CE).
257 Bohak (1999), p. 120.
258 T will deal with the case of the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh below. See Gollancz (1903, 1914, 2008).
81

the Jewish tradition. In the context of the PGM they are just other nomina magica, and carry no
specific hint of monotheistic Jewish religion with them. These names were later passed on to

the Hygromanteia, and later still the Clavicula Salomonis and vernacular grimoires.

b) The vast bulk of angel (and some demon) names are derived from Jewish sources.
The biblical archangels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel are well documented. They in
turn probably derive from Babylonia.” In the first centuries of the Christian era, books like
the three Books of Enoch generated a range of angel names, especially those of the angels of
the seven Heavens, and of the 12 zodiacal signs. Although the hekhalot literature is primarily
mystical rather than magical, it too added to the repertoire of angelic names. Later,
particularly in the Geonic period (650-1250 CE) a plethora of angels, like the 168 angels of the
hours of the days of the week (24 x 7), were generated,2 and these have passed directly into
the Hygromanteia, without going via the PGM. No trace of these 168 names is to be found in

the PGM. Some demon names passed from the Testament of Solomon to the Hygromanteia.

c) Just as the concept of angels was probably derived from Babylon, so the practice of oil
magic probably entered Jewish practice from the same source. The practices of oil, water and

lamp flame skrying accompanied by evocation are commonly attested in the PGM.

Bohak is certainly of the opinion that it was the Graeco-Egyptian technology of magic that
informed the Jewish magical tradition. His example focuses on the charactéres, but his
contention applies to the whole ‘massive’ entry of the technology of magic into Jewish magic:
For the time being, let us return to late antiquity, and note how the charactéres exemplify the
massive entry of technological innovations from the Greco-Egyptian magic of late
antiquity into the Jewish magical tradition, and their absorption there... we see a set of
foreign elements which was so fully naturalized in the Jewish magical tradition - and

in some medieval cases also fully Judaized - as to assure its survival within that
tradition to our very days.6!

It is probable that both the Jewish and the Egyptian practices came separately from Babylon.
Daiches supports the view that Babylon was the source of both Jewish and Egyptian
practices on the grounds of “striking parallels to Babylonian magical texts as well as to the
Jewish.”262 Their origins can be seen in both the PGM (lamp skrying) and the Jewish tradition

(“princes of the thumb”), which are attested in Jewish records in the 11th century

259 The concept of an angelic hierarchy came to the fore during the time of the Babylonian captivity
from 597-538 BCE.
260 Pingree (1980), p. 10.
261 Bohak (2008), p. 274.
62 Published in Daiches (1913), pp. 5-6. The Babylonian Maklu text published by Tallqvist which he
refers to, is also quoted in Daiches (1913), p. 4.

commentaries of Rashi.76 Either way these skrying practices also influenced the
Hygromanteia. Because of the many references in Jewish sources, I suspect the direction of
transmission was from Jewish sources to the Hygromantiea. But these skrying practices did

not then make their way into the Latin or vernacular Solomonic grimoires.26

It is clear that these practices formed the basis for the evocatory skrying practices delineated
in the last section of the Hygromanteia (chapters 47-57), and in a fragmentary fashion into
later European skrying up to the present century. In chapter 8.2, below, I will demonstrate
very specific parallels between these chapters of the Hygromanteia and a number of 16th/17th
century Jewish manuscripts from the library of Moses Gaster.6 The parallels even extend to
the wording of both procedures. Because of this, despite their late date, I think it is probable

that these Jewish oil and water skrying procedures were copied into the Hygromanteia.

d) The pentacles which appear in some of the Text-Groups of the Key of Solomon are not
derived from the Hygromanteia but come directly from an original Hebrew source. Although
readers who only examined Mathers’ version of the Key might reasonably assume that the
pentacles were always part and parcel of the Key of Solomon, in fact they are missing from most
of the unpublished manuscripts of that text, and missing completely from all the manuscripts

of the Hygromanteia.

However the pentacles are present, in a more complete form in a Hebrew manuscript
entitled MIMINSN “BS Sepher ha-Otot,26 or “The Book of the Signs.’°”7 This strongly suggests
that the pentacles originally come from a Hebrew, not a Greek source. Despite Mathers’
diligence in attempting to reconstruct the Hebrew from the French and English manuscripts
of the Key, his work is nowhere as correct or complete as that found in this Hebrew
manuscript. Therefore we can say with some confidence that there was definitely a Hebrew
original, at least of the pentacles, the proof of which lies in the existence of the very detailed
pentacles in the Sepher ha-Otot, and their much less detailed form in the Latin Solomonic
manuscripts. The Greek manuscripts of the Hygromanteia are even less detailed being virtual

‘thumbnails’ by comparison.

There is, however, no evidence earlier than 1700 CE that the Solomonic method of evocation,

63 Sanhedrin 67b. Other references to this procedure occur in Chochmat ha-Nefesh, 16d, 18a, 20c, 28d,
29a; Ziyuni, 10c; Redak on Ezekiel, 21:26; Nishmat Chayim, HI, 19.

264 Simple crystal skrying without the full evocatory apparatus appears in texts by Trithemius and
later magicians, but not in the Clavicula Salomonis. See Barrett (1801), Book II, pp. 135 ff. for Trithemius’
Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals.

265 Daiches (1913), pp. 12-27.

266 A letter by letter transliteration yields ‘Sepher ha-Avtot,’ but as the vav should be treated as a mater
lectionis, so the transliteration becomes Sepher ha-Otot. Rosenthaliana MS 12, third unfoliated item.

267 Perhaps more aptly translated as ‘The Book of the Seals,’ as these pentacles are seals rather than signs.

with a circle of protection and specific pre-consecrated ritual equipment appears in any

Hebrew sources.
Genizah Fragments

The largest collection of Hebrew magical documents so far found was retrieved from the
genizah of the Fustat synagogue in old Cairo. The bulk of this documentation of Jewish magic
in Alexandria is still kept in Cambridge and several other repositories. Unfortunately
Schechter, who was responsible for retrieving much of it, and his successors, were much
more interested in the religious content of the Genizah, and so it is only in the last 25 years

that the magical content has begun to receive significant attention.

In 2010 Gideon Bohak concluded that 1690 of the 140,000 Genizah fragments stored in
Cambridge fall into the “MADA’ category. MADA is his charming characterisation of
fragments which pertain to any of the following categories: magic, astrology, divination or

alchemy.” His breakdown of the MADA fragments by broad category is:

Magic?” 1026
Astrology 349
Divination?! 247
Alchemy 68
Total 1690 fragments

Addressing the 1026 magical fragments, it is noticeable that many relate to just nine already
known Jewish magical texts.2”2 The most frequently occurring identifiable texts (with their

number of fragments) are:

Title Fragments Author
Sepher Simmus Tehillim273 OL
Sepher ha-Razim2”4 38

268 Note that Cambridge holds only approximately 73% of the 190,000 fragments from the Cairo Fustat
synagogue, the rest having made their way to Oxford and several American locations, so these figures,
and any percentages derived from them must be treated with caution. Nevertheless, I believe that
Bohak has identified almost all MADA fragments at Cambridge.
269 Bohak (2010), pp. 53-80.
270 Bohak classifies hemerologia (24 fragments) and horologia (12) under divination, but as they deal with
demons and magical qualities of specific hours, they may more correctly be listed under magic. Such a
re-allocation would have resulted in 1062 (rather than 1026) fragments relating to magic.
271 Of which goralot (divination by lots) = 128; oneiromancy = 62; geomancy = 22. Geomancy was of
Islamic origin, whilst oneiromancy was only of passing concern to the magicians of the PGM.
272 It is possible that Bohak may not have identified the provenance of all the fragments, so the number
of identified titles may increase as the corpus continues to be studied.
273 The Book of Practical Psalms. S**nM wibw “BD. On the Magical use of Psalms. An English translation
of the (Sepher Simmus Tehillim [Shimmush Tehillim]) by Godfrey Selig (1788) is to be found in Appendix
4 of Peterson (2008). See also Rankine and Barron (2010) for an analysis of the magical use of Psalms in
the Simmué Tehillim. This text concentrates on the magical use of the Psalms rather than Solomonic
magic. See Anon (1972) for a German edition.

Sepher ha- Yasar?” 27 Rabbi Akiva?”

Sepher ha-Malbus,277

Sifr Adam,2’8 or Sepher ha-Qevisa279 7
Harba de-Mose?80 5
Pisra de-Rabbi281 5 Hanina ben Dosa?82
Seva’ Ma’alot 2 Hanina ben Dosa
Sepher Berit Menuha?8s Z Abraham ben Isaac of Granada
Havdalah de-Rabbi Akiva2*4 1 Rabbi Akiva
Sepher Raziel 26

138

In addition, many magic fragments which cannot be attributed to a specific Hebrew magical
title have been found, but most of these are either amulets (specifically made for clients) or

collections of short spells, not forming part of a structured ritual using the Solomonic

method:

Magical spell/recipe books 592
Amulets?8 145
Demonic/angel adjurations?®” 29
Magical Prayers 25
Curses /excommunications 23
Medico-magical recipes 21
Kabbalistic magic 16
Sundry 16
Compulsive/ erotic spells 14
Talismanic 7

a----- 888
Total magic fragments as above 1026

Amongst those which have been published, I have not been able to detect any passages

which relate directly to the Solomonic method. Therefore, at the current state of analysis of the

274 Book of the Mysteries. See Margalioth (1966) for a reconstruction of the Hebrew, and Morgan (1983)
for an English edition. See Schafer (1990), pp. 81-82 for a list of its various magical objectives.

275 The Book of Righteousness.

276 Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph was perhaps the most famous of the 1st/2nd century CE Talmudic sages,
as he was one of the few reputed to have visited Paradise, and returned safely.

277 The Book of the Vestment. See Scholem (1955), p. 77; Karr and Skinner (2010), p. 14.

278 The Book of Adam.

279 A translation from Arabic of a book on demon adjuration.

280 The Sword of Moses. See Harari (1997) for a Hebrew edition, and Harari (2012), pp. 71-98 for an
English translation.

281 The Spell Loosener.

282 Hanina ben Dosa was a 1*t century CE Talmudic magician. See Bohak (2008), pp. 96, 340, 401.

283 The Book of the Covenant of Rest. MMI m3 A Kabbalistic book of angel and god names.

284 Theurgic ritual for use during the Havdalah ceremony. The best manuscript is Vatican MS 228, f.
93-103. Also Oxford MS 1531, f. 137-145. See Scholem (2004), pp. 145-182 for an analysis.

285 Not tallied by Bohak.

286 Several Genizah amulets made for specific clients are translated in Schafer (1990), pp. 83-85.

287 Some of these may possibly be of a Solomonic nature.

Genizah fragments (which cover roughly the 10th - 15th centuries, but which must also imply
pre-10th century texts), there appears to be no direct Jewish input into the method of the
Hygromanteia or Clavicula Salomonis from Jewish magic in Alexandria/ Cairo, except for the
specific categories of influence noted above (i.e. angel names, oil and water skrying and

pentacles).288
As far as northern Europe is concerned, Trachtenberg opined that:

There is hardly any Jewish literature in the north of Europe devoted specifically to magic. Sefer
Raziel, probably compiled in the thirteenth century and containing much Geonic mystical
material (so potent were its contents considered that mere possession of the book was believed
to prevent fires), and the anonymous Shimmush Tehillim, “The (Magical) Use of the Psalms,”
were all, besides some of the works of Eleazar of Worms and his school, such as Hochmat
HaNefesh, which contains more or less pertinent material.

He goes on to add that he believes there must be more material on magic “hidden away in
European libraries,”2 which is certainly true. For example Worms circa 1700 was the
probable origin of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage,2% a text unknown to Trachtenberg.
The method embodied in Abramelin is one of 6-18 months of prayer and piety followed by
the use of pentacles in the form of numeric and alpha-squares,2*2 and not one of directly
evocatory magic. Although Trachtenberg’s conclusions might be a little out of date, clear
evidence of evocation and the Solomonic method have yet to be identified by academics in

Hebrew collections in Europe.

The other magical classics listed above in Bohak’s MADA survey of Genizah fragments, such
as Sepher ha-Razim and the Harba de Moshe (Sword of Moses), contain many angelic names but
no description of Solomonic method. In fact Gaster compared the range of nomina magica in

the Sword with those in the PGM and concluded that:

...these [PGM] Papyri mark as it were the first stages of this process of growth by the
assimilation of various elements [of the nomina magica] and combinations into one complete
vade-mecum for the magician or conjurer. In the “Sword” we have the full development of that
process, which must have run its course at a very early period.?%

Despite Gaster seeing the Sword of Moses as the summa of the PGM in the matter of nomina
magica, it (disappointingly) does not have the same relevance for method. Part III contains

the method, but without any hint of the Solomonic method of evocation of spiritual

288 Swartz (2006), pp. 305-318 for details of magical procedures in the Genizah texts.

289 Trachtenberg (2004), pp. 315-316.

290 Trachtenberg (2004), p. 316.

291 Mathers (1900) and Dehn (2006).

292 This is further support for the origin of the pentacles in the Clavicula Salomonis coming from Jewish
sources.

293 Gaster (1970), p. 19. However the ‘full development’ that Gaster mentions is not nearly as fully
developed as the Greek and Latin Solomonic methods. The Sword follows the Jewish tradition of using
powerful names of god and the angels, but with no elaboration of method or equipment.

creatures.2™ In fact the Sword follows the pattern of other texts of Jewish magic, relying to a
large extent on the recitation of holy names and the writing of a few talismans, rather than

formalised Solomonic ritual evocation.

The Hebrew Sepher Raziel (strangely missing from the above Genizah list) is more useful, but
still not forthcoming about Solomonic method. The completely unrelated (except in title)
Latin and English Sepher Raziel as dealt with elsewhere in this thesis, does however use the

Solomonic method.2%
The Hekhalot literature

It is relevant to briefly examine the Hekhalot literature, as Morton Smith claimed a great deal

of identity between it and the PGM.2%

The gods of Greece such as Helios and Aphrodite may be glimpsed in Sepher ha-Razim, but
are definitely not to be found in the hekhalot.2%” This literature, extant from the 3rd to the 8th
centuries CE, is concerned with “rising on the planes” (to use modern terminology) or
journeying from one of the seven heavens to another (to use a more traditional image), with
the eventual hope of meeting god face-to-face. This literature is also referred to as
merkavah/merkabah literature because the journey was often visualized as_ travelling
‘downwards’ in an astral chariot (the literal meaning of the word).2°8 This material is to a
large extent a mystical and rabbinic practice, but the use of secret passwords at the various
doorways or portals to the Halls or hekhalot, to get past their angelic guardians, give it a

superficial magical colouring.
Morton Smith wrote that:

Much of the celestial personnel of the hekhalot is found also in the magical papyri and in
Gnosticism. Not only have the papyri and the Gnostics taken over Hebrew names, but the
hekhalot have taken over Greek names and sometimes have even taken back Greek corruptions
of names which were originally Hebrew.2”

This appears to be a rather sweeping and not altogether accurate statement. The traffic in

names was not nearly as reciprocal as Morton Smith implies. The vast majority of the angelic

294 Gaster worked from just one manuscript of the Sword (Codex Hebrew Gaster 178), so it is possible
that the five Genizah fragments might add something to section III. Unfortunately Gaster replaces the
nomina magica with an ‘X’ rather than simply transliterating them.
2% This implies that this Raziel is either much later than the Genizah period, or was solely a northern
European production despite its Hebraic title. In some manuscripts the title is deformed to Cephar
Raziel and the few bits of Hebrew are almost completely unrecognizable, confirming that these
particular manuscripts were written by non-Jewish scribes.
296 Smith (1963), p. 150.
297 Lesses (1996), p.46.
298 Strangely this is often described as descending. See Davila (2001), Descenders to the Chariot: the People
behind the Hekhalot Literature.
299 Smith (1963), p. 150.

and god names used in the hekhalot literature are obviously of Jewish extraction. Some of
these god and angelic names have been taken over into the PGM,3° rather than the other
way around. But these names in the PGM could easily have come from Jewish sources other
than the hekhalot. These names could for example have been derived from the Septuagint

which had been available in Alexandria from the late 3rd century BCE.%!

The concept of the chariot very clearly comes from Jewish sources, specifically Ezekiel, whose
vision was of a very detailed and many wheeled and winged chariot.*? The concept of
doorways guarded by angels who required very specific passwords may have passed in the
opposite direction, from Egyptian conceptions of the Duat, with its many guarded portals, to

the hekhalot.

The predominant direction of traffic is from the Hebrew sources into the Gnostic texts (which
were in the early years Hebrew heresies anyway) and the PGM where they enjoyed the
reputation of being powerful words of coercion, especially Sabaoth and IAO (derived from
the Hebrew MIS2¥ and MM respectively). Strangely, very few, if any Solomonic magical

techniques appear to have come from these Jewish sources. Lesses puts it succinctly:

The Graeco-Egyptian ritual texts draw names of divinities from Jewish, Greek, Egyptian,
Roman, or Mesopotamian traditions, while the hekhalot adjurations [only] use Hebrew names of
God and the angels. They do not incorporate the names of the Greek, Egyptian, or Roman
deities.°°

This is a much more accurate statement of the situation than Morton Smith’s wide ranging
remarks.°4 From the point of view of tracing the evolvement of magical methods, it can be
seen that although the hekhalot literature may have passed some god and angel names to the
PGM, it did not pass any actual magical techniques. Furthermore the procedure used by the
hekhalot devotees (and still in use today) was one of piety, intense prayer and meditation,

with the minimal use of invocation, and absolutely no use of evocation.

On the whole Rabbinical Judaism warned against the studying of such hekhalot material, and
so it became a separate channel closer to Kabbalistic speculations than traditional Judaism.
The hekhalot literature is basically mysticism, albeit very vivid mysticism, and not part of the
magical tradition. Scholem characterises the hekhalot material as ‘ecstaticism’ as opposed to

magic.3%

309 Such as IAQ, Elohim, Sabaoth/Tzabaoth, etc.
301 Its translation was not fully completed till 132 BCE.
302 Ezekiel 1: 15-21; 10: 9-17.
303 Lesses (1996), p. 52-53.
304 See Lewy (1969) for a discussion of the Greek phrases and nouns to be found in Hekhalot Rabbati.
305 Interestingly the angel referred to as the “Lord God of Israel’ is Zoharariel, which might better be
read as ‘Zohar Ariel,’ an angel name following the name of that great classic of the Kabbalah.
306 Scholem (1955), pp. 50-60, 78.
88

It is clear that in the context of magic there is always a hierarchy of spiritual creatures,°°” in
which any sense of a strictly monotheistic system is lost. For if there is only a meditative

appeal to the one god, as in Judaism, then this is meditation/ prayer rather than magic.

The Case against the Hebrew Roots of the Clavicula Salomonis

One text that is often held up as a proof of the Hebrew roots of the Clavicula Salomonis, is the
Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, meow mmpp “PD (‘The Book of the Key of Solomon’) which is found
in three Hebrew manuscripts dating from 1700-1729. These manuscripts have been suggested
as the source of the many Western manuscripts of the Key of Solomon by Hermann Gollancz

who discovered one version in his father’s library and first published it in 1903 and 1914.3°8
There are three manuscript sources of the text: 5°

a) The Gollancz manuscript, written in cursive Hebrew in Amsterdam, dated 1700

(with 79 folios) .310

b) Rosenthaliana MS 12, f. 1-74 at the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana in Amsterdam. It
consists of 74 folios bound with two further but separate texts of 16 and 30
folios each. This is a manuscript written by Isaac Zekel ben Yidel Kohen of
Worms in Amsterdam from a copy by Judah Perez (London, 1729). It is the

most complete manuscript.

c) The two manuscripts in the British Library: Oriental MS 6360 (15 folios)3!! and
Oriental MS 14759 (53 folios).3!2 Rohrbacher-Sticker has ascertained that one is a

continuation of the other, so they effectively form one manuscript of 68 folios.

Despite Gollancz wishing to believe that he had found the Hebrew original of the Key, he

concedes that:

A hurried survey of these very MSS [of the Clavicula Salomonis] might easily convince one that
they are anything but Jewish in character, several of them containing illustrations which, in the
eye of the Jewish Law, would be regarded as blasphemous; the human face or more extended

307 See chapter 5.1.

308 Gollancz (1852-1930), was a British Rabbi and well respected Hebrew scholar who was the

Goldsmith Professor of Hebrew at University College, London from 1902 to 1924.

309 A facsimile of the Gollancz manuscript including Gollancz’s commentary and an introduction by

Skinner, has recently been published as Gollancz (2008).

310 Gollancz found the manuscript in his father’s library at the beginning of the 20th century, and he

published a commentary on it under the name of Clavicula Salomonis in 1903, and then a full facsimile

of it in 1914 as Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh (its correct Hebrew title).

311 This manuscript is called m3235n “2 Sepher ha-Levanah, and six folios were published in Hebrew in

Greenup (1912). He suggests the manuscript dates back to the 16th century, but 17th century seems

much more likely. The Hebrew was reprinted, with a translation by Calanit Nachshon, in Karr &

Skinner (2011), pp. 68-98 (Hebrew), 102-123 (English).

312 The connection between these two halves of one manuscript which had become separated was

established by Rohrbacher-Sticker (1993/4) and (1995). They are respectively of ff. 15 and ff. 53 in length.
89

form appears in a [talismanic] circle with the words "Ww 4833 added, the face itself in several
instances being even supplied with horns and the forms with wings.>4

Mathiesen states that all the Hebrew manuscripts of Maphteah Shelomoh were:

...written in the very late 17th or the 18th century.*> They all contain recent Hebrew translations
from Italian or Latin magical texts, including passages from the [Latin or Italian] Key of Solomon.
They have no bearing on the problem of a possible Hebrew original for that work.316

I concur with his view. Scholem also assumed that the Maphteah Shelomoh was a late Jewish
adaptation of a “Latin (or rather Italian) Clavicula [Salomonis] text of the Renaissance period”
which “contains Christian, Jewish, and Arabic elements which either lie unmixed side by
side or show in parts a mutual permeation.”°!7 His conclusion stems from the frequency of
Latin and Italian words, whose presence only makes sense if it were a Hebrew copy of a
Latin or Italian Clavicula Salomonis text.3!8 Research by Rohrbacher-Sticker, Schiffman and

Swartz, also supports Scholem’s conclusions.3!9

Further proofs of the derivation of Maphteah Shelomoh from a Latin/Italian original can be
found in the second manuscript of Maphteah Shelomoh listed above.2° In the last (10th)
chapter,°2! there is a roughly drawn table of the correspondences between the planets/ zodiac
signs and various plants. The Latin names for the stones, plants and animals were apparently

too difficult to translate, so the scribe has simply left them all in Latin:

[Jupiter] berilus; [Mars] onix; [Sun] crisolitus; [Venus] chaspis [jaspis=jasper?]; [Mercury]
tophasius [topaz]; [Moon] Sardius; [Saturn] Carbuncolus [Carbuncle].

Likewise with zodiacal animals:

[Jupiter] aquila [eagle]; [Mars] equus [horse]; [Sun] leo [lion]; [Venus] omomo [woman?];
[Mercury] serpens [snake]; [Moon] bos [cow]; [Saturn] drago [dragon].322

Other evidence of the Latin sources of the Maphteah Shelomoh text is to be found on f. 9 of the
second manuscript, where the Latin names of the 12 zodiacal signs (Aries, Taurus, etc) are
simply transliterated into Hebrew rather than using the Hebrew names of the months
(Nissan, lyyar, Sivan, etc) that one would expect to find if the text were truly Hebrew in

origin.
Furthermore the Gollancz Maphteah Shelomoh manuscript, which dates from 1700, is

313 El Shaddai.
314 Gollancz (1903, 2008), p. xix. However blasphemous the face and figure that he mentions, they do
not occur in the Gollancz MS as he claims, but in Mathers (1909), Figure 32, facing p. 73.
315 Tn fact all the currently found manuscripts date from 1700-1729 and appear to have been written in
Amsterdam.
316 Mathiesen (2007), pp. 3-9.
317 Scholem (1965). p. 6.
318 Scholem (1965), pp 1-35.
319 Schiffman & Swartz (1992), p. 20 and Rohrbacher-Sticker (1993 and 1995).
320 Rosenthaliana MS 12, Amsterdam
321 Folio numbers are absent.
322 Rosenthaliana MS 12, third item, unfoliated but f. 9-10.
90

obviously much more recent than many of the Latin manuscripts of the Key of Solomon. From
remarks made by the copyist, it is clear that it was copied from an earlier manuscript. This
earlier manuscript might well be the one mentioned by the Italian Kabbalist Gedaliah ibn
Yahya (1515-1587) in his book Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah first published in Venice in 1587.52 Even
if this were the source, this date is still considerably later than the extant manuscripts of the

Hygromanteia which date from 1440.

The cursive Hebrew script of the Maphteah Shelomoh is typically an Italian hand. Many Italian
words appear in a transliterated form, rather than in translation, further confirming that the
source text was in Italian (and Latin), rather than in Hebrew. Possible cities of origin include
Naples and Venice.5*4 Naples is expressly mentioned in the manuscript in the transliterated

form of ‘Napoli’ (*BN3) 325

Most tellingly, the scribe even failed to recognise many of the Jewish elements present in
their Latinised form, transliterating such words rather than translating them. Words in Greek
and Arabic were similarly treated, and in a number of places (such as folios 36a and 39b) the
scribe freely admits he did not understand what he was copying. If he had been copying
Hebrew from a Hebrew original these problems would of course not have arisen, and then

certainly not for the Hebrew words.

Rohrbacher-Sticker has also identified a number of Christian procedural elements, such as
the dipping of a cross in holy water, which would certainly not have been part of any

Hebrew magical text.326

Rohrbacher-Sticker was also able to identify 19 transliterated Greek words. Some of the most
interesting are yapaktypac, magical characteres (transliterated as “LP"P)°"” rather than using
the perfectly good Hebrew alternative. Other very specifically Christian words include dytoc,
hagios (or agios as read by the scribe), holy (transliterated as WiIS"AN);328 and mapdKAntoc, the
Holy Spirit (transliterated as wip AB).329 But the most astonishing name of all is that of
epBn9, Erbéth (transliterated as B13S8),°30 which derives directly from the PGM, where it is

frequently found amongst the nomina magica of Egyptian derivation relating to Typhon/Seth.

323 Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah has been frequently published: in Venice in 1587; Cracow, 1596; Amsterdam,
1697; Zolkiev, 1802 and 1804; Polonnoye, 1814; Lemberg, 1862; and Jerusalem 1962. See p. 231 in the
Jerusalem edition, and p. 80a in the Amsterdam edition.
324 Venice is where the Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah was first published, and a city through which many
Greek Hermetic and Hebrew Kabbalistic texts were first introduced to Western Europe.
325 £. 37a.
326 See folio 37a, cited by Rohrbacher-Sticker (1995), p. 132.
827 F, 8b.
328 F. 36a.
329 F, 34b.
330 F, 42a.
91

Of the more than 40 examples of direct transliteration from Latin or Italian, 722" S" Via
Itmon (the Path of Metatron)%5! is one of the most interesting examples, although not
mentioned by Rohrbacher-Sticker.*2 This phrase marks out the exit route from the

Solomonic circle of protection, used by the magician to enter and exit the circle.*°°

Tetragrammaton is a descriptive Greek word meaning the four (‘tetra’) letter (‘gramma’) name
of god. It was used by Greek writers to refer to the Hebrew M0 IHVH. If a Hebrew
translator wished to translate a Greek or Latin text containing IHVH back into Hebrew they
would automatically translate it as MN" (or maybe even gloss it as “JIS Adonai, out of
respect). But this scribe assumed it was some foreign nomen magicum and simply
transliterated the word into Hebrew as fynmaa9nn TTRGRMTON, omitting some of the
vowels as one would expect. The scribe was therefore completely unaware of the meaning of
Tetragrammaton. This word alone is clear proof that the text is a translation from a

Latin/ Italian original not from a Hebrew original.

Finally, the part of the text which Gollancz appeared to think is most Jewish, the 26 prayers
in the first book of the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, have been confirmed as translations of

prayers found in the Latin grimoire Juratus:

From this introduction [by Gollancz] it becomes pretty clear that one of the sources for this
melange of magic must, indeed, have been the LIH [Juratus]. For instance, we are told that the
text [of the first section] contains twenty-six prayers, of which some are in Hebrew, while others
consist of ‘Cabbalistic names,’*°5 and when the editor goes on to quote and translate the first
seven,** they turn out to be slightly adapted versions of the prayers in chapters LIII - LIX of the
LIH [Juratus], thus leading us to surmise that the remaining nineteen are also borrowed from
the LIH [Juratus], presumably [being] the nineteen prayers in chapters LX - LXXVHL°97

Each of the first prayers are prefaced with a name of god. Several of these, like Agla, El, and
Elohim are standard Hebrew names of god used throughout the grimoire tradition, but
others, like Heklaistai and Amphimaikon are obviously of Greek origin. Hedegard goes on to

point out that some of the illustrations to be found in Juratus also occur in the Sepher

331 See Schafer (1981), pp. 395, 732 for a list of the 72 names of Metatron, including ‘Itmon.’ This name
is usually listed as the 13, but in Sepher Ha-Heshek it is number 35. This particular form of Metatron is
credited with skill in helping with journeys to ‘other places’ by which is meant hidden dimensions.
332 F. 66a.
333 See Figure 19. 3 Enoch lists Itmon as one of the names of Metatron.
334 In order to maintain the fiction that this manuscript was of solely Jewish origin, Gollancz resorts to
an extraordinarily contorted and unbelievable explanation of the presence of the word
‘Tetragrammaton’ in transliteration. He suggests that the scribe must have been influenced by the
Jewish pseudo-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), to use the Greek version of MM. See Gollancz
(1914), p. xxi. Zevi was a Rabbi who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, but in the end converted to
Islam, after leading his Jewish followers into the Ottoman Empire, where many also converted to
Islam, and whose descendants still remain there.
335 Gollancz (1914), p. v.
336 Gollancz (1914), p. v - viii.
387 Hedegard (2002), p. 20.

Maphteah Shelomoh.°°8

One is forced to conclude that, rather than being the source of the Latin and Italian versions
of the Key of Solomon, the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh is in fact derived from them, which is
quite the reverse of the usual assumption. The claim of a Hebrew origin seems to be simply a
part of the pseudepigraphical attribution to Solomon, designed by the scribe to impress the

reader with its authenticity.

Although there is always a possibility that a Hebrew original of the Key might be found, this
hope is not substantiated by the manuscripts of the Maphteah Shelomoh, despite Gollancz’s

belief to the contrary. If there ever was a Hebrew original, then it is still lost.
The Case for the Hebrew Roots of the Clavicula Salomonis

It is common for Latin, French and English manuscripts of the Key of Solomon to claim
Hebrew origins. Mathers’ introduction to his edition of the Key of Solomon notes that

manuscripts of the AC Text-Group are in French and entitled:

‘The Key of Solomon King of the Hebrews, translated from the Hebrew language into Italian by
Abraham Colorno, by the order of his most Serene Highness of Mantua; and recently put into
French.°%9

Even the Lemegeton (‘Little Key of Solomon’), which is a completely different Solomonic

grimoire, claims the same Jewish origin:

These Bookes were first found in the Chaldean & hebrew (sic) tongues at Hierusalem
[Jerusalem], by a Jewish Rabbi, & by him put into the greeke (sic) Language, & from thence into
y® Latine, as it is said &c.54°

The mention of a Greek intermediary copy is very interesting, as it suggests that the text was
transmitted via Greek. It is an easy presumption that anything written by Solomon must
originally have been written in Hebrew. It is tempting to take this statement at face value
and give the Hygromanteia a Jewish origin. Indeed it may turn out that the Greek

Hygromanteia had such a Hebrew ancestor, but at this point that is far from certain.

Therefore let us now consider the case for the existence of one or more unknown Hebrew
sources of the Key of Solomon. There are a number of manuscripts claiming to be translations
of the Clavicula Salomonis from a Hebrew text apart from the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh. These
range in date from 1580 to 1796:

i) The translation by Abraham Colorno (circa 1580) into Italian for Vincenzo Gonzaga,

338 Of course a case could be made for a common ancestor for both Liber Juratus and the Sepher
Maphteah Shelomoh, but that seems unnecessary as Liber Juratus (c. 1225) is so much older than the
Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh (c. 1700).
339 Mathers (1909), p. vii.
340 Peterson (2001), p. 6.

Duke of Mantua, (1562-1612).4 Colorno was a contemporary of Dee, who he might

even have met at the court of Rudolph II.%42

ii) Colorno’s translation of the Hebrew names in the Key of Solomon was criticised in a
contemporary but undated letter written by “G. G. I. E. of Antwerp, Philosopher and
Professor of Astrology.” This presupposes that this professor also had access to a

Hebrew original in Antwerp.

iii) A second translation into Latin was produced soon after also for Gonzaga, by
someone whose initials were ‘F. L. C.” (maybe another Colorno?).*4 Gonzaga may

have been unhappy with the first translation.

iv) The translation into Latin by Rabbi Abognazar.*44 The subsequent translation of this
manuscript from Latin into French was executed by M. Barault, Archevéque d’ Arles.
There are records of a Jaubert de Barrault,34 Archbishop of Arles (from July 1630 -
July 1643), suggesting a translation date of c.1640. At least one manuscript of this
Text-Group is dated 1779.54

v) The translation into French by Pierre Morissoneau, which dates from 1796 or
before.547 Two French manuscripts of the Key of Solomon dated 1796 purport on their
title page to have been translated from Hebrew by Morissoneau ‘Professeur des
Langues Orientales, et Sectateur de Sages Cabalistes.’348 Unfortunately no trace of

either Professor Morissoneau or his Hebrew original has been found.

In every case it has not been possible to identify the Hebrew originals, and so their existence
remains unproven, but the repeated and detailed attributions in these vernacular manuscripts
make it very likely that a Hebrew original did indeed exist. It is not clear where any such
Hebrew original might fit into the line of transmission. There are three possibilities, in

descending order of probability, none of which can be verified until such a Hebrew text is found:

i) It could still have been derived from Latin grimoires (as in the case of the

Maphteah Shelomoh), or

341 See Wellcome MS 4655, dated 1639 but claiming to be this original translation.
342 All of the large AC Text-Group Key of Solomon stem from this.
343 See Chatsworth MS 73D (16th century). Kirchenbibliotek Codex 31 is a later 18th century copy.
344 Lansdowne MS 1203 is the best example. The identity of this Rabbi has raised some speculation.
Mathers suggested that it might be a corruption of Rabbi “Aben Ezra,’ but this does not seem likely.
345 Hierarchia Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevi, Vol. 4, pp. 92, 359; Sacres Episcopaux a Rome de 1565 a
1662, No. 280, p. 51.
346 Harvard Houghton Typ MS 833.
347 See Wellcome MS 4670, f. 1.
348 Both translations published in Skinner & Rankine (2008).
94

ii) It may have been derived direct from the Hygromanteia, or
iii) It may predate both, and be the source of the Hygromanteia.
The Black-handled Knife

One interesting implement in the Key of Solomon which has claims of origin from both Greek
and Jewish sides, is the ritual knife, specifically the black-handled knife. Such a knife, with
its handle made of a goat’s horn, has deep roots in Greek folk magic, but there is also an

early usage of the black-handled knife in the sacrificial practices of Jewish religion.

The most interesting similarity however is the use of the black-handled knife in the
Hygromanteia to draw a circle around a skryer who anoints his thumb with oil in which to see

the vision being conjured by the magician:

Take a virgin boy [the skryer] and let it sit on a three legged stool. Tidy up your house, and let it
be ready and clean. Trace the circle under [?around] the stool. Take a knife with a black handle,
attached by three rivets, and thrust it into the circle. Scratch the boy’s right fingernail and anoint
it with fine oil... Then recite the following words near the boy’s ear... Then ask the boy, and he
will tell you what he sees.349

This unique combination of fingernail, oil and black-handled knife also features in Jewish
evocatory skrying ritual, where the spirits thought to aid the process are referred to as the

“princes of the thumb.’ This procedure is also described in an 11th century text by Rashi:5°

He who is particular about the vessel (by means of which he divines), that he cannot do
anything without the vessel that is required for that thing, as, for instance, the ‘princes of the
thumb’, for which they require a knife, the handle of which is black.%1

This technique of using a virgin boy to skry surrounded by a magic circle inscribed with a
black-handled knife, whilst the magician evokes the spirits he wishes to communicate with,
harks back to both Jewish practice and the practices of the PGM. However these evocatory
skrying practices are the very ones which are not found in the Clavicula Salomonis, so this

does not move forward the case for a Hebrew original of the Clavicula Salomonis.

This leaves the god names, the 168 angel names, and the pentacles as the primary contribution
of Jewish magic to the Clavicula Salomonis, but with the bulk of its content filtered through
Greek intermediary sources. Skrying may have also been contributed to the Hygromanteia from
Jewish sources, but this material did not pass onwards to the Clavicula Salomonis. With these
many contributions of specific magical methods and equipment from Jewish sources, the
balance of probabilities is that there was an as yet unknown Hebrew source which contributed

some other material to both the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis.

549 B2, f. 346.
350 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040-1105), author of a well-known commentary on the Talmud.
351 His commentary on Sanhedrin 67b.

3.4. Byzantine Solomonic Magical Texts

“This man is a magician because by means of his magic he set demons before us.”
- Martyrdom of Georgios.352

The Hygromanteia is perhaps the most complete Byzantine Solomonic text. Extant
manuscripts of the Hygromanteia only date from 1440. Undoubtedly older manuscripts exist,

and will hopefully turn up in libraries, possibly in Istanbul, Greece, Egypt, in due course.

There have been a number of scholarly opinions concerning the dating of this text, some
dating it to as early as the 1st/2nd century CE. Scott Carroll, predominantly using just
manuscript M, concluded that the author was probably a late 2nd century CE Jew from
Alexandria.3° Carroll's reasoning supporting this date is that “the pseudepigraphical style of
the epistle was popular among the Jews from circa 200 BCE to 200 CE.”54 Given that so
many magic texts from a wide range of dates right up to the 19th century were
pseudepigraphical, this is hardly surprising, and so does not provide any particular support

for either the period, or the religion, of the author.

I do however think it likely that the author was in fact from Alexandria, as demons such as
Typhonbon,3> Sarapidie,>* Apios,°” Osthridie8 (which derive from the Graeco-Egyptian
gods Typhon, Sarapis, Apis and Osiris), appear amongst the list of demons, but apparently
no demons derived from the deities of other regions or countries. Sarapis is very specifically
an Alexandrian god. Pharos,5° Agathoel6? and Orphor°*! also appear, again confirming a

very Alexandrian origin, demonstrating a possible connection back to the PGM.

Sadly another suggestion by Carroll that the Solomonic text referred to in the Gnostic text On
the Origin of the World was the Hygromanteia is also not viable, as that text instances 49
demons, whereas the Hygromanteia demonic hierarchy is resolutely a function of 168 (seven
days x 24 hours) demons and angels, which leaves that line of reasoning also unavailable for

date deduction.

352 As quoted by Ritner (2008), p. 14.
353 Carroll (1989), p. 95.
354 Carroll (1989), p. 93.
355 Attributed to Thursday the 1st hour, in manuscript A.
356 Tuesday 4th hour in B3.
357 Sunday 14th hour in four MSS.
358 Tuesday 11th hour in M.
359 Wednesday 224 hour. The Pharos was the lighthouse at Alexandria.
360 Friday 1st hour. Reminiscent of Agatha Daimon.
361 Thursday 7th hour. The Rite of Ouphor is celebrated in PGM XII. 270-350.
362 Carroll (1989), p. 96.
96

Carroll’s other method of dating was to define the “trajectory of beliefs” about Solomon’s
reputed magical abilities, and then to slot in the present text according to the nature of this
text’s version of Solomon’s abilities. There is however no certainty that his ‘trajectory’

accurately traces the evolution of either the text, or of Solomon’s expanding reputation.

His dating has also been made on the basis of the passage Solomon’s Epistle to his second son
Rehoboam. That passage by itself might justifiably be dated to the same era as the Testament
of Solomon, i.e. the 1st/2nd century CE. However mention of Solomon and the text of the
Epistle is repeated at a number of junctures in the text, and it soon becomes clear that this
passage is used as a sort of section divider rather than as an integral and useful part of his
instruction in magic. It is therefore more likely to have been inserted at a much later date, by
an editor attempting to firmly foist a famous name, in this case Solomon, onto his text.
Carroll nevertheless concludes from this rather flimsy premise, that the latest probable date

of composition was the end of the 2nd century CE.3°

Far too much has been made of this repeated passage, to the point where some scholars have
even attempted to use Epistle to Rehoboam as the title of the whole work.3*4 Torijano makes
this point rather too strenuously in his analysis of the contents of M.°° He refers to the Epistle
segment as “the pseudepigraphical unit: instructions of Solomon to his son Rehoboam.” %6 In
the course of his one-page contents analysis he lists this passage as a chapter head no less
than eight times, while the actual chapter heads and content (angels, demons, perfumes,
times, etc) take a back seat, or are relegated by him to subsection status below that of the

recurrent “pseudepigraphical unit” chapter head.

It is, however, very clear that the “pseudepigraphical unit” is merely a section header and an
attention-getter, and not the main thrust of the text. The ‘separateness’ of the
“pseudepigraphical unit” is also reinforced by the inappropriate stress laid by it on the
virtues “in herbs, in words and in stones...”°67 Sections on herbs and stones, if they were
present, have now been largely lost to the text. The section on herbs (chapters 17 and 18) has
become peripheral at best,3°8 and no section on stones or beasts exists at all in any of the
extant manuscripts. It is very clear therefore that “virtues in herbs, in words and in stones”
does not adequately describe the current contents of any chapter of the Hygromanteia, and

that therefore the “pseudepigraphical unit” is almost certainly grafted on by a later redactor,

363 Carroll (1989), p. 96.

364 T will address this issue at greater length later when considering the actual title of this work.

365 Torijano (2002), p. 164.

366 M, f. 240 as captioned on Torijano (2002), p. 164.

367 M, f. 240.

368 Chapter 17 only exists in one manuscript (M), and might therefore have been a later introduction.

from some other source. As Swartz has remarked, such passages often do not accurately
reflect the contents of the text in question, but act as an all-purpose flourish to be grafted on

to a text as a formulaic introduction:

A remarkable thing about these passages is how little they correspond to the contents of the books
they introduce. Introductions and testimonies such as these are highly conventional and can serve
any such text... Indeed, the introduction of Sifer ha-Razim, while clearly letting you know that you
are getting a magical book, is not an accurate portrayal of its contents: [for example] No known
recension of Sefer ha-Razim contains instructions for making an ark out of gopher-wood.°

Even if the “pseudepigraphical unit” dates from the 2nd century CE, its nature is one of an
editor-introduced adornment and section header, rather than integral to the text, and so it is

not at all a reliable guide to the dating of the whole work.

Mastrocinque dates the Hygromanteia as early as the 1st/2nd century CE, and so contempor-

aneous with the earliest Gnostic movements and many of the PGM:

A very rich stream, especially as regards the demonic and natural magic based on the
properties of substances and living beings, is found in the many apocryphal works of Solomon,
particularly...in the Hygromanteia Salomonis or Letter from Solomon to [his son] Roboam [sic], a treatise
on magic and astrology probably written between the first and early second centuries AD.9”°

I believe that Mastrocinque is following Carroll and makes the mistake of thinking of the
Hygromanteia Salomonis as a text of Jewish extraction, simply because of the pseudo-
epigraphical ascription to Solomon,?7! when in fact the text and techniques are, as I shall
demonstrate, firmly rooted in the Greek and Graeco-Egyptian tradition. The inclusion of
‘IAO Sabaoth’ and similar formula points merely to the early assimilation of these god
names into the existing Graeco-Egyptian magical tradition (they occur frequently in the
PGM), rather than indicating a direct lineage back to Jewish sources. To rephrase that, the
occasional Hebraic god names are, I believe, an incidental inclusion rather than an indication

of the rootstock of these magical practices.

The magical techniques found in the Hygromanteia are more refined, integrated and detailed
than those found in the PGM, and have lost much of their Egyptian character, suggesting a

longer period of gestation. Mastrocinque’s dating therefore seems far too early.
The Case for a 7th century Dating of the Hygromanteia

There are however specific clues in the text itself. The numbering of the days of the week

369 Swartz (1994), p. 225.

370 Mastrocinque (2005), p. 57.

371 Solomon occurs as a synonym for magical proficiency throughout the eastern Mediterranean being
part of Arabic, Jewish, Christian and other literatures. The tradition of Solomon being a magician is if
anything stronger in the Arabic tradition than the Judaic tradition. His inclusion as the supposed
author of the Hygromanteia, means no more than, for example, the 19th century attribution of a
handbook on geomancy to the Emperor Napoleon.

(Deutera, Trite, Tetarte, etc.) indicates a post-Constantine date (after 337 CE).3” If one accepts
that the text is a Greek text probably generated in Alexandria, then a dating after 337 CE and
no later than 642 CE (the capture of Alexandria by the Muslims) would seem to be likely.5”?

Chapters 7 and 30 of the Hygromanteia incorporate (in both long and short versions)3”4
material on electional astrology which appears to be derived directly from a treatise on
electional astrology written by Heéliodoros, a 4th century astrologer to the Emperor
Valens.3” This refines the dating to a post 5th century date, and so provides us with a useful

starting point.

Marathakis points out that the chief demon of Wednesday is listed in a number of
manuscripts of the Hygromanteia as Loutzipher or Loutzepher.°” This is clearly a transliteration
of the Latin Lucifer. It seems very out of place for a Greek to use ‘Lucifer’ rather than
Eosphoros, which is how that name appears in the Septuagint. That suggests that this word
was incorporated after the 405 CE completion of the Vulgate by St Jerome, who spent
considerable time in Byzantine cities, including Constantinople, and who claimed to have
superseded the Septuagint by returning to Hebrew sources. Such a claim may, for a short
period in the 5th-6th centuries, have given Loutzipher a greater appeal and credibility

amongst Greek readers than Eosphoros.3”

Although David Pingree characterises the text as a Jewish Kabbalistic text, he usefully
suggests that the angels of the hours in the Hygromanteia may date from the Geonic period

(589-1038 CE):

The Anotersopatikn mpaypateia [the Hygromanteia] rather seems to represent a relatively late
stage in the development of Jewish Kabbalistic angelology and demonology... One would guess
that such elaborate lists of angels and demons belong to the so-called geonic period (seventh to
eleventh centuries) rather than to any earlier time, so that the original version of the
Anotedgopatikt mpaynateia would have been contemporary with the majority of the
pseudepigraphical magical texts written in Arabic in the Near East.3”

I believe that Kabbalistic speculation had little to do with the Hygromanteia, or with the direct
transmission of the techniques of Solomonic magic, as the Hygromanteia does not utilise any
of the standard Kabbalistic cosmology (such as the Tree of Life), but from the time of the

PGM, Jewish sources have provided many of the angel names, particularly those with the

372 Of course it is possible this numbering might have been introduced by a later redactor.
373 On this dating also see Ness (1999), p. 146.
374 Chapter 7: manuscripts H, A, P3, B; chapter 30: manuscripts H and P. Also see chapter 2 in N.
375 As proof of this, some of that text is incorporated directly into manuscript N.
376 Barton (2006), p. 66. Héliodoros revealed a plot against the emperor Valens in 371 CE.
377 Marathakis (2011), p. 75. Several centuries later SMS uses the same spelling but transliterated into
Hebrew: Litzipher, sey} (f. 37b).
378 Marathakis (2011), p. 75.
379 Pingree (1980), p. 10.
99

characteristic Hebrew suffix 58" -iel. Although Pingree’s remark was only tentative, it helps

to move the focus of attention forward to the 7th century.

Even more significant than the dating, is Pingree’s reference to the Hygromanteia by its earlier
name Anotedeouatikt mpaypateia. As a result of following up this clue, I would like to
tentatively suggest a specific 7th century candidate for authorship of the Hygromanteia,

Stephanos of Alexandria, whose claim will be considered in detail later in this chapter.

Between 644 and 1172, I can find no trace of the Hygromanteia. Although the 12th century
Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates**° mentions a Solomoniké in the possession of the
magician Isaac Aaron in Constantinople in 1172, there is no guarantee that it was this

Solomonike.281
The Case for a 13th century Redaction of the Hygromanteia

A number of clues point to the 13th century as a time of a major redaction of the
Hygromanteia. One clue is that manuscripts M, N, B2 and V contain astrological material
drawn from the works of Abu ‘Abdallah Muhammad al-Zanati, a North African author of
geomancy texts who lived in the late 12th or early 13th century.382 As his works were only
translated into Greek by the monk Arsenios in 1266 in Constantinople, this suggests a
significant redaction of the Hygromanteia may have occurred in that city in the late 13th
century. This does not yield us a totally reliable dating as the general astrological section
(chapter 7) in which it occurs is not central to the method of the Hygromanteia, but may still

be a good indication of a period of editorial activity.

A further clue is to be found in the text. The method for determining the best times for
betting on chariot races is mentioned in only one version of the Hygromanteia.5®3 As these
races were discontinued in Constantinople in 1204, we might conjecture that this version of

the Hygromanteia was assembled before that date, or maybe soon after.**4

I surmise therefore that the text of the Hygromanteia dates from the late 6th/early 7th century
and that it was substantially redacted in the late 13th century.

Title

Scholars have felt free to put forward a number of possible titles for this work, as there is no

consistency of titling from one manuscript to another. The identification of the title is

380 Niketas Choniates (1155-1216) was the author of a Byzantine history, Historia Nicetae Choniatae.

381 Greenfield (1995), p. 130.

382 See Skinner, Geomancy, 2011, pp. 56-7, 63.

383 B, f. 2.

384 Rites for affecting the outcome of chariot races are however recorded in the PGM. See PGM III. 1-97
which also includes drawings of charioteers.

100

important because it has a considerable bearing upon how we look at the text and its history.
Possible titles which are found in one or other of the extant manuscripts (or in an academic

comment thereon) include:

Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia,

Astrological Treatise,

Clavicula Salomonis,

Epistle of Solomon to his Son Rehoboam,
Hygromanteia,

Instruction of Solomon,

Little Key of the Entire Art of Hygromanteia,

Magic Treatise,

Magical Treatise,

Magical Treatise of Solomon,

Magical Treatise of Gathering and Directing the Spirits,
Pragmatic Treatise,

Prayer and Conjurations of the Prophet Solomon against Demons,
Solomoniké,

Traité de Magie,

Treatise on Celestial Influences.

Probably the earliest title used for this work was Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia,>® a title referred
to by Pingree, which is also the title of a work credited to Stephanos of Alexandria. In fact,
Apotelesmatike can be simply translated as ‘[astrological] results.’38° So Apotelesmatiké
Pragmateia most simply means the “practical results of astrology.’ Indeed in one sense, magic
is the practical application of astrology. However this title has a confusing history, having
been applied to several different texts over the last 2000 years, and Apotelesmatike was a word

which was sometimes just loosely applied to a book on astrology.

Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astrologer (c.90-168 CE), wrote a very popular astrological
treatise called the Tetrabiblos (Tetpépiproc, literally “The Four Books’) which was also
sometimes referred to as the Apotelesmatika, a title that was well known in the Middle Ages. It
is therefore easy to see that any early reader coming across a manuscript entitled

Apotelesmatika might automatically assume it was by ‘Ptolemy the Greek.’°87 That false

385 Marathakis suggests several translations of this phrase, including Pragmatic Treatise, Treatise on

Celestial Influences, or the Astrological Treatise.

*86 J iddell and Scott translate tnd dmotekeopdtov mpoppydévta in an astrological context as the ‘result of

certain positions of the stars on human destiny.’

387 This knowledge is useful in another way, because it actually helps to solve a small mystery that has

surrounded one of the often quoted authors of the Key of Solomon. That author is ‘Ioh Grecis’ or “Toz
101

ascription arose because both the Tetrabiblos and the Hygromanteia were referred to at one

time or another as the Apotelesmatika.

I have shown that the “pseudepigraphical unit” is a grafted-on introduction with little
relevance to the main text, so The Epistle of Solomon to his Son Rehoboam cannot ever have been

the title of the whole work.

Strangely, Torijano proposes that the Magical Treatise formed a sub-section of the Hygromanteia,
whereas in fact the Hygromanteia section follows the Magical Treatise section.*** Torijano’s
contention is not supported by the text which is very obviously a magical treatise, and not a
work of water divination. From an analysis of the chapter contents it becomes apparent that
it is only four chapters of the last section (chapters 49-52)38° which could reasonably be called
a Hygromanteia, as it deals with four different methods of water skrying. In fact Hygromanteia

is simply the last subsection of the whole work, and therefore cannot be the main title.

It seems to me possible that at some point the manuscript had a list of contents at the
beginning which might well have taken a form which reflects the current contents division,

somewhat like this:

Astrological considerations (chapters 2-10 and 30)
Conjurations (chapters 11-13)
Equipment (chapters 14-29)
Evocation procedure - first method (chapters 31-39)
Evocation procedure - second method _ (chapters 40-46)
HAygromanteia (chapters 47-59)

The loss of most of the first page (a common fate among unbound manuscripts) might serve
to have destroyed most of the contents page leaving just “Hygromanteia’ as a residual entry. If
this were so, then it might explain why the title of only the last section has been mistakenly
applied to the beginning of the whole manuscript. Even translating 'hygromanteia' as ‘water

divination’ is an oversimplification, for the practices referred to are clearly those of evocatory

Graecus.’ This name is currently incorrectly interpreted as the Greek Thoth. The fact that he is also
sometimes referred to as ‘Ptolomaeus Graecus’ or ‘Ptolomeus y* Greacian’ (in Sloane MS 3847) gives
us the clue. In due course Ptolomy Graecus degenerated to “Toz Grec,’ the ‘z’ replacing a Latin
contraction mark for the last part of ‘Ptolemaeus.’ Then “Toz’ rendered back into Greek as to¢ might
easily give rise to a misreading of ‘Ioh’ if the reader thought it was Latin. This is probably the source
of ‘Ioh Grecis’ which often appears as an author in Key of Solomon manuscripts. Additional MS 10862
has ‘Ioe Grecis’ and Mathers mistakenly suggests ‘Iohé Grecis.’ Even more deformed are ‘Iroe Grecis’
and ‘Iroé Grego.’ Trithemius is also very uncertain of the name and variously transcribes it: Torzigeus,
Totz Graecus, Tozigaeus and even Thoczgraecus. It is pretty clear that the author so referred to was
Greek, which incidentally strengthens the case for the Greek roots of the Key of Solomon. I suggest that
the identity of “Toz Grec’ or ‘Ioh Grecis,’ one of the supposed authors of the Clavicula Salomonis, was in
fact Ptolemy the Greek astronomer. That false ascription arose because both the Tetrabiblos and the
HAygromanteia were referred to in mediaeval times as the Apotelesmatika.
388 See Torijano (2002), p. 211. Compare this with his contents list on p. 164, from which it has been
strangely extracted from item 7.
389 Utilising Marathakis’ chapter division proposed in Marathakis (2011), pp. 33-113.

102

skrying utilising water and a virgin boy as a medium, rather than simple divination.

Marathakis proved grammatically that The Little Key? of the entire Art of Hygromanteia is a
later redaction.**! He suggests instead The Instruction of Solomon, but this phrase depends
upon the Rehoboam passage, and does not occur in any position where it could be

construed as a title.

Delatte refers to the text in general terms as a Traité de Magie,°2 and Greenfield and Torijano
follow his lead with an English equivalent, the Magic Treatise and The Magical Treatise
respectively. These generic titles are appropriate, but are still not the precise title by which the

text would have been known by its author, owners or redactors.

McCown astutely asserted that the Hygromanteia was a Greek form of the Clavicula Salomonis
and therefore he refers to the Greek text by that same Latin title.°°° This is confirmed in
manuscripts D and M which give the title as the Little Key (or Clavicula in Latin) to the text,
probably in the sense of an epitome or summary of maybe a larger work. Manuscripts D and
M are amongst the least complete of all the manuscripts we have, but it is clear that the Latin
translations subsequently made must have come from a manuscript bearing the same or
similar title, as D and M. This further helps support the direct line of transmission of material
from the Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis.5% But, having said that, the later Latin title

(Clavicula) is not a correct or suitable title for the original Greek text.

The title Soloménike has also been applied to this text, but this word is a generic description of

Greek texts generally attributed to Solomon, rather than a discrete title in its own right.

Only one manuscript, A2, has the title Prayer and Conjurations of the prophet Solomon against
Demons. The fact that Solomon is characterised as a prophet rather than a king, and the
conjurations are described as ‘prayers’ directed ‘against’ demons, strongly suggests a later
Christian interpolation. Added to that, manuscript A2 is of relatively recent date (1833), very
corrupt, and very short (only 11 folios), and therefore not a very reliable witness. All of

which suggests that this title is not the original one.

Finally, the most appropriate and the correct title for the whole text in its present form is
imbedded, logically enough, in the incipit of the longest manuscript H,% which reads ‘here

begins The Magical Treatise of Gathering and Directing the Spirits.” Indeed, the getting and

390 Or ‘kleidon.’

391 This is a tempting title as it looks forward to the English Key of Solomon.

392 Delatte (1927-39), p. 397.

398 McCown (1922), p. 14.

394 Mastrocinque refers to it using a Greek-Latin combination, Hygromanteia Salomonis.

39 As the incipit does not appear till the first line of folio 18v, just before the Epistle of Solomon to
Rehoboam, it is understandable that scholars have overlooked it.

103

directing of spirits is the main purpose of this and all subsequent grimoires.°

Despite the fact that the original title of the text was probably the Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia,
the text in its present form should most properly be called The Magical Treatise of Gathering
and Directing the Spirits, or Magical Treatise for short. I will however continue to refer to it as
the Hygromanteia for reasons of historical consistency. As we have seen, this book contains a

sub-section whose title, Hygromanteia, has mistakenly become the title for the whole work.

Manuscripts

There are 20 extant manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, of these H is the most complete. They
are listed in full in the Bibliography, and in Appendix 3,597 which tabulates the 12
manuscripts most frequently utilised in the present thesis, with the whereabouts of their

printed Greek transcriptions and partial English translations.3

The most complete manuscript with regard to the magical sections, and one of the oldest, is
manuscript H in the British Library.3° This shows a quite detailed structure as laid out in
Table 01. The view that the Hygromanteia is simply a floating compendium of techniques is
only valid if there were no visible overall consistent sequential technique: in other words, if
the text were simply a collection of separate recipes, as are many magic manuscripts.
However this text is not a collection of variegated recipes. It has a very definite structure,
divided into timing and astrological considerations; preparation of participants; consecration
of equipment; two chronologically sequenced set of invocations and evocations; and finally a
section on ritual skrying. The different versions of the manuscript have come about as the
result of the loss/accretion of some of these parts around a core structure, due to scribal

selection over time.

The oldest manuscript of the Hygromanteia (B2: Bononiensis MS 3632 in the University
Library of Bologna) dates from 1440. This manuscript is particularly beautiful, clear and
perfectly preserved as part of a much larger collection deceptively bound up with the spine
label of just one of its component texts, Dioscorides. Apart from making its location difficult,
this is an example of how a collection of manuscripts, particularly a large one, can so easily

end up with a title which only applies to part of the manuscripts bound together, giving rise

5% It is significant that H is the most complete manuscript as it contains more of the 59 chapters than
any other manuscript of the Hygromanteia. At one point this manuscript must have ended after chapter
43, as the last line of this chapter (f. 37) is “The end of the Art of Directing the Demons,” confirming
again the correct title.
397 Pull bibliographic details of these manuscripts will be found in Marathakis (2011), pp. 18-32.
398 The remaining eight manuscripts have been omitted due to: their destruction by fire (T);
inaccessibility (M4, P3, P4); irrelevance (M3, V2 and possibly A2); confused state and late 19th century
date (B3).
399 Harley MS 5596. See Appendix 3 for detailed chapter counts.

104

to the possibly of mis-cataloguing.

Of the 20 extant manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, it is possible to identify the author or
copyist in five cases, and locate the place of composition also in five cases (not always the
same texts). Of the texts found bound with each manuscript, apart from general astrological
texts, the most popular ‘ride along’ texts were the Testament of Solomon and the Book of
Wisdom of Apollonius or BipAog Xogiac, Biblos Sophias. The connection with the Testament of
Solomon is significant because the Testament stresses Solomon’s role in evoking and binding
demons, which is clearly what the Hygromanteia is primarily concerned with rather than
water divination. There are also similarities in method between these two texts (for example
the use of the thwarting angels method*°) and they share a number of similar demon names

(see Table 06).4

The other ‘ride along’ text, the Book of Wisdom of Apollonius, has been is dated by Dzielska to
no earlier than the late 5t century.* It is therefore contemporaneous with the Hygromanteia,

if my estimated composition of the early 6 century turns out to be correct.4%

The Term ‘Hygromanteia’

In this context, it is wrong to only translate ‘hygromanteia’ as ‘water divining’ despite the
literal interpretation of its constituent syllables, as found in Liddell and Scott and other
Greek dictionaries. In the mediaeval Greek context hygromanteia was always understood as a
type of evocation or nigromancy. Later when ‘necromancy’ became confused with

nigromancy, necromancy was also confused with hygromancy.‘04

When hygromantic texts first passed into Latin, the term was still understood correctly. Even
considerably later in 1559, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum*> banned “Hydroman|[tiae] vel
Necroma[n]tie” demonstrating that even at that point the Inquisition thought that the two
terms were more or less interchangeable. It was only scholars who, copying Isidore of
Seville, in his quest for a neat fourfold symmetrical classification, decided that hydromancy

must have formed one of the ‘four elemental forms of divination.’

400 See chapter 5.1.1.

401 The Book of Wisdom of Apollonius is related to the work on talismans by Belinus (the Arabic form of
Apollonius’ name).

402 Dzielska (1986), pp. 32-38, 185.

403 T have not been able to check it, but this book may also be even more significant if its talismans are
in some way connected with the later pentacles of the Clavicula Salomonis.

404 It is a great pity that nigromancy and necromancy became confused, as the latter might, with some
benefit to clarity, have retained its restricted definition of evocation of the dead rather than evocation
of spirits, as the prefix ‘necro-’ clearly indicates.

405 Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Rome, 1559, issued by Pope Pius IV. A later issue in 1564 was
published in Colona under Pope Alexander VII.

105

In fact it was only geomancy (earth divination) that fitted that bill,4°° as aeromancy and
pyromancy were the products of the same scholars’ imagination, rather than real techniques

with a methodology and ongoing history of actual practical use.” As Johnston observes:

Isidore of Seville’s neat, encyclopedic distinctions among types of divination probably never
held true in the real world of Greece and Rome [or mediaeval Europe].

‘Hygromancy’ as used in the Hygromanteia would have been understood by its readers in the
same sense as the Inquisition understood it, that is, as equivalent to Necromantiz, and hence
equivalent to nigromancy, and not simply one of the ‘four elemental divinations’ (of which at
least two were fictional artificial constructs). Greenfield, with whom I am otherwise in
agreement over most things, suggests as a way of getting around this impasse, that originally
the demon may have been evoked into a basin of water, and that this (central) instrument
has then been dropped from the ritual. I find that a contrived and highly unlikely

explanation.

An alternative derivation of hygromancy proposed in my edition of the Key of Solomon*® is

more all-embracing. The background is succinctly summarised by Marathakis:

A third theory has been proposed by Skinner and Rankine. According to them, the word
Hygromanteia does not mean water divination in this context, but applies to the ancient practice
of constraining demons in hydriai, that is to say urns, water jars or metallic water vessels. This
practice was frequently linked with Solomon, not only in the Testament, but also in the writings
of the 4th century Byzantine historian Zosimus and in a 6th century account of Jerusalem
recorded in the Breviarius de Hierosolyma. This is another plausible theory, since in some
manuscripts an occult technique is cited with the aim of imprisoning spirits in bottles, and this
technique is named Gasteromanteia, that is to say “bottle divination.” #1

The use of the word Gasteromanteia to indicate the active imprisonment of spirits (with no
hint of divination) in chapter 44 of the Hygromanteia, adds further weight to the widening of

the range of meaning for -manteia beyond than that of simple divination.

The word ‘hydria’ in both Greek and Latin means an ‘urn’ or ‘water jar.’ The passage from the
6th century Breviarius de Hierosolyma*!? mentioned above describes the instruments of spirit
imprisonment which still existed at that time in the apse of the Martyrium of Constantine in

Jerusalem:

In circuitu duodecim columnae marmoreae (omnino incredibile), super ipsas columnas hydriae argenteae

406 See Skinner, Geomancy (2011).

407 This excludes New Age interpretations of pyromancy, which simply involve staring into a flame.

408 Johnston (2008), p. 148.

409 Greenfield (1988), p. 160.

410 Skinner and Rankine (2008).

411 Marathakis (2011), p. 35.

412 A traveller's account of Jerusalem recorded in 530 CE in the Breviarius de Hierosolyma in Geyer, Itinera
Hierosolymitana, Vienna, 1893.

106

duodecim, ubi sigillavit Salomon daemones.413
The Latin text specifically refers to ‘hydriae argenteae’ or ‘silver water vessels’ not just ‘urns.’

Silver, like brass and electrum was credited with the property of being able to restrain spirits.

The 4th century Byzantine historian, Zosimus, who lived in Constantinople, mentioned the
tradition that urns containing demons were secreted below the platform of the Temple of
Solomon in Jerusalem. He states that the technique of imprisoning demons in hydriai used by

Solomon was also known in Egypt:

Among the Egyptians, there is a book called The Seven Heavens, attributed to Solomon, [and used]
against the demons; but it is not correct (to say) that it is by Solomon, since these bottles had been
brought at another time to our [Egyptian] priests; [as] that is what the language employed to
denote them makes one suppose, because the expression ‘bottle of Solomon’ is a Hebrew
expression. At any moment, the great [High] priest of Jerusalem gets them, according to the plain
sense, from the lower abyss [below the Temple] of Jerusalem ...All or almost all agree concerning
the function of the bottles [was] directed against the demons. The bottles acted [against demons] like
the prayer and the nine letters [talismans] written by Solomon: the demons cannot withstand
them.414

Zosimus*!5 goes on to explain the exact material used to make these urns or bottles:

The seven bottles in which Solomon shut up the demons were made of electrum. It is necessary to
believe, in this respect, the Jewish writings about the demons. The altered book that we possess
and that is entitled The Seven Heavens contains the following... The angel ordered Solomon to
make these bottles.... The wise Solomon knows how to summon the demons; he gives a formula
of conjuration and mentions the electrum, that is, the bottles of electrum, on the surface of which
he wrote this formula. ..41

The hydriai were also mentioned in a letter dated August 1507 from the Abbot Trithemius of
Wiirzburg to his colleague Johann Virdung,*!” a professor at the university of Heidelberg,
and mathematician and court astrologer to the Elector Palatine.*!8 In it he comments on the
various magical abilities of Georg Sabellicus, a magician who claimed to be the “second

Faustus:’419

Magister Georgius Sabellicus, Faustus iunior, fons necromanticorum, astrologus, magus secundus,
chiromanticus, agromanticus, pyromanticus, in hydr[i]a arte secundus.#”°

Although Trithemius was not at all supportive of Sabellicus, and thought him a rogue, he

was happy to record Sabellicus’ claim that he was the fountainhead of knowledge about

13 “Tn a circle there are twelve columns made of marble (absolutely incredible), on top of the same
columns there are twelve water vessels made of silver, where Solomon sealed the demons...”
414 Syriac Zosimus Book XII, quoted by Berthelot, in La Chimie, 2:264-265, quoted by Torijano (2002), p.
180.
415 Zosimus was a pagan Byzantine historian living in Constantinople (fl. 491-518).
416 Berthelot, La Chimie quoted by Torijano (2002), p. 183.
417 Virdung was a successful astrologer (1463-1538). He was educated in Krakow and Leipzig
418 Dated 20 August 1507.
419 The first Faustus was of course Simon Magus, who sometimes used the name Faustus.
20 “Master George Sabellicus, Faustus junior, fountain [of the knowledge] of necromancers,
astrologer, magician second [grade], [practitioner of] chiromancy, agromancy, pyromancy, and second [in
reputation] in the art of [using] the hydria.” Trithemius’ letter to Virdung, Wiirzburg, 20 August 1507,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, codex Pal. Lat. 730, ff. 174-175.

107

necromancy (for which read ‘nigromancy’) and astrology, but also that he was second (in

reputation) in the art of the hydria.

I propose, despite the modern literal dictionary meaning of -manteia, that hygromanteia (and
hydromanteia)*2! can also refer to an evocatory process, which at one point used hydriai, or

silver/electrum water vases, as a spirit restraining mechanism.

A confirmation that not only were the spirits restrained by vdpia, hydria, but could also be
released when the hydria were disturbed, is to be found in the Valentinian Gnostic Testimony

of Truth:422

[Others] have [demons] dwelling with them [as did] David the king. He is the one who laid the
foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in [adultery], is the one who
built Jerusalem by means of the demons, because he received [power]. When he [had finished
building, he imprisoned] the demons [in the temple]. He [placed them] into seven [waterpots.
They remained] a long [time in] the [waterpots], abandoned [there]. When the Romans [went]
up to [Jerusalem] they discovered [the] waterpots, [and immediately] the [demons] ran out of
the waterpots as those who escape from prison. And the waterpots [remained] pure (thereafter).
[And] since those days, [they*?? dwell] with men who are [in] ignorance, and [they have
remained upon] the earth.424

Admittedly some of Robinson’s bracketed reconstructions are debatable, but this is just one
of several re-tellings of that particular incident. Another possibly 4 century source suggests
that Solomon’s method of spirit entrapment involved the use of bronze jars, rather than

silver/electrum:

I adjure you, the 960 spirits of the evil one’s congregation, who swore to King Solomon, when

he shut you up in the bronze jars by the archangel Gabriel, who has power over the evil...

I adjure you by the 1999 names who swore to King Solomon; when we hear the name of the
Lord Sabaoth, we will flee from those. Solomon, who received wisdom from God, shut them up

in bronze jars and sealed them with the name of God.*5

It is therefore not a big leap to associate the imprisoning of spirits using urns or bottles with
the procedures outlined in the Hygromanteia.426 See chapter 5.3.2, Figure 31 and Figure 32 for

details of how this practice evolved in the later Latin Solomonic grimoires.

421 Carroll's suggestion that the difference between hydromancy and hygromancy may have been
related to the amount of water used is quite extraordinary to say the least, as is his imaginative but
quite unlikely description of the method of evocation using hygromancy: “The magician stirred water
until a demon appeared on the water’s surface. The demon was then forced to work for the magician.”
In the same passage, he also rather carelessly refers to Harleianus MS 5596 as “Codex Harleianus 556.’
See Carroll (1989), pp. 91-92, 100.
422 Dating from 140-180 CE.
423 The demons.
424 Testimony of Truth, 70 in Robinson (1990), p. 458. This is also quoted in Torijano (2002), p.181 but
with Robinson’s reconstructions taken into the text.
#25 MS Parisinus Graecus 2316 as translated in Torijano (2002), p. 182.
426 H, £.37; A, £. 26

108

Owners of Manuscripts of the Hygromanteia

As Greenfield has pointed out,4?” the Byzantine view of magic generally held by the populace
differed considerably from the view of the Church. It was amongst the well educated that the
handbooks of magic were to be found. A small window on the owners of such manuscripts
may be opened on the 14th century in Constantinople, which demonstrates not only the
prevalence of handbooks on magic, but also that they were owned by pious monks,

physicians and members of the higher echelons of society and the ruling classes.

In 1370 a trial began in Sancta Sophia, before the Synod of Constantinople, of Theodosius
Phoudoulis who was accused of practising magic, and of possessing ‘infamous books.’ The
trial soon enveloped a large group of people, as the origin of these books unfolded.
Phoudoulis confessed that he had received the books from Syropoulos who in turn had
received them from one Gabrielopoulos, described later as “a pious monk” and in all
probability also a doctor. It was in the home of the latter that a book by Kyranides,4?8 and “a
booklet full of demonic invocations, spells and [demon] names” by Demetrius Chloros, a
priest, physician and magician, was also found.*?? Chloros was also a secretary to the
Patriarch, and a person of no mean standing in the community, in fact all three seem to be
typical practitioners of learned magic. Chloros initially tried to hide the magic behind
legitimate medicine, but when the court read the texts concerned, they had no hesitation in
convicting all three. A later hearing said of Chloros that he “did not profess the Christian faith,
but the doctrines of the Hellenes [ie. ancient pagan Greeks] and worshipped demons.”
However the very mild punishment for Chloros was simply banishment to a monastery,
which was not really a great hardship for an ex-priest. So it could be said that the attitude of
the Church to learned ritual magic was not very stern in that period. It is likely that the

popular view was even more relaxed.‘

The stress in many of these trials was upon books, confirming that as practitioners of learned
magic, the books of procedures and invocations, the grimoires, were most important. Any of
the above named magicians might well have had their own copy of the Hygromanteia.
Gabrielopoulos, for example:

...is said to have kept his books “like pearls” in safe-boxes (cevdovkiotc). At an earlier date a

book of magic found in the possession of an individual of the influential, and apparently
corrupt, court interpreter Isaac Aaron was hidden in an imitation tortoise shell.4*!

#27 Greenfield (1988), pp. 1-6.
428 Kyranides, a book on astral magic, which involved the creation of talismans at very specific astrologically
determined times.
429 See Gilly and van Heertum (eds.) (2002), pp. 77-78.
430 Rigo (2002), pp. 77-79.
431 Choniates Xpovixt) Aujynotc, p. 146; IL, pp. 45-46, quoted by Greenfield (1988), p. 155.
109

Yet another notable practitioner of magic from this decade was John Abramios, an
astronomer, astrologer, defrocked priest, and possibly also a doctor. Pingree refers to the
‘Astrological School of John Abramios’ in one of his essays, thus pointing up Abramios’

importance to that discipline, and several of his manuscripts survive to the present day.*2

Another later but important figure is Giorgios Midiates (fl. 1462) who copied a collection of
magical material, including the important Testament of Solomon. He also actually wrote one of

the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, and so is very well qualified to comment on it.*%

Choniates told the story of the magician Isaac Aaron in his history of the time of the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1118-1180).4 Aaron used a book allegedly by Solomon which
had invocations which if read aloud “could cause legions of demons to appear,” in one case to

drive out the occupants of a bath-house with whom he had a violent disagreement.*5

Another story is told by Choniates about the magician Michael Sikidites*¢ who cast an

enchantment over a boatman to the great amusement of his colleagues:

Sikidites was an imperial secretary, and was standing with a group of people on a terrace of the
Great [Topkapi] Palace overlooking the Sea of Marmara. He bet them that he could make the
boatman stand up and smash all the tiles in his cargo; after they agreed, the boatman stood up
and reduced the tiles to fragments with his oar, while the onlookers were helpless with
laughter. He later said that he had seen a huge snake on the tiles, staring at him and menacing
him with open jaws.*°”

It is tempting to suggest that this event may have happened on a Saturday morning in the
third hour of Mars*® which is characterised by the Hygromanteia as an hour “for setting up a
[Martial] enchantment.”499 Exact timing was one of the hallmarks of the Hygromanteia and

indeed of all Solomonic ritual magic.

Punishment for causing damage by magic was sometimes blinding, and that punishment
apparently eventually overtook Sikidites, but for a different offence.“4° So it would seem
(from the instances on the previous page) that the civil authorities in this period treated
magic much more harshly than the religious authorities, although maybe that latitude was

only extended to priests and monks.

432 Examples of Abramios’ manuscripts survive as MS Marc. Gr. Cl. V. 13 (1221), dating from 1376,
contains medical material, part of the Kyranides, and some Hermetic tracts (Ad Asclepium). MS
Laurentian XXVIII, 16, compiled by him in 1381-2 contains mainly astrological texts.

483 MS Parisinus Gr. 2419 in 1462.

#84 Choniates, Historia, ed. Van Dieten, pp. 220-221. In 1617 Michael Maier further confirmed that
Aaron Isaac has used the Clavicula Salomonis, referring to the Hygromanteia by its later Latin name.

45 Magdalino and Mavroudi (2006), pp. 148-149.

436 Said by some scholars to be, in fact, Michael Glykas.

437 Choniates, Panoplia Dogmatike, as quoted by Magdalino and Mavroudi (2006), p. 149.

438 A planet associated with violent destruction.

49 Marathakis (2011), p. 48.

440 Another case of punishment by blinding was that of Skleros Seth who used magic to seduce an
unmarried girl, a far more serious crime then than now.

110

The Author of the Hygromanteia

Given that Solomon was universally accounted a magician in the eastern Mediterranean, the
author could have in theory been a Jew, Muslim, Christian or a Neoplatonic/ pagan Greek.
The presence of “Sabbath” instead of Saturday, and “preparation” for Friday, does suggest a
Jewish scribe, as does the typical angel and demon names ending in -iel. The absence of
‘Jesus’ or any other clearly Christian references from the New Testament probably rules out a
Christian author, despite Sunday being described as “the Lord’s Day,” as that label might
have arisen from the work of a later Byzantine copyist. Any other Christian influences have
only been added in much later, and in a rather awkward manner,“ making it certain that the

author was not a Christian.

From the naming of the weekdays, where Sunday is named Kyriake (= the Lord’s day)? but
Saturday is called Sabbaton (= the Sabbath), and Friday is Paraskeue (= the ‘Preparation’ for
the Sabbath), it is not unreasonable to suggest that at least one owner was a Greek-
speaking Jew, but this does not necessarily indicate a Jewish origin for the whole

Hygromanteia, as these weekday names are still used by modern (Christian) Greeks today.*#

Items such as the formula “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob” suggest
a Jewish source, but seem to distance the speaker from that tradition. A Jew invoking his
own god in this fashion seems like a Christian invoking Jesus as “the God of St Peter.”
Although the author was not necessarily Jewish, he almost certainly lived in a Greek
environment influenced by Judaism, such as Alexandria or Constantinople, and was Greek

educated.

I have no quarrel with the place of origin being Alexandria. Goodenough is of the opinion**®
that the Hygromanteia is a Jewish adaptation of pagan material. This is certainly a possibility,

and fits with my suggestion of a possible author.

I would like to suggest a specific candidate for authorship: Stephanos of Alexandria (c. 581 -
c. 641 CE), a Neoplatonist philosopher and scientist, probably born in Athens, but residing in
Alexandria before migrating to Constantinople on the express invitation of the Emperor

Heraclius. I realise this will be contentious, but my reasons are as follows:

441 See chapter 55 of the Hygromanteia: “Christ Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

42 Suggesting a Christian scribe.

443 Suggesting a Jewish scribe.

444 As posited in Torijano (2002), p.166.

445 On the basis of the very limited manuscript M.

446 There were also Jewish magicians at the Byzantine court such as Isaac Aaron, and the Hygromanteia
could well have been the work of one of them.

111

Stephanos was an acknowledged expert in alchemy,”” astrology and ‘mathematics.’

The latter term was often a polite synonym for magic.

Stephanos moved from Alexandria to Constantinople in 617 CE, following precisely
the path of the transmission of magical techniques which are here being

established.448

The 11th/12th century Byzantine historian Georgios Kedrenos reported that Stephanos
wrote an Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia.“’ The Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia that he wrote has
usually been identified by modern scholars as an astrological text with the same
name as the text here under discussion, but relating to the horoscope of Islam.‘°
However, this modern identification is only tentative, and that specific Apotelesmatiké
Pragmateia authored by Stephanos, might instead have been the present text under its

original title.

Several scholars have agreed that the Usener text‘! referred to could not have been
by Stephanos, as it shows a detailed knowledge of the course of Islam up until the

end of the 8th century,” and therefore must have been by a later author.

Abu Ma’shar listed in his 9th century catalogue of astrological books by Greek
writers, an Apotelesmatike by Stephanos of Alexandria, which might have been simply

a book on astrology, or may have been the present text under discussion.

Therefore there is no compelling reason why the particular Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia
mentioned by either Abu Ma’shar or Kedrenos as authored by Stephanos could not in

fact have been the Hygromanteia under its earlier name.

The electional astrology chapters (7 and 30) in the Hygromanteia clearly derive from
Héliod6éros. Olympiodorus is recorded as having specifically lectured on Héliod6ros,
and Olympiodorus was known to have been Stephanos’ teacher. Therefore the

inclusion of Héliod6ros’ material in the Hygromanteia is very suggestive.*3

447 He was the author of On the Great and Sacred Art of Making Gold. See Papathanassiou (2006).

448 An interesting sidelight is that there was a proliferation of a large number of high quality magical
amulets (in the form of bronze pendants and rings) mass produced in Constantinople in that century.
After which, with the exception of womb amulets, there was never again such an upsurge in magical
amulet production in the middle and late Byzantine periods. See Spier (2006), p. 31.

49 See Usener (1914), pp. 266-289.

50 The interrogation concerning Muhammad and the subsequent career of Islam mentioned in Vaticanus
Gr. 1056 is falsely attributed to Stephanos, and therefore the dating derived from this incident is also
incorrect. See Pingree (1989), p. 236.

51 Usener (1914), pp. 247-322.

52 A counter argument to that suggests that the later 8th century events were interpolated by an editor
living a century after Stephanos, but that is unlikely.

3 See chapters 7, 30 and 58.

112

6. Stephanos’ imperial patron and friend, the Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641), was well
known to be intensely interested in alchemy, astrology and magic.4 Stephanos
relocated from Alexandria to Constantinople at the bidding of this Emperor, and

would have been expected to bring such texts with him.

Heraclius was eager to promote classical Greek learning, and rather like Rudolph II

of Bohemia, acted as a patron for magicians, astrologers and alchemists:

From the seventh century onwards, alchemy seems to have been perfectly well integrated
into the official learning, judging by the vogue it apparently enjoyed under Heraclius.*°

Stephanos is known to have written an alchemical work.46

Ty Stephanos was a Neoplatonic Greek, which fits well with the absence of explicit
Christian references, and his usage of the Greek gods to designate the days of the

week in the Hygromanteia.

8. Stephanos was very familiar with katarchic astrology, and lectured on Ptolemy’s
Handy Tables. This agrees with the great stress laid upon the importance of selecting
the correct hour and day for specific magical operations in the Hygromanteia (also in

the PGM).

9. In Constantinople, Stephanos is reported to have taught the quadrivium, as well as
giving astrological advice to the Emperor.®” Westerink’ maintains that in the 6th
century astrology was still an important part of the quadrivium, and Alexandria was

still seen as the fountainhead of all astrological and magical knowledge.

There has been some reluctance to accept that Stephanos was the author of even an alchemic
treatise, and therefore there will undoubtedly be even more reluctance to accept his possible
authorship of the Hygromanteia. Papathanassiou sums up the reluctance of scholars to accept
that well known philosophers of the ancient world could ever have been interested in

subjects like magic, alchemy or astrology:

The hesitation of modern scholars to accept Stephanos’ alchemical and astrological activities as
an integral part of his scholarly profile is not rooted in a proper grasp of seventh-century
reality; rather, it is the result of anachronistically applying modern criteria in order to
understand the organisation and transmission of knowledge during a much earlier and very

454 He took astrology very seriously, as he even filled in a very large water cistern near his palace to
circumvent Stephanos’ prediction that he would die from drowning. He introduced Greek as the
official language of the Eastern Empire, a language most of its citizens already spoke, replacing Latin
as the Imperial language in 619/620 CE.
455 Mertens (2006), p. 228.
456 On the Great and Sacred Art of Making Gold. See Papathanassiou (2006), p. 170.
457 Details of his interest in alchemy, plus an examination of an alternative Apotelesmatike Pragmateia
will be found in Papathanassiou (2006), pp. 163-203.
458 Westerink, (1971), pp. 18-21.

113

different historical period than our own.*?
It seems possible that at least one of the above books under the title Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia
by Stephanos of Alexandria may indeed have been an early version of the Hygromanteia,
which is why that earlier title is still preserved in H, the most complete version of the

Hygromanteia.

Pingree argued that the author of the Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia (if it was not Stephanos) was
at least very well informed about Stephanos’ work on Ptolemy’s Handy Tables, while
Papathanassiou argues that at least the introduction of one Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia goes

back to a genuine work by Stephanos.

I therefore suggest that the Apotelesmatiké Pragmateia by Stephanos might have been either an
early version or a forerunner of the Hygromanteia, and that this particular Apotelesmatiké

Pragmateia was not the one with the Islamic horoscope translated by Usener.*

I would be happy to have this attribution refuted, but only if a better candidate for the

authorship of the Hygromanteia can be discovered.
Analysis of the Contents of the Hygromanteia

Just as the PGM has been analysed in terms of its contents, so it is necessary to analyse the
exact magical techniques that make up the Hygromanteia, before looking at its place in the
transmission of learned Solomonic magic. Torijano provides a detailed breakdown of the
constituent parts of just one manuscript of the Hygromanteia.**! In doing so he emphasises
what he calls “the pseudepigraphical unit” which recounts the alleged conversation between
Solomon and his son Rehoboam. This passage recurs no less than eight times, like a refrain,
and is used like a chorus or section divider. As already suggested, this repeated emphasis
looks very like a later introduction, added to justify the antiquity and its putative Jewish
Solomonic roots.‘ It has also acted as justification for some scholars attempting the unlikely
task of including this magical text amongst collections of Old Testament pseudepigraphical

scriptures, by using the title Epistle to Rehoboam.*®
Early Structure of the Hygromanteia

Although it would seem more logical to associate the chapters (17 and 18) on planetary and

459 Papathanassiou (2006), p. 202.
400 Usener (1914), pp. 247-322.
461 Torijano (2002), pp. 164, 210-211. The manuscript he uses to derive this division is M. His
description of the divisions is strangely set out on two widely separated pages, using two different
numbering schemes. Compare p. 164 with p. 210-211. These two partial lists intersect in a very
unsatisfactory manner.
462 Tn fact if this is removed there is little of a Jewish nature in the Hygromanteia.
463 For example see Carroll (1989).

114

zodiacal herbs with works on astral magic or herbalism, I believe that these sections had and

still have a place in the Hygromanteia.

In the introductory passages, Solomon exhorts his son Rehoboam to pay attention to the
details of the art. Solomon adds that the virtue of things resides “in herbs, in words and in
stones.”46+ Apart from words (invocations) and two small chapters on the plants of the
planets and of the zodiac, there is no material in the Hygromanteia on stones. I hypothesise
that the earlier texts of the Hygromanteia would have had a chapter on stones, which has

subsequently been extracted and recycled as a separate lapidary.*®

The reference to virtues to be found “in herbs, in words and in stones” occurs however in a
number of other later works on magic such as the Latin Sepher Raziel.4°6 In Raziel these are
catered for in some detail in the seven separate treatises that make up that grimoire.
Correspondences have always been an important part of magic. I think it is possible that the
HAygromanteia may have had extensive sections on the planetary and zodiacal correspondences
of plants, animals and stones, most of which have been split off over time from the text of the
grimoire into separate herbals, bestiaries and lapidaria. This is a natural occurrence, given that
the evocatory content is likely to have been at some stage separated from the apparently more
acceptable ‘natural magic’ of the herbals, bestiaries and lapidaria.*6” Much of the latter material
is likely to have finished up in the books of pseudo-Albertus Magnus,4* or similar authors,

which still retain some magical content, but at the recipe level of a “Book of Secrets.’

The Latin Sepher Raziel*®? is one of the few grimoires to keep all seven divisions of magic,
natural and ritual, under one head. In the opening chapter of the Raziel there are repeated
warnings against splitting up the book, a process which may well have happened to the
Hygromanteia, and perhaps many other grimoires. The fact that this warning is repeatedly
given suggests that the editor might have been aware of such splitting up of other grimoires

by his editorial contemporaries:

And then I begun to write all these Treatises in a new volume, for [just] one Treatise without

464 ML, f. 240.

465 Marathakis (2011) approaches this dilemma from a different perspective and suggests (p. 34) that
“this part of the introduction initially belonged to an unknown herbarium and lapidarium.” In an
oblique way, we are both saying the same thing: either the herbarium and lapidarium got detached, or
the introduction got detached.

466 See Karr and Skinner (2010), p. 146, where the sections on herbs, stones, and animals are repeatedly
stressed as being integral to the magical method laid out there. Obviously the third category, ‘words,’
has always formed part of the magical method.

467 In fact the concept of ‘natural magic’ may simply have been a reaction to the church’s blanket
condemnation of magic, in an effort to separate out the acceptable parts of the subject.

468 See Best (1973).

469 Sloane MS 3846; Sloane MS 3826, both dated 1564. The contents of these manuscripts is quite
different from Sepher Rezial Hemelach edited by Savedow (2000).

115

another serves not to [explain] the wholeness of the work... Clarifaton*” said that it ought to be
but one book alone by itself, for none of these [Treatises], said he, would suffice without the
others, therefore he said it is necessary that they are all [kept] together. Whereupon Solomon
ordained that all the said 7 Treatises were but one book, as they ought to be, and so they ought
to be read and wrought.4”1

This suggests that maybe other early grimoires had separate sections on herbs, stones and
beasts, as well as the more usual sections on ritual times, incenses, circle designs and angel

and spirit names.

It is useful to examine how the Raziel is divided, as a clue as to how the Hygromanteia may

have originally been structured. Its Seven Treatises are:

Liber Clavis, the Book of the Key of Astronomy

Liber Ala, the Virtues of some Stones, Herbs, Beasts and Words
Tractatus Thymiamatus, of suffumigations or incense

Treatise of Times of the day and night

Treatise of Purity and Abstinence

Gi Ol: RO

Samaim, the Names of the heavens and their angels

7. Book of Virtues and Miracles for specific magical operations.
The Hygromanteia is divided into nine sections: “Instructions of the nine books of Solomon,
concerning the gathering of the aerial spirits face to face...”472 If its sections are rearranged

slightly it divides into nine similarly structured parts which conveniently parallel the Raziel:47

ds Key Astrological background to the magic (chapters 2, 4-10, 30)”

2. Virtues and correspondences of plants, characters (chapters 15-18)

ce Planetary incenses, characters and seals (chapter 14)

4, Times - angels/ demons of the hours and days (chapters 11, 13)

3; Ritual procedure, purity and abstinence (chapters 31, 40)

6. Conjurations & prayers to planets, angels, spirits (chapters 3, 37, 42, 43)

Z Specific objective evocation methods (chapters 38-9, 44-46, 58-9)
8. The equipment and materia of Solomonic magic (chapters 19-29, 32-36, 41).475
9: Skrying methods (lekanomanteia, hygromanteia, etc.) (chapters 47-57)

The last two sections are given in much greater detail in the Hygromanteia than the Raziel.

It is not my intention to propose a connection between these two grimoires, but merely to

70 Reputedly Solomon’s scribe.

471 Karr and Skinner (2010), p. 146.

472 G, f. 24v.

473 In B, f. 24v the author of the Hygromanteia mentions that there are “nine books of Solomon,
concerning the gathering of the aerial spirits face to face.”

474 Marathakis (2011), p. 33 entitles this “A Method for Talisman Construction” although there is scant
attention paid to talismans in the Hygromanteia. I believe this is a mistaken titling.

475 Part 8 and 9 are missing from Sepher Raziel.

116

demonstrate a similar format, which may be detected in a number of other grimoires, and
which therefore may indicate an earlier state of the Hygromanteia. Every grimoire will,
however, usually have one or more of these sections missing. In the case of the Hygromanteia

it is the stones, herbs (partially) and beasts that may be missing.

Another reason for suspecting the early presence of sections like this is the fact that the
earliest manuscript of the Hygromanteia (B2) dated 1440 was very firmly bound up with
several such lapidaries written in the same hand. In fact, the binding of this particular
manuscript of the Hygromanteia bears a single word on its spine label “Damigeron,’ who was
the author of a famous lapidary de Virtutibis Lapidum. The presence of lapidaries and herbals
bound up in the same volume might have simply been an accident of scriptorium choice, or
binder convenience, and so is not of course conclusive, but goes some way to supporting the
conjecture that the Hygromanteia may originally have had a more extensive herbal section,
plus its own chapter on stones, and maybe one on beasts. The presence of full-blown herbaria
and lapidaria bound in the same manuscript volume as the earliest known Hygromanteia, and
their continuing presence in the Raziel, suggests that it was the herbaria, bestiaries and

lapidaria that got detached.
Analysis of the Structure of the Hygromanteia

The breakdown of the Hygromanteia into 59 chapters naturally follows the subheadings
already extant in the various manuscripts, plus a few very obvious breaks at change of topic.
By comparison, Torijano’s chapter breakdown is very forced,4”6 which aims to make a major
feature out of the recurrence of that one small Rehoboam passage, which he portrays as the
main chapter heading for each and every one of his sections 1-7.4”” The following table shows
the structure of the contents of the Hygromanteia, and the disposition of each chapter in the
various manuscripts.472 The chapter numbers do not occur in the manuscripts but are
imposed in order to correlate the 17 manuscripts examined. As can be seen from this table,
no single manuscript has a complete set of all chapters. The tally of chapters (in the second
line of the table) is useful as an indication of the relative completeness of each manuscript. It

can be seen that H is the most complete manuscript, and D and T the least.

476 Torijano (2002), pp. 164, 211. Although separated by 47 pages, these two lists should have been
merged by Torijano to give a full list of sections.
477 Torijano’s sections 1-8A listed on his page 164 correspond to the small subset of chapters 1-18
which occur in M, which omits a number of chapters (4-10, 12, 14, and 15). Quite separately Torijano
lists a separate run of sections from (1) to (13) C and 7A-C listed on his page 211, without clarifying
that these sections are in fact an expansion of section 6A in his first series, but this time taken from a
different manuscript H. It is for this reason that I will not be following his very confused numbering
system, which only covers part of the Hygromanteia anyway.
478 Based on Marathakis (2011), pp. 362-365.

117

16c- end 16c- 15c/ 15c-
19¢ 1462 19¢ 18c 18¢ 1440 1684 17c l6c 6c 16c 1495 1833 l6c 6c

1. Introduction
featuring Solomon and P P2 | P32 | M D T
Rehoboam

PART I: Astrological:
2. Rulership of the
planetary hours of the A P G P3 | M N D
seven days of the
week."

4 & 5. Rulership and
talismans attributed to the A P | B3 | G P3 N
twelve signs of the zodiac

6. Rulership attributed to
the 28 days of the Moon

A P3

7 & 30." Electional
astrology concerning N
the position of the A P P3

Moon in the zodiac

8 & 9. Predictions
related to the head and
tail of the dragon which
is in the 9th heaven

10. The seven planetary A
images

PART II:
Conjurations:
3. The prayers of the A P | B3 | G | P4 P2 M A2 T
seven planets, and their
angels and demons

11. Conjuration of the
angels of each hour

12. Prayer to God G | P4 P2

13. Angels and demons
of the 24 hours of the A P B3 | G | P4 P2 | P32 | M M2 A2
seven days of the week
PART III: Equipment:
14. Planetary incenses, H B A B3 P4 P2
characters and seals
16. Planetary inks,

parchments, characters H B A B3 | G P3 | M

and parchment incenses

15. Planetary alphabets B A B3 P4

17. Zodiacal herbs M

18. Planetary herbs H B3 G P2 M 483

” For chapter 3 see below in the Conjurations section.

80 This lunarium might not be part of the Hygromanteia proper, but riding along with it bound in the
same manuscript.

481 [ have amalgamated these two chapters, as they contain very similar material, and they should both
be adjacent to the other Moon rulership material.

482 This electional astrology passage is not part of the Hygromanteia proper, as it was by az-Zanati.

83 There is some controversy as to whether this herbarium was or was not part of the Hygromanteia.

118

Manuscript >

19. The knife of the art

20. The reed pen of the
art

21. The quill of the art

22. The virgin
parchment

23. The unborn
parchment

24. The blood of a bat

25. The blood of a
swallow

26. The blood of a dove

27. The blood of an ox
or sheep

28. The images made of
virgin wax

29. The images made of
virgin clay

PART IV: Evocation -
First Method:

31. Observations, purity,
bath, confession, fast,
location. (see also 40)

32. The crown

33. The lamen or
Heavenly Seal
(see also 40a)

34. The ring & bell

35. Garments: gloves,
cloak, shoes, collar,
lamen cover, handkerchief

36. The Circle - first
method (see also 41)
37. The prayer and the

three conjurations for
demons and spirits

38. Conjuration for love

39. Conjuration for
finding a treasure

PART V: Evocation -
Second Method:

40. Observations, fast,
garments (see also 31)

40a. Lamen
(see also 33)

41. The Circle — second
method (see also 36)

119

Manuscript > P | B3 | G | P4 | B2 | P2 | P3 | M V | M2); N | A2/ D T

42. Conjurations of
demons of the four B3 G p4
quarters

43. General conjuration G | P4

44. Gasteromanteia:
Evoking & imprisoning
a spirit in a bottle, and
exorcism

45. Evocation of Kalé,

the Lady of the Mountains Be Vv

46. Evocation of the
black demon Mortzi

PART VI: Evocatory

skrying:
47. Epibaktromanteia: B3 Et
Water pot skrying“™

B3 B2

48. Lekanomanteia:
Bottle skrying using B2
greasy soot from a pan

49. Hygromanteia 1:
Water skrying with a P B2 V | M2

protective circle

50. Hygromanteia I: P

Water skrying ae

51. Hygromanteia Il: Pp4
Water skrying

52. Hygromanteia IV:
Skrying by means of B2 V
basin, kettle and glass

53. Chalkomanteia:

Copper bowl skrying Be Vv

54. Katoptromanteia:

Mirror skrying B2

55. Krystallomanteia:
Crystal skrying

56. Oomanteia:
Skrying using an egg Bz ”

57. Onykhomanteia:

Fingernail skrying Ba

58. Nekromanteia:
Interrogation of a spirit of P G B2 M2
the dead

59. Invisibility using a
skull p a

Table 01: Summary of the chapters of the Hygromanteia as they occur in 17 manuscripts.*°

484 Marathakis (2011) pp. 108-113 translates all of these manteiai as ‘divination.’ I have replaced this
with the more precise and technical term of ‘evocatory skrying’ because all involve a virginal boy
medium describing his vision to the magician who, standing nearby, performs the evocation.
Translating manteia as ‘divination,’ a term which encompasses tarot, runes, geomancy, lots, astrology,
etc., is misleading for this very specific procedure, even if it is superficially a literal translation.

485 The ‘chapter’ numbers in the first column follow the divisions used by Marathakis (2011), pp. 362-
365. These numbers do not occur in the manuscript, but are useful content identifiers, to enable
comparisons to be made between manuscripts. The tally of chapters extant in each manuscript is
shown on the second line of the table.

120

Analysing the above table it would seem that taken together, manuscripts H, B and A cover
almost all of the ritual magic chapters, with B2 providing almost all of the skrying section.*8¢
B however is relatively recent, dating from 1833. Hence a composite of H, A and B2 would
probably provide the best reconstruction of the full text of the Hygromanteia, for comparative
purposes, based on currently identified manuscripts. These three manuscripts are
respectively the oldest extant, B2 (1440); the one which includes the most extensive range of
chapters, H (15th century); and the one with the longest continuous history of use and
annotation, A (16th-18th century). Out of the 59 possible chapters, only three chapters would
have been omitted from such a three manuscript composite reconstruction. These are

relatively minor:

Chapter 12: ‘Prayer to Almighty God’ which is almost certainly a later Christian addition.

Chapter 17: ‘Zodiacal Herbs.’ Although I believe this was integral, Marathakis suggests that both
this and ‘Planetary Herbs’ are not a main part of the Hygromanteia. Certainly these chapters did
not travel with the rest of the Key of Solomon when it arrived in Latin Europe.

Chapter 50: This chapter is an alternative version of chapter 49, and is therefore not essential.

The distribution of these chapters amongst the 17 manuscripts is shown in Table 01.

486 There are 20 known manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, but only 17 are shown: P4 and M4 are not
tabulated as they were not available for examination. M3 cited by Delatte (1949) and Greenfield (1988),
p. 159, is not in fact a Hygromanteia, so it is omitted from the table, leaving 17 manuscripts. The order
of the chapters has been slightly re-grouped, but the chapter numbers are unchanged.

121

3.5. The Clavicula Salomonis

The Transmission of Byzantine Greek texts to the Latin West

As has been very succinctly pointed out by Charles Burnett, there were two routes by which
the classics of the ancient world reached the Latin West during the 10th and later centuries.
The most commonly accepted route is the translation of Arabic texts of Greek classics, by

translators working in:

Catalonia in the late tenth century, through Northeast Spain and Southern France in the early
twelfth century, to Toledo from the mid twelfth to the early thirteenth century.*8”

It is via this route that texts such as the Picatrix*88 and associated magic and astrological texts
reached Western Europe. In fact Toledo and Salamanca universities were famous for their
teaching of astrology and (in the case of Toledo) magic. Pingree has documented the

transmission of many of these texts.46?

However it is not that route, which was the line of transmission for a large amount of the
astrology, geomancy and astral magic, which concerns us here. We are more properly
concerned with the rather neglected direct transmission of Greek texts to Latin via traffic
between Byzantine Constantinople and Venice, as well as those parts of southern Italy which

from time to time came directly under the rule of Byzantium.!%
Early transmissions

Although an extra impetus was added to this transmission by the attack on Constantinople
in 1422,4%! and the final sacking of Constantinople in 1453, a cultural transmission of magical
and astrological knowledge had been ongoing for some time before then. It is worth rapidly
summarising the most important magical and astrological texts that were transmitted via this
route from Greek to Latin from Antiquity to the late Middle Ages.*% The earliest translations
included: 4%
The Hermetic Asclepius and Liber de Physiognomia (late 4th century);
Damigeron/Evax’s De Lapidibus et eorum virtutibus concerning the magical correspondences of
precious and semi-precious stones (5th century);
De Plantis duodecim signis et septem planetis subiectis on the correspondences of plants to the 12
signs of the zodiac and seven planets (late 5th/early 6th century);

Ptolemy’s Preceptum Canonis Ptolomei, an early ephemeris;
Aratus’s Phaenomena on the constellations (early 8th century);

487 Burnett (2006), p. 325.

488 First translated into Latin in 1256, from a Spanish translation of an Arabic original.
489 Pingree (1987).

490 This route also encompassed Arabic texts that had been translated into Greek.

491 By Mehmet II.

492 Tam indebted to Burnett (2006), pp. 327-331 for much of the following list.

4°38 Conjectural and approximate dates only in brackets.

122

Pascalis’s Liber Thesauri Occulti on dreams (1165);

Kyranides, a classic of the correspondences of astral magic (1169);

Oneirocriticon on dreams (1176);

Aristotle’s Works (mid/late 13th century);

Abia Ma’shar’s astrological works (c. 1260);

Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, a classic of astrology (before 1281);

Liber de triginta sex decanis, on the 36 Decans, attributed to ‘Hermes’ (before 1430);

It can be seen that the first strand of magic to reach the Latin West was astral magic, which
relied upon the astrological correspondences of stones, plants and beasts, rather than ritual
magic. Many of these texts were concerned with the creation of talismans according to the
position of the Moon in its 28 Mansions, material that forms a much more important part of
astral magic than it does of ritual magic.4%* Some of this material does occur in the

Hygromanteia (chapters 30 and 6-7) but it does not form the core of that text.
Lapidaria, Herbaria and Bestiaries

Although stones, plants and beasts are predominately of interest to texts of astral magic,
there is some slight overlap with ritual magic. Predating the extant manuscripts of the
HAygromanteia, and the Latin texts of the Clavicula Salomonis is the Salomonis Libri de Gemmis et
Daemonibus (‘Books of Solomon of Gems and Demons’) which was referred to by the 12th
century Greek historian Michael Glycas. Michael Psellus (1018-1081) also spoke in the 11th
century of what was probably the same treatise, said to be composed by Solomon, “on stones
and demons.” It is conceivable that this book may have at one point formed an integral part

of the Hygromanteia, for the reasons outlined below.

The question arises as to how material from lapidaria, herbaria and bestiaries might be of use
to ritual magic. Iamblichus explains:
...in accordance with the properties of each of the gods, [and] the receptacles adapted to them,
the theurgic art in many cases links together stones, plants, animals, aromatic substances, and

other such things that are sacred, perfect and godlike, and then from all these composes an
integrated and pure receptacle [for the gods].4%

A more detailed answer may be found in a passage from Synesius (c.373-c.414 CE), a disciple
of Hypatia and an enthusiastic Neoplatonist living in Alexandria:
Even to some god, of those who dwell within the universe, a stone from hence and a

[corresponding] herb is a befitting offering, for in sympathising*”” with these he is yielding to
[their] nature and is bewitched.*%8

Or to rephrase it, stones and herbs can be used as offerings to gods in order to ensnare them

°4 The Moon is obviously of concern to many forms of magic, and the inclusion of a few lunarium
tables in the Hygromanteia does not constitute a blurring of the line between astral magic and ritual
magic.

495 Jamblichus (2003), V. 23, p. 269.

496 He finished up becoming a bishop, but retained sympathy for the Neoplatonic outlook.

°” Being in sympathetic connection.

498 Fitzgerald (1930), pp. 328-329.

123

with magic. An even more revealing commentary on this by Nikephoros Gregoras (c. 538

CE) gives the Byzantine view of the functions of “stones, plants, beasts and words:”

... what is even more amazing is that demons from the air and from the land are charmed by
certain stones, certain plants, certain speech, or certain designs which are called characteres
(xapaxKtripac), and which, I think, were first discovered by the Chaldeans and Egyptians, each
sign capable of making each demon known.*””

Here, in a few words, is precisely the reason why the grimoires had supplementary chapters
or even full treatises on “stones, plants, beasts, and words.” According to this view, the
demons are ‘charmed’ or constrained by certain stones, plants, animals, words and written
characters. The appropriate set of stones, plants and animals (corresponding to the nature of
the demon) would have been offered to him, in order to ‘charm’ him, or make him amenable
to the magician. This adequately explains why such material is still part of some grimoires
(for example the Latin Raziel), and confirms that the planetary and zodiacal plant attributions
do have a rightful place in the grimoires, and in the Hygromanteia. A number of
commentators, like Torijano and Marathakis, consider the sections on plants to be
extraneous, when in fact they were probably an integral part in earlier times. In all
likelihood, details of stones, plants and maybe beasts have been separated out from many
grimoires, and partly from the Hygromanteia, at an early stage. The Rehoboam
pseudepigraphical section of the text refers to the importance laid by Solomon on the virtues
“in herbs, in words and in stones,”5 supporting the idea that these sections might at one time

have been an integral part.

Most importantly it shows clearly that these natural correspondences were adjuncts to ritual
procedures which came from Egypt contemporaneously with the texts of the PGM. The
transmission of these “stones, plants, beasts, and words” from Egypt to Byzantium, would in
due course have fallen under the intellectual dominance of Aristotle’s works, which would
have encouraged the separation of the lapidaria, herbaria and bestiaries rather than their

continued integration in the Hygromanteia.

Although the use of stones and plants has some affinity with astral magic,°°! the procedures
are completely different, one the drawing and exposure of a talisman, the other the calling of

a demon, but the principle of sympathetic bonds occurs in both disciplines.
The Link from Greek Byzantine Magic to the Latin World

The sack of Constantinople in 1453 (and the earlier attack by Mehmet II in 1422) proved to be

the catalysts which accelerated the migration of the culture of the Hellenic world to the Latin

499 Gregoras' commentary on Synesios of Cyrene’s De Insomniis, in Migne (1857-66), c. 538.
500 M, f. 240.
501 Vide the Kyranides.
124

West. Ever since the Roman Empire had been voluntarily split into East and West in 286 CE,
the two halves had drifted apart, a movement which was accentuated by the language split
of Greek in the East (the Levant, Palestine, Asia Minor, Syria, Greece itself and Egypt) and
Latin in the West (Italy5°2 and the rest of Europe). There were also doctrinal differences
which helped to accentuate this split, mainly centring on the doctrines of the Trinity and the
true nature of Christ’s divinity. Greek remained the dominant language in the Byzantine
Empire for almost 1000 years from the dissolution of the Roman Empire in 476 till the sack of
Constantinople in 1453, but in the Western Empire the knowledge of Greek had somewhat
diminished. Although there was transmission of texts such as the Hygromanteia before this
date, the sheer quantity of manuscripts and scholars that moved westwards in the months
immediately after 1453 was what gave Western Europe fresh impetus to read Greek, and
probably also Hebrew, skills that had been in short supply before then. Of course both
languages were fundamental to any serious understanding of Christianity, Hebrew (and

Aramaic) for the Old Testament, and Koine Greek for the New Testament.

Scholars fleeing from the Ottoman Turks took with them whatever bits of Hellenic culture
they could take. These included a lot of Classical Greek writers, early Christian material and
translations of scientific and philosophical Arabic texts into Greek. The subsequent
translation of Classical texts into Latin by such luminaries as Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499)

helped fire the intellectual explosion of the Renaissance and the culture of Humanism.

Cardinal Bessarion summed up the feelings of the time during which many scholars,
particularly those who had to flee so peremptorily from Constantinople, strove to preserve

Greek learning:
Although I was devoted to this cause [the preservation of ancient books] with all my soul, yet
after the destruction of Greece and the lamentable captivity of Byzantium I used with even
more zeal all my powers, all my care and effort, capital and industry, to search for Greek books.
For I was fearful and very anxious of the thought that along with the rest of the things, many

excellent books, being the sweat and wakeful hours of so many eminent men, would vanish and
perish like so many sources of light, and be lost to the world within the shortest of times.°°

Bessarion’s library, which survives as the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (the National
Library of St Mark) in Venice preserves, as a result of the efforts of the good Cardinal, a

number of Greek manuscripts relating to magic.5%

At the same time the appearance of the Greek Corpus Hermeticum in the West opened up a

5022 Parts of southern Italy were at various times under the Byzantine Empire, and therefore Greek
speaking. A number of Greek Orthodox monasteries were established and some remain active till
today.
503 Letter from Cardinal Bessarion to the Doge of Venice, Christoforo Moro, dated 31 May 1468 as
quoted by Gilly and van Heertum (eds.) (2002), p. 19.
504 According to the catalogue of 1474, Bessarion left 1024 manuscripts to the Republic of Venice.

125

repository of religious material which initially (until Isaac Casaubon proved otherwise) was

taken to be of almost equal validity and age as the Old Testament.

The impact on magic was no less great, as Greek Solomonic texts were rapidly translated into
Latin, forming the basis of later Solomonic grimoires. Although it has been fashionable to
decry the attribution of ancient names like Moses and Solomon to magical texts, in fact these
texts had often carried the names of these same ancient authors for a long time, and kept

these attributions as they crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries.

In 1240 William of Auvergne, in De Legibus, listed a number of Solomonic grimoires, which
were extant in his time, but none of these included more than a small part of the Solomonic
method. For example Quatuor Annulis Salomonis included four rings, or Liber Salomonis de
Novem Candariis,° included just nine talismans. William also twice mentioned “that book
which is called Liber Sacratus,”5°’ which is composed largely of prayers and only contains
part of the Solomonic dynamic of demon/spirit binding from within a protective circle. He
also mentions the Amandal (sic),5°° which is a book of four angelic invocations performed on
an elevated wax altar, which is quite different from the Solomonic method of magic.
Although these grimoires (and others which were extant in the period before 1453) do have
mentions of Solomon, they do not contain the full evocationary Solomonic method. Of the
extant manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis, the oldest dates from 1446,5° so it seems likely
that the Hygromanteia reached the Latin world after 1422 and before the Fall of

Constantinople in 1453.

The first port of call of these fleeing scholars was often Venice, which not only had good sea

connections with Constantinople, but was also famed for its independence and consequent

50 The Bishop of Paris (1190-1249).
5% Candariis definitely means ‘talismans’ not ‘candles’ as some authors have mistakenly translated it.
See the Catholicon, a dictionary compiled by Johannes Balbus (1460). Candela is ‘candle.’ Nor is candariis
another form of cantharias, a precious stone, as speculatively suggested by Veenstra in The
Metamorphosis of Magic, p. 206 n. 36.
507 Liber Sacer, or Liber Juratus, the Sworn Book of Honorius. On the basis of that mention by William, I
believe, with Mathiesen, that this grimoire pre-dates 1240. The name of the author ‘Honorius of
Thebes’ even appears to be a deliberate contrapositional pun on the name of the then ruling Pope
Honorius III (r. 1216-1227). It is not relevant that a completely different grimoire was much later
falsely attributed to Pope Honorius III, but it highlights the motivation of grimoire authors (for
whatever reason) to mock that particular Pope.
508 Almadel. This title, which is variously spelled, probably derives from the Arabic for a circle, al-
Madel. The best known version of this grimoire forms the fourth (and shortest) treatise in the
Lemegeton. See Skinner & Rankine (2007), pp. 59-60, 342-347. The Almadel dates back at least to the late
15th century. See Florence MS II-iii-24 for one such 15th century manuscript.
509 MS Bibliothéque Nationale Ital. 1542.

126

open-mindedness.*!° There had been an earlier flight to Venice in 1422 when Mehmet II had
attacked Constantinople, and at that time some of the earliest Greek manuscripts arrived.5!!
From Venice the Greek scholars, monks and their manuscripts spread through Italy (parts of
which had belonged to the Byzantine Empire at various times), possibly seeking out courts
that had a reputation for culture and learning, particularly Florence and Mantua. As already
noted (in chapter 3.3), Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, (1562-1612) was known to have

possessed copies of the Clavicula Salomonis, and twice commissioned translations into Italian.5!2

It is of course quite possible that the earliest manuscripts of the Hygromanteia reached Italy
via other routes, such as the more southerly ports of Langobardia (the southern tip of Italy),

Bari, Brindisi or Tarentum, which were earlier under Byzantine control.

The names of five authors or scribes of the extant manuscripts are known to us. Of these the
names of the authors of the three earliest authors are extant. These names together with date

and geographical location where the manuscript was written might provide some clues.

MS Date Author/scribe Location

B2 1440 I6annés Aron Grottaferrata monastery, near Frascati, Italy

P 1462 Georgios Meidiatés Trescore Balneario, Bergamo, Lombardy, Italy
N_ 1495 Idannés Xérokaltos -

P2 1684/85 Kyrillos Korydalleus Moscow, later Kazan

A2 1833 Ioannés Papatheodoridés Mauratzaioi on Samos, Greece

Clearly all the names are Greek with the possible exception of the first who might have had
Jewish roots.5!5 The third manuscript (N) has no indication of location, and the last two are
too late to be relevant. That leaves the first two manuscripts which are similar in the

sequence of their contents and were both copied at northern Italian locations.

There is at present no conclusive evidence which would enable one to settle upon any one
particular route with certainty, but there is one small hint in the oldest manuscript of the
Hygromanteia (B2) written by loannés Aron which might indicate a possible route of
transmission to Italy through southern Greece. This suggestive but inconclusive reference is

the mention of the city of Lakedaimon, the ancient capital of Sparta in this manuscript:5!4

O Lady, queen Sympilia, my magister commands you to send your servant to Solomon the king
at Lakedaimonia, in order to give him the talisman that is nailed by steel and sealed with the

510 Venice was a city state ruled by a Doge who did not see himself beholden to any other ruler. Venice
also had a considerable and effective navy. In fact the military docks in Venice devised an amazing
production line system which enabled them, in times of war, to complete one war galley every day.

511 To quote Cardinal Bessarion: “Venice was thus becoming more and more like ‘a second
Byzantium.” Zorzi (2002), p. 130.

512 These were translations from Hebrew, which suggests either a Hebrew intermediary, or a whole
different line of transmission which was examined in chapter 3.3.

513 There is a possibility that loannés Aron may have been Ioannés from Aron, near Venice.

514 Lakedaimona is another name for the city-state of Sparta.

127

trigram. Let him bring it here, in order for our lords to take an oath faithfully and truly, that
they will tell me [the magician] the truth in whatever I may ask them.5!5

Solomon was obviously not the king of Lakedaimon or Sparta,!° but if the ancient Jewish
king had been ‘transplanted’ to a more convenient location than Jerusalem by a scribe who
might have been uncertain of the exact location of Jerusalem, that might indicate that this
particular manuscript, written in 1440, had a line of transmission which passed to Italy via
Lakedaimonia/Sparta, rather than directly by ship to Venice. It is known that the author of
the manuscript Ioannés of Aron lived in Italy, probably in the still existing Byzantine

monastery of Grottaferrata.5!”
If one pursues this reasoning, then one possible conjectural line of transmission might be:

1422 - Mehmet II attacks Constantinople causing a number of monks to flee.
- one monk settles in Sparta, sees the ruins of Lakedaimon, and grafts it into his copy of
the Hygromanteia as the ‘city of Solomon.’
1440 - Ioannés of Aron transcribes this copy of the Hygromanteia at the monastery of
Grottaferrata, perpetuating the reference to Lakedaimon.*!8
1466 - The earliest known manuscript of the Clavicula Salomonis translated into Italian.5!9

Obviously this argument is still very speculative, but the proximity of the dates and
geography is suggestive. Pingree states that the Hygromanteia was “rewritten in South
Italy.”520 Whichever route was used, the process of translating the Hygromanteia into what
was to become the Clavicula Salomonis was begun in Italy. This earliest manuscript of the
Clavicula Salomonis in Italian (1466) probably pre-dates the earliest known Latin manuscript

of the Clavicula Salomonis,5?! which is dated towards the end of the 15‘ century.

Elsewhere in Italy the process of translating Greek texts into Latin was going on at the same
time. In Florence, Ficino (1433-1499) was the scholar who translated much of Plato and the
Corpus Hermeticum from Greek into Latin, as soon as the Greek manuscripts became
available. Magic manuscripts began to be translated in parallel at the same time. Another
important figure who expedited the flow of Greek Hermetic ideas into Latin was Francesco
Giorgi (or Zorzi 1466-1540), author of De Harmonium Mundi,522 who later had considerable
influence on the writings of Agrippa and Dee. Giorgi also helped introduce the idea of

sacred geometry into the construction of buildings like churches.53

515 MS Bononiensis Univers. 3632, f. 350.
516 If the reference is not to the biblical Solomon, but to a local ruler, the following conclusions still
hold good.
517 McCowan (1922), p. 25.
518 MS Bononiensis Univers. 3632 which is the earliest known manuscript of the Hygromanteia.
519 Bibliotheque Nationale Ital. 1524. See Fanger (2012), p. 223.
520 Pingree (1980), p.9, fn. 67.
521 Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica MS 114 (now possibly sold).
522 Published 1525.
523 Skinner, Sacred Geometry (2006), p. 19.
128

Giorgi also frequented Jewish circles in Venice, supporting the introduction of the Kabbalah
into the mainstream of religious discourse, as initially the Kabbalah was seen as an
interpretive tool for the Old Testament.5* In time it became the “Christian Kabbalah’ and
influenced both Rosicrucian and Hermetic thought. Even later the doctrines of the Kabbalah

provided a conceptual skeleton for magical theory.5*
The Spread of Magical Texts

The Catholic Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of banned books which was first issued in
Venice in 1543, and formally commissioned by Pope Paul IV in 1559 acts as a helpful summary
list of the more widely disseminated magical texts.52 Some of these books are fairly easy to
recognize, others are less easy to find, as the standard of ecclesiastical bibliographic
scholarship and printing was less than perfect, and many conventions of Latin contraction
were carried over from manuscripts into print. As can be seen, the Clavicula Salomonis is

mentioned twice, in close proximity to the Ars Hydromanteia:

‘Lib[er] Hermetis Magi ad Aristot[l]e. Lib[er] Decem Annullorum, Quattuor speculord[m],
Imagint[m] Thobiz, Imaginum Ptolomei, Virginalis, Clauicula Salomonis, Libri Salomonis
Magicis superstitionibus refertus’; “Clauicula S[o]lomonis’; “‘Hé[n]ricus Cornelius Agrippa’;
‘Hydromantie ars, & scripta o[mn]ia’; Ioannis Reuclini [Johannes Reuchlin] Speculum Oculare,
De Verbo Mirifico, Ars Cabalistica’; ‘Petri de Abano opera Geomantize. Item liber de
imaginib[us] Astrolog[ia] & de o[mn]i genere diu[i]nat[ione].’ 527

Some types of books were covered by blanket bans, like that on all books on geomancy
which were specifically and originally banned in 1555, and so only appear in the Index by

implication. An example of such a blanket ban is:

Libri omnes, & scripta Chyromantize, Physionomiz, Aeroma[n]tize, Geoma[n]tize, Hydroma[ntiae]
vel Necroma[n]tiee, siue in quib[us] Sortilegia, Veneficia, Auguria, Arusp[i]cia, Inca[n]tatid[n]es,
Magice artis vel Astrologiae indiciarize [sic] Diuinationes circa...’; ‘Magicee artis libri, & scripta
ora’ [omnia]; ‘Necromatize opera, & scripta omnia. Notorie artis opera.

In this list hydromanteia was seen as equivalent to necromantiae, as indicated by the use of vel..

The amount of magical and heterodox material being translated from Greek into Latin in
Venice prompted the Church to set up a special branch of the Holy Office Tribunal (aka the
Inquisition) in Venice in April 1547, in an effort to “weed out’ what they considered to be the
most dangerous examples of heterodox (i.e. Protestant, Lutheran, Orthodox and Anabaptist)

texts and their owners.

524 Tronically it was later seen by a number of churchmen as an aid to converting the Jews to
Christianity, by deductions that sought to prove that Jesus was the Messiah which the Jews had long
expected, since the time of Isaiah.
525 Specifically as used by Mathers at the end of the 19th century, working from the Latin translations
of Knorr von Rosenroth.
526 These books were not removed from the Index till 1966.
527 Index Librorum Prohibitorum, 1559.

129

Less frequently, the Venetian Holy Office also acted against owners of magical texts
translated from Greek, but this did not gather much momentum till the 1580s. Nevertheless,
the number of books confiscated had reached such proportions that by even 1573 the Holy
Office ordered that all such books should henceforth be burnt, not so much to suppress their
contents but to conserve storage space. Representative samples were, of course, sent to the
Vatican, where most survive to this day in the Vatican Library. As Venice valued its
independence, magical books, such as De Occulta Philosophia of Agrippa, continued to be sold
under the counter, and the clergy were amongst the most active importers of such material.
Apart from such well known texts, the bulk of magical material continued to circulate in
manuscript form, even as late as the 19th century. Typical texts were the Clavicula Salomonis
in its various forms (like Zecorbeni), the Heptameron, various books relating to the Kabbalah,

and the classic of astral magic, the Picatrix.

In 1586, Pope Sixtus V redirected the efforts of the Holy Office from control of heresy to the
suppression of magic and magicians with the Bull Coeli et Terrae.°8 This coincided with the
publication of Bodin’s witch-hunting text, Demonomania degli Stregoni, in Venice, and with
the Pope’s ‘invitation’ to Dee to come to Rome for discussions about his angelic ‘Actions.’
Prudently Dee did not go, as he did not wish to be subsequently locked up in the dungeons
of the Inquisition in Rome.5”? Besides, Dee was a Protestant, and going to Rome would have
been like putting his head in the lion’s mouth, because of the then current enmity between
Catholics and Protestants. The records of the Inquisition, and minutes of subsequent trials,
help us to trace the movement of specific magical texts across Europe. Some of these copies

are of a much rougher nature, and not always of high scribal quality.

However learned magic had always been the province of the scriptorium and its monks who
also did much of the freelance copying. In the 1630s and 1640s the novitiate of the monastery
of the Minims of San Francesco of Paola became a hotbed of magical manuscript
transcription and distribution. Other monasteries such as San Francesco della Vigna (‘St.
Francis of the Vineyard’) also helped the transmission of magical texts. This was particularly
appropriate in a monastery whose architecture was designed in part by Francesco Giorgi the

author of De Harmonium Mundi who numbered magic, the Kabbalah, alchemy, astrology and

528 Barbierato (2002), pp. 159-160.

529 There is an extra dimension to the Pope’s invitation that is often overlooked by scholars. That is
that the Pope, who was rumoured to have been very interested in magical experiments himself, might
have genuinely wanted to question Dee about his techniques, and maybe even watch an Action in
which Kelly would convey the words of the angels.

130

the Hermetic texts amongst his interests.5°°

This wholesale copying meant that many variant readings were introduced into the texts, a
process that would not have happened so rapidly if they had been printed. The addition of a
well known pseudepigraphical name to a copy, such as Moses or Raziel, immediately gave a
book more credibility, so that from original texts associated with the name Solomon, a whole
slew of copies of the original text with additions or deletions, under various authorial names,

fanned out through Europe, giving the false impression that they were different texts.
The Manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis

Of course there were other distinct and separate magical books, but at least 125 extant
manuscripts under various names and written in various languages, owe their origin to the
original Solomonike that arrived in Venice (or southern Italy) at or before 1453.55! In Venice
alone copies were circulating in Latin, Italian, French, German, and probably English. No
doubt there are many more of these to be discovered in the great libraries and private
collections of Europe,5*2 as these scribes often deliberately left off the manuscript titles to
hamper rapid identification by the authorities, and many have therefore been catalogued
either under their incipit or some other generic name such as Ars Magica by harried librarians
across Europe. Conversely a number of unrelated manuscripts have been catalogued as

Clavicula Salomonis by librarians who came to think of this title as a generic term for magic.5*

As there are so many extant manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis,34 it is necessary to
outline the range of texts and the reasons for selecting the manuscripts used here for

comparison.5*> The language breakdown of the known manuscripts is:

French 51
Latin¢ 31
Italian 19
English 9
German 9
Hebrew 4

530 Accordingly, the della Vigna became a point of intersection between sacred geometry and magic,
and was built using ‘sacred’ proportions, echoing the measurements of the Temple of Solomon and
the Jewish Kabbalah. Interestingly the main measurements are simply multiples of the number three.
531 See Skinner and Rankine (2008), Appendix A, pp. 408-414 for a full list. The manuscripts of the
Clavicula Salomonis are also listed by Text-Groups on pp. 412-414, with a listing of their dates and
languages of composition.

532 For example, I recently discovered a 1494 copy of the Goetia, miscataloged in a central European
collection.

533 For a list of some of these cataloguing errors see Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 415. Of course, just
like any specialist subject, it is often difficult for a generalist to choose, or even decipher, the correct
title.

534 Not including manuscripts of the Hygromanteia.

585 This number and the following statistics are taken from Skinner & Rankine (2008), pp. 408-411.

56 Including mixed Dutch, German and Latin.

131

Czech 1
Arabic53” 1

Total 125

The predominant languages are therefore French, Latin and Italian. The manuscripts can also
be divided into a number of Text-Groups, according to their chapter structure, content and

claimed author:5°8

Abraham Colono (translator) AC 14
Rabbi Solomon? RS 14
Clavicule Magique et Cabalistique CMC 7
Secret of Secrets SS 5
Toz Graecus*0 TG 5
Zekorbeni™1 Zk 5
Rabbi Abognazar Ab 4
Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh>*2 SM 4
Expurgated German texts Exp 4
Universal Treatise UT 3
Armadel>48 Arm 3
Key of Knowledge KK 2
Gregorius Niger GN 1
Geo Peccatrix GP 1
72
Unexamined / unclassified 53
Total54 125

Of the 72 manuscripts examined and categorised above, the predominant Text-Groups are
AC and RS, and so these two Text-Groups will be used when identifying commonalities and
transmission from the Hygromanteia5‘¢ The manuscripts specifically addressed will be
Wellcome 4670 (RS) and Wellcome 4669 (AC). In addition Mathers’ familiar English edition
of the Key of Solomon, which is almost entirely dependant on French Abraham Colorno
manuscripts (AC) from the 18th century effectively includes Kings MS 288, Harley MS 3981,
Sloane MS 3091, and so will also be used as a source.*4”7 Manuscripts Alnwick MS 584 (AC)

37 This is not a certain identification.
538 This division was first proposed in Mathiesen (2007), pp. 3-9, and then expanded in Skinner &
Rankine (2008), pp. 28-32, 412-414.
539 Purported author, suggestive of a Hebrew origin.
540 An interesting indication of Greek origin.
541 This title derives from the accidental misreading of one Hebrew word and one Latin word which
when fused equates to ‘nota bene.’ This marginal annotation was then incorrectly assumed by the
editor to be the title of the manuscript,
542 Two of these were later found to be part of the same manuscript, reducing the count to three.
58 Although this is the name of another grimoire, these instances are of the Clavicula Salomonis
wrongly catalogued as the Armadel.
544 A subset of AC.
545 There are undoubtedly many other manuscripts as yet not discovered.
546 Examination of the variations over the whole range of Text-Groups does not add significantly to the
picture.
547 Mathers also used Lansdowne MS 1202 (Arm) and MS Lansdowne 1203 (Ab).

132

and Additional 36674 (KK) have also been used in this analysis.

Although sometimes derided by scholars for producing a composite text, Mathers never-
theless conscientiously edited the manuscripts listed above, whilst adding chapters from
other AC manuscripts which were missing from his main source, and in doing so these
additions were clearly footnoted. It is well known that he omitted three chapters on
operations of love and one chapter on operations of hate, which he claimed were derived
from the Grimorium Verum and the Clavicola di Salmone Ridolta, but he admitted as much in
his introduction.>48 He also rather naively credited Solomon the king of Israel as the author.
His work in English on the AC Text-Group has however not been superseded by any scholar
since, although there have been editions in French? and Italian.*° Joseph Peterson remarked

about Mathers’ work:

Mr. Waite's harsh criticism [of Mathers] is hardly justified. In fact, Mathers excised very little.
Actually, three of the four significant excisions are operations dealing with love magic (Colorno,
chapters 11-13: The experiment of Love, and how it should be performed; The experiment or
operation of the fruit; Of the operation of love by her dreams, and how one must practice it. The
fourth excision is chapter 14: Operations and experiments regarding hate and destruction of
enemies. )>>1

I have edited examples of three further Text-Groups (AC, RS and UT) from the French
manuscripts Wellcome MS 4669 and Wellcome MS 4670,552 and edited and introduced one

manuscript from the SM Text-Group.553

There are at least 20 manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis are in Italian (see Appendix 4),
but of these only two are definitely from the 16 century.54 I have not been able to examine
Brescia Civica Queriniana E VI 23, and BL Additional 10862 #2 is disappointingly short,
covering just five short chapters in 12 folios. It would therefore seem that there is no
currently identifiable early Italian manuscript with which to compare the Hygromanteia. The

rest of the Italian manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis are 17** century*®> or 18" century,5°

548 Mathers (1909), p. vi.
549 Ribadeau (1980).
550 The result of this attitude is that whilst a number of scholars are happy to quote from the works of
both Ribadeau and Mathers, they fail to list them in their bibliographies or in their indexes. Examples
of this practice can be seen in Skemer (2006), pp. 119, 131, 210, 211.
551 Joseph Peterson, http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm. Viewed November 2013.
552 Skinner and Rankine (2008).
553 Gollancz (2008). In the course of preparing this thesis I have also consulted, summarised and
indexed several manuscripts from the Text-Groups CMC and TG, and one each from Text-Groups
Arm, KK, GP and Zk. The conclusion arising from this survey is that the manuscripts utilised in the
comparison Table 02 are adequately representative of the Clavicula Salomonis.
554 Brescia Civica Queriniana E VI 23, BL Additional 10862 #2.
555 Berlin Hamilton 589, Sloane 1309, Brussels Bibliotheque Royale III.1152, Sloane 1307, Wien 11262.
56 Ettington 59, Wellcome 4668 #2, Karlsruhe 302, Leipzig 709, Leipzig 776, Ambrosiana 164 sup.,
Miinster Nordkirchen 169, Seville Zayas C.XIV.1, Van Pelt Codex 515, Jerusalem Varia 223.

133

one 19 century manuscript,” and two are undated.%8

The Clavicula Salomonis, after arriving in Italy in the 15th century soon migrated to other
parts of Europe, and in doing so acquired different vernacular titles and varied contents
which in broad outline correspond to the different Text-Groups. It is not possible, within the

confines of this thesis, to trace this dissemination in detail, but in outline it is as follows.

In Italian the Clavicula Salomonis became known as La Clavicola di Salomone redotta et epilogata

of Geo[vanni] Peccatrix®? (GP) or Zekorbeni, sive Clavicula Salomonis (Zk).

The Clavicula Salomonis circulated in Latin, and was sometimes re-titled as Secreta Secretorum by

“Toz Graecus’ (TG).

In France the Clavicula Salomonis became Les Véritables Clavicules de Salomon (Text-Group Ab),
La Clavicule de Salomon Roy des Hebreux (AC), Les Vrais Clavicules du Roi Solomon (Arm), La
Clavicule Magique et Cabalistique du Sage Roy Salomon (CMC), Les Clavicules de Rabbi Salomon
(RS), Le Secret des Secrets, autrement la Clavicule de Salomon (SS) and the very reduced in

content Traité Universel des Clavicules de Salomen (UT).

In England it became the familiar Key of Solomon (AC), as edited by Mathers, and the Key of
Knowledge (KK is a subset of AC). In Germany it was severely edited to become the Clavicula
Salomonis Expurgata, oder Schltissel des Kénigs Salomons (Exp). However the Clavicula Salomonis
does not seem to have had much influence in Germany in the face of the home-grown Faust

tradition.

The Hebrew version which appeared in Amsterdam around 1700, the Maphteah Shelomoh
(SM) has already been dealt with in chapter 3.3. There is also a Czech version, and possibly
other European versions not yet identified. However Spain, Portugal,5 Switzerland,
Austria, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe seem to have avoided significant penetration by
the Clavicula Salomonis. These migrations of the Clavicula Salomonis, in broad outline, are

shown in Figure 61.

A summary of these manuscripts will be found in Appendix 3. There are only two printed
editions of the Key of Solomon in English,5*! but selected passages have been published in
English in volumes dealing with grimoires generally.°? There are many more printed

editions in French and Italian, demonstrating the popularity of this grimoire in those

557 Seville Zayas C.V.1.
558 Stadbibliotek Zittau B107 #2, Bodleian Michael 276.
559 No relation to the Picatrix.
560 Spain and Portugal favoured the grimoire of St. Cyprian in its various forms instead. With the re-
discovery of the Solomonic SSM, versions of the Clavicula Salomonis may in due course be found in Spain.
561 Mathers (1909) and Skinner & Rankine (2008).
562 For example Waite (1972), Waite (1961) and Shah (1957), pp. 9-60.
134

languages.°°

In 1737 the German bookseller Gaspar Fritsch remarked in a letter: “the Clavicules de Salomon,
of which I have seen many manuscripts... are all different from one another.” Faithful
copies continued to circulate, but a plethora of variations and redacted copies also spread

across northern Europe.

Beyond the Clavicula Salomonis, there were a number of grimoires circulating in Europe
(predominantly Italy, France, Spain, Germany and England) which owed some of their
content, and much of their method to the Clavicula Salomonis. The main titles of this genre
were The Grimoire of Pope Honorius III,56 The Grimoirium Verum,6> The Grand Grimoire,°67
Grand Albert, Lesser Albert’ and The Black Dragon.°® As well as surveying the main
grimoires, Owen Davies surveys the later incarnations of many of these texts, as they
descend into popular ‘pulp’ editions.” Other traditions such as the Black Books of
Scandinavia,*”! or the many variants on the grimoires of St. Cyprian,>”2 and the Faustbooks of
Germany,>” form different lineages, not directly related to the Clavicula Salomonis. The history

of these other grimoire lineages is quite complex, and beyond the scope of this thesis.

563 For example Dumas (1980) Lecouteux (2008) and MacPathy (2013), plus a large number of
anonymous publications in French, mostly with spurious dates and places of publication. In Italian see
Pierini (2005).
564 Barbierato (2002), p. 165.
565 The most complete edition in English is Rankine & Barron (2013), pages 233-235 has a useful
comparative chart of contents compared to other associated derivative grimoires. Also see Ch’ien
(1998).
566 Peterson (2007).
567 Rudy (1996).
568 Anon (1629 [but really 19 century]), Anon (1668 [but really 1765]), Ribadeau (1978).
569 Cecchetelli (2011).
570 Davies (2009).
571 Rustad (2006).
572 Davies (2009), pp. 32-3, 114-117, 125-132, 243-246.
573 Benesch (1984) for texts, and Butler (1949), pp. 154-234 for commentary.
135

4, Transmission of Specific Magical Techniques and
Instruments from the Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the wholesale transmission of material from
the Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis (Key of Solomon), by identifying their common

chapter contents, and confirming this by examining specific parallel texts.

A number of instances could be cited demonstrating the passage of material from the
Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis. For example, the Introduction of the Abraham
Colorno Text-Group (AC) of the Clavicula Salomonis>”* begins with a very similar passage to
that found in the opening chapter of Hygromanteia including the opening conversation

between Solomon and his son Rehoboam:

Treasure up, O my son Roboam (sic)! the wisdom of my words, seeing that I, Solomon, have
received it from the Lord.5”

...O my Son Roboam! seeing that of all Sciences there is none more useful than the knowledge
of Celestial Movements, I have thought it my duty, being at the point of death, to leave thee an
inheritance more precious than all the riches which I have enjoyed.°”

The Hygromanteia likewise uses the literary device of a conversation between Solomon and

Rehoboam to point out the necessity of astronomy and timing:

Pay attention, my dearest son Rehoboam, to what I, your father Solomon, have said about the
details of this art, which contain the entire method of the Magical Treatise. By means of this
treatise, you will learn everything that is possible for a prudent, wise and zealous [man]
concerning divine things man to know.°””

The long chapter on the attributions of angels and demons to every hour of every day of the
week found in the Hygromanteia has been passed on to the Clavicula Salomonis, however only
the attribution of angels to the hours of the days of the week has survived. The Hebrew
names of the hours have also been preserved in some Clavicula Salomonis manuscripts (see

Figure 10).5”

Citation of examples is useful, but a full comparison of the contents of every chapter in both
texts is a more thorough and precise proof of this transmission. The proof that the
Hygromanteia is the direct ancestor of the Key of Solomon can be demonstrated by analysing
the chapters of the composite Hygromanteia (comprised of versions H, B, A and B2) with a

chapter analysis of representative manuscripts of the Key of Solomon, as follows: Mathers’

574 Skinner and Rankine (2008), pp. 75-272.
575 Additional MS 10862.
576 Lansdowne MS 1203 as translated in Mathers (1909), p. 2.
577 11. f. 18v.
578 Skinner and Rankine (2008), pp. 107, 108, 126, 141, 156, 172, 188, and 202.
136

edition (1909) which drew mostly from French AC°”? manuscripts of the Key of Solomon;
Alnwick MS 584 an AC Latin manuscript probably from the early 16th century; and
Additional MS 36674 a 16th century English manuscript of the KK Text-Family of the Key of

Solomon.

579 The Abraham Colorno Text-Group of manuscripts. See Mathiesen (2007), pp. 3-9 and Skinner and
Rankine (2008), Appendix G, pp. 426-427, for full details.
137

Manuscript >
Hygromanteia Chapter:

1. Introduction featuring
Solomon and Rehoboam

Athen-
iensis
115

Athen-
iensis
1265

Bonon-
iensis
3632

Clavicula Salomonis
Chapter:

Solomon explains the Art
to his son Rehoboam*””

Mathers’
edition

Alnwick
MS 584

Add MS
36674

PART I: Astrological
2. Rulership of the
planetary hours of the
seven days of the week
(see below for chapter 3)

4 & 5. Rulership and
talismans attributed to the
twelve signs of the zodiac

6. Rulership attributed to
the 28 days of the Moon

7. Electional astrology
concerning the position of
the Moon

8 & 9. Predictions related to
the head and tail of the
dragon which is in the 9th
heaven

1. At what hour should we
give perfection to the
Working

2. Days, hours and
planetary virtues

583

1-2

2-1

2-21

10. The seven planetary
images

PART II: Conjurations
3. The prayers of the seven

planets, and their angels
and demons

11. Conjuration of the
angels

23. Of the Work of Images
and Astronomy

584

2-20

12. Prayer to God

4. Confession which the
Exorcist must do and
recite

13. Angels and demons of
the 24 hours of the seven
days

PART III: Equipment:
14. Planetary incenses,
characters and seals

8. Of Burning Incense and
of Perfumes

2- 10°85

2-9

2-18

16. Planetary inks,
parchments, characters and
parchment incenses

12. Of the Pen, Ink and
Colours.
Concerning characters

2-14
2-21

2-12

2-13

15. Planetary alphabets

17. Zodiacal herbs

18. Planetary herbs

586

580 The first paragraph appears in Add MS 10862, a 17th century Latin manuscript, whilst the second
paragraph appears in Lansdowne MS 1203 a 17th century French manuscript of the Key of Solomon.

581 Preliminary Discourse and Introduction.

582 Plus part of the Introduction. Each reference consists of Book number followed by chapter number.
583 Chapters 4-9 of the Hygromanteia are general astrology, and do not specifically appear in the
Clavicula Salomonis.

584 These key chapters are missing from all versions of the Key of Solomon.

585 Chapters 2-11 (of the water and hyssop) and 2-12 (of the light and of the fire) belong to this section
without having specific corresponding Hygromanteia chapters.

586 Probably separated from the Greek text of the Hygromanteia before translation into Latin.

138

Manuscript > Ms * B2
eee Athen- Athen- Bonon- Clavicula Salomonis Mathers’ | Alnwick | Add MS
Fiiiromandin Chiaoter: iensis iensis iensis Chapter: edition MS 584 36674
38 a 115 1265 3632
: 7. Of the Knife, Sword and 587
. The knife of the art B A Sebicatihe Re 2-8 2-8 2-8

20. The reed pen of the art B A ae
13. Of Pens from the

21. The quill of the art Quills of Swallows and 2-15 2-13 2-13
Crows

22. The virgin parchment B A F ‘
15.0 the Paper an 2-17 2-15 2-15
Virgin Parchment

23. The unborn parchment B A

24. The blood of a bat

25. The blood of a

swallow
14. Of the Blood of Bats, 2-16 2-14 2-14
Pigeons and other Animals

26. The blood of a dove

27. The blood of an ox or B i

sheep

28. The virgin wax B A ead
16. Of the Virgin Wax 4-18 2-16 2-16

29. The virgin clay B ik and the Virgin Earth

(see below for 30)
4. Of the Fast, Care and

PART IV: Evocation Observations at at siti

First Method ; 5. Of the Baths and in what

31, Observations, purity, B Manner they should be 2:5 2:5 2-5

bath, confession, fast, Prepared

ied 6. Of the Locations in

(see also 40) which the magician can 2-7 2-7 -
Perform the Art

32. The crown 2-6 2-6 2-7

33. The lamen or

Heavenly Seal B 3

(see also 40a)

34. The ring & bell B A a

35. Garments: gloves, 11. Of Clothes, Boots and 2-6

cloak, shoes, collar, lamen Shoes [and the silken cloth 2-6 2-7

: 2-20

cover, handkerchief lamen cover]

36. The Circle - first B ik 3. Magical Arts (including 13 13

method (see also 41) Construction of the Circle) 7 ‘ °
6. Stronger and more

37. The prayer and the Powerful Conjurations 1-6 1-6

three conjurations for the B -

spirits 7. Extremely Powerful 1-7 1-7
Conjuration

38. Conjuration for love B tt Op eran of Favour 1-15 1-8
and Love -

587 Also Mathers (1909), Plates XIII and XIV, and chapter 2-19, ‘Concerning other iron instruments.’
588 Not present in the Clavicula Salomonis as writing technology had moved on to quill and parchment.
589 The lamen is mentioned in passing.
50 The ring is only mentioned in passing in the Clavicula Salomonis.
591 Chapter 1-15 is taken by Mathers from Additional MS 10862.

139

Manuscript >

Hygromanteia Chapter:

39. Conjuration for a
treasure

PART V: Evocation
Second Method

40. Observations, fast,
garments

(see also 31, 35)

B
Athen-
iensis
115

A
Athen-
iensis
1265

B2
Bonon-
iensis
3632

Clavicula Salomonis
Chapter:

21. To render thyself
Master of a Treasure
possessed by Spirits

2. In what Manner the
Master of the Art should
Govern himself

Mathers’
edition

Alnwick
MS 584

3. How the Companions
should Govern themselves

2-3

40a. Lamen. (see also 33)

592

41. The Circle — second
method
(see also 36)

21. Formation of the

Circle, and how to enter

ip”?

2-9

2-9°%4

42. Conjurations of
demons of the four
quarters

595

43. General conjuration

5. Prayers and
Conjurations

1-5

44. Gasteromanteia:
Imprisoning a spirit in a
bottle, and exorcism

596

45. Evocation of Kalé, the
Lady of the Mountains”

598

46. Evocation of the black
demon Mourtzi>”

PART VI: Evocatory
skrying

47. Epibaktromanteia:
Water pot skrying™”!

49. Hygromanteia I:
Water skrying with
protective circle

48. Lekanomanteia: Bottle
skrying using greasy soot

50. Hygromanteia I:
Water skrying

51. Hygromanteia IU:
Water skrying

600

602

592 The importance of the lamen has diminished in the Latin grimoires. It is mentioned in the Key of
Solomon in passing, amongst the pentacles, where it is specified as stitched to the robe.
5% Chapter 2-9 is taken by Mathers from Additional MS 10862.
594 See also Mathers (1909) Plate XIV, p. 97, for the illustration.

59 These appear in other Latin Solomonic grimoires such as the Clavis Inferni, but have been

eliminated from mainstream Clavicula Salomonis.

5% This echoes traditional stories about Solomon imprisoning spirits in a bottle, so it is strange that it

does not appear in the Clavicula Salomonis.

597 Chapters 45 and 46 are obviously the evocation of local spirits, and were therefore not passed on to

the Key of Solomon.
5% Probably a localised Greek procedure which did not ‘travel.’
5 This is spelled inconsistently in the manuscripts as Mortzi, Mourtzée, Mourtzi and Mourtzai.

600 This evocation may relate to necromancy, as Mortzi might be a code word for a dead person.

601

602 The evocatory skrying chapters did not get translated into Latin. The absence of skrying chapters in
the Clavicula Salomonis indicates that B2 or cognate manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, were not the
manuscripts used by the translators.

140

B A B2

Mannscmphs 2 Athen- Athen- | Bonon- Clavicula Salomonis Mathers’ | Alnwick | Add MS
Fiicromanin Chawters iensis iensis iensis Chapter: edition MS 584 36674
Ai eis 5 1265 3632

52. Hygromanteia IV:

Skrying by means of basin, B2

kettle and glass

53. Chalkomanteia: B2

Copper bowl skrying

54. Katoptromanteia: B2

Mirror skrying

55. Krystallomanteia: B2

Crystal skrying

56. Oomanteia: Skrying B2

using an egg

57. Onykhomanteia:

Fingernail skrying B Be

58. Nekromanteia:

Interrogation of a spirit of B B2

the dead

59. Invisibility using a 10. Of the Experiment of

skull. ” Invisibility i ae 7
9. Experiment concerning 1-9 1-9 1-6
things stolen
11. Experiment to hinder a
sportsman from killing any 1-11 - -
game
12. [Experiment] how to

: 1-12 - -

make magic garters
13. How to make the Magic
carpet for interrogating the 1-13 - -
Intelligences
16. [Experiments of the]
Operations of Mockery, 1-16 1-15 1-12
Invisibility and Deceit
17. Extraordinary
Experiments and 1-17 1-16 1-13
Operations
Experiments of hatred - 1-14 1-11
18. Concerning the Holy 1-8
Concerning sacrifices to
the Spirits°™ ante ie 7

Table 02: Comparison of the contents of representative manuscripts of the Hygromanteia and the
Clavicula Salomonis demonstrating the great commonality of content.

603 There is a possibility that the manuscripts we currently have of the Hygromanteia were truncated at
this point, as there is an “end” notice at this point in the manuscript.

604 These ‘Experiments’ are almost certainly later accretions, which often accumulate at the end of
manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis, and other grimoires.

605 Chapters 11-14 are taken by Mathers from Lansdowne MS 1203.

606 Derived from Jewish sources, not the Hygromanteia.

607 Also Mathers (1909), pp. 66-78, for illustrations and commentary on the pentacles.

608 Not specifically covered in the Hygromanteia.

609 Even the wording of individual chapters shows close parallels.

141

It is clear from the foregoing Table that the chapters of the Key of Solomon clearly map onto
the chapters of the Hygromanteia, but in a different order.*!0 In most cases the topics
represented by these chapter headings are dealt with in more detail in the Hygromanteia,
proving that it was the source for the Clavicula Salomonis/Key of Solomon, rather than the

reverse. There are four clear exceptions to this:

i) The Pentacles. These do not occur in the Hygromanteia, but they do occur in many
Text-Groups of the Clavicula Salomonis. A few very sketchy diagrams of “the 24 seals
that must be drawn on the lamen” occur in some manuscripts of the Hygromanteia.“!
These contain very simple pentagrams, box grids and 8-spoke wheel drawings which
faintly resemble ‘thumbnails’ of the much more complex pentacles of the Clavicula
Salomonis.°!2 These are obviously degenerate versions of the pentacles, lacking any
detail, any wording or any explanation. Identifying discontinuities is as important as
identifying continuities, as it sometimes leads to the discovery of new sources, as it
has in the case of the pentacles. The exact details of the transmission of the pentacles

will be looked at in more detail in chapter 5.4.2.

ii) Some of the ‘Experiments’ which are clearly add-ons in many Clavicula Salomonis
manuscripts are missing from the Hygromanteia.*3 Such experiments are often to be
found at the end of European grimoires, often written in a different hand, and have
obviously been added in by owners or editors of the manuscripts from other

sources.®14

iii) The astrology chapters of the Hygromanteia (chapters 4-8) were not passed on to the
Clavicula Salomonis, but were probably separated out into separate Latin astrology

texts.

iv) The most immediately noticeable loss is the methods of evocatory skrying (chapters
47-57), the section ironically entitled Hygromanteia.5 These methods were not
transmitted.'© However, these evocatory skrying methods are found almost word-

for-word in 11th century Jewish sources. Accordingly, either Jewish sources supplied

610 The contents of these chapters (in both texts) are clearly reflected in these chapter headings.
61H, £.33.
612 G, f. 25v; H, f. 31; B2, f. 360.
613 Chapters 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-16 and 1-17 of the Clavicula Salomonis.
614 See Skinner and Rankine (2009) for typical examples.
615 Although both Trithemius and Dee continued the skrying tradition (see Barrett (1801), Book II, pp.
135 ff), the techniques they used are watered down, and all manuscript Text-Groups of the Key of
Solomon omit it.
616 A probable explanation of this is that the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia used by the Latin
translators did not contain these chapters, and/or were not part of the part of the stemma occupied by
B2.

142

these chapters to the Hygromanteia, or were derived from this text. At the present time

there is no way of determining the direction of this transmission.

It has therefore been demonstrated that there is a clear line of transmission from the
Hygromanteia to the Key of Solomon. Further parallels will be outlined in chapter 5, which also
takes into account procedures and equipment originating in the PGM, and commonalities

across all three sources.

Although the skrying chapters have been omitted from the Clavicula Salomonis, a correlation
can still be shown between them and the skrying methods represented in the PGM. See
chapters 5.9 and 9.3.

143

5. The Commonality and Continuity of Method between
the PGM, the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis

This section tests the hypothesis that there is a commonality between the magicians’
handbooks, techniques and tools in the three different periods and cultures being examined:
Graeco-Egyptian, Byzantine and European Solomonic grimoires. The purpose of this chapter
is to examine commonality of method and equipment, and not specifically their direct
transmission, although that is implied. Minimal material on Mesopotamian, dynastic
Egyptian magic or Jewish magic has been added where it clarifies, illuminates or contributes

to the understanding, or history, of a particular practice.

In each section, the purpose is not simply to document the manifestation of the technique in
each culture or era, but to use the demonstrated similarities of materials or techniques to
support the thesis that many of these techniques or ingredients were common, and survived
changes of geography, culture and language (albeit with some scribal mangling) over

upwards of 2000 years.

Continuity is defined as “the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something; a
connection or line of development with no sharp breaks; the maintenance of continuous
action...”°!7 In Europe, continuity in magica is much more a matter of tracing the persistence
of documents and their contents, rather than being able to demonstrate “continuous action,”
or oral passage from one practitioner to the next. This is especially true in Western Europe,
where unrelenting Christian persecution of magic has been in force for at least 1700 years,
and before that, selective persecution. As a result of this, although it is sometimes possible to
identify some of the magicians who owned the magicians’ handbooks, it is not often possible
to identify the passage of techniques and training from one magician to another. The history
of magic in Europe therefore has more often been one of rediscovery, each magician
reassembling techniques from the books and manuscripts of previous practitioners. Under
these circumstances it is remarkable that there is such a degree of commonality given the

fragmentation of the transmission.

The first example of transmission, spanning the period from 579 to 1425, from the end of the
period covered by the PGM to within a few years of the earliest recorded manuscript of the
Hygromanteia, is concerned with the iconography of the spiritual creatures who were the

target of evocations rather than the evocations per se.

A sarcophagus dated 579 CE was discovered in Xian (Chang An) in 2003. It shows a very

617 Concise Oxford Dictionary (1999).
144

clearly delineated god or demon/daimon carved in deep relief. The image shows a figure
with a pronounced upward curving beard, wings and very pronounced four-claw bird feet, a
lunar crescent circlet on its head, and tail feathers, holding a pair of sticks each thought to be
a wand or barsom,‘'8 and standing in front of a fire altar, with its loin cloth tied with an ‘Isis
knot.’ The current scholarly assessment is that the figure is a ‘bird-priest,/ but the very
distinct and narrow bird legs in no way look like a priest wearing ‘birdy leggings’ and

indicate that the creature is clearly not human.®!°

mi $ ; 4 ales <i. :
‘ ‘kh ¢ ji, hehe A
atitic bee »%- Tew ‘Tee :

ee ee | a

Figure 01: Bird-footed demon or yazata portrayed on a 579 CE Zoroastrian sarcophagus.®

618 This word is remarkably close to besom, the broomstick of later European witches, although any
such connection must for the moment remain speculative.
619 The cock-like figure may be Sraosha, who was the yazata who first tied the barsom, to make an
offering to Ahura Mazda (Videvdad 18.14-15.). He looks after the soul of the deceased for the first three
days after death, and as a psychopomp, sees him across the bridge to the underworld, and so is a most
appropriate motif on a sarcophagus. The figure is therefore not a priest. See Rose (2011), pp. 153-156.
620 Rose (2011), p. 155.

145

This sarcophagus has been identified as the last resting place of a Zoroastrian, Wirkak, who
lived 495-579 CE.®! An intriguing thought is that the magi who undoubtedly performed the
funeral rites for this deceased Sogdian Zoroastrian living in Xinjiang, might well have depicted

on the sarcophagus the type of daimon they were used to dealing with.

we A

Figure 02: Bird- and goat-footed demons with tails, wings and upturning beards, from a 1425
manuscript.° The upturned moon in Figure 01 may have here turned into horns. Note that the

magician is standing inside a protective circle, is very obviously negotiating with the demons and
giving them orders. He holds a book which is very likely to be a grimoire.6¥

What immediately strikes one is the close anatomical resemblance to the bird-legged and

winged demons shown in a number of mediaeval manuscripts (see Figure 02). Note the

621 Sogdanian Zoroastrianism survived till at least the 13th century on the borders of China, whilst
Islam may have all but purged it from its Iranian homeland.
622 Additional MS 39844, f. 51 reproduced in Page (2004), p. 7.
623 The dark anchor shape in the bottom right of the picture is not part of the image, but a show-
through from f. 51v.

146

almost identical and unusual upturned pointed beard, the feathery tails, the bird legs and the
wings on both creatures. By way of confirmatory identification of these two images, the
magician in Figure 02 is described as Canoaster (i.e. Zoroaster). It is surely more than a
coincidence that Zoroaster is the common denominator of these two strikingly similar
images. It is certainly not a coincidence that Zoroaster, and his magi priests, were seen by

the Greeks as the original source of their magic.

It is just speculation, but if Zoroastrian priests, who were called magi, brought the magic of
Zoroaster to the Greek world, might they not also have brought their iconography, or their
knowledge of daimons/demons with them as well? The image of these daimons/demons
might well have passed from the magi to Greek books of magical ritual, and later to the Latin
West, especially as it was the Sogdians who were amongst the most active traders along the

silk route.6

There are no illustrations of demons in the Clavicula Salomonis or the Hygromanteia, but bird-
footed demons occur in contemporary magical and theological texts, alongside of goat-
footed demons. The goat feet might be easily identified with Pan, but the bird-feet were not
so obvious, prior to this identification. The illustration in Figure 02 dates from 1425, just 15

years before the oldest extant manuscript of the Hygromanteia.®6

It would therefore seem that the iconography of this particular spiritual creature has hardly
changed in appearance over a period of 850 years. Many other examples of commonality
over similarly long periods of time will be examined in this chapter, not of images of

spiritual creatures, but of the methods and materials used to evoke them.
Methods and Materials of Magic

The following exploration of these methods and materials of magic has been divided up into

the following broad classifications:

a Hierarchy of spiritual creatures: the magician’s approach to the classification of

the hierarchy of spiritual creatures: gods, daimones, angels, spirits, demons, etc.

2 Preliminary Procedures and Preparation: timing, location, baths, purity,

abstinence, etc.

a Protection: the Solomonic circle, triangle, brass vessel, phylacteries and lamens.

624 The only other explanation is that the iconography of demons remained the same, regardless of
when they were sculptured or painted.

625 It is worth pointing out that Sogdian Zoroastrian manuscripts pre-date any surviving Avestan
manuscripts from either Iran or India by more than 300 years. Zoroastrian fire temples were found
near Dunhuang, a major trade ‘gateway’ to China. The Sogdian word for demon was shimnu.

626 MS Bononiensis Univers. 3632.

147

4. Written Words: amulets, talismans, characteres, seals, defixiones, etc

ee Spoken Words: the nomina magica, invocations, prayers, conjurations, licences to

depart, commemorations, etc.

6. Magical Equipment: wands, swords, knives, rings, censers, pens, inks, statues,

tables, wax images, etc.
7. Consumables: materia magica, incense, ointment, blood, oil, etc.

8. Specific Magical Techniques: Obtaining a paredros, sending visions, love spells,

invisibility, sacrifice, necromancy, treasure finding, spirit imprisonment, etc.

9; The Manteiai or evocatory skrying methods, specifically the ones common to both

the Hygromanteia and the PGM: lychnomanteia, lekanomanteia and hygromanteia.6””

627 Only those that were actually common to the PGM and the Hygromanteia have been examined.
Those ‘manteia’ that just flourished in the Byzantine period, but do not appear to have migrated to the
Latin grimoires, such as onkhomanteia, oomanteia, katoptromanteia or chalkomanteia, are not examined.

148

5.1 The Hierarchy of Spiritual Creatures

The importance of hierarchy in magic cannot be overstressed. It is one of the basic principles
acknowledged and utilised by magicians in all periods. It is well known that knowing the
name of a spirit is reputed to give the magician control over that spirit. In order to coerce that
spirit into carrying out the wishes of the magician, there are a number of threats that the

magician typically uses.

5.1.1 The Hierarchies of Spirits, Angels and Daimones

The first of these techniques is to order that spirit in the name of one of its superiors. This
technique is found in ancient Egyptian magic, the PGM, the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula
Salomonis. The theory of ‘hierarchical threatening’ is that the spirit is not in a position to
check if the magician has the authority to make such an order, it simply reacts to the threat. It
works on the same principle as a teacher threatening a student that he will be sent to the
headmaster, an outcome that no student relishes. At the point the threat is issued, neither the

headmaster, nor the superior spirit, has been consulted.

Therefore, clearly knowing the names of the spirit’s superiors, at all the levels of the
hierarchy, gives the magician the power he needs. This technique of utilising the power of
the name, not necessarily of the supreme being, but of one further up the “food chain’
appears in each of the sources we are examining here, and so is a clear example of the

transmission of a magical technique. Specific illustrative examples are detailed below.
Jewish Sources

In Jewish magic, it is clearly acknowledged that the magic is performed by angels or demons,
constrained by the magician who uses the names of god or his archangels as his credentials

for ordering around the lesser angels or spirits:

God is usually not compelled directly in these incantations. Rather it is his authority that is
brought to bear on his subordinates, the angels or demons. In fact, the angels can be seen as
heavenly bureaucrats, loyal to their superiors and suspicious of mere mortals. The magician
holds a script - the amulet (or more accurately, the spoken incantation), bearing the seal of the
[spirit] King - the magical name. Thus it is this authority, and not any inherent power of the
individual, that enables the magicians to command angels and demons and help the client. This
function may also explain the affinities between magical and legal formulae. According to this
structure by which the magician is the authorized agent of God on behalf of the client, the
incantation is a document, binding on the angels [or demons], that accomplishes its function
upon writing or recitation.°%

This passage succinctly sums up this dynamic common to all three periods.

This approach is also very clear in the PGM, where the supreme gods like Phre/Ra or Osiris

628 Swartz (1990), p. 179.
149

are often invoked as a coercive threat. Hierarchical threats are quite common in the PGM,

even to using a name with which to threaten the gods themselves:

Hear me, because I am going to say the great name, AOTH,°” before whom every god
prostrates himself and every daimon shudders, for whom every angel completes those things
which are assigned. Your divine name according to the seven [vowels] is AEEIOYO IAYOE
EAOOYEEOIA. I have spoken the glorious name, the name for all needs.

This purports to be an excellent all-purpose name, as it applies to the whole range of
spiritual creatures: gods, angels and daimones. The threat is also closely tied in to the

magician’s order to complete the task in hand and/or reveal certain information.

The obverse of this threat is to promise the spiritual creature that the magician will praise it
to its superiors. One such Demotic inducement to assist in a lamp skrying, promises that the

daimon with be praised to Ra, the sun god and also to the moon god:

I shall praise you in heaven before Pre; I shall praise you before the moon; I shall praise you on
earth; I shall praise you before the one who is on the throne...

Daimones are below the gods in the hierarchy. Daimones are defined in some detail by

Socrates who quotes Diotima as saying that daimones are:

Interpreters and ferrymen, carrying divine things to mortals and mortal things to gods; requests
and sacrifices from below and commandments and answers from above. Being midway
between, [daimones] make each half supplement the other, so that the whole becomes unified.
Through them are conveyed all divination (mantike) and all priestly crafts concerning sacrifices,
initiations, incantations, all prophetic power (manteia) and magic. For the divine does not mix
with the mortal, and it is only through the mediation of [the daimones] that mortals can have any
interaction with the gods, either while awake or while asleep.*2

In the sense of messengers of the gods, daimones seem very close in nature to angels, except
that they deliver messages in both directions, not just from god. The fact that they are also
seen as the conduit for magic and divination reinforces the relationship between the

magician and the daimones in their later Mediaeval ‘incarnation’ as demons.

The works of Classical Greek writers and Neoplatonists like Iamblichus and Synesius were of
course available to the Byzantines, unlike the Latin West, which did not have such easy access
to Greek materials, till Ficino’s translations. Byzantines were for the most part Orthodox
Christians, but despite their Christian affiliations, their views on daimones/demons were

partly shaped by the Neoplatonic sources that were also available to them in Greek.

Michael Psellus (1018-1096) sums up the 11th century Orthodox view of daimones coloured
by his familiarity with Neoplatonic texts, and laced with some rather forced but politically

correct raillery against some of the schismatic sects, while still taking an active interest in,

629 AQO.
630 PGM XII. 117.
631 PDM xiv. 493.
632 Plato, Symposium, 202e-203a as quoted in Johnston (2008), p.10.
150

and an opportunity to discuss, their heretical theology. Psellus in his [epi Aoipovav, On
Daimones divides daimones into six classes:

1. Igneous (fiery) 4

2. Aerial (airy)

3. Terrestrial (earthy)

4, Aqueous (water)

5. Subterranean (underneath the earth, in caves)

6. Heliophobic (adverse to sunlight).
This division is often found in later grimoires, especially those of the German Faustian
tradition, where “heliophobic’ is more often expressed as ‘lucifugous.’&° Obviously the first
four varieties owe a lot to the elemental divisions of the encyclopaedist Isidore of Seville. In
his De Omnifaria Doctrina, Psellus stated that although Christians were obliged to view all
demons as bad, the non-Christian Greeks and ‘Chaldaeans’ believed that at least the ethereal

and aerial demons were good. This view was echoed by magicians then and subsequently.

By the time that Solomonic magic had reached Byzantium, it had developed a detailed
hierarchy of angels and demons, as is exemplified in the long tables of their names.” The
purpose of this categorisation was to ensure that the correct angel/demon pair was conjured
on the correct day, and at the correct hour. The importance of timing as well as the
association of named demons/angels with each hour of each day is a definite importation

from the PGM, which will be examined in chapter 5.2.3.
Greenfield explains the practical use of the hierarchy in the Byzantine context:

Indeed, it was in such theories [of hierarchy] that much of the role ascribed to the demons in
divination and sorcery was grounded since their position as the controllers, administrators or
servants of such powers and influences made it vital for the practitioner of these arts to secure
their favour in some way, to find the moment when they were most favourable or most easily
led, or else to force them to use their power in the desired fashion. In the last case this might
usually be accomplished by [threatening them with] the authorities who were believed to be
positioned above them in their particular astrological hierarchy.%®

A second technique that occurs in the Hygromanteia and in subsequent Latin grimoires is the
procedure of invoking the spiritual creatures in a fixed sequence. The Hygromanteia has its
hierarchy formally embedded in the scheme of invocation, so that there are specific
instructions that the planet and the relevant angel must be invoked first, followed by the

daimon, and then the spirit who is actually to be entrusted with the task. This is a significant

633 Collison (2010), p.18.
634 Or ethereal.
685 By some commentators referred to as ‘sub-lunar’ daimones, inhabiting the air space between the
Moon and the Earth.
636 Butler (1949), pp. 35, 164.
637 For example Marathakis (2011), pp. 55-68 where 7 x 24 x 2 = 336 demons and angels occur just in
one such table.
638 Greenfield (1988), p. 176.
151

development from the ‘free-range’ threatening of the PGM. The other advance is that the
hierarchy is invoked in descending order, rather than just listed at random, as is often the

case in the PGM.

A third technique is the use of “thwarting angels,” the matching of the demon of each hour
with its angelic opposite number, who controls it. One of the earliest examples of this is to be
found in the 1st/2nd century Testament of Solomon, and it is also present in the Hygromanteia.
The Hygromanteia has a large number of listed demons, each with their matching number of
angels. Amongst the angels regular -ael or -iél endings predominate, betraying a distinctly

Hebraic origin for many of their names.%9

The technique of threatening a spiritual creature with one further up the hierarchy is also
utilised in the Clavicula Salomonis, where god’s name is also often invoked. The Clavicula
Salomonis has a detailed hierarchy of archangels, angels and spirits, and a similar mechanism
for threatening recalcitrant spirits. Another recalcitrant spirit technique that comes to full
fruition later, in the Goetia, is the practice of heating the spirit’s sigil over a fire in order to

cause the spirit pain.®40

The names of the spirits in the Latin and vernacular grimoires give clues as to the origin of
these texts, as well as confirming the continuity of their hierarchical structure. Juratus, one of
the earliest grimoires to appear in Latin Europe (circa 1225 CE)®4! has an interesting selection
of 100 “Holy Names of God.” One analysis made of these 100 names estimates 49 names are
of Greek origin and 17 names of Hebrew origin, with the balance being of indeterminate
origin. It therefore seems very likely that the origin of this grimoire (like the origin of the
Clavicula Salomonis) will eventually be discovered in the Greek speaking eastern

Mediterranean.

In later Latin and English grimoires there is an elaborate structure which copies European
civil administration. The Goetia (1641, but with precursor texts dating back to the 15th
century) for example, has a whole range of aristocratic spirits including Kings, Dukes, Earls,
Marquises, Presidents, Princes and Prelates, down to lowly Knights.%4 These aristocratic

spirits are also matched with the planets, where logically the 12 Kings are attributed to the

639 These were probably added to the Hygromanteia in the early Geonic period, according to Pingree
(1980), p. 10.
640 Skinner and Rankine (2007), p. 182.
641 On the basis of the mention of this book by William of Auvergne (c.1180-1249). Some scholars
repudiate this mention on the grounds that Liber Sacratus is not necessarily to be identified as Liber
Sacer /Juratus. On the other hand there is no certainty that the books are not the same.
642 Skinner (2006), Table M7.
643 Sloane MS 3825.
644 See Table M17 and M18 in Skinner (2006).

152

Sun in each of the 12 zodiacal signs.* In 1563 Weyer® even entitled his grimoire, listing the

very same spirits, as the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, or ‘False Monarchy of the Demons.’®7

The 72 demons of the Goetia are divided up by both the 12 zodiacal Signs and the seven
Planets.°48 However these lists have obviously been edited a number of times, so that the
number of demons occupying the sphere of Saturn has been reduced to just one (Furcas);§9
while Venus has 22 demons allocated to it. Mercury, Moon and Sun each have 12 demons.
This uneven distribution is a sure sign that the lists have been redacted a number of times,
with the less helpful Saturnian spirits gradually being omitted from the listing, and Venusian
spirits (for the popular operations of love) increased. These changes appear therefore to have
come about as a result of usage and experimentation, rather than just at the arbitrary whim
of a redactor. The zodiacal distribution is more even-handed than the planetary division,

with an average of six demons per sign.

The Art Almadel divides its angelic hosts into four chorae.®° Chora is usually translated from
the Latin altitudine as “altitude” which only makes sense, in the context, if one assumes that
the choirs of angels are drawn from different (planetary) spheres which are located at
varying altitudes above the Earth.®! The original Greek meaning of chora, in use in Egypt in
the Ist century BCE, refers to the suburban areas immediately outside of the cities of
Naukratis, Ptolemais and Alexandria.®? It is then not too much of an imaginative stretch to
see that as the chorae were districts, the angels might have been attributed to these districts or

simply to the four cardinal directions of these districts:

...for you must observe there are four Altitudes [chorae] which represent the four Corners of the
world East, West, North and South... and the Angels of every [one] of these Altitudes have
their particular Virtues and powers as shall be showed hereafter.©°

A time, as well as space, dimension is added by attributing the four chorae to the 12 zodiacal
signs. For example, the first chora is attributed to the East, and the first three Signs of the
zodiac. Following this logic, the invocant should face East and invoke the first two angels of

that chora in the day of the Sun, and the Sign of Aries:

As for Example, Suppose I would call the two first of the five [angels] that belongs to the first
Chora, then choose the first Sunday in March after the Sun hath entered Aries, and then I make

645 There has been some redactional loss of consistency in Leo, Libra, and Capricorn.
646 Johann Weyer (1515-1588) was a Dutch physician and a pupil of Cornelius Agrippa.
647 See Weyer (1660) and Weyer (1998).
648 The full matrix of these demons is laid out in Table M18 of Skinner (2006).
649 There is a good argument for seeing even that attribution as a mistake.
650 Skinner and Rankine (2007), pp. 344-346.
651 Antonio da Montolmo in his De Occultis et Manifestis equates the Altitudes with the angels of the 12
zodiacal Signs. See Weill-Parot (2012), p. 277.
652 Bagnall (2004), p.294.
653 Goetia in Skinner and Rankine (2007), p. 342.
153

my [magical] Experiment. And so do the like [the same] if you will the next Sunday after
again.®4

The theme of the directional attributions of spiritual creatures will be taken up again in

chapter 5.2.2.

5.1.2 The Gods (G)®5

The gods of ancient Egypt, especially Anubis, Isis, Osiris, Harpocrates and Thoth frequently
feature in the rites of both PDM and the PGM, but few if any, make their way though to the

Hygromanteia or to the Latin grimoires.%°

Interaction with the god or goddess was considered by the magician as one of the most
valuable outcomes of his craft. The god may simply answer some pressing questions, or it
may remain a permanent helpmate or sponsor.’ The arrival of the god or goddess may be
obtained in several different manners. These experiments are categorised as: dreams and
Visions (‘V’); direct vision of the god (‘E’); association with the god (‘G’) in Appendix 1 and
Appendix 2. The most common occurrence was the god’s intervention in the practitioner's
dreams. Such dreams were reputedly very lucid and not at all like ordinary dreams (which
was the touchstone of their nature). Secondarily the divinity might appear in the context of a
skrying operation and be seen in a bowl of water or oil, a crystal (more relevant in Europe
after the Middle Ages) or in the reflected flame of a lamp. These techniques are categorised as
‘B’ or ‘D’ in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

However, the most impressive epiphany of the god or goddess was their physical
appearance in front of the magician, during which the magician may be able to ask questions
and receive answers. Under these circumstances the usual injunction (just as in Biblical
accounts of Yahweh appearing to Moses, or to the other Hebrew prophets) was not to look
directly at the face of the divinity, but to “look at their feet.”8 In later European grimoires,
the manifesting spirit is commanded to appear in a human-like and non-frightening form,
without arousing fear in the viewers. Likewise, both gods and spirits were constrained to tell

the plain truth and not lie in many of the conjurations:

I, N, son of N, present my supplication before you, that you appear to me [without] causing

654 The Goetia in Skinner and Rankine (2007), p. 346.
655 The bracketed letters appearing after many of the chapters in chapter 5 correspond to the rite types
used to categorise the PGM rites in Appendix 2. All of these rite types have their own chapters, except
for the Sundry rites (O, E, X), the Mystery rites (M), Prayers (P) and operations which are categorized
just on the basis of their objectives, rather than on the basis of the techniques involved.
656 A few exceptions of corrupted god names appearing as demons will be noted later.
657 Rather like the classical Greek gods or goddesses who often assisted a chosen mortal.
658 Yahweh reputedly showed Moses his hind-quarters, to protect that worthy from the probably fatal
outcome of a direct glance. Medusa also provided similarly disastrous outcomes for those that looked
her straight in the face.

154

fear, and you be revealed to me without causing terror, and you conceal nothing from me and
tell me truthfully all that I desire.%?

Apparently even the gods could be tricky and not always reliable. A typical Apollonian

invocation from the PGM also makes a similar request.

I adjure these holy and divine names that

They send me the divine spirit and that it

Fulfil what I have in my heart and soul...

Send me this daimon at my sacred chants...
And send him gentle, gracious, pondering

No thoughts opposed to me. And may you not
Be angry at my sacred chants. But guard

That my whole body come to [the] light intact.

One divine encounter, recounted in the form of a letter from Nepatng Nephotés (Nepher
hotep) to Psammetichos, King of Egypt, is designed to question Helios.°*! As both the actors
in this are Egyptian, it is a fairly safe assumption that the original Sun god so conjured
would have been Phre/Ra, or possibly Horus. This rite explains that, although the god may

not be visible, there will be a sign of his presence:

After you have said this three times, there will be this sign of divine encounter, but you, armed
by having this magical soul,‘ be not alarmed. For a sea falcon flies down and strikes you on
the body with its wings, signifying this: that [the god has come, and so] you should arise.°

One of the most detailed accounts of a god’s arrival is recounted by Thessalos of Tralles, a

doctor (in a letter to the Emperor Claudius):

Now, he [the priest] had prepared a pure room (oikos) and the other things that were necessary
for the visitation (episkepsis)... (22) The high-priest asked me whether I would want to converse
with the soul of some dead person or with a god. I said, “Asklepios.’

...Now when he had shut me in the room and commanded me to sit opposite the throne upon
which the god was about to sit, he led me through the [pronunciation of the] god’s secret names
and he shut the door as he left. (24) Once I sat down, I was being released from body and soul
by the incredible nature of the spectacle. For neither the facial features of Asklepios nor the
beauty of the surrounding decoration can be expressed clearly in human speech. Then, reaching
out his right hand, Asklepios began to say: (25)

“Oh blessed Thessalos, attaining honour in the presence of the god. As time passes, when your
successes become known, men will worship you as a god. Ask freely, then, about what you
want and I will readily grant you everything.” (26)

I scarcely heard anything, for I had been struck with amazement and overwhelmed by seeing
the form of the god. Nevertheless, I was inquiring why I had failed when trying the
prescriptions of Nechepso. To this the god said: (27)

“King Nechepso, a man of most sound mind and all honourable forms of excellence, did not
obtain from an utterance of the gods what you are seeking to learn. Since he had a good natural
ability, he [just] observed the sympathy of stones and plants with the stars, but he did not know

659 Sepher ha-Razim, 4: 63-65.
660 PGM I. 312-323.
661 PGM IV. 154-220.
662 | believe this is a mis-translation, and yvyiv should be translated as ‘spirit,’ in the sense of an
assistant spirit. It makes more sense to be armed by having an external assistant spirit rather than by
your own soul.
663 PGM IV. 207-212.
155

the correct times and places one must pick the plants. (28) For the produce of every season
grows and withers under the influence of the stars. That divine spirit, which is most refined,
pervades throughout all substance and most of all throughout those places where the influences
of the stars are produced upon the cosmic foundation.” °°

Thessalos was neither a priest nor a magician, but due to persistence he had the privilege of
meeting the god Asklepios face to face, courtesy of a priest who gave him the correct nomina
magica. One of the prime requirements of ritual magic, in all periods, is to know the correct
names, not only of the god being invoked, but also of his secret names. This passage also
affords us confirmation of the importance of right times, especially in the picking of herbs

used in magic. The conditions for herb harvesting will be further pursued in chapter 6.14.

One of the rites in the PGM affords us a contemporary view of what were considered the key
god names across various cultures in Egypt in the first few centuries CE. These are listed in
Table 03.
According to
the...
Egyptians ®vo ea loBoK PHNO EAI IABOK

God name - original Greek Betz’s translation/ transliteration

Jews Adovais Lapawd ADONAIE SABAOTH

Greeks 0 MAVTMV LOvapyYos PactrEd<s “the king of all, ruling alone”

[Egyptian]

: ; KPUATE, KOPATE, TAVTAC EPOPaV “hidden, invisible, overseer of all’”®5
High priests P Discs toa ad , :

Parthians Ovepta mavtodvvaota OUERTO master of all

[Gnostics]® | Ida LaBaw0 ABpacdé IAO SABAOTH ABRASAX®7

Table 03: God names derived from various cultures used in the same PGM rite.
Of these names, Ia, Sabadth, Adonaie and to a lesser extent Abrasax, have endured through to
the later European grimoires. These were not necessarily the gods of religion but the god

names the magician used to enforce his control over lesser spirits. The same passage concludes:

Yea, lord, for to you, the god in heaven, all things are subject, and none of the daimons or spirits
will oppose me because I have called on your great name for the consecration.

Another passage which neatly sums up the gods important to the magician comes from

Homer but is embedded in the Graeco-Egyptian texts, as if it were a valued reference for the

664 Codex Matritensis Bibliotheque Nationale MS 4631, published by Graux in 1878. English translation
courtesy of Philip Harland.
665 Ogdoas. See the PGM XIII. 741-747 for a justification of this suggestion.
666 The names inscribed on the back side of the stone.
667 This is followed by an illustration which appears in Preisendanz Vol. 2, p. 76, but not in the
corresponding translation in Betz (1996), p. 163. The illustration is of poorly represented hieroglyphics,
of which only ‘ankh’ and ‘neter’ are easily recognizable.
668 PGM XII. 264-269.
669 PGM XII. 261-263.

156

magician.*” The list of gods in this passage is very much a mixture of each of the cultures
that have contributed to the PGM. It opens with Anubis (Egyptian), and lists Gnostic gods
(Abraxas, Ablantho), Greek gods (Circe, infernal Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Titan), gods of the

firmament (the Bear asterism® and Sirius) and even the Jewish god (Iaweh or Yahweh).

In another passage,6” apart from the usual gods/goddesses there are the Greek gods of
personified qualities, like Famine, Jealousy, the Destinies, the Malignities and the
Punishments. This spell has the longest roll-call of Greek mythology of any PGM rite: the
Erinys Orgogorgoniotrian; many chthonic forms of Persephone (Persephassa), Hermes,
Hekate, Acheron, Amphiaros, Ariste, Tartaros, Charon, Chaos, Erebos, Styx, Lethe, Hades,

Pluto, Aiakos and Zeus. There is also a long string of unusual nomina magica.

Kore is one of the few classical Greek goddesses that has persisted through to the European
grimoires, usually appearing as a demon, right up to her appearance in the 15th century

Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage.°73

As a general rule, the invocation of gods or goddesses has been deleted from texts like the
Hygromanteia, after filtering through many centuries of Christian control, but their names are
still used to designate the days of the week, and may occasionally appear in mangled form in

invocations.

The Christianisation of the grimoires leaves little room for the pagan gods in the Clavicula
Salomonis, but the various Hebrew names for god like Jehovah and Sabaoth are still

maintained as an ultimate threat to spirits.

5.1.3 The Hierarchy of Angels

In what is a Jewish influenced rite,64 for consecrating a lamella for favour, victory and
power, the angels of the heavens are enumerated as listed in Table 04.°° The concept of
stratified heavens and their association with rain and snow is definitely derived from Jewish
sources, along with at least three of the angel names. The seven heavens with their associated

angels appear in a more consistent form in the late 15th century Heptameron of Peter de

670 PGM XXIII. 26-50.

671 This is the constellation of Ursa Minor or the Plough. The Egyptians considered this asterism to be
female (PGM LXxXII. 36).

672 PGM IV. 1390-1595.

673 Translated in Mathers (1900).

674 As witnessed by the use of the phrase “the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” and by the list of
angels.

675 For a correlation of the seven Heavens with natural phenomena see Skinner (2006), Tables K69-K73.

157

Abano (1250-1316).5%6

Heaven Angel Natural phenomena Angel
Abyss Bythath Telzé

1st Marmar Edanoth
2nd Raphael Serpents Saesechel
3rd Souriél Tabiym
4th Iphiaph Bimadam
5th Pitiel Chadraoun
6th Mouriatha Chadrallou
7th

Table 04: The correlation of the angels with the seven Heavens and various natural phenomena.°””

The angels of the planets vary from manuscript to manuscript of the Hygromanteia,*’8 but the

most common angels in manuscript P are: 6”

Sun Mikhaél
Moon _ Gabriél
Mars Ourouél
Mercury Apodokiel
Jupiter Rhaphael®0
Venus’ Anaél
Saturn Ktinotothen

Standard angels, like Mikhaél, Ouriél (Ariel), Rhaphael, Gabriél, Anaél are also to be found

scattered through the lists of planetary angels in the Hygromanteia.®!

The Hygromanteia places great emphasis on controlling the planets, planetary angels and
demons, and the careful observance of planetary hours. These also form an important part of

the Clavicula Salomonis manuscripts. See chapter 5.2.3.

At least five of these angels map on to the angels of the hours in the Clavicula Salomonis.°*2
Given that these angels probably originated in Babylon, and occasionally appear in the PGM,
these names are probably one of the longest established commonalities amongst all the

magical texts under consideration.

676 The seven Heavens are listed with their corresponding spirits as outlined in (Abano) in Skinner
(2006), Table M10.
677 PGM XXXV. 1-14.
678 For a full list see Marathakis (2011), pp. 71-74.
679 Even within this manuscript there are a number of variant forms, but the ones chosen are the most
common.
680 The attribution of Raphael to Jupiter instead of Mercury is uncommon, occurring otherwise in the
Picatrix.
681 Chapters 3 and 13.
682 Mathers (1909), p. 8.
158

De Abano’s Heptameron has an even more complex list of angels, which also appears in the

RS Text-family of the Clavicula Salomonis,83 which is divided up by Season:4

Angels of the Seasons from de Abano’s Heptameron

Summer | Autumn Winter

Casmaran Ardarael Farlas

Name of Season

Caratasa, Core, Amatiel,

Angels of Season Comimissarse

Gargatel, Tariel, Gaviel | Tarquam, Guabarel Amabael, Ctarari

Head of Sign Tubiel Torquaret Altarib

Earth in Season Festativi Rabianara Geremiah

Sun in Season Athemay Abragini Commutaff

Moon in Season Armatus Matasignais Affaterim

Table 05: The Seasonal angels of the Heptameron.6*

5.1.4 The Hierarchy of Demons

As daimon was a Greek concept, and demon a Christian adaptation of that concept, it is
reasonable to maintain that there are no daimones or demons in dynastic Egyptian magic. Of
course there are many Egyptian gods, like Apep or Seth to which demonic behaviour has

been attributed.

In order to understand the nature of daemons we can look back at a text which is normally
characterised as purely about theurgy and Neo-Platonic theology, but which in fact makes
some very shrewd observations about other spiritual creatures, and which continue to be

relevant long past the period in which they were written.

Iamblichus (c. 250-325 CE) is one of the most important sources of the philosophy and
theology behind magic, and he is contemporary with the bulk of the material in the PGM.
Scholars, however, usually characterise him among the Neoplatonic philosophers, and do
not look to him for elucidation on matters of magic. However he provides some useful

contemporary theological and philosophical background to the PGM.

Iamblichus was a disciple of Porphyry, who was in turn a student of perhaps the most
important Neoplatonist, Plotinus. lamblichus’ influential treatise De Mysteriis, or Theurgia, or
On the Mysteries of Egypt is in the form of a reply to a letter from Porphyry to Anebo, an
Egyptian priest, clearly linking the text with the Graeco-Egyptian world, and hence the
Graeco-Egyptian magic of the PGM. Although it is usually said that this text deals only with
theurgy, which operates predominantly through the agency of the gods, it contains material
683 Chapter XII of Wellcome MS 4670 (dated 1796) as translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 103.
684 Tt is not clear where these angel names come from.

685 Abano (2005), pp. 76-96; Skinner (2006), Table M10a.
159

on other forms of magic. Iamblichus’ influence on magic was further propagated by Agrippa
who referred frequently to him in his De Occulta Philosophia. Renaissance Neoplatonists, like
Ficino, and Kabbalists like Pico della Mirandola, Giordano Bruno and even Nostradamus

(see chapter 8.3), were also influenced by Iamblichus.

In De Mysteriis, apart from the gods, archons, angels, daimones, heroes and “pure souls’ there
is also described a class of un-named spiritual creatures who are said to be irrational and

almost robotic.®° They are initially described as:

..another class of being from among those which surround us, devoid of reason and
judgement, which has been allotted just one power, in the apportionment of tasks which has
been prescribed for each entity in each of the parts [of the universe]...°°7

Then as:

...there exists a certain class of powers (Svvépewv) in the cosmos - limited, devoid of judgement
and highly irrational, which are capable of receiving and obeying rational instruction from
another, but neither has any understanding of its own nor distinguishes what is true or false or
what is possible or impossible. It is such a class that is at once stirred up and startled when
threats are brandished at them, since, it seems to me, it is in their own nature to be led by
appearances and to be influenced by other things through a foolish and unstable imagination.®8

This description seems to closely fit the demons of the later grimoires especially, because:

i) They are allocated one function. Typically, in the grimoires, demons have one or two
specialised functions, so that one who satisfies lust cannot be constrained to help a

huntsman, or find gold, for example.

ii) They are capable of receiving and obeying rational instruction. Unlike gods or angels,

demons are typically ordered around by the magician.

iii) They have no understanding of truth or falsity. Demons are often accused in the
grimoires of lying to the magician, but maybe Iamblichus had a better understanding

of the situation when he said they cannot distinguish truth from falsehood.

iv) Most telling, he says that these spiritual creatures may be “stirred up and startled
when threats are brandished at them.” This encapsulates the method used in the
grimoires, which recommend threatening spirits with punishment in the deepest hell,
an action that the magician certainly is not in a position to enforce. Such bogus threats
are also to be found in the PGM where the magician threatens to stop the sun in its

course, or report the spirit to some supreme god.

v) Iamblichus’ conclusion that such entities can “be led by appearances” also gives

justification for the magician wearing regalia like a (paper) crown, or other

686 My thanks to Christopher Plaisance for drawing my attention to these passages.
687 De Mysteriis IV.1.182.
688 De Mystertis VI. 5.246.
160

accoutrements with divine names hastily inked on them, a make-believe that would
not for an instant fool another human, even a child, and presumably not an angel or a

god.

vi) The standard technique of claiming to be a god, or of acting in the name of a senior
demon, would likewise not be credited by anyone except an entity who cannot

“distinguish what is true or false or what is possible or impossible.”

Iamblichus concludes that the demons (for that is what he is certainly speaking of here) have
a “foolish and unstable imagination.” Therefore, lamblichus appears to have understood
demons and their manner of interacting with the magician, and has clearly made the
distinction between them and the other entities which are dealt with under the heading of
theurgy. His clear statements are probably one of the best analyses of the nature of such
demons that we have, and they go a long way towards explaining the theory behind the

actual methods of evocation.

Although not actually labelling them as demons, the description of their nature is completely
consistent with the modus operandi of the magicians of the PGM, the Hygromanteia, the
Clavicula Salomonis and of the later European grimoires. Most interestingly, the picture he
paints is many miles from the Church's portrayal of demons as dangerous, cunning, and
intent upon securing the magician’s soul. This now makes more sense of typical grimoire
instructions to threaten the demons with hell, or consignment to a bottle, bogus threats

which are designed to play on their “unstable imaginations.”

Greenfield effectively summarises the Byzantine approach to demons:

The whole rationale of demonic magic, for instance, required that the demons possessed powers
of their own which were seen as being experienced by men, whether they welcomed or feared
them, employed or countered them. These were not seen as delusions, nor were they generally
thought to be allowed [to act] only by God's permission; spirits were not conjured to perform
something if it was believed that they could only work illusion, demons were not commanded
in the names of God and his angels if it was believed that God himself was allowing them to do
what was being commanded for some ulterior and entirely different purpose.%?

In fact one variety of Euchitae belief viewed Satanael as the first son of God, and Jesus the
second. Satanael also features as a demon in the Hygromanteia. The Bogomils attributed the
miracles of the saints to the same kind of magic apparent in the Hygromanteia, and therefore
levelled the playing field.6! One of the more serious theological problems of early
Christianity was to distinguish miracles (done by saints) from magic (performed by

magicians). The Bogomils accepted that the same demons, and the same magical techniques,

689 Greenfield (1988), p.166.
690 According to Psellus. See Collisson and Skinner (2010), pp. 53-54 and Greenfield (1988), pp. 171-172.
691 Greenfield (1988), p. 174. Also Kazhdan (1995), pp. 73-82.

161

were used by both saints and magicians. This is a long-standing idea, exemplified in Simon

Magus’s failed attempts to buy some of the relevant magical techniques from the Apostles.62

In a few versions of the prayers to the planets (in chapter 3 of the Hygromanteia), the angels
and demons of each planet are included.’ However, in the vast majority of cases these
demons cannot be traced back to the PGM. But very interestingly, as Greenfield notices,
some of the demons appear in the 1st/2nd century Testament of Solomon.®* Most of these
angel and demon names are not to be found elsewhere, so the Testament of Solomon is clearly

one of the tributary sources of the Hygromanteia, or they both have a common ancestor.

Standard Judeo/Christian angels, like Mikhaél, Ouriél (Ariél), Rhaphael, Gabriél and Anaél
are also to be found in the lists of planetary angels (Hygromanteia chapters 3 & 13). The
demons of the Hygromanteia have much more in common with the demons of the Testament of
Solomon than with the entities of the PGM.

In the vernacular grimoires, demons are often organised into ‘registers.’ The two classic
examples of these structures are the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage and the four books
of the Lemegeton.°%° The Abramelin hierarchy is governed by four Princes (Lucifer, Satan,
Leviathan and Belial) and nine sub-Princes whose number include one Greek chthonic
goddess (Kore), and four Demon Kings (Paymon, Oriens, Ariton and Amaymon), ruling 416
servient spirits. The Lemegeton contains four books, each of which arranges their register of
spirits in a different manner. This detailed hierarchy gives ample scope for the use of the

technique of threatening spirits with the names of their superiors in the hierarchy.

6% Acts 8-9:24.
6% Specifically P, f. 277-277v, where they are interleaved with the Prayers of the Planets. A full analytic
table of these angels and demons of the planets is to be found in Marathakis (2011), pp. 71-74.
694 Greenfield (1988), pp. 224-5.
695 Mathers (1909) and Abraham of Worms (2006).
696 Peterson (2001) and Skinner and Rankine (2007). The Ars Notoria was always an separate grimoire.
All four books of the Lemegeton use the Solomonic method of evocation, the Ars Notoria does not.
162

: J ]
Lene Of Hygromanteia Demon of day Hour oT Ee
Solomon Manuscript

Ornai Sunday 2nd demon H,M,G
Ornias ;

Orneas pee pe 7 si 7 N

divination®””

‘Asmodai Sunday 1st demon M
Asmodaeus ‘Asmodas Thursday 13th demon M

‘Asmodri Thursday 13th demon G

Tephrael Tuesday 20th demon H
Tephra (Tetrax)

Tephra Tuesday 20th demon M,G
Sphandor Spondor Saturday 3rd demon H
(demon 7th Decan) Spind6r Saturday 3rd demon M

‘Ephipas Wednesday 19th demon H,G
Ephippas

‘Ephippas Wednesday 19th demon M

Sinopigos Sunday 19th demon H
Kynopégos Kinopigos Sunday 19th demon M

Pinopygos Sunday 19th demon A
“Atrax y
Geman ieitbeeah) Arax Sunday 16th demon M,A,G

“Aprox Tuesday 13th demon M

“Aprox Tuesday 13th demon M
“Apax/’Arpax8

‘Apros Tuesday 13th demon G

‘Aprixon Tuesday 13th demon A
Onoskelis : demon cured by a
(3rd demon) ene daffodil” ; eos

The offspring of part of a basin ; N

Onoskelis divination”

Table 06: Correspondences between Testament of Solomon and Hygromanteia demons.

697 N, f. 233v.

698 28th Decan.

699 P2, £. 99; H, f. 50v.
700 N, f£. 233v.

163

5.2 Preliminary Procedures and Preparation

Although in village magic little or no preparation was required beyond the gathering of
herbs and a few kitchen instruments, learned Solomonic ritual magic required a lot of
preparation. The preliminary preparation and consecration of a number of different
instruments is one of the hallmarks of the Solomonic method. These preparations are
common to both the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis. Less detailed but similar rules
occur in the PGM, but only in some rites. Typically for the PGM, if the rite is performed
indoors then the whole room must be thoroughly cleaned. A strict limitation of diet and
social intercourse, together with a tough regime of prayer was enjoined upon the magician.
Rising before dawn, ablutions and the wearing of clean linen was also obligatory. The
rationale of these preparations was to ensure the necessary purity for the magician to be able
to deal with spiritual creatures. All of these preliminary preparations occur later in the

Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis.

5.2.1 Location for Operation

The most basic injunction was that the location should be pure, and preferably away from
the haunts of man. The practical reasons are obvious, especially in the Latin West when
magic was more vigorously prosecuted, but the spiritual reasons related to purity. It was
thought that spirits, and indeed the gods, would not happily enter an impure environment.
From a practical point of view having a location where there would be no interruptions from
passing strangers was important, although the monk shown looking on in Figure 18 does not
seem to have unduly perturbed the magician. Of course the risk of prosecution would also

have enforced the finding of a secluded spot.

These concerns would not have been so pressing in ancient Egypt where magic would often
have been done within the temple precincts where privacy and purity were presumably
assured. Its translation to the more prosaic environment of the magician’s home or workshop

meant there would be an increased need for purification, but no fear of prosecution.

Egyptian priests would often freelance as magicians during the time they were not on temple
duty:
The “private” magician is revealed to be none other than the cultic priest, in “private practice”

during interims in temple service.”

By the time the main Egyptian temples were closed down (the last one in 550 CE), the priests

had left their accustomed quarters and probably operated from their homes. A number of

701 Ritner (2008), p. 2.
164

formulae suggest that the rites take place in sunlight, facing the sun, often at dawn or sunset.
In many cases the operation could take place in the enclosed courtyard of the home, or upon
its flat roof (both architectural features still to be found extensively in Egypt and the Middle

East, where issues of rainwater runoff are not important).

Some modern 21st century magicians”? counsel that evocations should be done as close to
the earth as possible, preferably in a cellar, with no intervening floors between the operation
and the earth. A reflection of this view can also be found in some Graeco-Egyptian Demotic

invocations, where it is suggested that:

You do it ina dark place whose door opens to the east or the south, and under which there is no
cellar.”

One rite confirms that the ground floor of a house is the best place from which to conjure,
even for the god of the sun, Helios.”4 Conversely, it is recommended that rites which involve

the heavens, or the Moon, or the Bear asterism be conducted “after going up to a roof top.”7%

The Hygromanteia agrees that an isolated venue is best, but does not specify the ground floor

or a cellar.

The same specification occurs in many of the Clavicula Salomonis manuscripts. Chapter II of

the Key of Solomon clearly specifies the qualities required in the place of working:

You need to have procured a small chamber or a secret room... It is important that the place,
which you have chosen is also clean, because you will not be able to use any decoration or
unnecessary ornament in the place, as it might distract you and lead your spirit and
imagination astray. A table with a few chairs and a chest, which should be kept under lock and
key, is sufficient... every item of furniture, which is minimal should be new, or at least very
clean and purified by the scent of the incenses... 7%

The second part of the Lemegeton, entitled ‘The Art Theurgia Goetia of Kinge Salomon’ has a
description of the ideal place of evocation. Strangely this does not occur at the beginning of
the grimoire, but part way through, incorporated into a description of the Duke Pamersiel:

To call Forth Pamersiel, or any of his servants, chuse the uppermost [uttermost] private or
secret and most picitt”””? Rome [picked room] in the house, or in some Certaine Island wood or
Grove or the most occult and hidden place [removed] from all comers and goers, that one
chanc[e] by, may (if possible) happen that way ([into your] Chamber of whatsoever place else,
you Act y[ou]* Concerns in) observe that it be very Ayery [airy] because these spirits that is in
this part are all of the Ayer [air]...7°°

702 For example Dr Joseph Lisiewski.
703 PDM xiv. 766.
704 PGM VI. 4.
705 PGM LXXII. 1. Of course that is really only practicable in Middle Eastern locations where most houses
have flat roofs.
706 Wellcome MS 4670, pp. 7-8 as translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 79.
77 Incorrectly changed to ‘tacit’ by the editor.
708 Peterson (2008), p. 65.
165

The location in this case matches the nature of the aerial spirits being invoked. Most

grimoires stress a secret or a secluded location.

5.2.2 Space - Orientation and the Four Demon Kings

Many religions orientate their temples to face East, the rising sun, but the orientation of
magical operations is more complex. The time and direction faced are of prime importance in
magical operations, and this has been the case since antiquity. The following passage from
460 BCE, demonstrates that it was a real concern. Even if the passage appears to give the
practitioner free rein in these matters, the point is that they were acknowledged as an

important consideration.

If a person wants to purify himself from attacking ghosts [elasteroi], he is to call on the ghost
wherever he wants and at whatever point in the year he wants and in whatever month he wants
and on whatever day he wants and facing in whatever direction he wants.”

For other spiritual creatures, especially spirits and demons, time of the year, day, and
direction of evocation were more important issues than they apparently were for ghosts,

presumably because ghosts were not bound to a specific direction or time.

In Egyptian magic (and religion) facing the rising or setting sun is a very common
prerequisite of a rite. At night the ancient Egyptians had other cosmological points of
reference, such as the direction of Sirius (Sothis), Orion or of the Pole Star with its attendant

circling Bear asterism (Ursa Major).

Conjuration made to the four quarters (where direction is critical) is a method utilised in the
PGM and the later grimoires. In one PGM rite, the description of conjuration to the four

quarters utilises the vocalisation of the seven sacred Greek vowels:

The instruction: Speaking to the rising sun [east], stretching out your right hand to the left and
your left hand likewise to the left, say “A [a once].”7!° To the north, putting forward only your
right fist, say “E [e twice].” Then to the west, extending both hands in front [of you], say “E [h
three times].” To the south, [holding] both [hands] on your stomach, say, “I [i four times].” To
the earth, bending over, touching the ends of your toes, say “O [o five times].” Looking into the
air, having your hand on your heart, say “Y [u six times].” Looking into the sky, having both
hands on your head, say “O [w seven times]:”.71

Because of its obvious importance as a ritual action instruction, this description is followed
in the papyrus by a diagram relating the vowels to the directions, which makes it clear that

the letters were repeated a specific sequentially increasing number of times (see Figure 03).7!?

709 Selinus, Lex sacra (eds. Jameson, Jordan, and Kotansky, 1993, col. B) as quoted in Ogden (2002), p.
162. See also Clinton (1996), pp. 159-179.

70 The first of the seven Greek vowels.

711 PGM XIII. 821-870 gives the full procedure.

72 Betz’s illustration (PGM XIII. 835-841) has been corrected in Figure 03, in line with the text of the
original Greek illustration, and the logic of the associated Greek descriptive text.

166

— = Y Os) : ge — ak : r ; oe = 2a! | e on say ~—
pal Spee oR PATE E9000 OFF HH Eo co-
ET CPOAE YEA AR LL TOPE ee
sky
tee A’ WwWwwwww
m’"*
east WWWWwww south
YYYYYY
air7155
north eae Eoege west
earth

Figure 03: Schematic illustrations of an invocation to the four Cardinal directions:

Top: after the text of Betz/Smith.”!° Centre: the original Greek diagram.”!”

Bottom: a reconstruction made in the light of the original Greek and the vowel sequencing of the rite,
which features the association of the seven Greek vowels with the four compass points plus the three
levels of earth, air and sky. To fully correct this diagram, the ‘A’ and ‘TIII’ should be brought down
inside the box, and the excess seven ‘@’ above the box removed. This has not been done in order to
keep the reconstruction similar to the layout of the original papyrus illustration.

713 The ‘A’ and the ‘III’ should be inside the square, but have been left in the same position as in the
Greek original, for purposes of comparison.
74 The Greek text has HHH, which is obviously an error. It should be IIL, repeated four times not
three.
715 Applies to the centre of the diagram despite the fact that it is written on the left in the Greek
original.
716 Betz (1996), p. 191.
717 PGM XIII. 835-841.

167

The procedure, as shown in Figure 6 (bottom) is to invoke in a circle moving east, north, west
then south. Using the seven vowels the invocation begins with a, then eg, nnn and wu,
increasing the number of repetitions each time, after which an invocation to the earth with
00000, then air with vovvvv followed by @m@@a@a@aew to heaven. It can be seen that the scribe
accidently wrote HHH twice instead of HHH and III.

After a short diversion, which looks like an interpolation, the text resumes with the cardinal
directions invocation:

“T call on you as the south.” (Looking to the south say, “4 00 uuu WWwww_ aaaaa_ eeeeee
hhhhhhh.”)718

“T call on you as the west.” (Stand [facing] the west, say, “e ii ooo uuuu Wwwwww_aaaaaa

eeeeeee.” )

“T call on you as the north.” (Standing looking towards the north say, “w aa eee hhhh iiiii 000000
uuuuuuu.”)

“T call on you as the earth.”(Looking towards the earth say, “e bh iii oooo uuuuu Wwwwww
aaaaaaa.” )

“T call on you as the sky.” (Looking into the sky say, “a ww aaa eeee hhhhh iiiiii o000000.”)

“T call on you as the cosmos,” “o uu www aaaa eeeee hhhhhh iiiiiii.”

Accomplish for me [the] NN thing quickly.
I call on your name, the greatest among gods.”7!9

Notice that although the vowels are used in different sequences, according to the direction,

the pattern of saying each vowel first once, then twice, then thrice, etc., persists.

The four directions of the universe and the location of the four angels (or later the four
Demon Kings),”° play an important part in magic, both from the point of view of marking
out the boundary of a protective circle, and establishing directions for the magician to face
for evocation. The equivalent Egyptian ‘angels’ of the four directions are mentioned in one

3rd century papyrus: 71

For I do this on order from PANCHOUCHI THASSOU at whose order you are to act, because I
conjure you by the four regions of the universe, APSAGAEL CHACHOU MERIOUT
MERMERIOUT and by the one who is above the four regions of the universe, KICH
MERMERIOUTH.722

A few lines below this, the names of three of the four angels of the directions are spelled

slightly differently:

ACHACHAEL CHACHOU ... MARMARIOUTI.
This rite involves the Bear asterism, which relates to the turning of the Earth on its axis, and

therefore also relates to the four cardinal directions.”%3

78 The vowel strings are here rendered back into Greek.

719 PGM XIII. 856-871. Line breaks have been inserted to clarify the structure of the invocation.
720 See chapter 5.2.2.

721 Dating from Brashear (1995), p. 3492.

72 PGM VII. 478-490.

723 It is not entirely clear if these four names are of the directions or of the angels ruling them.

168

On the other hand for invocations of the Bear asterism,” it was customary to turn to the

North, which is its position in the sky near the North Pole.725

One dream-producing rite specifies specific cardinal directions to face during the course of
the ritual:
After sunset raise the first [reed], look to the east and say three times: “MASKELLI
MASKELLO...
Raise the second [reed] to the south and say again the “MASKELLI” formula...; hold the reed
and spin around;
look towards the north and [then] the west and say three times the same names, [as] those of the
second reed.

Raise the third [reed] and say the same names and these things: “IE IE,”2° I am picking you for
such-and-such a rite.”72”

Although the procedure of calling to the quarters is repeated in later grimoires, the specific

names used in the PGM are not.

The procedure of evoking specific spiritual creatures from each of the four quarters is
present in chapter 42 of the Hygromanteia, ‘Conjurations of the demons of the four quarters.’
Each cardinal direction probably originally had 30 demons attributed to it, but over the
course of time the names of some have been lost. Conjurations directed to the four quarters
of the world in the Hygromanteia’”’ are a very distinct part of the conjuration process which
relies upon the rulership of the four Demon Kings. Their names are derived from Jewish
rather than Egyptian sources (with the exception of the first one): Loutzipher (East),
Asmodai (North), Astaroth (West) and Berzeboul (South).7”? The first name in each of the full
lists of demons was the Demon King. Originally these may have been demons of the four
winds, but later they became associated with the direction rather than the wind.”° The
theory is that if these Kings are successfully conjured then their name can be used to

motivate or threaten any of the lesser spirits in their retinue from that quarter.

Many of the names of the demons of the four quarters derive from the Testament of Solomon.
As documented by Greenfield, the list of the 36 decan demons in the Testament includes five

demons of the west, six of the north and one of the south who appear in the Hygromanteia. Of

724 Ursa Minor.
75 See PDM xiv. 117. Strangely, in the same passage, it is recommended that the magician should
retire to a dark room that opens to the south.
726 The name of the magician is to be inserted here.
727 PGM IV. 3172-3208.
728 Chapter 42.
729 These four occur repeatedly in later grimoires, but often with their directions interchanged.
Grimoires like the Grimorium Verum even allocate whole continents to these four: Europe (Lucifer),
America (Astaroth), Africa (Beelzebuth) and Asia (Asmodai?).
730 The octagonal Tower of the Winds or Horologion, which still stands in Athens, bears witness to the
ancient preoccupation with specific winds and their directions. ‘Wind’ is also related to ‘spirit’ in both
Greek (pneuma) and Hebrew (ruach).

169

the seven female demons of the Pleiades to be found in the Testament, three also appear as
demons of the east in the Hygromanteia.”! The presence of demons from that 1st/2nd century
text argues for the persistence of such names and the historically early roots of the

Hygromanteia.

The conjuration to the four directions in the Hygromanteia invites all of the named spirits to
come, although it is not made clear if only the conjuration to one direction is to be
performed, or if the entire 120 spirits are being conjured. It is therefore not surprising that

the text then states that:

After this conjuration you will see them coming like a regiment. Do not loose courage, but tell
them to stand outside the circle...”

The approach is quite different from either the PGM or the later Latin grimoires, where only

one or a few spirits are called at a time.

The four Hygromanteia Demon Kings are Loutzipher,”> Asmedai, Astaroth and Beelzeboul.”*4

Asmodeus has always been a demon, but Ashtaroth and Beelzebub were ancient Semitic gods.

These Demon Kings continue to appear in the Latin grimoires plus a number of later
vernacular grimoires.”>° The Demon Kings also feature in the grimoire of St Cyprian, the
Clavis Inferni,73° where they are the subject of very unusual illustrations, showing them in
animal form. These animal images (such as the bear) were later used in some German

Faustian grimoires,”” but otherwise had little currency in European grimoires.

One Demon King, Vercan (or Varcan), in the 16th century grimoire shown in Figure 04
stands confidently in a circle surrounded by five archers aiming at him, and a number of
snakes and other creatures looking at him menacingly. In addition, he has two incense
burners producing much incense smoke. He holds in his hand either a torch or a wand, and

is crowned and clad in heavy armour. How are we to interpret this?

He is not perturbed by the threats surrounding him. The only other figure that comes to mind

as holding snakes and other venomous creatures without any apparent care is Harpocrates.

731 Greenfield (1988), pp. 220-230.
732 H, £. 37.
733 Sometimes corrupted to Lotropheres, Asmadegi, Astathor, Berzeboeul (in B, f. 24v).
734 And their later replacements Paimon, Maymon, Oriens and Egyn.
735 Barachiel who is cited as the commander of their troops, often accompanies them. His name appears
with various spellings, such as Barakhéel (B, f. 23). The name looks as if it may have once been an angelic
name formed from Hebrew/ Arabic ‘baraka’ (blessing) and the deific suffix ‘-iel.’
76 Translated in Skinner and Rankine (2009).
737 Skinner and Rankine (2009), p. 24, illustration from Faust (1848).
170

Figure 04: The Demon Kings Maymon Rex (top) and Vercan Rex (bottom). Note that Maymon has two
beaks and bird claws: he is also accompanied by a bird. Vercan also has bird claws.78

738 From an unidentified 16th century Latin manuscript grimoire, reputedly owned by Dee, last offered
for sale in the Maggs Brothers catalogue of 1932, Plate XXII. It is not known in which collection this
manuscript currently resides.

171

Teen

oz RET

Figure 05: The Demon Kings from the Clavis Inferni: Urieus and Paymon.”° Note that the beast of
Urieus is portrayed as a winged ouroboros, and Paymon’s bestial form has horns and bird claws.”

79 Clavis Inferni in Skinner and Rankine (2009), pp. 44-45.
740 See also Figure 11.
172

Figure 06: The Demon Kings from the Clavis Inferni: Maymon and Egyn.”! As in Figure 04, Maymon is
symbolised by a bird, and Egyn by a bear. Their names are confirmed by the characteres at the top of
both illustrations of the Demon Kings.

741 Clavis Inferni in Skinner and Rankine (2009), pp. 44-45.
173

It seems possible that the four Demon Kings may be the corrupt remains of four gods
standing guard at the quarters of the circle. Urieus as portrayed in the Clavis Inferni (see
Figure 05) suggestively connects with the ouroboros, which was the form of the Egyptian
protective circle. Vercan (in Figure 04) has some similarity to the serpent holding Egyptian

images of Harpocrates.

Directional conjuration also occurs in the Clavicula Salomonis and other Latin Grimoires. See

especially Clavis Inferni, which despite its title is a Solomonic grimoire.””

One possible interpretation of that often repeated grimoire specification that a particular
ritual must be performed at a “crossroads,” is not that it should take place at a point of
maximum vehicular traffic, which could be very disturbing to say the least. What it really
means is that the circle should be orientated so there are clear lines of access to each of the
four cardinal points, so that invocations can be performed towards those directions. The
“roads” referred to are the spirit roads by which the Demon Kings, and their retinue, should

arrive at the circle when called.”

The four Demon Kings feature in many versions of the Clavicula Salomonis and some of the
German grimoires. If we rely upon the Hygromanteia to give the correct cardinal direction

attributions of the Demon Kings, then the pattern is:

Lucifer (East), Asmodai (North), Astaroth (West) and Beelzebub (South).
However, many of these names and directions get mixed up in later grimoires, for no
apparent reason, with almost no two Latin or vernacular grimoires agreeing upon what these

directions should be.”4 A representative sample of alternate names would include:

Oriens. Obviously Oriens would have been located in the East (as the name is derived from
the Latin oriens = East). However, the spelling of this Demon King ‘Urieus’/ ’Oraeus’ in the
Clavis Inferni suggests that “Oriens’ may have been a scribal confusion with the Latin
direction for east, and this King should instead be called Urieus, with a possible derivation
from the Egyptian Uraeus serpent. As if to confirm this, he is also portrayed in the Clavis
Inferni as a crowned Ouroboros serpent, giving a clear indication of his possible Egyptian

provenance (see Figure 05).

72 Skinner and Rankine (2009), pp. 44-45, where the four Demon Kings of the directions include
Urieus. The latter is a name probably derived from the Egyptian serpent.
78 Antonio da Montolmo (f. 1390), in his De Occultis et Manifestis confirms that “From this I deduce as
a consequence the reason for the performance of conjurations in places where...four roads come
together: because of the concordance...with the places [directions] of the Intelligences under the
heavens; they are constituted in the manner of a crossroad of four roads, as it appears in the Principles
of Astrology.” See Weill-Parot (2012), p. 241.
744 See Skinner (2006) Tables M62 and M63.

174

Maymon. In an illustration of Maymon from about 1600 CE,“ he is portrayed as a double-
headed bird, standing in front of a four-legged bird-like creature with a long curly tail.”
Maymon may be a form of the Arabic Maymon, the jinn king of Saturn. Amaymon is likely to
be simply a corruption of Maymon. It is possible that the other Demon Kings also came from

Egyptian or Arabic sources.

There are other sets of Demon King names. In the Goetia, Ziminiar/Zimimay rules the North;

Corson/Gorson rules the West; Goap/Gaap rules the South.

Paymon is attributed in most other texts to the West, or the South, whilst Egyn/Egin/Aegyn/
Egym also rules the South or the West. There has obviously been a lot of confusion in the
transmission of these directional rulerships. A table of these conflicting attributions which
also shows their relationship to the Hebrew demon princes (Samael [S], Azazel [E], Azael

[W] and Mahazael [N]) can be found in The Complete Magician's Tables.’4”

In The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage,7#8 there are also four Demon Kings, but here only
Lucifer is recognizable from the Hygromanteia.”“° In the Grimorium Verum, which is a
derivative of the UT Text-Group of the Key of Solomon, three Kings are present but not
Asmodai. It is therefore clear that the idea of the four Demon Kings is a long running part of
magic, but with considerable name corruption and orientational confusion over time. Their
continued presence in the later grimoires also underlines the importance of the four quarters,

as a part of the magician’s cosmological structure.

In the Latin West in the late 16th century the system became more complicated, and with a
general rise in interest in the compass, the directions attributable to individual spirits
reached new heights of precision. Several ‘spirit compass roses’ were divided into as many
as 32 different directions. Facing the direction from which the spirit was supposed to arrive
was an important condition of a successful invocation. In several European grimoires, this
resulted in a floor circle design with a separate spirit triangle which could be moved and

placed at the correct direction, which would then vary from spirit to spirit.

745 See Figure 04.
746 See Figure 02.
747 Skinner (2006), Tables M62-M65.
748 Mathers (1900) and Dehn (2006).
749 Abraham von Worms, (1900), p. 119.
175

ot a familias joniibis Mavhs o-Y¥ flmigui hte

ae payee
Arpt unt -ZLevnsgo torn peat eee pe ports) Ge

sie Tog yo boro
A ufe ot quaflinng Dy yay nud con el 3 og vibes ish gonpegs
Wrest ios rial mofo no YWoluioR ay baa} Tay age

pombuvrerh’s! pe afpvet Pose jpomier fr tle ol Fernales Wy: (phason:
um! forma autem parhicubiwes jimt
x Armatus zitpum Equitans

IF Avmatus
Mattior cTypend mn femor tenens

reat
Eqns, SHns fers die yurhs subst
cervins 7 oink Jalano

Pati uo Wytis’ Eorum nahn est, ae Latilakee sorry =

finn 38%) slrmbujhion ad 7 A siete gt bs 6 voile) Ane

M Phreps 2 Pogpeks omostein rapirvenstethoom cat porter boasz

Faas rey akg ge pefpews: spit 6010 ty,

Cayinas: Final, ial wo wou,

Palfrnmne? sitting, ¥e i ne
‘ Meare i Be / Ya y

it
‘
~ e be Srahved \ at
sigh opto Gm NY
Ama rig ni ee nef es
ce ep ere } iC ef
{onentem age . ie ayy “i nel “ti .
poe gust ailoccreter ferngne a cepten! gene? ae 11.
De! al Pobarur tnonem: alte
cc en
Avram’ , +
as: ae are!

Everts nomenyily
oe ip pare
Fa es oe ¢ Airy fy Mr 2 A tte pe y ee OF, 9
— eg ub vty eh . ban, th tom seroma Hiss as
ey ‘ Dawn hoe

eo
Teste mp Ax aa Ce Seo

te cry. ed in fore toon Gee
ae rtimntl ge eet feghe o vhf ovod dtc be

rose 12
o mee AOL y aly $i | acon ge efadoe apt

Figure 07: Theurgia, a 1583 manuscript showing the Martial spirits for each of the cardinal directions.”
Note the bracketed text in the lower register listing spirits by the four directions: ad orientem, ad
occidentem, ad septentrionem and ad meridian (sic).7"

70 Theurgia. Folger Library MS V.b.26 (1), 1583.
1 This grimoire is currently being edited for publication by Joseph Peterson and Dan Harms.

176

In the 16th century a number of grimoires had detailed lists of spirits divided according to
their direction. The list of the spirits of Mars in the Theurgia is one such example (see Figure
07). Finally some later grimoires sub-divided the directions, like a nautical compass. The
clearest example of such a ‘spirit compass’ is to be found in the first few pages of the
Solomonic grimoire Theurgia-Goetia.””2 The name of this grimoire clearly suggests a Greek
origin, although many of the spirits listed obviously have a Hebrew origin, because of the
many spirit names with an ‘-iel’ suffix. It is unusual that the compass below is orientated with
SSE at the top of the page, rather than North, suggesting that this may have reflected the

orientation of the room actually used by that scribe for evocation.

Tague

72 Skinner and Rankine (2007), p. 212.

177

Figure 08: Two ‘spirit compass roses’ in the Theurgia-Goetia, dated 1687 (previous page) and 1713.73

Both the “spirit compass roses’ show the four seasons (and Elements) in their central circle.
This effectively identifies each of the 32 spirits in terms of both direction and season, giving
not only directions of evocation, but also times of evocation.754 This leads directly into the

next chapter on timing.

5.2.3 Timing (C)

Timing was so very important to the rites of the PGM that not only was the timing of many
of the rites carefully calculated, but the names of the gods of the hours, days, and months

were listed out in considerable detail. The Hygromanteia also follows very closely the

753 The previous page diagram is from Sloane MS 2731, f. 29. This diagram is from Harley MS 6483, f.
117v.

74 See Figure 22 to Figure 24 for details of how these times are applied in the Solomonic grimoires to
the construction of the magician’s protective circle.

178

attributions of planets to the hours of the days of the week, with the gods of these time units
being replaced by demons who were said to rule them. This pattern also appears later in the
Latin grimoires, where planetary hours are still specified, but often the details of the demons
of each hour have been lost. The use of time intervals, and specific entities, qualities and
objectives associated with each hour, is therefore one of the clearest commonalities and

traceable transmissions between these three sets of magical handbooks.

Timing has always been a very important element of magical preparation, and a mistake in
timing has often been given as the reason for the failure of a magical operation. A passage in
the letter of Thessalos of Tralles (1st century CE) written to the Emperor (Caesar Augustus or
Claudius) explains the essential nature of good timing in a magical operation, or even in the

collecting of herbs for magico-medicinal purposes:

Soon the god appeared in a spectacular vision and spoke to Thessalos, telling him that the book
of king Nechepso was of limited use, because it required supplementary knowledge of the
correct times at which to harvest the herbs - knowledge that could only be acquired directly
from Asclepios himself.”°

One of the three completely self-contained books in the PGM which relates more closely to
the Mysteries than to magic, is the pseudepigraphical Tenth Hidden Book of Moses.”6 Even in
the context of an initiatory rite, it was also considered important for the initiate to be
equipped with the names of the rulers of the time when the rite was being performed, the

ruler of the hour, day and month, before beginning the rite:

You should also take, child, for this personal vision, [a list of] the gods of the days and the hours
and the weeks, those given in the book, and the twelve rulers of the months...75”

Planetary Days

The idea that each of the seven Classical planets has a day dedicated to it, goes back a long
way. The Indian tradition of attributing seven gods to the seven days of the week probably
dates back to Vedic times. Babylonian practices also enshrine exactly the same days for the
same corresponding planets. This system is also found in Jewish sources, and the Greek gods
of the planets are used instead of the day names in the Hygromanteia. It is not possible to
establish the origin of this practice, but it is extraordinary that the attributions are consistent
across a number of cultures, and even more extraordinary, that each planet falls on exactly
the same calendar day, in all cultures. The day of the Moon, for example, falls on Monday in
all cultures, so that the day sacred to Mars (Roman) or Aries (Greek) is the same days as that

attributed to Madim (Hebrew) or Mangal (Hindu).

755 See Codex Matritensis Bibl. Nat. 4631. Summarised in Dodd and Faraone (2003), p. 226.
756 PGM XIII. 734-1077.
757 PGM XIII. 734-741.
179

Planetary Hours
In addition to their attribution to the days, the planets are also attributed to the 24 hours of
the day. Proclus, for example, affirmed that “general opinion makes the Hours goddesses

and the Month a god, and their worship has been handed on to us.”758

These attributions as well as having calendrical significance also have great importance for
the practice of magic, especially Solomonic magic. Precise timing of magical rites was always
considered a crucial ingredient of Solomonic magic. Not only must the right day be chosen,
according to its planetary attribution (for example rites of the Moon on Monday, or of Venus
on Friday), but also the hour must be chosen with care. As the first hour of every day (that is
the hour immediately after sunrise) is attributed to the same planet as the whole day, so
sunrise is always a potent time, it being doubly attributed to the planet/ god of the day. In

many examples in the PGM, the sunrise hour was recommended for specific rites.
Unequal Hours

The technique was refined even further so that each day was divided into 24 hours, not equal
clock hours as we understand them, but unequal ‘planetary hours.’ No matter where you are
in the world, the timing of dawn and dusk change from day-to-day (extremely at the poles
and very little at the Equator). The basic principle was that the 24 hours of the day were
divided into 12 daylight hours and 12 night hours. The starting point is respectively sunrise
and sunset. After the first hour of every day which is attributed to the same planet that rules
the day, the following hours rotate in sequence. For example, on Sunday (after the first hour
attributed to the Sun) come the hours of Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars,
and starting the cycle again with the Sun (in the 8th hour of the day). So the timing of the
evocation of the spirit of Mars would be preferably performed ona day of Mars in an hour of

Mars (for example Tuesday on the 1st, 8th, 15th or 22nd hour, counting from dawn).

The number of minutes from sunrise to sunset is divided by 12, giving the number of
minutes in each ‘planetary hour.’ This will be longer than 60 minutes in summer, but shorter
in winter. This number of minutes is then used to count off the hours. These unequal ‘hours’

came to be known, in later grimoires, as “planetary hours.’

The planetary hours were also used for civil purposes in Europe until cheap clocks were
generally available, but retained in Europe for magic long after the common usage reverted

to clock time with an exact 60 minutes.759

78 Proclus, In Timaeum, 248 D.

759 The logic of using unequal hours is that without mechanical clocks, the hour can only be estimated
by looking at the angle of elevation of the sun above the horizon. Regardless of the length of the day,
the angle of the sun for a specific hour will always be the same. On short days the sun will appear to

180

The Moon’s Effect

In addition to the selection of hour and day, it was considered necessary to choose the right
Moon phase. For works of construction, the Moon should be waxing (that is increasing in
size from New to Full) rather than waning or shrinking (suitable for works of destruction). It
is also suggested in some grimoires that the Moon should not be located too close to the Sun,
where astrologically it will be rendered ‘combust,’ which is said to diminish its powers
considerably. These rules relate to the belief that the spirits and demons belonged to the
‘sublunary regions,’ and were therefore affected by the Moon in the same ways that tides are
governed by that satellite. These considerations of time are common to the PGM,
Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis, with the names of the respective gods/planets

remaining unchanged. Only the angels and demon names changed.

Because of the many close parallels and commonalities between the treatment of timing in
these three texts, the rest of this chapter will not be ordered by period or source (as is the
case in the rest of chapter 5) but will be ordered in the following sequence: hours, days,

months and Moon phases.

The gods of the day and its hour are very important in Graeco-Egyptian magic, for it was
said that any magician who does not first call these gods and propitiate them will have no

luck in his operation, because he will be considered by any god to be “uninitiated.”
The 168 Hours of the Week

Although the cycle of planetary days probably dates back to the Babylonians, the attribution
of specific qualities to each of the (7 x 24) 168 hours” is first seen, as far as I know, in the
works of the astrologer Héliodoros (fl. 415 CE).76! As if to drive home this association, this
text is actually included in part in manuscript N of the Hygromanteia,”©2 which dates from
1495.

As these particular timing tables are integral to the method of the Hygromanteia, it is a strong
indication, as has already been mentioned, that the Hygromanteia post dates the 4th century
CE. 763

travel faster but, for example, it will always be 30° above the eastern horizon at the end of the 2nd
planetary hour, or 30° above the western horizon at the end of the 10th planetary hour, whatever the
season or latitude.

700 M, f. 240-243. It also appears in at least seven other manuscripts of the Hygromanteia.

761 Another procedure in the Hygromanteia comes from Héliodorus, the procedure for consecrating a
skull (M2, f. 225).

762 N, ff. 389-391v.

763 There is a second possibility that the tables of planetary days and hours in the Hygromanteia might
have come from pseudo-Apollonius of Tyana’s Apotelesmata. Manuscript sources of that work are
often found in close association, or even bound with, manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, and therefore

181

Animal Stone Bird atta Ruler
animal

monke

2nd Rotery Halouchakon | hPevmD | » a 7ZETOPHOTH

stone 765

== Pamot [Prog | AKRAMMACHAMARE

a eae Magnet PHOKENGEPSEUARET-
[lodestone] Crocodile | THOUMISONKTAIKT
ag ses [White- | ETAU AKRILYX...077
lazuli faced cow]

6th Thorn tree
. Sun opal
7th | Crayfish Cat
[sunstone?]
amus

ADONAI’9

Table 07: Animal, tree, stone and bird correspondences of each hour in the PGM.770

In the PGM various natural qualities and rulers were associated with each hour. One papyrus
gives a table of the hours with their natural animal, tree, stone and bird correspondences (see
Table 07). Some of these natural history correspondences appear again later in European

grimoires, and in Agrippa’s early 16 century De Occulta Philosophia.””

The God of the Hour

Even the gods have their hourly schedule. It was suggested, for example, that the magician
invoke Apollo in the third hour of the day.’ Several passages in the PGM list the all
important names of the gods of the hours (see Table 08), although the names differ according

to the magician or text.”

they may have been the contributing source. That text is sometimes dated from the 1st century and
was edited by Nau (1907) and Boll (1907). 15th century manuscripts of it include: Parisinus Gr. 2419;
Parisinus Gr. 2316; Bononiensis 3632; and Berolinensis 173.
764 Maybe clear quartz.
765 Egyptian mongoose.
766 One of the constituents of the Ephesia grammata. See chapter 5.5.3 for an explanation of her nature,
and a new translation of the Ephesia grammata.
767 And in the sea, the jellyfish [glass fish].
768 A stone the colour of a falcon’s neck.
769 Notably the only Hebraic godname in this list.
770 PGM IIl. 494-611.
771 1530-1533. Agrippa (1993), pp. 288-289, 294-297.
772 PGM III. 335. It later mentions the 10th hour, but the papyrus is much damaged.
773 PGM VII. 862-918.
182

Hour of the day God of that Hour””4 God of that Hour’ Form’776
1st

a Menebain Pharakounéth Cat

2nd Neboun Souphi Dog
3rd Lémnei Aberan Nemane Thouth | Snake

4th Mormoth Sesenips Scarab

5th Nouphier Enphanchoup Ass
Chorborbath Baisolbai Lion
7th Orbeéth Oumesthoth Goat
8th Panmoth Diati-Phe Bull””
9th Thymenphri

Table 08: The names of the gods of the hours of the day, and the animal form they take.

ion
oa
D

The appropriate god of the hour which needed to be called before any important rite in any

well timed invocation is the god:
...in whose hand is the moment, the one who belongs to these hours.’

During a rite to compel the Bear asterism, the time is specified as the 6th hour of the night,
i.e. the hour before midnight, thereby culminating the operation at midnight, when the

direction pointed by the Bear asterism will accurately indicate the season.7”

For the ancient Egyptians the most appropriate time, in general terms, was at dawn when the
Bark of Ra rises over the horizon, and light conquers darkness.78° There were also limitations
on which days magic could be performed. One passage suggests that the correct hour is
sunrise, but only on the third day of the (lunar) month.”8! Another instructs that bowl
skrying be done at the seventh hour of the day, which begins seven hours after sunrise.”*? Yet

another passage lists out the gods of each hour measuring from sunrise to sunset:

774 PGM VII. 900-907.
775 PGM XXXIX. 1-21.
76 Ibid. 1-21.
777 Oth-12th hours missing from this papyrus.
778 PDM xiv. 34. Also Griffith and Thompson (1974) p. 53, n. to 1.
779 PGM LXXI. 1. The direction in which Ursa Major points at midnight accurately indicates the season
in the Northern Hemisphere.
780 Brashear (1995), p. 3393.
781 PGM IV. 169-171.
782 PDM xiv. 73.
183

Name given in the PGM Function given God783
PHARAKOUNETH Glory and favour Bast
SOUPHI Strength and honour Anubis
AMEKRANEBECHEO THOYTH _ | Honour Apophis?
SENTHENIPS Mightily strengthens Khepera
ENPHANCHOUPH Strength, courage and power _| Typhon
BAI SOLBAI (ruler of time) Success and glorious victory _| Sekhmet
OUMESTHOTH Sexual charm Khnum
DIATIPHE (Visible everywhere) All things to be accomplished | Apis
PHEOUS PHOOUTH Success and good luck Horus
BESBYKI Thoth?
MOU ROPH Thoth
AERTHOE Sobek

Table 09: The functions, animals, names and the gods of the hours.’®4

Specific times of the day or week were more appropriate for one kind of magic or another.

These allocations of appropriate hours occur later in the Hygromanteia and in a number of

European grimoires. A different papyrus enumerates the ‘angels’ of the hours, a system that

reappears in the Hygromanteia, but with completely different angel names (see Table 10).

Angel given in

MENEBAIN
NEBOUN
LEMNEI
MORMOTH

NOUPHIER
ORBEETH
PANMOTH

THYMENPHRI

BATHIABEL

Table 10: The PGM table of angels of each hour of the day.

783 Inferred from the animal.
784 PGM IV. 1596-1715.
785 PGM VII. 900-908.

the PGM

CHORBORBATH

SARNOCHOIBAL

ARBRATHIABRI

785

184

Angels and Demons of the Hours of Each Day

There are two different kinds of list in chapter 13 of the Hygromanteia: a short version and a
long one. The first kind lists between one and seven angels, and between one and three
demons per planet. The second kind lists an angel and a demon for each and every hour of
every day of the week.”% Strangely there does not seem to be much in the way of common
names between the two lists, so presumably they come from different sources, rather than
one being an abbreviation of the other.78”7 The long list exists in most manuscripts of the

Hygromanteia, as it is central to the method of invocation.788

The folio reproduced in Figure 09 shows the angels (in the left column) and the demons
(right column) of Sunday, at the top of the list. The table for Monday continues below the
line. The Greek alphabet is used to number the hours. For example, the angel of the 1st Hour

(a) on Monday is Gabriél (yaBpina).78°

The short version of the table of planetary hours (i.e. that omitting the exact function of each
hour) found in the Hygromanteia (Figure 09) comprises a vital part of later Latin Clavicula
Salomonis, especially the Abraham Colorno Text-Group (AC) of manuscripts (see Figure 10
for an example). Marathakis concludes “that this section in the Magical Treatise [the
Hygromanteia] is the source for every [later Solomonic] grimoire that uses the planetary

hours.”7%

Various qualities were attached to these hours, of which one of the most important was the
specification of what sort of magic would be most successful in a particular hour. For
example in the Hygromanteia,”™ the 3rd hour [Jupiter] of Monday [Moon] is good “for
opening a workshop, but the 1st hour [Mars] of Tuesday [Mars] is good for “war and

victory.”792

786 H has both kinds, the short list (at f. 23v), and the long list beginning on f. 41v.
787 Comparative tables of angels and demons for every one of the 168 hours of the week are listed in
Marathakis (2011), pp. 55-68. Tables of just the demons, with the names of the demons in Greek, are
listed in Greenfield (1988), pp. 340-346.
788 It is present in H (long and short list), M (long list), M2 (short list), A (long list), G (long list), P (two
short lists which don’t correspond, one interleaved), P2 (short), P3, P4, A2 and B3.
789 A, £.29,
790 Marathakis (2011), p. 40.
71 Manuscript H, chapter 2.
7 Tt might be interesting to determine how many ancient battle campaigns were launched in such a
double-Mars hour.

185

00 6

_——— srw}:

am WR CES
See. ee YeGIBS *

fe mm
1p 1 PAN iiss Wie gene

1 ‘ ofeng * — Y 8 s :

yo > Tepe inne Sls

oe a
i: vols .— an a “sf
1 a - | eam

Yeas 2outny ;

N a ves 6 —_—_—_ wees *

m° TNA

ae ee

: at mK xgef

“u? cog DD 7 a \

ue Bayer ar,

Hb bexliay-° “* ne

Ky ae Sa ee Ky: aaa es

w+ 1w3r uN ——Fe oder

¢— — asdraasvons Wes f° €.

see

ae i La SORTS

, . tee — —— a eget dug

Na nae ease a

é- om ——

cep — sen ee

oe ails
\

n° ua 4 ae On

S —__ eee?
SHE'S?

Figure 09: The angels and demons of each hour of the week in the Hygromanteia.’” The left hand

column lists angels, the right

hand column lists demons. Sunday is above the line, and Monday below it.

73 A, f.29. Although this manuscript is 16th century, earlier manuscripts carry the same kind of table.

186

= er Phe

Figure 10: The planets ruling the 24 hours of Sunday from a 1796 Clavicula Salomonis.”4
Note that columns 4-6 are the 12 night time hours.

794 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 53. 1796.
187

In the later European grimoires the specification of planetary hours became more closely
associated with Jewish hours. Where planetary hours are listed in European grimoires, the

names of the hours (Beron, Yayn, etc.) are usually derived from Hebrew rather than Greek.

The tables in the Hygromanteia are considerably more detailed than those in the Latin
grimoires, as they also list the demons as well as the angels of each hour. The planetary
sequence of each hour is however identical, e.g. Sunday: 1st hour - Sun; 2nd - Venus; 3rd -
Mercury, and so on, for the rest of the 168 hours of the full week. Where the tables do
diverge is in the names of the angels, which are the familiar Michael, Anael, Raphael,
Gabriel, Cassiel, Sachiel and Samael in the Key of Solomon. However in the Hygromanteia, the
sequence is Mikhaél, Arphanaél, Pelouél, loraél, Piel, Kokhth and Pal. Only the first
(Mikhaél) and part of the second (Arph-anaél) angel are identical. The insistence on using the

correct planetary hour and day is however the same in both texts.

Manuscript A is more specific about the use of these hours for the performance of specific
magical operations.”> Manuscript G and M give much more detail in a tabular form
extending over eight folios.” The precise description of what type of operation should be
done in each hour has not survived in many later Latin grimoires. A random selection of

such detailed data from the Hygromanteia is listed below:

Day of the Sun 15th Hour of the Sun _ For sending dreams to a king
Day of the Moon 11th Hour of Mars For preventing luck

Day of Mars 12th Hour of the Moon For despoiling slain enemies
Day of Mercury 4th Hour of Jupiter For practising alchemy

Day of Jupiter 12th Hour of Mercury For emigrating far away

Day of Venus 2nd Hour of Mercury For messages of matchmaking
Day of Venus 4th Hour of Saturn For causing obstacles of love

Here there is a slight cross-over with astral magic, where the practice of making eikones is
introduced. The eikones or images of the planets specified in chapter 10 of the Hygromanteia
were to be created on the correct day and at the correct hour. This is the day and hour when
the appropriate planet rules, while the Sun and the Moon must also be located in a zodiacal

sign ruled by the same planet.””

The English Key of Solomon preserves the regard for precise timing, and gives a table of each

of the hours for each day of the week,” with the names of angels attributed to each of those

795 A, f. 3-4v.
796 G, f. 13v-21; M, f. 240-243.
797 This however only occurs in three manuscripts: B, A and P3. A, f. 6-7 has some rather strange
looking figures with very large heads and eyes representing the eikones or images of the planets.
798 Mathers (1909), p. 7.
188

hours, but is silent about the corresponding demon names. The attributions of these hours
were sometimes considered a secret, as they were thought to be one of the keys to successful

invocation.”
Days

One very specific day is mentioned in the PDM which is used as a threat by the magician to
prevent the return of a spirit to its heaven. This is just one illustration of the importance of
specific days to the Graeco-Egyptian magician. The words are addressed by the magician to

the spirit, to ensure its obedience:

“To the every command which NN [the magician] will desire!’ Is not doing it what you will
do, O noble spirit?® [If so] your soul will not be allowed to rise up to heaven on day 25 of the
fourth month of Inundation to dawn of day 26, while the excellent spirits are awake.”®!

Anubis is requested to send the spirit, and the spirit is commanded to go to the target of the
rite and tell him, whilst sleeping, that he is to “Do the every command which NN [the
magician] will desire!” The punishment for the spirit failing to do this is that the spirit will be
prevented from returning to heaven “on day 25 of the fourth month of Inundation [through]

to dawn of day 26.”802

From this passage we may deduce that there was a specific day that was considered to be the
time when spirits were allowed (temporarily) to return to their heaven, and that to prevent

them from doing so was a form of punishment inflicted (or threatened) by the magician.

Even in a simple Graeco-Egyptian lamp skrying, the request is to “bring me the god in
whose hand the command®® is today.”8 This is the ‘duty’ god, of which there are 365 in the

course of the year, the names of which were a closely guarded secret.

This restriction is particularly prevalent in the Demotic PDM. For example, one invocation

refers specifically to the god of the day or the hour:

Send to me the god in whose hand the command is [today] so that he may tell me an answer to
everything about which I am asking here today.8%
Another passage mentions “the god who gives answer today” confirming that there is also a

daily rota of gods, and it befits the magician to know which one is in charge of the day on

79 Antonio da Montolmo (f. 1390), in his De Occultis et Manifestis warns “I keep silent about the hours,
so that unworthy people may not put their souls in danger” by succeeding in magical operations. See
Weill-Parot (2012), p. 245.
800 In other words “do you intend to disobey me?”
801 PDM Supplement 117-130.
802 Approximately 13th November. Allowing for the Precession of the Equinoxes this day may have
corresponded with the Winter Solstice.
803 Or more correctly, the rulership.
804 PDM xiv. 163.
805 PDM xiv. 227.
189

which he attempts the operation, otherwise the god will not answer him.

9. Pachon 3, 4,12, 13, 21, 26,28. |Spring Equinox - Isis March 17
10. Payni 1, 2, 10, 11, 15, 20. April 16
11. Epeiph 7,8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 22. May 16
12. Mesore [10, 14,] 20, 23, 24, 25. sae peleucey: June 15
The 5 epagomenal days ue i“ ae July 15-19
1. Thoth 1,,4,12,.13,,.22; July 20
2. Phaophi 2, 4, 10, 19, 20. August 19
3, Athyr 7, 8, 9,17, 18, 23, 27. areas FANON: September 18
4. Choiak 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25. October 18
5. Tybi 3,4, 12, 24, 26. November 17
6. Mecheir 1, 2,10, 14, 19. Winter Solstice8° December 17
7. Phamenoth 7, 8,9. January 16
8. Pharmouthi 5, 6, 14, 15, 20. February 15

Table 11: The Egyptian year, with names of months and bad days for magical operations marked.
Egyptians also set great store on good and bad days for doing various mundane things like
starting a business or getting married but especially for the performance of magic. These
days were set out in detailed tables of good and bad days.8° These remained part of magical
practice in Europe through to at least the 17th century, when they were still actually referred
to as “Egyptian days.” The Grand Grimoire for example has tables of lucky and unlucky days,
but these days do not correspond with those in the PGM.8!

The most complete manuscript of the Hygromanteia begins its second chapter on the

planetary days and hours with:

The days are seven. They form the months, which, in their turn, form the entire year. This is the
reason why seven planets and seven spheres are created among the stars. Each day is ruled by a

806 All months were exactly 30 days long. The month of Thoth was considered the first month. For
more detail, see Skinner (2006), Tables W9-W11.
807 PGM VII. 272-83.
808 The date of the Solstice moves over long periods of time, due to the precession of the Equinoxes,
and is closer to 22 December at present.
809 PGM VII. 272-83.
810 Rudy (1996), pp. 13, 105.
190

planet. The days are seven, so the seven stars [planets] rule them.*!

This chapter describes the virtues of the first hour of each day, the hour corresponding to the
day:

Thursday is attributed to Jupiter...And Jupiter rules the first hour of the day, which is [f. 19]
useful for actions related to bravery, for being glorified by people, for the destruction of
sorceries, for success in hunting and for healing people; it almost gives success to everything.8?

The days are listed with the odd numbers in descending order followed by the even number
days in ascending order, which follows the order of the planetary spheres (and of the Tree of
Life): Seventh day [Saturn], Fifth day [Jupiter], Third day [Mars], First day [Sun], Second day
[Moon], Fourth day [Mercury], Sixth day [Venus].8!5

The day and hour of Mercury is specially marked out for “subjugating the spirits and for
gathering them at the circle,” one of the prime aims of any grimoire. Specific times are also
mentioned for lamp skrying such as the suggestion that “you do it at the time of the third

hour of night.”8!4
Months

A table of the Egyptian months, expressed by the translator as zodiac signs, occurs as part of

“Pythagoras’ request for a dream oracle and Demokritos’ dream divination:”*"°

Zodiacal Sign | Moon in Egyptian Month®!¢ Egyptian name/ god

Aries 9. Pachon HAR-MONTH?!? HAR-THOCHE
Taurus 10. Payni NEOPHOBOTHA THOPS
Gemini 11. Epeiph ARISTANABA ZAO

Cancer 12. Mesore PCHORBAZANACHAU

Leo 1. Thoth ZALAMOIR LALITH

Virgo 2. Phadphi EILESILARMOU PHAI

Libra 3. Athyr TANTIN OURACHTH

Scorpio 4, Choiak CHORCHOR NATHI

811 H, f. 18v. The actual list of the uses of individual hours is more complete in M, f. 240.

812 H, f. 18v-19.

813 Manuscript D also uses this unusual order. See Beck (1988) for a detailed discussion of the two most
common orders of the planets: ‘Chaldaean’ and weekly.

814 PDM xiv. 1149. Note that the line numbers marked in the margin here in Betz (1996), p. 248, have
typographical errors. Line 1045 should be 1145, and 1050 should be 1150.

815 PGM VII. 795-845. Demokritos (c. 460-c. 370 BCE) was a mathematician who was also considered to
be a magician, as the Persian magi are said to have taught him magic at the specific request of Xerxes.
See Diogenes Laértius, Lives 9.34.

816 Not in translation, but inserted for reference.

817 Horus-Montu, the Egyptian god of war, and therefore ruler of Aries.

191.

Sagittarius 5. Tybi PHANTHENPHYPHLIA

Capricorn 6. Mecheir AZAZA EISTHAILICH
Aquarius 7. Phamenoth MENNY THYTH IAO
Pisces 8. Pharmouthi SERYCHARRALMIO

Table 12: The month with its corresponding Egyptian god/name.*!8
Moon Phases/Lunarium

The phases of the Moon and the action of the Moon in each Egyptian month were also key to
the proper practice of magic, and these are set out in detail in several papyri. This table is

also effectively a list of some Egyptian magical objectives.’!9

Zodiacal | Egyptian month Magic suitable for Moon in specific

month®20 Best for which objective®?!
Sign

9. Pachon Fire divination or love charm

Vv
i Incantation to a lamp
ee eye [for lamp skrying]

| ox | 11. Epeiph Perform spells of binding Spell for winning favour
Tae ap
Le | 12. Mesore Perform the spell of reconciliation, air [?] Making Phylacteries
divination
- Recommended for making an amulet]... eae
1. Thoth against gout. Rings or binding spells
ad Anything is obtainable, perform bowl Everything is rendered
ea divination [skrying], as you wish obtainable
2. 3, Athyr Perform invocation... Necromancy
spell of release. ..necromanc
| om | 4, Choiak Anything inflicting evil
: ‘ Invocation and incantations to
5. Tybi Conduct business seu and Micon

Say whatever you wish for
6. Mecheir Do what is appropriate besten

8. Pharmouthi ...OIO [rite] or love charm For foreknowledge

Table 13: The suitability of specific Egyptian months for particular magical objectives.

One invocation prescribes “the rising of the moon on the thirtieth day.”8?3 The 7th hour of the

moon is mentioned in another passage:

818 These would of course have been Egyptian months, rather than zodiac signs. The two are not
exactly equal, but it was rendered so by the translator.
819 Astral magic also considers the Moon in the 28 Lunar Mansions, and even the action of each of the
360 degrees of the heavens.
820 PGM III. 275-81.
821 PGM VII. 284-99.
822 PGM xiv. 1003-14.
823 PGM III. 335.
19

Start saying the aforementioned invocation at the 7th hour of the moon, until the god hearkens
to you, and you make contact with him.8”4

The implication is that persistence in the correct hour will bring success.

One Demotic bowl skrying/vessel enquiry states that it should be performed “from the
fourth day of the lunar month until the fifteenth day, which is the half-month when the
moon fills the sound-eye.”8*5 The full moon is the ‘sound eye’ of Horus. In other words it
should be performed during a waxing moon, a specification which is repeated in the

Hygromanteia and again in almost all European grimoires.

Another invocation of Helios suggests the best lunar days to encounter the god:

...His encounter with Helios [takes place] on the 2nd [lunar day], but the invocation itself is
spoken when [the previous moon] is full. But you will accomplish a better encounter at
[sun]rise on the 4th [lunar day], when the god is on the [increase]... .876

Specific months are also beneficial for specific rites. For example, in one invocation of
Imhotep (the deified Pharaoh) it is said that “you will do the ‘god’s arrival’®2” [best] while the
moon is in Leo, Sagittarius, Aquarius, or Virgo.”828 Necromancy and Libra are connected in

PGM Ill. 278, as they are also connected in the Goetia.

The Moon and its passage through the zodiac have always been important for judging the
correct time for a magical operation. It also yields an excellent example of continuity across
all three periods under consideration. A lunarium or electional astrology passage is to be
found in all three texts: the PGM, the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis, where it
provides details of what is obtainable by the magician dependant on the zodiacal sign

currently occupied by the Moon.®”? In the PGM the rules are:
Orbit of the moon:83°

Moon in Virgo: anything is rendered obtainable.

In Libra: necromancy.

In Scorpio: anything inflicting evil.

In Sagittarius: | aninvocation or incantations to the sun and moon.
In Capricorn: say whatever you wish for best results.

In Aquarius: for a love charm.

[In] Pisces: for foreknowledge.

In Aries: fire divination [lamp skrying] or love charm.

824 PGM II. 42-43.

825 PDM xiv. 295.

826 PGM VI. 1-47.

827 In Egyptian peh-netjer. Operations of the rite type “G.’

828 PDM Supp. 184. Again, the original text quotes the Egyptian months, which the translator has seen
fit to convert into zodiacal signs.

829 PGM VII. 284-99; Hygromanteia chapters 7 and 30; Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 282.

830 Line breaks have been introduced to help show the structure.

193

In Taurus: incantation to a lamp [lamp skrying].

[In] Gemini: spell for winning favour.
In Cancer: [for making] phylacteries.
[In] Leo: [for making] rings or binding spells.*!

Electional astrology also forms an important part of the Hygromanteia.’2 In the Hygromanteia
the lunarium is expressed similarly, but with specifications which vary widely from

manuscript to manuscript:

When the Moon is in Virgo, it is good for hunting boars.**? It is also good for anything else you
want, but only by land.

When the Moon is in Libra, it is good for making love and for taking <a girl’s> virginity, that is
to say, to harvest the blood.8%4

When the Moon is in Scorpio, at the first day, do not go out and do not walk ona street, because
it is dangerous. <If you go out> at the second day, you will not return.

When the Moon is in Sagittarius, it is good for watching chariot races.®° It is also good for
appearing before lords [to request favours].. .8°6

The same lunarium material also occurs in the Clavicula Salomonis:

For those matters then which appertain unto the Moon, such as the Invocation of Spirits, the
Works of Necromancy, and the recovery of stolen property, it is necessary that the
Moon should be ina Terrestrial Sign, viz.:- Taurus, Virgo, or Capricorn.

For love, grace, and invisibility, the Moon should be in a Fiery Sign, viz.:- Aries, Leo, or
Sagittarius.

For hatred, discord, and destruction, the Moon should be in a Watery Sign, viz.:- Cancer,
Scorpio, or Pisces.

For experiments of a peculiar nature, which cannot be classed under any certain head, the Moon
should be in an Airy Sign, viz.:- Gemini, Libra, or Aquarius.”

This is an excellent example of commonality between all three texts.

The zodiacal sign in which the Moon currently resides was also thought to be of more
importance than the presence of the Sun in a particular sign. The latter remains there for a
month rather than the two-and-a-half days of the Moon’s transit through a sign. Such
electional astrology, dependant on the Moon’s position in a particular zodiacal sign, can be
directly paralleled with the PGM papyrus quoted above. Specific restrictions, such as Virgo
being held by both sources to be good to “do anything you want,” and Scorpio is held to be

uniformly bad, appear in all three texts.

Another more general specification for skrying by means of a lamp is:

831 PGM VII. 284-99. See also PGM III. 275-81 which is contradictory, less detailed and fragmentary.
832 Chapters 7 and 30.
833 Line breaks have been introduced for clarity.
834 This is an interesting sidelight on why a magician might wish to seduce many virgins.
885 This is a confirmation that this manuscript probably predates 1204, when the last chariot race was
held in Constantinople. The races were interrupted by the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth
Crusade in that year.
836 B, f. 2. See also H, f. 49v. The Hygromanteia commences with Aries rather than Virgo, but I have
begun the quote at Virgo to facilitate comparison.
837 Mathers (1909), p. 13; Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 282.
194

Do this when the Moon is in a settled sign, in conjunction with beneficial planets [i-e. Jupiter,
Venus] or is in good houses, not when it is full;°8 for it is better, and in this way the well
ordered oracle is completed.®°?

The timing is less restrictive for the making of magical statues such as:

...a figure of Hermes wearing a mantle, while the moon is ascending in Aries or Leo or Virgo or
Sagittarius.°40

The nature of the gods utilised in a particular piece of magic was also matched with the
zodiacal sign. The Moon waxing in Aries or Taurus*! was the condition required for making

a love charm which utilised an appeal to Typhon.842

The specification of the four key points of the day (relative to the sun) of sunrise, noon,
sunset, and midnight was a specifically Egyptian phenomenon, and related to the passage of
Ra over the heavens and under the Earth. These are sometimes referred to as ‘Sun Stations.’
For the practice of divination, for example, auspicious times of the day were listed for every

day of the lunar month.

Sun station Day of the Lunar cycle

The whole day | 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 27, 28, 29
At dawn 1,4, 5, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24
At noon 237

Afternoon 11, 18, 21, 22, 26, 30

Do not use 3, 6, 9, 16, 17, 25

Table 14: Correspondence between the Sun Station and the day of the Lunar cycle.

For example, an invocation of the Bear asterism (Ursa Minor) should be done facing north,
but specifically on the third day of the lunar month. Whereas the 14th day of the lunar

month is recommended for the performance of a love spell.

These sections on astrological timing are sometimes taken from other works on astrology.
For example chapter 7 in manuscript N is said to be from “a Persian philosopher called
Zanatés,” or more correctly from the geomancy expert Aba “Abdallah Muhammad az-
Zanati, a North African from the late 12th or early 13th century.§# On the whole N has the
most detailed astrological sections. This is not surprising, as the objective of the Hygromanteia

is instruction in magic, for which astrological knowledge is essential, rather than astrology

838 Or “when it is full” in another text.
839 PGM V. 49-53.
840 PGM V. 379-380.
841 The Moon is exalted in Taurus, but the rationale for Aries is not so obvious.
842 Tt uses the blood of a black ass, sacred to Typhon. See PGM VII. 300a-310.
843 PDM xiv. 772-804.
844 Skinner (2011), pp. 56-57, 63-64 and Pingree (1997), p. 77.
195

itself. This borrowing from astrological texts (as in the case of az-Zanati) also helps in the

dating of redactional activity.

Other conditions relating to the Moon also need to be fulfilled. For the main evocation rite,
the Hygromanteia recommends a time “when the Sun is in opposition to the Moon,” and on

“the fourteenth day of the Moon,” in other words at the Full Moon.*5

Planets are more important, for zodiac signs are simply seen as the setting against which the
planets move, and they receive whatever qualities they have mainly from their ruling
planets.®46 Therefore, the zodiac signs themselves have no particular magical application. It
was not till Campanella (1568-1639) that any magician attempted to invoke or pray to a
zodiacal sign,*4” as opposed to prayers to the planets which are well attested from the earliest
times. Nevertheless the Hygromanteia gives details of the manufacture of talismans under the
influence of each zodiacal sign (chapters 4 and 5), in a method similar to astral magic, but

with the addition of an invocation in each case.
The 28 Mansions of the Moon

Chapter 6 of the Hygromanteia covers the types of magical operations that should be carried out
on each of the Moon’s 28/29 day cycle. One might expect special attention to be paid to the
1st (New Moon), 14th (Full Moon) and last day (Dark Moon), but it is not markedly so in the
Hygromanteia. Even the general rule (prominent in the Latin grimoires) of waxing Moon for
constructive aims, but waning Moon for destructive aims is not consistently observed in the

Aygromanteia, as it is later in the Clavicula Salomonis. For example:

The first day of the Moon For winning in gambling, in chess and in other games...

Fifteenth day For speaking with demons.
Twenty third day For fishing.

Twenty seventh day For love and for bindings of love.
Twenty ninth day For destruction.

5.2.4 Purity and Sexual Abstinence

The specification of ritual purity via chastity was almost universal in ancient magic. The
modern Western use of sex in magic (following supposed Tantric practice) is an exception

that does not appear in the PGM, Hygromanteia or Clavicula Salomonis.
As Samson Eitrem wrote:

Ritual “cleanliness” or “purity” is everywhere [in magic] the overall important prerequisite. . .°4

845 Chapter 36.
846 H, f. 22v-23.
847 See Walker (1958) for a description of Campanella’s 1628 invocation of Jupiter, Venus and zodiacal
signs with and for the benefit of Pope Urban VIII.
848 A, f. Sv.
196

For Solomonic ritual magic purity was an essential ingredient. This is not some latterly
introduced Calvinist “cleanliness is next to godliness” imposition, but is a condition that
goes all the way back to Graeco-Egyptian magic, and before in dynastic Egypt. It was well
established in the PGM that the magician needs to have high standards of personal
cleanliness, wear clean cotton clothes, preferably new and use only instruments that have

been either made new, or bought new.®50

What was the point of all this purity? It was to give the magician the purity and holiness to
approach the gods and other spiritual creatures. The theory offered in the PGM was that the
gods would reject an impure man, and not hear his request. In later Christianised grimoires
it gave the magician extra protection against demons, on the basis that if he were not
‘corrupted’ then they could not easily overcome him. This translates into a number of

techniques which were passed from one culture to another.

Sexual abstinence was not only enjoined on the magician, but virginity was imposed upon
his skryer. Chastity is of course imposed upon the priests of many religions. For the magician
a period of three, seven or nine days before was advised as a period of sexual abstinence.
This abstinence is to a large part tied to the idea of purity, and to lie with a woman who was

having her period was thus completely forbidden.

Sexual abstinence was specified for Egyptian priests, but only for the relatively short time
they were actually serving in the temple. There was a system of rotation of priests, which
entailed service for three separate months in every year, and they were not obliged to
observe sexual abstinence when living with their families outside the confines of the temple
in between these periods. In addition women who are menstruating are forbidden to enter
the temple. Similar thinking also goes into current Hindu practice. In this case, menstruation
is seen as the other end of the continuum of sexual purity/impurity. As often Egyptian

priests were also magicians, the rules applied to the magician as well.

Other forms of bodily purity were enforced. One practice which has not carried through into

later magic is the practice of shaving off all the bodily hair.

Purity was also specified for operations of lamp skrying where the magician should be:

849 Faraone and Obbink (1991), p. 177.

850 Later grimoires would also insist that such tools that were bought, must be bought without
haggling. The later is an instruction from a number of Latin grimoires, but it shows the extreme length
to which magicians would go, so as to not even slightly besmirch the purity of the instrument they
were buying, by arguing over it.

197

Robed and refraining from all unclean things and from all eating of fish®*! and from all sexual
intercourse, so that you may bring the god into the greatest desire toward you.®2

This is a very telling passage as it shows that the original objective of purification before a
magical ritual was not just to make the human acceptable to the infinitely more refined god,

but actually to make the operator desirable to the god.

One bowl skrying/vessel enquiry utilises a virgin boy as a skryer, describing him as “a pure
youth who has not yet gone with a woman.”83 This is not only the concern of Jewish or
Christian magicians, but dates right back to the Demotic papyri of Egyptian magicians. As

one Egyptian magician wrote:

If you do not purify it, it does not come about. Purity is its chief factor.

In fact, this is one of the invariable constants within the magical tradition.

Just one example amongst many, taken at random, illustrates this rule as it was applied by

Graeco-Egyptian magicians:

For direct vision, set up a tripod and a table of olive wood or of laurel wood... Cover the tripod
with clean linen, and place a censer on the tripod...

It is necessary to keep yourself pure for three days in advance... [If] you wish [to see], look
inside, wearing clean [white] garments [and crowned] with a crown of laurel...8%

Repeatedly ‘clean’, ‘white’ and “pure’ are specified. The use of a tripod by skryers and
prophets is also a long running feature of magic: from the PGM magicians, via the pythoness

at Eleusis to the French seer Nostradamus.®6

Purity and preparation are even more explicit in the Hygromanteia. Chapters 31 and 40 cover
the preparatory moral conduct of the magician, which includes purificatory baths, prayer,
sexual abstinence and fasting. These procedures may seem strange to those who subscribe to
the popular view of magic, which associates it with the opposite of all those qualities, with
hellish doings and with morally degrading trappings. However, Solomonic ritual magic

invariably stipulates purity of lifestyle immediately prior to the rite.

In a Christian environment, spiritual purity also implies confession of any sins, which also
became part of the grimoire procedure in the Christian era. A full confession of sins real and

imaginary is recommended before commencing.§°”

851 There is an element here of the belief that drowning in the Nile immortalises the creature so
drowned. The taboo on eating fish in ancient Egypt is also covered by Darby, Food: the Gift of Osiris, I,
pp. 380-404.
852 PGM I. 290-292.
853 PDM xiv. 67-68.
854 PDM xiv. 515.
855 PGM III. 291-306.
856 Nostradamus mentions his use of the tripod in the first verses of his first Century of predictions.
857 Wellcome MS 4670, chapter 1.
198

The Clavicula Salomonis echoes the same provision laid down in the Hygromanteia. In the
Clavicula Salomonis, the magician was often advised to abstain from all sexual activity for a
week to nine days before ritual. Abstinence for 40 days is not uncommon in much less complex
procedures. Even accidental sexual emission is warned against. Graeco-Egyptian rites on the

other hand only proscribed sexual activity for between three and seven days before.

The main theoretical reasons why the magician prepares himself in this manner:

i) To be in a state of ritual purity so that the spirits could approach the circle without
difficulty or pain.
ii) Ritual purity is important as a protection against the demons he may evoke, a certain

degree of apparent spiritual superiority is necessary to enable him to command them.

iii) The psychological rationale might be that the unburdening of the magician’s
conscience would have removed distracting worries, leaving him free to concentrate

upon the ritual.

Physical purity is also enjoined, with prohibitions against the presence of urine, a

menstruating woman or any other impurities:

...a secret room, into which no one else is able to enter, in particular girls and women, who can
defile its cleanliness through their menses, which is a natural weakness... You should give your
utmost attention not to allow any unclean chamber-pot to enter into the room, for this place
should be immaculately clean in every way and should not be influenced by any unsanitary
thing.88

Ritual purity, although important in the PGM, was not carried to such lengths, or given such
importance as it was in Jewish practice. The fasting, abstinence, and so on, in the Clavicula
Salomonis therefore probably also had some input from Jewish magical practice. The classical
Jewish grimoire, The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage,5? carries these preparations to much
greater lengths, in one case six months.8° The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage, enjoined
preparation periods of prayer with strict observance of taboos and limiting of diet, social

intercourse, etc.

5.2.5 Fasting and Food Prohibitions

Fasting is a very important ingredient in magic in all periods. Typically a three or nine day

fast, or bread and water diet,%6! is recommended. This practice has a number of dimensions:

i) Fasting purifies the body by allowing the gross matter to pass leaving the intestine

858 Wellcome MS 4670, pp. 7-8.

859 Mathers (1990).

860 Or 18 months in the case of the German manuscript, edited by Dehn (2006).
861 Four ounces of bread a day is recommended.

199

empty.

ii) Fasting promotes a sense of purpose and acts as a reminder of the intention of the

operation over the days leading up to it.

iii) Fasting is thought to purify spiritually, so that the magician is in a superior spiritual
state.
iv) It has sometimes been remarked that the spirits fear the spittle of a fasting man.82

Trachtenberg mentions that:

Maimonides wrote, in his capacity of physician, that the spittle of a fasting person is
hostile to poisons. In consequence of this belief charms to heal an ailment or to drive off
demons or to counteract magic were usually prefaced by a threefold expectoration.8@

v) A fasting man’s perceptions may be more refined, and hence more able to see the
spirit presences. His ability to see and converse with them may be heightened by

the fasting.

This practice has deep roots in ancient Egyptian magic.*® Spittle is consistently used in such
magic for creation in much the same way as semen. Spittle is also used in Egyptian magic to

cure snake bites and scorpion stings.

Food prohibitions for priests (which would have also mapped onto their magical practice)
were complicated by the rules of the nome in which they lived.86 Thus in the nome of
Oxyrhynchus they would be prohibited from eating the long-nosed fish of the same name. In
Cynopolis they would be forbidden dog as food. Fish however seems to have been one of the
most consistently forbidden foods, and this may relate to the Egyptian idea of the holiness of
the Nile.8°”7 Despite the fact that fish were normally part of the staple Egyptian diet, there are
numerous references to the ritual uncleanliness of fish, and upon entering the temple, a

devotee would often announce: “I am clean. I have not eaten fish...”
The prohibition against eating fish however is also found in Babylonian texts:

One of the more common proscriptions, that of eating fish and leeks, is on day 7 of month VII
said to be prohibited by “Sulpae, lord of the date grove”...that is, Jupiter...8¢

Garlic was another common banned food.

One method suggests the fast should run from the 11th day of the Moon, in order to finish on

862 Anyone who has lived in a Muslim country during Ramadan will understand what is meant here.
863 Trachtenberg (1939, 2004), p. 121. My italics. See also Thorndike Vol. I, p. 93.
864 Or maybe as the psychologists would have it, he is more likely to hallucinate.
865 Ritner (2008), chapter 3 “Spitting, Licking, and Swallowing,” pp. 74-91.
866 Ancient Egypt was divided into 42 nomes, or administrative areas.
867 Creatures or humans who drowned in the Nile were often accorded divine status.
868 Reiner (1995), p. 114.
200

the “14th and a half “day in time for the Full Moon.*® Interestingly the fasting is often only
specified as daylight fasting, like a Muslim fast, rather than a full three day fast. The
emphasis on regular bathing sounds more like something inherited from the ancient world

rather than something typical of mediaeval Europe.

Fasting was also very much a part of Egyptian spiritual practice so that Lucius Apuleius
fasted for ten days before being initiated into the Mysteries of Isis.87”0? This event was
undoubtedly part of the Mysteries rather than just an ordinary religious ceremony in the
temple of Isis. As was the function of the Mysteries, he was introduced to the goddess at first

hand:

I approached the gods from below and from on high, I saw them face to face and I worshipped
them near at hand.°71

869 The fullest instructions are to be found in manuscript H.
870 Lucius Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book XI: 23. Griffiths (1975), p. 99.
871 Quoted in Sauneron (1960), p. 50.
201

5.3 Protection for the Magician

After the magician has selected the right date and time for the operation, and kept himself
pure, his next concern is to protect himself during the course of the operation. This was done
in two main ways in the Solomonic method: by inscribing a floor circle around his area of

working to protect him and his assistants, and by wearing a protective phylactery or lamen.

5.3.1 Circle of Protection

The use of a protective magical circle is one of the defining elements of Solomonic magic. As
such its presence is one of the main pieces of evidence of the transmission of Solomonic
magical techniques over the temporal and geographic boundaries under discussion in this
thesis. It is a particularly promising evidence of this transmission, because clear illustrations
can be found in a succession of manuscripts, indicating its evolution over many centuries. Its

analysis will therefore be accorded a disproportionate amount of space.
Kieckhefer illustrates why the magician considered the protective circle so important:

First, the circle is clearly seen as a protective enclosure. Caesarius®” elsewhere tells of a priest
who steps outside the circle and is attacked to viciously by the Devil that he soon dies, and in
yet another exemplum a necromancer’s client rushes from the circle in pursuit of a beautiful

woman, only to have his neck wrung like that of a hen being slaughtered.8”

The protective circle is a recurrent theme in magic, where the magician is attempting to
evoke a spirit or daimon who might threaten his well-being, from Mesopotamian times to
the present day, but only Solomonic magic prescribed the detailed inscription of god and
angel names within that circle. It is certainly an essential part of Byzantine and Western
European grimoires. Determining the ultimate origin of this protective circle has, however,

been difficult.

Other forms of magic like astral magic, village magic, or magic found in modern day
primitive societies do not use a detailed drawn circle for the protection of the magician.®”
Solomonic magic considered a circle essential to protect the magician and his assistants.
Daimones, demons, spirits and even gods, needed to be kept at arms length, and this was
achieved by drawing such a consecrated circle upon the ground, and keeping within it for

the duration of the rite.

872 Caesarius of Heisterbach (c. 1180-1240).

873 Kieckhefer (2003), p. 174. He references D’Avray (1985), pp. 198-202 as the source of the second
anecdote.

874 Modern Wicca utilises a circle only because its creator, Gerald Gardner took it from the Key of
Solomon. It is not to be found in pre-20th century witchcraft.

202

Classical Indian magic in the Ramayana (dating from 4th to 5th century BCE) records an
example of Lakshman drawing a circle on the ground to protect Sita from a demon, showing
that this practice has very deep roots. In the event Sita was persuaded to cross the circle and

so was taken by the demon Ravana.
Early Mesopotamian Evidence

The circle drawn upon the ground is probably the most ancient form of protection for the

magician, and Ronald Hutton mentions an early form of the circle:

An Assyrian rite has the magician make an usurtu, usually translated as a ring, of sprinkled lime
around the images of deities on whom he is going to call.8%

In the Assyrian texts, protective circles were drawn on the ground with a mixture of water
and flour.’ These two substances were, respectively, sacred to Ea and Nisaba, water being
the “shining waters of Ea” and the flour forming circle being the “net of Nisaba, the corn-

god.” Campbell Thompson remarks that:

It seems to have been the custom to fence about the patient (or perhaps [more likely] the
magician) with a ring of flour or meal as a magic circle, just in the same way that the mediaeval
sorcerers stood within a similar charmed ring when invoking spirits.8””

The circle was then consecrated with the following lines:

Ban! Ban! [O] Barrier that none can pass,

Barrier®’® of the gods, that none may break,

Barrier of heaven and earth that none can change,

Which no god may annul,

Nor god nor man can loose,

A snare without escape, set for evil,

A net whence none can issue forth, spread for [against] evil.
Whether it be evil Spirit, or evil Demon, or evil Ghost,

Or Evil Devil, or evil God, or evil Fiend,

Or Hag-demon,’” or Ghoul, or Robber-sprite,

Or phantom, or Night-wraith, or Handmaid of the Phantom,
Or evil Plague, or Fever sickness, or unclean Disease,
Which hath attacked the shining waters of Ea,

May the snare of Ea catch it;

Or which hath assailed the meal®®° of Nisaba,

May the net of Nisaba entrap it.. .561

For any piece of magical equipment, including the circle, to be effective it must be

consecrated. A typical (Mesopotamian) blessing of the circle to be said before an evocation:

875 Hutton (2003), p. 164.

876 Modern voodoo vevas are also constructed by tracing out lines on the floor with flour.

877 Thompson (1908), p. 123.

878 Barrier = Usurtu. Elsewhere Thompson concedes that Usurtu might also be translated as ‘the magic
circle, or perhaps ban’ or barrier (cf. Thompson (1908), p. xxiii). This word is translated as zauberkreis
(or ‘magician’s circle’) by Zimmern.

879 Labartu, a female demon who attacks children.

880 Bran.

881 Thompson (1908), pp.123-124. The introduction of ‘snare’ seems like the introduction of a Christian
idea of setting a snare for the devil, rather than a faithful translation, although I cannot be sure of this.

203

We, therefore, in the names aforesaid, consecrate this piece of ground for our defence, so that no
spirit whatsoever shall be able to break the boundaries, neither be able to cause injury nor
detriment to any of us here assembled, but that they may be compelled to stand before this
circle and answer truly our demands.®?

According to Thompson, the use of the protective magical circle in Jewish magic dates back

to Babylonian practice.8*

There are also explicit references to drawing a protective circle during a 3rd century BCE
evocation in Mesopotamia reported by Menippus, an author who lived in Gadara,§84 and

later in Thebes.

[6] I resolved to go to Babylon and ask help from one of the Magi, Zoroaster's disciples and
successors; I had been told that by incantations and other rites they could open the gates of
Hades, take down any one they chose in safety, and bring him up again. I thought the best thing
would be to secure the services of one of these, visit Tiresias the Boeotian, and learn from that
wise seer what is the best life and the right choice for a man of sense. I got up with all speed and
started straight for Babylon. When I arrived, I found a wise and wonderful Chaldean; he was
white-haired, with a long imposing beard, and called Mithrobarzanes. My prayers and
supplications at last induced him to name a price for conducting me down [to Hades].

[7] Taking me under his charge, he commenced with a new moon, and brought me down for
twenty-nine successive mornings to the Euphrates, where he bathed me, apostrophizing the
rising sun in a long formula, of which I never caught much; he gabbled indistinctly, like bad
heralds at the Games; but he appeared to be invoking spirits. This charm completed, he spat
thrice upon my face, and I went home, not letting my eyes meet those of any one we passed.88°
Our food was nuts and acorns, our drink milk and hydromel®* and water from the Choaspes,
and we slept out of doors on the grass. When he thought me sufficiently prepared, he took me
at midnight to the Tigris, purified and rubbed me over, sanctified me with torches and squills
and other things, muttering the charm aforesaid, then made a magic circle round me to protect
me from ghosts, and finally led me home backwards just as I was; it was now time to arrange
our voyage.

[8] He himself put on a magic robe, Median in character, and fetched and gave me the cap,
lion's skin, and lyre which you see, telling me if I were asked my name not to say Menippus, but
Heracles, Odysseus, or Orpheus.®°”

Although Menippus was a Cynic and satirist, he wrote about serious subjects, in this case
apparently at first hand. Although he learned the technique of making a magic circle “to
protect from ghosts [spirits]” from Mithrobarzanes by the Tigris in Mesopotamia, he lived in
both Coele-Syria and Egypt. Therefore the technique, if not already known in these regions,
would have there been made known by Menippus through his widely distributed writings.

There is linguistic support for the use of protective circles in Egyptian magic. For the ancient

Egyptians, magic could only take place in an appropriately protected place, and in an area

882 Thompson (1908). p. Ix.
883 Thompson (1908), p. lviii.
884 The site of Jesus’ exorcism of the demonic that lived in tombs, on the shore of Galilee, and whose
demons Jesus ordered to possess a herd of swine, which promptly killed themselves by drowning.
885 A common specification found in many European grimoires. See Mark 5:2-13.
886 A kind of mead or fermented honey.
887 Menippus (3rd century BCE), A Necromantic Experiment as quoted by Lucian of Samosata (c.120-
c.180 CE), pp. 159-160.
204

delineated by the magician. Daemons were seen as dangerous, but not evil in the sense later

ascribed to demons.*%*8 In fact the Egyptian word for conjuring snjt means ‘encircling.’ 889

The Egyptian verb phr means “to go around or encircle.” The concept that enchanting
derives from encircling is also common in Egyptian thought. Ritner sees “that which
encircles/contains/ controls” as a possible root of, or at least intimately connected with, “that

which enchants/ protects.” As Ritner explains:

The magical ritual of “encircling” (dbn, phr) for purification is almost coeval with Egyptian
civilization itself, being attested from the earliest archaic funerary rituals to the temple
ceremonies of the Graeco-Roman periods... Comparable rituals of circumambulation comprise
both public, cultic ceremonies and private, ‘magical’ ones.®%!

The hieroglyphic determinative for “to go around” (the walking legs) is sometimes replaced
by scribes with the determinative “to enchant” (man-with-hand-to-mouth).8% It is dangerous
to extrapolate that this use of encircling by the Egyptians, or its connection with
enchantment, implies that the circle was used in Graeco-Egyptian magic, but it is most likely.

If not, then it was certainly a parallel concept.8%

One of the most relevant Egyptian magical images is the ouroboros, the snake devouring its
tail, forming a natural circle. Although this image has mostly been examined in terms of
early Greek alchemy, or Gnosticism, it is in fact of ancient Egyptian origin, where it is

alluded to as an “encirclement as protection.”8%
Ritner sums up the centrality of the circle to Egyptian magic:

Thus, although ritual encirclement is well documented in many cultures, the centrality of the
rite in Egyptian magic is striking, and its uses and terminology uniquely Egyptian... That the
rite was of fundamental significance to the success of Egyptian magic is evident not merely by
the presence of specified directions in rubrics and depictions in literary, religious, medical, and
even historical texts, but also by the very turns of phrase which the Egyptian employed to
describe magic.8%

I hypothesise that the earliest form of the circle in ancient Egypt may have been inscribed
upon the ground in the form of the ouroboros, the snake biting its own tail. This is an image

which has endured, both in Gnostic gems, and as late as the 18th century grimoire, Treasure

888 For more about the nature of daemons see several of the essays in Kousoulis (2011).
889 Brashear (1995), p. 3393.
890 Ritner (2008), p. 57.
891 Ritner (2008), pp. 57-58.
892 Ostracon Naville 11 in Smith (1977), p. 124.
893 It is a well known feature of magic that the knowledge of someone’s true name gives the magician
power over that person. A similar concept of protection from adverse magic may possibly lie behind
the Egyptian procedure of encircling the written names of rulers or important people in an oval
cartouche.
894 Ritner discusses it more fully in Ritner (1984b), pp. 219-220.
8% Ritner (2008), p. 68.
205

of the Old Man of the Pyramids,9%° which is notionally set in Egypt.%%” The structuring of the
circle as a snake also occurs in later grimoires such as the Goetia, although that particular

version might simply be attributable to fortuitous artistic licence (see Figure 27).

In Figure 11 the snake circle also has a second snake stretched out in an unnaturally straight
and rigid pose. This may have been a representation of the snake wands used by both Moses
and the Egyptian magicians in their confrontation in front of Pharaoh. A more detailed

ouroboros appears in the 18th century grimoire Clavis Inferni (see Figure 12).

SAUPAIMOFN

Figure 11: Ouroboros circle in a late 18th century grimoire, the Treasure of the Old Man of the Pyramids.
See also Figure 05.

8% Also often called the Black Pullet.
87 This grimoire is undoubtedly corrupt, but the image might preserve some distant memory of the
practice. See Figure 11.

206

Figure 12: The frontispiece of the 1757 grimoire Clavis Inferni, showing the ouroboros as the main
motif of this grimoire. The four sigils at the corners are sigils of the four Demon Kings positioned
outside the circle in the Cardinal directions (see chapter 5.2.2).

898 See discussion of the date in Skinner and Rankine (2009), p. 25.
207

Jewish Practices

There appears to be little trace of the protective circle in early Jewish magical texts. However
in the fertile ground of the 1st century BC, there lived an interesting magician called Honi
ha-Ma'agel (yen “7N), who was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain. His
name was literally ‘Honi the Circle-Drawer.’ His historical existence is testified by the
presence of his well-kept tomb at Hatzor ha-Gelitit, by the roadside in a town near the well

known Kabbalistic centre of Safed.8 According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Once when a drought had lasted almost throughout the month of Adar and the people had
supplicated in vain for rain, they came to Onias [Honi] to ask him to bring rain by his prayers.
Onias thereupon drew a circle (hence probably his name, "the circle-drawer"), and, placing
himself in the center of it, prayed for rain; and his prayer was immediately answered. When the
rain had continued to fall for some time in torrents, and there was danger that it might prove
harmful instead of a blessing, he prayed that it might cease; and this prayer also received an
immediate answer.9

If Honi were in fact calling up spirits using God’s name in order to cause a storm, which
seems more likely than directly berating God, then Honi’s use of the circle can be equated

with Solomonic practice, but otherwise it appears to be an isolated incident.

Schafer also mentions Honi and quotes a Genizah fragment which he claims “testifies to
exactly the opposite function of the circle, namely to capture demons [rather than to keep
them at bay], thereby recalling the function of the magic bowls...%! The Genizah fragment
Schafer quotes in fact breaks off before the actual function of the circle is reached, leaving his

contention totally unsupported:

...go to a place where no people live - to a mountain, to a field or to a house standing alone in
which no women live - , sweep the house clean and make a circle Ory) in front of the entrance
(of the house). Supply the circle with four openings for the four directions of the heavens and
lay upon each one. ..9°

In fact it was always (three-dimensional) vases or bottles that were used to trap spirits, not
two-dimensional circles. Also a spirit trap would not have been supplied with four openings.

There are no other early references in Jewish magical works to a circle, as far as I know.%

In the 15th century, by way of explaining the function of the circle, Menahem Ziyuni stated

899 Very recently Honi the Circle-Drawer has inspired a new prayer movement which uses chalk
circles drawn on the ground, and has generated a New York best seller book called The Circle Maker, a
DVD and a neo-Christian practice combining circles and prayer.
900 ‘Onias (Honi) ha-Me’aggel’ in Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906.
%1 Schafer (1990), p.87. He quotes Trachtenberg (1939, 2004), p. 121 as if that supports his argument,
but in fact Trachtenberg stresses the “protective virtues of this device [the circle]” rather than its use as
a spirit capture device. Leaving four gaps in the circle render it useless for either of these functions.
902 The text breaks off at this point. Taylor-Schechter box K. 1. 1 as translated in Schafer (1990), pp. 87-88.
903 Vases or bottles designed to trap or hold spirits have a completely different function from crystals
in which skryers saw or spoke with spirits. Examples of the latter practice can be found in Trithemius’
Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals in Barrett (1801), Book I, pp. 135 ff.

208

that “those who invoke demons draw circles around themselves because the spirits have not

the power to trespass from the public to a private area [so marked out].”

In commenting on the SMS, Rohrbacher-Sticker suggests that some of the agullot (plural of
agul) in the text could be ‘magical circles,’°° but as we have seen this text is simply a late

copy of an Italian/ Latin Clavicula Salomonis.

In the PGM, the magician needs protection from the gods as well as daimones and spirits.
This was usually achieved by the wearing of a phylactery (see chapter 5.3.3). Given that the
magical rites in the PGM tend to treat the gods like inferior daimones, rather than
worshipping them, this need for protection is not surprising. In the PGM many of the rites
involve a circular motion, as the magician turns to face first East then North, West, South
during the course of the rite (see Figure 03). From this the presence of a protective circle may
be inferred. It is highly likely that the Graeco-Egyptian magicians inherited the
Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian practice of encirclement, which was so commonplace

that maybe it was not considered worthy of specific mention in the PGM.

In a number of passages the phrases “do the usual” or “add the usual,” occur, indicating that
well-known background procedures were not usually specified in the PGM. This may also
have applied to prefatory procedures such as drawing the protective circle which may have
been taken for granted. The fact that a circle appears to be only mentioned several times in
the whole corpus of the PGM suggests that the circle was taken for granted. This
phenomenon of unwritten instructions was common in the PGM, as these papyri were meant

to be used as an experienced magician’s reference book, not a primer in magic.

There is however one clear mention of the drawing of a protective circle with chalk on the
ground in the PGM in a rite which is an invocation of a daimon referred to as a “shadow on
the sun,” probably a solar daimon. The rubric concerning the protection of the magician

mentions both a circle and a phylactery:

Phylactery: The tail [of the cat]°° and the characters with the circle [on which] you will stand
after you have drawn it with chalk. 97

pod KEZEMM
VAG

904 Rohrbacher-Sticker (1993/4), p. 265.

95 The gods were not seen as universally beneficent, but as dangerous as spirits and daimones, and so
the magician needed to be protected from them.

906 The opening line of the rite instructs the magician to be “crowned with a tail of a cat.”

97 PGM VII. 846-861. A crossed out by has been omitted, as these two letters appear again without
crossing in the illustration above.

209

The text concludes with the seven characters shown above, the first of which is definitely
Mars, so these are possibly symbols of the seven planets. One of the characters echoes a form
which occurs later in the 15th century angel seals of de Abano’s Heptameron. Below them is
another sequence of four characteres, preceded by, at least two of which look astrological in
nature. These are likely to be the forerunners of the names and symbols later inscribed in

more detail in the protective circle.

The point is that the passage clearly gives instruction to stand within a chalk-drawn circle
with inscribed astrological figures. This circle is mentioned in the same section as the
phylactery and so it must also be meant for protection. It is also instructive that this
particular invocation has a strong Egyptian flavour with no admixture of Greek words or

gods, suggesting a very early usage.

In the setup instructions for one experiment of direct vision, a Table of Practice,%°8 and floor

markings are prescribed:

For direct vision, set up a tripod and a table of olive wood or of laurel wood, and on the table

carve in a circle these characters... ©? € oO Arn Cover the tripod with clean linen, and
place a censer on the tripod... In the centre of the shrine, surrounding the tripod, inscribe on the
floor with a white stylus the following character... it is necessary to keep yourself pure for three
days in advance... [If] you wish [to see], look inside, wearing clean [white] garments [and
crowned] with a crown of laurel...

The floor inscription, inscribed with a white stylus, is probably a chalk circle as the
instruction locates it “surrounding the tripod.” This passage is highly significant as it also
shows that a circle should be cut in the surface of the table, which is echoed in the 16th-19th

century practice of inscribing characters on the Table of Practice.

Although references to a protective chalk circle are not very detailed in the PGM, detailed
diagrams of the protective circle begin to appear in the Hygromanteia. This circle is also
closely tied to the four cardinal points, and with ritual actions performed at each of the
cardinal points. Early Byzantine texts show the circle drawn in conjunction with a square or
diamond shape indicating these directions, but some later Latin grimoires sometimes omit
that feature. The floor-inscribed magical circle is found in its most fully developed form in
the Hygromanteia. There are in this text three different types of circle, often all found in the
same manuscript, but in different chapters, probably indicating slightly differing uses rather

than a chronological development.

These sources have very specific diagrams of protective circles, often set within a square or

diamond, which are designed to be drawn on the ground. H shows several examples of these

908 To be described later in 6.1.
909 PGM III. 291-306.
210

quite elaborate circles. The procedure of drawing a double circle inside two contraposed

squares was well established and obviously long used to protect the magician from spirits.
First Byzantine Circle Type

The most specialised of these circles is found in chapter 49 of the Hygromanteia, which is
concerned with evocatory skrying using a young boy. It contains one of the most detailed
special purpose magical circles to be found in any manuscript of the Hygromanteia.°!° The
purpose of this circle is to protect the virgin boy being used as a skryer as well as the
magician. The magician or magister, who is here identified as a Persian ‘lecanomancer’ called
Apolonios [sic],°!! reads the invocation whilst the boy stares at a water pot balanced on a

stone, from the centre of a protective circle (see Figure 13 and Figure 14).

serene rigs + pee

[AR A Lae are ee:

Figure 13: The magician amoAdviocg Apolonios (sic) and virgin boy skryer who is skrying in the water
pot. Both are surrounded by an elaborate circle (see Figure 14) traced with a black-handled knife. The
magician holds the text of his invocation, and a comet is seen in the distance. Marathakis identifies this
procedure as hygromanteia type I, despite the textual identification of the main figure as a
lecanomancer. This underlines the essential identity of all the water/oil skrying methods which
evolved from PGM bowl skrying.

910 B2, f. 344.
11 It is tempting to see this as Apollonius of Tyana, but the appellation ‘Persian,’ and the green turban
shown in the illustration, make this a problematic identification.

pall

oy et De roel”
Gos Paw Cx: tie
pres or. gna

)
ah

ONIX IN LA bod 2

og satya cf .

ey ava hand & apep
i. oe dgdwve hi~

teenth “apo Ras re

wal : |

a ‘ a
On P or cc deorenwy Tye
aor V1 OG * +
Figure 14: Magical circle of protection used in an experiment of evocatory water skrying, from the

HAygromanteia 1440.72 Note this is the actual protective circle used in the operation shown more
graphically in Figure 13. The outer entrance way is to the West (at bottom of illustration).

This scenario of a boy skryer inside a circle has a lot in common with a 16th/17th century
Hebrew manuscript concerned with fingernail skrying,”'’ in which a circle is made around

the skryer also with a black-handled knife:

Take a young lad and make a circle in the earth with a knife, the handle of which is black, and
prepare the nail of the right thumb until it becomes thin, and take four smooth stones and put
(them) in the four rows of the circle, and put the mentioned knife in the middle of the circle. ..9"

The “four smooth stones” are also mentioned in Babylonian texts, were used in various

ceremonies,?!5 suggesting again a possible ultimate Mesopotamian origin for the practice.

Returning to chapter 49 of the Hygromanteia, the geometry of the protective design in this
chapter is quite complex, and possibly unique. It consists of a pentagram (in which the
skryer stands, surrounded by a double square with an opening to the East protected by the
words “Iabaa, Morasa, Mpaoth.” The boundary of the square is protected by “Letaia,
Lekamini, Lekhagl6o, Gon, Lekaphthri, Apagla,!6 Maria, Lakarinau, Latago, Logam.”

The square is then surrounded by a double circle with an opening to the West. This circle

212 Chapter 49 in manuscript B2, f. 344.
13 The spirits involved in that operation are called deferentially “the princes of the thumb.”
14 Codex Gaster 315, translated in Daiches (1913), p. 15.
15 King (1896), No. 12, Il. 11-13; IL. 2-15.
216 Probably derived from the Hebrew Son.
212

contains the names “Adonai, Sabaoth, Adonai, Todas, Adonai, Amath,?!” A.” The gate of this

circle is protected (sealed) by the words “Tetragrammatoén, O[mega], Adonai.”

The instructions for creating this circle are to “trace the circle with a black-handled knife,
cense it, clean it and pray.” It is clear that the skryer is thereby protected from the invoked
spirit. It is not clear where the magician stands during this operation, but in likelihood also

within the outer protective circle.

There are two other distinct methods of forming the circle outlined in the Hygromanteia from

the same period.
Second Byzantine Circle Type

This appears in chapter 36 of the Hygromanteia (see Figure 15),!8 which describes an
evocation which is to be performed when the Sun is in exact opposition to the Moon, in other
words at Full Moon. This circle has two earthenware braziers, full of lit charcoals on the
borders of the circle, used to burn the incense. This feature is illustrated in this and

subsequent diagrams with plumes of smoke arising from the braziers situated at the corners.

The circle is set within two squares, with the corners of the inner one touching the mid-points
of the sides of the outer one. After entering the circle from the South and placing incense on
the charcoals, the magician is required to trace one or two concentric circles,!9 with
embedded nomina magica, again using the black-handled knife of the art. When the magician

and his apprentice have entered the circle, the entrance is sealed with this knife of the art.

This circle consists of a double circle with an entrance pathway facing the South, set within a
square, set within a larger square touched at the midpoints of its sides by the vertices of the
smaller square. The vertices of the larger square determine the position for the earthenware
braziers. The east and west sides of the inner square have triple lock marks near the corners,
and all four corners have triple angle lock marks. This feature is meant to prevent the ingress
of the spirit at any point where the lines may have been imperfectly joined. The black-
handled knife is shown baring the exit, with its point outwards. It is possible that the knife is

stabbed into the floor/earth at this point, as in the conjuration of Mortzé.%°

217 Possibly from the Hebrew Aemeth, meaning ‘truth.’ This word was later used by Dee to describe his
main circular sigil, Sigullum Dei Aemeth.
918 Chapter 36 in manuscript H, f. 34v, A, f. 17v and B, f. 21v.
°19 Manuscripts B and H respectively.
920 B2, f. 346. Also spelled Mourtzi.
213

Figure 15: The second type of Byzantine Circle. The wavy lines indicate incense smoke arising from
burners placed at the corners. Note the “lock marks” at the corners, which are typical of circles drawn
in manuscripts of the Hygromanteia.?*! The Greek in the centre just indicates the positioning of the
magician and his assistant (tom0cg didacKdAov, topos didaskalou and tono0g pabyntobd, topos mathetou
respectively). The nomina magica between the two circles is Maléa - Anaeliel - Kephares Askoune -
Mpakalon.

Third Byzantine Circle Type

This method is to be found in chapter 41 of the Hygromanteia (see Figure 16).°22 In this
method four braziers or censers are used. This third method of drawing the circle is simpler
as the circle is only enclosed in one square and the nomina magica are different. In this
method, there are no lock marks and the exit path is simply sealed with a pentagram, and

not with the black-handled knife. A more critical difference is that the exit path in the third

921 Chapter 36 in manuscript A, f. 17v.
922 Chapter 41 in manuscripts A, f. 18v and G, f. 26v. The description also appears briefly in
manuscripts B and H.

214

method is orientated to the north, rather than to the south, as in the second method. This is
likely to be just a simplification of the second method, or a circle used for relatively minor

operations, such as the consecration of talismans.

Figure 16: The third type of Byzantine Circle. Note the lack of lock marks, the four braziers (with
handles) within the circle and the orientation of the entrance to the North (on the left). The Magister
and assistants are to stand to the West (at the bottom of the drawing). The nomina magica
surrounding the circle are “Partheon, Ana, Adona, Elion, Aglaa, Tetragrammaton, Ousioukhon.”

Parallels to these Greek Hygromanteia circles appear in AC Text-Group manuscripts of the

Key of Solomon as shown below in Figure 17.

Traditionally the consecrated circle in the Clavicula Salomonis was drawn with flour%* or
chalk upon the floor or cut into the turf with a ritual dagger (if the magical operation were
performed outdoors). Although the circle was usually drawn in chalk or painted on the floor,
a number of authorities state that its retracing by the consecrated (black-handled) knife, or

consecrated iron sword, was what was most effective in keeping the spirits out of the circle.

923 Chapter 41 manuscript G, f. 26v. Note that the bottom of the diagram is physically missing from the
actual manuscript, having been at one point in time actually cut off by the binder.

°4 Drawing magical figures with flour is still practised with the drawing of modern day Voodoo vevas,
which some authorities suggest may have been derived from Solomonic spirit seals.

215

Bird blood (specifically doves) was also sometimes used to draw the circle.9% Pointing up the
importance of the protective circle, the title of one of the early Latin grimoires, the Almadel,

even means “the circle’ in Arabic.

“ YRZUIZIIIID Us IDUNA ~

th J

Andas

se €\ a+ +t OP
,

= qruorpi talc” UNTLIRDUN

ee) aN -
Olla, sive Sruncrium Seplentrionale :

iD
e-

runarium Orientale .

Figure 17: A full Solomonic protective circle from a French Clavicula Salomonis of 1795.96

As early as 1425 one manuscript shows a magician commanding two full sized demons from
within the safety of a single circle drawn upon the ground (see Figure 02).°27 An even more
explicit manuscript from the 14th century shows the magician armed with a sword, wearing
a Crusader style breastplate (or lamen?), standing within a double protective circle cut in the

turf of a hillock, up which labours a treasure-bearing spirit (Figure 18).928

925 Kieckhefer (1998), p. 116.

926 Wellcome MS 4670 (1796) reproduced in Skinner & Rankine (2008), p. 70.
7 British Library Additional MS 39844, f. 51.

8 British Library Cotton MS Tiberius A VII, f. 44.

216

i
See!

Figure 18: A 14th century magician within a turf-cut circle receives a treasure-bearing spirit, whilst a
monk looks on. Note the magician’s sword and breastplate (lamen). The marks on the breastplate may
have been a number of small seals, as they appeared on the ourania in the Hygromanteia.

In the French manuscript of the Clavicula Salomonis reproduced in Figure 17, we see a large
number of parallels with the second type of circle in the Hygromanteia (Figure 15) drawn
approximately 250 years later. These similarities are proof of the transmission of not only the
method of working (in a protective circle) but also the exact same method of construction.

Other commonalities include:

a) a square within a square (with apexes touching the mid-points of the sides)
within a circumscribing circle.

b) the provision of an entrance way.°?°

c) incense burners located at the four outer corners (captioned as Olla sive

Prunarium>! in the Clavicula Salomonis).

d) sets of triple ‘lock-lines’ on the square’s sides.

929 Cotton MS Tiberius A VII, f. 44. 14th century.
%0 Located to the south in the Hygromanteia, but to the north in the Key of Solomon.
%1 A pot with burning coals, for the incense.
217

The minor differences include the replacement of pentagrams with equal armed crosses; a
translation of the text from Greek to Latin; an increase in the number of circles from two to
three; and the entrance blocked by crosses and the Tetragrammaton rather than the knife.
The protective names in the Key of Solomon are recognisable from the Heptameron, but do not

relate directly to those in the Hygromanteia.
Hebrew Copy of the Clavicula Salomonis

In another section of this thesis (chapter 3.3) it has been demonstrated that the only extant
Solomonic text in Hebrew, the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, is ultimately derived from an
unidentified Latin/Italian Clavicula Salomonis. As illustrations of the circles in that
manuscript are drawn from a pre-1700 Latin/Italian Clavicula Salomonis, it is therefore
appropriate that they be considered here alongside contemporary Latin and vernacular

European grimoires, rather than with Jewish magic.

_ Is

we
ip

uv) (4 ina co

SYD? PIE Ie Ob? ar ys
Aer pyva) Voirs [s cad
PP p39 Sw rds) pr ds: Oy97
“O25

( ADS

Figure 19: A protective circle from the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh.® This also uses a combination of
circle, square and triangle. Note the important entrance/exit path pointing to the top left.

932 The omission of the knife is probably due to the scribe not realising what was depicted in the
drawing. In practice the consecrated knife may still have been placed, point outwards, at the entrance.
%3 Gollancz (2008), folio 1B 66a. This operation was intended to be performed in Spring, as the magical
name of that season, “®M Talvi (drawn from the Heptameron), is written on the left side of the square.
218

In some grimoires, notably in the Hygromanteia, Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh and the Grimorium
Verum clear channels were provided for the arrival of the magician and his assistants, after
which this pathway would be sealed with appropriate divine names. In the Greek grimoires,
the passage was often sealed by stabbing the floor/earth at that point with the black-handled

knife. This again reflects the long standing tradition that spirits fear sharp iron blades.

The magician’s efforts were concentrated on the drawing and closing of the Circle to prevent
demonic ingress. This Hebrew copy of an Italian/Latin Clavicula Salomonis circle diagram
clearly shows an access path designed to allow the magician and his disciple to enter the
circle before the rite (see Figure 19). The Hebrew inscribed on the path [2° S$" transliterates
as the phrase ‘Via Itmon,’ an interesting mix of Latin and Hebrew which means ‘the path of
Metatron.’%> The magician intended to invoke that angel to protect the vulnerable entry path

to his circle.

The practice of placing braziers with charcoal on which to burn the incense, at the corners of
the circumscribed square, occurs again in some manuscripts of the Key of Solomon,%* but the

outer squares begin to disappear from the 19th century onwards.

One English manuscript, Sloane MS 3847, dated April 1572, has two full page illustrations of
protective circles (see Figure 20 and Figure 21), which are extremely revealing. Of these

circles Figure 21 is very similar to one of the Hygromanteia circles (Figure 15).

94 MS Harleianus 5596, f. 34v and MS Atheniensis 115, f. 21v show such a knife lying at the entrance
of the circle.
5 See Schafer (1981), pp. 395, 732 for a list of the 72 names of Metatron, including ‘Itmon.’
%6 In French Key of Solomon MS Wellcome 4670, see Skinner & Rankine (2008), pp. 70-71.
219

Figure 20: A simple circle of protection from The Worke of Salomon the Wise, Called his Clavicle
Revealed.’ The triangles making up the hexagrams in this circle have been partly disengaged;
however the rectangle with its lock marks is still fully in evidence. The outer circle contains corrupt
Hebrew god names. The small numbers indicate the order in which the parts of the circle should be
drawn.

987 Sloane MS 3847, f. 8. 1572.
220

Figure 21: A more complex circle of protection from The Worke of Salomon the Wise, Called his Clavicle
Revealed dated 1572. It shows a porta or ‘gate’ for entry (at left), corner ‘lock marks,’ and four braziers
at the cardinal points. Note this is almost identical to circles found in the Hygromanteia, showing a
very clear line of transmission.”®

Heptameron

The title of this grimoire definitely suggests Greek roots. The Heptameron, meaning literally
‘the seven days,’ deals with invocations of the angels and spirits of the seven days of the
week. The Heptameron was first published in Venice in 1496, and was reputedly written by de
Abano, although that is disputed by some scholars on the now familiar grounds that
someone who was a doctor and scholar could not possibly have penned a work on magic.
However, as nobody has suggested a viable alternative author, I will continue to refer to it as

de Abano’s Heptameron.

938 Sloane MS 3847, f. 52.
221

The circles used in the Heptameron are much simpler than those in some other grimoires,
except for one startling difference, that is that the names inscribed within them are not fixed,
but vary according to the time and date of the operation. This ties in with the importance of
the hours and days of the operation, which has been a feature of Solomonic magic since the

time of the Graeco-Egyptian magicians:

...the form of the Circles is not always one and the same; but useth to be changed, according to
the order of the Spirits that are to be called, their places [direction of calling], times, daies and
hours [of the operation]. For in making a Circle, it ought to be considered in what time of the
year, what day, and what hour, [and what season] that you make the Circle; what Spirits you
would call, to what Star [planet] and region they do belong, and what functions they have.%°?

The Heptameron® carries on the PGM and Hygromanteia practice of recommending the
careful selection of the correct day of the week and hour. These temporal concerns include
identifying angels appropriate to the month and even the season. These are then not just
invoked, but their names are written between the rings of the magician’s protective circle.
This circle is also divided by a cross (indicating the cardinal directions). The interesting
transmission from the PGM and the Byzantine Hygromanteia texts is that the angels and
rulers of the hour, day and season are now inscribed within the circle itself. Perhaps this was
initially an aide-memoire for the magician conjuring these temporal rulers, but it soon
became a written fixture. This results in the form of the circle varying from one time (day,
month, or season) to the next. It would seem likely therefore (as these circles harked back to
the Byzantine Solomonic tradition) that the Heptameron is likely to have been amongst the
grimoires imported from Byzantium. Interestingly, a complete copy of the Heptameron is
contained within the text of one of the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, making it even more

likely that it too was originally a Greek text.%42

In the 1796 Clavicula Salomonis these circles appear again, but are (incorrectly) labelled as

pentacles rather than being recognised by the scribe (F. Fyot) as protective circles.

939 Abano (2005), p. 60.
40 See Skinner (2005), pp. 93-96.
941 The requirement to call them, rather than just document them within the circle, is not mentioned.
942 B3, ff. 87-135 published as Bernardakeios Magikos Kodikas. This manuscript belongs to the end of the
19th century.
°8 For example, Wellcome MS 4670, p. 48 the scribe labels the circle for Sunday as the ‘Pentacle for
Sunday.’
222.

Figure 22: Circle for Sunday in the Heptameron. Note that there is a different configuration for the
circle depending upon the day of the week, and even the season. Note that east is at the top of the
illustration, where the name of the Demon King Varcan Rex is inscribed.*#

44 Probably 15th century.
223

Mop
—_——~ L4>
sngnes Nasi,

: .

Figure 23: Circle for Wednesday in a Clavicula Salomonis derived from the Heptameron. Note that this
circle is actually taken from a French Key of Solomon, which copied the method from the
Heptameron.™ In this circle the Demon King is Modiat Rex.

Herpentilis

A number of other grimoires, even some versions of the Clavicula Salomonis, copied the
Heptameron style circles. The Herpentilis (first printed edition 1505), for example, replicates
the same type of circle found in the Heptameron, which is a circle which also incorporates
changes according to the current day, month and season in its design (see Figure 24). The all-
important Demon King, Varcan Rex, is shown in the outer circle. This demon is no doubt the
same as the Vercan Rex, whose figure is shown in Figure 04, as one of the four Demon kings

of the Cardinal directions.

945 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 125
*46 Note the different configuration for the circle depending upon the day of the week, and even the
season.

224

Figure 24: Circle for Sunday from a 16th century manuscript of the Herpentilis, which replicates the
type of circle found in the Heptameron, incorporating the secret names for the current day, month and
season in its design.?4” Note the lamen and glove designs.

47 Joseph Anton Herpentil, Die Schware Magie des Herpentil. Published in Salzburg, 1505, reprinted 1846.
225

Germanic Faustian grimoires resurrected the idea of the Egyptian ouroboros, using it in their

seals designed to force compliance from the spirit.

tn Nomine Adomay Lebase _
eAdonay Amram BE

4 Vanite, penile quid tartatisthstinale imper-§

= at vols Adomay Saday Rex Regum,El,

= Steen ly ei aig

Figure 25: Crowned ouroboros used in a circle design in a Faustian grimoire.™® The invocation within
the ouroboros is derived directly from the Heptameron. The caption is “Allerhéchster Zwang, Citation
und Siegel,” or “strongest constraint, invocation and seal.”

Goetia

The Goetia (Book I of the Lemegeton) manuscripts which date from the mid-17th century”
have a more complex circle. The circle of the Goetia contains multiple rings with god names,
archangels and the angels of the ten Sephiroth inscribed within it. While there has been the
loss of the temporal names which featured in the Hygromanteia and the PGM, there has been
the addition of the influence of the Tree of Life 5°M ¥Y from Christianised Kabbalah made

popular by Reuchlin. Manuscripts of the Goetia had circles of the format shown in Figure 26.

948 Faust (1848). See Skinner and Rankine (2009), p. 24, illustration from Faust (1848).
4 T have located manuscripts of this text from the late 14th century, but have not yet been able to
examine them.

226

An interesting byway in the development of the Solomonic circle is the manuscript of the
Goetia (Part 1 of the Lemegeton) which was written by the 17th century magician Dr Thomas
Rudd (and later copied by Peter Smart).%° This manuscript was obviously written by a
working magician who carefully considered what he was doing. He reintroduced the circles
format of the Heptameron, which had been out of fashion, reincorporating the idea of listing
the names of the temporal rulers that were appropriate to the date and time of the ritual, in
the Circle itself. Other changes made by him, suggest a wider knowledge of the procedures
of Solomonic magic than many of his 17th century contemporaries. For example, instead of
using a triangle to confine the spirit, he manufactured a Brass Vessel, modelled on Solomon’s
spirit bottle, and closed it with the Seal of Solomon and inscribed it with the names of all 72
angels who are supposed to control their opposite 72 demons. See Figure 32.
bs semetenst favucals Sal

Adigure of te Circle of Salomon al. ke aggtion,
hile hy Preferne kiomsclisefrem She 5

Mo hee of ose Cull dp Urls GC, sag
; St Mey nr
ge Merl me oe
ah

WwW ve BS. . — ‘
*) NO a 5S Che triangle Ia Salenon Commanded
VA z ae 3 ee the Bete work frrrity Into ' tf
“as :) PERS : ey) th bo £e Made 2, of off fren ihe
Ae SENS N- <é Circle. oon Tfrol -
sty NESS - fe \ ° — Jvrer-
eo Page ie 3
eke Pre Sis
a : Pa
Pe Ta WE
PEs EN Me §
oF Plas? S\- at
SE CADSaL Ris]
PARES R23 (ae iif
NSSica Yt
SS OSy | Oe eee
Back he te A
earthen ke Belonaclh, e Sport
SECTS +7: Wl SoS
2 On" PS ruckke Dm
RS Pate > Working.
y? Rg Yes PENN
Pee ee mag sry 4S fo
sXe . .
Spe A ye
Ants fy:
5 Sh
ERPS S |
Re Re k e :
APs SAA (%s Circke let Le Le nude g fook Cucr Bs Heke lames Rowe wa the tee one kine Ceyining ab Lhere &b0 geen
eee x \ ; hi £ marke Hen(om m ad jekoush Clohimn mb frum UsnedLy Red % Benclohin Hens Lebdnah-ts re.
’ =
“re

Figure 26: Circle from the Goetia manuscript dated 1687.%! The incense pots have gone, as have the
exterior squares, but the double circle filled with god and angel names is still there. A Triangle that
has now become the spiritus loci has been added. This will be dealt with in the next chapter 5.3.2.

90 Harley MS 6483. Rudd was a mathematician and magician who knew Dr. John Dee and flourished
in the early 17 century. See Skinner and Rankine (2007) for details of his version of the Goetia.

51 Sloane MS 2731, f. 16.
227

Finally the simple circle of the early Goetia reached its apogee in the edition of the Goetia
transcribed by Mathers, and later published by Aleister Crowley. This 20th century version
of the Goetia included an illustration of the circle which incorporated all the angel, archangel
and god names of the ten Sephiroth of the Kabbalah in Hebrew inside a snake shaped spiral
rather than in concentric circles.

PRIMEUMATON
EAST

Figure 27: Circle in a 20th century edition of the Goetia.* Interestingly, in this version of the circle the
draftsman has reintroduced the serpent motif, although not in this case biting its own tail.

%2 Mathers (1904), p. ii.
228

After the Heptameron, the form of the circle was simplified and the temporal ruler names
were dropped. Also, in some grimoires the quartering disappeared, although the circle was
still very clearly aligned with the cardinal points. There is a hint in Mathers’ edition of the

Key of Solomon of the existence of time-dependent circles, but it is not spelled out in detail:

Now the Master of the Art, every time that he shall have occasion for some particular purpose
to speak with the Spirits, must endeavour to form certain Circles which shall differ somewhat,
and shall have some particular reference to the particular experiment under consideration.*°

Nevertheless, the protective circle can be seen to be a very long-running feature of Solomonic

magic.

Figure 28: The circle as it appears in the Mathers’ edition of the Key of Solomon. There is no hint of
time-dependent or even operation-dependent words in the circle. However the double square
configuration is back. The large number of censers reflects Mathers’ conviction that a large quantity of
incense smoke was necessary for the visible manifestation of the spirits.?>

953 Mathers (1909), p.16.
4 Mathers (1909), Fig. 81.
955 Where such a circle has been introduced into modern Wicca it can be conclusively proven that
Gerald Gardner borrowed the circle in the second half of the 20th century from Mathers’ edition of the
Key of Solomon.

229

5.3.2 Triangle of Art and Brass Vessel

The Triangle of Art is a floor triangle designed as a spiritus loci, an area into which the
magician plans to constrain the spirit. This device is never used in the context of the
invocation of gods or angels, only spirits or demons. Its secondary purpose was supposedly

to force the spirit to tell the truth.

I cannot discover any use of a confining Triangle of Art in the PGM. Protection seems to have
been derived from phylacteries plus a simple circle, and other constraints appear to have

been verbal, written and material (i.e. stones and herbs).

The Triangle of Art that is first found in Latin and English grimoires has the words
Anaphaxeton, Primeumaton and Tetragrammaton inscribed in it. The first two of these
words are undoubtedly of Greek origin,®* so one might expect this device to date from the

Byzantine period, but I have as yet found no trace of it there.

An early version of the Triangle appeared in a manuscript dated 1572 (see Figure 29). The
Triangle is surrounded by a circle which contains three phrases with Greek, Jewish and
Christian words designed to restrain the spirit:

i) | Emanuel Sab[a]oth Adonay (Jewish)

ii) | Panthon Vsyon (Greek)
iii) Messias + Sother (Christian)

The Triangle itself contains “Dat tha gen + lap Tenop + Rynthaoth.”

The figure to the right seems to be a much abbreviated circle as it contains the protective
inscription “Alpha & o.” The figure below is a sigil or corrupt pentacle, probably of the spirit

being invoked.

The Triangle is designed to constrict the manifestation of the spirit. The triangle does not
have a fixed position in relation to the Circle, but is supposed to be placed on the side of the

circle from which the spirit was thought to arrive, thus:

Note this A¢ [triangle] is to be Placed upon that Co[a]st [side or edge] the Spirit belongeth, &c.%’

%6 Tetragrammaton of course indicated the Hebrew m0" IHVH, but the form ‘Tetragrammaton’ is
Greek.

97 Sloane MS 2731, f. 16. The implication of ‘coast’ is that this is the direction from which the spirit
will arrive.

230

~ VY al

wey ;
eee

Figure 29: Triangle of Art in an English manuscript (1572) showing corrupt Greek wording betraying
its possible Byzantine origins.%® With it is a possible floor design or phylactery (top right) and a spirit
seal or pentacle (bottom).

The construction instructions of a more sophisticated Triangle of Art written almost 70 years

later was as follows:

The name ‘Michael’ is usually inscribed around the triangle, in remembrance of that angel’s part in
helping King Solomon constrain the spirits; and Primeumaton, Anaphaxeton and Tetragrammaton
also appear on the three sides.%?

Michael is an appropriate angel name for controlling spirits, as the archangel Michael was
reputed to be the archangel who vanquished Satan, or perhaps, more importantly, was the

angel that assisted Solomon to constrain his first demon, Ornias.

958 Sloane MS 3847, f. 125v.
959 See Skinner and Rankine (2007), p.79.
231

An interesting illustration of a triangle within a circle occurs in a 15t-century manuscript
(Figure 29a). Here it is probably meant as a refuge for the magician rather than a locus for the

spirit, because if contains the implements that would have been needed by the magician.

pred Otani YS \

x zt Sa i. eI ph. tH. Adenay. F. ps i

giza tetin a sevéa
oe ee a ate eves -

er Se £ Amit : y

1G. eX, .-S 4 4 Woe fur Uy. ¥ | es

, Pa amend hea cdevdceniani Nice

apes? vr dip: 7 $0 faa ee

Figure 29a: A triangle within a circle containing the magician’s equipment: the sword to command the
spirits (gladius), the ring (sigilla annula), the oil for consecration (oleum), the sceptre or tau-wand, and
probably the lamen inscribed with two crosses, the sun and the Tetragrammaton Mm. Around the
triangle are the usual Christianised nomina magica for protection: Sabaoth, Adonay, Messias, deus
filium, Sother, Emanuel, deus spiritus sanctus, etc.

232

> Yu of ayy: er er ko! >? ly Pur: fine! ALA oyu 15

} Spo
wr (Say eos
db O79. Orly

> !
v yosr sioed JII9"
{
NA es
\‘
is 1pryy ernie
NP ory

per ylrpur
7) ab ure
SS ‘psad ane os
Date Jes coupes

[in Pests de
" gf pote oy Sy od

Figure 30: The protective Circle and Triangle of Art from the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh.®® In the inner
circle, the Hebrew is: top left is the transliterated Tetragrammaton; top right is Adonai; bottom left is Agla;
bottom right is Elhi[m]. The centre four quarters read Al pa et Ao, i.e. Alpha et Ao.

The Triangle of Art is to be found in the Lemegeton, but is not usually thought to be
associated with the Clavicula Salomonis. However, this is a mistaken view as there is a
Triangle of Art clearly visible in the 1700 Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh, which as we have
already seen, was translated from a now lost Italian/Latin Clavicula Salomonis original. The

Triangle shown has a wing-shaped Hebrew inscription: 8S 858 or A-LA-AT.%1

The Brass Vessel

An alternative to the Triangle of Art is the Brass Vessel, a supposed replica of the brass bottle
used by King Solomon to seal up the spirits before casting them into the sea or lake (a tale which
has echoes in the Arabian Nights). This is also located outside the circle where the Triangle would

normally be, and effectively performs the same function.

Sometimes the Vessel was made of lead, as in the story of Rabbi Shephatiah ben Amittai who
imprisoned a spirit in such a container. The Rabbi had exorcised the possessed daughter of the

Byzantine emperor Basil I (876-886), and as a result won some leniency for his fellow Jews in

960 Gollancz (2008), folio (40a).
61 Reminiscent of the wing-shaped daemon names in the PGM.
239

Constantinople.% A technique for doing this appears in the Hygromanteia, which suggests a
commonality of practice, with Jewish magicians either contributing practices to, or utilising

practices in the Hygromanteia in 9th century Constantinople.

The use of a bottle to confine spirits also occurs in the Mediaeval stories of Virgil the magician.
During the 12th to 14th century the first century BC Roman poet acquired a reputation as a
consummate magician. Virgil was reputed to have dug up a bottle containing 72 spirits. After
breaking it open and releasing them, he insisted they teach him magic (see Figure 30a). When
they became recalcitrant he was said to have tricked the spirits into re-entering the bottle,
whereupon he successfully made them swear to teach him magic. Virgil’s name is even used

by magicians to threaten spirits, just like Solomon’s name.*©

Figure 30a: The magician Virgil releasing spirits from a bottle in which they had been imprisoned.°%”

962 Stow (1994), pp. 84-89.
MOTI fol tue ts 20,
%4 This reputation probably stemmed from his 8 Eclogue where he describes the methods of
Alexandrian love magic.
965 Ziolkowski & Putnam (2008), pp. 927-928.
966 Kieckhefer (2003), p. 167.
%7 Fiirstliches Zentralarchiv, Fiirst Thurn und Taxis Schlossmuseum, Regensburg, codex perm. III, f. 135.
14" century.
234

The technique of using a bottle to threaten or confine spirits passed to the Clavicula Salomonis,
where the threat to use it also became a device to frighten spirits into obedience. Several

manuscripts of the Goetia had elaborate drawings of this device (see Figure 31).

The forme of be Bratren t-osel Lhal Salomen Shut lp

34;
a

m
>

oo SS a

AN
2°90 AY

> ane" ety Ey mm a . ~ = — ee
7 i iY PARES Sie

ane
<-. te oe
-

or, ne

Figure 31: Form of the Brass Vessel in which Solomon reputedly shut up the Spirits. From the Goetia,
part I of the Lemegeton (1687).%8 The Hebrew is taken from Table VII of Agrippa.% Like Figure 32 it is
three-dimensional and has three legs. The god and angelic names of this table are written around the

vessel.
Top Row: ARARITA RPAL KMAL TzDQIAL TzPQIAL (Ararita Raphael Kamael Tzadkiel Tzaphkiel)
Bottom Row: ASAR YH GBRIAL MIKAL HAKIEL% (Asher Yah Gabriel Mikael Haniel)

968 Sloane MS 2731, f. 23.

99 Agrippa (1993), p. 274, Table VII.

970 Scribal error: should be HANIEL. If following Agrippa then YH should be AHIH, Eheieh.
235

at L
e: Vnagele 3s Geni
pe ess “4

ra (i i

Ie y ei <7 x
ey ¢ DAN 7, op a ys
seolie Utes y Ls

> ir

a NTI SATO D ANT bea

TU 49, 8S

as % ae & MS OSS i es sa 7 “e mah
‘aces zc) se Sie
Sy { BS

Figure 32: The Brass Vessel designed by Dr Rudd as an alternative to the Triangle of Art. Note that the
Hebrew names of all the 72 thwarting angels are numbered and engraved on its metal surface.°”! The
artist meant the figure to be a three-dimensional metal bottle supported by three legs. The oval shape
at the top is the Seal of Solomon placed over the mouth of the bottle and used to seal in the spirits (See
Figure 42), which is labelled as such: Secretum Sygillum Solomonis. The artist signs himself as P[eter]
Smart 1699, and the engraving looks as if it has been done from a metal original. Smart copied Harley
MS 6482 from a manuscript said to be by Dr Thomas Rudd.?”

971 Harley MS 6482 frontispiece.
972 Rudd was a mathematician and magician who knew Dr. John Dee and flourished in the early 17%
century. See Skinner and Rankine (2007), pp. 14, 39, 101 for details of his version of the Goetia.

236

5.3.3 Phylactery, Lamen or Breastplate (U)

A phylactery is a term used in the PGM to denote a personal protection used by the magician
in the course of a rite, which was to be positioned over his heart, or bound to his forearms,
but taken off after the conclusion of the rite. In Latin grimoires this same device is described
as either a phylacterium or lamen. Amulets which were simply worn daily as a general
protection against disease or bad luck on an “in case of a threat” basis are not part of the

equipment of ritual magic, and considered separately in chapter 5.4.1.

The separation of these two things is not artificial but crucial in terms of usage. Phylacteries,
almost without exception form part of a larger rite, and are always detailed in a sub-section
at the end of the rite. Amulets usually occur in short free-standing passages with no
elaborate ritual. In the Greek text amulets are headed with zepidupata (periammata), or more
often with mpoc- (pros-) prefixed to the objective they have been made for, for example an
amulet against hardening of the breasts is entitled: mpo¢ pac8@v oKAnpia.?” Phylacteries on
the other hand are always described as pvAaxtipiov (phylakterion). The reason why the
distinctions need to be made is that amulets are made for a client and later merge with folk
magic, whilst phylacteries, talismans and lamens remain part of learned magic, for use by
the magician himself, and are later transmitted to the Hygromanteia and then the Clavicula

Salomonis.
Jewish

Virtually the only religion to preserve the consistent use of the phylactery through to modern
times is Judaism (the tefillin), and maybe to a lesser extent Islam. The modern Jewish practice
is to tie one small leather box containing specific Biblical verses onto the forehead, and

another on to the upper arm, or sometimes the left hand, bound tightly using leather thongs.

A more massive version of the phylactery was used by the high priests in the Temple of
Jerusalem, before its destruction in 70 CE. This is documented in the Bible.°” In the light of
the later use of the phylactery, it seems that the High Priest wore the breastplate primarily
for protection when he entered the ‘holy of holies’, given the fearsome reputation that the
Ark of the Covenant contained there had for killing large numbers of people.%”> Protection is
the basic function of any breastplate. Be that as it may, the idea of a breastplate worn on the

High Priest’s chest is clearly similar in function to the magician’s phylactery.

The consecration of such a lamen was of considerable importance for both priest and

973 PGM VII. 208-209.
974 Exodus 28:17-20.
975 1 Samuel 6: 1; 2 Samuel 6: 2-7.
237

magician. One such Jewish rite of consecration of a golden plate (which was obviously a

phylactery /lamen) is documented in a Genizah fragment:

You shall perform all of these (procedures) in the fear of God. Protect yourself well from any
bad thing. And when you perform all of these (procedures) you should go out to the [water]
trough,*” and say many prayers and supplications, and ask that you not fail again. Then speak
this glorious name in fear and trembling. If you see the image of a lion of fire in the trough,
know that you have succeeded in wearing this holy name. Then you shall take the golden plate
(sis) on which this holy name is engraved and tie it around your neck and on your heart. Take
care not to become impure again when it is on you, lest you be punished. Then you may do any
[magical]*” thing and you will succeed.”

There is no doubt that a golden plate engraved with a holy name worn over the heart was a
magician’s phylactery or lamen. It would seem in this context that its function was more than
protective, in as much as it granted success in all (magical) operations as well. This

secondary function also appears to have carried over into later grimoires.

The phylactery was usually worn over the heart or on the forearms of the Graeco-Egyptian
magician, as a protection, to save the magician being overpowered by the spiritual creatures

he invoked:

...for I have your name as a unique phylactery in my heart, and no flesh, although moved, will
overpower me; no spirit will stand against me - neither daimon nor visitation nor any other of
the evil beings of Hades, because of your name, which I have in my soul and invoke. Also [be]
with me always for good, a good [god dwelling] in a good [man], yourself immune to magic,
giving me health no magic can harm, well-being, prosperity, glory, victory, power, sex
appeal.°”

Phylacteries were very common and an important item of protection for the magician during
the Graeco-Egyptian period. It is remarkable how many scholars simply treat the details of
phylactery manufacture as if they were almost accidental jottings or even a separate passage
at the end of the text of the rite. By convention in the PGM, the preparations such as the
incense, ink, or manufacture and consecration of the phylactery, were written at the end after

the description of the rite itself and the text of the invocation(s).
One rite which has the clearest drawing of a phylactery also describes its purpose in detail:

A phylactery, a bodyguard against daimones, against phantasms, against every sickness and
suffering,?®? [is] to be written on a leaf of gold or silver or tin or on hieratic papyrus. When worn
it works mightily for it is the name of power of the great god and [his] seal, and it is as follows:

“KMEPHIS CHPHYRIS...”98! These are the names; the figure is like this: let the Snake be biting
its tail,98? the names being written inside [the circle made by] the snake, and the characters

976 Instead of a river which would be more usual.

977 The insertion of ‘magical’ into this text at this point is justified as no ordinary tasks (except religious
or magical) were envisaged whilst wearing the phylactery, in case such actions caused the impurity
warned against.

978 Genizah fragment MS JTSA ENA 6643.4, lines 4-13. See Swartz (2000), pp. 67-69.

979 PGM XIII. 795-805.

980 Sickness or suffering caused by the invoked entity.

81 Kunis xpupic. Kheperi.

82 Quroboros.

238

thus... .988

The whole figure is [drawn] thus, as given below, [and put on] with [the spell], “Protect my
body, [and] the entire soul of me, NN.”4 And when you have consecrated [it], wear [it].98

Note that significantly this phylactery also features the protective ouroboros in its design

(see Figure 33).

exseiae ob orpaneyernethte dk I
Ke her Hekate ITTALW ovr, ie ea y T

a
ye \
kok 3
me MP aT ‘aT ie, G2,, . &
‘ By
Mf;

yr
Dr ae

acter

RE }
(es j

Figure 33: A Graeco-Egyptian phylactery, designed to protect the magician.%6
This example of a phylactery is significant for a number of reasons:

i) It confirms that the phylactery was used to protect the magician, body and soul

against daimones and phantasms (rather than against physical world injury).

983 See Figure 33 for these Celestial characteres.
94 The protection for the entire soul is mentioned because the Egyptians visualized the soul as
constituted of a number of parts, like the ba, ka, etc., some immortal parts, some semi-immortal.
985 PGM VII. 579-590.
986 PGM VII. 579-590. Reproduced in Parsons (2007), plate 35.
239

ii) It is referred to as the great god’s seal, which is echoed by the Byzantine
description of such a phylactery as a “heavenly seal,’ which is called an
obvpavia oppayis (ourania sphragis) or an ovpavia aAwags LOAOL@®vtOS (ourania

aloaphs Soloméntos) in the Hygromanteia.

iii) It is made in the shape of an ouroboros, a shape which echoes the protective circle

which was also inscribed on the ground in the same form in the PGM.
iv) Itis one of the few extant illustrations of an actual Graeco-Egyptian phylactery.

The great god referred to is Khepera. The connection between phylacteries and Khepera is
later to surface in Latin grimoires in the word ‘candariis’ the obscure Latin word for
talisman.%” The origin of this word comes from the Khepera scarab-shaped carvings made
by the thousands and brought from Egypt to Europe where they were identified as

talismans.°88

Some phylacteries also have images incorporated in their design. One such example is a
phylactery®*? that is to be used during the invocation of Selene:
Take a lodestone and on it have carved a three-faced Hekate. And let the middle face be that of
a maiden wearing horns, and the left face that of a dog, and the one on the right that of a goat.

After the carving is done, clean with natron and water, and dip in the blood of one who has died a
violent death. Then make a food offering to it, and say the same spell at the time of the ritual.?”

A phylactery used in another rite to Selene also uses a ‘breathing’ lodestone, which relies
upon the magical powers of that stone. The lodestone remained in use as a stone of attraction
by magicians through to the 18th century:
Preparation of the procedure’s protective charm [phylactery]:°°! Take a magnet that is breathing
and fashion it in the form of a heart, and let there be engraved on it Hekate lying about the

heart, like a little crescent. Then carve the twenty-lettered spell that is all vowels, and wear it
around [on] your body.

The following name is what is written: “AEYO EIE OA EOE EOA OI EOI.” For this spell is
completely capable of everything. But perform this ritual in a holy manner, not frequently or
lightly, especially to [invoke] Selene.

Another example made of wood is simplistically translated as a ‘charm’ but which is called a
@vAaktrptov in the original text. As it is used for the magician’s protection during a rite it is

obviously a phylactery:

The protective charm [phylactery] which you must wear: Onto lime wood write with vermilion

987 See the Catholicon, a 13th century dictionary compiled by Johannes Balbus (in the edition dated 1460).
988 The likely derivation of candariis is: Khepera = xdvOapoc = Kantharos = Cantharos = Candariis.
KavOapoc is the Scarabaeus pilularius, or dung beetle.
989 This is rather weakly translated as ‘charm.’
990 PGM IV. 2880-2890.
1 The original Greek is poAaxtiptov, ‘phylactery’ not ‘charm’ as in the English translation.
92 PGM IV. 2630-2640. This helps to underline that the phylactery was only worn when invoking.
240

this name: EPO-KOPT KOPTO BAI BAITO-KARA-KOPTO KARA-KOPTO CHILO-KOPTO%3
(50 letters). [Over it say] “Guard me from every daimon of the air, on the earth, and under the
earth, and from every angel and phantom and ghostly visitation and enchantment, me NN.”
Enclose it in a purple skin, hang it around your neck and wear it.°*

To confirm how important an item the phylactery was as a protection for the magician, one
of the all-purpose “slander spells,°% explains that the unprotected magician may expect dire
retaliation from the goddess, who will presumably be in an evil mood, after having been

slandered:

Do not therefore perform the rite rashly. And do not perform it unless some dire necessity
arises for you. It [the rite] also possesses a protective charm [phylactery]” against your falling,
for the goddess is accustomed to make airborne those who perform this rite unprotected by a
charm [phylactery] and to hurl them from aloft down to the ground. So consequently I have
also thought it necessary to take the precaution of [providing] a protective charm [phylactery]
so that you may perform the rite with[out] hesitation [or fear]. Keep it secret.9%

The construction of the phylactery is as follows:

Take a hieratic papyrus roll and wear it around your right arm with which you make the
offering. And these are the things written on it: “MOULATHI CHERNOUTH AMARO
MOULIANDRON, guard me from every evil daimon, whether an evil male or female.”

It is interesting that the goddess is treated in exactly the same way as an evil daimon. It does
not seem as if it was necessary to wait for Christianity to demote the ancient gods and
goddesses to the level of daimones, for it seems the Graeco-Egyptian magicians had already

done so.1000

In the same spell, Hecate/ Aktidphis is described as “bull-shaped, horse-faced goddess, who
how][s] doglike,” and various sacrilegious acts are heaped upon her, to annoy her, and make
her act. This confrontational style of magic did not translate into the later Greek or Latin

grimoires.
One of the best known phylactery descriptions occurs in the so-called “Mithras Liturgy:”

Then the phylacteries are of this kind. Copy the [text of the phylactery]!0 for the right [arm]
onto the skin of a black sheep, with myrrh ink, and after tying it with the sinews of the same
animal, put it on; and [copy] that for the left [arm] onto the skin of a white sheep, and use the
same method. The [magical word] for the left [arm] is: “PROSTHYMERI,” and has this

993 Hyphens introduced to clarify the structure.

94 This form of words, via the Griffith and Thompson (1974) translation, appears again in late 19th
century Golden Dawn practice.

95 PGM IV. 2695-2705.

996 A slander spell deliberately sets out to annoy the goddess, in order that she may do what is asked
of her to the victim of the spell.

°7 The original Greek is poAaxtiptov, “phylactery,’ not ‘charm.’

998 PGM IV. 2505-2511.

999 PGM IV. 2512-2519.

1000 This is further reason for using the term ‘spiritual creature’ when referring to these gods,
daimones, demons, or spirits, as to a large extent they were all treated in the same way by the
magician.

1001 Betz mistakenly uses the word ‘amulet’ here.

241

memorandum... 1902

“Let go of what you have, and then you will receive, [from] PSINOTHER NOPSITHER
THERNOPSI” (add the usual).19%

The craft of phylactery making is not above using one god to neutralize another. A love spell
which invokes Aphrodite uses a Typhonian phylactery to keep the magician safe:
And also have as a protective charm [phylactery]! a tooth from the upper right jawbone of a
female ass or of a tawny sacrificial heifer, tied to your left arm with Anubian thread .10%
A phylactery to protect against the anger of Kronos, father of the gods, uses the myth that
Zeus castrated Kronos with a sickle in order to create a protective phylactery:
On the rib of a young pig carve Zeus holding fast a sickle and this name: “CHTHOUMILON.”
Or let it be the rib of a black, scaly, castrated boar.!0%
Phibechis, a legendary Egyptian magician, whose name in Egyptian literally means ‘falcon,’
is supposedly responsible for a spell which exorcises daimones. The most interesting part of
his rite is the phylactery that would have been hung on the possessed patient to protect him
from the daimon:
The phylactery: On a tin lamella write “IAEO ABRAOTH IOCH PHTHA MESENPSIN IAO
PHEOCH IAEO CHARSOK,” and hang it on the patient [the possessed].1007
The phylactery is described as “terrifying to every daimon, a thing he fears.” The
conjuration, “by the seal which Solomon placed on the tongue of Jeremiah” to determine the
truth, is applied to force the spirit to:
Also tell whatever sort you may be, heavenly or aerial, whether terrestrial or subterranean, or
netherworldly or Ebousaeus or Chersus or Pharisaeus, tell whatever sort you may be...”1008
It was of course considered necessary that the magician should know the name and station of
the spirit, in order to be able to control it. In another rite which utilises the threat of harm to a
beetle,!9 a phylactery is used by the magician to protect himself from the daimon being
invoked:
The phylactery for the foregoing: With the blood from the hand or foot of a pregnant woman,
write the name given below on a clean piece of papyrus; then tie it about your left arm by a

linen cord and wear it. Here is what is to be written: “SHTEIT CHIEN TENHA, I bind and
loose [you].”

1002 The six line quote from Homer which occurs at this point, and which both Meyer and Betz see as
part of this rite, is a totally unrelated interpolation. This interpolation is in fact an interrupted passage,
which carries on from PGM IV. 467-474 and continues again on lines 830-834.
1003 PGM IV. 813-820, 828-829. Note the text is taken from Betz (2003) rather than Betz (1996).
1004 The original Greek is pvAaktnplov, ‘phylactery’ not ‘charm’ as the English translation.
1005 PGM IV. 2896-2900.
1006 PGM IV. 3115-3124.
1007 PGM IV. 3014-3017.
1008 Types of daimon, or maybe an identification of the sort of magician responsible for the daimon. It
has always been an objective during exorcism to determine the spirit’s name, and its type, so the
appropriate words can be used to eject it.
1009 Thereby compromising the god Kheperi.

242

A more informal phylactery is made from a strip of tin and uses the names of the Egyptian

directional angels to protect the magician from his own conjured personal angel:

The phylactery for this: Write these names on a strip of tin: “ACHACHAEL CHACHOU
[MERIOUT] MARMARIOUTI.” Then wear it around your neck.10

A phylactery designed to protect the magician against Bainchddch (the spirit of darkness) is

designed as follows:

Phylactery for the rite, which you must wear wrapped around you for the protection of your
whole body: On [a strip] from linen cloth taken from a marble statue of Harpokrates in any
temple [whatever] write with myrrh these things:

“Iam HOROS ALKIB HARSAMOSIS IAO AI DAGRNNOUTH RARACHARAI ABRAIAOTH,
son of ISIS ATHTHA BATHTHA and of OSIRIS OSOR[ON]NOPHRIS; keep me healthy,
unharmed, not plagued by ghosts and without terror during my lifetime.”

Place inside the strip of cloth an ever living plant; roll it up and tie it 7 times with threads of
Anubis. Wear it around your neck whenever you perform the rite.10!

Some phylacteries just rely upon a string of nomina magica:

There is also the charm [phylactery]! itself which you wear while performing, even while
standing: onto a silver leaf inscribe this name of 100 letters with a bronze stylus, and wear it
strung on a thong [made] from the hide of an ass.1018

The prescribed name is:1014

ANCHCHOR ACHCHOR ACHACHACH PTOUMI CHACHCHO CHARACHOCH
CHAPTOUME CHORACHARACHOCH APTOUMI MECHOCHAPTOU CHARACHPTOU
CHACHCHO CHARACHO PTENACHOCHEU (a hundred letters) .1°5

A more elaborate and probably earlier Egyptian version of a phylactery to be used by the

skryer rather than the magician is described in Demotic:

A amulet [phylactery]!*® to be bound to the body of the one [skryer] who is carrying the vessel
[to] enchant quickly: You should bring a band of linen of sixteen threads, four of white, four of
[green], four of blue, four of red, and make them into one band and stain them with the blood of
the hoopoe.!°’” You should bind it to a scarab in its attitude of the sun god,1°!8 drowned,1%

1010 PGM VIL. 478-490.

1011 PGM IV. 1071-1084. Note the confirmation that it should only be worn “whenever you perform the
rite.”

1012 Translated by E. N. O’Neil as “protective charm.”

1013 PGM IV. 256-260. The ass is associated with Typhon/Set.

1014 PGM IV. 239-241.

1015 Of course as the original is in Greek, such combinations as ‘CH’ count as only one Greek letter. The
count of how many letters is meant as a scribal check to make sure these names have been copied
correctly by the practitioner.

1016 Translated as “amulet” by Griffith and Thompson, as reproduced in Betz (1996), p. 200, but
actually a phylactery.

1017 The hoopoe bird was sacred in ancient Egypt. In Leviticus 11:13-19, hoopoes were categorised as
detestable and were banned from being eaten, perhaps because of their status in Egypt. In Deuteronomy
14:18 they were listed as not kosher. This bird has a long history of appearing in books of Arabic
magic, the PGM and later European grimoires, where it is primarily valued for its blood. It is epops in
Greek. Strangely it has been Israel’s national bird since 2008. In Estonia they are connected with death
and the Underworld, but are symbols of virtue in traditional Persia. The hoopoe is the king of the
birds in Aristophanes’ play The Birds. The bird also has a reputation as a messenger in the Middle
East, and was legendarily used that way by King Solomon, and it may be that reputation as Solomon’s
messenger more than any other which contributed to its use in magic.

243

being wrapped in byssus.1920 You should bind it to the body of the youth who is carrying the
vessel [for skrying]. It enchants quickly...1921

Here we have an example of a phylactery that not only protects the skryer but also enchants

the skryer, or enhances their readiness to skry.

Apollonius of Tyana is credited in the PGM with securing a spirit servant from the goddess
Nephthys in the form of an old woman. This rite requires that the magician wears a
protective phylactery during the course of the invocation which deals with both the goddess
Nephthys and the spirit familiar granted to the magician by that goddess. The phylactery is
made from the skull of an ass because that is the animal sacred to Seth who was Nephthys’
husband. Two teeth from the skull have been given to the magician by the goddess as a

pledge of the servitude of the spirit servant.

The phylactery to be used throughout the rite: The skull of the ass. Fasten the ass’s tooth with
silver and the old lady’s tooth with gold, and wear them always; for if you do this, it will be
impossible for the old woman [spirit servant] to leave you. The rite has been tested.10

This particular phylactery is different from the usual run of phylacteries inasmuch as it is to
be worn all the time, afterwards, rather than just during the rite because its functions are

those of binding as well as protection and the magic is ongoing.

The phylactery or lamen is described in chapter 33 and 40 of the Hygromanteia, being the
chapters respectively of the first and second methods of evocation. Here it is referred to as an
ourania, a word that is not translated in Delatte, Greenfield or Torijano, perhaps because they
were not sure of its equivalence. Marathakis suggests that it is an abbreviation of ourania
sphragis or ‘heavenly seal,’ which seems very likely in the context.10> Delatte suggests ovpavia
akwapcs Lodropwavtoc.'”* The ourania is definitely the successor of the Graeco-Egyptian
phylactery. For the purposes of comparison with later Latin grimoires, I will continue to refer
to this as a phylactery or lamen, rather than using the Greek term ovpavia. The making of the
lamen is outlined under two different methods in the Hygromanteia, yielding two different

descriptions.1025

The lamen of the first method of evocation is to be made of unborn calf skin with ten seals

1018 The scarab beetle is the animal of Kheperi, a version of the sun god Phre/Ra. The deification of a
scarab by drowning is central to many of the Demotic spells of Egyptian origin.
1019 To consecrate it.
1020 Flax or linen.
1021 PDM xiv. 90-92.
1022 PGM XI.a. 1-40.
1023 Marathakis (2011), p. 91. Another possible reason for this name for the lamen is that Ourania was
the muse of astronomy, and much magic in the Hygromanteia relies upon astronomical calculations,
hence wearing Ourania’s seal was very appropriate. That explanation is however much less likely.
1024 Delatte (1927-38), p. 8.
1025 The first method is described in H, f. 28-28v; B, ff. 17-20; P, f. 219. The second method is described
in H, f. 31 and G, f. 25. Only H outlines both methods.

244

drawn (five down either side) in a box shape enclosing five pentagrams and various other
sigils (see Figure 38 right hand illustration). These seals are like very crude
representations of the figures which later appear as much more sophisticated pentacles in the
Clavicula Salomonis.1°27 This lamen is to be coloured red and black, and perfumed, with 22

lacings,1078 and tied to the chest.

Manuscript B gives a sketch of the lamen which contains ten unevenly spaced talismans
surrounding a lozenge shape containing ten characters, and a squiggly line that seems to
serve no particular purpose.!029 This is supposed to be drawn on unborn parchment with
considerably more accuracy than the sketch, as “your deliverance lies [depends] upon it.”
The text stresses this a number of times, and suggests that the magician should use a
compass, and great care, unlike the scribe of this roughly drawn manuscript. The ink to be
used is very like the perfumed inks found in the PGM:

The inner parts must be drawn carefully, with musk, saffron, rose water and cinnabar, [red ink]

but the outer parts must be drawn with black ink... However, all letters and signs must be red,
as instructed.1031

The lamen described in the second method of evocation in the Hygromanteia is also made of
unborn calf parchment, but has a completely different design, with a total of 24 circular
‘seals’ and a number of names to be written on it (see Figure 38 left side). Maybe this roughly

drawn lamen has one seal for every hour of the day.19°2

The transmission of the ‘seals’ used on the lamen will be examined in the next chapter 5.4.2

on Talismans and Pentacles.

In the Clavicula Salomonis, just one pentacle design becomes the lamen, rather than a group of
seals, as in the Hygromanteia. This lamen is, however, referred to by a variety of different

names in different Latin grimoires:

In the UT Text-Group of the Clavicula Salomonis the lamen is described simply as a pentacle.1°°

In the Heptameron the lamen is also simply referred to as a Pentacle.14

In the RS Text-Group of the Clavicula Salomonis it is referred to as the “La Grande Pentacule de
Salomon,” to distinguish it from the other planetary pentacles.1%5

1026 See Figure 38; H, f. 33 for an illustration of the first method lamen.
1027 The relationship between these crude seals and the pentagrams of the Clavicula Salomonis will be
examined in chapter 5.4.2.
1028 Maybe one lacing for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which suggests a possible Hebrew
derivation.
1029 B, f. 19v.
1030 How the magician was expected to produce a careful drawing from such a very rough sketch is
not explained.
1031 B, f. 19.
1032 H,, f. 31; B, f. 16v-18; G, f. 26, for illustrations of the second method lamen, the 24 talisman lamen.
1033 Skinner and Rankine (2008), pp. 387-388.
1034 Skinner (2005), p.65.
1035 Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 92.

245

In Juratus, the lamen takes on a more elevated name, “the Seal of the true and living God.” 196
In the Goetia it becomes “the pentagonal figure of Solomon,”1°7 which is worn over the breast
for protection, not “Solomon’s sexangled figure,”18 as suggested by several writers.109

In each case the lamen takes on either a hexagram or pentagram shaped design. There is
some confusion over the shape, as both shapes have been referred to as the Seal of Solomon.

In terms of Jewish practice the hexagram is a much more common choice.

This pentagram (according to the Goetia) is a figure with five vertices, which should be made
of gold or silver, and be engraved with “Tetragrammaton’ inscribed in between its vertices,

whilst various nomina magica are inscribed at its points, such as Abdia, Ballaton, and Halliza.

The Hexagram of Solomon is a Star of David or figure with six vertices, also inscribed with
Tetragrammaton, but with both AGLA and Alpha-Omega written between the points. In the
middle is a “T’ or Tau cross. This is to be worn at the edge of the magician's vestment, but
covered with a cloth until the spirit appears, at which point it will be revealed to compel the

spirit to take human shape and be obedient.

1036 Peterson, Liber Juratus (forthcoming); Driscoll (1977), p. 11; Hedegard (2002), p. 70.

1037 Peterson (2001), Figure 4, p. 44.

1038 Peterson (2001), Figure 3, p. 43.

1039 In the case of the Goetia, the hexagram figure is not the lamen but a figure designed to compel the
spirits to assume human form when they appear.

246

5.4 Written Words

Ritner demonstrates the close connection between written magical items (such as amulets,

phylacteries and talismans) and the magician himself in ancient Egypt:

In literature from the Old Kingdom through Greco-Roman periods, the priestly qualifications of
the magician protagonist are almost invariably specified, being indicated as either “chief lector
priest” [hry-tp] or “scribe of the House of Life.”... From the later designation derive also the
simple references to magicians as “good scribes” (sh nfr) and magical acts as “deeds of a (good)
scribe” (wp.t n sh nfr, sp n sh).1040

5.4.1 Amulets (A & R)

The term amulet has come to be used rather loosely in modern literature, both scholarly and
lay. Amulets were not designed to be used in the context of a magical rite, but to be worn
day-to-day. They will often have been made by the magician for a client who just wanted to
be luckier in love or gambling, or protected from disease in a general way. Such amulets
made for clients are common to all the cultures under consideration, and have survived
thousands of years, from the faience scarabs of dynastic Egyptian times to the “lucky rabbit's
foot” of the 21st century. Amongst Jewish amulets manufactured for use by an individual,
formulae from ancient Palestinian and Babylonian sources can be found on amulets from the
Cairo Genizah and on amulets currently for sale to the Jewish community in New York and

London, attesting a long history of transmission.101

The ancient Egyptians made a clear distinction between magic (hekau) and amulet making
(sau),1042 as distinction that was carried over into Graeco-Egyptian magic. The Egyptians
wore many amulets, of which the most common was probably the pottery, stone or wood
scarab which was set into rings, used as pendants or buried with a mummy. A number of
standard designs prevailed such as the tet column or the Eye of Horus.! The fact that wd3w,
the general term for an amulet also means “health” suggests that the bulk of such amulets
were meant as general protection especially against disease, but also against snakes,

crocodiles, and other unseen menaces that lurked in river junctions, canals, pools and wells.

There are in excess of 45 separate rites for creating such popular amulets in the PGM, many
of them for reasons of health or love. These are very simple formulae, with an average length
of less than ten lines.1°44 These are obviously meant to be manufactured for clients, and so
thousands of them have also survived as artefacts as well as the details of their preparation

in the papyri texts.

1040 Ritner (2008), pp. 221-222.

1041 Swartz (1990), p. 166.

1042 Sau applies to both the practice and the practitioner. Pinch (2010), p. 56; Rankine (2006), p. 16.
1043 See Budge (1970). Budge’s book on amulets is a useful source of examples.

1044 The longest measures 30 lines only because it includes a drawing.

247

Many PGM amulets have wing-shaped text with a name being repeated a number of times,
each time with the number of letters decremented by one. One such amulet (see Figure 34
top) was designed to attract Herakles (the small gladiatorial figure at the back) to Allous
(daughter of Alexandria) using the god Bes (in the foreground).!%5 Note the nomina magica
written down each side of the amulet, decremented by one letter on each line. Such wing
formations survived into the vernacular grimoires of the 19th century, such as the wing
formation (see Figure 34 bottom) copied by the cunning-man Anders Ulfkjaer from a grimoire

by pseudo-Cyprian in 1858.

Although the amulets recorded in the PGM are very crude in design, there was a parallel
Greek and Roman culture of amulets made to a much higher artistic standard, and these
were inherited by Byzantium. The manufacture of amulets in Byzantium was very
sophisticated, with designs engraved upon gems, cameos, enamel pendants, bronze tokens,
or disks of gold, silver, bronze and lead, or fashioned in the form of rings. These complex
designs nevertheless followed standard patterns, each for a specific purpose. Typically one
of the most common amulets was designed to protect the newborn child from the demoness
Gyllou (although the name “Gyllou’ does not actually occur on any of them), or counter the

imaginary medical phenomena of the so-called “wandering womb.’!%6

Early amulets, sometimes dated to the 68/7 century portrayed St. Sisinnios of Antioch
mounted on a horse and aiming a lance a dragon (or demon). This rider saint was sometimes
conflated with Solomon, and some of these amulets have Solomon’s name inscribed upon
them (see Figure 35). These amulets also had celestial characteres inscribed upon them like
Graeco-Egyptian amulets.” The earliest iconography comes from 5 century monastery of
St. Apollo at Bawit in Egypt. St. Sisinnios (c. 708) hailed from Antioch where the use of the
rider saint on Syrian amulets was very common.!8 His conflation with Solomon may have

occurred at a later date.

Later designs, circa 10th-12th century tended to additionally feature a Medusa-like head with
seven radiating serpents. Such designs were common on shields in the ancient Greek world,
and therefore it was not a large jump to extrapolate this to protection in general, and

specifically amuletic projection. Other saints and angels were often part of the design.1049

1045 PGM XXXIX. 1-21.
1046 The so-called hysteria formula,
1047 See Spier (1993), pp. 25-62 for more extensive discussion.
1048 See British Library Or. MS 6673 for examples. Also Budge (1961), pp. 274-281.
1049 See Skemer (2006) for the textual amulet in the Middle Ages.
248

OatOapabavdeWwrABapa 0a
atO@apabavewrAdapa v]
TOapadavGwAGapa
eapabaveWdrbapa
-apaSavOwrbapa
paGavOwrdASapa
aBav@wrAdapa
S8av@wrGapa
avO@wd0apa
vO@wrGapa
P@wrbapa

WArAGapa

A\OQapa

O@apa

a p-o

TOapaGaveWwrbapa
TOapaPavOwrAGapa
TOapabaveWwrOapa
BapadsavOwrAbapa
a[pjaQaudwrOapa °
pavave@wrAdapa
abav@wAbapa
GBavewrbapa -
av@widapa
v@whOapa
O@wiOapa
wrSapa

A\Oapa

Oca

apa

“EEopxiZw ce tH<v> dWdexa cToixeiwv | ToD odpavod Kal ixociTéccepa cTOI-
Xeillwv tod Kdcuou, iva &ync yor ‘Hpaxdfy, dv etexev [Talaimic, mpdc "AdAOdy, fic

€étexev “AheEavodpia, 4dy dn, Tax Taxv.

alk al

Visa vce % rae |

o wa

wee ue Nigadeys

Giles

6 eae 4

PARA WTR IK

_AAPINTAI

KIT ALD

Figure 34: A wing formation amulet from the PGM (top)!% and a wing formation in a 19th century

cunning-man’s grimoire (bottom) 10!

1050 PGM XXXIX. 1-21 in Preisendanz Vol. 2 (1931), p.

177.

1051 A grimoire written by Anders Ulfkjaer in or before October 1858, copied from ‘Sypran’ i.e. the
Grimoire of St. Cyprian, reproduced in Davies (2009), p. 130.

249

Figure 35: Bronze amulet showing Solomon with Hermes’ wand, lance and cauldron.1%? His name is
clearly spelled out as ‘“SoLOMoN.’ The reverse shows Hecate, the triple goddess of magic with torches,
swords and wands and a number of celestial characteres.1°°

Figure 36: Byzantine amulet showing the rider St. Sisinnios (sometimes identified with Solomon) with
a lance, the angel Arlaph or Araph [Raphael] and a recumbent demon. On the verso a head with seven
serpents,1%4 several saints, palm branches, a pentagram and the inscription ‘Seal of Solomon.’19%5

1052 Speculatively, it is possible that the ‘cauldron’ is in fact a representation of the hydria used by
Solomon to imprison spirits.
1053 Museo Ostiense. Item E27278A.
1054 St. Sisinnios and the head with seven serpents radiating from it are the two main motifs occurring
on Byzantine amulets.
1055 Silver amulet (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) illustrated in Spier (1993), Plate 3a.

250

The significance of the amulets shown in Figure 35 and Figure 36 is that, although they do
not show the transmission of amulet designs from the PGM like the Eye of Horus or the
scarab, they show the perpetuation of the name of Solomon in connection with Greek magic
as exemplified in the figures of Hecate and Medusa. Although Solomon’s seal (which
features in many later Latin grimoires) is not shown graphically, it is mentioned textually on
the amulet. The angel Araph or Arlaph, an old spelling for Raphael, here functions as a
thwarting angel, for the demon Gyllou.!% These amulets are also found in Russia (no doubt
exported from Byzantium) and Eastern Europe, but did not enter the Latin grimoires of

Western Europe.

Solomonic magicians undoubtedly made amulets as a day-to-day service for clients, but this
process did not become part of the procedures of formal evocation or invocation according to
the Solomonic method. Therefore amulets are an example of a discontinuity in practice, for
although they continued to be made, they were not part of the Solomonic method of
evocation. In due course amulets became more of the stock in trade of the village or folk
magic than learned ritual magic. In the Middle Ages, some of the nomina magica of learned
ritual magic were to be found on amulets. In fact as Skemer reports, “after the twelfth
century, the vocabulary of textual amulets in the West came to be enlivened and energized

by the spread of pseudo-Solomonic grimoires,” not the other way around. 1%7

5.4.2 Talismans and Pentacles (T)

Talismans and pentacles must be distinguished from amulets. Amulets were just a passive
form of protection against a more generalized threat, whereas talismans and pentacles were
designed to cause a specific change. See category “I” in the table in Appendix 2 for a listing of

PGM talismans.

A talisman is designed to achieve one particular magical objective. As one 17th century

writer succinctly put it:

A talisman is nothing else than the seal, figure, character, or image of a celestial omen, planet, or
constellation; impressed, engraved, or sculptured upon a sympathetic stone or upon a metal
corresponding to the planet; by a workman whose mind is settled and fixed upon his work and
the end of his work without being distracted or dissipated in other unrelated thoughts; on the
day and at the hour of the planet; in a fortunate place; during fair, calm weather, and when the
planet is in the best aspect that may be in the heavens, the more strongly to attract the
influences proper to an effect depending upon the power of the same and on the virtues of its
influences.108

The process of making such a talisman consists of invoking a particular power or specific

1056 Or Abyzou, a female demon, like Lilith, who kills newborn children.
1057 Skemer (2006), p. 205.
1058 de Bresche (1671).
251

spiritual creature into an inscribed parchment or metal disk at the correct time. The PGM
recommends both metal and parchment phylacteries, the Clavicula Salomonis recommends
both parchment and metal pentacles, favouring the latter, whilst the Hygromanteia

universally refers only to parchment ‘seals.’

Talismans, in the form examined below, only occur in the Hygromanteia and Clavicula

Salomonis, and not in the PGM.

In contrast, phylacteries are a distinctive feature of the magic of the PGM, and have a clear line
of transmission to the Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis, with one surprising exception

which will be outlined below.

By the 16th century, “pentacle’ and ‘talisman’ had become almost interchangeable terms, and
were almost universally inscribed in a double circle or annulus figure. Chapter III of the
Clavicula Salomonis explains the typical materials and conditions required for making such

pentacles:

The Talismans, Pentacles, Mystical Images, Sigils, Characters and other suchlike Talismans,
which are the main tools for working with Occult Science, can be created with different
materials. You can make them on virgin parchment, on metal plates, on magnetic stones, on
jasper, agate and on other precious stones.1%9

The text goes on to qualify that the parchment must be made in the time-honoured fashion,
but made by yourself rather than bought. Metal talismans are said to be preferred having a
closer affinity with their respective planets than parchment, which “can get dirty easily and
any amount of dirt, no matter how small is capable of lessening the effect of the Talisman.”
The usual list of planetary metals follows in this manuscript, with the exception that Venus is

attributed to bronze rather than to pure copper.

If the talismans are to be made of paper or parchment, then the colours recommended in the

same text are:

...thou shalt chiefly use these colours: Gold, Cinnabar or Vermilion Red, and celestial or
brilliant Azure Blue.!° Furthermore, thou shalt make these Medals or Pentacles with exorcised
pen and colours.. .1061

The Pentacle

The pentacle is a specific type of talisman, usually associated with specific magical operation,
specific spirit or specific planet, for use by the magician, not a general protection for the
magician’s client. The most common structure of the pentacle is a double circle or annulus

within which is an inscription (usually in Hebrew or Latin). This annulus contains either a

1059 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 10.
1060 The description appears to have omitted green for Venusian and silver for Lunar talismans.
1061 Mathers (1909), p. 44.
202

sigil, a letter/number filled square, or an eight-spoked wheel with letters/sigils at the end of
each spoke. There are a number of variants on these basic structures. Pentacles are used
individually for specific magical operations, or written or engraved together in a group to
form a lamen. It is this later use which helps to confirm that they are part of the Solomonic
method, rather than free-standing talismans. The Clavicula Salomonis falls into 14 Text-
Groups. Each Text-Group is divided into a consistent number of chapters or Books. For
example, the Geo Peccatrix Text-Group occurs typically with 48 chapters; the Clavicule
Magique Text-group with 16 or 17 chapters; the Abraham Colorno Text-Group is divided
into 2 Books of 20-22 chapters, and so on.10%2 Pentacles appear in the second book of some
Text-Groups of the Clavicula Salomonis which are divided into two Books. 1% The question
arises as to from where are these derived. In an effort to determine the direction of

transmission, I have identified four potential sources for the pentacles.

These are initially simply arranged in chronological order by earliest manuscript date. Of
course this does not mean that the sources are in chronological order, as there could be
earlier exemplars of each. As will be seen later, the quality of the pentacles, in terms of

wording and draughtsmanship, might be a better indication of the direction of transmission.

1. The earliest manuscript containing a set of pentacles (as distinct from a single
example) that I have been able to discover is a mid-13 century Latin manuscript mentioned
by Skemer, held in the Canterbury Cathedral Library (see Figure 37).1°* The existence of this
manuscript, with drawings of 35 typically Solomonic pentacles, proves that the pentacles
had arrived in the Latin world by the mid-13" century, and were not conveyed in the mid-
16% century along with the text of the Hygromanteia. This whole parchment is categorised as
an amulet by Skemer.1 In a later passage Skemer admits that this manuscript “could have
been used both as a multipurpose textual amulet and as an exemplar for the preparation of

amulets and seals, like the Canterbury amulet.1%6

A number of factors militate against the Canterbury manuscript being itself an amulet. The
most obvious is its size (51.2 x 42.7 cm) when Skemer indicates that despite variations in size,
amulets which were “small rectangles no larger than 10.0 x 15.0 were quite common.”1%7 Even
folded it would have presented a chunky 32-layer bundle 12.8 cm long. More convincing is

that it contains text instructing the owner to copy certain sections on to a pectoral amulet:

1062 A full listing of these structures can be found in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 32.
1063 The AC Text-Group for example.
1064 Canterbury Cathedral Additional MS 23. See Skemer (2006), pp. 200-201.
1065 Skemer (2006), p. 199.
1066 Skemer (2006), p. 214 is referring here to both BL Additional MS 25311, as well as Canterbury
Cathedral Additional MS 23.
1067 Skemer (2006), p. 28.
209

Scribe hos characters in uno breui et super pectus liga et statim restringet, et si his litteris non

credis.1068

It is thus very clearly an instruction for preparing amulets rather than an amulet itself. The
manuscript is however much more than this as it also contains orisons and magical
procedures. This confirms that the manuscript is not a passive amulet, but instructions for
preparing one. By way of confirmation of its Solomonic nature, its collection of 35 pentacles,
grouped into two sets of 15 and 20, is referred to as the “sigils of King Solomon” (below).
Furthermore the text contains instructions for conjuring and binding spirits, in a Solomonic

mode:

Hoc est signum regis salomonis quo demones in puteo signalauit. qui super se portauerit a
nocentibus saluus erit. et si demon ei appararuerit iubeat ei quicumque uoluerit et obediet ei
dominus enim ad hoc opus dedit salomoni: ut demones compelleret.106

Effectively this passage confirms that the manuscript is an early Solomonic evocation as it
says that this is the seal (signum) of King Solomon, and that the demons will obey he who
wears it, “for the Lord gave this seal to King Solomon, so that he might be able to compel the
demons.” Despite the pentacle similarity, it is not textually the same as the later Clavicula

Salomonis.

This manuscript includes not only instructions for control of the spirits, but also supplies the
group of 20 pentacles that the magician should wear on his chest during the evocation. The
pentacles are meant to be copied as a set on to a lamen, in the same way as the 10 or 24
pentacles are prescribed by the Hygromanteia, for the manufacture of the lamen/ourania (see

Figure 38, right hand side) which is then worn on the magician’s chest during the evocation.

Further confirmation that the Canterbury Cathedral manuscript is a text of learned magic
comes from the quality of its “well-formed Gothic textualis book hand,”1!°” and its almost
perfect layout. It is therefore most certainly not a simple amulet, nor is it something designed
to be gazed at by the owner as suggested by Skemer,!°”! after the fashion of a religious icon,

or the contemplative and meditative notae!”2 of the Ars Notoria.

1068 “ And if you do not believe this text, write these characters on an amulet, and immediately tie/ bind
it upon the breast.” Canterbury Cathedral MS 23, col. 6, lines 19-22.

1069 Canterbury Additional MS 23, col. 6 as transcribed by Skemer (2006), p. 302.

1070 Skemer (2006), p. 199.

1071 As suggested by Skemer (2006), p. 200.

1072 Complex diagrams with geometric shapes and many words related to the subject they purport to
rapidly teach. The notae are missing from many of the manuscripts of the Ars Notoria.

254

Figure 37: Solomonic pentacles in a mid-13'' century Latin manuscript, verso (detail). 1075

Figure 37a: Solomonic pentacles in a mid-13"* century Latin manuscript, recto. 1074

1073 Canterbury Cathedral Additional MS 23, f. 1v.
1074 Canterbury Cathedral Additional MS 23, f. 1r. Note the relationship of the eight spoke pentacle

form to the chi rho monogram.
255

2s In the mid 15 century, the earliest manuscript of the Hygromanteia (1440) shows
much less detailed, and more vestigial examples of the pentacles, grouped together on a
lamen (Figure 38 right hand side). The structure of the lamen or ourania in the Hygromanteia
is a key piece of evidence in determining the transmission route of pentacles from the Greek
and Jewish worlds to the Latin grimoires. The Byzantine lamen is made up of 10 or 24 ‘seals’
(depending on which manuscript source is consulted). These ‘seals’ are actually very crudely
drawn ‘thumbnails’ of the pentacles: circles just containing a single pentagram or an 8-

spoked wheel with no text, or any further detail (see Figure 38 right hand side).

In the case of the seals in the Hygromanteia, the scribe was obviously less able, or more
careless, and simply took a selection of 10 or 24 thumbnail seals to add into the Hygromanteia
lamen, rather than using the pentacles individually for specific planets, as is found in the two

following sources.

It is possible to partly identify some of the seals used in the Byzantine ourania in another
manuscript (see Figure 40).1°% It can clearly be seen that many of these are less fully formed
versions of pentacles found in the either of the sources listed below. This does not, by the way,
argue for the Clavicula being a source for the Hygromanteia, because (as already proven in

chapter 4), the transmission of the text is in the opposite direction.

There are several pages containing ‘thumbnail seals’ in manuscripts of the Hygromanteia,10”
where they are drawn separately from the lamen, but they are still drawn with very little
attention to detail. Because the seals shown in Figure 40 are to be found right at the end of
the skrying chapters, and therefore at the end of the manuscript,!°”” Marathakis suggests that
they are “otherwise irrelevant” to the Hygromanteia.1°”8 Although they have little or no text
describing their use, except for rough captioning, I contend that as these are positioned in the
same relative position as the pentacles in respect of the Second Book of the later Clavicula
Salomonis. They represent an effort by the scribe trying to, but failing, to add a pentacles
section. In terms of manuscript transmission, illustrations (such as the pentacles) seldom go
from the crude to the exquisitely detailed, and more often go from the detailed to the

rougher copy.

1075 B2, ff. 360.
1076 H, f. 31; B, ff. 17v-18; B2, ff. 360-361v.
1077 B2, ff. 360-1, which fall after the main text on ff. 344-357.
1078 Marathakis (2011), p. 93.
256

G@V®@
@@_OS
HBB

DOB
®QOE
2B

Figure 38: ‘Seals’ or proto-pentacles found in the Hygromanteia (left) as used in the ourania (right).1°”

Figure 39: The much simpler apprentice’s or skryer’s phylactery. 1°80

1079 HL, f. 31, 33.
1080 H, f. 33.
257

Fie F
/ A
vw 't nh $5

Pepaay sa
ArT spoys

Figure 40: Free-standing ‘seals’ or proto-pentacles from the Hygromanteia. Although these are drawn
with more attention to detail than Figure 38, when examined closely they can be seen to be still very

corrupt. 1081

1081 B2, ff. 360.
258

3: The earliest Clavicula Salomonis manuscript dates from the late 16 century. Examples

of pentacles taken from two 17 century manuscripts are shown in a Figure 40a.

17 ME
63

? ae: a. N
Cckiice oh, b, feet aad SOP LOREP ae: yorrer
j Led Cxpaath je Sue Saat

make Lis got ye ecveke.

: id el C /l (toit-pprarhaparen UTTSOANE
vu delentaucc de/ chaine cle Ser clu POSE
deStntacule graue 2 OF aupour ck here di

Jolel itera bouc incontinen Mehvre, emis

| . oF
tee 168
Kf Ao
ek ee wey
ne Pe
: on eet Fg”
See
Y .. be fobivé ae
Q Wy Joved acpi ik shdaed fier wb liseer” elcect eb wees ( fburlerszege? ——
ry oa : uf “ rae d ' :
le grace. ef Vbnake, Of yer yreclif Led | fer tft weer ahammar gan cats fe bn Meg
; Mon acteel boi? tlie. eweocgeee Yapng Cet
G ’

feere af fbtevt? Me ZZ Of thle fe eter ©,

oder Fortded fed wolinted
‘a Git Bi Lat :

hed a PE CERL ML Lak ® Chesect. Ff

evaty BLED

Figure 40a: Pentacles from the Clavicula Salomonis which correspond in outline to several of the
pentacles in the previous illustration from the Hygromanteia.1°82

1082 Clockwise from top right: Sloane MS 3091, f. 63; Kings MS 288, ff. 84v-85v. Both MSS are 18
century, from Text-Group Abraham Colorno.

209

In the printed edition of the Key of Solomon Mathers attempted to restore the Hebrew (Figure
41). He appears to have been less than successful, as he based his work on the flawed
assumption that the Hebrew words must follow Kabbalistic lines. His work would not have

been necessary if he had had access to the pentacles found in the fourth source.

Fig. 40 Aig Fd.

Figure 41: Pentacles from Mathers’ Key of Solomon,!°®° which correspond to pentacles in the previous
illustration from the Hygromanteia, showing the differences in the Hebrew.

1083 Mathers (1909), Plate IX.
260

4. A much more detailed version of the pentacles (with more correct Hebrew) occurs in
the Hebrew manuscript entitled MIST ABS Sepher ha-Otot, “The Book of the Signs/Sigils’

(see Figure 41a).1084

Whilst there are 58 pentacles (including 14 Hebrew and numerical kamea pentacles) in the
Sepher ha-Otot, and 44 pentacles in the Mathers’ edition of the Key of Solomon, there are only 10
or 24 crudely drawn ‘seals’ in the Hygromanteia. Although there are 44 ‘pure’ pentacles in both
the Clavicula and the Sepher ha-Otot, there are considerable differences in some pentacle
designs (four being completely different, two missing, several turned upside down and one

being a partial duplicate in Mathers).

On the whole however, the Sepher ha-Otot is by far the most reliable source. The natural
assumption would be that the initially detailed pentacles (of the Sepher ha-Otot) have been
somewhat degraded to give the less accurate pentacles of the Clavicula Salomonis, and then
completely degraded and bunched together in groups of 10 or 24 to give the set of lamen
seals in the Hygromanteia. It makes sense to conclude that the set of seals in Sepher ha-Otot has
been degraded over time by less and less able scribes, till they finally became mere
thumbnails (as in the Hygromanteia). It goes against common sense to assume that these seals
began life as mere thumbnails and then become progressively more elaborate over time,
despite the fact that the chronology of the manuscripts might indicate that.195 On this basis
the Hebrew source supplied the pentacles to both the Greek Hygromanteia and the Latin

Clavicula Salomonis.

Based on this trajectory of degradation, it is clear that, in the matter of the pentacles, the
Sepher ha-Otot, rather than the Hygromanteia, is the ancestor of the second part of the Clavicula
Salomonis. This therefore identifies a second major (Jewish) source for the Clavicula Salomonis,
a discovery which was not envisaged at the beginning of this thesis. As the pentacles occur
only in the ‘Second Book’ of some Text-Groups of the Clavicula Salomonis, it seems clear that

these have been appended at a later date.

The mid-13th century Canterbury Cathedral manuscript confirms that the pentacles were

present in the Latin world long before the Hygromanteia was translated into that language.

1084 This is in the same binding, but not part of, the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh in Rosenthal MS 12,
falling after its first 74 folios. These two texts were not related (as there are no pentacles in Sepher
Maphteah Shelomoh), but must have travelled together.

1085 The manuscripts chosen to demonstrate this evolution are merely the oldest available, rather than
the oldest example exemplar of each tradition.

261

| are
Na: f sare pat tay
PRNIMOAW ANonnal any neal sa lyes Wan ntirn na, ED

D 31 e345 | \al PPItw ounvencad powthhrn Ss oiew x -f-]
goers aeare ee splatters panel yeh ss Red0+ rola ening cal .
fog Ry ear
x \ “ er
“4p, ws yy

Aire P Be z0rlin ih qoahl Sp iin niye na | nicl “Ate ty | |
wore ian) IfoVGrrspniyt dnt ele tr ptrinil Poawlonn Danes AT rare a tine ive was ot ores
— 4
yao AG | patie ren gale Be Kye myeigay 2 eL | Ry ati prety inonnt $8139 -39 > Bh

Figure 41a: Some of the pentacles from the Sepher ha-Otot, showing a lot more detail, and probably
their original form.1°° The pentacles can be seen to match up in terms of outline design, but not
textually.

1086 Rosenthaliana MS 12, f. &.
262

The Secret Seal of Solomon

Another design needs to be identified as it is often confused with the pentacles and
talismans. This is the Secret Seal of Solomon, which has a totally different function, that of
stoppering the bottle into which a spirit has been imprisoned. The simplest form of this seal
is that shown in the Hygromanteia, which is simply a pentagram. The drawings of the Secret
Seal of Solomon became more sophisticated in the Goetia (Figure 42) and the Key of Solomon

(Figure 43) but the function was the same.

With this figure, it became obvious that although the text of the Hygromanteia is much more
detailed and complete than the text of the Clavicula Salomonis, the comparative state of the
diagrams and figures in these two sources, is quite the reverse. The only conclusion that can
be drawn from this is that although the text was preserved by successive generations of

scribes, the graphical abilities of the Greek scribes were very poor.

Mathers refers to the Secret Seal of Solomon rather misleadingly as “the Mystical Figure of
Solomon” and whilst acknowledging its function as a spirit bottle seal, gives no details about
the bottle itself, which appear to have been lost from the AC manuscripts of the Key of

Solomon, from which Mathers worked.

Mathers could not resist ‘restoring’ this figure by adding in Kabbalistic words corresponding
to the ten Sephiroth, which were never part of the design in the first place. Even less correct,
and rather unimaginative, is the string of Hebrew letters running anti-clockwise round the
figure from the top. They are not some elaborate nomina magica as one might have expected,

but simply the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in anticlockwise alphabetic order.
Complex Planetary Talismans

Finally, complex planetary talismans were often generated by magicians for particular tasks
made by combining a number of attributes of, for example, a single planet. These may have
existed in Byzantium, but their full flowering did not happen till the advent of the Latin
grimoires. They are however part of a continuum of development, sometimes incorporating
Celestial characteres and nomina magica which date back to the PGM.197 A typical planetary
talisman will often incorporate a planetary square, celestial characters, Hebrew god names
and angel names, the seal of the planetary spirit, and so on. See Figure 44 for a typical

example.

1087 Some of these characteres represent Hebrew letters. These equivalences are tabulated in Skinner
(2006), Tables L47-L50.
263

TheSecre/ deallof Salomon bye which k
Gund BS culeed bp Ke fore) dy cri:
’ emcee a omc t
there Legions ee eee sheet. face a

Figure 42: The Secret Seal of Solomon in the Goetia.1°°8 The Secret Seal of Solomon has the special
function of stoppering the bottle into which a spirit has been trapped. This design is much more
traditional than that shown in Figure 43.

Myet tcal®
Figure of
Solomon.
Figure 43: The Secret Seal of Solomon in Mathers’ Key of Solomon.1°° Redrawn and elaborated rather

too imaginatively by Mathers, it incorporates Kabbalistic words which were never part of the original
design, such as the Hebrew names of the ten Sephiroth.

1088 Sloane MS 2731, f. 22.
1089 Mathers (1909), Fig. 1.
264

\ Roguit

Pa
Ar
a

Figure 44: A typical late grimoire composite planetary talisman of Jupiter.1°% Note that the names in
the outer circle include Hebrew god names that can be found in the PGM.

1090 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 260 (1796).
265

5.4.3 Defixiones (W)

Given the importance of ‘tomb culture’ in ancient Egypt, defixiones have a long history of use.
Examples of defixiones have been found in Greece and its colonies as far back as the late 6th
century BCE.1° This practice was designed to utilise the dead (especially those who had
died a violent death, or died prematurely) to carry the instructions of the magician to the
appropriate Underworld god (typically Hermes, Ge, Hekate and Persephone) or daimon to
carry out. As such defixiones were often inserted into the mouth of the cadaver, or at the very
least buried alongside the coffin. Defixiones were not meant to benefit the occupant of the
tomb, but the magician (or his client) who placed them there. The hieratic phrase for a tomb
used in this way is “the noble (mail)-box of Osiris,” or mvét¢ in Greek. Such practices were
exported to other parts of the Graeco-Roman world with examples being found in Rome,

Athens and even Autun in Burgundy, as well as being popular amongst local magicians.1°

The oldest defixio in the PGM is PGM XL which dates from soon after Alexander the Great's
death in 323 BCE. Despite the fact that Betz, in his Table of Spells, labels it as a ‘curse,’ it is more
than that, and is in fact a defixio, designed to act against someone who robbed a tomb of its

funeral gifts. This is confirmed by the phrase “my cry for help is deposited here [in the tomb].”

Another defixio is meant to compel the love of a specific woman, with the aim of binding “her
brain and her hands and her intestines and her genitals, and her heart to love me.” To this
end it conjures “boys here who have died prematurely,” as they are presumably still free to
roam the Earth till their appointed time. As might be expected, the papyrus was found
folded up in a clay vessel and deposited in a cemetery. As if to further charge the magic, the

vessel also contained two clay figures having intercourse.19%

The material usually used to make defixiones was lead. A typical defixio text can be recognised
by the form of its words, even if the material written on is not lead. The giveaway line is “1

”

adjure you, daimon of the dead...” which in one instance is repeated no less than eight

times.1094

One very clear example of instructions to make a defixio has the full procedure of using a
defixio to secure the love/lust of a specific woman. This sequence of procedures is: making
clay images of both the magician and the woman of his desire; binding to them a lead plate;
burying it near/in a grave; constraining the untimely dead occupants of the grave to carry
out the magic; invoking the chthonic gods/ goddesses; taking back a remnant from the grave
1091 Johnston (2002), p. 42, but Faraone and Obbink (1991), p. 3 suggest 5th century BC.

1092 Marcillet-Jaubert (1979).

1093 PGM CI. 1-53.

1094 PGM XVI. 1-75.
266

to establish a magical link back to the magician; and finally saying over this link another

invocation. The magician has thoughtfully added two other versions of the nomina magica.10%®

In the invocation, the magician equates Horus with the Moirai (oipat) using isopsephy.1°% The
Moirai are often translated as the Fates, but the meaning is closer to “they who apportion your
just desserts,” rather than just arbitrary fates. The Moirai are especially relevant as, according
to Caius Julius Hyginus, they invented the seven Greek vowels. These vowels appear in long
strings in many of the invocations in the PGM, each vowel representing a planet. The addition
of vowels is what distinguished Greek from its predecessor (primarily consonantal) languages
like Phoenician or Hebrew. To take the line of thought a bit further, it is the disposition of these

planets (in astrology) which determines the fate (Moirai) of every individual.

An ancient figure, which had been treated exactly in this way as described in the rite, was
found near Antinoopolis!” in a clay vase, together with a lead defixio.1°% Both the treatment
of the figure, (which has her arms bound, with her knees drawn up, and pierced by 13
copper needles) and the Greek inscription, correspond almost exactly to the instructions in
PGM IV, 296-466. Strange as it may seem, the needles are not meant to harm the ‘victim’ like
a voodoo doll, but simply to obsess her with love for the client for whom the magic was
done. The description of these dolls by some scholars as “voodoo dolls” is both anachronistic
and misleading in terms of function.!% The text and figure date to the 3rd or 4th centuries
CE. Ritner confirms that the procedure with the copper needles is of ancient Egyptian

origin.1100

At the level of popular practice, defixiones spread from Egypt across the Roman Empire, but
defixiones do not appear as a method in either the Hygromanteia or later Latin grimoires, and
did not become part of the Solomonic method, as such they are a clear example of a

discontinuity.

1095 PGM IV. 296-466.
1096 Lines 455-456. Calculated from the numerical equivalents of the letters making up each name.
Using the Greek spelling poip@v = 1170 and ‘Qpog = 1170 (not ‘Qp as it appears abbreviated in the
papyri).
1097 Antinoopolis is a Roman city founded on the Nile by Hadrian in 130 CE. This city commemorates
Hadrian’s companion Antinoiis who had earlier drowned in the Nile nearby after a journey to
Hermopolis. The Egyptians explained to Hadrian that the mysterious drowning effectively deified
Antinotis, who had, by this, been taken to the bosom of Osiris. This reasoning is also behind the use of
actively drowned animals in many Egyptian and PGM magical rites, and their later mummification
(see chapter 7.6). Antinoopolis was a resolutely pagan city during its heyday, and actively welcomed
magicians as residents. I would not be surprised if the tombs amongst its ruins were at some future
time found to contain many magical papyri.
108 Louvre inventory E. 27145.
1099 Faraone in Classical Antiquity (1991), pp. 165-220. Faraone later qualifies this, in Faraone & Obbink
(1991), p. 25, as “without implying any connection whatsoever to the Afro-Carribean religious
practices of the island of Haiti,” thereby admitting the complete inappropriateness of his term.
1100 Ritner (2008), p. 113.

267

5.5 Spoken Words

5.5.1 Conjuration of Angels

The original meaning of é&yyeAog or G&vysdoc (angel) was simply ‘messenger’ or ‘envoy,’ with
no special religious connotation. Liddell and Scott note that it is an imported Persian word
meaning “a mounted courier, such as were kept ready at regular stages throughout Persia
for carrying royal despatches.” This word could be as easily applied to the messengers of a
king as to the messengers of a god. Angels have been an important object of invocation from
the PGM through the Hygromanteia and the European grimoires to the present day, when

their popularity with New Age enthusiasts appears to be undiminished.

The Graeco-Egyptian papyri usually only mention the four well-known Biblical angels,
Raphael, Michael, Gabriel and Uriel.!°! These have obviously been derived from Jewish
sources, and they usually only appear in a line-up of god and angel names, rather than being

individually conjured.

In the Christian era in Byzantium, the invocation of angels became a major part of magical
ritual. The Christian cult of the angels is likely to have sprung from heretical Jewish beliefs
about angels.!02 This belief was then stoked by works such as the Celestial Hierarchy by
pseudo-Dionysius. By making the angels part of a detailed hierarchy of spiritual creatures, it
was only a small step to placing them in control of an equivalent descending hierarchy of
demons. This extension of their responsibilities and powers saw them being inserted into the
sequence of Solomonic magic, and being invoked to help control the daimones/ demons that
were subsequently evoked. In the PGM the names of angels were just part of the list used to
threaten lesser spiritual creatures. In the Hygromanteia, they are part of the second procedure

in the classic Solomonic sequence of consecratio, invocatio, evocatio, ligatio, licentia.

In some parts of the Byzantine Empire, angels, particularly Michael, even became objects of
their own religious cults focussing on the angel rather than any god. Michael became the
centre-piece of his own cult which flourished at Chonae (Colossae) East of Ephesus in
Phrygia (Asia Minor). In Egypt, religious veneration even extended to Michael assuming the

role of the Nile God and being held responsible for the rain and the dew.!1%

Chapter 11 of the Hygromanteia, which deals with the invocation of angels, is definitely a core
part of the ritual, especially as the magician relies upon the angels to control the

corresponding demon. In recent literature these angels, in the context of this responsibility,

1101 The first three angels are mentioned in the Bible, the fourth in the Book of Tobit.
1102 Peers (2001), p. 8.
1103 Peers (2001), p. 7.
268

are referred to as “thwarting angels.” The preliminary conjuration of angels, for this specific
purpose, has long been a traditional magical method and appears in most of the extant

manuscripts.!104

The concept of thwarting angels dates back at least to the Book of Tobit, in which the angel
Raphael advises Tobias how to repel the demon Asmodeus by burning the liver and heart of
a certain fish. This is followed by the angel binding the demon, demonstrating that certain
angels have control over specific demons." The story is set in the 8th century BCE,
although most scholars date the appearance of the book to the 2nd century BCE. A number
of thwarting angels are also very clearly listed and identified as such in the 1st/2nd century
CE text the Testament of Solomon."! Of the 60 demons listed in that text, as least half are listed

with the name of the specific angel that binds or constrains them.1107

The procedure of using the thwarting angel is a major magical procedure. The prescribed
modus operandi is that the magician conjures the angels, by the power of God’s name, who in
their turn subdues the demon to the magician’s will, which will then carry out the actual
operation. At no point is the magician thought to have miraculous powers of his own by
which he could do these things unaided. The text of the conjuration of the angels in the
Hygromanteia is one standard format, into which the magician must supply the correct

angelic names, drawn from the tables to be found in chapter 13 of the Hygromanteia.

The use of an angel controlling the demon is a key part of procedure in the Hygromanteia, but
has almost disappeared (or become a verbal instruction) in the Clavicula Salomonis. The only
exception to this is Thomas Rudd’s version of the Lemegeton, where the thwarting angel is so
much a key part of the procedure that its sigil and name are added to the reverse side of the
demon’s sigil.1° This grimoire also recommends that a brass or iron container be made
within which the 72 spirits of the Goetia can be imprisoned (or at least threatened with
imprisonment). An engraving of this device (see Figure 32) shows the Seal of Solomon
placed over its mouth (see Figure 42), and the names (in Hebrew) of the 72 thwarting angels

which correspond to each of those 72 demons.

This resurrection of ancient Solomonic techniques by Thomas Rudd in the mid 17th century
shows a depth of knowledge about magic unequalled by the authors of other grimoire

manuscripts circulating in the same century.

1104 Tt appears in A, A2, B, B3, G, HM, P, P2 and P4. B3 even repeats the conjuration three times.
105 Tobit 8:1-3.
1106 McCown (1922); Duling (1983).
1107 The rest are controlled by specific words written on papyrus, herbs or pious expletives.
108 Skinner and Rankine (2007), pp. 71-72.
269

Angels form a considerable part of the corpus of Latin grimoires particularly in grimoires
like Juratus. Much of this material has been extensively examined by scholars such as Claire
Fanger, Richard Kieckhefer, Frank Klaassen and Benedek Lang in the recent past, and so
does not need any more reiteration here." It is worthy noting however that grimoires such
as the Ars Notoria, despite being pseudepigraphically attributed to Solomon, do not use the

Solomonic method, but instead rely on prayer and notae.1110

5.5.2 Evocation of Daimones and Spirits

One surprising example of a straightforward invocation of an infernal demon occurs as part
of an invisibility rite in the PGM. One might assume that such a rite would not normally
need this procedure. The magician initially identifies himself with Osiris as part of his

magical ‘credentials.’ Its form is very like the form of later grimoire evocations:

I am Anubis, I am Osir-Phre,! I am Osot Soronouier, I am Osiris whom Seth destroyed. Rise
up, infernal daimon, Io Erbéth Io Phobéth Io Pakerbeth Io Apomps; whatever I, NN, order you
to do, be obedient to me.1!2

Its uniqueness is in the identification of the subject of the invocation (Erbéth Phobéth
Pakerbéth) specifically as an infernal daimon(s), rather than to the nebulous category of
nomina magica, to which these words have previously been assigned. It is therefore likely that
the words used in the last two lines of this ritep MARMARIAOTH MARMARIPHEGGE to

reverse the spell are also daimon names.

The Hygromanteia, in the form that has reached us in extant manuscripts, has two methods of
conjuration. The first method is to be found in chapters 31-39, whilst the second method is to
be found in chapters 40-43.115 It is obvious that at some time in the past these two methods
came from different sources. However the general procedure is the same, with just the

nomina magica and sequencing changing.

Chapter 37 of the Hygromanteia contains a preliminary prayer followed by three evocations of
demons. One version prefaces the prayer with three Psalms (23, 102 and 121).1"4 The nomina
magica are a mixture of corrupt Greek, Hebrew and Gnostic names such as: Adonagé Melekh,

Tetragrammaton, A and W, Phané[s], Abrasas, Amoun-ameth and Adonel.

1109 Fanger (1998 and 2012), Kieckhefer (1998 and 2003), Klaassen (1998), Lang (2008).
1110 Notae are elaborate diagrams which summarise a particular subject in such a way, that in
conjunction with specific prayers, greatly facilitates the learning of that subject.
111 Osiris-Ra conjoined.
1112 PGM I. 247-262.
1113 With three additional specialised rites in chapters 44-46, which are separated from the main
conjuration by the words “The end of the art...” indicating that these three chapters were added at a
later date.
1114 KJV numbering, identified by their opening lines in B, f. 22.

270

The conjuration of 13 demons!"'5 that follows this prayer is made using the names of God,
the angels, Principalities, Thrones, Dominions,1"¥¢ the Cherubim, the Seraphim, the seven
planets, seven metals, by heaven, by earth and even by the rivers. The conjuration by the
seven planets relates to the passage earlier in the same rite where the magician has already

said a prayer to the planet which governs the day of his operation.

Finally the angels Mikhaél, Barakhéel, Phamothéel, Ourouél, Gabriél and Rhaphaél are used
to force the appearance of these 13 demons. Later in the evocation the power of “the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob and the God of Israel” is used to compel the
spirits’ appearance. This particular formula also appears in the PGM, but does not directly

indicate Jewish origins.

Chapter 37 offers a further important indication of the sequence of transmission. The
presence of senior demons like Loutzipher (Lucifer), Beelzeboul, Asmedai and Mastraoth
(ie. Astaroth), names which were usually omitted from the later Latin grimoires, shows that
in the Hygromanteia the hierarchy of hell is more intact, and therefore (as we have already
established) it comes chronologically before the Clavicula Salomonis. These four are said to
rule the four directions, or four continents. Below them, and in later texts replacing them, are
the four Demon Kings Paimon, Ariton, Egyn, Maymon or variants on those names (see
chapter 5.2.2).1"17 Other names appeared for the “Infernall kings” in 17th century grimoires,

like Sitrael, Melanta, Thamaor, Ssalour and Sitraml.118

Chapter 43 contains the General Conjuration, as used in the second method of
conjuration.!!!9 These conjurations use the names of the four Demon Kings previously

conjured and the names of God, to force the spirits to appear in a pleasant and human form.

The usual god names appear, like Alpha and Omega, Sabaoth, Elion, Tetragrammaton, and
the four standard archangels (Mikhaél, Gabriél, Ourouél, Rhaphaél)!!2° but these are
interlaced with a number of god names and angel names which do not seem to be attested in
any other grimoire. Many of them have however been formed by the Jewish practice of
simply adding ‘-iel’ to the end of a common Hebrew noun,!!2! but there are also a lot of

distinctly Greek angel names.

115 Only 12 in H.
1116 The last three categories being a very Christian addition.
1117 Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 312; Skinner and Rankine (2009), pp. 22, 44-45.
1118 Scot (1584), p. 414. See thesis Figure 52.
1119 This chapter is found in manuscripts A, B, G, H and P4.
1120 A, f. 20.
M21 Te. 39 = dag = fish. From this the angel Dagiel is formed.
2th

The wording of the second method of conjuration can be seen reflected in the “Third
Conjuration’ in the AC Text-Group of the Key of Solomon, which is meant only to be used if

the spirits are recalcitrant, or when the spirits are being tardy in coming to the circle.

At this point in the rite the lamen (phylactery) is touched by the right hand of the magician
to ensure his safety. With his left hand, he is supposed to point towards the earth in the
direction the spirits are expected to appear from, as if to point to the place where they should
materialise. When they do, the names of the four Demon Kings are used to subjugate the
demons, which also have to swear obedience in the name of their king. Finally, the king
himself is also sworn. This is obviously meant to be a one-time procedure for the first time
the magician conducts this evocation, after which the magician will simply rely upon the
oath of a particular spirit, without necessarily repeating the full conjuration sequence, to

order that spirit to do a specific task.

In the vernacular grimoires like the Goetia, the structure of the evocation is even more
formalised. The sequence of conjurations, getting stronger each time is repeated in the

pattern of conjurations in the Goetia:

The First Conjuration for to call forth any of the aforesaid spirits.

The Second Conjuration

The Constraint

The Conjuration for to Invocate the Kinge

The Generall Curse, called the spirits Chaine against all spirits that Rebell. [Lesser Curse]
The Conjuration of the fire

The Greater Curse."

Each step is designed to be stronger than the last. The evocation of demons remained, and

remains, a central staple of magical practice, across all periods.

5.5.3 Nomina magica

The most important of all spoken words used in magic are the names of the spiritual
creatures being evoked or invoked. Next in importance are the nomina magica that are used to
constrain these creatures. The pseudepigraphical Tenth Hidden Book of Moses begins by

addressing this need:

You should also take, child, for this personal vision, [a list] the gods of the days and the hours
and the weeks, those given in the book, and the twelve rulers of the months, and the seven-
letter name which is in the first book,"* and which you also have written in the Key,"!4 which
[name] is great and marvellous, as it is what brings alive all your books."

M22 Peterson (2001), pp. 48-55; Skinner and Rankine (2007), pp. 176-185. The text has been regularised
to include the glosses.
1123 Not identified.
1124 The text of this Egyptian Key has not been identified. It is an interesting thought that this Key might
in some way be connected with the Clavicula Salomonis.
125 PGM XIII. 734-741.

Ore.

The idea of a supreme name which gives life to all the other words, or books of magic, is

intriguing indeed. Great secrecy is enjoined:

...you are to keep it secret, child, for in it there is the name of the lord, which is Ogdoas,"!6 the
god who commands and directs all things, since to him angels, archangels, he-daimones, she-
daimons, and all things under the creation have been subjected."?”

This name is being put forward by the scribe as the name that commands all the other
spiritual creatures. It is possible that “Ogdoas’!”§ is just a title for the set of the eight primal

Egyptian gods, and the name it represents is actually still hidden from the reader.

The same passage continues to enumerate the other names which are needed by the
magician to enforce his will, in some cases to be used through the boy medium necessary in

evocatory skrying operations:

There are also prefaced [to that book] four other names, that of nine letters [AEE EEI OYO] and
that of fourteen letters [YSAU SIAUE IAOUS] and that of twenty-six letters
[ARABBAOUARABA] and that of Zeus [CHONAI IEMOI CHO ENI KA ABIA SKIBA
PHOROUOM EPIERTHAT]. You may use these [names] on boy-mediums who do not see the
gods, so that one [medium] will see unavoidably, and [also use them] for all spells and needs
[such as]: inquiries, prophesies by Helios, prophecies by visions in mirrors. And for the
compulsive spell [to call tardy spirits] you should use the great name which is Ogdoas, the god
who directs all things throughout the creation. [For] without him simply nothing will be
accomplished."

Such names play an important part in the magic of the PGM, Hygromanteia and the Clavicula
Salomonis. The name of nine letters (AEE EEI OYO) is obviously a version of the Greek seven
vowel invocatory combinations. ARABBA_OUARABA may have later morphed into
ABRACADABRA,1130 and IAOUS is obviously closely related to IAO. Although some of the
words changed over time, words such as IAO and SABAOTH remained constant across all

periods from the PGM onwards for the following two millennia.

The nomina magica are a particularly important part of magic. The inherent conservatism of
ancient magicians about these words comes from the desire to retain the original
pronunciation, rather than the original spelling, which anyway is often from a different and

imperfectly understood language. As Johnston concludes:

They were never supposed to be translated into more familiar languages, lest they lose their
particular power to please and attract the god to whom they belong.151

A classic case is the well-known translation of 7M" to IAW. Transliterated into the Roman

alphabet the words IHVH and IAO don’t appear to have very much in common. However if

1126 This name, being just a Neoplatonic term, is rather a disappointment.
1127 PGM XIII. 734-747.
1128 Similar to ‘Ennead.’
1129 PGM XIII. 747-755.
1130 An alternative derivation from the Hebrew Ha-Brachah-dabarah ([in the] Name of the Blessed) is
suggested by Skemer (2006), p. 25.
431 Johnston (2008), p. 154.
273

you know that‘ or “V’ can be used as a vowel ‘O’ and that * or ‘I’ can equally be pronounced
‘Y’ then you are half way to seeing how this transliteration occurred, as the two can both be
pronounced something like ‘Yah-ooh.’"'%2 The point is that determination of the original
words of the nomina magica relies much more on sound-alike considerations than the

checking of exactly the same spelling in dictionaries of culturally adjacent foreign languages.

As there are very few gaps and almost no punctuation in many of the PGM names, it is
assumed that the original reader would have known where the word breaks occurred. Not
so easy however for the modern reader without the same cultural background. Some of the
word breaks in the nomina magica proposed by Betz and his fellow editors do violence to the
original nomina. Using techniques like isopsephy/gematria it is sometimes possible to break
up these words, or at least separate out specific words from the mass of letters. Others can be
separated out by comparison with their occurrence elsewhere. A good example of this is
SESENGENBARPHARANGES which is also found divided up as SESENGEN bar
PHARANGES, a word which now takes on the structure of a Semitic name, ‘Sesengen son of
Pharanges.’ 93 Despite considerable controversy about the meaning of this name it is

possibly a Semitic rendering of the god Harpocrates, as supported by this passage:

...the figure of an infant child seated upon a lotus, O rising one, O you of many names,

SESENGENBARPHARANGES."35

yes

Harpocrates is the “child seated upon a lotus.” ‘“Sesengen bar Pharanges’ also appears in

Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi,"%6 which is no surprise because of the close connection

between Harpocrates and some Gnostic doctrines.1197

According to Brashear, the nomina magica were absent from the earlier Greek papyri in the

centuries BCE, and first started to appear only in the 1st century of the Christian era.1!°8
The nomina magica resolve into several types:

a. Names of spirits, demons, angels or gods that may be either Egyptian or Greek in

1132 The correct pronunciation of the Hebrew word Mn was allegedly lost by the Jewish community
shortly before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, but the Greek IAW might in fact offer
some help in reconstructing its pronunciation.
1133 ‘Bar’ is Aramaic for ‘son of’ as ‘ben’ is Hebrew for the same designation.
1134 FHarpocrates is the rising sun, and the child seated upon the lotus with his finger to his mouth in a
gesture of silence.
1135 PGM II. 107-108.
1136 Nag Hammadi, I, 2 and IV, 2.
1137 Schwartz (1996), p. 254 suggests that this name relates to ssn mgw, ‘Sesen the Mage,’ on a Sassanian
seal-amulet who was associated with date palm fronds, but this seems a little distant from the name
under consideration.
1138 Brashear (1995), p. 3430.

274

origin like ‘Erbeth Pakerbeth.’!°° As Porreca states:

...the celestial and infernal hierarchies have been part of the traditional sources of
potency for ritual practitioners from the very beginning of the Western magical
tradition...the names of angels and/or demons were seen as inherently powerful in
themselves.1140

Hence the names were not to be changed or translated. This results in a lot of
transliteration, which often obscures their original source whilst retaining their

sound.

b. Words ending in -el,-iel, -im or -oth, implying a definite Hebrew origin.1"*! These are
then often transliterated. For example Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew god

name MNS.

c. Strings of Greek vowels which rely upon the associations built up between each vowel,
its angel, musical note, planet, god/ goddess, etc. PGM V. 24-30 and VII 766-779 tell
exactly how these vowels should be pronounced or sung. The doctrine of the Greek
vowels which relies on musical harmonics and other measures familiar to ancient

Greek philosophers proves that these particular nomina magica are of Greek origin.

d. The instruction to hiss or make popping or barking sounds. These relate to the
traditional animal associations of specific gods, such as the snake (hiss) and crocodile
(pop) of Harpocrates, or the dog (bark) of Hekate. These are exactly the sounds the

magician was to make, which called to mind, and helped invoke, a specific god.

e. Palindromes such as Ablanathanalba."' These words really only have a visual effect.
When they are pronounced they are not obviously palindromic. Their ingredients are

however often extensions of real Greek or Hebrew words.

fr: Letters arranged in geometric shapes like triangles or ‘wings.’ These are often a single
word, repeated on each line, with one letter successively chopped off it, till only one

letter remains at the final point. See Figure 34.

1139 These two words definitely relate to demons (see PGM I. 252-3). If they are of Hebrew origin then a
possible derivation may relate to N25 ‘to flow out,’ in its masculine form of J meaning a ‘flask.’ NYS is
‘to be terrified.” The most intriguing possible translation is ‘the terrifying flask,’ which might relate to
Solomons traditional threat to imprison the spirits in a metal flask which is then thrown into a lake or
the sea.
1140 Porreca (2010), p.17.
141 The -el ending is the name of god El added to a stem to form an angelic name. The endings -im
and -oth are respectively the male and female plural endings in Hebrew.
14 The singing of the seven vowels was an important invocatory skill and very pleasant to listen to,
according to Pseudo-Demetrius in On Style, 71: “In Egypt the priests, when singing hymns in praise of
the gods, employ the seven vowels, which they utter in due succession; and the sound of these letters
is so euphonious that men listen to it in preference to flute and lyre.”
1143 This is claimed in the text of PGM V. 475 to be Hebrew.

272

g. Words from other languages as yet unrecognisable or unrecognised, sometimes
referred to as voces mysticae for that reason. I believe that very few of these words are
arbitrary inventions, but simply have as yet unrecognisable roots. A fertile source

might have been the copying of Demotic words into Greek.

One classic case of three apparently unrecognisable and unattested ‘nonsensical’ words is
“Thoulal, Moulal and Boulal.” They were found in a Yale papyrus containing some Coptic
Psalms which was published in 1974. The editor assumed they were nomina magica and
probably the names of spirits. Only later, when correctly transliterated were they recognised
as the Coptic version of the names of the three magi (or magicians) who visited Jesus, soon
after his birth. As magi/magicians they were very legitimate additions to an invocation by
the Coptic magician who wrote the papyrus.!"4 Their names anyway derive from a Greek
manuscript written in Alexandria circa 500 CE, at the end of the PGM period." I believe
there are many more cases like this, where apparent nomina magica have real meaning,

especially where transliteration from one language to another has been at play.

On the whole Greek, Hebrew and Egyptian words provide the bulk of the derivations of the
nomina magica. Babylonia appears to only lend a few god/ goddess names like Erishkigal, and
none of the nomina magica except eulamo (‘eternal’) to the PGM. It is tempting to ascribe a
Gnostic origin to some of the words, but when they are analysed these words are simply
either Hebrew, Greek, or a Greek rendering of Hebrew or Demotic. It is most likely that the
Gnostics borrowed from the magicians, rather than the reverse, as magicians were often the
founders of Gnostic groups. Jackson is quite certain that the direction of borrowing was from

the magical texts to Gnosticism, not the other way round:

I think that we can indeed be quite sure that the direction of the borrowing runs, as in the
Sethian texts...from the magicians to the author of the Pistis Sophia and not the reverse, for, as in
the three cases above, where any meaning at all has been wrung from them, the words
[aberamentho, agrammachamarei and bainchodoch] are quite peculiar and appropriate to a magical
context but not to a Gnostic one.

...one or all of the forms attested in the magic papyri are the original(s), of which those that
occur in Gnostic literature are derivatives.

... The case for derivation of the Sethian Gnostic names Ialdabaoth and Barbelo from the magic
tradition is strengthened by the sheer number of other cases in which names in the Sethian
Gnostic system either undeniably or at least quite possibly [are] derived from the incantatory
voces magicae and nomina barbara of the magicians.'46

As an example of how apparently meaningless nomina magica may actually have a concrete
meaning, and how a knowledge of magical methods may help in such an analysis, I would

like to address a line that has caused considerable controversy. Perhaps the oldest Greek

1144 Brashear (1995), p. 3438.
1145 Translated into Latin as Excerpta Latina Barbari.
1146 Jackson (1989), pp. 70-72, 75.
276

nomina magica are the Ephesian Letters which also appear in two PGM passages:!!47

adoktov KatdoKiov Arg TETPAE AGLVALEVEDG AOLOV
Many interpretations have been proposed for this sentence. My interpretation is that it is
actually a spirit binding (which probably related to the statue upon whose pediment the
inscription was first seen in Ephesus).1!48 It is made up of the following ingredients:

Askios means ‘unshaded,’ and Kataskios means ‘in shadow.’ These first two words form

an attractive contrast of opposites, and this meaning has therefore attracted most
scholarly approbation.

But I think that the exact spelling produces a more cogent result: Askion means “empty
threats,’ such as you might use to bind a spirit.

Kata means (amongst other possibilities) “down’ so kataskion then might mean ‘threats
expressed downwards,’ to the occupants of the Underworld.1!49

Lix Tetrax is the name of the fourth demon catalogued in the Testament of Solomon.115°

Damnameneus is clearly identified as a goddess in the PGM, specifically the goddess of
the fourth hour.151

Aisios means auspicious or opportune.!!52

Put this together, and the Ephesia Grammata might be translated as:

“1 threaten and [bind] down Lix Tetrax [by] the auspicious goddess Damnameneus.”
Assuming, for the moment, that the Testament of Solomon demons (after Ornias) are attributed
sequentially to the hours,!!5> then the goddess and the demon both relate to the fourth hour.
One well known magical formula is the use of the angel who thwarts the corresponding

demon. This is highly significant as it means that this goddess may have been the thwarting

1147 PGM VII. 215-18; LXX. 4-25.

1148 Tf this interpretation is correct then archaeologists might well find something rather interesting
under the pediment on which the Ephesia grammata were inscribed, if such a pediment can be found.
149 Tf “shadowy” is taken as the meaning of kataskion then the first two words may read “dark
threats.”

1150 Ornias is not part of the series as he was the assistant demon who introduced Solomon to each of
the other demons in turn. Lix Tetrax is described in the Testament of Solomon as a dust-devil, said to be
the “offspring of the Great One,” and to reside in the “horn of the Moon in the South.” He “makes
whirlwinds; brings darkness to men; sets fields on fire; destroys homesteads and heals Hemitertian
fever.”

1151 Damnameneus is referred to as an “avenging goddess, strong goddess [in the] rite of ghosts...”
(PGM IV. 2780). Damnameneus is also the Egyptian ruler of the 4th hour of the day in a Helios
invocation (PGM II. 510-511). She is also featured amongst the nomina magica on the underside of a
throne (PGM II. 164) and on a Stele of Aphrodite (PGM VII. 215-18) which confirms her goddess
nature.

1182 The spelling is uncertain, being either asion or aisia. But related words produce similar meanings
such as happiness, luck, good omen, or destined. Therefore, the interpretation of “auspicious or
opportune” seems to be correct. If however the correct spelling is Gowoc, then ‘Asian’ in the sense that it
was in ancient times applied to Lydia would be correct. In which case “auspicious Damnameneus”
should read “Lydian Damnameneus,” which is also quite appropriate, as Lydia is just a short distance
inland from Ephesus, which is where Pausanias claims these words were first found.

153 Discussion of the evidence for that attribution would take the discussion too far away from the
main points being made.

277

angel/goddess corresponding to Lix Tetrax, whose job it was to bind him. Faraone and
Kotansky add support for this role for the goddess by suggesting that Aapvapevevc “seems to

derive from dapvé/-aCo (“Tamer”). 1154

If this interpretation proves to be correct, then this most mysterious of magical sentences is
finally seen as a cogent binding formula, rather than merely a string of meaningless nomina
magica. This is just one demonstration of how a knowledge of magical techniques (in this case
binding and the use of a thwarting angel/goddess of the same hour) may help in the

decipherment of nomina magica. A number of other examples could easily have been instanced.

The attempt to preserve the original language of the nomina magica is rooted in the concept
that the gods and other spiritual creatures best understand their original language. Any
changes to this may render the invocation unintelligible to the god or spiritual creature
concerned, and therefore be ineffective. This is reinforced by Iamblichus’ 3rd century CE

comments on the use of such nomina magica in Egyptian magic and Mystery Religions:

But “why, of meaningful names, do we prefer the barbarian [foreign names] to our own?” For
this, again, there is a mystical reason. For, since the gods have shown that the entire dialect of
the sacred peoples such as the Assyrians and the Egyptians is appropriate for religious
ceremonies, for this reason we must understand that our communication with the gods should
be in an appropriate tongue. Also, such a mode of speech is the first and the most ancient. But
most importantly, since those who learned the very first names of the gods merged them with
their own familiar tongue and delivered them to us, as being proper and adapted to these
[religious] things, forever we [must] preserve here the unshakeable law of tradition...

It is therefore evident from this that the language of sacred peoples is preferred to that of other
men, and with good reason. For the names do not exactly preserve the same meaning when
they are translated; rather, there are certain idioms in every nation that are impossible to
express in the language of another. Moreover, even if one were to translate them, this would not
preserve their same power... For all these reasons, then, they [the barbarian names] are adapted
to [communicate with] the superior beings.155

Of course the result of conserving the ancient pronunciation is that the spelling gets more
and more corrupted as the words are passed from one culture to another and from one
alphabet to another, especially in the case of Egyptian to Greek, via the medium of Coptic.
Coptic is effectively Egyptian words spelled in Greek, with the addition of at least seven
further letters designed to convey sounds that don’t exist in Greek. It is for that reason that
many of the passages in the PGM have their nomina magica glossed in ‘Old Coptic’ by the
scribe or the original owner of the papyrus, so that Greek readers will know how to
pronounce words that were originally Egyptian. The upside of this is that the presence of a
Coptic gloss almost guarantees that the original words were Egyptian. Secondly, it leaves the
reader with a reasonable chance of getting the pronunciation right. The downside is that the

hieratic spelling (and therefore the meaning) of the word may well be lost.

1154 Faraone and Kotansky (1988), p. 264.
1155 Jamblichus, De Mysteriis VIL. 4-5 in Clarke et al, (2003), pp. 296-299.
278

Although nomina magica are names whose uncorrupted derivation is in many cases
unknown, I believe they are not deliberately fabricated nonsense syllables, as their function
was to coerce spirits, gods or angels. To be an effective form of coercion they must have
originally had a meaning, rather than just being nonsense.!!5 These words will, in many

cases, be names, as the theory behind such coercion falls into three name-related methods:

i) The named entity can be used to coerce the lesser entity, as it is of a higher rank,
(i.e. the name of an arch-demon may be used to coerce a lesser demon, or the

name of a god used to coerce a daimon) or the name of a thwarting angel.

ii) The name of a famous magician or exorcist who in the past has effectively
commanded the spirits is used, such as Solomon, or even Jesus. In this context the
operation is not necessarily of Jewish or Christian derivation, but simply utilising

the name of a famous magician to terrify the spirit.

iii) A more Egyptian approach to this appears with the identification of the magician

with such an ancient worthy or god, like the claim “I am Paphro Onosophris...”

All these procedures are later found passed on in both the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula
Salomonis. If we suspend disbelief temporarily, it might seem strange that spirits would fall
for such false claims made by a magician acting in the name of a dead magician, who the
current performer has never met. The explanation for this is threefold: that the spirit is
unwilling to risk it; that the spirit cannot read the magician’s mind or that the power of
words is real in these realms. All three explanations have been given at various points in the
history of magic. The conclusion is that coercion can only be effective if the names named are
correctly pronounced, have some basis in real words, and represent beings of a superior rank
to the entity being evoked. It is therefore certain that, with this in mind, no competent
magician would consciously generate nonsense syllables for the purpose of coercion, as that

would be self-defeating.

Therefore, in many cases, the nomina magica are proper nouns like Solomon or ‘Sesengen bar
Pharanges.’ The latter is obviously a proper noun, as it has the structure of ‘Sesengen son of
Pharanges.’ Pharanges may be related to Phre, and Harpocrates was the son of the sun

(Horus or Phre).1157

156 No ancient magician would have thought that some random nursery nonsense syllables would
have been effective in ordering around a recalcitrant, and possibly dangerous, spirit or demon.

1157 Sesengen bar Pharanges also occurs in Nag Hammadi III, 2 and IV, 2 as well as PGM IV, 964-67. This
name is sometimes taken into Greek as Seseggen bar Pharagges, where ‘vy’ is written ‘yy.’ Scholem
suggested that it was an angel’s name, implying ‘the purifier,, which seems inherently unlikely.
Mastrocinque (2005), p. 120 suggests ‘Sesenggen son of Tartarus’ (assuming Pharanges = pharangos =
Tartarus), but that also seems unlikely.

279

Rebecca Lesses summarises the possible derivations of these nomina magica as:

The names consist of proper names of particular deities and angels, name-formulas (logia) such
as “Sesengen bar Pharanges,” strings of letters of the Hebrew or Greek alphabet (especially
vowels), permutations of the Tetragrammaton, and combinations of the names [or titles] of God
with other letters.1158

Daniel and Maltomini admit that:
It is a well-known fact that editorial division and analysis of magical words is often nothing
other than guess work, among other reasons because so many are unparalleled, because the
ancient texts for the most part lack word division, and because much is meaningless gibberish
that cannot be explained by Egyptian, Hebrew and other languages. A number of the shorter

“words” listed below will of necessity be wrong divisions. Also a number of the longer “words”
must occasionally contain shorter, meaningful elements that have not been correctly isolated.1%?

As such there is much scope for hunting down precursors and incorrupt forms of such

names, a process that has been begun by Porreca.11©

The correct pronunciation of the nomina magica is not often specified, but just one passage in

the PGM actually gives what that scribe considered to be the ‘correct’ pronunciation:

the “A” with an open mouth, undulating like a wave;

the “O” succinctly, as a breathed threat,

the “IAO” [directed] to earth, to air, and to heaven;

the “E” like a baboon [screech?];

the “O” in the same way as above;!61

the “E” with enjoyment, aspirating it,

the “Y” like a shepherd, drawing out the pronunciation."

When Mesopotamian, Greek and Semitic magic were added to the mix, so the range of
words of power increased from just Egyptian ones by the addition of such names as Hekate,
Ereshkigal, Nebutosualeth, Abraham, Adonai, Solomon, Moses, Sabaoth, Anael or Boel.!!%
These names, with a few exceptions (for example Nebutosualeth), remain part of the

Solomonic magical literature up to the present day.

The Eighth Book of Moses is very conscious that it draws its nomina magica from different
linguistic sources and makes a determined effort to identify them. This is not so obvious in

Betz’s continuous text translation, but comes to life when the lines are separated out:

1158 Lesses (1996), p. 52.

159 Daniel and Maltomini (1991), p. 325.

1160 Porreca (2010), pp. 23-25.

161 This suggests that O and W should be pronounced in the same way.

1162 PGM V. 24-30.

1163 See Brashear (1995), p. 3396. Bo’el is mentioned in the mediaeval parts of the Sepher ha-Razim, and
occurs later in several European grimoires.

280

I call on you, lord, [whose name is]

[written] in ‘birdglyphic’:16 ARAT;

[written] in hieroglyphic: LAILAM;

[written] in Hebraic: ANOCH?! BIATHI ARBATH#6

[written in] BERBIR:"67 = ECHILATOUR BOUPHROUMTROM;

[written] in Egyptian: ALDABAEIM;

[written] in Baboonic: ABRASAX; [85]

[written] in Falconic: CHI CHI CHI CHI CHI CHI CHI TIPH TIPH TIPH
CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA;1168

[written] in Hieratic: MENE PHOIPHOTH.11

Even though the language labels might seem a little strange, like “Baboonic’ for Gnostic
Coptic, there is no doubting a scholarly striving by the original scribe to correctly define the
nomina magica, their pronunciation, and their origins. There were often warnings in Hermetic
and Neoplatonic texts (such as Jamblichus’ well-known warning) not to translate or change

the spelling of such words of power.!!70

Some gods have their own specific formula, which can then be used to identify the god being
invoked, such as the invocation to Typhon/Set which uses “I6 Erbéth 16 Pakerbéth 16

Bolchoséth.”171

Some words are derived from a description of the original word, such as ApBaOiaw, Arbathiao.
This is derived from the Hebrew AYS"8 arboth, meaning ‘four’ and law derived from the
Hebrew IHVH or Min": in other words this is yet another Greek form of the four-lettered
name of God, IAO or M0, THVH.

Transmission of the Names of Gods and Spirits Trans-culturally

164 The following seven languages may in fact be seven different scripts, but obviously it is not just a
case of straight transliteration. They have here been split into separate lines for ease of comparison.
The inclusion of all these forms is an attempt to preserve all the clues necessary to the correct
pronunciation of these nomina magica by the scribe. Hieroglyphic and Hebrew are subject to ordinary
linguistic analysis. Egyptian is likely to be a phonetic rendering of the commonly spoken Egyptian of
the time (maybe Coptic?). Baboonic is a code word for Gnostic or hermetic literature, as the baboon =
Thoth = Hermes = Hermetic or Gnostic. Hieratic is simply the script form of ancient Egyptian.
Falconic seems like an onomatopoeic rendering of a bird’s cry. The positioning of ‘Birdglyphic’ at the
beginning suggests that it performed a specific function in relation to the other languages rather than
being a language on its own. It seems possible that it was prefaced by the glyph of a bird designed to
indicate a special function, possibly a method of pronunciation for all the following languages.

1165 Should be ‘anoki’ according to Betz (1996), p. 174.

1166 The last word has been divided, as ARBATH clearly means ‘four’ in Hebrew. It relates to the Greek
ApBabian, meaning the fourfold god Iae.

1167 T suggest that this is yet another linguistic category (Berber) that has been mistakenly worked into
the text as if it were part of a long nomina magica.

68 The “CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA CHA” was originally placed after the hieratic by the
editor, but is clearly an overflow from the Falconic line, and so has been moved up one line, where it
now forms a symmetrical nomina magica. This name now repeats its elements in the familiar 7-3-7
format.

1169 The last word has been split. PGM XH, 81-89.

1170 Tamblichus, De Mysteriis VII. 4-5.

1171 See PGM IV. 3267.

281

One of the first things that need to be done in order to map this transmission of nomina
magica fully is the production of lists or tables of these names, drawn from all available texts
and grimoires. One of the first attempts to do this was Crowley's 777 followed more recently
by my Complete Magician’s Tables.\72 The second necessary step is the matching of these
names, including their variants, across different sources. This has been begun with Porreca’s
excellent study of just three sources.!!73 However his study only listed obviously matching
names, rather than exhaustively listing all possible gods, angels, daimones, demons or
spirits. Obviously this table could be widened much further. Such a tabulation of the names
of spiritual creatures is key for showing the dependency and transmission of texts, as these

words are (in theory) the most jealously guarded/ preserved parts of any invocation.

In Porreca’s study, exactly half of the names identified were of Hebraic origin.!”4 Greek was
the next most common language,!!” then Egyptian, as might have been expected. Only about
three names may have been Persian/Babylonian, and one name of possibly Muslim origin,
the latter confirming the very minor direct influence that the relatively late-occurring Islam had
on European grimoires.!!76 Full extraction of the names in the PGM would have boosted the
Greek numbers.'!”” This table has been extended to include names found in the Goetia,
Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis. A subset of this table has been included in Appendix 5 as

confirmation of the extensive commonality of these nomina magica.

The outcome is that the PGM borrowed as much as half of its god and angel names from
Hebraic sources, with less coming from the Greek tradition. From Egypt came some less
easily identified Demotic words plus a few of the major gods of Egypt. These proportions
varied over time. In the 13th century grimoire Juratus,!”8 of the 100 god names analysed,
only 17 were of definite Hebraic provenance, and 49 were of definite Greek origin,!!” thus

neatly reversing the percentages achieved by Porreca.

In the Hygromanteia, and later grimoires, the mix of Hebraic and Greek languages between
them constitutes most of the nomina magica. The sheer persistence of these names adds

considerable weight to the continuous transmission of magic across a number of cultures

1172 Skinner (2006), Table M.

73 Porreca (2010), pp. 23-25.

1174 21-22 out of 43 names. Porreca (2010), p. 25.

1175 With seven to nine names identified by Porreca as Greco-Roman, which are in all likelihood just
Greek.

1176 Some later names such as Maymon may have Arabic roots.

1177 A full index to the names in PGM is still a major desideratum. I have however, in Appendix 2, listed
most of the main god, angel and daimon names to be found in each PGM rite, with a selection of the
most frequently occurring nomina magica.

78 Skinner (2006), Table M7.

79 The remaining 34 names were of doubtful origin, but most likely either Greek or Hebrew.

282

with very little change beyond scribal and transliteration errors.

The seven angels corresponding to the seven planets and Jewish god names, like IHVH
Sabaoth of Hebraic origin, are perhaps the most widespread names, supplemented by Greek
words like Primeumaton which easily survive into 17th century and later grimoires.
Knowledge of both these languages became much more widespread after the Renaissance,
and this would have meant that the origins of many of these names would still have been

understood.

By Porreca’s count there are 28 names which appear both in the Munich Handbook,"!8° and
in the PGM, but only 15 names that are shared between the Picatrix and the PGM. In fact only
five names are shared exclusively by the Picatrix and the PGM. This confirms the fact that the
names of the PGM feed into the Solomonic ritual stream much more strongly than into the

astral magic of the Picatrix.
As Porreca opines:!81

...with the study of a broader range of magical collections, a clearer picture will emerge of the
threads of cultural continuity that link the magical practice of three cultures"™®* that were
otherwise so different in terms of their public religious affiliations.

This highlights the fact that, to a large extent, transmission of the nomina magica was

independent of the religious milieu in which the magician found himself.

Greek and Hebraic names (which would have been basically still understood by most
educated Christians from the Renaissance to about the mid-20th century) survive, whilst
Egyptian names, for the most part did not. It is extraordinary that very common Egyptian
nomina (like Pakerbeth) were lost from the corpus at an early stage, despite Egypt’s popular

image as the fount of all magic.

The establishment of such lines of transmission militates against the popular conception that

such names as are used in magic were on the whole gibberish or simply made up.

Another study which analyses the frequency of divine names across nine different European
Solomonic grimoires was undertaken by Julien Véronése.1!83 In this all sources are European,
and all confined to the 13th-14th centuries, so we do not learn much about the transmission

of names from culture to culture, but we do get a very clear picture that of all the Solomonic

1180 Kieckhefer (1997). This manuscript should be more correctly referred to by its incipit: Liber
Incantationum, exorcismorum et fascinatiorum variorum...
1181 Porreca (2010), p. 29.
182 Reyptian, Hebraic and Greek.
1183 Véronése (2010), pp. 30-50.
283

texts analysed, the Clavicula Salomonis itself has the widest range of divine names,!!*

confirming that it is the most representative grimoire of the Solomonic tradition.

5.5.4 Historiola and Commemoration

The procedure of reciting an abridged version of the myths associated with the god being
invoked or commemorating their deeds is a well-established practice in both religion and
magic. But claiming to be that god is only an often repeated technique of the latter. In the
same vein, claiming to be a famous magician, like Nectanebus, Solomon or Jesus, was
designed to impress the spiritual creature that was being invoked, so repeating historiola
associated with either the god or the famous magician whose name was being invoked was a

perennial technique. This was particularly true of Solomon’s name.

The procedure of reciting an abridged version of the myths associated with the god being
invoked dates from ancient Egypt and is also an enduring tradition. The thinking behind it is
either to remind the magician of the story or demonstrate to the god knowledge of its
background, thereby making it more compliant to the commands of the magician. Just as the
god had triumphed in some previous contest, so now he was expected to aid the magician
and triumph again.18 Mentioning the names of previous famous magicians is designed to
encourage the god/spirit to assume that the present magician has inherited their abilities,

and therefore ought to be obeyed.1186

In this context, it is worth mentioning that in a number of spells the name of ‘Jesus’ is
recalled (as he had a considerable reputation as an exorcist and commander of demons). In
one episode a magician uses his name as a spirit-cowering credential as well as that of Paul,
one of his disciples, who had also developed magical abilities. The spirit states categorically
that it recognised the power of the name ‘Jesus’ and comprehended that of ‘Paul,’ but
refused to cooperate with the exorcist, as it did not recognise his power:

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that
had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came
out of them. Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over
those who had [been possessed by] evil spirits, saying, ‘I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul
proclaims.’ Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit
said to then in reply, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? Then the man with the
evil spirit leapt on them, mastered them all, and so overpowered them that they fled out of the
house naked and wounded.1187

1184 The only names missing from the specific copy of the Key analysed by Véronése are Abba, Alla,
Semiforas, and Usyon out of 39 possible divine names.
1185 Brashear (1995), p. 3395.
1186 Preisendanz in his Uberlieferungsgeschichte 230.29, lists 30 such names of magicians including Pitys
(or Bitys), Astrampsychos, Ostanes, and Zoroaster, all of which are found fulfilling this function in
PGM.
187 Acts 19: 11-16. New Revised Standard Version.

284

At this point it appears that even the spirit, as well as the sons of the Jewish high priest,
acknowledged Jesus’ reputation and abilities as a magician, despite being less than

competent themselves.

Justin Martyr makes it clear that some names work, and some names (predominantly human
names such as St. Paul) do not:

But though you exorcise any demon in the name of any of those who were amongst you --
either kings, or righteous men, or prophets, or patriarchs -- it will not be subject to you. But if
any of you exorcise it in [the name of] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob, it will perhaps be subject to you. Now assuredly your exorcists, I have said, make use
of craft when they exorcise, even as the Gentiles do, and employ fumigations and
incantations.1188

This method also occurs in the Hygromanteia where the magician, usually citing Biblical

figures, adjures the spirit:

By commandment of the living God, by the purity of John the Baptist...118°

I conjure you by the faith of Abraham the Patriarch, by the service of Melchizedek the Just and
by the order of Aaron."

Typical passages where the magician commemorates the actions of previous magicians in the
Clavicula Salomonis, and embeds them in a historiola, include references to the skills of Joseph

and Moses:

I conjure ye by the most potent Name of EL ADONAI TZABAOTH, which is the God of
Armies, ruling in the Heavens, which Joseph invoked, and was found worthy to escape from
the hands of his Brethren. ...which Moses invoked, and he was found worthy to deliver the
People [of] Israel from Egypt, and from the servitude of Pharaoh. ...which Moses invoked, and
having struck the Sea, it divided into two parts in the midst, on the right hand and on the left.
...which Moses invoked and all the waters returned to their prior state and enveloped the
Egyptians, so that not one of them escaped to carry the news into the Land of Mizraim.™!

Such commemoration of the actions of great magicians of the past continues to be part of

grimoire magic to the present day.

5.5.5 License to Depart

The licence to depart is a key part of any magical rite, and one of the five stages of any
Solomonic rite.1!°2 The point of it is to dismiss the spirits that have been evoked, and to
ensure that they do not harm the magician and his disciples when they leave the circle. There
are many tales of what happens if the magician (or his disciples) steps over the boundary of
the circle or leave before the spirits have retired to their own abode. A classical example of

this is related in the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini in which he participates in a

1188 Justin Martyr 85.3.
1189 B2, f. 344v.
1190 H{, f, 29.
1191 Mathers (1909), pp. 26-27. Book I, Chapter V.
1% Consecratio, invocatio, evocatio, ligatio, licentia.
285

Solomonic evocation in the Colosseum in Rome.!!% The priest responsible for the ceremony
only orders the burning of asafoetida at the end (to drive away the spirits) rather than
properly licensing their dismissal. The result is that a number of the spirits accompany

Cellini and his terrified skryer on their way home.11%

There are other techniques for banishing demons, some of them more concrete, for example
those mentioned in the Testament of Solomon and The Book of Tobit, but procedures like the
burning of catfish entrails are presumably used only in dire emergencies.1!% One common
denominator in all the dismissals is a bad smell, be it asafoetida, ape’s dung or the burning
fish entrails,19°6 accompanied with appropriate words. It makes a sort of sense that the gods
and spirits rejoice in the burning of sweet smelling incense, and are by these encouraged to

come, but cannot abide a bad stench.1197

Such dismissals are present from dynastic Egyptian, through the PGM, the Hygromanteia and

the Clavicula Salomonis to the later European grimoires.

Appearing amongst the PDM, the following method is obviously of ancient Egyptian

provenance:

If you wish to send them all away:1!% You should put ape’s dung on the brazier. They all [will]
go away to their place. And you should recite the spell for dismissing then also...”Go well, go
in joy!”

Another Egyptian dismissal is expressed simply as a farewell:

His dismissal: Formula: “Farewell, farewell, the good oxherd, Anubis, Anubis, the son of a wolf
and a dog, ...” Say [it] seven times.12°

The provision to say it seven times indicates the importance attached by the Egyptians to the

dismissal.

The word commonly used in these texts for a dismissal of a god or a spirit when its services
are no longer required was dnoAvoa. Bell, Nock and Thompson suggest that:

Possibly G0AU® here implies that the power addressed is fettered by the magician and released
for a particular task as it were on ticket of leave. ..12°1

1193 Tt is possible that the Colosseum was chosen as a site to evoke spirits because of the large amount
of blood known to have been spilled there. See also Kieckhefer (1997), pp. 186-189 for a more
psychological viewpoint.
1194 Symonds (1946), chapter LXIV.
1195 Tobit 8: 2-3.
1196 Fish were also thought to be impure in Egypt.
97 For this reason it seems likely that the prescription of sulphur as an invocatory incense for
Saturday in the Heptameron is likely to be an error.
1198 This applies to invoked gods, living men, spirits, drowned men, and dead men, as listed in the
previous lines of the procedure.
1199 PDM xiv. 85-86.
1200 PDM xiv. 422-424.
1201 Bell, Nock and Thompson (1931), pp. 261.

286

However the word dazodbo is used here in a very specific technical sense. It means “to set free
or release from the bonds” that were imposed on the spirit by the previous part of the

ceremony (the ligatio). The Licentia follows on immediately after the Ligatio.

Dismissing a god is more complex, and in the case of Kronos, the following formula is to be

recited:

ANAE OCHETA THALAMNIA KERIDU KOIRAPSIA GENECHRONA SANELON STGARDES
CHLEIDO PHRAINOLE PAIDOLIS IAEL, go away, master of the world, forefather [of the
gods]; go to your own places in order that the universe be maintained. Be gracious to us,
dordie02

A more polite form is:

Dismissal: “1 give thanks to you because you came in accordance with the command of god. I
request that you keep me healthy, free from terror and free from demonic attacks, ATHATHE
ATHATHACHTHE ADONAL Return to your holy places.” 120

This is almost exactly the wording of one 17th century European grimoire dismissal (see below).

Another dismissal at the end of a lamp skrying ceremony, begins by changing the hand in
which the wand is held by the magician, and concludes with the usual request not to harm

the magician or his assistant(s):

And after the enquiry, if you wish to release the god himself, shift the aforementioned ebony
staff [wand], which you are holding in your left hand, to your right hand; and shift the sprig of
laurel, which you are holding in your right hand, to your left hand; and extinguish the burning
lamp; and use the same burnt offering while saying:

Be gracious unto me, O primal god,

O elder-born, self-generating god.

I adjure the fire which first shone in the void;
I adjure your power which is greatest over all;
I adjure him who destroys even in Hades,
That you depart, returning to your ship,!*
And harm me not, but be forever kind.12%

A dismissal of Sarapis at the end of one skrying operation also includes the boy skryer:

Go, lord, to your own world and to your own thrones, to your own vaults, and keep me and
this boy from harm, in the name of the highest god, SAMAS PHRETH.12%

After the successful invocation of the daimon the Headless One, the magician is instructed to

release this daimon and dismiss him in an honourable fashion:

After you have learned all you want, you will release him, doing honor to him in a worthy manner.
Sprinkle dove’s blood round about, make a burnt offering of myrrh, and say, “Depart, lord,
CHORMOU CHORMOU OZOAMOROIROCH KIMNOIE EPOZOI EPOIMAZOU
SARBOENDOBAIACHCHA IZOMNEI PROSPOI EPIOR; go off, lord, to your seats, to your
place, leaving me strength and the right of audience with you.”

1202 PGM IV. 3120-3124.
1203 PGM LXII. 36-41.
1204 The ship that ferries Ra (Phre) across the sky and through the Underworld.
1205 PGM I. 334-347. Poetic contractions in the translation text, like ‘e’en’ for ‘even,’ have been
expanded.
1206 Shamash Ra, the sun god. PGM V. 41-49.
287

The burning of myrrh at the dismissal seems contrary to the instructions of later grimoires
who advise dismissing the demons with a bad smell like asafoetida, but the request for

continued “right of audience” is certainly consistent with such texts.

One rite which was erroneously described as a “charm,”!°7 is in fact Solomon’s invocation to

be said into a skryer’s ear in order to put him into a trance. It ends with a classic dismissal:

Dismissal of the lord: into the ear of NN [the skryer]: “ANANAK ARBEOUERI AEEIOYO.”

If he tarries, sacrifice on grapevine charcoal a sesame seed [and] black cumin while saying:
“ANANAK ORBEOUSIRI AEEIOYO, go away, lord, to your own thrones and protect him, NN
[the skryer], from all evil.” 1298

A simpler dismissal simply orders:
Dismissal. Say: “Go away, Anubis, to your own thrones, for my health and well-being.” 10°
The Graeco-Egyptian magicians saw their gods as very palpable,!7!° and so the Licence to

Depart is also done in a very physical manner:

Dismissal: close your eyes, release the pebble which you have been holding,!2"! lift the crown
up from your head and your heel from his [the god’s] toe, and, while keeping your eyes closed,
say 3 times: “I give thanks to you lord BAINCHOOOCH, who is BALSAMES. Go away, go
away, lord, into your own heavens, into your own palaces, into your own course. Keep me
healthy, unharmed, not plagued by ghosts, free from calamity and without terror. Hear me

during my lifetime.12!2

Dismissal of the brightness:1213 “CHOO CHOO OCHOOCH,?2"4 holy brightness.” In order that
the brightness [of the god’s appearance] also go away: “Go away, holy brightness, go away,
beautiful and holy light of the highest god, AIAONA.” Say it one time with closed eyes, smear
yourself with Coptic kohl;!2!5 smear yourself by means of a golden probe.1216

In this instance, the magician is instructed very specifically to restrain the god by standing on
his foot, only releasing him by raising his own foot:
Charm to retain the god [Holding fast to the god]:!717 when he [the god]!2!8 comes in, after

greeting him, step with your left heel on the big toe of his right foot, and he will not go away
unless you raise your heel from his toe and at the same time say the dismissal.12!9

1207 The Greek XoAopavtosg Kataatwotc, and the German Salomon's Niederfallen both indicate “Solomon's
fall” rather than “charm.” The precise meaning is “Solomon’s [invocation] that [induces the skryer] to
fall.” This interpretation is confirmed by lines 910-911. Suddenly falling into trance literally floors the
skryer.
1208 PGM IV. 917-921.
1209 PGM VII. 319-334.
1210 Although I have already instanced this passage as an example of the palpability of Egyptian gods,
it is here used also as an example of the Licence to Depart.
1211 Inscribed with ‘3663,’ Bainchodch’s isopsephic number, derived by adding together the numeric
equivalents of the letters in his name.
212 And by implication, to come when I call.
1213 ‘Brightness’ should be understood as the ray of light from the sun god, rather than just light.
1214 Corresponds to “depart, depart, O darkness,” in other words ‘Bainch6och depart.’
1215 Powdered antimony or stibnite.
1216 PGM IV. 1057-1070.
1217 This is not a (physical) charm. Kétoxog tod O00 simply means holding fast to the god, in a very literal
sense.
12218 Probably Bainchoéch.
1219 PGM IV. 1052-1057.

288

The licence to depart is present in the Hygromanteia, but not in all versions. For example H
just concludes the operation without any mention of it. B however gives a detailed ‘reverse
evocation.’ A secondary benefit of the Licence to Depart, apart from the safety of the
magician and his disciples, is to impress upon the spirits their obligation to come again when
called. A number of conjurations in the Hygromanteia finish with a long or short “Licence to
Depart,’ which is sometimes added to the giving of thanks to the spirits, the idea being not
just to maintain cordial relations, but to make it easier to call them again next time. Version B
ends its evocatory section with:
And after they will do what you want, give thanks to them, and say: “In the names you heard,
do not harm me or my apprentice, but go in peace.” And recite this conjuration or dismissal “I
order you and I conjure you by the Cherubim, by the Seraphim and by the nine orders of the
holy angels; by Barakhiél, Pimélaél, Iekaél, Iastael, Ourieil; by the Archangels, Angels, Powers,
Principalities, full of eyes, and Dominions; the archangel Lakhhibiel, by the archangel Azakiél
and in the terrible names you have heard, do not cause me any harm when | am either asleep or

awake, do not cause any harm to my apprentice, but go in peace. And when I need you again,
come eagerly and quickly.” 1220

The dismissal of the spirits in both the Hygromanteia and the later grimoires is usually
expressed as a ‘licence,’ that is permission, rather than a banishing. Having conjured,
threatened, and bound the spirit successfully; it would have seemed rather rude for the
magician to summarily banish it. At the end of the proceedings the Licence to Depart is
formally read, and, if the previous stages have been successfully completed without error,

the spirit(s) should depart swiftly without any difficulty.

The License to Depart in the Key of Solomon is traditionally very short and relies upon the

assumed eagerness of the spirits to return to their abode:

In the Name of ADONALI, the Eternal and Everlasting One, let each of you return unto his place;
be there peace between us and you, and be ye ready to come when ye are called...

By virtue of these Pentacles, and because ye have been obedient, and have obeyed the
commandments of the Creator, feel and inhale this grateful odour, and afterwards depart ye
unto your abodes and retreats; be there peace between us and you; be ye every ready to come
when ye shall be cited and called; and may the blessing of God, as far as ye are capable of
receiving it, be upon you, provided ye be obedient and prompt to come unto us without solemn
rites and observances on our part.1221

1220 B, £. 30.

1221 Mathers (1909), pp. 41, 43. The Licence to Depart is more traditional than the more laboured Lesser
Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram which has only become popular since the late 19th century Golden
Dawn.

289

6. The Commonality and Transmission of Equipment
between the PGM, the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis

Mention of specific items of magical equipment is dispersed throughout the PGM, mostly at
the end of each rite amongst the instructions for making phylacteries, inks, and incenses
applicable to the particular operation. However, in the Hygromanteia, the details of
manufacturing the necessary equipment are grouped together contiguously in Part III
(chapters 14-29). This tradition is also followed in the Clavicula Salomonis, and later grimoires
where the manufacture and consecration of garments, wands, daggers, swords and skrying

stones is laid out in some considerable detail in the same section.

In 1896 a Twelfth Dynasty!?”2 tomb near the Ramesseum at Thebes, excavated by Quibell,
was identified as the tomb of a magician-priest by the nature of the papyri found therein,!23
all of which related to magic or magico-medicine.!24 Buried in the tomb were the usual types
of tomb furnishings including two sorts of ushabtis, the magical servants often buried with
the dead in Egypt. One sort was made of green faience and the other of unbaked clay painted
yellow. There were also figures of the four sons of Horus, Mesti, Duamutef, Hapi and
Qebesenef, who usually stood guard over the internal organs of the deceased. However, in
this tomb, these were different inasmuch as they were made of wax, not stone or pottery.
Wax figures feature in magic from ancient through to modern times, but are unusual in the

context of tomb organ guardians.

Inside the tomb was a wooden box measuring about 18” x 12” x 12” covered with white
plaster slip upon which was painted a black ink image of Anubis (who features in many
spells in the PGM, and who might be considered one of the magician’s special gods). The

contents of the magician’s box were as follows:

1. Fragments of 23 papyri which included magical spells, magico-medical

treatises, and the Discourses of Sisobek.

2 Four broken boomerang-shaped ivory wands on which were carved a series of
real and mythical animals. Wands have always been associated with magic, but

only Egyptian wands were of this shape.

3. Four deformed female dolls, two made from wood, and one from limestone, two
missing their lower legs.!225 These would have been used in the same way that wax

or clay dolls have been used by magicians ever since (see chapter 6.12).

1222 Roughly 2000-1800 BCE.
1223 Most of the magical papyri of the PGM also came from tombs in the Thebes area.
1224 Quibell (1898).
1225 All probably used as fith-faths, or magical dolls.
290

4. A bronze uraeus crown tangled with a ball of hair (probably belonging to the
magician). This crown was worn by the magician when identifying himself
with one of the gods, or a famous magician or king of the past, in order to
impress the daimones, in the same way that later European grimoire magicians

wore parchment crowns for the same purpose.

5: Seeds from the dom or doum palm.126 These seeds may have been used for
divination, just as they are in Ifa divination in sub-Saharan Africa, and in North

African geomancy.!227

6. A statue of Bestet, a goddess of magicians, holding a snake in each hand.
7. An ivory herdsman carrying a calf, an Hermaic image.

8. A bundle of reed pens, for writing amulets.

2: Sundry amulets, beads and other minor utensils.!228

Graeco-Egyptian practitioners and later magicians who owned and used the Hygromanteia

and the Clavicula Salomonis have all had need of a collection of equipment which is often

stored in a chest or locked box. One version of the Clavicula Salomonis, dating from 1796,

makes the following provision for such a box, with almost exactly the same dimensions, as if

nothing had changed in almost four thousand years:

It is very important to have a small casket of olive or hazel wood, a foot and a half!??? in length
and the height and width proportional to the length. You can use another wood, if you like,
with no reservations, provided that it is new, lined with a piece of new white cloth and fitted
with a little lock. You should fill it with the following items in the sequence given.

An alb or long robe made of new white linen.

A cap, stockings and underwear made of the same material.

Light leather shoes and white gloves.

All of these minor pieces of equipment are used only in the important Operations.

You should also have a writing case in the shape of a small square box, which has been
supplied with a few crow’s feathers suitable for writing. You should also have a white handled
knife, a bradawl of finely tempered steel, sharp and in the shape of a chisel, a pair of good bird’s
[feathers]; a white ceramic inkwell filled with ink and with a new collar. Another small box to
hold your smaller paraphernalia; a clean flint lighter to light the fire with, along with a candle
made of virgin white wax. You will also have in the same casket a phial made of strong glass,
filled with purified water, that is to say, water prepared with the ceremonies used for water
blessed on the eve of Easter. In addition, you should have three knives in the casket, one of
which should be sharp and with a white handle, another whose point should be in the shape of
ancient cutlasses, with a black handle, and one whose point should be in the shape of a sickle,
also with a black handle.

1226 A tree that grew in Nubia and Egypt in ancient times.

1227 For details of seed use in Ifa divination see Skinner (1980, expanded in 2011), chapter 3. Even the
Latin name of this plant is suggestive of the area around Thebes: hyphaene thebaica.

1228 See Brier (1980), pp. 46-50 for the full description. See also Ritner (2008), p. 223.

1229 Tn the French text a ‘pied.’

291.

Moreover, you should have a some compass dividers!”? of a decent size, a staff of hazel wood
an inch thick in diameter and the same length as the casket and finally a small wand made of
the same wood and more or less of the same length.

In addition, a small [water] sprinkler 13! made of a young white foal’s hair.

You should also have some small packets of incense appropriate for each of the seven Planets in
your casket, to be used at the appropriate time and place.

In addition, you should have a thurible made of earth or of some other material with new
charcoal to make a fire with during your important Operations, to be used for censing and
suffumigations. Also a small ball of new thread in order to help draw the bigger circles with
accuracy, when you are required to make them on the ground or on the floor during the Great
Operations. This is all that you need for working the Great Art of the Mystical Cabalah!1252

This passage sums up most of the magical equipment used in the Clavicula Salomonis, except
for the Table of Evocation, but shows how the equipment of the magician had changed over

the course of 3600 years.

6.1 Table of Evocation
Graeco-Egyptian Papyri
The ancestor of the Table of Evocation can be seen in this passage from the PGM:

The preparation for the operation: For a direct vision , set up a tripod and a table of olive wood

1 4>

or of laurel wood, and on the table carve in a circle these characters: = C € So sn}
Cover the tripod with clean linen, and place a censer on the tripod. It is advantageous to place
on the table a [hollow figurine] of Apollo [made] out of laurel wood. Engrave [on a lamella] of

gold, of silver, or of tin these characters: 7 HES : 2 Ss aad Place the lamella under the censer,
near the wooden image, which was set up [at the same time as the] censer, and place [next to]
the tripod a beaker or a shell containing [pure] water. In the centre of the shrine, surrounding
the tripod, inscribe on the floor with a white stylus the following character...!*°5 It is necessary
to keep yourself pure for three days in advance. The shrine and the [tripod] must be covered.
[If] you wish [to see], look inside, wearing clean [white] garments [and crowned] with a crown
of laurel, which [is] on the head... [before the] invocation, sacrifice laurel to him [Apollo]...1254

Note that olive or laurel wood is used, just as it is in the French grimoire of 1796 quoted
above. These tables of laurel or olive wood are often inscribed with specific characters,

foreshadowing the elaborate table in SSM and Dee’s 16th century “Table of Practice.’

The small table upon which offerings were made to the gods, the tpdzeG’ or tpanétia, trapezia
is sometimes mentioned alongside the iynx in the context of Classical Greek magic, and it

may have been one ancestor of the Table of Evocation.

1230 For marking out circles when drawing talismans.
1231 Aspergillum.
1232 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 17-18. (This manuscript is paginated rather than foliated).
1233 Missing in Preisendanz (1928), p. 44.
1234 PGM III. 282-409. The characters are a mixture of Celestial script and Egyptian symbols.
292.

The invocation to “the black demon” Mortzé!25 in chapter 46 of the Hygromanteia is

interesting for it also shows such a Table.12%6

ee an nad
hig a: i “J : : y ey 0 7 Ate 4
ae 7 Z oa Bt ee ely

Figure 45: The Table of Evocation (1440) used to summon the black demon Mortzeé.!%°”

It uses a Table of Evocation, with a canopy like a baldachin erected over the Table,!38 and a
protective circle drawn around it with the black-handled knife. When the demon arrives, the
magician is instructed to stab the Table of Evocation with the black-handled knife as a way of
pinning it down while the magician questions it. The demon then cannot be released till the

knife is removed from the Table.

The special interest of this particular piece of equipment lies in the transfer of the protective

circle from the floor to the Table of Evocation. The illustration shows a typical magician’s

1235 It is possible that ‘Mortzé’ is code for a human ghost, rather than a demon as the text addresses it
as “Mortzé, or human ghost, or haunting of this place.” The name is spelled in various ways. See B2, f.
346.
1236 B2, f. 346.
1237 B2, f. 346.
1238 See Figure 45.

293

altar top, with two candles, with the black-handled knife stabbed into a small circle inscribed
in the middle. The table also contains two incense burners with handles and food offerings
for the spirit, including peeled fruits placed on a new tablecloth between two lit candles. The

practice of feeding the spirits is explored elsewhere (chapter 5.1).

The Summa Sacre Magice, a 14th century collection of Solomonic grimoires, has an even more

elaborate Table of Invocation.

rl his aie aap a
x Meade ating. RO? biiet BN

on gt! ghd aati | Mee
& Le ode, fin Paps ets
x ry ih THY
a Gise ay :
P i a ; z ; a

obey

y ‘ie

‘erguain*

thoes gp

ave ouw

Rade. Sear ee

dikes ae ee

- By
. .
ae ee ae

7 reat tale

Figure 46: Table of Evocation (1346) in the Summa Sacre Magice.39 Note the four directions: “occidens,
oriens, meridies, septent[riJo,” with west at the bottom of the page. Also note the names of major demons
around the border (Lucifer, Beelzebub, Satan, etc), and four complete alphabets written slightly
erratically around the second border.

The Table of Evocation in the SSM is dominated by MM at the centre, with four names of

god: Alla[h], Eloy, Deus and Theos in Arabic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, representing the

1239 Summa Sacre Magice, f. 38.
294.

four sources of the magic embodied in this Table. The border contains the full alphabet of
each of those four languages, possibly so the Table can be used to spell out words in any of
those languages. At the corners in circles are further god names (Saday, Eye, Assereye, Agla,

yaua [yhvh], Annora), each flanked by two angel names.

This Table seems highly likely to have been the model for Dee’s Table of Evocation,
especially as it is known that he owned this manuscript before trading it in 1586 with the
Landgrave of Hesse for a carriage and a set of ‘fine Hungarian horses.’ Dee’s “Table of
Practice’ or “Holy Table’ (Figure 47) was used to support the crystal used in skrying, but it is
still essentially the same piece of equipment. The Table was also equipped for planetary
evocation,!2#0 and on a number of occasions spirits arrived in response to invocations rather
than angels. Dee’s changes to the SSM design included placing seven planetary talismans
around the central square, and replacing the alphabetical border with Enochian characters,

as shown in Figure 47.

Tne HOLY TABLE.

Y
lol

B
fe
&
Mi
M4
Mi
DJ
Iw
cz
E
fi
<
A
fs
:
c
el

Ee
ERMA le PAL OF PA PA ar die Gola Ar 3

AP sasoNe ol Ch CE Dia (PAP Ala lie PAR CALE SC oconic a

Figure 47: Dr John Dee’s Table of Evocation or Table of Practice (1583) as it appears in Casaubon’s
True & Faithful Relation...1741 Note that the engraving done for Casaubon inexplicably reverses the
figures (as if it had been done from a reversed rubbing of the original Table).

1240 Seven.
1241 See Casaubon (2011), p. 90, Figure 10.
295

Despite the fact that this Table of Evocation is often treated as if it was exclusively Dee’s
invention, and part of a supposedly separate Enochian tradition, in fact it is part of the

continued development of learned Solomonic ritual angel magic.

In the 19th century Frederick Hockley also used a Table of Evocation for his skrying

experiments, but there does not appear to be an easily discoverable picture of his table.

A modern example of Dee’s Table of Practice carved in marble is shown in Figure 48.1242

Figure 48: A 20th century Table of Practice carved in marble.’**9 This copy appears with the characters
correctly displayed, rather than reversed as in Figure 47.

1242 There used to be a similar table cut in marble or alabaster in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford,
but it is now many years since it was actually on display.
1243 Private collection.

296

6.2 Wand
Ancient Egypt
According to Geraldine Pinch:

Staffs of various kinds were standard symbols of office in Ancient Egypt, so magicians who
wished to command demons and spirits naturally used them too. In the Book of Exodus,
Pharaoh's magicians and the Hebrew leader Aaron are all able to turn their staffs into live
snakes but Aaron’s snake is said to have overcome and swallowed the others.!*#4

When exiting Egypt, Moses used a rod or wand to part the Red Sea. A magician’s wand in
the form of an elongated bronze cobra!245 survived in a 16th century BCE tomb in Thebes.
This is almost certainly the type of wand used by Aaron and Pharaoh's magicians. The use of
magician’s snake wands therefore has a very long history. The use of a snake as a wand

correlates with the use of the snake as an ouroboros to form the protective circle.

A different variety of ancient Egyptian ivory wands was shaped like curved throwing sticks.
They are often found broken and carefully mended, and may therefore have been actually
thrown as part of a rite. Other rods, which may have been used as wands were made of

glazed steatite, heavily decorated with attached images of crocodiles, lions, turtles, frogs, etc.

The earliest Greek references to the wand probably occur in connection with Hermes who

was characterised as the “god with the golden wand.” 1246

There are references in the PDM Supplement to the use of an iron staff by Anubis, which
may have also been some kind of wand. In later grimoires, iron has always been something
that spirits feared, which is part of the rationale behind the magician threatening the spirit
with an iron sword. An iron spear was used by Seth against the serpent Apep, and perhaps
its rarity contributed to its reputed ability to defeat evil.1247 The PDM passage instructs
Anubis to “Give your iron staff which is in your hand to the spirit!”14%° The passage
continues with Anubis being instructed to send the spirit to the person the magician is trying

to influence:

Let him go to NN, whom NN bore. Let him stand before the image of the god who is great in
his heart until he brings him to the road which NN is in, he [the spirit] seeking after him [NN].
And may you send a breathing spirit to NN so that he may stand before [him] in the image of
the god who is great in his heart.!7#”

244 Pinch (2006), p. 78.

245 Probably representing Weret Hekau, literally “Great of Magic’ was a cobra goddess on whose form
the wands have been modeled.

1246 Odyssey, X. 27. Circe’s wand, or rhabdos, is also mentioned in Odyssey, X. 20. The same word is
applied to Hermes’ wand. Rhabdos was later personified as a demon in the Testament of Solomon.

1247 Tron was rare in ancient Egypt and until the first millennium BCE only imported or meteoric iron
was available there.

1248 PIDM Supplement 105.

1249 PDM Supplement 101-116.

297

This is a classic piece of magic, a theme repeated in many guises in later grimoires. Here the
magician sends a “breathing spirit,” in other words a living spirit, to enter NN’s dreams and
thereby influence his actions. The point of sending the spirit disguised as the god that NN
most venerates (“the god who is great in his heart”), is to get NN to believe whatever it is the

spirit says to him, which will have been of the magician’s devising.

The Graeco-Egyptian wand was more often made of ebony. In one lamp skrying which

incorporates an invocation of Apollo, the magician is instructed to:

Hold an ebony staff in your left hand...175°
There seems to have been a considerable significance attached to the hand in which the wand
was held. In another invocation designed to obtain answers and revelations either during the
epiphany or afterwards in lucid dreams, the ebony wand was held in the left hand whilst the

right hand held a sprig of laurel (sacred to Apollo).12!

Other things were used by the Greeks for wands, for example, in a Classical invocation of
Apollo, the wand to be held in the right hand was the seven-leafed sprig of laurel.1252 This
was used to summon both heavenly and chthonic deities. The seven characters to be written

on the wand were the “seven characters for deliverance.”
This rite highly praises the qualities of this wand which also acts as a phylactery in this case:

For this is the body’s greatest protective charm [phylactery],!2° by which all [daimones] are
made subject, and seas and rocks tremble, and daimons [avoid] the characters’ magical powers
which you are about to have. For it is the greatest protective charm [phylactery] for the rite, so
that you fear nothing.1*>4

A magician’s wand is seldom mentioned in the PGM, far less illustrated. An exception occurs
in an illustration which shows a drawing of a man with a loin cloth (but described as naked
in the rite) holding a knife or sword. The figure also wears a crown and in his left hand he
carries a wand. The interesting thing about this wand is that it resembles a plant, possibly a

laurel or bulrush stem with a single leaf.

The wand does not appear to feature in the Hygromanteia. The wand itself, whilst still being a
strong element in popular magical culture (think Disney), became even less important in the

later grimoires.

1250 PGM I. 279.
1251 PGM I. 334-341.
1252 PGM I. 262. The laurel was used to make the crown that was placed on the head of the victor in the
Apollonian/Olympic games, and so by implication, conferred high status upon the magician.
1253 MDACKTHPLOV.
1254 PGM I. 274-276.
298

Figure 49: Graeco-Egyptian magician wearing a crown and holding a sword and wand.1*°>

The wand, or baton as it is called in some French manuscripts, is illustrated and specified in a

number of manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis (see Figure 53), where it is specified that:

The wand should be made of hazel wood collected when the Sun is in Gemini, during the hour
and day of Saturn and during a waxing Moon. You should fast for three days before going to
the place, where you will cut it and write or engrave these [corrupted] Hebrew letters on both
ends...and when you are not using it you will wrap it in a cloth of silk or new black wool. The
length must be two feet exactly and you should not talk to anyone at all during the day in
which you will cut it.1%6

Or alternatively:

The Staff [baguette] and the Wand [baton] must be [made] from wood of the Hazelnut tree of one
year’s growth, and cut with one single stroke on the Day and Hour of Mercury and the
following characters should be written upon it with the pen and ink of the Art.!25”

Beyond the grimoire tradition, Mathers and Westcott designed a series of wands for the

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which echo Egyptian themes.

Figure 50: 20th century Golden Dawn wands showing Egyptian motifs.1§ These have commonality
with Egyptian motifs (winged disk with serpents and jackal head), Jewish tradition (hexagram) and
lotus wand. However this commonality is ‘researched’ as a result of the renaissance in magic brought
about by the founders of the Golden Dawn, and it is therefore not direct transmission.

1255 PGM VIII. 110.

1256 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 284, translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 262.
1257 Wellcome MS 4669, p. 62, translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 345.
1258 Private collection.

299

6.3 Sword

The iron sword has been used from time immemorial to threaten spirits. The oldest reference

to using a sword to exorcise or threaten spirits comes from a Babylonian tablet which reads:

5. When I perform [the Incantation]!*°? of Eridu,
When I perform the Incantation...
May a kindly Guardian stand at my side.

10. By Ningirsu, master of the sword, mayest thou be exorcised!
Evil Spirit, evil Demon, evil ghost, mayest thou be exorcised.1?

Theophrastus wrote in Enquiry into Plants!261 in the 4th century BCE that before picking a
mandrake it was usual to draw three circles around it with an iron sword. It is not clear at
what point the practice of using an iron sword to draw three circles round the magician
before evoking was introduced. This does not necessarily seem to have been practised in
Egypt, although absence of such a description does not necessarily mean absence of the

practice.

The theory behind this is that spirits do not like iron, and an iron sword brandished in their
direction is something to be feared, as it can reputedly damage them.!262 Many more Latin

grimoires mention a sword than those that mention a wand.

There are no explicit mentions of the use of a sword to constrain the spirits in the PGM,
although one rite to secure love is entitled the ‘Sword of Dardanos.’ Dardanos was the
founder of the Mysteries of Samothrace, and so may have been accounted a magician. The

‘sword’ is later revealed to be a list of angel names to invoke, rather than a physical sword:

Monas?263 THOURIEL MICHAEL GABRIEL OURIEL MISAEL IRRAEL ISTRAEL. 1264
The usage therefore echoes that of the Jewish grimoire, the Sword of Moses, where the sword
is also a list of angel and god names. Speculatively, this list of names may have been those
originally engraved on an actual physical sword. If so then it seems more likely that the use
of a physical sword sprang from a different tradition, perhaps as old as Mesopotamia, that

valued sharp iron as a direct threat to the spirits.

In several manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, it is recommended that the all important black-

handled knife is to be made from an old sword, preferably one that has “brought death,” but

1259 Thompsons interpolation.
1260 Thompson (1903), p. 3, Third tablet.
1261 Hort (1916).
1262 Early Byzantine amulets (circa 5th century) featuring Solomon as the master of demons, or the
rider-saint, were often made of haematite, a form of iron oxide, and therefore inimical to spirits. One
of the three ‘helpers’ who rout demons in an early Aramaic formula is called sideros (Greek for ‘iron’).
See Spier (1993), pp. 35-36.
1263 O'Neil in Betz translates this as ‘One,’ when it obviously has the technical meaning of the Unity as
the prime mover of creation rather than a simple ordinal number.
1264 PGM IV. 1815.

300

apart from that requirement, a sword is not part of the equipment mentioned by the

HAygromanteia.

In the Latin grimoires, the iron sword was considered such an important item of magical
equipment that some grimoires went to the lengths of suggesting that the magician forged

his own sword.!26 The procedure was:

Thou shalt therefore take a new Sword which thou shalt clean and polish on the day of
Mercury, and at the first or fifteenth hour [of Mercury], and after this thou shalt write on one
side these Divine Names in Hebrew...sprinkle and cense it and repeat over it the following
conjuration. ..126

Fig 34. Ag. 71.
| iatwn? Saenay or x99
Mg. 770

; The Magical: Sworcl _ Fig. 7.
Aig.74. ne 3s ’ ‘eh BROS
ee in bee ate pra [wor +
Fig. 29. Fig. 78. Fig. 77: a Sl
ot ym pra pea? bp or SHOT proat ying)

Figure 51: The magician’s Magical Sword of Art in the Key of Solomon.'?°” The subsidiary Figs. shown
in this illustration are the Hebrew inscriptions to be engraved on the swords of the magician’s
assistants.

A French manuscript gives slightly different instructions:

We also make use of Swords in the Magical Arts. It is good to have one of them, which you will
polish on the Day and hour of Jupiter. Then you will engrave on the blade these Divine Names
on one side: Jehoha (sic), Adonay, Eheye and on the other side, Elohim Gibor and then you will
have attached a hilt made of ivory, which you will perfume, saying:

“I conjure you, Sword, by these Names of Imabrok, Abrac, Abracad[ab]ra, so that you will give
me strength in all of my Workings, to stand firm against all my enemies, visible and invisible.”
This being said, you will place it in a silk cloth with the other instruments to be used when the
occasion needs it.1268

See Figure 53 which shows the range of swords prescribed by this grimoire. Another version

suggests that:

You should have a knife [sword] made of steel, three foot long and whose handle is made of
crystal, marked with the symbols as shown below,” written in the light of the Full Moon and
with human blood. You should hold it in your left hand and when you have entered into the
Circle, awaiting the arrival of the Spirits.17”

When it is desired to coerce the spirits the magician is to say:

1265 For example in Lansdowne MS 1203.
1266 Mathers (1909), p. 97.
1267 Mathers (1909), Plates XIII & XIV.
1268 Wellcome MS 4669, Art. 1, pp. 62-63, as translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 345.
1269 A different set of corrupt characteres.
1270 Wellcome MS 4669, Art. 2, p. 97, as translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 389.
301

Behold your confusion, behold my Sword, be rebellious no more, but be obedient.1!271
In this particular version the sword is also used to sacrifice the kid goat in order to make the
virgin parchment. Several grimoires recommend that not only the magician but also his

assistants carry a sword into the circle. This is illustrated by Reginald Scot in Figure 52.

Figure 52: An evocatory circle showing five swords and (in the circles at the top) the five Infernal
Kings of the North.!2/2

6.4 Dagger or Black-handled Knife

As some of the oldest references to the use of a black-handled knife in magic or divination
come from Jewish sources, and as the goat was seen by the same culture as a scapegoat used
to take away sins, it is possible that the tradition of a black-handled knife comes originally

from Hebraic sources but later filtered through into Greek practice.

1271 Ibid, p. 103.
1272 Scot (1584), Book 15, pp. 411-414.
302

Trachtenberg!?> mentions that Rashi,!2“ in the 11th century, while describing an operation of
onykhomanteia (thumbnail skrying), states that a black-handled knife is required for invoking

the spirits called the ‘princes of the thumbnail:’!2%
He who is particular about the vessel (by means of which he divines), that he cannot do anything
without the vessel that is required for that thing, as, for instance, the “princes of the thumb,” for

which they require a knife, the handle of which is black, or the “princes of the cup,” that they
require a cup of glass.1276

Three manuscripts in Gaster’s collection,!2”” dating from the 16th to the 18th centuries,
mention the use of the black-handled knife to control the spirit during an evocatory skrying

session.!278

In the 16th/17th century Hebrew manuscript concerned with fingernail skrying, the circle

around the skryer is also made with the black-handled knife:

Take a young lad and make a circle in the earth with a knife, the handle of which is black... and
take four smooth stones and put (them) in the four rows of the circle, and put the mentioned
knife in the middle of the circle...”

The black-handled knife is not specifically mentioned in the PGM, therefore it seems likely
that this instrument entered Byzantine grimoires directly from Jewish sources rather than via

Egyptian sources.1280

Chapter 19 of the Hygromanteia is concerned with the black-handled knife.!28! This tool is
used by the magician in the manufacture of a number of other tools, such as cutting the
wand, trimming the writing instrument (quill or reed), or cutting the throat of the animal
that later provides both blood and parchment,!?82 but its most important function was for
inscribing the protective circle. Although this was usually drawn in chalk or painted on the
ground, a number of authorities state that its retracement by the consecrated knife or sword
was what made it most effective in keeping the spirits out of the circle. The knife is also used
in a number of the manteia chapters (47-58) of the Hygromanteia where it is used to ‘pin down’
the spirit by, for example, driving the knife into the earth or into the Table of Evocation, and

only withdrawing it when it was desired to release the spirit. In this context its roots can also

1273 Trachtenberg (2004), p. 308.

1274 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki.

27 Sanhedrin 67b.

22% Daiches (1913), p. 30.

1277 Daiches MSS 54, f. 18, 22.

1278 Trachtenberg (2004) mentions that references to this method of divination are to be found in:
Hochmat Ha-Nefesh, 16d, 18a, 20c, 28d, 29a; Ziyuni, 10c; Redak on Ezekiel 21:26; Nishmat Hayim, III, 19.
1279 Codex Gaster 315, translated in Daiches (1913), p. 15.

1280 Of course absence of mention does not guarantee absence of this piece of equipment, which may
have been present in the PGM tradition, but so taken for granted that is was not specifically mentioned.
1281 Attested in H, A, B, P, G and no less than three times in B3.

1282 The manufacture of parchment from the skin of slain animals was a regular and unremarkable
occurrence, till the adoption of paper as a writing material.

303

be seen in traditional Greek folk magic, which can therefore be seen as a possible alternative

contributory source to the Hygromanteia.

The blade of the knife was traditionally forged by the magician, but may instead have been
made by a blacksmith, and forged from an older knife or sword that preferably had killed a
man (“iron that has brought death”),!8° although this latter requirement may just have been
a romantic embellishment. The hilt was to be made from a black he-goat’s horn.!284 Most
versions also specify that magical names have to be engraved (or less satisfactorily, etched)
on the blade.!285 Certain symbols were later introduced after the text was translated into
Latin, and it is these symbols rather than the Greek nomina magica which have survived in

the Latin manuscripts.

The black-handled magicians’ knife, once consecrated can be used for drawing the protective
circle, ‘pining down’ a spirit or its seal, as a support (stuck in the ground in the middle of the
circle) for the katoptromanteia mirror. Its function of pinning down a ghost is well

demonstrated in the Hygromanteia chapter on the conjuration of Mortzé as we have seen:

Do this [drawing of the circle] three times with the knife, around the table. And when you finish
the three circles, thrust the knife into the table and recite the following:

“T nail you here, Mortzé, or haunting of this place.”
And he will come to you at once. Then, ask whatever you want, and he will answer all your
questions. And if you want to banish him, draw the knife out of the table, and he will go away
from you.1286

As the knife (as well as the sword) is a weapon of iron, and therefore a correspondence of
Mars, so the forging and engraving should be done on the day and the hour of Mars. Purity

is enjoined upon both the operator and upon the subsequent use of the knife:

Do not cut anything with it, and let it be [kept] without a scabbard. Store it in a clean place. It is
also necessary that the artisan remains pure until he finishes its construction. Use it only for its
power and for nothing else.1287

The “Knife with the Black Hilt” and the “Knife with the White Hilt” are described and illustrated

in Mathers’ edition of the Key of Solomon:1288

The Knife with the white hilt...should be made in the day and hour of Mercury, when Mars is
in the Sign of the Ram or of the Scorpion. It should be dipped in the blood of a gosling and in
the juice of the pimpernel, the Moon being at her full or increasing in light. Dip therein also the
white hilt, upon the which thou shalt have engraved the Characters shown. Afterwards
perfume it with the perfumes of the Art.

1283 H, f. 24v; A, f. 14v.
1284 The use of an animal horn (specifically a goat’s horn) to make the hilt appears to have been lost
when the technique passed over into the Latin grimoires, where only the colour black was prescribed.
P specifies a black she-goat’s horn.
1285 See A, B, G and B3. A specifies “Rhakhor Rhadiamoéna Aroné.” G specifies “Rhakhor Rhadia
Konil Aroni Aphines,” which is a banishment of impurities.
1286 B2, f. 346.
1287 H, ff. 24v-25.
1288 Mathers (1909), Book II, Chapter VIII; Figures 61 and 62. AC Text-Family.

304

With this Knife thou mayest perform all the necessary Operations of the Art, except [inscribing]
the Circles.1289

It is the black-handled knife that is needed for the most important task of making the

protective Circle:

...it should be made in the same manner [as the white-hilted knife], except that it should be
done in the day and hour of Saturn, and dipped in the blood of a black cat and in the juice of
hemlock, the Characters and Names...being written thereon, from the point towards the hilt.

It is obvious that the black-handled knife in the Clavicula Salomonis needed to make the circle
and “to strike terror and fear into the Spirits” had the same function as, and almost certainly

evolved from, the black goat’s horn handled knife of the Hygromanteia.
Other Magical Instruments

From the basic pieces of equipment, the sword, black-handled dagger and wand, the later
French texts of the Clavicula Salomonis generated a number of even more specialised items.
The wand morphed into the Baguette and the Baton. The black-handled knife or couteau noir
remained an important instrument, but a couteau blanc was also added to the array of
implements. The sickle or faucille was included for cutting herbs. The sword evolved into the

lance, coutelas, épée and poignard. These can all be clearly seen in Figure 53.

In the Mathers edition of the Clavicula Salomonis (Figure 54) the range of magical instruments

became even more systematised.12”

FE
> Figures des Instruments.

—_~e Rp fan ~~ “
Baguette. Baton .

p POTFEMTI CITT SL CHRM ELIE STL Trea iS eT TRS R TEL EEE’ SPRL EIN ENVIS NENTS KS Nw MTT. ¢ WUMTTIN TON TTT ()

&\ Coutelas.
TINY per?
eZ

Figure 53: The extended Instruments of Art in a French Clavicula Salomonis.1?"

1289 Mathers (1909), p. 96.
1290 The sword appears above in Figure 51.
1291 Wellcome MS 4669 (dated 1796) as translated in Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 345.

305

The Knife withthe “eg: ©2-

The Knife with the
While Hele.

Black Hilt ,

Fig. 58.

UNS OIC & HF Po 3 ecg SK Yo 6-3

The
Short
Lance,

ms
a)

Fig. 67.

Figure 54: The other iron Instruments of Art by Mathers with their inscriptions.!*
6.5 Virgin Papyrus or Parchment

Because the written word is such an important part of magic, so the surface it is written on

must also be pure and consecrated.

Obviously papyrus was the writing surface par excellence in dynastic Egypt. Papyrus came
in different grades of quality, and hieratic papyrus,!?% the best quality, was recommended in

the PGM for the written works of magic.

There is a small practical difference between ‘virgin parchment’ and ‘unborn parchment.’
The first must be made from an animal that has just been born, but not yet suckled.12 The
second from the foetus of an animal still in the uterus. In both cases the knife of art must be
used to slaughter the animal, and remove its skin.!2% The rest of the steps are standard
parchment preparation processes involving running water, fat and hair removal with
quicklime and a wooden blade, followed by stretching on a board and drying in the sun. The
only magical addition to this standard medieval procedure is the specification of prayers to

be said during the process.

The ‘unborn parchment’ is to be used for the lamen, which being the instrument that protects

1292 Mathers (1909), Plates XIII, XIV, edited to just show the Instruments (Pentacle and Circle
removed).

1293 yéptns lEpaTIKOV.

1294 Manuscript H and P specify ‘not yet suckled,’ whilst A and B specify ‘sucking.’

12% Tn the case of the foetus, a softer knife made of reed is used for skinning.

306

the magician from any maliciousness of the spirits, must be of the utmost purity.!2%

The preparation of the virgin parchment in the Clavicula Salomonis follows the same sequence
of procedures as that outlined in the Hygromanteia. An interesting addition is the suggestion
that this preparation should be done at midsummer on the eve of St John the Baptist’s

d aye?

The Key of Solomon makes the same distinction between ‘virgin parchment’ and “unborn
parchment,’ the later being made from foetal skin, and perceived as superior. The parchment
is to be prepared in the day and hour of Mercury. One interesting alternative, which does not
seem to appear in any of the other literature is the possibility of making the virgin parchment

from the cauls of newly-born children.12%

The suitability of the material to the specific operation is stressed by a number of texts.

Antonio da Montolmo makes this point:

And when the characters are suffumigated and inscribed with a suitable ink on a suitable paper,
and with a benevolent prayer addressed to them, the <spirits> take it as an honor and they try
hard to carry out what is written in the phylactery.12° And, by contrast, if someone inscribes the
characters of a spirit on an unsuitable paper, with an unsuitable ink, and with an unsuitable

suffumigation, but with incense constraint, the exorcist inflicts pain and shame on the spirits.
1300

6.6 Pen, Quill, or Reed

Reed pens were used for writing on papyrus not only in a dynastic Egypt, but also in a
Graeco-Egyptian context and later in a Muslim context. For magical use the papyrus would

usually be consecrated and perfumed before being used.

The use of a reed pen is useful in dating the text as it suggests that papyrus rather than
parchment or paper was the writing material of choice. Chapter 20 of the Hygromanteia
explains the manufacture of the reed pen.'°°! Quill pens only came into use later, with the
replacement of papyrus with parchment. Hence, the chapter on the creation of a reed pen
would have existed before that on quill pen production.5°2 The mention of reed pens in the

Hygromanteia therefore confirms a composition date in or before the 7th century.

For magical use, just like the hazel wand, the reed pen must be cut with a single stroke. The

1296 This chapter appears in H, P, A, P4, B and twice in B3. See also Mathers (1909), pp. 111-113.

1297 The comment in Wellcome MS 4670, f. 15, is that “in the original Hebrew of the Keys, it is said that
this should be [done] on the 23rd day of June.” This is the eve of St. John the Baptist’s day on 24th June.
1298 Mathers (1909), p. 113.

1299 Probably ‘pentacle’ is meant here, especially as this term is used in the next sentence.

1300 In da Montolmo’s De Occultis et Manifestis. See Weill-Parot (2012), p. 285.

1301 In H, P, A, B and three times in B3.

1302 Versions H and P only speak of one pen, while A, B and B3 recommend seven pens, one for each
planet, presumably so that a range of seven coloured inks can be used.

307

consecrated knife is used for this purpose, and the operation was supposed to be
accompanied by an invocation or short prayer. By the time the method had crossed over into
Latin Europe and the Clavicula Salomonis, where parchment was the norm, reed pens were no

longer mentioned.

Chapter 21 of the Hygromanteia, on the quill of the art, occurs in four different versions. The
drafting of these sections may coincide with a period when both instruments were in use in
Constantinople. The 7th century marked this period of transition from the ancient Egyptian
reed pen to the quill pen, just as papyrus was giving way to parchment. Although this is
just circumstantial evidence, it agrees with my tentative dating of the Apotelesmatiké
Pragmateia (the ancestor of the Hygromanteia) being taken from Alexandria to Constantinople

in the early 7th century, when both quills and reed pens would have still been in use.

Because reeds ceased to be used as writing instruments in Byzantium, this section in the Key
of Solomon is concerned only with bird quills, especially crows or swallows, which must have
been a commonly available item. During the quill’s preparation and sharpening a suitable

incantation and two Psalms were to be said.1304

Some of the older, or more conservative grimoires, such as the Raziel, which was known in
the 16th century in both Latin and English versions, still retained mention of the reed pen
suggesting a textual origin for the Raziel in or before the 7th century, or an extreme degree of

conservativeness on the part of the scribes:

And the penne that thou shalt write the holy names

be it of a green* reed gathered early ere the sunne

arise.15° And he that shall gather it be he clene & washen

& in running water or in a quicke well and also let

him be clothed with cleane clothes, and the moon¢ being
waxing with Caput Draconis or with Jove, for that

they be true and very. And when thou shalt gather it, thou
shalt behold of looke toward the East and thou shalt say
thus Adonai et Saday jubate me ad complendus volun-

tates meas eo* axundine ista. That is to say Help

ye me to fulfill my willes with this reed*. and when this

is said thou shalt cutt one reede or twayne or as many

as thou wilt with one stroke... And thou take the reede with thy
cleane hands, and make thou of it a gobbets. And when thou
wilt cutt the penne, cutt it ere the sunne arise or when

it ariseth. With this penne and with this ynke thou shalt
write all the names of God holy and severall.19°”

This is an exception, and most Latin grimoires moved directly to the use of the quill without

1303 This dating is often derived from the observation that after Byzantium’s loss of Egypt to Islam in
641, reeds were much more difficult to obtain.
1304 Mathers (1909), p. 109.
1305 Sloane MS 3826 (English) and Sloane MS 3846 (Latin).
1306 An indistinct marginal note here concerns the effect of Caput Draconis.
1307 Sloane MS 3826, f. 4v.
308

even considering the reed pen. The preparation of the quill was to be carried out as follows:

Thou shalt take a male gosling, from which thou shalt pluck the third feather of the right wing,
and in plucking it thou shalt say:-

ADRAI, HAHLIL, TAMAIL TILONAS, ATHAMAS, ZIANOR, ADONAL banish from this pen all
deceit and error, so that it may be of virtue and efficacy to write all that I desire AMEN.

After this thou shalt sharpen it with the penknife of the Art, perfume it, sprinkle it, and place it
aside in a silken cloth.5%

There are further and different instructions given for making a quill from a swallow or a
crow’s feather. Another manuscript recommends taking the longest feather from the left wing

of a swallow before trimming it, sprinkling it and perfuming it in a similar manner.

6.7 Ink

Smell was very important to the ancient Egyptians, so much so that they are depicted in wall
paintings as wearing cones of fragrant material melting on top of their heads, to ensure they

smelled attractive throughout the day.

Smell was an important issue in magic, with sweet incenses being used to attract spirits and
sour ones like asafoetida used to drive them away. It is therefore not surprising that the other
medium of communication with spirits, the written word, talisman, pentacle, lamen etc, had
to be written with sweet smelling inks. The most common recommendation found in the
papyri is to use ‘myrrh ink’ so that the gods or other spiritual creatures would take sufficient

notice of the words so written.
The ink is sometimes made of cinnabar:1309

... write on strips of papyrus made from a priestly scroll, with ink of cinnabar, juice of wormwood,
and myrrh.1310

Here the medium is confirmed as papyrus, of the highest quality. This method of using
incensed ink on consecrated papyrus or parchment endured for at least another 1500 years.
Myrtle leaves are also mentioned as a writing surface, and single stemmed wormwood is

often specified as an additive to the myrrh ink.151!

To give the ink its necessary staining quality soot was often added. Apart from myrrh, soot
and herbal matter, the other key ingredient in inks used in magic was blood. Sometimes just
blood alone would be used as a writing material. In King Pitys’ first necromantic spell, the

writing is to be done with ink made from serpent’s blood mixed with the soot from a

1308 Mathers (1909), p. 108.
1309 Mercuric sulphide. It is vermillion and used for the rubrification of text. As a compound of
mercury, cinnabar is particularly appropriately as an ink, an instrument of communication. This
material that was also used in China for the same purpose, the creation of very important scrolls, and
for magic talismans
1310 PGM IV. 2394.
1311 PGM IV. 2233-9.

309

goldsmith’s workshop.'°!2 Soot was a standard ingredient of black inks since antiquity right
up to the 19th century, for everyday as well as magical use. The soot from a goldsmith’s
workshop would presumably also have some traces of sublimed gold in it, and this echoes

the usages of inks containing metals.

In King Pitys’ second necromancy spell,!5!5 the writing is done with black ink on a leaf of flax
or on a roll of hieratic papyrus. The ink is made from the blood of an ass!3!4 mixed with
coppersmiths’ soot. The leaf of flax is inscribed with a falcon’s blood, mixed with goldsmiths’
soot. The hieratic papyrus is to be inscribed with eel’s blood mixed with acacia.!5!5 Another
rite adds blood to the usual myrrh ink, but also specifies the spell must be written on leaves
of flax.15!6 A short necromantic spell for questioning corpses also by King Pitys requires the

nomina magica to be written on a flax leaf,!5!” with a special ink made from:

...red ochre, burnt myrrh, juice of fresh wormwood, evergreen. ..1318
One spell for business success requires the words to be written on a male egg,5!° with the

following ink:

Drawing made with Typhonian ink: A fiery red poppy, juice from an artichoke, seed of the
Egyptian acacia, red Typhon’s ochre,!5*° unslaked quicklime, wormwood with a single stem,
gum, rainwater.1!92!

The egg is to then be buried “near the threshold where you live” or “in the house [where] I

do my business.”

Another use of ink consisted of writing a spell with “Hermaic myrrh ink,” then washing the
ink off the papyrus in order to drink it and thereby absorb the qualities of the spell. One
example of this practice designed to strengthen the memory enjoins the practitioner to make
the ink with spring water from seven springs, and drink the resulting ink wash on an empty
stomach for seven days. The ingredients of this ink are:

Myrrh troglitis, 4 drams;'52? 3 karian figs, 7 pits of Nikolaus dates, 7 dried pinecones, 7 piths of

the single-stemmed wormwood, 7 wings of the Hermaic ibis,3% spring water. When you have
burned the ingredients, prepare them and write.1574

1312 PGM IV. 2006-2125.
1313 PGM IV. 2006-2125.
1314 Another indication of Seth/Typhon.
1315 Presumably acacia ash.
1316 PGM XIXb. 1-3.
1317 Flax, which was extensively cultivated in ancient Egypt, was associated with the dead. Pictures of
flowering flax have been found on the walls of tombs in Thebes.
1318 PGM IV. 2140-44.
1319 Presumably a fertilised egg, or maybe a code word for some other item.
1320 Possibly the blood of an ass.
1821 PGM XII. 96-106.
1322 Possibly fossilised myrrh. See Betz (1996), p. 5.
1323 The association of Hermes and Thoth (the ibis) with the art of memory is obvious.
1324 PGM I. 232-247.
310

Another typical aromatic ink recipe:

Preparation of the ink: 3 dried figs, 3 stones of Nicolaus date,5* 3 fragments of wormwood, and
3 lumps of myrrh; [mix together, then] after pulverizing them, [write] the following formula.?°

The practice of washing the ink off the writing surface and drinking the resultant solution
occurs as far afield as in Taoist magic, as well as in the Bible. In the latter case the solution is
drunk as a way of determining the truth, and enforcing a curse as a penalty, if the subject has

sworn falsely. Here it is referred to as the “water of bitterness’:

Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness.
He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that
brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain... when he has made her drink the water,
then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the
curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop,

and the woman shall become an excration among her people.'8?”

The Maskelli formula for revealing answers in a dream, uses a similar ink for writing upon

both papyrus and cloth:

...single-stemmed wormwood, vetch, 3 pits of Nicholaus date palms, 3 Karian dried figs, soot
from a goldsmith,1%?8 3 branches of a male date palm, sea foam.15??
For invocations of specific gods, specific inks were used, just as specific incenses were

burned. For example, drawing an image of Anubis on a papyrus for magical purposes

requires the correct ink, in this case mixed with “the blood of a black dog.” 1390
Another ink also using myrrh and wormwood is made as follows:

In a purified container burn myrrh and cinquefoil and wormwood; grind them to a paste, and
use them [as an ink].1351

Cinquefoil has an enduring place amongst the herbs used in European grimoires.
Another ink formula, for an operation involving the god Besas:

Take red ochre [and blood] of a white dove, likewise of a crow, also sap of the mulberry, juice of
single-stemmed wormwood,'8 cinnabar, and rainwater; blend all together, put aside and write
with it and with black writing ink...

A very similar ink formula is also associated with the god Besa,!*4 which suggests that the

1825 Niclaus/ Nikolaus/ Nicholas is spelled inconsistently in Betz.
1326 PGM VII. 993-1009.
1327 Numbers 5:23-27. New Revised Standard Version.
1328 Presumably containing tiny flecks of gold.
1329 PGM IV. 3172-3208.
1330 PDM Supplement 113.
1331 PGM II. 35-37.
1332 (ryivOlov, Gptewioia, absinthium.
1333 PGM VII. 222-249.
1334 Another spelling of the same god.
311

ink ingredients are conditioned by the nature of the god associated with the rite:

This is the ink with which you draw [the figure]: Blood of a crow, blood of a white dove, lumps
of incense, myrrh, black writing ink, cinnabar, sap of mulberry tree, rain-water, juice of single-
stemmed wormwood and vetch.1335

Chapter 16 of the Hygromanteia lists two separate sets of planetary inks which obviously

come from two different traditions (see Table 15).

The ink manufacturing passage in another manuscript appears to be unique in its instructions,

and may therefore not be part of the mainstream Hygromanteia ink instructions.

...make an ink with: saffron, musk, oak galls, blue vitriol or similar materials.19°6

Ink Ingredients'°°” Ink Ingredients1338

Maidenhair fern seed, unburned sulphur, red squill, gum Dross of lead. with vinegar

Arabic
; : Reg : D f sil ith
Lapis lazuli, birthwort, fish gall, plum tree gum ante pbetver yall pose
; ; 3 Pure cinnabar with rose
Mars Cinnabar, alkanet, gum, common plantain, olive tree gum aia
Gold dust (with a little mercury), knotgrass juice, little (Gold Sepiment wath water
watercress, Arabic malachite

Blood of a bat lapis
Venus_ | Blood of a dove, saffron, rose water, mandrake, pure musk cn : : : ne ee ae
lazuli with rose water

Blood of a male turtledove, pure beeswax, radish, corrosive

: ; . rod Saffron, musk, rose water,

Mercury | sublimate, a bit of peony, blood of a wild rooster, juice of Ratan blo
buckshorn plantain

Celery juice (?), agaric, camphor, blood of a hare Blood Oren Oe as enemy

or with rust and water

Table 15: Planetary inks in the Hygromanteia, according to three separate manuscripts.

Obvious derivatives of this Hygromanteia chapter on inks can be found in the AC Text-Group

of the Clavicula Salomonis and also in the Grimorium Verum.1339

The Key of Solomon recommends using the blood of a bat, pigeon or other animal. In each
case, the live animal is consecrated and then the blood derived from a suitable vein without

killing the animal, using a needle. The blood is then censed and kept for later use.

In the late 20th century Franz Bardon (1909-1958) recommended using a “magical condenser

fluid” made from a gold solution, embodying the same principles of a dissolved metal, and

1885 PGM VIII. 70-72.
1336 G, f. 23.
1337
1338 A and M.
1339 A grimoire derived from the Clavicula Salomonis, but with the addition of a register of spirit names
and some rather grotesque ingredients. This dependence can be most clearly seen in the UT Text-
Groups, for example Wellcome MS 4669, Art 2. See Skinner and Rankine (2008), pp. 369-406, 428;
Peterson (2007), p. 32.

312

instead of animal blood, a drop of his own blood:1540

Take a handful of fresh or dry chamomile flowers... Let the chamomile flowers boil for about 20
minutes...mix it with the same quantity...of spirit or alcohol... To this mixture add about 10
drops of your gold tincture...you may still strengthen it, by adding a drop of your blood or
sperm.

Bardon recommends this liquid for various magical uses, but its formulation is similar in
intention to the magic inks already mentioned, and may be derived from them. Here you can
clearly see that gold tincture is the updated version of “soot from a goldsmiths’ chimney,”

and “a drop of your [own] blood” replacing blood from a shrew-mouse or bat.

6.8 Garments

Egyptian priests and magicians wore linen, and no clothing made of animal products such as
wool. Strangely the High Priest or sem-priest wore a leopard skin. It is also likely that the
sem-priest was amongst the most learned in the temple (and therefore more likely to practise
magic). He inhabited the per-ankh or House of Life, a combined library, scriptorium and
college, in which priests would perform magic, interpret dreams and make amulets, for

clients who paid for them.

The skin of any big cat, especially a lion, was held in awe, as it related to the fierce goddess
Sekhmet. Sekhmet also had associations with magic.™4! High Priests of Sekhmet were often
associated with magic, such as Heryshefnakht, who was both Chief of Magicians and High
Priest of Sekhmet. On the reverse of the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus (which dates from
1700 BCE) the title of one spell refers to “the demons of disease, the malignant spirits,
messengers of Sekhmet,”1%42 which identifies this goddess also as a ruler over evil spirits. If
that is so, then wearing a belt made of her animal’s skin conferred a certain authority on the
magician. The leopard skin of the Egyptian priest and the lion nemyss!43 is met with within
the European grimoire tradition in the form of a belt made of lion skin. This practice lasted
through to the 17th century, and a belt of lion skin is recommended in the 1641 Goetia. Even
today such belts are sold online to aspiring magicians. I think it is quite clear that this is a

continuation of the same ancient Egyptian tradition.

I suggest that this practice originally related to Sekhmet, but later it may simply have become
part of the dress of the magician designed to cower the spirits. The thinking being that any

man who had mastered a lion (as he was wearing its skin) must truly be powerful, and so the

1340 Bardon (1962), pp. 190-203.
1341 The House of Life at Edfu, which was occupied by priests and scribes dealing with magic, had a
wall list of its papyri. One of the papyri on this list, probably dealing with magic, was entitled the Book
of Appeasing Sekhmet.
1342 Breasted (1930), p. 477.
134 A typical Egyptian cloth headdress.

belt of lion skin would be like wearing a ‘badge of courage.’

This also explains why mere paper crowns, or flimsy lamens in later grimoires, were able to
do the job imputed to them. An ivy wreath likewise gave the magician a semblance of status

as a hero or a senator:

Crown yourself with dark ivy while the sun is in mid-heaven, at the fifth hour [after sunrise],
and while looking upward, lie down naked on the linen, and order your eyes to be completely
covered with a black band...1544

The act of claiming to be some famous personage, god or magician (part of the standard
armoury of magicians in all ages) was assisted by the wearing of appropriate garments. One

description of an evocatory lamp skrying gives details of the prescribed clothing:

Whenever you seek [to do ritual] divinations, be dressed in the garb of a prophet, shod with
fibres of the doum palm and your head crowned with a spray from an olive tree - but the
spray should have a single-shooted garlic tied around the middle. Clasp a pebble numbered
36631546 to your breasts,154” and in this way make your invocation.1548

It is interesting that Bainchodch should be chosen, and that garlic should be used. Otherwise
it follows the tradition, which recurs again in the Key of Solomon, of dressing up as someone

imposing, such as a prophet, or Solomon, in order to awe the spiritual creatures invoked.

Chapter 35 of the Hygromanteia outlines the necessary garments, as the magician would
certainly not wear his street clothes whilst engaged in a magical operation. Garments were
specified in detail right down to gloves, cloak, shoes, stockings, collar, broach to fix the cloak
and even underwear. The only item with a specific magical function was the linen cloth
designed to cover the lamen till the appropriate point in the ceremony. Each of these items
had to be new, white and made of linen or in the case of the gloves, virgin leather. If possible
the garments should be woven or at least stitched by a virgin girl. Then, using the previously
consecrated pen or reed and scented ink the practitioner must write protective signs and
nomina magica on each of the garments plus specific sigils, which differed from garment to

garment.

Some attempts have been made to date various manuscripts of the Hygromanteia by
examining the clothing nomenclature used in these passages.'4? H, which is one of the oldest
manuscripts from the 15th century, uses very antique Greek phrases for the garments,

suggesting that it was copied from an even older manuscript, probably dating from before

1344 PGM IV. 171-174.
1345 This palm was also listed as one of the items in the Egyptian magician’s box mentioned in chapter

1346 The isopsephic numeration of the letters of Bainchodch.
1347 As a phylactery.

1348 PGM IV. 930-938.

349 Marathakis (2011), p. 91.

314

13th century.

In the Hygromanteia, minor items of clothing, like the shirt, culottes, collar, shoes, headdress,
gloves, broach, lamen cover and even handkerchief, all have their separate inscriptions or
sigils.1950 Perfuming with “musk, saffron, cinnabar and rose water” has the twofold result of
consecration and to make them more acceptable to the spirit for whom smell might well be a

stronger sense than sight.

Parallel instructions are to be found in the Clavicula Salomonis, where a great deal of attention

is given to the garments, which are to be kept in “a small casket of olive or hazel wood.”1951

A belt of lion skin was recommended in several grimoires, echoing the practice of Egyptian
priests. In modern times Mathers, in imitation of the Egyptian magicians, wore a leopard
skin when conducting Golden Dawn ‘Rosicrucian’ rituals in Paris in the early 20th

century.19°2

The use of special clean linen clothing is a persistent theme from the PGM to the modern
day, with the writing of nomina magica and symbols on all garments having been prevalent

since the time of the Hygromanteia.

6.9 The Symbolas of the Gods!%3

Egyptian gods are often portrayed with the symbols of their power (like the Pharaoh).
Typical symbolas (obuBodoc) are the throne of Isis, the feather of Maat, the eye of Horus, the
crook and flail of Osiris or the cow horns of Hathor. Greek gods also carry indications of
their power, like the playthings of Dionysus (e.g. the iynx or spinning top), the caduceus

wand of Hermes or the laurel of Apollo.
The use of laurel wreaths in magic as well as in religious usage occurs in the PGM:

While praying, wear a garland of laurel of the following description: Take 12 laurel twigs; make
a garland of 7 sprigs, and bind the remaining five together and hold them in your right hand
while you pray, and lie down to sleep holding this...1°54

The purpose of that rite was to secure a dream revelation from the god. The purpose of the

laurel wreath was to identify the magician with the god.

In one ritual designed to invoke the ‘Egyptian Selene,’ the instruction is to “Heed your

1350 B, f. 18-18v.
1351 Hazel is traditionally used to make wands, and olive has a long history of religious and magical
use.
1352 A photo of him so dressed exists and has been reproduced in a number of books.
1353 Laurel wreaths, crowns, iynx, tops, etc.
1354 PGM II. 27-33.
OL

sacred symbols, and give a whirring sound...” This is likely to refer to specific concrete
tools of magic (especially in the context of the rest of the sentence) rather than to abstract
symbols. As Betz writes: “the ‘symbols’ of the gods were thought not to be mere signs
representing them but objects and formulae by which they could be controlled.” Betz
suggests that this is the sound of the sistrum of Hathor.'9* The hiss and clatter of the sistrum
does not seem to me to match the sound of whirring. The iynx spinning top, which reputedly

made a whirring sound, is a much more likely fit.
A passage in the PGM lists out some of the symbolas of Kore’s power:!95”

...do this task for me,

Mare, Kore, dragoness, lamp, lightning flash,
Star, lion, she-wolf, AEO EE.

A sieve, an old utensil, is your!$®8 symbol,

And one morsel of flesh, a piece of coral,

Blood of a turtledove,}°°? hoof of a camel,

Hair of a virgin cow, the seed of Pan,

Fire from a sunbeam, colt’s foot, spindel tree,
Boy love, bow drill, a gray-eyed woman’s body
With legs outspread, a black sphinx’s pierced vagina:
All of these are the symbol[s] of my power.1900

Many of these may also be code words for some other, often more innocuous but less poetic

ingredient.
During the invocation of the Moon goddess [Nephthys/Selene] the magician is told to show:

...in your right hand a [single-stemmed] wormwood and in your left a snakeskin, and recite the
[specified] formulas [and ask] what you wish [for], and it will happen.¥*

In the Hygromanteia, the laurel wreath is replaced by a crown. Only two manuscripts (H and
P) record a version of chapter 32, which describes the crown. This item might have been
designed to fool the spirits into believing that the magician was a king, or even king
Solomon, but this faux crown is simply made of virgin parchment, like a party hat. It of

course has its own allocation of names, signs and sigils.

The crown is a sort of play-acting insignia to impress the spirits, along the same lines as
claiming to be Solomon or Osiris in order to compel obedience. It must be made of virgin
parchment, appropriately consecrated, with nomina magica written thereon. The word which

is to be inscribed on the crown is zavtoxpdatwp, Pantokrator: a title sometimes applied to

1355 PGM VII. 884.
1356 Betz (1996), p. 79.
1357 This goddess morphed into a demon in mediaeval grimoires. See Mathers (1900).
1358 Corrected.
1359 Particularly popular with Jewish magicians, a “symbolic” ingredient that lasted well into the 17th
century.
1360 PGM IV. 2303-2310.
1361 PGM III. 702-705.
316

Hermes; an ambiguous name in the Book of Revelation; a title once applied to Christ in the
New Testament;!3©2 and in the Septuagint used as a translation for both El Shaddai and IHVH

Sabaoth. The latter is more likely to be the reason behind its use on the crown.

The crown also survives in the Clavicula Salomonis, and Mathers’ AC Text-Family of the Key

of Solomon states that:

...the Master of the Art should have a Crown made of virgin paper, upon which should be
written these four Names:-

Yod, He, Vau, He, in front; Adonai behind; El on the right; and Elohim on the left...

The Disciples should each have a Crown of virgin paper whereon these Divine symbols should
be marked in scarlet.'

The laurel, which earlier took the place of a crown, later retained its association with Apollo

by being listed in the Key of Solomon as an appropriate wood to burn in rites of the Sun. 1564

All the inscribed clothing of the magician (including the crown) might be construed as a
form of protection, but it is more likely that these inscriptions and symbology (such as the
lion skin belt) were meant to impress the spirit with the power or royalty (symbolised by the

crown) of the magician, so that the spirit might more readily take orders from the magician.

6.10 Magical Statues or Stoicheia (J)

The magical statues or stoicheia may originally have developed from temple statues, or more

specifically from the speaking statues of the Egyptian temples.

One very clear example of the creation of a magical statue in the PGM was designed for a

very modern purpose, bringing customers into a business premise.!36

This particular Graeco-Egyptian type of statue had obviously been often produced, as it even
had a pet name, “the little beggar.” Its function is translated by R. F. Hock simply as a ‘charm,’
but the original Greek is a very specific word: katakAntoKov. The suffix ‘-ikov’ would seem to
indicate an image or statue, and -KAnt- probably relates to KAntiip’, “one who calls or
summons.”!36 A more precise translation might therefore have been “a statue that summons

[customers].”

This statue, made of a single block of hollowed juniper, is made in the likeness of a man:

1362 2 Corinthians 6:18.

1363 Mathers (1909), p. 92. Another version, Wellcome MS 4669, p. 15, gives the names as Agla, Aglata,
Aglou, and Aglatay, all variations on AGLA.

1364 Mathers (1909), p. 119.

1365 Such animated statues, particularly those of a golden cat with a mechanical paw beckoning
potential customers are a common feature of business premises throughout S. E. Asia. Although there
is no suggestion of cultural transmission, it is sometimes enlightening to find instructive parallel
usages that have survived longer in Asia than in Europe.

1366 kdta. is here used in the sense of stirring up the ‘insatiable’ desire of customers.

317

...having his right hand in the position of begging and having in his left a bag and staff. Let
there be around the staff a coiled snake, and let him be dressed in a girdle and standing on a
sphere that has a coiled snake, like Isis...and have an asp covering the top as a capital.19°7

The snake is of course the Agathos Daimon, the good daimon, as is clearly confirmed by the
inscriptions which the practitioner is enjoined to write on various parts of the statue. In
relation to the Agathos Daimon, the author makes reference to Epaphroditos!568 who
suggests various alternative names for the inscription. However, I believe the image is
“Harpon Knouphi,”1369 a form of Harpocrates Chnoubis, which also explains the presence of

the snakes.

The consecration of this statue is complex, and includes the sacrifice of a whole animal,
which has been variously suggested to be a wild ass or a wild ram.” But both those
interpretations are based on adding modifiers to the existing text éyptov, which is clearly
written by itself both in line 2399 and line 3148. The animals suggested are those of Typhon
(ass) or Khnum (ram), neither of which gods coincide in any way with the modelled image.
As a&yptov simply means ‘wild,’ there is no implication of a specific animal, except that we
know it should have a white forehead. I suggest that the animal may have been an oryx,
which is truly a wild animal with magical connotations, or more likely a wild cow, as the
invocation continues: “I receive you as the cowherd who has his camp toward the south.”1971
After consecration, the statue is set up in a shop or business to “bring to me silver, gold,

clothing, much wealth.”

Another example of the use of magical statues in the process of invocation, this time of the

goddess Selene (with a nod toward Aphrodite-Urania) is made of clay:

The preparation for Mistress Selene is made like this: Take clay from a potter's wheel and mix a
mixture with sulfur, and add blood of a dappled goat and mold an image of Mistress Selene the
Egyptian,8” as shown below,” making her in the form of the Universe. And make a shrine of
olive wood and do not let it face the sun at all. And after dedicating it with the ritual that works

1367 PGM IV. 2380-2389.

1368 Despite the fact that Betz remarks that “nothing is known about him,” this probably refers to
Epaphroditos (20/25-95 CE), Nero’s secretary. As unlikely as this may seem, Epaphroditos was the
owner of a slave who was Epictetus of Hierapolis, a Stoic philosopher. He in turn had been taught by
Musonius Rufus, who was reputed to have written letters to Apollonius of Tyana. Whether he did or
not is not important. What is important is the reputed indirect connection between Epaphroditos and
the most famous magician of the age, which considerably increases the likelihood that this
Epaphroditos was the one able to comment cogently on that particular magical procedure.

1369 See Harpon-Knouphi in PGM III. 435-6, 560-63; IV. 2433; VIL 1023-25; XXXVI. 219-20. Harpon-
Knouphi is not derived from the Egyptian phrase “Horus the pillar of Kenmet” as suggested by
several scholars.

1870 Jacoby (in Preisendanz Vol. I, p. 147) suggests ‘ass’ whilst Eitrem (ibid) suggests ‘ram.’

1871 Line 2435.

13722 This suggests that the image would actually be of the Egyptian sky goddess Nut (or Tefnut) rather
than the Greek Selene. That means the image might have been that of a dark blue cow with many stars
painted on her hide. Plutarch equates Nut with Rhea rather than Selene.

1373 The figure is missing.

318

for everything, [put it away] and thus it will be dedicated in advance. And anoint it also with
lunar ointment and wreathe it. And late at night, at the 5th hour, put it away, facing Selene in a
[pure] room. And also offer the lunar offering and repeat the following in succession and you
will send dreams, and you will bind spells [with its aid], for the invocation to Selene is very
effective. And after anointing yourself in advance [with] the ointment, appeal to her.19”4

Another rite suggests a figure of an ape and a fish made of wax, for an invocation of

Thoth,!8% utilising animals sacred to that god.

Kerberos, being a guardian of the entrance to hell, is invoked so that the dead may carry out
the magician’s wishes (in the same way they do with a defixio) and bind a woman. The rite
requires a statue of a dog (possibly Anubis), made of wax, pitch, virgin fruit, and manna. The
dog is to be eight fingers long, and have its mouth wide open as if barking. It is activated by
placing a suitably inscribed bone (from a man who died violently) in its mouth; or by sitting
it on a papyrus strip inscribed with “IAO ASTO IOPHE.” An invocation is then to be said,

and the dog will bark if it succeeds.1976

Statues of the gods, especially Anubis, were also utilised by magicians. In two consecutive
rites the magician asks Anubis to send a spirit to influence someone else’s dreams. In each

case an image of Anubis is used. In the first example:

On a new papyrus: you should draw an image of Anubis with blood of a black dog on it; you
should write these writings under it; you should put it [in] to the mouth of [the statue of the]
black dog of the embalming house; you should make great offerings before it; you should put
frankincense on the brazier before him; you should do it as a libation of milk of a black
cow...and you should put its recitation [invocation] in its mouth.87”

In the second passage:

On a jackal of clean clay which is lying down,8% its body moistened with milk and fluid of a
jackal of the embalming house... You should write your words on a new papyrus; you should
put it in the jackal’s mouth; and you should leave the jackal on a copper lamp which a brazier is
heating.8”

In each case the papyrus on which the spell is written is put into the mouth of the Anubis
statue, which is then heated, censed, and in one case libated. The ritual is not religious, but

aimed at getting the god to enforce the spirit to influence the intended ‘victim.’

In a Byzantine context, the word telesma was often applied to these statues as well as to metal
(or parchment) talismans. According to Magdalino, the first use of stoicheia as a technical

term to describe these statues was in the Parastaseis, 1389 in the early 8» century.%!

1374 i.e, invoke her. PGM VII. 866-879.
1375 PDM xiv. 330.
1376 PGM IV. 1872-1927.
1377 PDM Supplement 112-116.
1378 The usual couchant form of Anubis.
1379 PDM Supplement 125-130.
1380 See Cameron and Herrin (1984).
1381 Magdalino (2006), p. 134.
319

As the process of making a talisman consists of fixing a particular power or specific spiritual
creature to an inscribed parchment or metal disk at the correct time, so the Byzantine

stoicheia'**

probably were originally statues which the magician wished to ensoul, by fixing
to them a particular spirit. It appears that the word stoicheion can also apply to the spirit so
fixed. As such it is sometimes defined as “an elementary spirit.” Some scholars have
suggested the definition “personally active spiritual being,” which is only marginally correct,

in the sense that some magician has personally fixed the spirit to a statue or talisman.19%

One Christian view of pagan idols was that they were ‘animated’ by a stoicheion fixed to the
statue. In that light it is easy to see what St Paul means when he writes to the Galatians that the
congregation should not lapse back to worshipping pagan idols, or more explicitly, being “in
bondage under [the influence of] t& otoweia tov’ Koopov.” 384 According to Greenfield, “by the
late Byzantine period otowesiov had...come to denote a much lesser elemental spirit.”15° I
suspect that there was a hierarchy of otoveia, from the simplest fixed spirit right up to the té
OTOLYXEia TOV’ KOOLOV Occupying the statues of gods, rather than any change in its meaning over

time.

I conjecture that otovyetoKpatotoa possibly means someone who fixes the spirit or god to the
material talisman or statue, by writing the proper words on the talisman or statue, whilst
invoking the spiritual entity to be fixed, in other words a species of magician.1586 Likewise
otowslopatikot, like mathematekoi, are simply the professionals who do this, in other words

makers of talismans or ensouled statues.

Apart from oracular heads, like those attributed to the Templars or Roger Bacon, there is no

trace of animated statues in the Latin grimoire tradition.

6.11 Magical Rings and Gemstones (K)

Solomon’s Ring appears in many texts as the source of his power over the spirits. The
Testament of Solomon describes the Ring (GSaxtvAidtov) as having been given to Solomon by
God, via the hand of the archangel Michael. As a result of this story, the magician’s ring
appears in the Hygromanteia, and has often featured in grimoires, as it was such an integral
part of Solomon’s ability to command the spirits. The Ring was not usually made of the
obvious choices, gold or silver, but was made of iron (for the same reason as an iron sword

was used), or of brass, as brass was the metal of the confining Brass Vessel.

1382 ~
OTOLYELO.

1383 See Blum (1946) for various other opinions about the meaning of stoicheia.
1384 Galatians 4:3. See also 4:8.
1385 ‘Elemental spirit’ is misleading here, as that would mean a spirit of Earth, Air, Fire or Water.
1386 See Greenfield (1988), pp. 192-5.
320

The Jewish Encyclopaedia explains that Solomon’s Ring:

..was partly brass and partly iron. With the brass part of the ring Solomon signed his written
commands to the good genii, and with the iron part he signed his commands to the evil genii, or
devils. The Arabic writers declare also that Solomon received four jewels from four different angels,
and that he set them in one ring, so that he could control the four elements. The legend that
Asmodeus once obtained possession of the ring and threw it into the sea, and that Solomon was
thus deprived of his power until he discovered the ring inside a fish, also has an Arabic source.1°8”

Stories about this Ring have spread throughout the Middle East, and it appears in the
1st/2nd century CE text The Testament of Solomon, which tells the story of Solomon’s
subjugation of 60 demons, which he later either imprisons or puts to work building the
Temple. This text is seminal for Solomonic magic as it details some of the methods used to
subdue demons, specifically the use of nomina magica, and the doctrine of thwarting angels. It
also acts as a catalogue of demons, their abilities and how each can be defeated. Solomon’s
Ring features strongly in the Testament of Solomon where it is the Ring that enabled him to
bind the first spirit Ornias, who is later compelled to act as his familiar spirit or magical
assistant, introducing him to a succession of other demons. The ring reappears in many
grimoires, but there does not seem to be any consistent view as to its design. This archetypal
grimoire provides the basis for the register of spirits and the use of thwarting angels: classic
cases of transmission of magical techniques over 15 centuries. Both of these techniques

appear later in the 1641 Goetia of Dr. Rudd.1388

The supreme ritual for the consecration of rings and their gemstones is given in two places in
the twelfth papyrus of the PGM, with another similar consecration in an earlier section.1589
The invocation calls on a wide range of gods,!° but finishes by revealing that the god
primarily called upon is OUPHOR.13! The rubric explains that towards the end of the
consecration, the ring and gemstone should be inserted into the body cavity of a live rooster

and left there for a whole day.

Magical rings were also very much a part of Gnostic practice, many of which now lie in

museums around the world.

The attributions of semi-precious stones are mentioned in one passage,!% in connection with

the representation of the planets on an astrological board:15%

1387 ‘Solomon, Seal of’ in Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906.

1388 Edited in Rankine & Skinner (2007), pp. 103-174.

1389 PGM XII. 270-350, 201-269.

1390 Including Helios, Ouroboros, Kheperi, Iao Sabaoth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Astaphaios,
Bainchodoch, Amoun and Osiris.

1391 OQUPHOR is perhaps a word of compulsion rather than the name of a god, according to Thissen
(1991), pp. 299-230; Vergote (1961), pp. 213-214.

1392 PGM CX. 1-12.

1393 However the list equally well serves for the construction of magical rings.

321

Planet Metal/Stone

Sun gold

Moon silver

Kronos (Saturn) obsidian

Ares (Mars) yellow-green onyx

Aphrodite (Venus) lapis-lazuli streaked with gold

Hermes (Mercury) turquoise

Zeus (Jupiter) 15" [dark blue] stone, but underneath of crystal

Chapter 34 of the Hygromanteia, concerning the making of the Ring, appears in a number of
manuscripts, attesting to its importance. Very strangely the Ring in H is said to be made of
virgin wax covered with parchment, and is therefore rather impermanent.% Only G has a
ring to be made by a goldsmith out of silver, and engraved with a long Greek inscription.
The most interesting part of this inscription is the word ‘Bisegeubarpharaggés.’ When broken
down into its constituent parts it yields ‘Bisegeu bar Pharaggés’ the latter part of which is a
name well attested in the PGM, and also on some inverted Mesopotamian demon bowls.13%

This is a clear link back to earlier Graeco-Egyptian magic.

In most manuscript sources the design is described as a simple pentagram, or sometimes as a
hexagram, rather than the elaborate design offered by the Hygromanteia.°°”7 Marathakis
makes an interesting point connecting the Testament of Solomon more closely to the
Hygromanteia:
However, in the Private Library of the Earl of Leicester, No 99 (15th century), and in
Bibliotheque Nationale, Supplément Grec, No 500 (16th century), there are inscriptions on the
ring, very close to the inscriptions described in H, P, A, B and B3. The inscription of G seems to

be derived from them, but it is quite corrupt. A somewhat different version, with the inscription
abbreviated, can be found earlier in H, in the Testament of Solomon material (f. 8v).19%

The inscription on the ring in the Earl of Leicester’s Library is:

K[yriJe ho Theos hemon, Leon, Sabaoth, Bionik, A, O, A, Eloi, Eao, Idase, Sougeoa, Aia, Aeniou,
Ou, Ouniou, Era.

Compare this with the inscription in one manuscript of the Hygromanteia which shows a
silver ring with a big bezel and the following very similar inscription:
K[yriJe ho Th[eo]s, ho boéthos hémon, Idsos, Sabadth, Isaio, Adonai, Thidad, Aedloie, Aida,
Bisegeubarpharagges,'9 Meob, Aphone, Monou.140

The connection with the Testament of Solomon is not surprising, although the Testament

1394 Interestingly the planets are indicated by naming the corresponding Greek god, a procedure also
followed in the Hygromanteia.
13% T can only conjecture that this made it easier to destroy in times of persecution.
1396 Sesengen bar Pharangés. The double ‘ge’ in Pharaggés’ is equivalent to the ‘ng’ in Greek, and
‘Bisegeu’ could easily have been a scribal corruption of ‘Besengen.’
1397 H, f. 8v. H, f. 33 is just a simple ring with a hexagram inscribed on a rectangular bezel. A, f. 16 and
B, f. 21 are similar but the figure is a pentagram.
1398 Marathakis (2011), pp. 92-93.
1399 Derived from the PGM name Sesengen bar Pharanges.
1400 G, f. 24v.
322

probably predates the Hygromanteia by five centuries (assuming a 2nd century date for the

Testament, and a 7th century date for the Hygromanteia.)

Figure 55: Solomon’s ring from the Hygromanteia.14!

AS We onmtens Ma 9 tcall
Ring of Dor we:

Figure 56: Solomon’s ring from the Goetia made of silver or gold.140

1401 'H, f. 8v.
1402 Sloane MS 2731, f. 22.
323

The details of Solomon’s ring also appear in the Goetia, but in a very different form.14°
According to Weyer, the ring should be made of silver. Note that no longer is there a
pentagram or hexagram as part of the ring design, and here the ring is sometimes described
as a disk to be held up in front of the magician’s face. This suggests that the scribe who wrote
this particular manuscript of the Goetia was working from an older manuscript which showed
the ring on the page as a two-dimensional figure, rather than receiving verbal instruction from

another magician who would simply have shown him his (three-dimensional) ring.

6.12 Wax and Clay Images

Both wax and clay images were as much a part of magic in the PGM as they were a part of
the Hygromanteia in the early centuries of the Orthodox Christian era, or a part of village

witchcraft of the 15th-18th century.

In ancient Egypt, creator gods like Khnum were reputed to form gods and people from clay,
on the potter’s wheel, before breathing life into them. It is therefore logical for Egyptian
magicians to use clay to make images into which life could be breathed. Dough and wax
were also used for this purpose. Wax images of Apep were made before being deliberately

destroyed.

Wax and clay were the ingredients most easily to hand for the creating of figurines to
represent the person who was the object of a spell, or to make an (ensouled) spirit statue.
Wax was also valued for its ability to absorb an impression, because of its semi-organic

beehive origin.

As well as the making of images, clay is also used for making the ‘brick,’ an item mentioned
in both Babylonian magic and the PGM where it acts as a seat or altar. I suspect that this item
is not a house brick, which would not be appropriate in such a magical context, where purity
was so important, but is in fact a clay tablet. If this were so then it makes a lot more sense,

because the placing of ritual impedimenta on it would then let it act like an altar.

One spell of attraction, for binding a lover, uses two clay figures, with the male figure like
Ares plunging his sword into the female.!4°! This aggressive pose is surprisingly designed to
cause longing in the female rather than pain. The formula also mandates the use of 13 copper
needles to be inserted into parts of her anatomy.!4 The design is to ensure “she may

remember no one but me, NN, alone.” Such figures in clay and wax are fairly universal to

1403 Peterson (2001), p. 43.
1404 PGM IV. 296-466.
1405 The image’s brain (1), ears (2), eyes (2), mouth (1), midriff (2), hands (1 each), pudenda (2), soles of
the feet (2).
324

magic, but images pierced with needles, nails or pins are intuitively usually assumed to be

examples of hate magic rather than love magic.

The rite continues by tying a lead tablet to the figure with 365 knots whilst saying “Abrasax,
hold her fast!” The 365 refers both to all the days of the year and to the isopsephy of the
name Abraxas. The lead tablet indicates that it is to be used as a defixio and buried by or in
the grave of someone unrelated (and probably untimely dead). Although this sounds a rather
macabre place for a love image, the theory is that the soul of the newly dead person can pass
the message on to one of the chthonic gods: Kore, Persephone, Erishkigal, Anubis, etc, who is
then able to carry out the magician’s wishes. Anubis Psirinth is specially characterised as

“holding the keys to Hades.”

Perhaps the most complete formula for making a magical statue, this time of Hermes, for the

purpose of dream sending, uses a special clay mix:

Take 28 leaves from a pithy laurel tree!#°° and some virgin earth™’” and seed of wormwood,
wheat meal and the herb [called] calf’s snout (but I have heard!4°8 from a certain man of
Herakleopolis that he takes 28 new sprouts from an olive tree, which is cultivated, the famous
one). Those are carried by an uncorrupted boy.'4% Also pounded together with the foregoing
ingredients is the liquid of an ibis egg'!° and made into a uniform dough and [then] into a
figure of Hermes wearing a mantle, while the moon is ascending in Aries or Leo or Virgo or
Sagittarius. Let Hermes be holding a herald’s staff. And write the spell!" on hieratic papyrus or
ona goose’s windpipe... and insert it into the figure for the purpose of inspiration;*!2 and when
you want to use it, take some papyrus and write the spell and the matter [being enquired
about]; and shave your head4¥ and roll a hair into the papyrus, binding it with a piece of
purple cord, and put on the outside of it an olive branch, and place it at the feet of the [clay
statue of] Hermes (but others say: place it upon him). And let the figure lie in a shrine of lime
wood. But when you want to use it, place the shrine beside your head along with the [image of
the] god and recite [the spell] as on the altar you burn incense, earth from a grain-bearing field
and one lump of rock salt. Let it rest beside your head, and go to sleep after saying the spell'4"4
without giving an answer to anyone... Recite this both at sunrise and moonrise.'45

Another love spell utilises a wax image of Osiris embedded with the hair of the woman
desired by the magician, together with the hair of “a donkey!4!* together with a bone of a
lizard” all of which should be buried under the doorsill of her house.™!” The latter procedure

is a common usage in Mediaeval and later magic in Europe, where the magical image is

1406 The laurel is sacred to Apollo.

1407 Probably clay.

1408 An interpolation by the scribe, or an early redactor.

1409 Such as might have been used by the magician as a skryer.

1410 Symbolic of Thoth.

M411 PGM V., 424-435.

M422 To enable the statue to breathe.

1413 Tn the manner of a priest.

1414 PGM V. 400-421.

1415 PGM V. 370-446.

1416 For lust, or symbolic of Typhon like the ass.

M417 PIM xii. 50-61 has the same instruction, to bury it “under the doorsill of the house.”
325

buried in a place often crossed by the intended victim of the spell.1418

The use of a lizard is a recurrent theme, possibly because it was an easily obtainable animal.
In one example a spotted lizard’? is cooked in an iron vessel, to encourage hatred, as
“Helios and all the gods have hated you.” This is a slander spell implicating the object of

desire has been lying about the lizard.1420

A large number of figurines in beeswax and clay (but also in lead, bronze, magnetite, etc.) are
listed by Versnel in the course of his commentary on one particular text.42! He highlights the
deformities of these figures, such as twisted heads and broken necks. Such deformities are
apparent in the ‘poppets’ used in magic later in northern European witchcraft, but not so

commonly in Solomonic magic.

Sometimes, a rite in the PGM will specify a drawing of a figure rather than a wax or clay
three-dimensional execution. One such example gives the following detailed description of

Bes-Pantheos:

Take a clean linen cloth, and (according to Ostanes) with myrrh ink draw a figure on it which is
humanlike in appearance but has four wings, having the left arm outstretched along with the
two left wings, and having the other arm bent with the fist clenched. Then upon the head
[draw] a royal headdress and a cloak over its arm, with two spirals on the cloak. Atop the head
[draw] bull horns and to the buttocks a bird’s tail. Have his right hand near his stomach and
clinched (sic), and on either ankle [thigh?] have a sword extended.1422

Bes has long been known as a helpful god assisting in both childbirth and magic, but Bes-
Pantheos (literally “Bes all gods”) is more cast in the mould of a master of spirits, and has a

number of similarities to the daimons/ demons that he controls.

Chapters 28 and 29 in the Hygromanteia deal with the preparation and use of the virgin wax
and the virgin clay. The main purpose of the virgin wax seems to be in the construction of
the magic ring. This seems as if it could be the result of misinterpretation of an earlier source
manuscript, as wax would typically be used to seal something like a document, by
impressing the ring upon the wax. A further loss of meaning is obvious from the fact that,
although the wax is meant also for fashioning images, there is no mention of these images in
the text. A typically Christian provision has been inserted in the text where it says that, after
collection of the wax from a beehive, it should be stored in a church for a while, and prayers

said over it.

It seems certain that the clay and the wax were also meant for image making of potential

1418 PIM Ixi. 112-27.
1419 Which must be “taken from the place where bodies are mummified.”
1420 PDM Lxi. 197-216 [PGM LXI. 39-71].
1421 Versnel (1988), pp. 287-292.
1422 PGM XII. 121-143.
326

‘

victims, but this detail has been cautiously left out by the scribe. A secondary use

(especially of the wax) might be in the making of pentacles, as in M3 this is suggested.

Fy A)
%
COMMU

5: FRR

nen
Bers

Figure 57: Bes-Pantheos. Note the wands and the ouroboros circle, holding an array of venomous
animals. The faces on his knees appear again in mediaeval depictions of demons.!4%

Mathers’ edition of the Key of Solomon does mention the virgin clay together with the virgin
wax, but is not very forthcoming about its actual use.474 In one AC version of the Key of

Solomon'#5 the magician is instructed to:

...put it in a pot of new earthenware so that he may use it as need be. Let him cork the pot with
a piece of parchment upon which he will have traced the character below with the blood of a
kid goat; and let the Master of the Art make a hole in his cellar and place it there, and let it rest
there for 24 hours.. .1426

The use of wax in the making of pentacles surfaces again in the late 16th century when Dee
made both pentacles and a skrying crystal support out of wax, now in the British
Museum."4?”7 The use of wax or clay for the making of images is a universal magical
technique common to all three periods. Another condition common to all three periods is
that the wax should be virgin, so that it did not retain any impressions of earlier images. In

the late 14th century Antonio da Montolmo specified:

1423 Lindsay (1965).
1424 Mathers (1909), p. 114.
1425 Wellcome MS 4669 (1796), p. 72.
1426 Skinner and Rankine (2008), p. 355.
1427 Previously in the Horological gallery but now moved to the ground floor salon that used to hold
the King’s Library.
327

...that the wax should be virgin, new, and clean, and just the same as for any material in which
these [magical] influxes are to be received. This [wax] must not be impregnated with extraneous
qualities that would impede the reception of the celestial quality, and so the wax has to be
virgin, new, and clean.1428

6.13 Incenses

One of the oldest indications of the systematic use of incense to help in the invocation of
specific planetary entities is a set of seven precious oils which was found on an Egyptian
calcite oil tablet, with seven oil depressions and corresponding hieroglyphic labels, dating
from the Old Kingdom."429 The names of the oils inscribed on the tablet were: seti-heb, heknu,
sefeti, ni-chenem, tewat, best ash, and best tiehenu. These oil names occur first on jar labels from
the royal tombs of the first dynasty (3100-2857 BCE). Although the museum which displayed
this object suggested they may have been connected with the process of embalming, the fact
that they are a set of seven, with depressions holding quantities too small to be of any use in
embalming a corpse, militates against this. It is most likely that they actually contained the

incense oils of the seven planets.

One papyrus romanticises the generation of the key incenses associated with particular
Egyptian gods:
Horus cried. The water fell from his eye to earth and it grew. That is how dry myrrh came to be.
Geb was sad on account of it. Blood fell from his nose to the ground and it grew. That is how

pines came to be and resins came to be from their fluid. Then Shu and Tefnut cried exceedingly.
The water from their eyes fell to the ground and it grew. That is how incense came to be.14?

In the PGM, myrrh is particularly significant, as talismanic writing of any sort is almost
always recommended to be written with perfumed myrrh ink. Apart from the Horus
connection, myrrh was also intimately connected with Anubis, god of the Underworld:

Open to me, O you of the underworld, O box of myrrh that is in my hand!... O box of myrrh

which has four corners. O dog who is called Anubis by name, who rests on the box of myrrh,
whose feet are set on the box of myrrh. ..1451

Other incenses used include:

...a wolf's eye, storax gum, cassia, balsam gum and whatever is valued among the spices...1452
The invocation of Selene mandates the burning of an offering of Cretan storax on pieces of
juniper wood.'4% It makes a clear distinction between the use of the rite for beneficent

operations (using only incense) and for coercive operations (using the same incense on the

1428 Weill-Parot (2012), p. 271.
1429 Calcite oil tablet from Giza tomb item 4733 E, 19.5 cm x 9.2 cm x 2.2 cm found by the Harvard
University Museum of Fine Arts expedition of 1914. See D’Auria (1992), pp. 81-82.
1430 Papyrus Salt 825, translated in Derchain (1965), p. 137; Ritner (2008), p. 39.
1431 PGM xiv. 188.
1432 PGM I. 285-286.
1433 PGM IV. 2622-2707.
328

first and second day, but with less appealing materia magica on the third day):

The beneficent offering, then, is: Uncut frankincense, bay, myrtle,4 fruit pit, stavesacre,
cinnamon leaf, kostos. Pound all these together and blend with Mendesian'*° wine and honey,
and make pills the size of beans.

Another passage suggests the following oil for a face anointment which will win favour and

respect:

...in first-quality lotus oil (or tsps oil) or moringa oil...;16 add styrax to it together with first
quality myrrh and seeds of “great-of-love” plant in a faience vessel... anoint your face with it;
place the wreath in your hand; go to any place; [and be] among any people. It creates for you
very great praise among them indeed.14°7

To consecrate a lead lamella, it was recommended that the magician cense the lamella with a

mixture of myrrh, bdellium, styrax, aloes, thyme and river mud.1#8

Roses and sumac are also mentioned as an offering.'499 One passage in the PGM lists incenses

for doing good as:
...storax, myrrh, sage, frankincense, and a fruit pit.1#°

Sulphur and the seed of Nile rushes were used as incense to the Moon and Isis.#4! Sulphur

later reoccurs as an incense of Saturn in the Heptameron.

The incenses to be found in the PGM are to a large extent the same as those found in the

HAygromanteia, and in later Latin grimoires (see Table 16).

The habit of using scented inks persists from the PGM, and is present in the Hygromanteia.
Chapter 14 of the Hygromanteia deals with planetary incenses, characters and seals,!442 seven
composite incenses are prescribed, one for each planet. Every planetary incense is followed
by the planetary characteres, which are intended to be written on planetary talismans. This
chapter overlaps with the chapter 16 on planetary incenses, because the planetary inks and
parchments also need to be censed after writing.“ Two manuscripts (H and B3) also have
more complex planetary incenses, whilst G gives just one perfumed ink: “saffron, musk, oak

galls, blue vitriol or similar materials.” 14

M434 Myrtus communis.
1435 From the city of Mendes in the Nile delta.
1436 BaAavos upeyiyn, Moringa pterygosperma or Moringa aptera. Moringa was used in cosmetics, cooking
and pharaonic medicine.
187 PDM xiv. 330-333.
1438 PGM VII. 429-458.
1439 PGM IV. 2232.
1440 PGM IV. 2870-2879.
1441 PGM VII. 490-504.
1422 This chapter not only occurs in manuscripts H, A, P2, P4, B but is repeated four times in B3.
44 Accordingly Hygromanteia chapter 16 has been moved up to be adjacent to Hygromanteia chapter 14
in the table of chapters (Table 01).
M4 G, f. 23.
329

The Hygromanteia attributions of incenses are as follows:

Saturn sulphur;

Jupiter = myrrh;

Mars dried human blood;

Sun nutmeg;

Venus mastic mixed with labdanum;
Mercury frankincense mixed with hare’s skin;
Moon _ styrax mixed with galbanum.

After the ritual bath and before the evocation, the magician is advised to anoint himself with
musk, civet, clove, costus and water milfoil pounded with rose oil. Manuscript B gives rose
oil with musk, asafoetida, clove and water milfoil.“4 The thinking behind this may be to
completely hide the smell of the human body, paralleling those texts which compare spirits

to shy wild animals, who will not want to approach if they can smell humans.
Another procedure gives an interesting recipe:

You must also have four little braziers. Put inside them the following substances: steratzon,1##
calamint, styrax, nigella oil - this is the oil of the black cumin - aloe wood ashes - this is
powdered oud - spikenard, saffron and nutmeg. Put them into the little braziers to be
censed.1447

Manuscript G gives a slightly different list:
musk, styrax, aloe wood, spikenard, saffron and nutmeg.
The incense for evocation according to H is:

Aloe wood, fragrant costus, frankincense, musk,’ clove, nutmeg and saffron. Moreover, add
some water lily, nigella, root of daffodil and blood of a man that was killed undeservedly.4°

The Latin grimoires continued to see incense as a most important ingredient in magical
operations. The Raziel or Librum Razielis,!#! (also called Cephar Raziel,1#2 or more correctly
Sepher Raziel) is a Solomonic grimoire!*> appearing in a manuscript dating from November
1564.144 It is divided into seven separate treatises, of which the third, the Tractatus
Thymiamatus, is devoted solely to incense and “suffumigations.’ As Solomon is made to say:

...suffumigations, sacrifice and unction make to open the gates of air, and of fire, and of all the
other heavens.1455

M45 G, f. 26.
M446 Also spelled styratzon.
M47 B, f. 27v.
1448 G, f. 26v.
1449 A and B omit the musk.
1450 H, f. 34.
1451 Sloane MS 3826, 3846 [both English], 3847 [Latin].
1452 This mistaken orthography derives from the Latin Sloane MS 3853, f. 46 [old foliation 41], where an
extended upwards flourish on the initial ‘S’ has caused subsequent scribes to read it as a “C.’
1453 Tt is also called Liber Salomonis in Sloane MS 3826, f. 2.
1454 Transcribed in full in Karr and Skinner (2010).
1455 Sloane MS 3826, f. 27v.
330

And later in the same manuscript the precise reason is outlined:

And all spiritual [creatures], with the right fumigation [incense], shall obey you, and shall come
to you, and they shall do your commandment.14

Finally Solomon is quoted:

And Solomon said that as the Adamant [diamond] draweth [32v] Iron to himself,” so knowe
thou that suffumigacion gathereth together and draweth the spirits of the ayre, and maketh
them to come to the place where thou doest it [the experiment] and will gather them
togither.1458

This passage underlines the great importance of incense in magical operations. The use of
perfumed ink which was an important item in the magic of the PGM, was also continued in

Sepher Raziel.

The listing of planetary incenses in the PGM is in most cases short, but highly significant, as
parallel lists can be identified in a number of later magical texts. In fact, in the Latin and later
English texts of Sepher Raziel (1564), the topic has achieved the status of a separate treatise
with the title Tractatus Thymiamatus.% Table 16 shows the planetary configuration of
incenses in nine texts. Although the Book of Jubilees, and PGM agree in most cases, suggesting
that in fact they may have been contemporary sources. However the transfer from Egypt and

Palestine to Constantinople has resulted in a discontinuity with regard to incense.!460

In more modern times, Rabbi Falk (1708-1782), a Jewish magician who was called the Ba’al
Shem46! of London, mixed incenses in his magical workshop which was located on London

Bridge was:

... furnished with talismans, candles and plates of gold. He inscribed on the floor the Seal of
Solomon (better known as the Jewish emblem, the Star of David) which he anointed with
alum,'4 raisins, dates, cedar and lignum aloes, and mounted on the wall a deer’s head
containing holy names to ward off fires.14

The deer’s skull was more likely to have been a substitute for a human skull, of the oracular

variety,'44 with the phrase “to ward off fires” merely being his deliberately deceptive answer

1456 Sloane MS 3826, f. 30.

1457 A common mediaeval misconception.

1458 Sloane MS 3826, f. 32r-32v.

1459 The word Ovpiapca means incense.

1460 Probably because the traditional incenses were no longer obtainable in Byzantium after the loss of
Egypt as a colony in 395.

M461 Master of the holy name, in other words a practical Kabbalist with miracle/magic working
abilities.

1462 Probably a replacement for natron. Alum has purifying properties, in fact it is still used in
Singapore for drinking water purification procedures.

1463 Edward Glinert, East End Chronicles, London: Penguin, 2003.

1464 See chapter 7.6 on necromancy.

331

to overly curious clients.14 Parts of the incense mixture, such as alum, raisins and dates

come directly from passages in the PGM.

The use of incenses is a universal ingredient in magical practice in all three periods, with

only some consistency of usage.

1465 Falk was also an alchemist, a Freemason, and was working on creating a golem. His ability to
make money was legendary. This is attested by annual payments still made to the poor by the United
Synagogue in London, from the large legacy of gold that he left them, more than 200 years ago.

O32.

Saturn
Kronos
Jupiter
Zeus
Mars
Ares
Sun
Helios
Venus
Aphrodite
Mercury
Hermes

Moon
Selene

Incense

Storax
Styrax

Tejpatra
Tamaalpatra
Indian Bay
leaves

Costus
Kostos

Frankincense
Olibanum

(oil of
Frankincense)

Spikenard

Cassia
Kasia

Botanical
Source of the
Resin

Styrax officinalis
(Liquid amber
orientalis tree)

Cinnamomum
tamala or
albiflorum

Root of Costus
Arabicus, Costus
Speciosus,
Saussurea lappa,
Saussurea costus

Boswellia
cartierii &
Boswellia
thurifera

Nardostachys
grandiflora or
Nardostachys
jJatamansi

Cinnamomum
Cassia

Balsamodendron
myrrha,
Commiphora

myrrha

PGM
c. 100 CE1467

Styrax

Malabathron
Malabatrum!*”4

Frankincense

Indian nard

Cassia
Galbanum

Myrrh

Heptameron
Pre-1316146

Sulphur”!

Saffron

Pepper

Red
sandalwood!4”7

Costus !478

Mastic

Aloes

Hygromanteia
14404

Nigella, pepper,
aloe wood
(H, A)'47

cinnamon,

opium, camphor,
vervain seeds (H);
aloe wood (A, P2)

Blood (H)

Nutmeg, cassia,
roses,

styrax nubs (H);
annual mercury
(A)

Musk, aloe wood,
Armenian bole
(A)

Frankincense,
musk, wasp
wax, labdanum,
sweet flag root
(A)

White beeswax,
saffron, bay
root, peony root,
blackberry root
(A); purple
betony, root of
elm, blackberry
leaf (P2)

1466 Some scholars have dated this to 100 CE, thereby making it contemporary with the PGM passage.
1467 PGM XIII. 16-22. These are the “secret incenses” of the planets. It adds “prepare sun vetch
[Egyptian bean] on every occasion.” They are listed in a different order, but without planetary
correspondences in PGM XIII. 353-354.
1468 The date of publication was 1496. However the identification of the author is problematic, but in
the event that this book is finally attributed to Peter de Abano, then it must date from before 1316.

1469 Chapter

14.

1470 The exact translation of this is ambiguous, as the Hebrew word nataph simply means ‘to ooze or

drip.’

1471 Not a very practical incense. Probably a scribal misreading.

4? The specific Hygromanteia manuscript.

1473 Probably so specified because the translator did not know how to handle Malabathron.
'474T eaves of Cinnamomum tamala or C. albiflorum. Liddell-Scott gives “the aromatic leaf of an Indian plant,
the betel or areca.”; Dioscorides 1.12; Gal. 12.66; Pliny HN12.129; Horace Odes 2.7.8. The word is probably

derived originally from the Sanskrit tamdla-pattra.

1475 Manuscript A suggests xylobalsamon when it should probably be commiphora gileadensis.
1476 Saussurea lappa root.
1477 Sandalum rubeum. Not ‘red wheat’ as in Robert Turner’s translation (1655).

1478 Mistranslated by Turner (1655) as ‘pepperwort.’

Agrippa Sepher Greek/
De Occulta Sepher Raziel Goetia Maphteah Key of Solomon omanced
Philosophia 15641480 1641 Shelomoh 17961482 Pl .
15331479 17001481 ane
Odoriferous roots: Odiferous roots:
pepperwort root, costus, thuris . . Saturn
frankincense tree Myrrh'* Brimstone! Bamsroue Kronos
Odoriferous fruits: Odiferous fruits and
nutmegs, cloves rinds: nutmeg, cloves,
citrus, oranges (dried
and ground) Cedar Saffron Saffron
Odoriferous woods: Odiferous woods:
aloes sandalwood, red, black and white
cypress, lignum sandalwood, aloes, Dragon’s blood!485 Pepper Pepper
balsam, lignum cypress
[Odiferous] gums: Odiferous gums:
frankincense, mastic, | Thus [oil of
benjamin, storax, . frankincense], mastic, | Frankincense Red Sandalwood Red Sandalwood
laudanum, ambergris, | musk
musk
[Odiferous] flowers: | Odiferous flowers:
roses, violets, saffron | rose, violet, crocus ; :
Sandalwood Costus Ginger (i.e. Costus)
Odoriferous woods Odiferous barks:
fruits and seeds: cinnamon, cassia
cinnamon, lignum lignum, laurel, muris Storax Mastix (sic) Mastio-resin
cassia, mace, citron,
bayberries
Odoriferous leaves: Odiferous leaves:
leaf Indum, leaves of | myrtle, laurel !4°°
the myrtle, and bay
tree : Moon
Jasmine [Aloes] Aloe wood
Selene
a tT

Table 16: The planetary incenses according to different texts.

A few conclusions can be drawn from Table 16, some of which will help in the later
establishment of a lineage for the European grimoires. There appears to be two separate
traditions with regard to the planetary incenses. The oldest is undoubtedly that outlined in

the Book of Jubilees, PGM and the Orphic Hymns which allocates a single incense to each

479 Agrippa (1993), Book I, Chapter 44.

1480 Sloane MS 3826, f. 28.

1481 F 37b,

1482 Wellcome MS 4670, p. 39.

1483 The movement of myrrh from the bottom of a list to the top suggests a transcription error.

1484 A synonym for ‘brimstone,’

1485 An incense and resin which can be derived from at least 15 different plant species. The Romans
derived their dragon’s blood from Dracaena cinnabari.

1486 A later passage (f. 28v) states that the incenses of the Moon, according to Hermes, are cinnamon,
lignum aloes, mastic, crocus, costus, mace, myrtle. This passage looks as if it was originally a seven
planet list rather than just the attributions for the one planet.

334

planet. The second tradition as exemplified in the Hygromanteia gives a number of possible
incenses for each planet, a practice that is also followed in the Juratus. A third tradition is
visible in Agrippa,48’ and in Raziel, where separate parts of the plants used as incenses, so
that roots are attributed to Saturn, fruits to Jupiter, wood to Mars, gums and resins to the
Sun, compounds (‘pills’) of plant parts to Mercury, and leaves to the Moon. The Key of
Solomon'488 includes both arrays of incenses, but the compound incenses also have added
animal parts and blood. The use of cat’s and human blood for Mars incense is also found in

the Hygromanteia.1489

One useful conclusion, at least with regard to incenses, is that the Heptameron, the 1796
Clavicula Salomonis and the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh were obviously derived from the same

source.

6.14 Herbs (Y)

Solomonic method extends to meticulous attention to detail when preparing the equipment

or materia to be used in a rite, and procuring herbs for such use is no exception.
Mesopotamia

Paying careful attention to the procedure for uprooting medical or magical herbs is derived
from Mesopotamian magical practice. A typical description of such precautions found in a

Mesopotamian herbarium suggests the magician should:

[Look for] a gourd which grows alone in the plain;
when the Sun has gone down,

cover your head with a kerchief,

cover the gourd too,

draw a magic circle with flour around it,

and in the morning,

before the Sun comes out,

pull it up from its location,

take its root ...

These instructions specify the time for picking the plant, and the precautions to be observed in
regard to both the plant and the herbalist. The scene is night (between sunset and sun-rise); the
plant is isolated by a magic circle and covered; and the herbalist protects himself by covering
his head. Night time may be specified in other ways: sometimes it is sufficient to say that the
sun must not "see" the herb: for example, a root "which the sun did not see when you pulled the
plant and surrounding it with a magic circle are necessary because the plant may not willingly
give up the root, leaf, or shoot needed for preparing the medicine; one must buy it from the
plant, or at least give some compensation for it.”149

Theophrastus notes:

That one should be bidden to pray while cutting is not perhaps unreasonable, but the additions

1487 De Occulta Philosophia, Book I, chapter 44.
1488 Wellcome MS 4670.
1489 HY f, 24.
1490 Reiner (1995), pp. 36-37.
335

made to this injunction are absurd: for instance, as to cutting the kind of all-heal (panakes) one

should put in the ground in its place an offering made of all kind of fruits and a cake; and that,

when one is cutting gladwyn [Gk., ini;}! = iris?], one should put in its place to pay for it, cakes

of meal from spring-sown wheat, and that one should cut it with a two-edged sword, first
making a circle round it three times. . .4%

There is also a common injunction not to use an iron instrument in digging, even though a
two-edged sword of a different metal would be acceptable. This is a very old limitation, and
reoccurs in a slightly different form in many Latin grimoires where iron instruments,

specifically an iron sword are used to threaten the spirits.

In the PGM attention was also paid to how medical and magical herbs were uprooted, and this
care survived through the PGM formulae to Latin and English grimoires right up to the 18th
century herbals. The reason for this care was so the herb’s power is retained and no adverse luck

would be incurred by the magician for uprooting it. The procedure is spelled out in some detail:

Among the Egyptians herbs are always obtained like this: the herbalist first purifies his own
body. First he sprinkles with natron and fumigates the herb with resin from a pine tree after
carrying it [the smoking resin] around the place 3 times. Then, after burning kyphi and pouring
the libation of milk as he prays, he pulls up the plant while invoking by name the daimon to
whom the herb is being dedicated and calling upon him to be more effective for the use for
which it is being acquired...

After saying this [invocation], he rolls the harvested stalk in a pure linen cloth (but into the
place of its roots they (sic) threw seven seeds of wheat and an equal number of barley, after
mixing them with honey), and after pouring [this mixture] in the ground which has been dug
up [to propitiate the plant so harvested], he departs.14%

This latter procedure is presumably some kind of compensation to the earth, for what has
been taken, so that no resentment by the earth (or its spirits) will hinder the magical

operation the herbs are destined to be used in.

Another example in the PGM of the special precautions taken when uprooting herbs includes
a spell to be addressed to the plant to ask its forgiveness:
Spell for picking a plant: Use it before sunrise. The spell to be spoken: “I am picking you, such
and such a plant, with my five-fingered hand, I, NN, and I am bringing you home so that you
may work for me for a certain purpose. I adjure you by the undefiled name of the god: if you

pay no heed to me, the earth which produced you will no longer be watered as far as you are
concerned - ever in life again. ..14%4

One of the most significant sections in the PGM gives a key to the description of herbs and
other items with flowery and alarming names. This key may be of use in interpreting some

of the items that have made their way into Western European grimoires.

1491 The gladwyn is a an English herb usually called “stinking iris.” The Greek in this quote does not
look correct, as an imi is only listed in Liddell as “a worm that eats horn and wood.”
1492 Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum 9.8.7. See Hort (1916).
1493 PGM IV. 2967-3006. See also PGM IV. 286.
1494 PGM IV. 286-95.
336

Codename in the papyri Actual ingredient
blood [of a Titan] wild lettuce
blood from a head lupine
blood from a shoulder bear's breach [herb] 149
[blood] from the loins camomile

blood of a goose

mulberry tree's milk [sap]

blood of a hamadryas baboon

blood of a spotted gecko

blood of a hyrax

truly [blood] of a hyrax1#%

blood of a snake

hematite

blood of an eye tamarisk gall
blood of Ares purslane
blood of Hephaistos wormwood!4%”
blood of Hestia camomile
blood of Kronos [sap?] of cedar
bone of an ibis buckthorn
crocodile dung Ethiopian soil

eagle

wild garlic!

fat from a head

spurge

[fat] from the belly

earth-apple

[fat] from the foot

house leek

hair of a lion

‘tongue’ of a turnip?

hairs of a hamadryas baboon

dill seed

heart of a hawk

heart of wormwood

Kronos' spice

piglet's milk

man's bile

turnip sap1500

physician's bone

sandstone

pig's tail

leopard's bane [a herb]15°

semen of a bull

egg of a blister beetle

semen of a lion

human semen

semen of Ammon house leek
semen of Ares clover

semen of Helios white hellebore
semen of Hephaistos fleabane

semen of Herakles

mustard-rocket!5°2

semen of Hermes

dill

snake's ‘ball of thread’ soapstone
snake's head leech
tears of a hamadryas baboon dill juice

To which one might add a number of other codenames from other PGM sources, such as: 15%

149 Scarborough suggests Acanthus mollis L. or Helleborus foetidus L.
149% Scarborough suggests the rock hyrax, Procavia capensis.

1497 Supposedly attractive to the gods.

1498 Scarborough tentatively suggests Trigonella foenumgraecum or hellebore.

1499 Scarborough suggests the taproot.

1500 Scarborough suggests Brassica napus I.

1501 Scarborough suggests ‘scorpion tail,’ a variety of leopard's bane (genus boronicum), or heliotrope.

1502 Scarborough suggests Eruca sativa.
1503 PGM XII. 401-444.

337

Codename Actual ingredient

blood of Isis = asphos black horehound = ballota nigra

Fox testicles = testiculus vulpis Orchis

Dog testicles = testiculus canis Orchis militaris. L.104

Ram’s horn herb like wild fennel

Wild onion Asphodel or wild garlic15%
Table 17: Egyptian code names for common ingredients used in magic in the PGM.

After translation some of these ingredients may have still been taken literally. This
passage from the PGM, which has been tabulated in Table 17, is described as “interpretations
which the temple scribes employed, from the holy writings, in translation,” explaining that
they have encoded the names of herbs and other materials, to protect the masses from

practicing magic without a full understanding.15”

These codenames for plants appear to have come originally from a Sumerian source. In
each case there seems to be very little intuitive connection between the code word and the

actual item.

In both herbal sections of the Hygromanteia, considerable attention is paid to the mechanics of
picking the herbs magically as in the PGM, so that their power is retained and no adverse

events occur as a result of this action. For example:

When you want to uproot the herb that is attributed to a planet, first recite the prayer of the
planet. Then recite the conjuration of the angel that rules that day and hour, on your knees, and
with extreme piety... Uproot it and leave it out for seven nights, under the stars.

Chapter 17 of the Hygromanteia lists the zodiacal herbs. On the basis that this chapter only
appears in one manuscript,5!0 Marathakis doubts that it is actually part of the Hygromanteia. It
describes the magical and medical qualities of twelve herbs which are attributed to the twelve
signs of the zodiac. The point of mentioning the Raziel was to demonstrate that often sections
on “herbs, words, and stones” were seen as an integral part of Solomonic grimoires. The herbs
of the zodiacal signs are shown in Table 18, alongside a similar, but unrelated text from B2

attributed to Harpocratio, which attributes very different plants.15"

1504 Flermann Fischer, Mittelalterliche Pflanzenkunde, Hildesheim: Olms, 1976, p. 276.

1505 PGM xiv. 966-69.

'5° Betz and John Scarborough (1988) indicate that similar key lists can be found in De succedaneis which was
included among the works of Galen; in C G Kuehn [ed.], Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, vol. 19, 1830, pp. 721-
47; and in the adapted version of this in Paulus Aegineta, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, IX/2, I. L Heiberg,
[ed.], vol. I, pp. 401-8; and also in Dioscorides' Materia Medica. Therefore these substitutions were more
widespread in use than just in a magical context.

1507 The order has been changed to facilitate comparison of similar ‘code-words,’

1508 Reiner (1995), pp. 27-28.

1509 P2, f. 99-99v.

1510 M, f. 248v-251v.

1511 With the exception of Pisces.

338

Similar passages appear in the 16th century Raziel,!5'2 but the 24 herbs and plants in the latter
do not match the 12 in the Hygromanteia. Similar miraculous powers are attributed in both
cases, powers which appear in some pseudo-Albertus Magnus books,53 and in later centuries

resurface in various herbals and ‘Books of Secrets.’

Zodiac Sign1514 Hygromanteiats Harpocratio!6

Aries Water milfoil Sage

Taurus Clover Common vervain

Gemini Common sword-lily Supine vervain
Cancer Mandrake Comfrey
Leo Black horehound Cyclamen

Virgo Black nightshade Calamint

Libra Purple betony Scorpiurus

Scorpio Hound’s tongue Wormwood

Sagittarius Anakardios!5!” Pimpernel

Capricorn Stinking tutsan1518 Sorrel

Aquarius Meadow buttercup Dragonwort

Pisces Birthwort Birthwort

Table 18: The Zodiacal herbs according to the Hygromanteia and Harpocratio.

However the Planetary herbs in chapter 18 appear in many more manuscripts of the
Hygromanteia,"!9 unlike the zodiacal herbs chapter which appears only once. This is in line
with the thinking that one can invoke planetary forces but not those of the zodiac (which are

merely the backdrop to the movement of the planets).

The most interesting of these herbal formulae is a method for expelling the demon Onoskelis.
He is the fourth demon mentioned in the 1st/2nd century Testament of Solomon, and it is
therefore possibly a very old formula:

If someone is tormented by the demon named Onoskelis, take some of the root and the seed [of

daffodil, the herb of Saturn in this version], wrap it in donkey’s skin, and hang it on his neck.
She [Onoskelis] will not harm him.157°

1512 See Karr & Skinner (2011), pp. 74-80 and 168-174, being transcriptions of Sloane MS 3826, ff. 16-20.
1513 See Best (1973).

1514 This would of course be the Egyptian month, rather than the zodiacal sign.

1515 Monacensis MS Gr. 70.

1516 Hygromanteia B2. See Boudreaux, Catalogus VIII 3, pp. 134-151.

1517 Unidentified. The Kyranides maintains that it is the end of the branch of the Mulberry tree, but in
Codex M this name signifies a different plant.

1518 St. John’s wort.

1519 H, M, G, P2 and B3. The version in H is fragmentary, having the plants for only two planets, Sun
and Saturn. Likewise G only has the plants for Sun and Moon. A completely different set of planetary
herbal correspondences is to be found in N, f. 387v.

1520 H, f. 50v. A sidelight on this procedure is that the demon Onoskelis is “a beautiful demon with the
legs of a mule” which gives a rationale to the use of a donkey’s skin in the charm hung on the neck. In
PGM the ass is symbolic of Set/Typhon, and so it might be fruitful to look for some ancient connection
between these two.

O39

The version of planetary plants found in P2 is a full set, but interleaved with the prayers of
the planets (normally found in chapter 3 of the Hygromanteia).‘52! This version has much
‘Book of Secrets’ type material included with the planetary herbs. P2 completes what was

begun in H, and lists all seven planets.

Latin grimoires had even more complicated procedures for uprooting magical herbs. This
was especially true for the mandrake. Typically this would have had the earth around it
loosened before attaching it to the tail of a dog, which was then encouraged with offers of
food to pull up the mandrake. The theory was that any bad luck generated by this act would
rebound on the dog not the magician. It was thought that such a procedure might even kill

the dog.

Planetary herbal correspondences became an important part of Latin herbaria and tables of

magical correspondences, such as those found in Agrippa’s De Occulta Philosophia.

1521 Plus a paragraph of general instructions and the short version of chapter 13, about the angels and
demons of the planets. It is unusual for the chapters to be interwoven in this fashion, but would make
sense if P2 was owned by a practitioner, presumably the second of the three scribes who wrote the MS
in Moscow. It is not surprising that it ended up in Moscow as that city, as indeed much of Russia, was
an Orthodox religious dependency of Byzantium for a number of centuries.

340

7. Specific Magical Techniques and Objectives
7.1 Obtaining a Paredros (F)

A paredros (mapedpoc) is a magical servant.!522 To acquire an assistant demon and then to use
his advice to bind other demons was a well-established magical technique. It is attested in
the 1st/2nd century Testament of Solomon and in a number of grimoires up to and including

the Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh (1700) where an “Operation of Simon Magus” mentions that:

This Operation has been learnt from a certain demon who placed herself at the service of the
writer (so it was written), and taught him this process, which is true.

Later in Europe this evolved into the idea of spirits who attached themselves to the magician
as his familiars. The theory is that, in many ways, the acquisition of a familiar spirit is the
most important part of a magician’s initial development, as they give him direct help from

the spiritual world and advice on how to deal with other spiritual creatures.

A rite designed to provide a spirit servant is to be found in one of the most interesting
sections of the PGM which is rather ambiguously titled in English “Apollonius of Tyana’s
old serving woman.” A more descriptive translation might have been “Apollonius of Tyana’s

[method for securing a spirit] servant [in the form of] an old woman.”1524

The method involves invoking the goddess Nephthys, who manifests first as a beautiful
woman then as an old serving woman. When Nephthys attempts to depart, the magician

must restrain her and reply “No, lady! I will use you until I get her.”1525

The goddess then binds the old woman spirit servant to the service of the magician, by
giving a tooth from an ass, and one from the old woman, to the magician, who then has

complete control over this spirit servant.

A more sinister magical assistant is offered by King Pitys, in two separate rites.152¢ In the first
rite this assistant turns out to be the soul of a dead man (who has died a violent death). In the
second rite the assistant is simply described as a chthonic daimon. In both cases a skull cup is
used, and in the second case the skin of an ass is also used, indicating the Typhon/Seth

nature of the ritual.
The second rite is the more complex and requires three writing surfaces:

i) The hide of an ass inscribed with an ink made of the heart blood of an ass which has

1522 The derivation of népédpoc is from para, ‘near,’ and hedros, ‘sided.’
1523 SMS, f. 56a-56b.
1524 PGM XI.a 1-40.
1525 PGM XI. a 20.
1526 PGM IV. 1928-2005 and 2006-2125.
341

been sacrificed, mixed with coppersmiths’ soot. The figure drawn also incorporates

the qualities of Chnoubis:

...a lion-faced form of man wearing a sash, holding in his right hand a staff, and on it
let there be [drawn] a serpent. And around all his left hand let an asp be entwined, from
the mouth of the lion let fire breath forth.

ii) On a leaf of flax, using an ink made of falcon’s blood mixed with goldsmiths’ soot, is

drawn:

Hekate with three heads and six hands, holding torches in her hands, on the right sides
of her face having the head of a cow; and on the left sides the head of a dog; and in the
middle the head of a maiden with sandals bound on her feet.

iii) On a piece of papyrus, with ink made from eel’s blood mixed with acacia [ashes] is

drawn as the figure of Osiris “clothed as the Egyptians show him.”

The whole rite therefore involves three gods of the Underworld: one Gnostic, one Greek and
one Egyptian. As the Egyptian gods are spoken about in the third person, the rite has

probably been assembled by a Greek magician.

The rite was allegedly sent from King Pitys to Ostanes. One Ostanes was mentioned by
Hermodorus, a disciple of Plato. Another Ostanes accompanied Xerxes on his expedition to
Greece, where he reputedly taught Demokritos magic. Pliny identified that Ostanes with the
Persian magi, but also suggested that this Ostanes dealt in magic and necromancy, making
him a much more likely candidate. His fame survived through the Byzantine period, mainly
in connection with alchemy, and Ostanes’ name was often associated with magic right up till

the Middle Ages.

There appears to be no paredros rite in the Hygromanteia, but the concept of an assistant

demon is unlikely to have been absent from the objectives of Byzantine magicians.

Several demons in the Goetia were listed as “giving good familiars,” so the concept of the
familiar remained alive in the Clavicula Salomonis, and later vernacular grimoires. This
concept was definitely present amongst the Jewish community of eastern Europe, where
Rabbi Loew’s golem might be considered a very concrete example. Witches were also

notorious for having familiar imps.

7.2 Sending Visions and Dreams (V)

Oneiropompeia or ‘dream sending’ was an art practised by Graeco-Egyptian magicians to
insert ideas into the minds of a target sleeper. Often the dream would be structured round
the appearance to the target sleeper of an image of their favourite god/ goddess giving them

advice, which would in fact be derived from the instructions of the magician or his client.

342

Obviously dream sending remained a popular technique from Graeco-Egyptian right up to
the 16 century, and beyond. Not only did the technique remain popular but the exact same
procedure, calling upon the same Egyptian god survived over the same time period. This
request for a dream oracle utilises a drawing of the Dynastic Egyptian god Bes made with a

specially prepared ink:

Request for a dream oracle from Besas: Take red ochre [and the blood] of a white dove,
likewise of a crow, also sap of the mulberry, juice of single-stemmed wormwood, cinnabar, and
rainwater; blend all together, put aside and write with it and with black writing ink, and recite
the formula to the lamp at evening.'52” Take a black [cloth] of Isis and put it around your hand.
When you are almost awake the god will come and speak to you, and he will not go away
unless you wipe off your hand with spikenard or something of roses and smear the picture with
the black [cloth] of Isis. But the strip of cloth put around your neck,15"8 so that he will not smite
you.

“T conjure you, daimon, by your two names”? ANOUTH ANOUTH."°? You are the headless
god, the one who has a head and his face on his feet, dim-sighted Besas. We are not ignorant.
You are the one whose mouth [continually] burns. I conjure [you by] your two names
ANOUTH ANOUTH M... ORA PHESARA E... Come, lord, reveal to me concerning the NN
matter, without deceit, without treachery, immediately, immediately; quickly, quickly...”15%!

More than 1300 years later, almost exactly the same PGM spell appears in a 16th century

manuscript in the British Library:

Make a drawing of Besa (Bes) on your left hand, and envelop your hand in a strip of black cloth
that has been consecrated to Isis, and lie down to sleep without speaking a word, even to
answer a question. Wind the remainder of the cloth round your neck.

The ink with which you write must be composed of the blood of a cow, the blood of a white
dove (fresh), frankincense, myrrh, black ink, cinnabar, mulberry juice, rain water, and the juices
of wormwood and vetch.4? With this write your petition before the setting sun (saying), “Send
the truthful seer out of the holy shrine, I beseech thee, Lampsuer, Sumarta, Baribas, Dardalam,
Iorlex. O Lord send the sacred deity Anuth Anuth, Salbana, Chambré, Breith, now, now,
quickly, quickly. Come in this very night.”°5

This extraordinary survival is more than just the retention of a method. It is almost a word-
for-word copy, allowing for a little bit of variation between the two different translations
from the Greek. In fact, the 16th century translation is, in some places, more detailed than the
modern translation of the Graeco-Egyptian text.1534 For example, the modern translation by

Grese says “Take a black of Isis” whilst the 16th century translation supplies the missing

1527 This procedure appears to also incorporate a lamp skrying.

1528 The cloth is used as a phylactery.

1529 Should read “by your dual name.’

1530 Although Anouth appears here to be a name for the Headless God, the usual scholarly
interpretation equates it with Osiris.

1531 PGM VII. 222-249.

1532 The blood of a cow, and of a white dove, frankincense, myrrh, cinnabar and sun vetch all appear as
incenses in PGM.

1533 16th century BL Sloane manuscript quoted by Thompson (1973), p. 57.

1534 Flutton raises the question as to whether this was composed by a 16th century magician or if it
was a survival of a specific text (Hutton (2003), p. 186. The first quotation above confirms that indeed
it was a survival from a specific papyrus.

343

noun: “a strip of black cloth that has been consecrated to Isis.” The PGM versions mentions
“smear the picture” but does not say what picture that is. The 16th century text supplies that
deficiency with “Make a drawing of Besa on your left hand,” a crucial detail left out of the

PGM text.

A chunk of the invocation is missing from the 16th century text, but on the other hand key
nomina magica are missing from the PGM, but supplied by the 16th century text. It can only
be conjectured that both versions come from an older more complete text. One wonders how
many other PGM formulae were available in 16th century Europe, long before the present

magical papyri were recovered by Anastasi in Thebes, or translated by modern scholars.

7.3 Love Spells (L)

Many examples of love spells use slander in order to stir up the god/goddess into action,15°5

the magician being all the while careful not to attract the goddesses’ wrath onto his own head:

For I come announcing the slander of NN [the love object of the spell], a defiled and unholy
woman, for she has slanderously brought your holy mysteries to the knowledge of men. She,
NN, is the one, [not] I, who says, ‘I have seen the greatest goddess, after leaving the heavenly
vault, on earth without sandals, sword in hand, and [speaking] a foul name.’ It is she, NN, who
said, ‘I saw [the goddess] drinking blood.’ She, NN, said it, not I...15°6

The slander spell!5°” is unique to Graeco-Egyptian sources, and did not migrate to either the
Hygromanteia or to later Solomonic grimoires. Perhaps as a procedure it was considered far
too risky. In fact the magician is instructed specifically “Do not therefore perform the rite

rashly, and do not perform it unless some dire necessity arises for you.” 1538
The instructions of ‘love’ spells are often explicitly sexual rather than loving, for example:

Let her be in love with me, NN whom she, NN bore. Let her not be had in a promiscuous way,
let her not be had in her ass, nor let her do anything with another man for pleasure, just with
me alone. ..1539

and do not allow her, NN, to accept for pleasure the attempt of another man, not even that of
her own husband, just that of mine. ..54°

Most of the love spells are small and fragmentary, but a few are given in much more detail.
The essence of one such rite is the drowning (and therefore deification),'4! of very specific

type of scarab. A scarab of Mars is used in another method.!542

1535 Slander spells are more often used with a goddess than with a god.
1536 PGM IV. 2475-2481.
1587 Diabole.
1538 PGM IV. 2505.
1539 PGM IV. 350-354.
1540 PGM IV. 374-376.
1541 A field mouse is deified by drowning it in spring water, and two ‘moon beetles’ in river water, in
PGM IV. 2456-2457.
1542 PDM xiv. 636-669, especially 636-637.
344

An interesting turn of events, at the end of one spell is the procedure for getting rid of the

lover when she is no longer wanted:

If, however, you should wish her to stop [desiring you], take a sun scarab and place it in the
middle of her head and say to it: “Gulp down my love charm, image of Helios; he himself
orders you to do so.” And pick up the scarab and release it alive. Then take the ring and give it
to her to wear, and immediately she will depart.5*

Iron in later periods was considered to be anathema to spirits. So much so, that (with one
dubious exception) none of the metallic sigils of the 72 spirits of the Goetia were made of

iron.1544

Conjurations for specific purposes begin with chapter 38 of the Hygromanteia. The first of
these is a conjuration for love. This is an example of a specific order to the spirits, in this case
to bring the beloved to the magician. The approach is much gentler than procedures using
one of the dead (as in the case of PGM defixiones) to torture the object of desire till she comes,
but it is still one of command rather than seduction. The usual formula stipulates pain and

denial of sleep, drink and food to the woman desired, till she submits:

Make her love me deeply, deeply, deeply, nor ever forget me, so that she will not be able to eat,
drink, sleep, nor have any other comfort, until I wish it so. Let her be submitted to my appetite
and desire.”54

More rarely, in another version, the target of desire is a man. The demons are ordered to:

...go quickly to such and such a person, take possession of his heart and turn his thoughts and
mind to me, so and so. Let him not think of anybody else in the world, either his father, his
mother, or anybody else, a woman or a man...1546

Both conjurations are replete with historiola, quoting instances of god’s power from the Old

Testament:

I conjure you by the power of God who divided the Red Sea by means of a rod when Moses
ordered it so.147

Love spells occur in almost all the later grimoires, but usually as one of the separate
“experiments.” These ‘experiments’ are sometimes later additions, often occurring towards

the end of a manuscript of the Clavicula Salomonis.

7.4 Invisibility (I)

Invisibility is one boon that has been asked of magic in every time and place by magicians

from King Gyges!48 to Aleister Crowley.

1543 PDM 1xi. 175-180 aka PGM LXI. 33-37.

1544 Tn another culture, Sikhs wear an iron kura to protect themselves from spirits (although the
modern explanation has re-designated the real purpose into something more acceptable.)

1545 FH], f. 29v.

1546 B, ff. 25-26.

1547 B, f. 25.

1548 See Marathakis (2007) for a detailed survey of those invisibility spells.

345

One rite specifies an ointment with which to smear oneself when asking Helios for invisibility.
Presumably the logic of this request is that as Helios is responsible for making everything

visible, so it is within his power to deny this favour, and make something invisible:

Indispensable invisibility spell: Take fat or an eye of a nightowl and a ball of dung rolled by a
beetle”? and oil of an unripe olive and grind them all together until smooth, and smear your
whole body with it and say to Helios...”Make me invisible, lord Helios...in the presence of any
man until sunset...” 1550

A few lines further on, another invisibility ointment is recommended:

Take an eye of an ape or of a corpse that has died a violent death and a plant of peony (he
means the rose). Rub these with oil of lily, and as you are rubbing them from the right to the
left, say the spell... And if you wish to become invisible, rub just your face with the concoction,
and you will be invisible for as long as you wish.

The operation of invisibility using a skull in chapter 59 of the Hygromanteia is not an
operation typical of the Solomonic tradition, although it also survives in the Grimorium
Verum,'5>2 and in a modified manner (using the skull of a manikin) in one Clavicula Salomonis.
The operation relies on planting beans or bean seeds in the orifices of a skull. After a suitable
interval, and suitable invocations, these beans grant invisibility to the person who carries
them. The similar operation in the Grimorium Verum states that the magician has to actually

put the previously buried bean in his mouth for it to confer invisibility.

It is interesting that beans are prescribed, and this may be a backwards nod to the PGM rites
which required certain actions in a bean field, or to Pythagoras who forbade his disciples
from eating beans, for reasons related to the Underworld. In manuscript H this operation of
invisibility occurs before the actual incipit, and so it is highly likely to have been a later
addition to an otherwise blank early folio, and therefore it has not always been a part of the

Hygromanteia.

This operation of invisibility is listed as a separate ‘experiment’ in the many versions of the
Key of Solomon. As with other Key of Solomon operations it is necessary to work from within a
protective circle. After general conjurations, the spirit Almiras, who is styled the “Chief of
Invisibility,’ is conjured. The operation'5* requires a small yellow wax manikin, upon whose
skull a special figure is engraved, rather like the procedure used by Rabbi Lowe of Prague to
make the golem. The skin of a frog or toad is added, with further characters, and with due

censing and invocation it is suspended at midnight from the vault of a cavern. The manikin

1549 The beetle Kheperi symbolises the setting sun. The night owl confers darkness, and the eye
obviously connects to visibility. So the ingredients of the ointment are not just random, but follow an
internal logic, a physical paste corresponding to the nature of the request to the lord of the dark Sun.
1550 PGM I. 222-231.
1551 PGM I. 247-262.
1552 Peterson (2007), pp. 48-49.
1553 In Lansdowne MS 1203.

346

is then buried in the floor of the cave to be exhumed whenever the magician wishes to be

invisible. 1554

7.5 Sacrifice

Sacrifice is part of the compact made between the magician and a spiritual creature. The idea
of making a pact which required the magician’s soul as part of the bargain is not found in
any of the texts here examined, but seems to be solely part of the fictional Faust tradition.
However there is often reference made to offerings made to the spirits, usually in the form of
incense, sometimes as food, and less commonly in the form of a sacrificed animal. Solomon
was famous for the quantity of oxen and other animals he sacrificed for Yahweh at the
inauguration of his Temple. Sacrifice was also an integral part of Second Temple Jewish
religion, as well as in Graeco-Egyptian magic. Although Jewish sacrifice on a large scale
ceased with the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 CE, examples of sacrifice (especially of

doves) persist in Jewish magical texts like the Sepher Raziel ha-Malekh.155

In one of King Pitys’ necromantic rites, a sacrifice is offered to a spiritual creature (in this case a

daimon) as a ‘payment’ for a successful conclusion of the unnamed objective of the rite:!55¢
Fulfil, daimon, what is written here. And after you have performed it, I will pay you a sacrifice.
But if you delay, I will inflict on you chastisements which you cannot endure.

Sacrifice is therefore distinctly a form of bribery. Sacrifice is specifically instructed in a general

purpose rite, but the first application, for which sacrifice is recommended, is to attract a lover:
After saying these things, sacrifice. Then raise loud groans and then go backwards as you

descend. And she will come at once. But pay attention to the one being attracted so that you
may open the door for her; otherwise the spell will fail.”

The Classical Greeks offered sacrifice to the chthonic gods, via a pit in the earth, usually
accompanied by libations of wine and blood poured into the pit. Similar procedures are also

to be found in the PGM, in this case to aid in the consecration of a magic ring:

Making a pit in a holy place open to the sky, [or] if [you have none] in a clean, sanctified tomb
looking towards the east, and making over the pit an altar of wood from fruit trees, sacrifice an
unblemished goose, and 3 roosters and 3 pigeons. Make these whole burnt offerings and burn,
with the birds, all sorts of incense. Then, standing by the pit, look to the east and, pouring on a
libation of wine, honey, milk, [and] saffron, and holding over the smoke, while you pray, [the
ring or stone] in which are engraved the inscriptions. ..15°8

Sacrifice also has its place in the consecration of an iron lamella:

Go, I say, into a clean room. Set up a table, on which you are to place a clean linen cloth and
flowers of the season. Then sacrifice a white cock, placing beside it 7 cakes, 7 wafers, 7 lamps;

1554 Mathers (1909), p. 52.
1555 Translation in Savedow (2000).
1556 King Bitys/Pitys was reputed to be a Thessalian magician, Thessaly being famous for its magic.
1557 PGM IV. 2491.
1558 PGM XII. 201-269.
347

pour a libation of milk, honey, wine, and olive oil.155?
A more detailed account of a sacrifice is to be found in an auto-initiation rite:

Keep yourself pure for seven days beforehand. On the third of the month, go to a place from
which the Nile has recently receded, before anyone walks on the area that was flooded - or at
any rate, to a place that has been inundated by the Nile. On two bricks standing on their sides,
build a fire with olive wood...when half the sun is above the horizon; but before the sun [fully]
appears, dig a trench around the altar. When the disk of the sun is fully above the horizon, cut
off the head of an unblemished, solid white cock... Throw the head into the river and drink up
the blood, draining it off into your right hand and putting what's left of the body on the
burning altar.15°

Sacrifice also appears amongst the compulsive formulae designed to force a god or spirit to

manifest if they have been dilatory:

Take a completely white cock and a pinecone; pour wine upon it, anoint yourself and remain
praying until the sacrifice is extinguished. Then rub yourself all over with the following
mixture: laurel bayberries, Ethiopian cumin, nightshade, and “Hermes’ finger.”5*!

The white cock (but not the pinecones) survives as a magician’s sacrifice right through to the

late European grimoires.15°

Only two manuscripts of the Hygromanteia® contain explicit instructions for taking blood
from a bat, swallow or dove, while five suggest taking it from an ox or a sheep. In each
case the animal is sacrificed in order to drain its blood. In one case (H) the ox is cut with the

knife of the art but not killed.

The manufacture of the consecrated parchment also involves slaughtering the lamb or calf,

but this could also be considered a sacrifice to the spirits.

A number of manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis mention sacrifice, and some also link it
with the offering of food to the spirits (a practice that dates back to the PGM). Two copies of
this text were confiscated and used as evidence in the Inquisitorial trial of Laura Malipiero in

Venice in 1654. One of these provides us with the following details:

About sacrifice for spirits and how to sacrifice. Last chapter. In many [magical] arts at times one
must make sacrifices to demons, and these are of different kinds. At times for good spirits white
animals are sacrificed, and black ones for bad spirits. Sometimes the sacrifice is only of their
blood and sometimes of parts to eat.156> Those who wish to sacrifice animals of whatever sort
must take virgin animals because the spirits will accept this sacrifices [sic] willingly, and for this
reason obey the sacrificers more willingly. So when you sacrifice with blood, let the beasts or
birds you take the blood from be virginal since the purer the thing is the more effective they are
and before purging, over the sacrifice, let the following words be said... After, scent it with
sweet-smelling fumigations, and sprinkle it with exorcised [blessed] water; after, serve it, and

1559 PGM IV. 2188-2193.

1560 PGM IV. 26-51.

1561 PGM II. 74-76.

1562 Sacrifice of a white cock has even appeared in modern occult fiction, for example in novels by
Dennis Wheatley.

1563 H{ f, 25v-26; P f. 218v.

1564 FH], B, A, P and B3.

1565 This is where animal sacrifice morphs into providing food as an offering to the spirits.

348

keep the rest for later... But when you are sacrificing food or drink, prepare it outside the circle,
and let these viands and drinks be covered with some noble material and on top of this
material, spread a new clean white cloth, with fresh bread and precious wine that must be of a
taste in keeping with the nature of the spirit. If at times animals are offered, prepare for this
those such as a gander or chickens or doves or others like them, and over everything always
add an ampulla or decanter of water taken from a fresh source, and when all these things have
been done, enter the circle and call the spirits by name, at least the main ones... After, spread
sweet-smelling fumigations around, and sprinkle with exorcised water, and in this way you
will begin to conjure them to come, and it is thus that sacrifices must be made in all the arts
which require them, and thus without doubt the spirits will be ready to serve you.

Several later grimoires, derived from the Clavicula, coyly mention sacrifices to the spirits, but

it is likely that the repressive ecclesiastical environment in Venice made the mention of

sacrifice less and less common.

Vip np 5 esLa gfe of ofe

wre fovins yg Se: zaeniian On kus, Ae Mads hae, e 265 onyrighh

Q, ‘Aus tronin,eley i gfe: SoLine ierte inrtee a repunlt ‘Aypeeyy dete,
ston db La notte Lasuco pull Kia ibe od {Some pfu rica Setegapi

Avavourzar Line, etedion Locate a vinci

Slit Gren inuscave viaucliitinedbuch Serving cigfhe: Salone ,
: Faion din Liomauesdh ra ron afleerne congfa: comnstey.

“eeewti lytes Hien ot Ghee uated Ctr iate ¢ xX: i fvociorr,

PEULUE: Saterton heave di ov dtte bg tit
Sy ait ogtia ro7aHs 0 i 2 sh age
Pom, = be sets
pied RPS URS Ce aH
ice busizaiybir elena a vattttg chetos

Of la Abt Ete

CF
Pat WE Lata ot aucribiepaercivae Hie: Le Sigh : elnotrdudle
| in ben 110 elles a? p epnaoutisbicry tt Qe 12h faces eearicicen

‘swag be he carton’ erontn KeyeGiche Le lene siegne
By i nEaBAe SHOntr pat, shagacto

Poko GE B ta Siofeo DPD
7 3 I olor de Prcekio- #
Si cinnd Die nevidereve heo: i sie Gaini y he: teloro wh 2 tebe
_ Felt A sforre render mei ¢ Le corse Hare, ee baring olen
dags bo wars Lame ie gc Catvtetoa, eben Linea cr Aig? ;
dastis, & ili Lie yell seca: catraitice elim yscedbliyue
atin, Jafach A Drgprinansaah listeria
ATR ET OSE}? fe RG ae
re
| P® on Poe,

Sy
fests ANGE lLotinaeneé

Sachs 7 ine: Hine im fe (ond Fata ieingorm: :

KE 94° Keli

1
{ ono
i

Sala Adin. vo, ofnchio: caiefre: sloviigHalodine x wrba.
Ta linsi qnida luda

“dey torres Degiumans; edecret germ tol LO Losin Dee

Bh be: evclamere: toh,
4 -) PX» qe e a XS é
we en ‘22t€0, chenan Tovenee Hittey
Sathas Baie hiGa: seas sovitigfe lebine ale, de6s3= =
_ bb, ie utre lables dereenine. ptemagiotin sence Po rete atinsehle
py saidinenc enantio: Jokine de « cL inele Bieter fai d: sebine
undies fifa: netter gees imatveble. wid Holt Fics

“~s N
rie tevre. Setter onda andcenle Swng od Sieiegrse certasy—
phe, perros sin wccin G = ee oath Lb ee contedede so.0tt0.' ge. :

12) ‘alins pyelihsiaet COVBe hdd: fviui fe cswabeevi H ites
t

rwcere onane Bi aiseeg 0 Lop Mo siti be ni ten oulovedeee ;
€ telah fathgaat tiated: a al fh nk er
Bede oe Kanes lyse -arte retBragpyovebe Ad Goa nist

Teaz

a oe Seva i Py! Lede wea en tuied:
iGpvs Ieabics wie,
5 alee arog: feet odedh warrcunny Caplin

ernecmnpuotinovatiert wyavt ‘ey corre tee -epottsired a-ak

Wh Le pasree Ns fein Seodanedione sober tink beni En area
elateretts Letitsit cago iM beorse ele Cfaninice é hkuoveg mt itint

tte ete hha dente cnsed wages) Hea Conse Ps mee cada: ARC Kes *
ne &

Figure 58: A page from the Italian Clavicula Salomonis used in the trial of Laura Malipiero.157

7.6 Necromancy (N)

One procedure that has fascinated people from time immemorial is necromancy. The word

‘necromancy’ has had a chequered history, being confused or conflated in the later Middle

Ages with ‘nigromancy.’ Conventionally according to modern scholars and standard Greek

1566 Incipit: Clavicule Salomonis Regis...

as quoted in Barbierato (2002), p. 168-169. As the last chapter of

this manuscript is on sacrifice and there are a number of pentacles drawn separately at the end, this
manuscript is likely to belong to the Armadel family.

1567 Venice State Archive of the Holy Office [the Inquisition], b. 104 Clavicola di Salmone, reproduced in
Barbierato (2002), p. 152. This folio is an earlier folio from the trial of Laura Malpiero, rather than the
folio quoted above.

349

dictionaries ‘manteia’ indicated a form of divination. In the case of necromancy, the literal
meaning is clearly divination by questioning the dead. But nigromancy is usually glossed as
‘the black art’ or ‘black magic.’ How can this be as ‘nigro-’ simply means ‘black’ so logically
“‘nigromancy’ should mean something like “black divination,’ but it doesn’t. Elsewhere in this
thesis I have made the case for broadening the definition of ‘-manteia’ to mean a magical
procedure, rather than just a divination. If this is not the case, then how can the conflation of
nigromancy and necromancy have occurred if only one was a method of divination and the
other a method of magic? Robert Ritner discusses the (mis)use of ‘necromancy’ to mean a
magical operation rather than its original Greek meaning of divination by questioning the
dead.15° According to the OED the use of ‘necromancy’ to mean any kind of magical
operation only came to full fruition in about 1550,1570 but I believe this occurred at least as

early as the 14‘ century.
A unique Jewish interpretation of the meaning of ‘nigromancy’ is voiced by Menahem Ziyuni:

‘Nigromancia’ is a combination of two words, nigar [Hebrew], ‘gathered together, collected,’
like water that has been stored up, and mancia, the name of the incense that magicians burn to
[attract] the demons.!571

The Hebrew meaning of nigar is closer to “to draw in or invoke.” The most interesting part of
this definition is the equation of mancia, and hence presumably of pavteia, with a specific
incense used in evocation. However this seems to be an isolated usage and does not seem to

advance the argument.

Dating from before the questioning of Samuel by King Saul (mediated by the witch of Endor)

there has always been a Jewish tradition of necromancy. In the Talmud it says:

There are two kinds of necromancy (25S Sy3, Baal Aib [Aub]), the one where the dead is raised
by naming him, the other where he is asked by means of a skull (nbaba5 Ssswi am) 1572

An actual skull illustrates this practice in the Talmud, and there is no doubt that this practice

was to be found described in Hebrew texts.

The first kind of necromancy has survived through to the modern era, but is not specifically
part of the Solomonic tradition.573 The second type where a head, or skull, has been kept as a

sort of oracle to answer questions also has a long but separate history. The most famous

1568 We have cause to question this rather simplistic translation when considering the techniques
found in the Hygromanteia.

1569 Ritner (2008), pp. 236-249; Ciraolo and Seidel (2002), p. 96.

1570 OED, Vol. VIL p. 67.

1571 Quoted in Trachtenberg (2004), p. 22.

1572 Sanhedrin, 65b.

1573 See the famous engraving of Edward Kelley and Paul Waring questioning the ghost of a woman
besides a newly opened grave. The incident dates from the late 16th century, but the engraving comes
from Sibley (1784 - 1792). More recent cases were reported in the 1980s relating to Highgate Cemetery
in London.

350

oracular skull was that reputed to have been owned and used by Roger Bacon.!5%

One such skull (which came from an archaeological dig in Nippur) was kept in the museum
of the University of Pennsylvania. The inscription across the top of the skull includes the
word n°, Lilita, a clear reference to the female Babylonian demon Lilitu. Other words on
the skull make it clear that it is an address to this spirit.1576 The Sabians of Harran were also
reputed to use “speaking skulls” for oracular purposes!” and in Roman times Lucius
Apuleius mentioned the use of skulls in magic in his Apology. Classical Greek references to
the use of the dead in magic, such as the re-animation of corpses by Erichtho in the
Pharsalia'’”® have very little in common with Graeco-Egyptian magic, and even less in

common with later Solomonic magic.

The use of mortuary remains in magic also leads on to the use of defixiones, which attempt to
compel the aid of the dead in a magical operation. Defixiones are a common part of Graeco-

Egyptian magic, and are treated separately in chapter 5.4.3.

The shortest necromantic spell for questioning corpses in the PGM is credited to King Pitys
the Thessalian. A flax leaf!57”9 has AZEL BALEMACHO written on it, and no invocation is

mentioned, but the writing must be done with a special ink.1580

Another spell, although captioned as a “Spell of Attraction of King Pitys” is obviously an
example of necromancy, for the caption continues with “over any skull cup.”5*! The
operation requires the skull of a dead man who died prematurely or violently. Surprisingly
the invocation is not addressed to one of the chthonic gods, but to Helios himself, and his
“holy angels on this day, in this very hour.”1582 Here Helios is addressed as a supreme god,
rather than as god of the Sun. One strange facet is the use of the word ‘tent’ to describe the
dead man’s grave.583 A second version of King Pitys’ necromantic spell continues a few lines

before.1584

1574 Even in more modern times the skulls of famous men, especially magicians and mystics, have
become collectors’ items. As recently as 1978 the skull of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) went on
sale at Sotheby’s in London for 2,500 pounds.
1575 Exhibit No. 41 (CBS 179).
1576 As an aside, the Arabic word for the skull and the soul are almost identical.
1577 Chwolson (1965), Vol. ii, p. 150.
1578 Pharsalia, VI. 447-830.
1579 Flax was always associated by the Greeks with the dead, as a consequence of which flax is often
used as a writing material in necromantic operations.
1580 PGM IV. 2140-2144.
1581 PGM IV. 1928-2005.
1582 The importance of choosing the correct day and hour is stressed (although the rite does not
identify the specific hour to be used).
1583 PGM IV. 2140-44.
1584 PGM IV. 2006-2125.
351

A much more concrete version of necromancy occurs in a papyrus!5* which Betz’s Table of
Spells'58° credits to the Kestoi of Julius Africanus.5*”7 However, the passage appears to be
sourced from Homer and is therefore much older than Julius Africanus, with only a short
commentary section inserted from the latter.588 The passage very clearly describes the
sacrifice of sheep and the pouring of their blood into a trench:

[when with vows] and prayers [I had appealed]

[To them], the tribes of dead, I took [the] sheep

And slit their throats [beside the trough, and down]

The dark blood [flowed. From out of Ere]bos

Came gathering [the spirits] of the dead...

[These many] thronged from ev'ry side around

The trough [of blood] with [awful] cry. Pale fear seized me.
[But] having drawn the sharp sword at my thigh,

[I sat,] allowing not the flitting heads

Of the dead to draw nearer to [the blood ]!5®?

Here there are two magical techniques explicitly mentioned. The first is the shedding of blood
to attract the spirits, a procedure that carries right on through to the later Latin European
grimoires. The second is the use of a sword to control the spirits and keep them at bay.
Although it is contra-intuitive that a sharp sword should strike fear into a spirit that is
already dead, it is a recurrent motive in both the Byzantine sources and the later Latin
grimoires that a sharp sword, specifically made of iron, is an effective threat to spirits, as if

they supposedly fear being cut.

Another spell for restraining a divinatory skull that has got out of hand is to be found in the

PGM. It demonstrates the continuing use of necromantic skulls that answer questions:

A restraining seal for skulls that are not satisfactory [for use in divination], and also to prevent
[them] from speaking or doing anything whatever of this [sort]:

Seal the mouth of the skull with dirt from the doors of [a temple] of Osiris and from a mound
[covering] graves. Taking iron” from a leg fetter, work it cold and make a ring on which a
headless lion [is] engraved. Let him [the lion] have, instead of his head, a crown of Isis, and let
him trample with his feet a skeleton (the right foot should trample the skull of the skeleton). In
the middle of these [images] should be an owl-eyed cat with its paw on a gorgon’s head; in a
circle around [all of them?], these names: IADOR INBA NICHAIOPLEX BRITH.15%

The visual threat of the skull being crushed by the Headless One plus the iron fetter and a
mouth full of sacred dirt should presumably restrain any wayward skull. The point of

quoting this is to show that Graeco-Egyptian necromantic procedures were quite detailed,

1585 PGM XXIII. 1-70.
1586 Betz (1996), pp. xi-xxii.
1587 ¢.160-c.240 CE. The Kestoi (the Greek word xeotoi literally means ‘embroidery’) was an
encyclopaedic work on various sciences: mathematics, botany, medicine, divination and magic.
1588 A |though Betz’s Table of Spells lists this as a Kestoi extract, the first 54 lines of the fragment are from
Homer Od. 11. 34-43, 48-50; Il. 3. 278-80; I]. 15. 412; Il. 7.741; Od. 10. 513-14; Od. 11.51.
1589 PGM XXIII. 1-14.
1590 Tron occurs here as it threatens the spirit operating through the skull.
1591 PGM IV. 2125-39.
352

and had an internal logic to them.

Necromancy is not a typical Solomonic operation but appears to belong more to the tradition
that includes grimoires like the Grimorium Verum and the hoodoo grimoires,!5? with their
rather grisly ingredients. However, chapter 58 of the Hygromanteia does deal with nekromanteia,
and the chapter 59 dealing with invisibility also utilises a skull. It gives the method of
making an oracular head out of a dead man’s skull. The theory being that the ghost of the
skull’s previous owner will, because of the binding evocation, become the familiar of the

magician.

The scribe of this particular manuscript, a physician called Ioannés Aron, was cautious about
who might read the manuscript, so he encoded the Greek words for “the ghost of a familiar,”
“dead man’s skull,” “on the skull’s face” and other key phrases, which might have caused

him trouble if the manuscript had fallen into the wrong hands.

One version of Basin skrying!5%4 includes a mirror and a lamb bone. This rite is directed
towards the spirit of a dead person and therefore partakes of necromancy, even though the

manuscript cautiously labels it “concerning basin divination.”

Several manuscripts* attribute this particular operation to Héliod6ros, the 5th century
astrologer to the Emperor Valens, which helps give a 5th century terminus a quo for the

Hygromanteia.

7.7 Treasure Finding

Before there was a regular and reliable banking system, it was common for people to bury
their wealth in times of unrest, hoping to come back at a later date to retrieve it.15%
Consequently looking for buried treasure, often with the assistance of spirits (who were
assumed to know the details of such hoards) was a viable magical objective. There appears to

be, however, no trace of it in the PGM.

Although not specifically to be found in the PGM, treasure seeking by magic was practised in

that period. In a mocking speech directed against a goes (y6nc) Libanius says:159”

1522 Hoodoo is a set of practices that include African-American voodoo practices which utilise grave
dust, skulls, etc, the iconography of Christian saints, European folk magic and also methods from a
series of rather debased European grimoires (especially the Faustbooks) like the Sixth and Seventh
Books of Moses or Moses’ Magical Sprit-Aid. It evolved in the Mississippi delta area and after the 1930s
spread throughout the States. See Peterson (2008) and Hohman (2012).

1593 The version in B2 is the most explicit.

1594 G, f. 28v.

1595 P and M2.

1596 Even in modern times, many of the pro-Tsarist population leaving Russia after 1917 buried their
wealth, hoping to come back for it in more peaceful times. Most did not return.

1597 Libanius (314-394) was a pagan Greek orator from Antioch.

O00

Why has your craft [magic] not opened up for you all the treasuries and why has it not joined
everything which currently lies buried in the earth to your estate?15%

This confirms that during the 4th century, in Antioch, the ability to use magic to retrieve
treasure buried in the earth was commonly thought to be part of the techniques used by

magicians.

Treasure finding is one of the uses to which spirits were put in chapter 39 of the
Hygromanteia. Two versions (B and H) utilise the services of the four archangels, and the
Cherubim and Seraphim to encourage the demons to locate a buried hoard. Version B adds
the backing of the four Demon Kings to force the spirits to bring the treasure to the magician.
The magician specifies what kind of treasure he wants, being very careful not to be later

tricked by the spirits with imaginary gold, or treasure that later disappears:

Then, go again for a second time <and bring> beautiful gold that is favored by people, not
imaginary, not illusionary or made by any evil device, <but that is> true and most pure,
without any deceit or fraud. Let you have no authority to take it back from me, but let it remain
with me, firmly, strongly and securely.”

The Key of Solomon has an interesting procedure for finding buried treasure. The text asserts
that gnomes have extensive knowledge of the whereabouts of buried treasure. The
procedure is therefore to become on good terms with such spirits so that they may reveal to
the magician the location of some of the treasures which they otherwise jealously guard. Two
days are singled out for this operation: 10th July and 20th August, when the Moon is in Leo.
Again a Circle drawn with the magical sword is a required precaution. Rather bizarrely, the
excavation is to take place inside the actual circle of protection, after the location has been

determined by cross-examination of the spirits, as is shown in the illustration.1°
The magician and his assistants are to be fortified with a

...girdle [made] of the skin of a goat newly slain, whereon shall be written with the blood of the
dead man from whom thou shalt have taken the fat these words and characters.. .1601
The scene is to be lit by a “lamp, whose oil should be mingled with the fat of a man who has

died in the month of July, and the wick being made from the cloth wherein he has been

buried.” 1602

1598 Libanius (c.314-393 CE) Declamatio 41.
1599 B, f. 26v.
1600 Mathers (1909), pp. 57-58.
1601 Mathers (1909), p. 58.
1602 Ibid, p. 58.
354

Pry, //

We ame

i
A

YY NT

Figure 59: Magicians attempting to take possession of a treasure possessed by spirits, simultaneously
dealing with excavation and evocation inside the same circle.1 Note that engraving is almost an
epitome of a magical operation, conducted from within the confines of a protective circle. The senior
conjuror reads aloud from a volume which is certain to be a grimoire and holds a sword with which to
threaten the demon. His assistants hold the lamp and dig for the treasure. The demon has bird claws,
and is attempting to break through the protective circle (his claws already overlap it).

In the 16% century, Dr John Dee applied to Queen Elizabeth I for a royal warrant to secure
any treasure trove he might discover with the assistance of the spirits, in a time when such
exploits were otherwise illegal. As buried treasure was automatically claimed by the crown,

it is not surprising that she did not issue the warrant.

The use of spirits to find buried treasure was very common in later French grimoires such as
the Grand Grimoire, which actually illustrates its protective circle with an exit route labelled

as the “Route du T[resor].”

1603 Caricature engraving by Hans Weiditz the Younger (1495-c.1537), circa 1520, of a magician and his
assistants attempting to raise a spirit-protected treasure.

O00

Figure 60: The ‘Route du Tresor’ from the Grand Grimoire shows the access point for the spirit to deliver
the buried treasure.164 ‘Le Kersi’ is the master karcist (the magician), and his two friends (Les Ami[s]).
The monogram of Jesus Christ, JHS is a very Christian addition. This grimoire has obviously passed
through the hands of a number of redactors, and become somewhat confused, as it shows the magicians
located in the triangle rather than the spirit, and the triangle drawn within the circle rather than outside.

Another 14th century grimoire shows a drawing of a magician wielding a sword whilst an
overburdened spirit brings golden vessels to the edge of a circle and an idle monk looks

on.16% See Figure 18.

It is not clear how spirits were expected to actually carry physical treasure, so later grimoires
sometimes just settle for using the spirits to find the location of the treasure, after which the
magician and his assistants dig it up themselves. Hans Weiditz the Younger (the Petrarch
Master)!6°6 engraved such a scene with a sense of humour circa 1520. His engraving portrays
the arrival of a spirit outside the circle, whilst the pick and shovel wielding assistants stand

inside the circle with the master reading the evocation by candle-light (see Figure 59).

often conjured for that purpose. In fact this particular spirit was even invoked at the request

1604 Anon (1845).

1605 British Library Cotton MS Tiberius A VIL, f. 44. See also Kiesel (2012), pp. 57, 62. This painting has also
been used as a cover illustration for Skinner & Rankine (2007, 2010).

1606 1495-c.1537.

1607 Many of these are documented in Rankine (2009).

356

of, and in front of, King Edward IV of England who reigned 1461-1483.19 The same
invocation is repeated in several later grimoires, including one copied by Hockley in the

early 19th century.

7.8 Imprisonment of Spirits in a Bottle

There is a long-running story about Solomon’s imprisoning of spirits in a brass bottle and
throwing the bottle into the sea or a lake in both Jewish and Arabic sources. Although this
story has become part of the Solomonic tradition, surprisingly there are few references to it
in the Solomonic grimoires, and none at all in the PGM. It is possible that the idea of
imprisoning a spirit in a metal bottle comes from Arabian sources, especially as the bottle

occurs in Arabian folktales.

Chapter 44 of the Hygromanteia deals with the technique of spirit imprisonment in a bottle
(gasteromanteia). Although it might seem obvious to translate yaotepopavteia, gasteromanteia
as “bottle divination,”1© nothing that could be construed as divination occurs during this
procedure. In fact, it is the straightforward magical procedure of imprisoning a spirit in a
bottle, a procedure straight out of the Arabian Nights. The action of imprisoning cannot be
one of divination, hence -manteia must have, at least in Byzantium, had a wider meaning. At
no time is the spirit cross-examined with divinatory intent. It is therefore obvious that in this
context -manteia does not mean divination. How are we to explain this? It seems unlikely
that the author of the Hygromanteia who was writing in Greek and obviously very well
informed about both magic and divination, would have repeatedly made such a mistake.
The unavoidable conclusion is that -manteia had a wider meaning which embraces ‘magical

procedure.’1610

The use of the bottle capture of a demon varies from one text to another but the method is
roughly the same. Version H uses the bottle as a receptacle for an evicted demon after a
successful exorcism, rather than for example, sending the demon(s) into a herd of pigs.
Technically, the spirit dislodgement part of the procedure should be referred to as an
exorcism. The exorcistic nature of this operation is reinforced by the apparent need for the
boy to wear a phylactery,!®!! to prevent the spirit from entering him before the magician has

managed to get it into the bottle. After its capture the bottle is sealed with wax and a small

1608 Versions of this story and the details of the invocation in front of the king are to be found in: Folger
MS Vb. 26; Wellcome MS 3203; and Rylands GB 0133 Eng MS 40.

1609 Taotyp can mean womb or the wide part of a bottle.

1610 Scott & Liddell do not offer such a meaning. However, all dictionaries, even the best, are compiled
by accumulating instances of a word’s usage in literature, it would appear that this particular fairly
obscure instance of usage has not been taken cognisance of by the dictionary makers.

1611 See H, f. 37v for a drawing of this phylactery. Version A simply says the magician must wear a
pentagram.

357

parchment pentagram.16!2

Versions A and P2 use this method to imprison spirits which have been set to guard buried
treasure desired by the magician. In some cases this spirit might even be the spirit of a dead
person deliberately set to haunt the treasure. Solomon reputedly used the technique to
imprison 72 demons after he had completed building his Temple in Jerusalem. In Arabic
texts,1615 the bottle is usually made of metal, but here it seems likely the bottle in the
Hygromanteia is made of glass, as the boy skryer is asked to say when he sees the spirit in the
bottle. In manuscript A the spirit is likened to a wind, which probably comes from the dual
meaning of ruach in Hebrew which means both wind and spirit. If the procedure partly fails
and the spirit does not voluntarily go into the bottle, he is asked to mark the place of the

treasure, or at least vouchsafe the location to the magician in a dream.16!4

The incenses burned whilst performing this rite were clove, musk and galbanum.'!*!5 The
presence of a boy as a skryer is simply there to report to the magician immediately he sees
the spirit actually in the bottle, so the magician can seal it with wax, upon which he engraves
a seal to prevent the spirit escaping. The seal is likely to have originally been the Secret Seal

of Solomon, but this has been somewhat corrupted in the Hygromanteia.'6'

Later Latin grimoires are silent when it comes to the imprisoning of spirits in bottles. In his
version of the Goetia, Thomas Rudd in the mid-17th century reintroduces this procedure by
creating a metal ‘bottle’ designed to imprison or threaten the spirits. The function of this has

already been discussed in chapter 5.3.2. See Figure 32.

1612 Traditionally it should be sealed with the Secret Seal of Solomon. See Figure 42.
1613 Such as that of al-Buni.
1614 “There is a tradition that the goddess Bhagavati, who is worshipped at Kodungallur in Malabar,
was rescued by a fisherman when she was shut up in a jar, and thrown into the sea by a great
magician. The Lingadars of the Kistna district are said to have made a speciality of bottling evil spirits,
and casting the bottles away in some place where no one is likely to come across them, and
[accidentally] liberate them.” - Thurston (1912), p. 250.
1615 Frankincense was added in manuscript A.
1616 See Figure 42.

358

8. The ‘manteiai’ or Evocatory Skrying Methods
The manteiai are to be found in chapters 47 to 58 of the Hygromanteia:
i) 47 Epibaktromanteia water pot skrying

48 Lekanomanteia bottle skrying

49-51 Hygromanteia I-III three different methods of skrying with water
52 Hygromanteia IV skrying with basin, copper kettle and glass

53 Chalkomanteia copper bowl skrying
ii) 54 Katoptromanteia mirror skrying
55 Krystallomanteia crystal skrying
56 Oomanteia skrying with an egg
37 Onykhomanteia fingernail skrying
iii) 58 Nekromanteia interrogation of the dead
iv) -- Lychnomanteia lamp skrying (in the PGM but not in the Hygromanteia.)

All of these are effectively evocatory skrying methods, using different pieces of equipment.
In each case the magician evokes a spirit and a virgin child medium states what he or she
hears or sees. It is this section of the Hygromanteia which at one stage mistakenly gave its

name to the whole book. These skrying methods effectively divide into four groups.

i) The first group (covering chapters 47 - 53) are effectively all water/oil skrying methods,
even though only four are specifically named as such. These all derive from the PGM, as

confirmed by the remark made in the PGM at the beginning of one bowl skrying procedure:

Inquiry of bowl divination and necromancy: Whenever you want to inquire about matters, take
a bronze vessel, either a bowl or a saucer, whatever kind you wish. Pour water [into it]...
Holding the vessel on your knees, pour out green olive oil [onto the water], bend over the vessel
and speak the prescribed spell. And address whatever god you want and ask about whatever
you wish.. .16!7

In the text they are all referred to as ‘vessel enquiry,’ usually translated in modern texts as
“bowl divination.’ However the point of quoting this here is to show that the PGM subsumed
under one heading (‘vessel enquiry’) what was later split out into seven different methods in

the Hygromanteia as listed above.

The first of these, epibaktromanteia, is defined as water-pot skrying. The word appears to be
derived from Bdxtpov, meaning a stick or maybe a wand. I speculate that originally this

might have been the instrument which accompanied the evocation.!°!8 The second is referred

1617 PGM IV. 221-232. This passage is actually abruptly inserted into a letter supposedly written by
Nephotés to Psammetichos, so it comes highly recommended.
1618 Such a water pot and wand, significantly held by a figure identified as Solomon, occurs in Figure
33:

to as lekanomanteia, and has the added dimension of “greasy soot” or ink as the focus of the
skryer rather than just water. This use of soot or ink in the hand has endured as a skrying
method in the Middle East and North Africa till the present time.'*!° The four different types
of hygromanteia follow, differing only in the degree of magical protection afforded the skryer,
and in the vessel used, the fourth type having a complicated arrangement of copper basin, kettle

and glass. The last, Chalkomanteia, simply using a copper bowl, is also seen in the PGM.1620

ii) The second group (chapter 54-57 in the Hygromanteia) consists of methods not found
in the PGM, but which are found in 11th century Jewish sources, as already mentioned.
These are not part of the transmission of methods from the PGM, or onwards to the Clavicula
Salomonis. Skrying by mirror and crystal do appear in the Latin West, employed by
Trithemius, Dee, Francis Barrett, Frederick Hockley, etc., but are found in other manuscripts,
divorced from the purely Solomonic grimoire tradition.1°! An example of Krystallomanteia
appears in the Lemegeton, in the context of evocation, but without mention of the boy skryer:

... you may call these spirits into a Crystall stone or Glass Receptacle, [this] being an Ancient &
usuall way of Receiving & binding of spirits, This Cristall (sic) stone must be four Inches
Diameter sett on a Table of Art ...w[hi]ch is truly called the secret Table of Solomon... 16?

The practices of oil and egg divination remained a Middle Eastern and Jewish tradition and
can be found in the Babylonian Talmud (200 CE), indicating that their origins go back a long

way in the Jewish tradition:

One is allowed to ask of the princes of oil and the princes of eggs, only...they lie. One whispers
a charm [incantation] over oil in the vessel. ..173

The ‘princes’ referred to in this quote are the spirits/angels which were invoked prior to
performing either of these divinations. It is not clear why it is said that they lie, unless this is
simply meant as a condemnation of the veracity of their answers. Katoptromanteia is

mentioned only in passing in PGM XIII. 752.

iii) The third group contains only chapter 58, Nekromanteia. This practice is mentioned
here because it falls into the evocatory skrying section of the Hygromanteia. In a sense it is
simply another form of skrying using a skull, for example, rather than a bowl or a lamp. It

has been dealt with at length in chapter 7.6.

iv) The fourth group contains only Lychnomanteia, lamp skrying. This practice is well

attested in the PGM, appearing both in Greek and Demotic texts, but it does not feature at all

1619 See Lane (1896), pp. 277-284 for descriptions of skrying hand-held ink pools in 19th century Egypt.
1620 PGM IV. 221-232 mentions a bronze bowl.
1621 Therefore we can confidently conclude that B2 was not the version that was translated into Latin.
1622 Peterson (2008), p. 65. This later form of krystallomanteia was probably derived from chapter 55 of
the Hygromanteia. For the Table of Solomon, see chapter 6.1.
1623 Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 101, as quoted by Daiches (1913), p. 7.

360

in the Hygromanteia. See Table 19 for a summary of the above.

Chapter

Hygromanteia

Meaning

Water pot skrying

Divinatory
method

Epibaktromanteia!®*

Divinatory
method

PGM

Meaning

48 aes with Lekanomanteia’®2” IIL 276

49 Water a Hygromanteia DS IV. cages
protective circle Veet eadin Bow] skrying IV.3209-54.

50 Water skrying Hygromanteia II - rite type ‘B’

51 Water skrying Aygromanteia I[['6°

59 Skrying with copper | Hygromanteia
basin, kettle and glass | [V161 VIL. 319-347,1692
Copper bowl skrying | Chalkomanteia'®?

Sample PGM
Reference1®4

XIII. 752.1636

54 Mirror skrying!4 Katoptromanteia'®>
55 Crystal stone skrying | Krystallomanteia’®7
56 Skrying using anegg | Oomanteia

Finger nail skrying!*8 | Onykhomanteia'®?

Divination by

58 pp anon ane Nekromanteia‘®40 Nekromanteia the dead TV 928 Aue
dead ; inv, | XXII. 1-70.
~ rite type ‘N
I. 262-347;

Lamp skrying

Lychnomanteia VII. 250-259;

cate type D' | rr 640°577.
Dream
Oneiromanteia divination ATC O8S:

1009-16.

- rite type ‘Vv’

Table 19: The commonality between the PGM and the divinatory and evocatory skrying chapters in
the Hygromanteia, demonstrating how vessel enquiry in the PGM became subdivided into a number of
more specialised methods in the Hygromanteia.

1624 Not an exhaustive listing, just typical examples. See Appendix 2 for more examples.
1625 All of the following methods are to be found in B2. Also see B, f. 30-33.
1626 Saucer divination.
1627 B, f. 41-42.
1628 Despite the fact that chapter 49 is about hygromanteia, the magician is referred to as a lecanomancer,
which suggests some permeation between techniques and flexibility of terminology.
1629 B2, ff. 344v-345.
1630 B, f. 33v-34.
1631 B2, ff. 350v-351.
1632 “With a copper vessel.”
1633 Sometimes improperly called lekanomanteia. See B2, f. 347v.
1634 A method for this is recorded in Gollancz (2008), f. 56b.
1635 B2, ff. 347, 349v-350.
1636 “Visions in mirrors” mentioned in passing.
1637 B2, f. 347v.
1638 Paralleled by similar Jewish techniques.
1639 B, f. 42; B2, f. 346-346v.
1640 M2, f. 225; B, £.42v; B2, ff. 348v-349.
1641 Not present in the Hygromanteia.
361

8.1 Lychnomanteia - Evocationary Lamp Skrying (D)

Lychnomanteia, or skrying by the flame of a lamp is derived from Avyvoc, meaning a lamp.
The procedure usually involves the calling of a god to give verbal answers to particular
questions posed by the magician. Integral to the practice is the use of the virgin boy skryer,
although sometimes the magician also asks for a direct vision of the god himself. The
magician is instructed to put his hand, or finger, on the head of his skryer, or alternatively

whisper the invocation directly “down into his head.”

There are frequent references in the PGM to not using lamps coloured red, or more specifically
tainted with red lead (prs).1°42 Betz’s glossary suggests that this might apply to lamps coloured
with red ochre (miltos). The reason apparently is to avoid the symbolism of Seth-Typhon.1

Typical offerings to be made during this rite are frankincense and grape-vine wood! or
myrrh and willow leaf.!65 The brazier should be placed upon a clay tablet (referred to as a
brick’) and the boy upon another. Interestingly, in one passage, the spirit being conjured is
referred to as the “spirit that flies in the air, [and] called with secret codes.” The wick is
conjured by the hand of Anubis and by the “blood of the Drowned One,” Osiris. According

to the nature of the entity called, or of the question, so the wick and the oil are changed.166

Other accoutrements occasionally used for lamp skrying include a wolf’s head on which the
lamp is to be balanced.1647 An altar is sometimes used to give a surface on which to sacrifice

to this particular god when he arrives. In that case the offering will consist of:

...a wolf's eye, storax gum, cassia, balsam gum and whatever is valued among the spices, and
pour a libation of wine and honey and milk and rainwater, [and make] 7 flat cakes and 7 round
cakes.1648

One of the names conjured three times in various operations of lamp skrying is BOEL, who is
described as “the first servant of the great god, he who gives light exceedingly, the
companion of the flame.”169 This name is repeatedly mentioned in a number of lamp skrying

invocations, and seems to be integral to this method:

1642 Such lamps are mentioned in PGM I. 277, 293; II. 57; IV. 2373, 3191; VIL 542, 594; VIII. 87; XII. 27,
131; and LXIL 1.

1643 Red has a well known association with ‘demonic’ gods like Seth and Apophis. Red is the preferred
ink colour for writing the names of demons or enemies. The avoidance of the colour in PGM is based
on the same symbolism, especially in the case of divinatory lamps.

1644 PGM VII. 540-544.

1645 PDM xiv. 766.

1646 For a daimonic spirit, a wick of sailcloth and butter is used; to seduce a woman burn oil of roses; in
other matters a clean wick and pure genuine oil, probably olive oil. For an Apollonian invocation use
either rose oil or oil of spikenard. See PGM I. 279.

1647 PGM I. 282.

1648 PGM I. 285-289.

1649 PDM xiv. 195, 489-490.

362

Bring in BOEL! Bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL in! ARBETH-BAI YTSIO, O doubly great god, bring
BOEL in! TAT TAT,1%° bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL in! TAGR TAT, he of
Eternity, bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL in! BEYTSI, O great god, bring BOEL in!
Bring BOEL in! Bring BOEL IN! 161

This same spirit name appears over a thousand years later in 1623, when a magician called

Jean Michel Menuisier, who had learnt magic in Toledo, claimed that:

During a visit to Vienna he had purchased a magic phial containing a spirit named Boél, which
he consulted to know occult secrets and therefore help his clients.162

One of the standard inducements offered to the daimones/spirits to perform in a lamp

skrying is that the magician will praise them before the senior gods:

I shall praise you in heaven before Pre;13 I shall praise you before the moon; I shall praise you
on earth; I shall praise you before the one who is on the throne.. .1°4
One example of lamp skrying assumes that the evocation will cause the boy skryer to see the
king of the spirits, who can then be cross examined by the magician, via the boy. This
procedure is sometimes extended to making the king of the spirits more comfortable before
cross examining him, by either bringing him a throne to sit on, or laying a feast for him to
eat, in both cases it is done in the spirit vision rather than physically. An example:
If he [the god] says, “I [will] prophesy,” say: “Let the throne of god enter, THRONOUZATERA
KYMA KYMA LYAGEU APSITADRYS GE MOLIANDRON BONBLILON PEUCHRE, let the
throne be brought in.” If it then is carried by 4 men, [say to the boy] as, “With what are they

crowned, and what goes before the throne?” If he says, “They are crowned with olive branches,
and a censer precedes,” [then the] boy speaks the truth.16°

This procedure of making the spirit comfortable, especially with food, is carried through the

PGM to both the Hygromanteia and later Latin grimoires.

One extension of the use of an olive oil lamp in skrying, is the “Maskelli” formula. After
consecrating three reeds to the four quarters, a clean lamp is placed facing east, and the same
invocations are both said seven times and written on a cloth strip. Frankincense is offered
and the three reeds are bound together with date palm fibre into a tripod which holds the
lamp. The use of a tripod in divination is typically Greek, something which is further
underlined by the magician being crowned with olive branches.1%6 The desired outcome is

that the answers are to be shown to the magician in his sleep:

I conjure you by the sleep releaser [of dreams] because I want you to enter into me and to show
me concerning the NN matter. ..1657

1650 Thoth.
1651 PD M xiv. 470-473.
1652 Davies (2009), pp. 64-65.
1653 Ra, the sun god.
1654 PD M xiv. 493.
1655 PGM V. 31-40.
1656 Rather than laurel.
1657 PGM IV. 3190-3209.
363

Strangely, one of the experiments of lamp skrying contains a passage which was later to

become a classic recipe for the production of a homunculus.

You bring some flowers of the Greek bean plant.1©8 You find them in the place of the garland
seller (also called the lupine seller).1? You should bring them while they are fresh; you should
put them in a glass bowl; you should seal its mouth with clay very well for twenty days in a
hidden, dark place. After twenty days, if you bring it up and open it, you find some testicles in
it together with a phallus. If you leave it for forty days and [then] bring it up and open it, you
find that it has already become bloody. In a place which is hidden at all times, you put it in a
glass object, and you put the glass object into a pottery object.16

This form of divination does not occur in either the Hygromanteia or the Clavicula Salomonis.

8.2 Lekanomanteia - Bottle and Bowl Skrying (B)

Lecanomancy (AsKavopavteia) is derived from the Greek word for bowl AsKévy (lekane).
Usually oil would be poured on the surface of water. Or, more sophisticatedly, the flame
from a lamp might be reflected in the surface of the liquid providing a suitably animated

skrying surface.
Mesopotamia
Lecanomancy is first recorded in the Babylonian Ritual Tablets (7th century BCE):

Cypress, fine flour he shall pour out, oil on the libation he shall put, an offering he shall pour
out, oil on the water of the vessel he shall put, of Sama’ and Hadad, the great gods, he shall
inquire. When the omen and the oil [divination] are faultless the great gods come near and
judge a judgement of justice and righteousness...the diviner shall look upon oil in water. ..1°6

An early baraitha'6s2 on the Babylonian Talmud (200 CE) shows that Jews living there also
adopted the same practices. In it the vessel was referred to as a makalta/makultu, which was

used for mixed oil and water skrying. 93% is simply a container for oil.

In one example of this practice in the PGM a boy skryer looks into olive oil in a saucer.16
This rite is quite revealing as it gives the rubric, or ritual instructions, in detail. The saucer or
bowl is placed on a ‘brick.’ The word translated as a ‘brick’ throughout the PGM is, I think,

more adequately rendered as a clay tablet. In addition to the “brick,’ “carve these characters

1658 Literally “eye of raven” plant. Beans have a long history of being considered magical, beginning
before the Pythagorean prohibition against eating them.
1659 Such ‘shopping hints’ confirm that these texts are written by working magicians who went to some
lengths to secure their ingredients.
1660 This is repeated almost word-for-word in several other papyri. This example comes from PDM xiv.
141-145.
1661 Ritual Tablets 15-25 quoted in Daiches (1913), pp. 8-9. Daiches contends that the Babylonians
practised oil divination “as long back as 2000 BCE.” The Babylonians in turn ascribed these practices
to the Sumerians.
1662 Commentary.
1663 PGM LXIL. 24-46.

364

on a magnet that is “breathing.’”1%4 In addition the afterbirth of a white dog should be added
to the bowl, and KARBAOTH should be written with myrrh ink on a phylactery, for

protection, and hung on the skryer’s chest.

A bowl skrying with a more Greek flavour is effected via Aphrodite and uses a mixture of
water and oil in a bronze drinking cup. Typically the bow] is written on with myrrh ink.1
Here it is recommended that the magician waxes over the writing on the bowl, presumably

Another bowl skrying is inserted as part of a rite of divine encounter. It utilises a bronze
bowl or saucer, with water and green olive oil, but it makes a distinction between the
different types of water used.!%”7 This bowl skrying also utilises a phylactery for

protection. 1668

In the London and Leiden Papyrus a similar rite begins with an invocation of the gods of the
Underworld. It utilises a boy (“a pure youth who has not yet gone with a woman”) as a
skryer, a dish filled with oasis oil [presumably palm oil], and seven clay tablets!”
representing the planets, and seven loaves of bread, and seven lumps of salt, as offerings.
The invocation is designed to be spoken down into the head of the boy who must wear a

phylactery for protection.167!

In yet another rite the god invoked is Khonsu (in Thebes Nefer-hotep) the Moon god
described as “the noble child who came forth from the lotus,” thereby identifying him with
Harpocrates.!672 The standard Egyptian gods Anubis, Isis, Horus, Nephthys and Osiris also
appear. This rite calls upon the souls of the dead for answers to the divinatory questions. The
vessel is either a clean copper beaker or a new pottery vessel, used with an equal measure of
water and oil (or oil alone) with a stone qs-“nh, which is probably magnetic haematite, and a
plant associated with embalming. The usual array of three clay tablets under and four

around, with loaves, is prescribed. Both the magician and skryer sit on a clay tablet.

1664 The point of breathing is that the magnet should still be able to ‘inhale’ or attract other metal to it.
1665 Tt is an interesting assumption that writing that is meant to be taken notice of by spiritual creatures
should always be scented in one way or another. Myrrh is the preferred incense for ink in PGM.
1666 PGM IV. 3209-54.
1667 Rainwater = the heavenly gods; seawater = earthly [chthonic?] gods; river water = Sarapis or
Osiris; and spring water = the dead.
1668 PGM IV. 221-260.
1669 PDM xiv. 1-92.
1670 As before, this is translated as ‘bricks.’
1671 Dee in 1583 arrayed seven tablets (one for each of the planets) on his ‘Holy Table’ which supported
his skrying stone. These procedures are not far distant from each other.
1672: PDM xiv. 239-95.

365

Another rite utilises a copper cup with the figure of Anubis engraved upon it,!6 with an
oil/ water mixture, and the usual clay tablet arrangement. A lobe of an Anubis plant!®7 is to
be put on the lamp. The incense is to be frankincense, oil, ammoniac, incense and dates

pounded with wine.

There is also a method which can be used by the magician without a skryer.'6> In it the
magician commands Anubis to bring the god of the day and the gods of whatever town the
magician is currently residing in. Anubis acts like a psychopomp, introducing the magician

in turn to the gods that he needs to answer his questions.

Another passage gives the correct facing directions in cases where a skryer is used: the

skryer should face east, while the magician faces west.!6”

Another bowl auto-skrying in Demotic relies upon an ointment placed on his eyes to give the
magician the ability to skry.!°”” Ingredients include the blood of a Nile goose, a hoopoe, a

nightjar, myrrh, lapis-lazuli, plus several plants.

One interesting PGM procedure (one of the few attributed to Solomon) explains how the
magician should throw the skryer into a trance before he begins skrying, a trance so deep
that the skryer will actually fall down as if in a faint. This rite which is described by Betz as a
“charm of Solomon that produces a trance,” is also a good example of the lax use of words
like “charm.” The Greek is LoAopadvtosg Kataatmotc,'””* which Preisendanz translates more
accurately as “Solomon's fall.’1°” In fact, the actual meaning is “Solomon’s [invocation which
causes the skryer] to fall down [in a trance].” This interpretation is confirmed by a passage

further on in the same rite:

Then say the formula 7 times just into the ear of the NN man or little boy [skryer], and right
away he will fall down [in a trance].1°

The passage states, with a touch of pride, that it “works both on boys and on adults.” The
magician planning to use this procedure is specifically made to swear not to disclose it to
anyone else.

It is possible to re-create what was said seven times into the skryer’s ear from Jewish sources.

1673 PDM xiv. 395-427. The procedure of using a copper cup for skrying appears later in chapter 53 of
the Hygromanteia as chalkomanteia.
1674 The text explains, “it grows in millions of places. Its leaf is like the leaf of Syrian [plant] which
grows white; its flower is like the flower of conyza.” Deines and Grapow (1959) identified this plant as
mentha aquatica.
1675 PDM xiv. 528-553.
1676 PDM xiv. 627-635
1677 PDM xiv. 295-308.
1678 In both words Preisendanz uses the final form ¢ instead of o in both initial and medial positions.
1679 Salomon's Niederfallen. Interestingly, this is one of the few mentions of Solomon in the PGM.
1680 PGM IV. 910-911.

366

One mediaeval German source claims the words to be said in the boy’s right ear are: “Adam
Chavah Abton Absalom Sarfiel Nuriel Daniel” followed nine times by “Gerte, I conjure you
with these seven names which I have mentioned, to appear in the wax of this candle,
carefully prepared and designated for this purpose, and to answer truthfully concerning that
which I shall question you.” 161

The B2 manuscript of the Hygromanteia is the most comprehensive when it comes to the
evocatory skrying section, and it contains the most detail about the use of a boy skryer used
in conjunction with a vision-medium such as a water pot, bowl, basin, glass, mirror, crystal,

egg or a fingernail.1682

One experiment of skrying using a water jar and virgin boy is clearly derived from PGM. In
it the magician reads the invocation over the boy’s head. In the Hygromanteia there are a
number of additions, the most important of which is that the boy is now protected by an
elaborate Solomonic circular floor design (see Figure 14). It is not clear if the magician also
stands within the circle, although it seems likely as the illustration suggests that the gate of
the square is situated three feet from the gate of the circle. In both cases the ‘gate’ is simply
an opening through which the boy may pass, but which is protected by various nomina
magica. The circle (the first of the three types discussed in chapter 5.3.1 above) seems to have
been introduced in the Byzantine environment, and it is drawn with that typically Greek

magical implement, the black-handled knife.

Jewish elements such as “by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by the God of Moses...by
the God of Elijah” are present, and there are also some Christianised elements introduced
into the procedure, such as the reading of the 18th and 42nd Psalm,163 and the intriguing use

of John the Baptist as a name to conjure by.

The unique part of chapter 48, evocatory skrying using a bottle, is the anointing of the child
skryer’s hand with the greasy soot from the bottom of a cooking pan. That, or the pouring of
ink into the child’s hand, as a skrying medium, is still practised even today in Morocco and
Egypt,164 and also in a number of other Muslim countries like Syria. The magician burns
incense containing the cooking herbs coriander and nigella. The magician summons a spirit
to appear to the child, rather than encouraging passive skrying in the reflective surface of the
ink. As the sigil is drawn directly on the child’s hand, and not in a bowl, this procedure is in

fact not literally a lekanomanteia.

1681 Trachtenberg (2004), p. 220.

1682 See chapters 47-57. Supplementary material can be found scattered through the other manuscripts

except for P2, M, A2, D, T and N which include none of the chapters on skrying.

1683 Psalms 19 and 43, according to KJV numbering.

1684 See Lane (1896), pp. 277-284 for descriptions of skrying hand-held ink pools in 19th century Egypt.
367

The version in A is particularly interesting as is includes instructions to the spirits not to
sexually molest the girl skryer, confirming a strong belief in the corporeality of spirits which

are seen to be capable of partially interacting with the physical world:

Let her work for me without fear and let nobody among you dare to frighten her, nor kiss her
lips, nor her nose, nor her eyebrows.1685

This manuscript also gives a detailed drawing of what is to be drawn on the skryer’s

palm. 1686
Jewish sources

This procedure probably has its roots in Jewish practice, as the most complete description of

this procedure is found in a much later (1775) Hebrew manuscript:

Take a new knife with a black handle and make with it a circle in the earth,1®’ so that you can
sit in it with a boy or a girl [the skryer] less than nine years (old), and anoint the left hand of one
of them with olive oil and the black (soot) of a pan, and warn them that they should not look
outside the anointed place, and then whisper into his right ear: I adjure you (in the name of)
BSKT, K KATRIEL, MI, Maeniel that you shall appear unto this lad, and you shall give him a
proper answer to all that he asks for me, and all this he shall say three times.18

The method of Solomonic ritual magic is also found here in the form of the circle inscribed

with the black-handled knife.

The spirits are commanded to bring a lamb and cook it. After they have eaten they are then
required to answer the magician’s questions. A number of similar operations in the same

codex parallel the evocatory skrying operations in the Hygromanteia.

The words of some adjurations are quite different, but the concept of pleasing a king of the
spirits still appears. This particular passage has more detail than the corresponding passages
in the Hygromanteia,'*° but there is nothing that could help to definitely establish precedence

of composition.

The same tradition was preserved in very few manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis. One
manuscript written by Lunardo Longo, a Neapolitan working in Venice, was preserved by

the Inquisition in the 1630s and had the following instructions:

To see in a jar [bottle] what you are eager to know

You will get a virgin boy, and tell him to go and take a jar [bottle] of fresh well-water or water
from a river or spring, that he should not speak to anybody either going or coming back!" and
then put him with the jar in the sun, and put your right hand on the boy’s head, and you will

TOP Ac EAL

1606 Af Aly.

1687 A protective Solomonic circle.

1688 Codex Gaster 443.

1689 Such as the prohibition of doing it on the New Moon, or the day before or after, or on a cloudy
day.

1690 The so-called ‘unspoken water’ of the Hygromanteia.

368

say: [“] O! you eastern princes I beg you by the truth of the 72 divine names which is me?®"...
that in this jar you show and come and show to this boy, who will ask you in my name,[“] then
having made the boy speak, you will say in his left ear “tat, bet, tet” 3 times, and then you will
say that the boy must say, “pag pag,” then you will ask the boy whether he sees anything in
that jar, and if he says no repeat the above words in his ear, and he must say his words 7 times
until he tells you that he sees a King, and then you will tell him to beg him [the King] to bring
all his court, and once they have come to bring a lamb, and flay it, and kill it, and bring fire and
cook it, and eat, and drink merrily. Then tell the King to send them all away, and beg him to
keep his faithful servant with him only until he [the King] knows what he [the boy] wants, then
you must beg him to send his servant to fetch a book of the holy law,1 and bring it to the
King, and let the boy make the King swear [on the book] to reply truthfully to everything that
you ask, and when you see that the King has sworn make him say that you beg him by God and
by his sworn oath to tell the truth about what he has stolen!® or anything else [you wish to
know], and if he [the King] wishes beg him send for paper, pen and inkpot and word for word,
letter by letter, as the boy understands, the boy should write down the [King’s] sure reply to
everything.16%

The characterisation of the spirits invoked as ‘princes’ reminiscent of the Jewish “princes of
the thumb,’ the reference to the Shemhamaphoresch and the use of Hebrew letters in the
conjuration, “tat [1?], bet [2], tet [8]” seems to confirm the Jewish rather than Greek origin of
this procedure, as suggested in chapter 3.3 above. This interesting passage also touches upon
several other magical methods which are also seen in the Hygromanteia and the PGM, such
as: feeding spirits before asking them questions; the magician dealing first with the King of

the spirits; the magician asking the King (av0évtnc) to swear upon a book of holy writ.

8.3 Hygromanteia - Water Skrying

Lecanomancy and hygromanteia are distinct, but often in practise the line between them is
blurred. An example of this blurring can be seen in the Greek caption applied to the magician
in one procedure of hygromanteia of the first type.16 Above the head of the drawing of the
magician is written “the Persian lecanomancer called Apolonios (sic).” Other Byzantine figures
were associated with lecanomancy such as the patriarch John VII the Grammarian who was
accused of lecanomancy by George the Monk writing soon after 843.16 He went on to
describe him as a “new Apollonius and Balaam,” further making the connection between

lecanomancy and Apollonius of Tyana.

Both lecanomancy and hygromanteia are forms of evocatory skrying. Lecanomancy refers to
the container and hygromanteia refers to the liquid within the container. Although

lekanomanteia appears in the PGM, hygromanteia per se does not.

1691 Self-identification with the Shemhamaphoresch, another Jewish procedure.
1692 This could as easily be the Torah as the Bible.
1693 This probably refers to an enquiry about a thief rather than an accusation of theft directed to the
King.
1694 Notebook by Lunardo Longo, 1630. See Barbierato (2002), p. 171.
169 B2, f. 344.
169% For George’s Life of St. Theodora the Empress see Magdalino (2006), p. 133.
369

The first method of hygromanteia‘®” outlined in chapter 49 is the most “full blown’ of all the
evocatory skrying methods in the Hygromanteia.1° In this procedure there is a complete
union of the techniques of evocation and skrying. Not only is there a detailed circle of
protection,169 which consists of a square within a circle, but specific Psalms are read, a
conjuration replete with nomina magica is said, candles are lit, and the black-handled knife is
used to trace a circle of protection. An ‘oath book’ or Liber Spirituum is produced to ensure
truthfulness on the part of the spirits. The bottle also contains a silver coin and a magnet,
supposedly to attract the spirit, both concepts with a long history. A new bottle of water

gathered from a spring is the skrying medium.1700

When the spirit arrives, not only is he cross-questioned by the skryer, at the instigation of the
magician, but he is also encouraged to introduce other spirits. This is like the opening section
of the Testament of Solomon where Solomon conjures Ornias, and then demands that he bring
other spirits/demons, each of which is to swear obedience to Solomon. The operation
finishes with a formal Licence to Depart. This operation is a far cry from simple water
divination, or passive observance of patterns rippling on the surface of the water, and is a
complete evocation and binding of spirits. As such this is an excellent example of how fully
ritualised skrying works. The techniques which reached the Latin world (at least in written

sources) are a pale shadow of this procedure.

The second technique, also referred to as hygromanteia, and outlined in chapter 50 of the
Hygromanteia, involves both spring water (drawn silently on the night of the day of Mercury)
and a partly submerged mirror as a skrying medium. Its vessels include a kettle and bowl.
This procedure also includes the recitation of Psalms 57 and 77th and the specification that

the operation should be done at dawn.

The third procedure (chapter 51), also called hygromanteia, strangely suggests the skryer
should be a child with blue eyes, suggesting (in the Byzantine context) that the child was
probably from northern Europe, and maybe a slave. This time the water should be blessed at
Epiphany rather than drawn silently from a spring and covered with a red cloth. After the
recitation of a conjuration, the child should see the spirits. The magician asks the spirits to
prepare a feast for their king, who is then questioned by the magician. There are similar

examples in the PGM, already cited, where the magician orders the spirits to prepare a feast

1697 Tt is only actually called hygromanteia in P.
1698 To be found in P, f. 271; B2, f. 344; V, f. 364; and a fragment in M2, f. 244.
1699 B2, f. 344.
1700 The “glass receptacle” filled with spring water was still in use 500 years later in the mid 19th
century, when it was used by Hockley.
370

for the gods, before cross-questioning the latter.1”"!

The fourth type of hygromanteia is instanced in chapter 52, although it is not so entitled in the
text.1702 In this case the skryer is protected by a circle, but uses a yellow cloth rather than red.
The water is topped up with oil and the equipment consists of a copper kettle placed upside
down in a basin (see Figure 13). The rest of the procedure is familiar with the magician

reciting a conjuration, and the skryer reporting what he sees.

There is no specific trace of hygromanteia in the Clavicula Salomonis, but there are a number of
examples of it in vernacular use. This is an example of a discontinuity and helps to confirm
that ‘hygromanteia’ could not have been the over all title of the Hygromanteia. Perhaps the
most famous exponent of hygromancy, divorced from the Clavicula Salomonis was Michael de
Nostradame or Nostradamus (1503-1566) a French Jewish convert to Christianity who was
famous for his prophetic quatrains. The inspiration for these he received from a combination
of astrology and skrying using hygromancy. In his first quatrains Nostradamus clearly stated
that he followed a technique which he attributed to the ancient oracle of the god Branchus in
Didyma, an oracle only slightly less famous than the oracle at Delphi.!”° His procedure
involved placing a bowl of water on a brass tripod, then dipping a wand into the bowl which
he would then touch to his robe, before gazing into the water. Obviously some steps of the

procedure have been deliberately left out:

1. Gathered at night in study deep I sat,
Alone, upon the tripod stool of brass,
Exiguous flame came out of solitude, [a]
Promise of magic that may be believed.

2. The rod in hand set in the midst of the BRANCHES,1704
He moistens with water both the fringe and foot;

Fear and a voice make me quake in my sleeves;
Splendour divine, the God is seated near.17

The significance is that, despite being a recent Jewish convert, he credits Greek Mystery
sources with this procedure rather than Jewish magic. Nostradamus is known to have read
Psellus’ De Demonibus!” and Iamblichus’ De Mysteritis,‘”°” which describes the oracle of

Branchus:

1701 PGM V. 31-40.
1702 What Marathakis refers to as ‘divination by means of basin, kettle and glass,’ I have re-named
‘Hygromanteia type IV’
1703 Johnston (2008), pp. 82-90.
1704 The capitals are in the original French, so they were obviously meant to be noticed.
1705 Nostradamus, Centuries I, 1-2, translation by Charles Ward 1891. The God seated near is presumably
Apollo.
1706 Translated by Marcus Collisson in Psellus, Collisson and Skinner (2010).
177 An edition of Iamblichus’ book De Mysteriis Egyptorum was published at Lyons in 1547, a town
which Nostradamus had visited. Nostradamus’ first Almanac was published in 1550, just three years
later, and the first Century closely parallels De Mystertis II.11.127.

371

And as for the woman at Branchidai who gives oracles, it is either by holding the staff first
given by a certain god [Apollo] that she is filled by the divine radiance; or else when sitting on
the axle [tripod] she predicts the future; or whether dipping her feet or skirt in the water, or
inhaling vapour from the water, at any rate, she receives the god: prepared and made ready by
any or all of these preliminaries for his reception from without, she partakes of the god.17%

Here is the most famous of all modern prophets using a technique similar to hygromancy,
whilst adapting the procedures of an ancient Greek oracle as explained by an Alexandrian
theurgist. Although the line of transmission, in this instance, is not direct, this is an
interesting encapsulation of the subject of this thesis, epitomising the endurance of magical

(and divinatory) methods and equipment from the ancient to the modern world.

1708 Clarke, Dillon and Hershbel (2003), p. 149.
372

RABIAN

Fe to 2

UU
De

iv ae
fw t.

BLACK SEA

SARMATIA

7
" Fe

k World -->

7
},

,
nse

it
i
:
a
fie
a

Myo gta

$a &

part

Figure 61: Schematic of the lines of transmission of Solomonic magical texts and techniques from the
eastern Mediterranean to Northern Europe. There is also an unmarked land route from Alexandria
through Palestine to Constantinople. The arrows indicate connections rather than the precise routes
taken: for example the sea route from Alexandria to Constantinople would probably have hugged the
coast of Palestine and Asia Minor. The dates are the dates of specific events which helped to trigger
the migration of people and texts, but these transmissions happened over a period around these dates.
The brown shaded area is the Roman Empire in the first two centuries CE.1709

1709 The base map from which Figure 61 was constructed is Beitzel (2009), pp. 272-273.
373

9. Conclusions

It is clear from chapters 5-7, that there is a considerable amount of commonality in the
methods and equipment of magic as identified in the PGM, Hygromanteia and Clavicula
Salomonis. This detailed commonality is greatest between the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula
Salomonis. There is also a close chronological connection between the exit of monks from
Constantinople after the attack by Mehmet II (1422), the copying of the Hygromanteia in the
Byzantine monastery of Grottaferrata (1440) and the first extant manuscript of the Clavicula
Salomonis translated into Italian (1466), possibly in Bologna.!7!0 This train of events plus the
commonality supports the existence of a line of transmission from the Hygromanteia to the
Clavicula Salomonis which is identifiable down to the very detailed level of Solomonic
method, parallel chapter headings and their contents, invocations, specific pieces of
equipment. Therefore there can be no doubt, as Greenfield suspected, that the Hygromanteia is

the forefather of the Clavicula Salomonis.

There are two sections in the Hygromanteia which are exceptions to this transmission. The
first exception is the pentacles chapters which are to be found in (some versions of) the
Clavicula Salomonis. These do not derive from the Hygromanteia, but probably come from the
manuscript Sepher ha-Otot, or from its source. A crude cut-down version of these pentacles
was utilised in the Hygromanteia as part of the construction of the ouraniaAamen. The rough
shape of these pentacles can be seen in the very sketchy seals of the ourania. The pentacles
found in versions of the Clavicula Salomonis are much more detailed than those in the
Hygromanteia, but fail to live up to the complexity of the pentacles of the Sepher ha-Otot,
whose Hebrew is much more detailed. It is therefore very unlikely that the Hygromanteia
supplied the pentacles for the Clavicula Salomonis. Therefore either the Sepher ha-Otot is
tributary to both the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis, or at the least, all three have a

common ancestor whose text is best preserved in the Sepher ha-Otot.

The second exception to the transmission is the skrying chapters (47-59) in the
Hygromanteia.‘”' These have not been passed on to the Clavicula Salomonis. They have been
passed on, albeit in a very fragmentary way, to other Latin manuscripts unrelated to the
Clavicula Salomonis, such as Trithemius’ Art of Drawing Spirits into Crystals.‘72 These skrying
methods are found almost word-for-word in an 11th century Jewish source (see chapter 3.3).
Accordingly, either this Jewish source (or a cognate manuscript) supplied these chapters to
the Hygromanteia, or they were derived from it. At the present time there is no certain way of
1710 See chapter 3.5.

W711 Chapters 47-59.

1712 Barrett (1801), Book II, pp. 129-140.
374

determining the direction of this transmission.

With regard to the line of transmission from the PGM to the Hygromanteia, there is no clear
indication, but the high degree of commonality in method and nomina magica makes it certain
that the PGM was a major source of the contents of the Hygromanteia. A number of common
magical techniques were identified, such as the precise timing of rites by hour, day and
Moon phase, the emphasis on strict purification which included fasting, the use of specific
incenses and techniques such as threatening spirits with the names of their superior demons,
or controlling angels to ensure the spirit’s compliance with the magician’s orders. Another
method found in both texts was the impersonation by the magician of a god in order to
achieve the submission of the spirit. All these techniques, and many more, were found to be

common to all three texts.

There is a definite sequence to the procedures of ‘Solomonic magic’, foreshadowed in the
PGM, but precisely defined in the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis, and identified as

the ‘Solomonic method.’

An important and distinguishing feature of the Solomonic method is the provision of
graphical symbols for the protection of the magician during the performance of a rite. The
first such method of protection was the inscription of an elaborate circle (or set of circles) on
the ground within which the magician stands. The provenance of this circle can be traced in
detail (with many examples) from the Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis. There are also
passing references to it in the PGM and in the 1st century BC tale of the magician Honi ha-
Ma'agel, confirming its long history. The second piece of graphical equipment used for the
protection of the magician is the phylactery/ouraniaAamen which is common and well

documented in all three texts.

Because of common demon names (see Table 06), and the use of the thwarting angel
technique to control spirits (which was examined in chapter 3.2 under the discussion of Rite
type ‘F’) it is also true to say that the 1st/2nd century CE Testament of Solomon was also a

substantial contributory text to the Hygromanteia.

Because the common translation of -pavtei as used in chapters 47-58 of the Hygromanteia
does not cover the procedures recorded in those chapters, it became necessary to expand the

definition of this suffix to embrace evocation and skrying rather than just divination.

It was established (in chapter 5.5.3) that although common nomina magica like Adonai, lao
and Sabaoth are frequently found in the PGM, the Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis, they
are not associated with the methods of Jewish mysticism. The Solomonic method has very
little in common with the Hekhalot and Merkavah techniques which partake of pious Jewish

375

mysticism which relies on prayer without the use of the equipment or techniques identified

as being the essence of Solomonic magic.

Furthermore the source of Solomonic magic could not be found in such texts as the Sepher
Maphteah Shelomoh as it was in fact a translation of a Latin/Italian manuscript of the Clavicula
Salomonis, and therefore not its source. Having said that, there is concrete evidence
embedded in some versions of the Clavicula Salomonis,!713 that there was an historical Hebrew

source, but it is not the Sepher Maphteah, and it has not yet been identified.

A set of correspondences which probably formed part of the Hygromanteia, which included
stones, herbs and beasts (including birds and fishes), has most likely been split off from the
Hygromanteia, prior to 1440, as is evidenced by the remaining traces of zodiacal and planetary
herbal correspondences found in several manuscripts of that text. Sets of these
correspondences (often 15 in number) reappear in other Latin grimoires, such as the Sepher
Raziel, or in separate lapidaria, herbaria or bestiaries, but have not carried forward into the

Clavicula Salomonis.

One of the self-contained books found in the PGM, the so-called Mithrasliturgie,174 is neither
a Mithraic text nor the liturgy of any religion. In fact it is the procedure for a solitary Mystery
rite, addressed directly to the greatest god, designed to confer immortality upon just one
initiate. It is therefore neither religion nor magic, but a Mystery ritual. However, it does
include some supportive magical techniques, such as the ritual of drowning an animal (a
scarab beetle in this case) to deify that animal. The relationship of these three categories
(magic, Mystery and religion) was examined in chapter 1.5, with the result that Mystery rites
(Rite type “M’) were excluded from the analysis of the magic in the PGM. Unsurprisingly, the

Mystery rites are not found in either the Hygromanteia or the Clavicula Salomonis.

As part of the consideration of these techniques, and the light they throw on the ingredients
of magical texts from various periods, a new translation for the Ephesia Grammata has been
proposed, which if accepted, acts as an example of how knowledge of the reasoning behind

the techniques can sometimes help to decipher the meaning of nomina magica.

A number of conclusions were drawn about the origins and provenance of the Hygromanteia
in the course of analysing it, including a suggested date of composition of the late 6th/early
7th century. A major redaction was identified as occurring in Constantinople in the early
13th century, because of the inclusion of passages traceable to Abu ‘Abdallah Muhammad al-
Zanati, which were only translated into Greek by the monk Arsenios in 1266 in
1713 For example, the copy translated by Abraham Colorno in Vencenzo Gonzaga’s library, or that
translated by Professor Pierre Morissoneau.

W714 PGM IV 475-820.
376

Constantinople.

It very likely that the author was Greek educated and not a Christian and the place of
original composition of the Hygromanteia was probably Alexandria. The text was then
subsequently taken to Constantinople. From a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence,
the hypothesis was put forward that the Hygromanteia may have been written or compiled by
Stephanos of Alexandria (and Athens) in the late 6th century, and taken by him to

Constantinople.

It is certain, in the light of the actual contents of the main text (chapters 1-46), that the
Hygromanteia is in every sense a grimoire, a practical text of ritual magic, and not a book of
divination. The last chapters (47-59), which are clearly a separate section, deal with various
types of ritual skrying including hygromanteia, epibaktromanteia, lekanomanteia, katoptromanteia,
krystallomanteia, oomanteia and onykhomanteia.7> This section which only appears in its
complete form in one of the extant manuscripts (B2), and appears to be included in a very
fragmented form in all other manuscripts,!7!° could quite possibly have been entitled
‘hygromanteia.’ Therefore in all likelihood this section title has a one point been incorrectly

applied inclusively to the whole text. It is therefore not the correct title of the whole text.

In Greek the Hygromanteia was probably originally entitled the AnoteAeopatik, npaypateta.!7!7
The most likely title of the Hygromanteia in translation is The Magical Treatise of Gathering and
Directing the Spirits, or simply the Magical Treatise, as this title appears as the incipit of the

most complete manuscript (H).1718
In summary therefore, the main conclusions of this thesis are:

i) There is a considerable amount of commonality between the methods and equipment

of magic in the PGM, Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis.

ii) There is a clear line of transmission from the Hygromanteia to the Clavicula Salomonis
which is identifiable down to the very detailed level of Solomonic method and
specific pieces of equipment. Therefore there can be no doubt that the Hygromanteia is

the forefather of the Clavicula Salomonis.

1715 Manuscript H shows this break in contents very clearly, as at one point in time this manuscript
must have ended after chapter 43, as the last line of this chapter (f. 37v) is “The end of the Art of
Directing the Demons.”
1716 See Table 01.
1717 Pingree (1980), p. 9.
1718 See also Greenfield (1988), p. 159-160 where he identifies this text as Solomon’s Magic Treatise and
goes on to say “it has been maintained that the title Hygromanteia, which appears in some manuscripts,
is false...” Pingree (1980), p. 9 states that it [manuscript P] is “falsely entitled Hygromantia (sic).” His
comment obviously applies to all the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia.

377

iii)

iv)

vi)

vii)

viii)

ix)

There are two main exceptions to the above point:

a) The skrying chapters in the Hygromanteia,’7!9 have not been passed on to the
Clavicula Salomonis. These skrying methods are however found almost word-for-
word in an 11th century Jewish source. Accordingly, either Jewish sources

supplied these chapters to the Hygromanteia, or were derived from it.

b) The pentacles chapters in the Clavicula Salomonis do not derive from the
Hygromanteia, but probably come from the manuscript Sepher ha-Otot, or from a

related source.

There is no clear line of transmission between the PGM and the Hygromanteia, but the
high degree of commonality makes it certain that the PGM was a major contributor to
the contents of the Hygromanteia. The Testament of Solomon was also shown to be an

important contributor to the Hygromanteia.

A number of magical techniques were identified, such as precise timing of rites by
day, hour and Moon phase, strict purification, fasting, use of specific incenses, use of
shared nomina magica, and techniques such as threatening spirits with the names of

their superiors, or the impersonation of a god to ensure compliance from the spirit.

Equipment used for protection of the magician including the protective floor circle

and the phylactery /ourania/lamen, are common to all three texts.

There is a definite sequence to the procedures of ‘Solomonic magic’, foreshadowed in
the PGM, but precisely defined in the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis, and

identified as the ‘Solomonic method.’

The pentacle section of the Clavicula Salomonis was derived from the Sepher ha-Otot, or
a cognate Hebrew source. A crude cut-down version of these pentacles was used in
the Hygromanteia to construct the ourania/amen, and the pentacles found in versions
of the Clavicula Salomonis are less detailed, and with less complete Hebrew. Therefore
either the Sepher ha-Otot is contributory to both the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula

Salomonis, or acommon ancestor informed all three texts..

The meaning of -yavteia as used in chapters 47-58 of the Hygromanteia embraces

evocation and skrying as well as just divination.

Although Hebraic god names like Adonai, Ia6 and Sabaoth are frequently found in
the PGM, the Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis, they were divorced from the

methods of Jewish magic.

1719 Chapters 47-59.

378

xi)

xii)

xiii)

xiv)

The Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh manuscript of 1700, instead of being evidence of the
Jewish roots of Solomonic magic, was in fact a translation of a Latin/Italian

manuscript of the Clavicula Salomonis, and therefore not its source.

A full set of correspondences of stones, herbs and beasts, has become split off from
the Hygromanteia, prior to 1440, leaving just a few zodiacal and planetary herbal
correspondences. These correspondences reappear in other grimoires, such as the
Sepher Raziel, or in separate lapidaria, herbaria or bestiaries, but are not carried forward

into the Clavicula Salomonis.

The so-called Mithrasliturgie, is neither a Mithraic text nor the liturgy of any religion,
nor is it a magical text, but a procedure for a solitary Mystery rite, designed to confer

immortality upon just one initiate.

A new translation for the Ephesia Grammata has been proposed, as an example of how
knowledge of the techniques can sometimes help to decipher the meaning of nomina

magica.

Speculative Conclusions about the origins of the Hygromanteia:

xv)

xvi)

xvii)

xviii)

ix)

The date of composition of the Hygromanteia was probably late 6th/early 7th century,

with a major redaction occurring in the early 13th century.

The place of composition of the Hygromanteia was probably Alexandria, with the text
being subsequently taken to Constantinople. The author was Greek educated and not

a Christian.

The Hygromanteia may have been written or compiled by Stephanos of Alexandria

(and Athens) in the late 6th century, and brought by him to Constantinople.
The title Hygromanteia was originally only applied to the last chapters 47-59.

The most likely title of the Hygromanteia is The Magical Treatise of Gathering and
Directing the Spirits, or the Magical Treatise, although it was probably originally called

the AnoteAsopatiuc mpaypateia.

379

Graphical Summary of the Main Commonalities

GREEK RELIGION

EGYPTIAN RELIGION

Greek Gods

Egyptian Gods

PGM only:
Defixiones
Sending dreams
Restraining formulae
Eye and phallus ointments
Invocation of Egyptian gods

Greek gods
The Mysteries
Tsopsephy

PGM/Hygromanteia:
Stoicheia / magical statues

Writing with consecrated reed pens
Magical rings and gemstones
Papyrus for talismans, ete

PGM + Jewish Magic
Hebrew god names
Hebrew angel names

Bowl Skrying

PGM+tHygromanteia+Jewish+Salomonis:
Using the names of previous magicians
Thwarting angel/demon pairs
Phylactery for protection
Hebrew angel names

Hebrew god names
Invoking angels
Demon names
Necromancy
Angel names
Ritual purity
Lunarium
Timing
Fasting
Sacrifice
Solomon

HYGROMANTEIA
168 hourly angels
168 hourly demons
Prayers to planets
Planetary icons

PGM+HygromanteiatSalomanis:
Incense to attract spiritual creatures
Timing of rites: by hour, day, Moon

JEWISH MAGIC
Tefillin
Breastplate
Hekhalot
Merkavah

Hygromanteia + Salomonis:
Solomonic method
Black-hilted knife

Table of Evocation

Spirits for Treasure finding
Circle for protection
Sword to threaten spirits

Jewish+Salomonis:
Planetary pentacles
Ritual Purity

Brass Vessel for
constraining spirits

Hyg+Jewish+Salomonis:

Hygromanteia:
CLAVICULA SALOMONIS: Most skrying methods
White hilted knife, sickle, etc. (except
Triangle of Art Lamp & Bowl skrying)

Summary of the Distribution of the Commonalities between the Graeco-Egyptian Magical Papyri, the Hygromanteia,
the Clavicula Salomonis and Jewish Magic

Figure 62: An extended Venn diagram schematically showing the basic commonalities between the
three magical traditions: the PGM, the Hygromanteia and the Clavicula Salomonis, with additional input
from Jewish magic. This diagram is intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive.

380

Term

Greek

&y1og
GYPLTVYTUKOV
ayoyn, ayoyWLov
ALADPWOIG

ATOTEAEOHATIKT
Tpaypateta

dvyehoc

a8 avatioLdG
amdAVGOV
adv0évtns

abdtowia, avTOMTOSG

Botavy

dia Bor
daipova
yaoTépa
yaoTEpoLavteta

yons

yontsia
daiLov
daKtbAloc, dakTbALION

siS@AOV

sikOv’

EKOTOOIG

eEopxiCo

éma01d6¢
emiPaxtopopavtsia
ETUKAAODLAL

Evy fl

8éAyTNTPOV
Oeoupyia

Ovpiaa

isp poysio

Kav0dpov

Transliteration

hagios
agrypnetikon
AgOge, AZOZomMON
amayrosis

Apotelesmatiké
Pragmateia

angelos
apathanatismos
apolyson
aythentes

autopsia, autoptos

botané

diabolé
daimona
gastera
gasteromanteia

goes

goeteia
daimon
daktylios, daktylion

eidolon
eikone

ekstasis

exorkizo

epaoidos
epibaktoromanteia
epikaloymat

euchée

thelgetron
theurgia
thymiama

hiera magia

kantharou

Glossary
Meaning

Holy

Insomnia spell

Love spell. Operations of type ‘L’
Invisibility spell. Operations of type ‘T’

Earlier title for the Hygromanteia

Angel or messenger

A ritual for immortalization

The practice of dissolving or ‘loosening’ spells
King (of the spirits) that has full power to swear

A direct vision of a god (without the need for a skryer).
Operation of the type ‘E’

Herbs used in magic (not ‘pasture’ in this context)
Slander spell

God/ goddess or one’s personal daimon

A bottle designed to imprison the spirit
Procedure for capturing a spirit in a (metal) bottle

A magician who evokes demons/spirits as distinct from
gods!720

Evocation of demons/ spirits
An entity half way between the human and the divine
Ring, magic ring. Operations of type ‘K’

Image, image of a god/ goddess, magical figures on a
talisman

An image, of a saint, god, or (in the Hygromanteia) a
planet.1721

Ecstasy or trance

Conjure

Incantation

Water-pot evocatory skrying
Summon (a god)

Prayer. Operations of type ‘P’
Spell or charm

Invocation of the gods
Incense

Holy magic

Scarab

1720 The meaning of this word, and the next, has been explored in depth in Dickie (2003), pp. 12-16, 29-
33. Here the later meaning, as used in the grimoires, has been used.
1721 Classical orthography = sikav.

381

KATOOEG LOG

KOTOKANTIKOV

KATOYOS
KAétoi tn Movoéac

aBav

AEKAVOLLAVTELGL

Avyvouavteia

haysio
LoyedLato
LayiKkdc évepysias
MaryOG

-HOVTELO

Lv ovuKh
LvoTaL
LvOTHpia

veKpopavteta

VUKTOAGAN La.
VUKITIKOV
OLNpoLLavtsiov
OVELPALTHTOV

OVELPOTOLLTOG

OPKLOLOG

obpavia. AAMAS
XoOAOLOVTOSG

obpavia oopayic

obdpoBdpos

ovoia

TELPESPOG

TEPLOLLPLOT OL

miPaKTpopLavtsia
TIVEDLOL

TpGElc, TPAYLATELA
TPOYV@OIG
XOAOHOVUKT]

OTHMAN

OTOLYELOL

katadesmos

kataklétikon

katochos
Kleidi te Mouseos

labon

lekanomanteia

lychnomanteia

mageia
mageumata
magikes energeias
magos

-manteia

mnemonike
mystat
mysteria

nekromanteia

nyktolalema
nikétikon
homéromanteion
oneiraiteton

oneiropompos

orkismos

ourania aloaphs
Solomontos

ourania sphragis
ouroboros

ousia

paredros

periammata

pibaktromanteia
pneuma

praxis, pragmateia
prognosis
Solomonike

stelé

stoicheia

Binding using a defixio. Operations of type “W’

An image or statue that calls or summons customers (for
use outside a business premises)

Binding or holding down. Operations of type ‘R’
[Little] Key of Moses. [Classical orthography = Kets]

To take hold of or bind. Often translated less specifically
as spell or charm
Bowl or bottle evocationary skrying. Operations of type ‘B’

Evocationary lamp skrying. Operations of type ‘D.’
Found in the PGM but not in the Hygromanteia.

Magic

Piece of magical art
Magical power
Magician

Usually defined as ‘divination,’ but in the context of
words like yaotepopavtsia or vexpouavteia, it means ‘a
magical procedure’

Memory. Part of the operations of type ‘S’
An initiate of the Mystery
The Mysteries. Operations of type ‘M’

Necromancy, invocation and interrogation of a spirit of
the dead. Operations of type ‘N’

Spell for making a woman talk in her sleep

Victory spells. Operations of type ‘P’

Divination by verses of Homer. Operations of type ‘O’
Dream revelation. Operation of type “V’

Sending dreams; a sender of dreams. Also Operation of
type ‘V’
Conjuration; administration of an oath (to the spirit)

Name of the Solomonic lamen in the Hygromanteia,
according to Preisendanz

The lamen in the Hygromanteia
The snake with its tail in its mouth

The essence of a thing or person which is used to
establish a magical connection, e.g. hair or nail clippings

A magical assistant or familiar. Operation of type ‘F’

An amulet, i.e. a general personal protection carried
around on a day-to-day basis. Operation of type ‘A’

Skrying using a water pot. Also epibaktromanteia
Spirit, breath

Magical operation, rite

Foreknowledge. Part of the operations of type ‘S’
A Greek book of magic associated with Solomon

A stone tablet carrying an inscription; a rectangle of
metal, stone or natron with inscription; the inscription

An ensouled talisman or statue

382

OTOLYELOKPATODCa
OTOLYELMOLATIKOL

ovLBora

OVOTUOIG

oppayic
TEAEOLA
teAsta

vypoLavteia

“Yypopavtsta

ddpia

DSpOLavtsia,

QappLaKksia

MloAOLLavVTEia.
OiATpov

VAAKTNPLOV

Xapatnp

Latin
Almadel
altitudine
candartis

consecratio

evocatio

hydriae argenteae

invocatio

lamen
licentia
ligatio
lunarium

materia magica

nomina magica

stoicheiokratoysa
stoicheiomatikoi

symbola

systasis

sphragis
telesma
teletai

hygromanteia

Hygromanteia

hydria

hydromanteia

phamakeia

phialomanteia
philtron
phylakterion

charakter

A magician who fixes the spirit or god to the material
talisman or statue, to bring it ‘alive’

A magician who creates stoicheia (ensouled statues) or
talismans.1”22 Partaking of operations of type ‘J’

An item which forms part of the same chain of
correspondences, e.g. a lion is a symbola of Helios and
laurel leaves that of Apollo

Divine encounter or association with a god. Operations
of type ‘G’

Seal

Talisman. Operations of type “T’

The Mysteries. Operations of type ‘M’

A method of evocatory skrying using a virgin boy
skrying in water, basin, kettle, etc

The common title of the Magical Treatise

Water pot, which may have been used by Solomon to
imprison demons

See hygromanteia
A dealer in herbs and poisons, and only incidentally one

involved in magic
Saucer divination

Love spell. Operations of type ‘L’. Also puAtpoxatadeopoc
Phylactery, literally a safe-guard, to be worn by the
magician during a rite. Operations of type ‘U’

Characters found on talismans, usually made of straight
and curved lines ending with small circles, but probably
a form of the Malachim alphabet

The name of a grimoire which means ‘circle’ in Arabic
A zone occupied by a particular set of angels (see chora)
A talisman (not a ‘candle’)

Consecration (of magical implements). The first part of
the ‘Solomonic method’

Evocation. The third part of the ‘Solomonic method’

A silver water pot, which may have been used by
Solomon to imprison demons

Invocation. The second part of the ‘Solomonic method’
A type of phylactery worn on the chest of a magician, as
protection, during a magical rite

Licence to Depart. The fifth part of the ‘Solomonic
method’

Binding. The fourth part of the ‘Solomonic method’
A Lunar ephemeris, giving the days of the Moon’s cycle

Material used in magical rites like blood, herbs, stones,
hair or animal parts

Magical words of currently unknown meaning and
derivation used in magical invocations

1722 Nlot the “persons who cast nativities from the signs of the zodiac,” as defined by Liddell and Scott.

383

Egyptian
b3.w

b3 n kky
dbn.phr

hbs

hk3

hk3y

hm ntr
hpensh
hry-hb hry-tp

mn mn mn

nh.t
nktk bin
nsb
ntr

ph-ntr

phr
pr- “nh

sdm 73

sh pr- ‘nh

shen ben

bainchoooch

heka

neter

peh-netjer

per-ankh

Souls

The spirit or soul of darkness

The ritual of encircling for purification
Lamp

Magic

Magician

High priest / the god’s servant
Written spell

Chief lector priest, the most learned priest in the temple,
who wore a leopard skin as insignia

The point where the name of the person against whom
the spell is directed should be inserted. Similar to ‘NN’
in Latin grimoires

A ‘protection’ or amulet

‘Evil sleep’ or catalepsy. Operations of type ‘Z’

The technical term for an ink ‘lick off’ spell

Gods

The god’s arrival. Operations of type ‘G.’ Consultation
with an ensouled divine statue, or in a dream

Enchant, also “to encircle” as in the circle of protection

House of Life, a combined library, scriptorium and
college

Snake eating its tail - the Ouroboros

Scribe of the House of Life
(sometimes used to describe a magician)

Bowl skrying/vessel enquiry. Operations of type “B’
To exorcise

Oracles

Exorcised

Conjurations /conjurer

Ring [spell]

Litany

‘Health,’ a general term for an amulet, confirming their
most frequent raison d’étre. See operations of the type ‘A’

Ouphér ritual

384

Hebrew
ooN

as 5ys

rosbas Ssseion

pee Ss"
mn

srb>
m2

yi
mImisn App
bay

noow mmpp spp

missy
yep

ms
min
as ose
aw
vin
ropn

Adonai

Baal Aub

Ha-Nishal Be-
Gilgaloth
Via Itmon

IHVH or Yahweh

Lilita
Merkabah

Pegaim
Sepher ha-Otot
Agul

Sepher Maphteah
Shelomoh

Tzabaoth or Sabaoth

Kamia

Ruach
Ruachoth
Sheol aub
Shedim
Shimmush

Tefillin

Literally “my Lord,” a Hebrew god name used in the
vocalisation of IHVH. It is used in all three traditions of
magic: PGM, Hygromanteia, and Clavicula Salomonis

Literally “a ghost master.” Necromancy, where the dead
is raised by calling the name of the deceased

Necromancy via the means of a skull
The Path of Metatron used to mark the exit from the
protective circle (a transliteration from Latin)

Hebrew god name used in all three traditions of magic:
PGM, Hygromanteia, and Clavicula Salomonis

Lilith, a female demon

Literally a ‘chariot,’ designating a form of Jewish
mysticism which involves ‘descending’ from one heaven
or hall to the next

Tormentors, evil spirits
‘The Book of the Signs,’a Hebrew book of pentacles
A circle

Hebrew copy of a Latin/Italian Clavicula Salomonis

Hebrew god name used in all three traditions of magic:
the PGM, Hygromanteia, and Clavicula Salomonis

In general terms an amulet, but used specifically for a
planetary kamea built from a numeric square

Spirit, breath

Spirits

A magician who calls up ghosts
Demons

(Magical) procedure

A type of phylactery specifically used by Jewish men at
prayer time. Not used for magic

The meanings listed in this Glossary are not the complete definition of each term, for which consult a
dictionary, but their meanings appearing in the context of magic and the texts examined in this thesis,
specifically the PGM, Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis.

385

APPENDICES

386

Appendix 1 - Analysis and Statistics for Graeco-Egyptian Magic

Group Rite Number Total | Number
percentage eet Code Category frit Number | of lines
of rites grouping OrTees | of lines per rite
L Love Rites and Separation of Lovers 89 1831 21
H Health Spells 59 478 8
Objective Z Evil Sleep or Death 14 84 6
orientated S Memory and Foreknowledge 9 244 27
Quereuoue B Victory spells 7 57 8
Q Possession (daimonic) and Exorcism 4 201 50
I | Invisibility 3 35 12
Manufacture A Amulets for General Protection 54 544 10
pees 2 R Restraining/ Binding Anger Amulets 12 188 16
disks, T Talismans for Specific Purposes 11 229 21
amulets, U Phylacteries, Lamen for Ritual Use!723 8 61 8
lamens,
lamveliae cic Ww Defixiones (Magic via the Dead) 12 A155 63
Dealing with V Visions and Dreams of the Gods 43 970 23
the unseen G Gods: Invocation and Epiphany 34 1534 45
( ioe E Encounters with the Gods Face-to-Face 4 243 61
invocation, -
eoocanon: P sit ia ie oe of Praise (not 9 260 29
prayer,
visions F Familiar Spirit or Assistant Daimon 6 386 64
Obeeod) M Mystery & Initiation rites 6 1451 242174
oe D Evocationary Lamp Skrying 16 542 34
ryin
Ure B Bow] Skrying/ Vessel Enquiry 16 405 25
Relating to K Magic Rings and Gemstones 8 410 51
magical Y Use of Herbs and Plants in Magic 6 119 20
SUD Eent J Manufacture of Magic Statues 6 321 54
Timing C Calendrical Considerations (Katarchic 9 115 3
Astrology)
a Minor Magical Procedures!725 24 288 12
Sundry O Oracles from Homer, books, dice & lots 4 196 49176
Xx Excluded Fragments 46 283 6!”
Total 526 12,565

Table 20: The objective-based and rite type based categories used to analyse the PGM. The occurrence
tallies measure numbers of rites, quantity of lines, and average line length.'”*

1723 Excludes U2 (114 lines) which are part of already reported categories.

1724 Note the totally different nature of Mystery rituals, which sets them apart from the magical rites,
as indicated by their average line length of 242 as opposed to the longest magical rite average of 64
lines.

1725 Usually just one example of each type of rite.

1726 Long mainly due to the Homeric passages.

1727 Demonstrating their fragmentary nature.

1728 There are a few duplicated rites which are marked as such: these have not been counted twice.

387

Percent- | Percent
ene at Rubricated Greek Headwords
Code Category of the of the sf eeiaaed
PGM | PGM ee
rites lines
ayayn (agdgeé), otAtpov (philtron),
pe |) EONS id ne MUutpoKatddsopoc (philtrokatadesmos)
Invocation of and association with , :
G the Gods 6.5 12.2 OVOTHOELG (sustaseis)
M | Mystery & Initiation Rites 1.1 11.5 yvotypia (mystéria), tehetai (teletai)
V_ | Visions and Dreams, sending 8.2 7.7 OVEIPAITHTOV (Oneiraitéton)
W_ | Defixiones 2.3 6.0 Katédeopot (katadesmoi)
A | Amulets 10.5 4.4 TEPLALWatd (periammata), Tpd¢G (pros)
D_ | Evocationary Lamp Skrying 3.0 4.3 Avyvopavteia (Lychnomanteia)
H_ | Health 11.2 3.8 mpoc- (followed by disease name)
B_ | Bowl Skrying/ Vessel Enquiry 3.0 3.3 AEkavopavteia (lekanomanteia)
K_ | Magical Rings & Gemstones 15 3.3 daxtvdov (daktylion)
F | Familiar Spirits 1.1 3.1 mapEdpoc (paredros)
J Magic Statues 1.1 2.6 oto1yeta (stoicheia)
N_ | Necromancy 1.3 2.6 vekponavtsta (nekromanteia)
a | Minor Magical Procedures 4.6 2.3 -
X | Excluded Fragments 8.7 2.3 -
P| Prayers and Hymns 17 21 EDXN (euch)
S | Memory and Foreknowledge 1.7 1.9 cae Ureienony Ke)
TPOYV@Ots (prognosis)
E ite uittie Gogo Vace-t0: 0.8 1.9 avtoyia (autopsia), adtontOS (autoptos)
T | Talismans 2.1 1.8 tédeoua (telesma)
OF lass 0.8 16 pavtetov (manteion) :
OuNpoLavtstov (homéromanteion)
Q_ | Possession/Exorcism 0.8 1.6 -
R_ | Restraining/ Binding Amulets 2.3 1.5 PeHOKarOxoy (Reon)
KatoxOs (katochos)
C_ | Calendrical and Timing 1.7 0.9 -
Y | Herbs 1.1 0.9 Botavy (botané)
Z_ | Evil Sleep and Death 27. 0.7 nktk bin (Demotic only)
B | Victory spells 1.3 0.5 vucntikov (nikétikon)
U_ | Phylacteries (excluding U2) 13 0.4 pvaAaktnpiov (phylakterion)
I | Invisibility 0.6 0.3 GLAvVPwWOIG (amayrosis)
Total 99.9 100

Table 21: Objectives and Rite Types, ranked by rite and line percentages, with the key headwords used in
their identification.

388

Appendix 2 - Analysis of the Taxonomy of Graeco-Egyptian Magic in the

PGM
oi, 78 a of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
Pee & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica

7 A 4 PGM VIL. 193-196 Scorpion sting amulet
7 A 2 | PGM VII. 197-198 Eye discharge amulet

cans 7 A 4 | PGM VII. 199-202 Amulet against headache, migraine.
7 A 3 PGM VIL. 203-205 Coughs amulet
7 A 3 PGM VIL. 206-207 Health amulet on hyena parchment
7 A 2 PGM VIL. 208-209 Amulet against hardening of the breasts
7 A 3 PGM VIL. 209-210 Amulet for swollen testicles

Sabaoth 7 A 2 | PGM VII. 211-212 Fever with shivering fits amulet
7 A 2 PGM VII. 213-214 Daily and nightly fever amulet

ee ve Stele of Aphrodite (an amulet for favour
7 A 4 | PGM VIL 215-218 and friends). Includes part of the

Ephesian Grammata.

16-Erbéth, 16 Pakerbéth, Id
Bolchoséth, Osiris, Typhon, Isis

PGM XII. 365-375

Separation, amulet for causing

PGM XII. 397-400

Favour, amulet of wormwood to attract

Anubis, Ablanathanalba
Akrammachamari

PGM XVIUa. 1-25

Love spell of attraction, with diamond
shaped wing layout amulet

Ablanathanalba

PGM XVIic. 1-14

Probably an amulet

Sabaoth

PGM XVIila. 1-4

Headache, amulet against

GorgdphGnas [Gorgon slayer]

PGM XVIIIb. 1-7

Fever amulet in a wing formation

Syrian woman of Gadara

PGM XX, 4-12

Inflammation, amulet of the Syrian
woman of Gadara against

Philinna (Thessalian)

PGM XX. 13-19

Headache, amulet against

Ablanathanablana Mach
Aramarach, Kok, Kouk Koul

=
CO

> rl & Pel S| & LSS
iN

PGM XXXII. 1-25

Fever amulet with huge V-shaped wing
formation

PGM XXXVI. 275-

Favour, silver amulet for gaining.

i a ? 283 Also used to repel daimones
Rome Ores t apnon PGM XXXVI. 312- | Opena door, amulet to
37 A 9 300
[Bes] 39 A 21 | PGM XXXIX. 1-21 Love amulet. Large double wing format
pangoty Oru 42 A 10 | PGM XLII. 1-10 Amulet
eee 43 A 27. | PGM XLIIL. 1-27 Amulet for fever, with 12 angels
Michaél
44 mn 18 | PGMXLIV.1-18 Fever and earache amulet (not a
phylactery)
Abraxas, Adonaia 45 A 8 PGM XLV. 1-8 Amulet/invocation
Satoucheos, Sabaoth 47 A 17. | PGM XLVIL 1-17 Fever, amulet for
pica tater a, 48 ne >, | PGMXLVIIL 1-21 Coptic. Amulet? 6th-7th century
aie 49 | A 1 | PGM XLIX Amulet
60 A 5 | PGMLX.1-5 Amulet? Fragment with characteres
Harm to a woman’s womb and genitals,
62 A 31 | PGM LXIL. 76-106 against

Moon/heart shaped amulet

PGM LXIV. 1-12

Amulet for love

PGM LXx. 1-4

Amulet for favour & victory.
Or to dissolve a spell

PGM LXXXVI. 1-2

Amulet

389

D sae ee 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
ee Parte . z & of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
MES ee 2 z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica

Se AES PGM LXXXVIII.1- | Fever amulet with V-shaped wing layout
88 A 19 19

Abrasax 2
89 A 27 | PGMLXXXIX. 1.27 Amulet against fever, phantoms,

daimones, etc.

planatemalee 91 A 14_ | PGMXCI. 1-14 Fever amulet with V-shaped wing layout

Cen Ones 92 A 16 | PGM XCIL. 1-16 Favour, amulet for
94 A 7 | PGM XCIV. 10-16 ‘Phylactery’ for fever (really an amulet)
94 A 5 PGM XCIV. 22-26 Eyes, carved amulet for
94 A 9 | PGM XCIV. 27-35 Tumours, amulet
94 A 3 PGM XCIV. 36-38 Strangury (urinary condition)
94 A 20 | PGM XCIV. 39-60 Headache, migraine

BainchoGch 96 A 8 PGM XCVI. 1-8 Amulet

Serapis 98 A 7 PGM XCVIII. 1-7 Amulet against fever

Ablatnathamala, Christ 100 A 7 PGM C. 1-7 Amulet
104 A 8 PGM CIV. 1-8 Amulet against fever

Ad6nai Eloai Sabadth P s rz

the ae see amulet with triple-bar ‘Z’ and the

Akrammachamari Sesenger bar ouroboros

Pharanges Iad Phré, Oaeel 106 A 10 PGM CVI. 1-10

Michaél, Gabriél, Souriél,

Raphaél, Adonias,

aban, Napseraeeer 112 5 | PGM CXIL. 1-5 Scorpion sting, amulet against

PGM CXIlI. 1-4

Scorpion sting, amulet against

Hekate

PGM CXIV. 1-14

Protection from attacks by daimones and
for epilepsy, amulet

Maskeli, Maskelo,
Phnoukentabadth

PGM CXV. 1-7

Fever, amulet against

=
a
is

> rl & Pl >
=
is

PGM CxXx. 1-13

Inflammation of the uvula. An amulet ina
grape-shaped wing formation

Jesus Christ, son of [AO

PGM CXXVIIL. 1-11

‘Phylactery’ against fever (really an
amulet)

Total A 544

Typhon. 4 B 0 PGM IV. 221-255 Bowl skrying/vessel enquiry.17

Aphrodite H H

i B 46 | PGMIV. 3209-3254 Bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry of

Aphrodite

eee Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry via

Ablanathanalba, Hor-Amoun, 14 B 92 | PDM xiv. 1-92 Anubis, using a virgin boy as skryer

Marighari, Horus, Isis, Osiris,

Sobek, Agathdaimon

Khonsu, Ram-Lion-Lotus 14 B 57. | PDM xiv. 239-295 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Anubis, Thoth : : :

14 B 14 | PDMxiv. 295-308 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

using eye ointment

Anubis 14 B 33. | PDM xiv. 395-427 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

ee 14 B 26 | PDM xiv. 528-553 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Osiris, Iaho, Sabaho, Mikhael, : = S

pace 14 B 9 | PDMxiv. 627-635 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry
through Osiris.

Moon, Amoun, Abrasaks 14 B 6 PDM xiv. 695-700 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Aigo 14 B 5 | PDM xiv. 701-705 Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Pre, Geb, Heknet, the Rishtret, : . .

‘an Nid Ausoa TAdubnteMbndbe |) SEL B 36 | PDM xiv. 805-840 Demotic bow] skrying/ vessel enquiry

Iaho,

1729 Embedded inside PGM IV. 154-285, therefore not added to the line tally.

390

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Isis, Iaho, Nephar

Zz
vv

8 e No.
26 % of
o 38 5 A
2B < lines

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

PDM xiv. 841-850

Objective/ Technique

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Hamst

PDM xiv. 851-855

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Dioscorus, Adonai

PDM xiv. 1056-62

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry to
find a thief

Sabaoth, Osiris Ablanathanalba,
Agathodaimon,

PDM xiv. 1110-1129

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry to
open the skryer’s eyes

IAO, Ablanathanalba

PDM xiv. 1163-1179

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry

Total B

405

PGM LXIL. 24-46

PGM III. 275-81

Greek bowl skrying/vessel enquiry

Types of magic relevant to each zodiacal
Sign

PGM IV. 835-49

Astrological text - the influence of each
zodiac sign in each period of life. Luck
cycles

Typhon, Helios, Aberamenthdou

PGM VIL. 155-167

Days and hours of the Moon - times for
divination

PGM VIL. 272-283

Astrological calendar - 12 Egyptian
months of unsuitable days for magical
operations!7%

PGM VIL. 284-299

Type of magic operation relevant for the
moon in each zodiacal sign

DemOenis Demokritos’ “sphere” - the day of the
12 C 14 | PGM XIL. 351-364 month used to determine potential
mortality
14 Cc 2 PDM xiv. 1180-1181 | Moon in Scorpio
62 C 24 | PGM LXII. 52-75 Natal horoscopes for three people
110 C 12 | PEMCX.1-12 Making a horoscope on a board using
semi-precious stones
Total C 115

Apollo, Zeus, IAO, Michael,
Gabriel, Abrasax, Adonai, Aion,
Pakerbéth, Addnaios, Thotho,
Eldaios, Moirai, Hades

PGM I. 262-347

Apollonian invocation in an evocationary
lamp skrying, with a touch of necromancy

Solomon, Hermes Trismegistos

PGM IV. 850-929

“Solomon’s Collapse.” Solomon’s
invocation (not ‘amulet’) that makes the
skryer/medium fall into a trance. With
spirit dismissal.!”3!

Zeus, Helios, Mitra [Mithras],
Sarapis, Meliouchos,
Bainch6doch, Jad

PGM V. 1-53

Lamp skrying, but called a Oracle
(avtsiov) of Sarapis

Chaos, Erebos

PGM VIL. 348-358

Lamp skrying by means of a boy

Anoubis, Hermes Trismegistus,
Bainchdd6ch

PGM VIL. 540-578

Lamp skrying using a boy skryer

Anubis, the Drowned One, Osiris,

Re-Kepre-Atum, Amoun, Isis,
Nephthys, Pre, Sakhmet, Hike

[i.e. Heka], Horus, Aniel, Sisihyt,

Eresgshingal, Lion-Ram

PDM xiv. 150-231

Lamp skrying, which can also be used to
compel a god’s arrival ‘G’

Boel, Tat

PDM xiv. 459-475

Lamp skrying by Boel

1730 See also Delatte (1927) I, 631-32 for the Byzantine Greek version.
1731 Although this is not a lamp skrying procedure per se, it is related to the preparation of the skryer
for this procedure, and it occurs between two other lamp skrying rites.

391

D = ods anges 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Bee Pate Se & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
magicians a3 g
: 2B < lines | Reference number
nomina magica

14 D 14 | PDM xiv. 475-488 Lamp skrying

sien ee a 14 D 27 | PDM xiv. 489-515 | Lamp skrying by Boel

Boel, Tat, Aniel, Sabaoth 14 D 12 | PDM xiv. 516-527 Lamp skrying

Harpoloates: ts 14 D 22. | PDM xiv. 750-771 Lamp skrying

Pre, Geb, Heknet (sic), Rishtret, : : :

ee 14 D 36 | PDM xiv. 805-840 Lamp skrying using eye paint for

clairvoyance and homunculus operation

ee Re, Amun, Osiris, _ D 12 | PDM Supp. 138-149 | Lamp skrying using a copper vessel

Total D 542

SST ER shane Evocationary lamp skrying, for direct

bar Pharaggés, Ablanathanalba, 4 E 185 | PGMIV. 930-1114 vision, with a ‘god-bringing spell’

Akrammachamari, H6ros,
Harpokratés, Abraiadth,
Balsamés, Barbariél,

Ablamathanalba (sic), Tabadth,
Akrammachamarei

PGM V. 54-69

Direct vision for a god to prophesy

Osiris, Anubis, Belpheno

PGM VIL. 319-347

Using a copper vessel to invoke Anubis to
answer questions in a dream

Apollo, Helios

PGM VIL. 727-739

Invocation for a direct vision of Apollo

Total E 243

1 F 42 PGM I. 1-42 Assistant daimon rite
Pnouthis, the Keryx (herald . Ra
sicttlmn-aictan) 2 1 F 154 | PGMI. 42-195 Spell of Pnouthis for acquiring an

assistant daimon

PGM IV. 1840-1870

The translation adds this to the end of the
Sword of Dardanos, but it is actually a
separate procedure for acquiring an
assistant daimon

Nephthys, Typhon, Apollonius
(magician)

11 F 40

PGM XIa. 1-40

Apollonius of Tyana’s method for a
binding a spirit servant, in the form of an
old woman, via an invocation of Nephthys

Eros

12 F 82

PGM XII. 14-95

Statue of Eros as assistant daimon, which
gives dreams. Animal sacrifice to animate
a statue

Adonai, Osiris, Typhon, Ammon,

Assistant daimon rite (not really).

ater Pees. =i || 2c ene EVM Toe Continuation of LXXII
Total F 386
Helos Melouchos A multi-purpose invocation that requires
the deification of a cat by drowning, for:
3 G 164 | PGMIIL. 1-164 restraining charioteers; sending dreams;
binding a lover; to cause separation and
enmity
Helios 4 4 4 4
3 G 418 | PGMIIL. 494-611 Spell to establish a relationship with
Helios
ee ee Encounter with/ vision of a god
Harpolnaics: Abaca.” 3 G 99 | PGMIIL. 633-731
Ablanathanalba nls a

392

D Gods, piece, 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Brienne are . ra & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
agit & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
Benger neon, Sateen 4 G 6 | PGMIV. 88-93 To Helios. Uses a naked boy as medium
Helios; Typnon, Mots Fakereth: PGM IV. 154-221 Letter from Nephotés (priest Nefer
Nepher Hotep (priest), 4 G 97 957-285 ae Hotep) to King Psammetichos about a
Psammetichos (King) ase divine encounter, plus necromancy
aa CUA IOD Meno e: EnR 4 G 145 | PGMIV. 1275-1322 | Bear asterism invocation!”
4 G 8 PGM IV. 1323-1330 | Bear asterism invocation
(Autochthons) 4 G 59 | PGM IV. 1331-1389 | Bear asterism invocation
Kore™ 4 G 118 | PGMIV. 2241-2358 | Invocation to the waning moon
Selene, Hecate, Pan, Aktidphis u“ 4
4 G 86 PGM IV. 2622-2707 Slander spell to Selene, eet works for
everything and every rite
ae pene one Prayer to Selene with offerings. This is an
Kerberos, Artemis, ERAS: 4 G 106 | PGMIV. 2785-2890 invocation, not just a prayer, because of
Meee ee the presence of offerings and a phylactery
Begnos Helge: Zeus Although called “Oracle of Kronos,” or the
4 G 39 | PGMIV. 3086-3124 | "little mill," it is an invocation of the god
Kronos
Hermes, Iao, Helios, Themis, ; 4
Pane Ancona anion 5 G rel PGM V. 172-212 Invocation of Hermes, to catch a thief,
using a food ordeal for the suspects
ee ae ee se All-purpose invocation of Zeus to loosen
; 5 G 31 PGM V. 459-489 shackles, grant invisibility, send dreams
and gain favour
einer iapnoirede aa Invocation for an encounter with Helios
Seseggen bar Pharaggés, Arbaths, 6 G 47 PGM VI. 1-47
Selene
br etary eae ote Invocation of Isis as goddess of the Moon.
Pelustuin): Nemeds Adis (Preisendanz (1931), p. 22 incorrectly
Toi 7 G 15 | PGM VII. 490-504 :
inserts poAaktnptov as the suggested
headword)
7 G 24 | PGM VIL 505-28 Meeting with your own Daimon. A form
of initiation
Brimo 7 G 17 | PGM VII. 686-702 Bear asterism invocation
Hiremiksy ssrapsoukes (oeeician) 3 GC 63 | PGMVIIL. 1-63 Invocation of Hermes. Binding spell or
lATpoKatddeopos of Astrampsychos
Kore ‘ 4
Py G 13 | PGMXIL 1-13 Rite to produce an epiphany of Kore, and
to kill someone
Ablanathanalba 12 G 8 PGM XIL. 182-189 Invocation for favour
Agathodaimon, Moses, Peteri 14 G 33 PDM xiv. 117-149 Bear asterism invocation
ee eee Lamp skrying, which can also be used to
Nephthys, Pre, Sakhmet, Hike ; ; compel a god’s arrival. Ben shen leading to
(i.e. Heka], Horus, Aniel, Sisihyt, 14 [G] 0 PDM xiv. 150-231 peh-netjer

Eresgshingal, Lion-Ram

[see also D]

[Duplicated rite from D so not here tallied
in G]

1732 Betz lists PGM IV. 154-285 as one procedure of bowl skrying/vessel enquiry, whereas lines 154-220
and 261-285 is a rite of Divine Encounter, with what appears to be a bowl skrying/vessel enquiry

(lines 221-256) inserted in the middle of it.

1733 This is the constellation of Ursa Major or the Plough. This asterism was seen by the ancient
Egyptians as the polar ‘handle’ which turns the vault of heaven, and allows the stars to move across

the sky.

1734 Klotho, Kerberos, Mene, Brimo, Hermes, Mare, Kore, Helios, Tethys, Aion, Kronos, Osiris,
Michael. Also many other gods and goddesses by implication, such as Isis’ father, the Nile goddess,
the goddesses of Dodona and Ida, or Hekate (“O dog in maiden form”).

293

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Paysakh priest of Cusae.

Zz
vv

8 e No.
26 % of

o 38 5 A

2 8 < lines

14 G 7

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

PDM xiv. 232-238

Objective/ Technique

Bear asterism, god's arrival

Thoth, Hapy, Ra-Khepri-Atum,
Sakhmet, Lotus-Lion-Ram

14 G 26

PDM xiv. 309-334

Thoth invocation. Plus an anointing oil to
win favour in public places

14 G 5

PDM xiv. 670-674

Introduction to the Great One of Five
spells for a “god's arrival”

Pre, Geb, Heknet, the Rishtret,

Nun, Nut, Anepo [Anubis], Maat,

Iaho,

14 | [G] | oO

PDM xiv. 805-840
[see also B]

Demotic bowl skrying/ vessel enquiry
[Duplicated from B so not here tallied
with G]

Muses, Amoun, Io

Invocation to a lord whose name is 7

21 G 29° | PGM XXI. 1-29
letters
Helote Gisvikige! Invocation of Hekate Ereshkigal against a
70 G 22. | PGM LXX. 4-25 punishment daimon in the Underworld.

Has Ephesian Grammata and gestures

72 G 36 PGM LXXII. 1-36 Bear asterism invocation. Part of LVII!7°5
ete Isaac, 105 G 15 | PGMCV. 1-15 Invocation of Zeus-Iao-Zen-Helios
Pakerbéth, Abrasax, [Typhon- The Pakerbéth formula
Seth Ss

PGM VIL. 260-271

Uterus, preventing the ascent of (Jewish?)

Isis, Asklepios Osiris, Hebe,
Seseggen bar Pharaggés, Sabaoth

PGM VIL. 993-1009

Fix an injured person

Horus Imhotep””” Nephthys
Osiris Shu Sokar Ptah Thoth

PDM xii. 21-49

Prayer for a revelation of a prescription
for eye disease

Anubis

PDM xiv. 554-562

Dog bite spell

Osiris, Horus Agathadaimon

PDM xiv. 563-574

Poison, removal of

Osiris

PDM xiv. 574-585

Bone stuck in the throat, removal of

Anubis, Isis, Seth, Osiris,
Apophis,
Amoun, Triphis, Horus

PDM xiv. 585-593

Dog bite spell

Anubis, Sekhmet-Isis, Osiris,
Atum, Agathadaimon, Geb,
Horus

PDM xiv. 594-620

Sting, to cure a

PDM xiv. 620-626

Bone stuck in the throat, removal of

PDM xiv. 935-939

Prescription for a watery ear

=
ow

PDM xiv. 940-952

Herbs and salamander cure for a wound

=
is

yoyo) oo) oy oy oy) yay) |] oy yy) oP ee
ol

14 3 PDM xiv. 953-955 To stop blood

14 5 | PDM xiv. 956-960 Pregnancy test

14 5 | PDM xiv. 961-965 To stop bleeding during sex

14 4 PDM xiv. 966-969 Herbal cure?

14 8 PDM xiv. 970-977 Prescription to stop liquid in a woman
14 3 PDM xiv. 978-980 Prescription to stop liquid ina woman
14 4 PDM xiv. 981-984 Prescription to stop liquid in a woman
14 8 PDM xiv. 985-992 Gout, prescription for

1735 According to Brashear (1995), p. 3495.
1736 Tymhotep, the Egyptian Asklepios.

394

fiasienine zZ 5 % of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
: if 28 < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
14 H 10 | PDM xiv. 993-1002 | Gout, prescription for
14 H 12 | PDM xiv. 1003-1014 | Gout, amulet for
14 H 6 | PDM xiv. 1015-1020 | Gout?
14 H 5 PDM xiv. 1021-1025 | Prescription for a stiff foot
Amoun, Horus 14 H 7 | PDMxiv. 1097-1103 | Eye disease/ophthalmia
14 H 6 PDM xiv. 1104-1109 | Eye ointment recipe
14 H 9 | PDM xiv. 1219-1227 | Fever
20 H 4 | PGM Xx. 1-4 Headache
ED Pus Magico-medical recipe against blood
a H : POM a Paes using a quote fae ine Il. foe
Zeus Magico-medical recipe against pain in the
22 H 3 PGM XXlIla. 9-10 breast and uterus, using a quote from
Homer, II. 2.548; 8.486
oo) u 4 PGM XXIla. 11-14 Magico-medical recipe for contraception
from Homer, I]. 3.40.
Magico-medical recipe against
22 H 3 PGM XXila. 15-17 elephantiasis, using a quote from Homer,
Il. 4.141.
Teche, Aba Sm | 28 -| HO | 67 «| PGMXXVIIIa.1-7 | Scorpion sting
Sslaman (Solomon, Tarchekei, | 28 | Hi 9 | PGMXxvIb.1-9 | Scorpion sting
Artemisos
praia 28 | H | 11 | PGMXXVIllc.1-11 | Scorpion sting
36 H 13. | PGM XXXVI. 320-32 | Contraceptive spell. Bitter vetch, henbane
61 H 6 PDM 1xi. 43-48 Ulcer (?) of the head, remedy for
[PGM LXL. i-v]
Headache, herbal remedy using palm,
61 H 9 PDM 1xi. 49-57 persea, cypress, mulberry, laurel, black
poplar and pine
61 fT 5 PDM lxi. 58-62 Erection, to improve
[PGM LXI. vi.x]
63 H 5 | PGM LXIII. 24-28 Contraceptive spell
shit 65 H 4 | PGM LXV. 1-4 Pregnancy prevention
65 H 4 PGM LXV. 4-7 Headache, migraine cure
Sabaoth, Michael, Abraham, etc 83 H 90 | PGMLXXXHI. 1-20 A gainst fever with shivering fits.
Christianised Jewish formula
panpuecunpent 87 H 11. | PGMLXXXVII. 1-11 | Fever
90 H 5 | PGMXC. 14-18 Fever salve
94 WW 6 | PGMXCIV 16 Eyesight, drying powder made with
saffron for sharp eyes
94 H 3 PGM XCIV 7-9 Health, excellent
95 H 7 | PGM XCV. 7-13 Epilepsy, remedy
95 H 5 | PGM XCV. 14-18 Epilepsy, remedy
97 H 6 PGM XCVII. 1-6 Against eye disease (?)
97 H 3 | PGMXCVII.15-17 | Against every disease
119 H 5 PGM CXIXxb. 1-5 Fever with shivering fits, remedy for
Osiris, Ammon, Isis-Nephthys
ene) 102 H 5 see CXXII. 51 Headache (1st century CE)

1737 Part of PGM CXXIL. 1-55, but separate spell.

395

Gods, Angels, Zz
Daimones Eee of aE g nee cei hen
ae Se & of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
magicians oe g
. : 2B < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
ee 122 H 14. | PGM CXXIlla. 24-47 | Erotylos. Maybe to do with periods
ens 123 |) H 3 | PGM CXXIlla. 48-50 | Childbearing
ane eee 123 | H 2 | PGMCXXIlla. 51-52 | Sleep
123 H 3 PGM CXXIlla. 53-55 | Strangury (urinary condition), remedy for
eee heh pam balanathanath, | 499 H 13. | PGM CXXIlla. 56-68 | Fever with shivering fits, remedy for
Formulary of magico-medical
127 H 12 | PGMCXXVII. 1-12 | prescriptions.
A ‘Book of Secrets’
eval 130 H 13. | PGM CXxx. 1-13 Fever with shivering fits, against
Total H 478
Helios, 16-Latlain Zizia leo 1 I 10 | PGMI. 222-231 Invisibility dpavpeactc
Anubis Osir-Phre Osiris 16 Erbéth isibili ; \
Phobeth Pakerbeth Marmariadth 1 I 16 | PGMI. 247-262 Invisibility Gpabpooic
Marmaripheggé
Moses, IAO Sabaoth, Adonai tothili ;
7 I 9 | PGMVIL 619-627 Invisibility and love, from the Diadem of
Moses
Total I 35
lad, Kerberos ; 4
4 J 56 | PGMIV.1872-1927 Magical statue in the form of the dog
Kerberos, to attract a specific woman
Hermes j j j ivi
F j 69 | PGMIV. 2373-2440 Business talismanic statue, for acquiring
business customers
yeh: Ou Agethos Dainion A magical statue to gain favour for a shop
4 J 47 | PGMIV. 3125-3171 | or temple (not a phylactery as suggested
in the translation)
aoe Hens Making a statue of Hermes to send
~~ dreams and prophesy. It uses a goose
° J OD Wet net ae windpipe to allow the statue to
“breathe” 1738
See Lunar rite of Klaudianos invoking Selene,
Gago, 7 J 57 | PGM VII. 862-918 with a clay statue, in order to secure the
love of awoman
Kneph Magical figures, instruction for making.
as J 1 |e OE Dated exactly to 1 CE
Total J 321
en et Consecration of a stone and ring (or
a phylactery), with the ring’s purposes
4 K 120 | PGMIV. 1596-1715 | consecrated according to the god of the
hour. See duplicate listing under ‘U’
phylactery
Moe 5 K 91 | PGMV. 213-303 Hermes' ring
Sarapis 5 K 12 | PGM V. 447-458 Magical ring
paene Be Mempins tenhorey K 15 | PGM VII. 628-642 Magical ring of Asklepios
Abraxam 12 K 15 | PDM xii. 6-20 Iron ring to cause praise

1738 See PGM VII. 664-685 for an identical invocatory poem.

396

D Gods, meee, 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Ore eater s 2 & of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
magicians oe g
. : 8 < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
Ce ee A ring for favour and victory, “useful for
[Sokrates], Nemesis, Phoinix, every magical operation.” Engraved ona
||| Be) ee” | 02> | RCRA 201262 . | jasper Gee also PGI XIL270-300.fenan
AdGnai, Sabadth, Ouertd, older version of the same rite.
Abrasax
atau paeenahe aca The Rite of Ouphor to make carved stones
Maskelli, Seiseng Pharangés, come alive. A ring for success and favour
ee foes 12 K 81 | PGM XII. 270-350 and victory. Uses Heliotrope, herb of the
Bainchooch, Amoun, Osiris Sun. See also PGM XII. 201-269.
A rite for consecrating all stones
14 K 7 | PDMxiv. 1090-1096 | A ring to fetch a woman
Total K 410
Isis, Ape of Thoth, Nephthys, .
Osiris Onnophris, Belf, Anubis, 4 60 PGM IV. 94-153 Love spell of attraction
Re, Hapi, Mnervis
Aphrodite 4 L 10 | PGMIV.1265-1274 | Love spell using Aphrodite's name
Eros, Babylon, Abrasax, Ia6
Sabaoth (ca Maskelli, 4 100 | PGMIV. 1496-1595 Love spell over myrrh
Maskello, Anoch
Eros, Psyche, Aphrodite,
Dardanos 179 4 L 125 | PGMIV. 1716-1840 Love spell, called the Sword of
Dardanos!”40
Se iiss Seclaaesia General all-purpose spell for: love;
Artemis, Persephone. 4 L 181 | PGMIV. 2441-2621 attracting the uncontrollable; inflicting
Pacniaice ensiceat aiassie: illness; destruction; sending dreams;
Hadrian accomplishes revelations
Selene, Hekate, Dione, ‘
ar ac ue eis Love spell of attraction
Persephone, Aktidphi[s],
Ereshiigal, nen Maskello, 4 L Te. PGM IV. 2708-2784
Orion, Michaél, Adonai, Zeus,
Damnameneus, Id
Aphrodite, Adonis, Aktidphi[s], :
Eat ca Se top 4 L 52 | PGMIV. 2891-2942 | Love spell of attraction
Hekate, Kore 4 L 24 | PGMIV. 2943-2966 | Love spell through wakefulness
7 L > | PGMVIL 191-192 Binding a lover based on anointing of the
phallus before intercourse
[Typhon], Necessity “Anagich 7 L 10 | PGM VII. 300a-310 Love spell
7 L 3 PGM VII. 374-376 Love by inducing insomnia
Hestia, Hephaistos 7 L 9 PGM VIL. 376-384 Love by inducing insomnia
Pauper Capos 7 L 5 | PGM VIL. 385-389 Love, cup spell
7 L 2 PGM VII. 405-406 Love spell
a! vi L 3 | PGM VIL. 459-461 Love spell
7 L 5 PGM VII. 462-466 Love spell
phen Cals 7 L 11 | PGM VII. 467-477 Love spell of attraction
Iao, Adonai, Sabaoth, Pagoure, :
ua ee 7 L 27 | PGM VIL. 593-619 A slander spell used for fetching an
unmanageable woman
Athena Osiris Ia6 Pakerbéth
en Patachna ; Love, SUP spell
Ablanathanalba 7 L 9 PGM VIL. 643-651

Akrammachamarei Sabadth
Adonai Abrasax

1739 The founder of the Mysteries of Samothrace.
1740 See Gaster, The Sword of Moses. This rite is designed to bind a soul to the magician’s purposes. It
utilises the angels Thouriel, Michael, Gabriel, Ouriél, Misaél Irraél Istrael (see PGM IV. 1815). An iron
sword is often used to constrain spirits, especially in European grimoires. Lines 1841-1870 have been
split off as a separate operation to acquire an assistant daimon.

397

D . ods enesls, £ & g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Bee Pate S3 & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
magicians 23 g
: if 2 8 < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
7 [| L [| 3 | PGMVII.661-663 _ | Love spell
mp 7 i 4 | PGM VII. 969-972 _| Love spell
Michaél Osiris Phor Phorba H
Here lGacseoi et Phan ee 7 L 8 | PGM VIL 973-980 Love spell of attraction by touch
Iad Sabadth Adonai Lailam
ee celia 7 L 13. | PGM VII. 981-993 Love spell of attraction
IAO Sabaoth, Sothis [Sathis] 10 L 23 PGM X. 1-23 Love spell
Ablanathanalba, Abrasax 11 L 19 PGM X\Ic. 1-19 Love spell
12 L 21. | PGMXIL 376-396 Love and death via insomnia using a
living bat
Typhon . : ae
- L 9 | PGM VIL. 652-660 Insomnia induced using a living bat as
part of a love spell
SEE eno peti 2 L 12 | PDMxii. 50-61 For separating one person/lover from
[PGM XII. 445-448] | another
lo Erbeth, Bolchoseth 2 L 14 PDM xii. 62-75 For separating one person/lover from
[PGM XII. 449-452] | another
10 Pakerorin tas 2 L 30 PDM xii. 76-107 For separating one person/lover from
[PGM XII. 453-465] | another
in 12 L 41 | PDMxii. 108-118 To cause a woman to hate a man
[PGM XII. 466-68]
pau Sp oranan » L 12 PDMxii. 135-146 Love spell. With drawing of Anubis
[PGM XII. 474-479] | dealing with a mummy ona lion couch
Balsames, Anubis 14 es
12 L 18 PDM xii. 147-164 Love spell
[PGM XII. 480-495]
Sheake 14 L 21 +| PDM xiv. 335-355 To make a woman love a man
Ra, Pre, Sakhmet 14 L 11 | PDM xiv. 355-365 To gain favour from a woman or man
Geb, Tefnut ;
a L 10 PDM xiv. 366-375 For separating man and woman, and
encouraging quarrelling
‘cutee | 14 [| | 23 | PDMxiv. 428-450 | To seduce a woman
Pre, Shu, Osiris, Atum, Nun, ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
ie 14 L 34 | PDM xiv. 636-669 A detailed Demotic love rite involving the
deification of a scarab
14 L 33. | PDM xiv. 772-804 Elaborate love spell
14 L 3 | PDM xiv. 930-32 Love spell based on the anointing of the
phallus before intercourse
Abrasaks, Geb, Arbanthala Mur_| 24 | L | 20 | PDM xiv. 1026-1045 | To inflame love
14 L 10 | PDM xiv. 1046-1055 Love spell based on the anointing of the

phallus before intercourse

Love spell utilising the hair of the woman
in a lamp wick

To send dreams and make a woman love
you

Love spell based on the anointing of the
phallus before intercourse

Love spell using of a shrew-mouse
drowned in wine

19 L 3 PGM XIXb. 1-3 Love spell of attraction

=
is
aa
NQ

PDM xiv. 1063-1069

14 L 8 PDM xiv. 1070-1077

14 L 11 | PDM xiv. 1130-1140

14 L 8 PDM xiv. 1155-1162

14 L 11 | PDM xiv. 1188-1198

14 L 13. | PDM xiv. 1206-1218

398

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Senakodtho, Anoch, etc

Zz
vv

8 e No.
26 % of

o 38 5 ‘s

2 8 < lines

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

PGM XIXb. 4-18

Objective/ Technique

Love spell of attraction written with
blood and myrrh on flax

Helios, Ia6, Sabadth, Lailam,

To be loved, beautiful, honoured and

Barbaras, Michaél, Gabriél 22 Ls; 10 PGM XXIla. 18-27
famous
24 L 15 | PGM XXIVb. 1-15 Love spell
Anubis Meuncs 32 L 19 | PGM XXXIL 1-19 Lesbian love spell of attraction
Typhon Helios Ad6nai Abrasax H
Rdai 30 L 95 | PGMXXXIla. 1-25 Love spell of attraction
[= the god] Sabads
Typhon, [Ptah], 16 Erbéth
Pakerbeth, Pho: 36 L 33 | PGM XXXVI. 69-101 | Love
eee ee 36 L 39 | PGM XXXVI. 102- Love spell. Called “divination by fire”
Koptos) 133 With illustration
Isis, Osiris, Abrasax, Maskelli is
Ge Eas 36 L 07 PGM XXXVI. 134 Love
160
Hekate, Ablanathana, Ia6, %
ane sain 36 L oA PGM XXXVI. 187. Love
210
Isis Osiris Akarnachthas oe
36 L 12 eg XXXVI. 283 Pudenda key spell
Ces ees 36 L 17 PGM XXXVI. 295- Love. Jewish (mentions Sodom and

Abraam

311

Gomorrah)

Typhon, Horos, Anubis, Isis,
Maskelli Maskell6, Iad, Sabadth,
Adonai, Abrasax

PGM XXXVI. 333-
360

Love, using myrrh

(Typhon]

PGM XXXVI. 361-
371

Love

Phnouthi, Pharakounéth, Thouth

Love spell, with details of the rulers of the

38 L 26 | PGM XXXVIII. 1-26
hours
Hera, Selene 52 L 9 PGM LIL. 1-9 Love spell
52 L 11 | PGM LIL. 9-19 Love?
Erp 52 L 7 PGM LIL. 20-26 Insomnia/love
61 L 13. | PDM Lxi. 30-42 Love?
61 L 5 PDM lxi. 95-99 Praise and love in Nubian
Osiris, Isis : : :
61 L 16 | PDMIxi. 112-127 Making a woman love using an image of
Osiris
61 L 20 | PDMLxi. 128-147 Love spell with phallus anointment
61 L 11 | PDMLxi. 148-158 Love spell
ae a 61 L 3g | PDMLxi. 159-196 Love spell with olive oil
[PGM LXI. 1-38]
Helios Oseronndphrios Phapro ‘ : :
Ousitis Tyoties Abra 6 61 L 20 PDM Lxi. 197-216 Love spell using a cooked lizard
Sarxana [PGM LXI. 39-71]
Osorndphriosor[ndphri], Helios
Semubilive Selene, AAGHE 62 L 24 | PGMLXIL 1-24 Love. Uses a phylactery made of three
peonies
64 12 | PGMLXIV 1-12 To make her “writhe at my feet.

Strange sigil

66 L 11 | PGM LXVI. 1-11 For separating two persons
Adonaiés, Sabadth, Abrasax
chthonic Hermes-Thouoth, 67 L 24 PGM LXVIL. 1-24 Love spell
Sesengen bar Pharaggés
Typhon, Helios, Abrasax, Adonai 68 L 20 PGM LXVIII. 1-20 Love spell
Typhon, Osiris, Maskelli Love
Maskello Phnoun Kentabadth, 78 L 14 PGM LXXVIIL. 1-14
Hippochthon, [ad

103 L 18 | PGM CHI. 1-18 Love

108 L 12 | PGM CVIII. 1-12 Love

399

D aaa ee 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Oe eater . 2 & of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
Eegho nee & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
ee 109 L 8 PGM CIX. 1-8 Love spell
Anubis 117 L 1 PGM CXVIL. Love
119 L 3 PGM CXIXa. 1-3 Love spell through touch
Bolsak 119 L 3 PGM CxIxXa. 4-6 Fetching charm on an ostracon
119 L 4 PGM CXIXa. 7-11 Aphrodisiac
Hermes, Ammon, Aphrodite, Isis, :
Noghthes, Otis bs setae Enchantment using apples. From the
122 L 55 | PGM CXXII. 1-55 Holy Book of Hermes.
1st century CE.
Id Erbéth Pakerbéth I6 ; :
Bolchoséth, Bebo, Typhon: Seth, | 196 1 | PGMCXXVIa. 1-21 Separation, to cause. Invocation using
Apis Aberamentho mustard
Adonai, Osiris 126 17 | PGM CXXVIb.1-17_| Separation, to cause
Total L 1831
4 M 26 | PGMIV. 26-51 Initiation and a method of sacrifice
Helios, Muti, Pyene i m | 34g | PGMIV. 475-820, Mithras Liturgy (a Mysteries Initiation
828-8291741 ritual)
rier as mma see Initiation ritual: a sacred book called
Sabadth, Zagouré, Adonai, Monad or Eighth Hidden Book of Moses,
Lailam, Anoch, Abrasax, Apollo, 1 M 4. P XII. 1- 4. ‘ 4
Achebykrom, Phis-Auge, Nous: 2 eee aM os version A (343 lines)
Phrenes, Semesilam, Moira,
Kairos, Psyche, Aphyphis, Christ
eed ae wee ae ane Initiation ritual: a sacred book called
Nous, Phrenes, Semesilamps, | 13 M_ | 303 | PGM XIII. 343-646 | Monad or Eighth Hidden Book of Moses,
a paki Hairos, Revel, version B (303 lines)
eae tae hoodie Cons Initiation ritual: a sacred book called
a aa (Ina M 87 | PGM XIII. 647-734 | Monad or Eighth Hidden Book of Moses,
version C (short version of 87 lines)
Agatho Daimon, Ogdoas, IAO, Tenth Hidden [Book of] Moses1742
Amoun, Anoch, Ieou, Outhro, ‘he r
Ablanathanalba, Ereschigal, [Magicians quoted: Orpheus; Erotylos in
Sabadth, Adonai, Michael, 13 M 344 | PGM XIII. 734-1077 | Orphica; Hieros; Thphes scribe of King
Ge Ochos; Eunos; Zoroaster; Pyrrhus; Moses;
Selene Ptolemaeus in the 5th book of the Ptolemaica]
Total M 1451
Adonai, Helios, IAO, Horus, the : : ' :
Mace i N 78 | PGMIV. 1928-2005 King Pitys spell using necromancy to use
Pitys, the Thessalian (King), a dead man’s spirit as a familiar!”8
Osiris. = < ! .
Pitys, the Thessalian (King), 4 N 120 | PGMIV. 2006-2125 King Pitys' necromancy spell (version 2)
Ostanes (King) given to Ostanes
oat A restraining seal ring to bind a
4 N 15 | PGMIV. 2125-2139 | divinatory skull from speaking or doing
wrong things
oe he Thessalian King and Corpse oracle. [King] Pitys the
4 N 5 | PGMIV. 2140-2144 | Thessalian's spell for questioning corpses.

Necromancy

1741 Lines 821-826 and 830-834 are misplaced fragments which are not connected to the “Mithras
Liturgy,” and so have been separated from it.
172 There is no Ninth Hidden Book of Moses. But see the note on this in chapter 3.2.

1743 Pitys may be related to the priest Bitys, who Iamblichus praised for having translated hieroglyphic
texts into Greek, as ‘p’ and “b’ were often switched in Egyptian, and in Arabic.

400

D i ods Tels, 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
cabana sae ada . 2 & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
a cma: & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
HOHE Meee Raising the spirits of the dead by
sacrificing sheep. Necromancy. Using
23 N 70 | PGM XXIII. 1-70 Homer, Od. 11.34-43, 48-50; Il. 3.278-80
and other fragments. Followed by the
Kestoi of Julius Africanus
Revenge for bringing court charges.
ot 2 Be eee er: Necromantic using daimon of the dead
Khu, Geb, Isis, Thoth, Shu, Buto, ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 4
soon 61 N 15 | PDMLxi. 79-94 Necromantic way of finding a thief using
the head of a drowned man
Total N 330
Homer 4 /
7 O 148 | PGM VIL 1-148 Oracle drawn from 216 lines of Homer’s
Illiad and Odyssey
Isis, Hermes, Osiris, Helios :
>A O 25 PGM XXIVa. 1-25 Oracle, based on a Book of Hermes, using
29 leaves
vee 50 | O | 18 | PGML.1-18 Oracle by Lots of Tyche
Zeus, Hermes ‘ 4 1
62 O 5 | PGMLXIL 47-51 Oracle using dice and isopsephy to
determine if a man is alive
Total O 196
ae Prayer of deliverance of the first born
1 P 28 PGM I. 195-222 god. (Mentions, but does not list, Decans
and archangels)
Aions : ns ‘
r P 50 | PGMIV. 1115-1166 Secret Stele: all embracing prayer to the
four Elements and aerial spirits, etc
Helios, [Aion] Stele: hymn to Aion, the four Elements
4 Pp 60 | PGMIV. 1167-1226 | and the aerial spirits, etc - prayer for
deliverance even from death
7 P 2 PGM VIL. 591-592 Prayer
Mene, IO, 7 P 39 | PGM VIL. 756-794 Prayer
Hermes, Selene, Moirai 17 P 23. | PGM XVIIb. 1-23 Prayer asking for mantic skill. Literary
Jacob, Abraam, Abaodth, Sabadth,
TAO, Adonai, Aath, "God of the. | 22 P 26 | PGM XXIIb. 1-26 Erayerot Jacob
Hebrews”
29 P 10 | PGM XXIX. 1-10 Prayer. Literary rather than magical
Beles Good Damion, Bayon, PGM XXXVI. 211- Prayer to Helios: plus amulet to restrain
een taal a e 20 | 930 anger, for victory and favour. (Also ‘A’)
Total P 260
Jesus Christ, Satan, Abraham, etc 1171 ‘ ‘ i
if O 38 PGM IV. 1227-1264 Driving out daimones, a rite for Judaeo
Christians
aan een Exorcism. Possession by daimones,
, 4 Q 80 | PGMIV. 3007-3086 | phylactery of Pibechis for exorcism.
Pibechis (an Egyptian magician] Alleged Hebrew origin
Pe ied pets Stele of Jeu the hieroglyphist (Headless
lapos, Favour of the Ain, Iao, 5 Q 77. | PGMV. 96-172 daimon). Exorcism of the daimon
Ibaoth, Abrasax, Abradth,
Adonaie
85 Q 6 | PGMLXXXV. 1-6 Daimon, driving out
Total Q 201

401

D ods TBels, 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
ene a are . z & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
ae aie a 8 < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
2 | PGM VII. 394-395 Restraining, coercive spell.
Bainchoooch dale . . ‘ A
7 9 PGM VIL. 396-404 Restraining, silencing, and subjecting
using a lead cold water pipe
eats 7 6 | PGMVII. 417-422 | Restraining spell ona tin lamella

Osiris, Mnevis, Isis, Amen,
Ch[nJoum, “Askei Kai Taskei’,
Selene

PGM VIL. 429-458

Restraining spell, also for chariots. Lead
plate.

It conjures daimones and makes them
enter (objects or people)

16 Erbéth, Pakerbéth, Seth

PGM VII. 940-968

Restrain anger, amulet to. Image

Ablanathanalba,

PGM X. 24-35

Talisman to restrain anger, against
accusers, nightmares, brigands.
Characteres

PGM XII. 179-181

Restrain anger, amulet to

Typhon, I6 Erbéth, Pakerbéth,
Bolchoséth, Apomps,
Aberramenthé, Seth,

PGM XXXVI. 1-34

Restrain anger, lead lamella amulet to.
With large illustration

Ablanathanalba, Akrannachamari,

IAO, Sabadth, Adonai, Eldai,
Abrasax

PGM XXXVI. 35-68

Restrain anger and secure favour, victory
in courts using a silver lamella.
With large illustration

Chphyris, Michaél, Raphaél,
Roubél, Souriél, Azaél

PGM XXXVI. 161-
177

Restrain anger and success, amulet for

Abrasax, Michaél, Thoouth,
Neouphneisoth

PGM LXXIX. 1-7

Restrain anger, amulet for

Abrasax, Michael, Thoouth,
Neouphneisoth

PGM LXXx. 1-5

Restrain anger, amulet for

Total R 188
1 S 16 | PGMI. 232-247 Memory spell
siete S 13. | PGMIII. 263-275 Foreknowledge spell
pe ae eae! Foreknowledge operation which uses a
3 S 128 | PGM IIL 282-409 Magical Table of Practice for invocation, a

floor circle and a tripod, with hour
attributions

[Helios]

PGM III. 410-423

Memory spell

Moses, Helios, Mithras, Lailam,
Amoun, Harpon, Chnouphi,

Sesengen bar Pharaggés, Osiris,
Abrasax, Ia6 Saba6[th], Helios.

PGM III. 424-466

Invocation of the goddess of the Moon for
foreknowledge and memory, using a holy
book. By eating a raw heart mixed with

Manethon [Manetho] (priest) honey.
3 S 12. | PGMIII. 467-478 Memory spell

Hees 3 S 5 | PGMIIL. 479-83 Spell to detect a thief (foreknowledge)
3 S 6 | PGMIII. 483-88 Spell to detect a thief (foreknowledge)
3 S 7 | PGMIII. 488-94 Spell to detect a thief (foreknowledge)

Total S 244

Erbéth, 16 Pakerbéth, Bolchoséth,
Ra, Pan, Phorba, Maskelli

PGM IV. 2145-2240

Multi-use iron talisman for divine
assistance involving three Homeric verses
(Il. 10.521, 564, 572), with formulae of
consecration

Hermes

PGM IV. 2359-2372

Talisman for business

Chonsou

PGM VIL. 300

Moon Ibis spell with spiral shaped
talisman

402

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Aion

Zz
8 e No.
WwW oO
=a al: eal ce
28 < lines
7 4

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

PGM VIL. 370-373

Objective/ Technique

Wild animals & robbers, talisman against

Bainch6doch, Sabadth, Abrasax,
Maskelli Maskello

Talisman and invocation of the daimon

9 T 14 | PGMIX. 1-14 Bainchoooch to suppress anger. Maybe
could be ‘R.’
Apollo, Abrasax, Michaél, Apollo's lamella talisman to subject an
Raphaél, Gabriél, Souriél, Zaziél, 10 T 15 PGM X. 36-50

Badakiél, Syliél, Ia6, Sabadth,
Adonai

enemy

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ia6,
Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloé,

Albanathanalba, Akramachamari,

Sarachael, Biliam (magician)

PGM XXXV. 1-42

Hebrew influenced talisman for favour
and victory

PGM XXXVI. 178-
187

Talisman to break spells

PGM XXXVI. 256-
264

Talisman to dissolve enchantments

oe)
ns
4
N
Ee

PGM LXXxXIV. 1-21

Fetching talisman

123 T 3 PGM CXXIla. 69-71 | Victory talisman using a hyena tooth
Total T 229
Mehmet, Japhel A gviaxtiptov or phylactery to be worn
4 U 2 | PGMIV. 86-871744 by the magician as protection against
daimones
ace sreathos Patnon 2eus, Consecration of the phylacteries of the 12
i U 0 PGM IV. 1596-1715 hours via Helios cee This isa
duplicate listing (see ‘K’) so zero line
length shown
ee ae Labelled a pvAaxtnptov (but it is
7 U 4 | PGM VIL 218-221 functionally an amulet) for daily fever
with shivering fits
oe A gohaxtipiey to protect from frightal
[Pharanges], Bainchdsch, Bes 7 U 6 PGM VIL. 311-316 rae and a. emons O: u e alr.
(Functionally an amulet as it protects a
specific person “NN, whom NN bore”)
pea 7 U 2 | PGM VIL. 317-318 Phylactery of the Moon

Kméphis (sic), Chphyris, Iao,
Ouroboros

PGM VIL. 579-590

Phylactery against daimones, and
phantasms, with illustration. The best
example of a phylactery in the PGM

Tao, Ablanathanalba

PGM LXXI. 1-8

A phylactery, even though it mentions a
specific person

Iao, Michaél, Gabriél, Raphaél,
Ouriél, Sabadth

PGM XC. 1-13

Said by Betz to be a rite or phylactery

Ouroboros

Total U

121 U 14

1745

PGM CXxXI. 1-14

PGM I. 262-276

Categorised by Betz as a phylactery for a
variety of evils, because it was enclosed in
an ouroboros. Not a typical phylactery

Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)

1746

1744 This phylactery probably belongs as part of PGM IV. 52-85, despite the presence of another
phylactery at lines 78-82.
1745 The U2 are phylacteries that occur as an integral part of a rite type already identified and listed,
and so their line count has not been duplicated by being added into the totals.

403

7 U2 4 | PGM VII. 487-490 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
7 U2 4 | PGM VIL. 858-861 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
11 U2 4 | PGM XI.a 37-40 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
12 U2 2 | PGMXIL 13-14 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
13 U2 12 | PGM XIII. 900-911 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
14 U2 4 | PDM xiv. 90-92 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
21 U2 5 PGM XXI. 24-29 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
62 U2 1 PGM LXIL 24 Phylactery (part of a rite already listed)
70 U2 5 PGM LXx. 1-4 Phylactery? (part of a rite already listed)

Total U2 vs

A aa Faun, Dream revelation via the daimon the
2 V 64 | PGMII. 1-64 Headless One, using several compulsive

formulae

Pe ae ae Dream revelation and compulsive

Atropos, Lachis), Sesengen bar formulae, with consecration of the

fae ca tke te 2 Vy 121 | PGMIL 64-184 doorposts, and the figure of the Headless

Kiar, Abraxas, Michaél, One, with Dismissal

oe eam cia Revelation by invocation of Helios and

epi eee aca 3 V 76 | PGMIIL 187-262 use of the tripod (with illustration)

Acar) Apollo,

1746 The word vaAaxtijptov is here mistranslated three times as ‘charm.’ This error occurs in most of the
following phylactery passages. This device is not a general ‘charm’ or ‘amulet’ but a very specific item
of the magician’s equipment.

1747 Despite the gloss inserted by Betz, PGM IV. 3131-3171 is not a phylactery.

1748 The above phylacteries (categorized as U2) are not added into the tally of phylacteries in Appendix
1, because they are part (usually at the end) of other rites that have already been listed and counted
elsewhere in this Table. Nevertheless they are significant parts of the method and worth separating.

404.

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Zeus, Osiris, Athabot, Sabadth,
Althonai, Eou, Michael, Anubis,

Zz
vv

8 e No.
26 o of

o 38 5 ‘s

2 8 < lines

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

Objective/ Technique

Revelation via invoked daimones

Thoth, Akshha Shha, Sabasha, 4 M 25 | PGMIV. 1-25
Shlot
4 Vv 34 | PGMIV.52-85 Revelation by threatening harm to a
beetle
Maskelli, Thrdbeia Dream producing rite using three reeds
- _ Ad cession ak en and lamp. The Maskelli formula
Helios 5 V 3 PGM Va. 1-3 Direct vision

Besas, the Headless God
[Akephalos], Necessity,
Arbathiad, Anouth

PGM VIL. 222-249

Request for a dream or revelation from
Besas. This also uses lamp skrying

Divination by a dream spoken to the

7 Vv 5 | PGM VIL. 250-254 lamp.

Not an ‘oracle.’ Partly lamp skrying
Osiris, Michael, Osirchentecha, : : :

7 5 | PGM VIL. 255-259 Dream using a lamp skrying to see if
usable

7 11 | PGM VIL 359-69 Lamp skrying for a dream oracle

7 4 | PGMVIL. 407-410 To appear in someone else’s dream using
a lamp

7 V 6 | PGMVIL 411-416 Spell for causing a woman to talk while

asleep

Eros, Bear asterism

PGM VIL. 478-490

A request for a personal angel to provide
information in a dream. Uses the
Egyptian version of the four angels of the
four directions

Hermes, Selene, the Moirai

PGM VIL. 664-685

Request for a dream revelation from
Besas. 174

Phré

PGM VIL. 703-726

Request for a dream revelation (not
oracle)

lad, Adonai

PGM VIL. 740-755

Request for a dream revelation (not
oracle)

Pythagoras, Demokritos, Zizaubid

PGM VIL. 795-845

Pythagoras' request for a dream oracle
and Demokritos' dream divination, using
the secret names of the zodiac and the
angel Zizaubio from the Pleiades

Erbeth

PGM VIL. 846-861

Shadow on the sun (a spell for dream
revelation). Using a cat's tail, a phylactery
and a protective chalk circle on the
ground

Sabaoth, Michael, Raphael,

enn 7 V 8 | PGM VII. 1009-1016 | Divination by dream
Saar nr eae ae Dream oracle from Besas, with clear
Sabadth, Adonai, Osiris 8 Vv 46 | PGM VIII. 64-110 drawing of a crowned man with wand

and sword

Agathokles, Thoth, Iaou,
Ablanathanalba,
Akrammachamari, Théouris,
Amén, Adth, Apollobex
(magician)

PGM XII. 107-121

Amulet of Agathokles’”° for sending
dreams, using a deified cat

Zminis of Tentyra, Ostanes, Séith

PGM XII. 121-143

Zminis of Tentyra's spell for sending
dreams to other people

Hermes, [Thoth], Osiris, Isis

PGM XII. 144-152

1749 See PGM V. 400-420 for an identical invocatory poem.
150 Agathokles’ name may be derived from dya0dc ‘good’ like the Agathos Daimon.

Divination by a dream

405

D = Oday eee) f a g a) No. Betz Papyrus
caarnone eae si s z = of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
magicians oe g
: 8 < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
lad, Ra, Ablanathanalba sre : 3
1D V 8 | PGMXIL 153-160 ee revelation from the serpent-faced
Tésous
Py Vv 3 PGM XIL 190-192 Dream oracle request spoken to the Bear
asterism
oe Denes 44 Vv 99: | PDM xiv. 93-114 A god’s arrival to reveal answers ina
[PGM XIVa. 1-11] dream
14 V 12 | PDMxiv. 1078-1089 Revelation ina dream. Request to the Big
Dipper constellation (the Bear)
Osiris, Michael 22 V 5 PGM XXIlb. 27-31 Request for a dream oracle, to a lamp
22 Vv 4 | PGM XXIlb. 32-35 Request for a dream oracle, to a lamp
46 Vv 4 | PGM XLVI. 1-4 Revelation from a god
Anubis 61 V 30 =| PDM lxi. 1-30 Revelation
He Thoth, De ey, Eatecen 61 Vv 16 | PDM1xi. 63-78 Lamp skrying for a dream or revelation
a igs Vv 24 | PGMLXXVII. 1-24 | Dream revelation
Necessity, Besas, Headless One, a
ac One 102 V 17. | PGMCTII. 1-17 Dream oracle, using a lamp. Headless god
- Vv 6 PDM Supp. 1-6 Sending a dream
- Vv 12 | PDM Supp. 7-18 Sending a dream
- Vv 24 | PDM Supp. 19-27 Sending a dream
PDM Supp. 28-40 Sending a dream, using a lamp, lizard
- Vv 13
and brick
ae PDM Supp. 40-60 Sending a dream (or astral projection),
7 Vv 21 : sks
using a mummy spirit from Abydos
Osiris, Alkhah, Khephri, Amoun, hi : : aa
Be Shulions. ae pena E V 42 | PDM Supp. 60-101 Sending a dream using a mummy spirit
Pane Osi se onal ; V 16 | PDMSupp. 101-116 Sending a ‘breathing spirit’ disguised as a
god to influence someone’s dream
cui tau - Vv 29 | PDM Supp. 117-130 | Sending a spirit to influence a dream
Total V 970
soa eae ae Love spell of attraction, for binding a
Hermes, Thoth, Abrasax, lover, in the form of two clay images tied
said era oe to a complex lead defixio, followed by a
Sabadth, Horus, the Moirai [+ 4 Ww 171 | PGMIV. 296-466 long prayer said whilst holding a grave
DEE SRN PORTER body remnant from the tomb where the
defixio is buried. This is a special type
called a PIUTPOKATASEGLOG
pea nae E: ao Poetic love spells of attraction to be
Neboutosoualéth, Phorba, performed with the help of those who
Anubis, Ia6, Sabadth, Adonai, . 7
SER 4 w 206 | PGM IV. 1390-1595 died a violent death. Seven bread
fragments are used rather than a lead
tablet, but the theory is the same as a
defixio
IAO, Ereschigalch (sic), Phré, er : ‘ ‘
Sabah cis Oronhphn 5 Ww 66 PGM V. 304-369 Defixio using a lead lamella and iron ring
Abrasax
IAO SABAO, Osornophri, i 5 ‘ eae
fie alc P 15 Ww 21 +| PGMXV. 1-21 Binding a lover using a defixio

406

Gods, Angels,
Daimones, names of
magicians,
nomina magica

Ad@Onaios Sabadth, Kronos

Zz
vv

6 8 e No.
26 % of
io} 3 5 .
28 < lines

16 Ww 75

Betz Papyrus
PGM/PDM
Reference number

PGM XVI. 1-75

Objective/ Technique

Binding a lover using a defixio

Tenoch, Anoch, Nouthi, Phré,
Abaoth, Ia6, Osor nophris,
Amoun, Bolchoséth, Ereshkigal,
Phrax, Maskelli, Maskellé,
PhnoukentabaGth, Samas, Thouri,
etc

19 Ww 54

PGM XIXa. 1-54

Love spell of attraction primarily made of
a long string of nomina magica. These are
written presumably ona lead tablet, and
inserted into the mouth of a dead man as
a defixio!”>1

s
=

PGM XL. 1-18

Defixio against a tomb robber

Typhon Osiris

PGM LVIIL. 1-14

Spell to bind a wicked man by a slander
spell and defixio

Ablanathanalba, Abrasax, Adonai

Amulet to protect a grave, to be affixed to

59 Ww 15) | PGMLIX. 1-15 the grave as a defixio, not a phylactery as
suggested by the Table of Spells
Fates, necessity, Osiris, Isis Defixio, as it conjures “boys who have
101 WwW 53. | PGM CI. 1-53 died prematurely” which was found ina

cemetery

Benen 107 | W 19 | PGM CVIIL. 1-19 Defixio to fetch a lover
Barouch"”™” Olamptér!”™ Summoning statue (not a “charm” as per
124 W 43 PGM CXxXIV. 1-43 the translation) to inflict illness, using a
potsherd and a wax manikin as a defixio
Total W 755
3 22 | PGMIII. 165-186 Spell
Homer 4 8 PGM IV. 467-474 Verses from Homer (Il. 8.424) which are
used as spells, or maybe amulets!”>4
Homer Homeric fragment (II. 10. 521, 564, 572; 8.
G: | ROME Sah pee 424), not am of “Mithras Liturgy”
vale 4 1 | PGMIV. 830 Homeric fragment (Il. 5. 385)
Homeric fragment (II. 6. 424). The spell
4 X 2 | PGMIV. 831-832 caption “to restrain anger” is misplaced
and misleading
Homeric fragment (II. 10. 193). The spell
4 xX 2 | PGMIV. 833-834 caption “to get friends” is misplaced and
misleading
12 Xx 5 PDM xii. 1-5 Fragmentary
sous » x 16 | PDM xii. 119-134 Fetching spell?
[PGM XII. 469-73]
14 Xx 2 | PDM xiv. 933-934 Spell
22 Xx 1 PGM XXila. 1 Extract from Homer (Il. 17. 714)
Zabaot/Sabadth 25 x 0 PGM XXVa-d (omitted by Betz)
26 X O | PGM XXVI. 1-21 Sortes Astrampsychi (omitted by Betz)!7>
30 xX 0 PGM XXX a-f Oracle questions (omitted by Betz)

1751 Lines 6-9 were copied on a mass produced amulet produced for a specific person. See Heintz

(1996).

1752 The principal angel of those below the earth.
1753 The angel of many forms.
1754 These Homeric verses bracket the “Mithras Liturgy,” as if it were inserted in the middle of the
verses, which continue after the interruption of the “Mithras Liturgy.”

1755 The oracle of Astrampsychus first appeared in the 3rd century CE. It contained 91 questions and
910 answers, originally written in Greek. Versions of this oracle were later very popular in the Middle

Ages.

407

at De a of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
es cache & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
31 xX 0 PGM XXXI a-c Oracle questions (omitted by Betz)
34 Xx 24 | PGM XXXIV. 1-24 Fantasy fragment of a Greek novel
36 Xx 1 PGM XXXVI. 264- Unknown
274
37 Xx 26 | PGM XXXVII.1-26 | Vow concerning sexual cleanliness
Bamehooeh 41 xX 9 | PGMXLI. 1-9 Fragment
43 xX 12. | PGM LXIIL 13-24 Unknown
ee eet eee 46 X 5 | PGM XLVI. 4-8 To subject and silence (an enemy)
Omitted by Betz. Forgery (according to
i S ye esha ea i
Omitted by Betz. Forgery (according to
os ‘ ‘ BoM Brashear) abe ed :
Omitted by Betz. Forgery (according to
e : nace Brashear) Asebie ee 5
56 x 0 | PGMLVI Letter permutations (omitted by Betz).
Forgery (according to Brashear)
Pakerbeth, Erbéth, Abrasax, etc 58 xX 5 PGM LVIIL. 15-39 Unknown
63 xX 7 | PGM LXIIL. 1-7 Unknown purpose
63 x 6 PCM LXUIL. 7-12 To make a woman confess the ae of
the man she loves using a bird’s tongue
73.6 x 0 PGM LXXIlI - Oracle questions (omitted by Betz)
LXXVI
82 X 12 | PGMLXXXII.1-12 | Formulary including roots
Hekate 93 x 6 PGM XCIll. 1-6 Sacrificial rite
93 xX 15 | PGM XCIIL. 7-21 Rite
94 x 5 PGM XCIV. 17-21 Possessed by daimones, fragmentary
95 xX 6 | PGM XCV. 1-6 Unknown
97 xX 3. | PGM XCVIL. 7-9 Unknown
97 Xx 4 | PGMXCVIL 10-13 | Unknown
98 xX 0 PGM CXVIIL Magical scroll (omitted by Betz)
99 xX 3 PGM XCIX. 1-3 Fragment
119 Xx 3 PGM CXIXa. 1-3 Formulary, fragment
arcana 123 xX 23 | PGM CXXilla. 1-23 | Fragmentary
123 xX 1 | PGM CXXIIIb Fragmentary
123 xX ut PGM CXxIlIc Fragmentary
123 xX 1 PGM CXXIUId Fragmentary
123 x 1 | PGM CXXIlle Fragmentary
or cae 1937 \) xX 1 | PGM CXXIIIf Fragmentary
ere 125). X 1 | PGM CXXVa-. Unknown
129 xX 7 PGM CXXIX. 1-7 Lamella, fragment of
Total X 283
4 Y 10 | PGMIV. 286-295 Procedure for picking a plant
ee Materia, herb offerings
4 [Y] 0 | PGMIV. 2679-2694 | [Part of IV. 2622-2707, and so not tallied
here]
Kronos; Her, Zeus, Helios; Rite associated with picking a plant
Heme Sako Oona | 4 | | 40. | PGMIV. 2967-3006
Athena, Good Daimon

408

D ods TBels, 5 | 8 g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Bee Pate . z & of PGM/PDM Objective/Technique
ap cma & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
ae aE Ne ei Plant’s secret names, e.g. “blood of
ian 12 25 44 | PGM XII. 401-444 goose.” Glossary of terms used by the
temple scribes
14 x 11 | PDM xiv. 886-896 Herbs, for Sun and Moon
14 ¥ 14 | PDM xiv. 897-910 List of herbs and minerals
Total Y 119
Typhon, Seth, Pakerbéth, ‘ . " . "
eek el 14 Z 20 PDM xiv. 675-694 To cause "evil sleep" or death
[PGM XIVc.16-27]
1a. WZ 5 | PDMxiv.706-710 | Against "evil sleep"
1Ae ||| 22 5 | PDMxiv.711-715 | To cause "evil sleep"
14 7, 9 PDM xiv. 716-724 To cause "evil sleep" for two days
144 | Z 3. | PDMxiv.724-726 | To cause "evil sleep"
14 | Z | 10 | PDMxiv.727-736 | To cause "evil sleep"
14 | Z 2. | PDMxiv. 737-738 | To cause "evil sleep"
144 | Z 2 | PDMxiv.739-740 | To cause death
14 Z, 1 PDM xiv. 741 To cause blindness
14 Z 1 PDM xiv. 742 To cause blindness
14 Z, 7 PDM xiv. 743-749 To cause "evil sleep" or death
144 | Z 6 | PDMxiv.911-916 | To cause "evil sleep"
14 | Z 3. | PDMxiv.917-919 | Against "evil sleep"
14 7, 10 | PDM xiv. 920-929 To protect against "evil sleep"
Total Z 84
3 a 21. +| PGMIIL. 612-632 Shadow, gaining control of one's
To Ebeth Pakesbeth Bolchoseth Insomnia, to induce
Apomps Iasth labasth 4 a 20 | PGMIV. 3255-3274
Aberamenthdou
5 4 2% | PGMV.70-95 Thief, to catch using a hammer to strike
an image of the Eye of Horus
7 0. 6 PGM VIL. 149-154 Bugs, kept out of the house
aaa Natural magic. Demokritos' dinner table
? game. ‘Book of Secrets’ a type of magical
4 oe aera ne ere text very much in vogue in the 18th
century
need 7 a 6 | PGM VIL. 423-428 Dice, to win and throw what you want
Enchantment: to make men appear with
ie e a eecureacct a donkey’s snouts. “Book of Secrets” style
Typhon, Nousi Amoun, Ammon : eal 7 :
Ti En Coat 6: 10 ‘4 11. | PGMXIL. 96-106 Himerios’ recipe. A spell for business
Himerios success
Nese Rey om To release prisoners from bonds or
great pod.” Zeus, Helios, 12 a 19 | PGM XII. 160-178 danger, or “to do something spectacular”
Hephaistos
12 a 9 PGM XIL 193-201 Gold, chemical operation to make tincture
of gold using vinegar, alum, etc
14 0 1 PDM xiv. 115 Securing the shadow

409

D . ods enesls, £ & g fe No. Betz Papyrus
Ee eae . ra & of PGM/PDM Objective/ Technique
es cactus & z < lines | Reference number
nomina magica
14 a 1 | PDM xiv. 116 To see spirits
14 4 18 | PDMxiv.376-394 Various recipes using a drowned shrew-
mouse
14 4 8 PDM xiv. 451-58 Superior, for going to speak witha
[PGM XIVb. 12-15]

14 a 6 PDM xiv. 1182-1187 | Madness, to cause

pe bar Pharggés Maskelli 36 e 25 PGM XXXVI. 231- To inflict harm. Large drawing of a
255 female figure cutting off a head

70 oO 26 | PGMLXX. 26-51 Against fear and to dissolve spells
Helios, Sapeiphnep, Abrasakx i it j

81 e 10 | PGMLXXXL 1-10 Greetings to deities for protection of a

house
86 0. 5 PGM LXXXVI. 3-7 Rite on 10th day of Didymon
2 7 PDM Supp. 162-168 | Procedure to find a house to live in

ed Isis, £ 23 | PDMSupp. 185-208 | Fragments of rites
Total a 288

- B 5 | PGM VIL 186-190 Thank-offering and victory amulet, using a

: gecko

7 B 4 PGM VIL. 390-393 Victory amulet for the races
Hermes; :Thoouth 7 B 6 PGM VIL. 919-924 Hermes' wondrous victory amulet

7 B 15 | PGM VIL. 925-939 Subject a person, talisman for victory
mc 7 B 12 | PGM VIL. 528-539 Victory spell for the races
Gabriel Raphael Michael Sabaoth For victory
Iad Helios Ablanathanalba
nieieenieaten [59-letter 7 B 10 PGM VII. 1017-1026
IAEO formula] Harpon Chnouphi

27 B 5 PGM XXVIL 1-5 Victory amulet/spell for stadium wins
Total B 57
Grand Total = 12,560 | lines of text

Table 22: Every passage in the PGM corpus analysed by objective and rite type with its lineage

extent.1756

176 The first column lists all gods and goddesses mentioned in each rite, plus a selection of the most
common nomina magica used.

410

Appendix 3 - The Manuscripts of the Hygromanteia 17°”

Tally of
Abbrev- Manuscript ‘ Published Greek Pubished ehapters
‘ati (date) Library text? English present
pala — translation’ in the
ms!760
Bas ; ‘ G: 340-350;
Reese eae as Nee Library of | CX: 9-23, 66-100; M: 252-297. 30
century and later ‘ A: 1-104.
Atheniensis 115, Historical and G: 338-339; G: 347-350;
ff. 1-42v. Ethnological Society of | C X: 40-45, 72-96, 240; | M: 345-361. 27
(early 18th century) Greece. A: 1-104.
Bononiensis 3632, : eee . :
ff. 344v-436. University Library, CIV: 39-46; M: 115-133. 12
(1440) Bologna. A: 572-612.

Athonicus Dion. 282. Dionysius Monastery, = See ;
ee 45, ff. 2-39v. Gennadius Library, ;

| ° | 5596, T: 254-309; G: 338-350;

ff. 18v-44v, 49v-58v. British Library. C IX: 2, 14-16; M: 146-199. 4l
(15th century) A: 387-445; M2.

Monacensis Gr. 70, Bavarian Regional T: 254-309; G: 340- T: 231-253:

Me | eee Library of Munich.!” | 246: M: 225-251 :
(16th century) y : C VIII: 2, 139-165. a :
Mediolanensis H 2 infer. | Ambrosian Library, A: 631-633; G: 338-339; ;

Neapolitanus II C 33 National Library of A: 613-624; :
(1495) Italy, Naples. CIV: 49-63, 132-169. es 4

Parisinus Gr. 2419, T: 254-309;
ff. 218-277. National Library of G: 338-339; A: 446-556; :
(1462, copied in 16th France. C VIII: 1, 20-63, 160- Mee 28
century) 193.
Petropolitanus Soa ae Musun G: 338-339;
P2 Academicus. Achdemy C XII: 9-25, 114-135; M: 331-344. 8

(Moscow 1684-5) St. Petersburg. D2.
Vindobonensis Ph. Gr. 108. | Austrian National A: 634-638; ;

(15th/16th century) Library, Vienna. C VI: 1-16, 61-78. Mee J

Table 23: Comparison of the manuscripts of the Hygromanteia, showing their location, date, and
published versions.

1757 This table lists those manuscripts used in this thesis.
17%58 Page numbers in: T=Torijano (2002); A=Delatte, Anecdota Athiensia (1927); D=Delatte (1959);
D2=Delatte (1949); G=Greenfield (1988); C=Catalogus; M2=Marathakis (2007).
1759 Partially published in: M=Marathakis (2011); T=Torijano (2002).
1700 This forms a rough indication of the completeness of each manuscript. Of these, obviously
manuscript H (with 41 chapters) gives the fullest coverage of all possible chapters, as well as being
one of the oldest. Manuscript A (Atheniensis 1265 in the National Library of Athens) is the next most
comprehensive. Manuscript M (with only eight chapters) was relied upon by Torijano in his
discussion of the Hygromanteia supplemented by manuscripts H, P and A. The least useful
manuscripts, in terms of chapter coverage, are T, M2, D and A2.
1761 Discovered by Delatte, who published it in his monograph Delatte (1959).
1762 As appendices to his book, Torijano provides a partial English translation of the version contained
in M, as well as the Greek text of four manuscripts: M (reproduced from Catalogus VIII 2), H, P and D
(reproduced from Anecdota Atheniensia I). A Spanish translation of M was published by the same
author three years before. See Torijano (ed.), La Hygromanteia de Salomon, pp. 330-346.

411

Appendix 4 - The Manuscripts of the Clavicula Salomonis

Collection and Manuscript

Vatican Ar. 448

Stadbibliotek Zittau B107 #2
Kobenhavn Thott 237

Polona 439176

Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica 114
Bibliotheque Nationale Ital. 1524
Bibliotheque Nationale 14783
Seville Zayas C.XIV.22

Brescia Civica Queriniana E VI 23
Chatsworth 73D

Ghent 1021

Harry Walton Private Collection A901
Berlin Germ. Quarto 474

Wien 11344

Harley 3536 #1

Wolfenbiittel Extravagantes 39
Berlin Hamilton 589

Brussels Bibliothéque Royale ITI.1152
Bergamo Lamda II 23 (MM 512)
Bibliotheque Nationale 14075 #1
Bologna A.646

Leipzig 841

Madrid 12707

Niirnberg 34 X

Duveen 3881764

Milano Ambrosiana Z 72 sup
Erlangen 853

Leipzig 790

Bibliotheque Nationale 24244
Bibliotheque Nationale 24245
Genova B VI 35

Neuchatel A18 (formerly 24079)
Wien 11517

Yale Mellon 85 #1

Leipzig 710

Leipzig 773

Uberlingen 164

Karlsruhe 302

Leipzig 709

Language Century/Date
Arabic
Italian
Latin
Latin
Latin 15th
Italian 15th 1446
French 15th?
German 16th
Italian 16th
Latin 16th
Latin 16th
Latin 16th 1600

Dutch/Latin 17th
Dutch/Latin 17th

French 17th
French 17th
Italian 17th
Italian 17th
Latin 17th
Latin 17th
Latin 17th
Latin 17th
Latin 17th
Latin 17th
Dutch/Latin 17th late
French 17th late
Latin 17th late
Dutch/ Latin 18th
French 18th
French 18th
French 18th
French 18th

French 18th
French 18th
German 18th
German 18th
German 18th
Italian 18th
Italian 18th

1763 Clavicula Salomonis de Secretis. See http://www.polona.pl/item/8078413/6/.
1764 A printed book, but as rare as a manuscript. Undated, but Peterson suggests 1700.

Text-Family

412

Collection and Manuscript Language Century/Date | Text-Family

Leipzig 776 Italian -
Milano Ambrosiana Z 164 sup Italian -
Miinster Nordkirchen 169 Italian -
Seville Zayas C.XIV.1 Italian -
Bibliotheque Nationale 11265 Latin -
Bibliotheque Nationale 18510 Latin -
Bibliothéque Nationale 18511 #1 Latin -
Evangelische Kirchenbibliotek Codex 31 Latin -
Hamburg Codex Alchim. 739 Latin -
Miinchen CLM 28942 Latin -
Pisa 139 (167) Latin -
Sankt-Peterburg Q III 645 Latin -
Sankt-Peterburg Q III 647 Latin -
Seville Zayas C.V.1 Italian -
Wellcome 4663 Czech -
Kobenhavn Thott 625 Latin -
Lansdowne 1203 French Ab
Bibliotheque Nationale 25314 French Ab
Penn University Van Pelt Codex 515 Italian Ab
Harvard Houghton Typ 833 French Ab
Alnwick 584 Latin a) AC
Bodleian Michael 276 Italian P AC
Additional 36674176 English AC
Additional 10862 #1 Latin AC
Sloane 3645 #1176 English AC
Harley 3981 French AC
Bibliothéque de I’ Arsenal 2348 French AC
Jerusalem Varia 223 Italian AC
Kings 288 French AC
Sloane 3091 French AC
Wellcome 4658 French AC
Wellcome 4659 #1 French AC
Wellcome 4666 #1 French AC
Wellcome 4668 #2 Italian AC
Bibliothéque Méjanes CGM 1918 French AC
Wellcome 4669 #1 French AC
Harvard Houghton Fr 554 French Arm
Lansdowne 1202 French Arm
Bibliotheque de I’Arsenal 2349 French Arm
Harvard Houghton Fr 553 French CMC
Harvard Houghton Typ 625 German CMC
Wellcome 4655 French CMC
Ettington 59 (author's collection) Italian CMC
Additional 39666 French CMC
Lenkiewicz Private Collection 1 French CMC

1765 Was previously KK Family.
1766 Was previously KK Family.
413

Collection and Manuscript Language Century/Date | Text-Family

Additional 10862 #2 Italian 16th
Wien 11262 Italian 17th
Bodleian Aubrey 24 English & Lat. 17th 1674 Zk
Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal 2347 French 18th
Bibliotheque de I’Arsenal 2790 French 18th

NIN
aA

N
~

Warburg FBH 80 French 18th 1782 CMC
Ferguson 142 German Exp
Darmstadt 1671 German Exp
Leipzig 707 German Exp
Leipzig 732 German Exp
Sloane 1307 Italian GP
Sloane 1309 Italian GP
Gregorius Niger Private Collection 5 Latin RS
Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal 2346 #2 French RS
Lenkiewicz Private Collection 2 French RS
Wellcome 4657 French RS
Wellcome 4660 French RS
Jerusalem Yahuda 18 English RS?
Wellcome 4656 French RS
Crawford 158 English RS
Rylands GB 0133 Eng 40 (Sibly) English RS
Wellcome 983 #1 French RS
Sibley Private Collection 4 English RS
Wellcome 4661 French RS
Wellcome 4670 French RS
John Hay BF 1611 French RS
John Hay M313 French RS
Edward Hunter Private Collection 3 English RS
Oriental 14759 Hebrew SM
Oriental 6360 Hebrew SM
Gollancz MS Hebrew SM
Rosenthaliana 12 Hebrew SM
Harvard Houghton Fr 555 French SS
Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal 2350 French SS
Bibliotheque de I’ Arsenal 2493 French SS
Bibliotheque de I’ Arsenal 2791 French SS?
Wellcome 4664 French SS
Sloane 3847 #1 English TG
Bibliotheque Nationale 15127 Latin TG
Marseilles 983 (Bb 108) #1 Latin TG
Pommersfelden 357 Latin TG
Wellcome 4662 French TG
Wellcome 4659 #2 French UT
Wellcome 4667 #1 French UT
Wellcome 4669 #2 French UT
ji6th
j17th
| 17th1674
jisth

N
~

Table 24: Clavicula Salomonis Manuscripts listed by Language, Date and sorted by Text-Family.17°”

1767 From Skinner & Rankine (2008), pp. 408-414, with additions.
414

Appendix 5 - Transmission of the Names of Gods, Daimones, Angels and
Spirits and other nomina magica

Sample comparison of some of the nomina magica,” as found in the PGM,!”6 Picatrix, Liber
Consecrationem,'’” Goetia,\”"1 Hygromanteia,’”2 and Key of Solomon,'”? across cultures.!”4 This
table is not exhaustive. Note that even where the name does not have its roots in the PGM, it
still has a great deal of commonality between the Goetia, Hygromanteia and Clavicula Salomonis.

Liber Consecrationem

’ j ; Lemegeton ‘ Clavicula Salomonis
Picatrix aka the Munich ( tse ) Hygromanteia Key of Solomon
Handbook y
Abraxas 1776
Abrasax'!7”° ADrAR
H Adonai!””” Adona 1779 Adoniel!7®° Adonai!”*! Adonai!”®
Adonaios'’” y Adouni!”® Adonay'”*4
Amon Amon!788
E Ammon!” Amaymon!”®? Amon!72 Amaymon!””
Amoun'™ Amonzy'”” Maymon!”™4
Parammon Maymon
1797 1799
Anael Anael 1801
H Anael!7> Anael!7° : 2 Anael
Aniel!78 Anaél 8°

1768 The original list was much larger. The list in this Appendix has been considerably reduced.

1769 This list is not exhaustive, but covers all the major angels, gods, goddesses and spirits that migrate into later magical texts.
Likewise this is not the place to give every single reference to a particular entity, which is the function of a PGM index. Despite
promises by various scholars this highly desirable adjunct to PGM does not appear to have been produced. Many of the footnote
references for this Table are taken from Porreca (2010).

177 Munich Handbook i.e. ‘Bayerischiche Staatsbibliothek MS CLM 849. Page numbers refer to Kieckhefer (1997), otherwise folio
numbers refer to CLM 849.

77. Page numbers in Skinner and Rankine (2007).

1772 Manuscript and folio numbers. Representative, not exhaustive.

773 Only a few of many references have been included for each name in this column. Note than Wellcome MSS are numbered as
page number by that library, rather than by folio.

v4 Language of origin. Words which only appear once in one source have sometimes been omitted, as these do not aid cross-
cultural analysis. Also the names of earlier magicians or other worthies invoked to lend weight to the operation, like Klaudianos
or Pnouthis, have in most cases been omitted. H=Hebraic; G=Greek; L=Latin; E=Egyptian; I=Islam; P=Persian; B=Babylonian;
R=Roman; ?=unknown.

‘7° PGM IV. 331-32; VIII. 49, 611; XIII. 156, 466. et al.

77% Wellcome 4670, p. 51.

77 PGM II. 146; LVII. 1, et al. Originally Hebrew for “my Lord” but frequently used as a word of power, or deity in PGM.

"78 PGM I. 310.

1779 B. 3,

1789 Dp, 323, 386.

1781 B2, f. 344.

1782 P2, f. 52v.

1783 Wellcome 4670, p. 50.

'784 Wellcome 4669, p. 23 and many other occurrences.

"85 PGM LVIL 7, et al.

"8° PDM xiv. 585.

"87 ‘Next to Ammon.”

'88 Pp. 107, 109, 366, 378, 379, 381.

™ Bp, 115, 134, 135, 172, 180, 181, 210, 370, 371, 376, 429, 430.

1° p_ 320.

171 Pp. 210, 393.

1792 FY, f. 35.

1793 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p 113.

1794 Wellcome 4670, p. 195.

'®° PGM XC. 10.

'% TW, vii, 23.

'°7 By, 189, 199, 208, 209, 312, 382, 385.

18 Pp. 199, 329, 372, 382-3, 387, 406, 410.

1799 FY, f. 36.

1800 P, f. 218v.

1801 Wellcome 4670, p. 180.

415

ao o

Liber Consecrationem
aka the Munich
Handbook

Picatrix

Astaroth!®°8
Astaroth Astoroth

Astarotht
Aziel'8? Aziel'83 Asyel'®"4
Azariel!®* Azariel!*!°

Belzebub

Belzebuc!®!®
F829 Fy !830
a le
Eloe Eloy'*®
Elouein ey

1836

Elouai Eloym

18 Pp. 32, 116, 134, 175, 370, 378, 379, 398.
'803 Bp. 24, 65, 66, 72, 79, 85.

1804 FH], f, 32.

1805 H, f, 35,

1806 Wellcome 4669, Art. 2, p. 77.
1807 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p 112.
1808 F. 6y,

1809 Pp, 32, 34, 51, 69, 131, 366, 368, 370, 378, 379, 381, 398.
1810 H, f, 32.

1811 Wellcome 4669, Art. 2, p. 77.
1812 PGM XXXVL 174.

'813 TV ix, 53.

1814 FB 39r,

'815 PGM XXXVI. 173.

'816 B 8Or.

1817 Pp, 24-142, 382.

1818 F 5,

'89 Bp. 15, 26-7, 32, 41, 351, 424.
1820 H, f, 35v.

1821 H, f, 32.

1822 Pf, 218v.

1823 Wellcome 4669, Art. 2, p. 78.
1824 P, 189,

1825 H, f, 42.

'86 Wellcome 4670, p.53.

1827 Pp, 32, 43, 90.

1828 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p. 112.
1829 PGM XLVIL. 1.

1830 F 33y, etc.

1831 H, f, 35,

1832 Wellcome 4669, Art 1, p.23.

'83 PGM I. 311; IV. 1577; VIL 564; XXXVI. 42, et al.
'S4 Dp, 248, 249, 261, 269, 337, et al.
1835 F. 63v.

1836 F, 91r.

1837 Pp, 80, 81, 176, 177, 203, 303, 304, 353, 416-418, 422, 433.
1838 H, f, 35,

1839 H, f, 35,

1840 H, f, 38v.

1841 Wellcome 4670, p. 49.

1842 Wellcome 4670, p. 42.

184 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p. 23.
1844 Wellcome 4670, p.51.

Lemegeton
(Goetia)

1802
1803

Asmodai
Asmodeus

Astaroth!®®

Asyriel'8!”

Beelzebub!*!”

«71824
Cassiel

Egyn'®?

Elohim!*?”

Hygromanteia

Asmedaé
Asmedai!®°
Asmodai

Astaroth!®!°

Beelzeboul!®”°
Beelzebuth
Berzebeoul
Berzeboul'*”!
Beelzebouél 8”
Kasael'®>

Clavicula Salomonis
Key of Solomon

Asmodeus!8°
Asmodée!®°”

Ashtoroth'®!!

Belzebut!®”

416

Liber Consecrationem

Picatrin aka the Munich ee ee en:

Handbook y
Emanouel!**° Emanuel!*“6 Emanouel!*4” Emanuel !*“8
Gabriel !*° Gabriel !*° Gabriel!®! Gabriel !**? Gabrial!**? Gabriel !**4

Heloe!859 Heli!8°!
Helios!*> Helyus!*7 Hely Helion!*” Helyon
Helios-Osiris'*** Heyluz'*** Heloy Helluion'®® Heloy
Heloe!®® Hellison!®™*
Hermes! Hermas!®°6 Hermes!®°”
TAO!88 Ja/Ya
Iabas Jah!8”
Tapos!8 Joth!3”! Jah!872 ral84 IHVH876
Iabo Ipos!87 Jod Hé Vau Hé'®””
Iabe Jehovah!8”8
Tabai!8”°
Isis 8? Isiston!®®° Isiael!®*!
hréstos!882 —
eee peer Thesu Christi!®** Jesus Christ!®®
Katiel!'8°°
Kattiel'8°° Captiel'**’ Captiel'*** Captiel'**” Kataél
Katriél

'85 PGM XC. 5.

186 Dp. 244, 269, 274, 337, et al.

1847 P, f. 218v.

1848 Wellcome 4670, p. 29.

8 PGM IV. 1815, et al.

89 TV, vii, 23.

185! Pp. 276, 318, et al.

182 Pp. 189, 198, 200, 201, 339, 344, 388, 398, 419, 433.

1853 Hf. Av.

1854 Wellcome 4670, p. 77.

'855 Appears in many contexts. Specifically invoked in PGM III. 494-611 and IV. 482.

'856 See Serapis.

857 THT, ix, 15.

88 TIL, ix, 5.

'85° pb 230. Grouped with Eloe by Porreca.

1860 F. 33r.

'86! Bp. 342, 388, 436.

18 Dp, 304, 342, 388.

1863 p_ 342.

86 B 344,

'8°5 PGM VILL. 1, et al.

1866 p_ 323.

1867 Wellcome 4670, p. 38.

1868 The Greek transliteration of MM" IHVH (Yahweh) with the IH being treated as IA (Yah) and the vav being treated as an O. IAO was also

found at Qumran and in the Nag Hammadi texts.

'870 The Samaritan transliteration of MM" IHVH (Yahweh) corresponding to the Greek spelling IAO with the vav logically appearing as a ‘b’

(or ‘p’). The Samaritan connection is significant because so many of the Gnostic founders were Samaritan, like Simon Magus.

1871 F, 58r.

1872 P_ 343.

'873 Dp, 124, 368, 378, 379, 381.

1874 FY, f. 35.

1875 Wellcome 4670, p. 260.

1876 Mathers (1909), p.17.

1877 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p 113.

1878 Wellcome 4670, p. 29.

'8 Frequently invoked.

P. 289. Porreca also gives Esyon and Usion (both on p. 269), which I feel has a different derivation.
P. 202.

1882 PGM IV. 1232. Chréstos = ”excellent one” rather than Christos = ”anointed one.”

'883 PGM IV. 3020. Here entitled “god of the Hebrews” (sic).

1884 F. 22r.

'885 Pp, 24, 193, 356, 436.

88° PGM XXXVL 172.

887 TV, vii, 23.

1888 Pp. 300, 301, 327, 328.

1889 P, 346.

1890 H, f. 41v.

417

Liber Consecrationem

Picatrix aka the Munich eats Hygromanteia
Handbook PGnenGs
«1892 «1893 Loutzipher
Lucifer Lucifer Lautiepher 1895
‘ 1897 . 1898 : 1899 ; 1900 Michael
Michael Michael Michael Michael Mikhaal!20!
Nephthys!°° Nephryas?°™
On! On!” On! On!
Orion!?!° Orien!?!! Oriens!?”
= 1915
«71913 . 1914 ; Ourouél
Ouriel Uriel Uriel Ourial!9'
919
1918 Paymon
Paymon Paimon!22°
Raphael!?”* Raphael!?*7 Raphael! Raphael!?”> Rhaphael'°”°
Raubeil!?””
Roubel!?”8 Raubel'?*° Roehel?!??
Raubeyl!”3!
Sabaoth??? Sabaoth??™4 Sabaoth!?> Sabaoth!?**
Samael !?*8 Samael!°*?
1891 Hebrew origin.
1892 F, 5r,
1893 Pp. 15, 32, 41, 45, 111, 170, 351, 366, 376, 377, 427.
1894 FY, f. 35.

1895 P, f. 140v.

1896 Wellcome 4669, Art. 2, p. 78.

'87 PGM IV. 1815, et al.

88 TV, vii, 23.

18 Pp. 276, 318, 332, et al.

1909 Many references including 24, 60, 62, 63, 72, et al.
1901 H, f. 35v.

1902 Wellcome 4670, p.53.

193 PGM XIa. 10, where Nephthys is referred to as “mistress of the house” a direct translation of her Egyptian name.
ve Beg.

' Porreca suggests Greek, but On refers to the name of an Egyptian city.
°° PGM XII. 171.

97 Bp, 248, 269, 274, et al.

8 P_ 178.

1909 H, f. 35.

810 PGM CI. 28, et al.

911 P. 248,

SP Dp, 32, 43, 90.

8 PGM IV. 1815.

4p. 194,

195 H, f. 35v.

1916 A, f. 30.

1917 Wellcome 4670, p. 202.

1918 F. 30r.

1919 Pp. 32, 34, 90, 11.

1920 Pp. 32, 34, 111, 366, 378, 381, 398.

1921 Wellcome 4669, Art. 1, p. 113.

' PGM X. 43, et al.

3 TV, vii, 23.

4 P_ 276, 318, et al.

™5 Dp, 38, 65, 72, 81, 189, 204, 205, 208, 339, 389, 398, 417, 418.
16 Angel of the 1“ hour of Thursday. H.

1927 Wellcome 4670, p.53.

'°8 PGM XXXVL 171.

9 TIL, vii, 21.

90 TV, ix, 37.

STH, vii, 25.

'°33 Frequently used as a divine name.

1934 B. 3.

35 Pp, 79-81, 177, 178, 417, 418, 423, 433, 436.

1936 H], f. 35.

1987 Wellcome 4670, p. 260.

1938 F. 74y.

1939 Pp. 189, 198, 202, 203, 208, 308, 311, 324, 325, 339, 385.
1940 Wellcome 4670, p.53.

Clavicula Salomonis

Key of Solomon

+, 1896
Lucifer

Michael!?”

On
Oriens

«41917
Uriel

: 1921
Paimon

Raphiel'””’

Sabaoth
Zebaoth!?*7
Samael !*"°

418

aomnog

jangenean)

H/G

E&G

Liber Consecrationem é Give sai Z
PGM Picatrix aka the Munich pane Hygromanteia Key of, Paes
Handbook
Satan"! Sathan!°?? Satan!943 Satanachi!*“+
Shaddai Saday Shadai!** Saday Saday!*"6
Solomon!*” Solomon Solomon!*“® Solomon!*”” Solomon!?”° Solomon!*”!
Tetragrammaton
ae . o IAO Tetragrammaton!?? Tetragrammaton Tetragrammaton'?? Tetragrammaton!?™
Thoth’?
Thooth
Thouth Tos!?” 1959 1960
Thayth Toz!958 Tom oe
Theouth
Thoouth!??**
Uriel see Ouriel
SS |

Table 25: The migration of god, angel, daimon, spirit names and nomina magica.

1 PGM IV. 1239. Here categorised as an “unclean daimon.”

1942 F 8r,

3 Pp. 15, 32, 41.

1944 Wellcome 4669, Art. 2, p. 79.

1945 Pp. 81, 342, 388, 423.

1946 Wellcome 4670, p. 51.

'7 PGM IV. 850-855. Solomon has been included as relevant to the whole thesis.

1948 F. 58v.

Bp. 20, 23, 41, 42, 63, 66, 87, 175, 357.

1950 P2, f. 52v.

1951 Many occurrences.

1952 F. 3.

1953 HY, f. 35.

1954 Wellcome 4670, p. 29.

55 PDM xiv. 309-334. Appears frequently, as one of the Egyptian gods of magic.

°° PGM LXXXI. 2.

7 TV, ix, 58.

8 TH, ix, 1; DL, ix, 11.

9 PB. 287.

19 Appears as Toz Grec as the author of some of the later Key of Solomon manuscripts. This name is usually understood as Thoth the Greek,

but Iam reasonably sure that it is a corruption of Ptolemy the Greek astrologer.
419

Bibliography

Because of the geographic and chronological extent of the thesis topic, the range of literature
is very wide. However, there appears to be no texts which address the specific concerns of
this thesis, following the development of magical techniques and equipment over the whole
geographic, cultural and linguistic range.

Manuscripts and Papyri

Manuscripts and papyri would normally be listed in the Bibliography, but because of their
extensive nature and the need to analyse them, they have also been listed separately in the
Appendices as follows:

alm PGM Papyri - see Appendix 2.

2: Hygromanteia manuscripts - see also Appendix 3.

Atheniensis 115, Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece.
Atheniensis 1265, National Library of Greece.

Atheniensis 167, Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens.
Athonicus Dion. 282, Dionysius Monastery of Mount Athos.
Bernardaceus, private library of the Bernardakédes family.
Bononiensis 3632, University Library of Bologna.

Gennadianus 45, Gennadius Library of Athens.

Harleianus 5596, British Library.

Mediolanensis E 37 sup., Ambrosian Library of Milan.
Mediolanensis H 2 infer., Ambrosian Library of Milan.
Metamorph6seds 67, Metamorphdseds Monastery of Meteora.
Monacensis Gr. 70, Bavarian Regional Library of Munich.
Neapolitanus II C 33, National Library of Naples.

Parisinus Gr. 2419, National Library of France.

Petropolitanus 575, National Library of Saint Petersburg.
Petropolitanus 646, National Library of Saint Petersburg.
Petropolitanus Academicus, of Paleographic Museum of Science Academy of Saint Petersburg.
Taurinensis C VII, National University Library of Turin.
Vindobonensis Ph. Gr. 108, Austrian National Library of Vienna.

3. Clavicula Salomonis manuscripts - see Appendix 4.
4. Selected European Solomonic manuscripts:
Alnwick 584.

Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica 114.
Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana Amsterdam: Rosenthaliana 12.
Bibliotheque Nationale:

4631.

Supplément Grec. 500.
British Library:

Additional 10862.

Additional 25311.

Additional 36674.

Additional 39844.

Cotton Appendix XLVI.

Cotton Tiberius A VII

Harley 3981.

Harley 6482.

420

Harley 6483.
Kings 288.

Lansdowne 1202.
Lansdowne 1203.
Oriental 6360.
Oriental 6673.
Oriental 14759.

Sloane 3825.
Sloane 2731.
Sloane 3188.
Sloane 3847.
Sloane 3826.
Sloane 3846.
Sloane 3853.
Sloane 6483.
Sloane 3648.
Sloane 3847.
Sloane 3825.
Sloane 3091.
Sloane 2731.
Sloane 3847.

Canterbury Cathedral Additional 23.
Chatsworth 73D.
Folger V.b.26 (1).
Harvard Houghton Typ. 883Munich CLM 849.
Kirchenbibliotek 31.
Rylands GB 0133 Eng 40.
Vatican 228.

Wellcome Institute:

3203.
4655.
4669.
4670.

421

Primary Sources

Abano, Peter de. Heptameron, or the Magical Elements in Agrippa, H. C. Fourth Book of Occult
Philosophy, revised edition ed. Stephen Skinner. Berwick: Ibis Press/ Nicolas-Hays,
2005.

Abraham of Worms, aka Abraham of Wurzburg. The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the

Mage. (trans. and ed.) S. L. MacGregor Mathers. London: Watkins, 1898; 2nd edition
1900; rpt. New York: Causeway, 1974; rpt. New York: Dover, 1975.

Abraham of Worms, (ed.) Georg Dehn, (trans.) Steven Guth. The Book of Abramelin. Lake
Worth: Ibis, 2006.

Agrippa, H. C. De Occulta Philosophia libri tres. Koln, 1533. ed. Vittoria Perrone Compagni.
Leiden: Brill, 1992.

Agrippa, H. C. Three Books of Occult Philosophy. (Trans.) James Freake [Dr John French]. (ed.)
Donald Tyson. St Paul: Llewellyn, 1993.

Agrippa, H. C. Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy, (ed.) Stephen Skinner. Berwick: Ibis
Press/ Nicolas-Hays, 2005. [Contains texts: Of Magical Ceremonies; Heptameron; Of the
Nature of such Spririts; Arbatel of Magick; Of the Magick of the Ancients; Of Geomancy; Of
Astronomical Geomancy.]

Anon. Grimorium Verum. Memphis [Paris?]: Chez Alibeck l’Egyptian, 1517 [1817?].

Anon. I] Gran Libro Magico del Re Salomone, con I piu importanti Segreti de Alta Magia. 105 Tavole
di Talismani, Pentacoli, Caratteri Cabalistici e Figure Magiche. Viareggio: Rebis, 1985.

Anon. Il Libro Magico della Gallina Nera. O la Gallina dalle Uova d'Oro. Con la Scienza del
Talismanie Anelli Magici, l’Arte della Negromanzia e della Cabala, per scongiurare gle Spiriti
Infernali... Viareggio: Rebis, 1988.

Anon. L’art de commander les esprits célestes, aeriens, terrestres & infernaux suivi du Grand
Grimoire, de la magie noire et des forces infernales, du docteur J. Karter, la Clavicule de
Salomon, &c; avec le vrai secret de faire parler les morts.... 1421 [1750?].

Anon. La Clavicula Magica e Cabalistica del Saggio re Salomone. Florence, 1731.
Anon. Le Grand Grimoire, ou l’art de commander les esprits célestes. Paris, 1845.

Anon. Le Trésor du Vieillard des Pyramides, Véritable Science des Talismans & La Chouette Noire.
1652 [but early 19th century].

Anon. Le Véritable Dragon Rouge & La Poule Noire. 1521 [but early 19th century].

Anon. Les Admirables Secrets d’Albert le Grand. Lyon: Beringos Fratres, 1629 [but early 19th
century].

Anon. Les Clavicules de Salomon, Paris: Chamuel, 1892.

Anon. Les Secrets Merveilleux de la Magie Naturelle du Petit Albert. Lyon: Beringos Fratres, 1668
[but early 19th century], 1765.

Anon. Les Véritables Clavicules De Salomon, Suivies du Fameux Secret du Papillon Vert, Memphis
[probably Paris]: Chez Alibeck l’Egyptien, n.d. [18th century - first edition printed in
French; a later edition 19th century]

Anon. Sefer Simmus Tehillim. Bilfingen: Schubert, 1972. [German trans. of Hebrew]

Atallah, Hashem and Geylan Holmquest, (ed.) William Kiesel. Picatrix or Ghayat al-Hakim
(‘The Goal Of The Wise’). Two Volumes, Seattle: Ouroboros Press, 2008.

Bagnall, Roger and Peter Derow. Historical Sources in Translation: The Hellenistic Period.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
422

Barrett, Francis. The Magus, or Celestial Intelligencer; being a Complete System of Occult Philosophy.
London: 1801; rpt. New Hyde Park: University Books, 1967; rpt. York Beach: Samuel
Weiser, 2000.

Bassi, Dominicus, Cumont, Franciscus, Martini, Aemygdius and Olivieri, Alexander (eds.).
Codices Italici praeter Florentini, Veneti, Mediolanenses, Romani, CCAG, Tomus IV. Bruxellis,
1903.

Bell, H.L, A. D. Nock and Herbert Thompson. Magical Texts from a Bilingual Papyrus in the
British Museum. Oxford: OUP, 1933.

Benesch, Kurt (ed.). Dr Johannes Faust: Magia Naturalis Samtliche magische Werke. Wiesbaden:
Fourier, 1984.

Best, Michael and Frank H Brightman (eds.). The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus. Of the
Virtues of Herbs, Stones, and Certain Beasts, Also of the Marvels of the World (13th century).
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973; rpt. York Beach: Samuel Weiser, 1999.

Betz, Hans Dieter (ed). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells,
Volume One Texts. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Boeft, J. Den. Calcidius on Demons (Commentarius Ch. 127-136). Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Boll, F. (ed.). Apotelesmata [of Apollonius of Tyana]’ in CCAG, VII, Brussells, 1907, pp. 175-81.
Borghouts, J. F. Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. NISABA. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Boudreaux Petrus (ed.). Codicum Parisinorum Pars Tertia, CCAG, Tomus VIII, Pars III.
Bruxellis, 1912.

Boudreaux Petrus (ed.). Codicum Parisinorum Pars Quarta, CCAG, Tomus VIII, Pars IV.
Bruxellis, 1921.

Brashear, William. Apotelesmatikon: P. Mev. Inv. 71. 58, Nilus 1, Vienna, 1998.

Breasted, James Henry. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. 2 Vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1930.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Book of the Dead. New York: Dover, 1967.

Cameron, Averil and Judith Herrin (eds. and trans.). Constantinople in the Early Eighth
Century: the Parastaseis syntomai chronikat. Leiden: Brill, 1984.

Casaubon, Meric. A True & Faithful Relation of What Passed For Many Yeers Between Dr. John
Dee and some Spirits..., 1659; rpt. London: Askin, 1974; Rpt. with extensive corrections
from the original manuscripts as Dr John Dee’s Spiritual Diaries (1584-1608), (ed.)
Stephen Skinner. Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2011.

Cecchetelli, Michael (transl.). Crossed Keys. n.p.: Scarlet, MMXI. [Contains texts: Le Dragon Noir
and Enchiridion of Pope Leo III].

Ch’ien, Kineta (trans.). The Great Grimoire of Pope Honorius. Seattle: Trident, 1998.

Clarke, Emma, John Dillon, Jackson Hershbel. Iamblichus: On the Mysteries: A manifesto of the
miraculous. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Collisson, Marcus, see Psellus.

Copenhaver, Brian P (trans. and ed.). Hermetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992,

Cowley, A. (ed.) Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. London and Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1923.

Cramer, J. A. Anecdota Graeca e Codicibus Manuscriptis Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium. Oxford, 1836.

423

Cumont, Franciscus (ed.). Codicum Parisinorum Pars Prima, CCAG, Tomus VIII, Pars I.
Bruxellis, 1929.

Daniel, Robert W and Franco Maltomini. Supplementum Magicum. 2 Vols. Opladen:
Westdeutscher, 1990 and 1992.

Dee, John. 48 Claves Angelicae. See Turner (1989); James (1984).
Dee, John. De Heptarchia Mystica. See Turner (1986); James (1984).
Dee, John. Liber Scientia Auxilii & Victoriae. See Turner (1989).

Dee, John. Libri Mysteriorum. See Casaubon (1659); James (1984); Whitby (1991); Peterson (2003);
Dee (2011).

Dee, John, Meric Casaubon (Preface) and (ed.) Stephen Skinner. Dr. John Dee’s Spiritual
Diaries (1583-1608). Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2011. See also Casaubon (1659); Peterson
(2003); Fenton (2000).

Dehn, Georg. See Abraham of Worms (2006).
Delatte, Armand (ed.). Codices Athenienses, CCAG, Tomus X. Bruxellis, 1924.

Delatte, Armand. Anecdota Atheniensia. 2 Vols (especially Vol. 1). Liege and Paris: Champion,
1927-39, pp. 397-445.

Des Places, E (ed. and trans.). Jamblique: Les Mystéres d’Egypte. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966.

Dilligan, Robert and Lazar. Sefer ha-Yasar: First Ladino translation (Haverford College, MS.
Hebr. 18). Labyrinthos, 1998.

Dodge, Bayard. The Fihrist of al-Nadim: a tenth-century survey of Muslim Culture. New York:
Columbia University, 1970.

Driscoll, Daniel. The Sworn Book of Honorius the Magician. New Jersey: Heptangle, 1977.

Duling, D. C. (trans.). The Testament of Solomon in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1:
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)
(ed.) James H. Charlesworth. London: Doubleday, 1983, p. 935 ff.

Dumas, Francois Ribadeau. Le Grand et le Petit Albert. Paris: Belfond, 1978.

Dumas, Francois Ribadeau. Grimoires et Rituels Magiques. Paris: Pre au Clercs, 1980; Paris:
Belfond, 1998. [Contains texts: Le Livre des Conjurations du pape Honorius, Enchiridion de
Sa Sainteté le pape Léon III, Le Dragon Rouge, La Poule Noire, Le Génie et Le Trésor du
Vieillard des Pyramides, La Chouette Noire, Le Rituel de Haute Magie.]

Eitrem, Samson. Papyri Osloensis, I: Magical Papyri. Oslo: Dybwad, 1925.
Faulkner, R. O. The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 Vols. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1973-78.
Festugiére, A.-J. La Révélation d' Hermes Trismégiste, 3 Vols. Paris, 1981.

Finamore, John and John Dillon (eds. and trans.). Iamblichus, De anima: Text, Translation, and
Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Fitzgerald, Augustine. The Essays and Hymns of Synesius of Cyrene. London: Oxford University
Press, 1930.

Gaster, Moses. The Sword of Moses, an Ancient Book of Magic. London, 1896, rpt. New York:
Weiser, 1970, rpt. Edmonds: Holmes, 2000.

Gehr, Damaris Aschera. Summa Sacre Magice, forthcoming 2014.
Godefroy, Jacques & Antoine Marville. Codex Theodosianus. Ulan, 2012.
Gollancz, Hermann (trans.). The Book of Protection: Syrian Magic and Charms, Being Codex A of a

424

Syrian Magical Manuscript. Edmonds/Sequoia: Holmes, 2001.

Gollancz, Hermann. Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh (Book of the Key of Solomon) an exact facsimile of
an original Book of Magic in Hebrew. 1903 and 1914, rpt. (Intro.) Stephen Skinner. York
Beach: Teitan, 2008.

Greenup, A. W., Sefer ha-Levana: the Book of the Moon. London, 1912. [A Hebrew edition of BL
MS Or. 6360]

Greer, John Michael and Christopher Warnock. The Picatrix: Liber Aratus Edition. Adocentyn,
2010-11.

Griffith, F. L. and Thompson, Herbert (ed. & trans.). The Leyden Papyrus. An Egyptian Magical
Book. (originally published London: Grevel, 1904 as The Demotic Magical Papyrus of
London and Leyden); rpt. New York: Dover Publications, 1974.

Grippo, Giovanni. Sepher Raziel: Das Buch des Raziel Sst 9D. Steinbeck: Grippo Verlag,
2010. [German and Hebrew]

Hand, Robert (ed.). Hephaisto of Thebes: Apotelesmatics Book I. Berkeley Springs: Golden Hind,
1994.

Harari, Y. Harba de-Moshe (The Sword of Moses): a New Edition and a Study. Jerusalem, 1997.
Hedegard, Gésta. Liber Iuratus Honorii. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2002.

Heeg, J. ‘Excerptum Ex Codice Monacensi Graeco 70: Hygromantia Salomonis,’ in CCAG, C.
A. Ruelle (ed.). Bruxelles, 1911, pp. 139-176.

Hephaestio of Thebes. (ed.) David Pingree. Apotelesmaticorum libri tres. 2 Vols., Leipzig, 1973-74.

Hockley, Frederick. (ed.) Dietrich Bergman. A Complete Book of Magic Science...Transcribed
from an Ancient Manuscript Grimoire. York Beach: Teitan, 2008.

Hockley, Frederick. (ed.) Silens Manus. Occult Spells: A Nineteenth Century Grimoire. York
Beach: Teitan, 2009.

Hockley, Frederick. Clavis Arcana Magica. York Beach: Teitan, 2012.

Hohman, John George, (ed.) Daniel Harms, (Forword) Joseph H. Peterson. The Long Lost
Friend: a 19th century American Grimoire. Woodbury: Llewellyn, 2012.

Horst, Georg Conrad. Zauber-Bibliothek: Oder, Von Zauberei, Theurgie und Mantik, Zauberern,
Hexen, und Hexenprocessen, Démonen, Gespenstern, und Geistererscheinungen. Vol. 4.
Mainz: Kupferberg, 1823.

Ibn Khaldtn, (trans.) Franz Rosenthal. The Mugaddimah: an Introduction to History. Bollingen.
New Jersey: Princeton University, 1967.

Irwin, Herbert (trans.), Stephen Zeitz (ed.). Verus Jesuitarum Libellus Magicus. Paris, 1508 [?];
rpt. 1875.

Kaimikis, D. Die Kyraniden. Meisenheim am Glan, 1976.

Karr, Don and Stephen Skinner (eds.). Sepher Raziel: Liber Salomonis, Volume 6, SWCM.
Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2010.

Karr, Don (ed.) and Kalnit Nachshon (trans.). Liber Lunae, the Book of the Moon & Sepher ha-
Levanah. Volume 7, SWCM. Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2011.

Karr, Don (ed.), Morton Smith (trans. from Hebrew and Aramaic), Gershom Scholem
(corrected). Hekhalot Rabbati. PDF from www.digital-brilliance.com/contributed/
Karr/HekRab/index.php. [Accessed March 2011]

Kieckhefer, Richard. Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century. Stroud:

425

Sutton, 1997, rpt. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.
King, B. J. H. (trans.). The Grimoire of Pope Honorius III. Kettering: Sut Anubis, 1984.

Kuntz, Darcy (ed.). The Black Pullet: Science of Magical Talisman, translated from the French: La
Poule Noire. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1972; rpt. [Kabbalistic Grimoire Series I]|
Edmonds: Holmes Publishing Group, 1998.

Kuntz, Darcy (ed.). Ars Notoria: the Magical Art of Solomon...Englished by Robert Turner.
London, 1656, rpt. Sequim: Holmes, 2006.

Lewy, Hans. Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman
Empire. Ed. Michel Tardieu. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1978.

Lichtheim, M. Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 Vols. Berkeley: University of California, 1973-80.

Luck, Georg. Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds, A Collection of
Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985, rpt. London: Crucible, 1987.

Macdonald, Michael-Albion. De Nigromancia of Roger Bacon. Gillette, New Jersey: Heptangle,
1988.

MacPathy, Fred. Clavicula Salomonis: La Clavicule de Salomon. Rouen: Sesheta, 2013.

Malchus, Marius. The Secret Grimoire of Turiel, Being a System of Magic of the Sixteenth Century.
London: Aquarian Press, 1960; rpt. ed. Darcy Kuntz [Kabbalistic Grimoire Series I]
Edmunds: Sure Fire Press, 1994.

Manetho. (ed.) A. Koechly. Apotelesmatica. Leipzig, 1858.

Marathakis, Ioannis (ed. and transl.). The Magical Treatise of Solomon or Hygromanteia. Vol. 8,
SWCM. Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2011.

Margalioth, Mordecai (ed.). Sepher ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the
Talmudic Period, Collected from Genizah Fragments and Other Sources. Jerusalem: Yediot
Achronot, 1966. [Hebrew]

Martini, Aemygdius and Bassi, Domenicus (eds.). Codices Mediolanenses, CCAG, Tomus III.
Bruxellis, 1901.

Martini, Aemygdius and Bassi, Domenicus (eds.). Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae, Tomus II. Mediolani: U. Hoepli, 1906.

Mathers, S. L. MacGregor (trans.). The Key of Solomon the King (Clavicula Salomonis). London:
Redway, 1889; rpt. London: Kegan Paul, 1909; rpt. Maine: Samuel Weiser, 2000.

Mathers, S. L. MacGregor, (trans.). The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage. London:
Watkins, 1900.

Mathers, S. L. MacGregor, (trans.), Francis King (ed.). The Grimoire of Armadel. London:
Routledge, 1980.

McCown, Chester C. The Testament of Solomon, edited from manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna,
Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna, with Introduction. Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, Heft 9. Leipsig, 1922.

McLean, Adam (ed.). The Magical Calendar. Edinburgh: Magnum Opus, 1979.

McLean, Adam (ed.). Fiona Tait, Christopher Upton & J. H. W. Walden (trans.). The
Steganographia of Johannes Trithemius. Book I & III. Edinburgh: Magnum Opus, 1982.

McLean, Adam (ed.). A Treatise on Angel Magic, Being a Complete Transcription of MS. Harley
6482 in the British Library, Edinburgh: Magnum Opus Sourceworks, 1982; rpt. Grand
Rapids: Phanes Press, 1990; rpt. York Beach: Weiser, 2006.

426

Meyer, Marvin. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1987.

Meyer, Marvin and Smith, Richard (eds). Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power.
San Francisco: Harper, 1994 rpt. Princeton 1999.

Migne, J. P. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Greco-Latina. 161 vols. Paris, 1857-1866.

Montgomery, James Alan. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1913, rpt. Cambridge: CUP, 2010.

Morgan, Michael. Sepher Ha-Razim, the Book of the Mysteries. (Texts and Translations, No. 25.),
Chico: Scholars Press, 1983.

Nau, F. “Apotelesmata Apollonii Tyanensis’ in Graffin (ed.) Patrologia Syriaca, Part 1, Vol II.
Paris, 1907, pp. 1362-1425.

Neugebauer Otto, and Parker, Richard A. Egyptian Astronomical Texts, III. Decans, Planets,
Constellations and Zodiacs. Providence: Brown University Press; London: Lund
Humphries, 1969.

Olivieri, D, et al (ed.). CCAG, 11 Volumes. Brussels: Académie Royale, 1898-1953.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. Letters from Mesopotamia; Official, Business, and Private Letters on Clay from
Two Millenia. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Paracelsus, Robert Turner (trans.), Stephen Skinner (ed.). The Archidoxes of Magic. London,
1655; London: Askin, 1975; rpt. Berwick: Ibis, 2004.

Parthey, Gustav (ed.) Jamblichi De Mysteriis liber. Berlin: Nicolai, 1857.

Peterson, Joseph. (ed.). The Lesser Key of Solomon: Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis: Goetia,
Theurgia Goetia, Ars Paulina, Ars Almadel, Ars Notoria. York Beach: Weiser, 2001.

Peterson, Joseph (ed.). John Dee’s Five Books of Mystery. York Beach: Weiser, 2003.
Peterson, Joseph (ed.). Grimorium Verum. California: CreateSpace, 2007.
Peterson, Joseph (ed.). The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses. Lake Worth: Ibis, 2008.

Peterson, Joseph. (ed.) Ebenezer Sibley and Frederick Hockley. The Clavis or Key to the Magic
of Solomon. Florida: Ibis, 2009.

Pierini, Pier Luca (ed.). I! Tesoro del Vecchio delle Piramidi [“The Treasure of the Old Man of the
Pyramids’]. Vera Scienza del Talismani per comandare tuttighli Spiriti e annientare ogni
Malefizo. (with La magia della civetta nera, 1750). Viareggio: Rebis, 1987.

Pierini, Pier Luca (ed.). Evocazione agli spiriti Benigni ossia Tesoro de Novene... (Il Libro Magico di
San Pantaleone with II Libro delle Sette Streghe), 1891. rpt. Viareggio: Rebis, 2005.

Pierini, Pier Luca (ed.). Lo Scettro Magico del Re Salomone. Il Libro delle Evocazioni degli Spirit
Thesaurus Nigromante. Prima traduzione italiana di un raro manoscritto di magia medievale.
Viareggio: Rebis, 2005.

Pingree, David. (ed.). Picatrix: The Latin Version of the Ghayat al-Hakim. London: Warburg,
1986.

Plaingiére. Grimorium Verum. [Paris?], 1780.
Porta, Giambattista della. Magia Naturalis, 1558.

Preisendanz, Karl. Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri, 2 Vols. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1928 and 1931, rpt. (revised) Albert Henrichs, 1973-74.

Psellus, Michael, Marcus Collisson (trans.), Stephen Skinner (ed.). On the Operations of
Daemons. [Ilept Aoipovev]. Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2009.

427

Rankine, David and Paul Harry Barron. The Book of Gold: a 17th Century Magical Grimoire...
using the Biblical Psalms of King David. London: Avalonia, 2009.

Rankine, David. The Book of Treasure Spirits: a Grimoire of Magical Conjurations. London:
Avalonia, 2009.

Rankine, David. The Grimoire of Arthur Gauntlet. London: Avalonia, 2011.

Rankine, David and Paul Harry Barron. The Complete Grimoire of Pope Honorius. London:
Avalonia, 2013.

Rice, David and John Stambaugh. Sources for the Study of Greek Religion. Corrected edition,
Society of Biblical Literature, 1979.

Robinson, James (ed.). The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper, 1990.

Ronan, Stephen (ed.). Iamblichus of Chalcis: On the Mysteries (De mystertis Aegyptiorum).
Hastings: Chthonios, 1989.

Rossell, W. H. A Handbook of Aramaic Magical Texts. (Shelton Semitic Series, 2). New Jersey:
Shelton, 1953.

Rudy, Gretchen. The Grand Grimoire. Seattle: Trident & Ars Obscura, 1996.
Sangin, M. A. Codices Rossici, CCAG, Tomus XII. Bruxellis, 1936.

Savedow, Steve (ed. & trans.). Sepher Rezial Hemelach. The Book of the Angel Rezial. York Beach:
Samuel Weiser, 2000.

Scheible, Johann. Das Kloster. 12 Vols. Stuttgart, 1845-49.

Scot, Reginald. Discoverie of Witchcraft. London, 1584, 1665; London: Elliot Stock, 1886. Book
xv, chapter i-iv, pp. 376 et seq.

Sepher ha-Razim, see Margalioth (1966); Morgan (1983).

Sepher Raziel ha-Malak, ssonn oss opp, Amsterdam, 1701, rpt. Warsaw: Aaron Zeilingold,
1870, rpt. 1920.

Shah, Sayed Idries. The Secret Lore of Magic: the Books of the Sorcerers. London: Muller, 1957.

Simon. Papal Magic: Occult Practices within the Catholic Church. New York: Harper, 2007.
[Contains text: The Grimoire of Pope Honorius III.]

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine. The Practical Angel Magic of John Dee’s Enochian Tables,
Vol. 1, SWCM. London: Golden Hoard, 2004.

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine. The Keys to the Gateway of Magic, Vol. 2, SWWCM. London:

Golden Hoard, 2005.

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine. The Goetia of Dr Rudd, Vol. 3, SWCM. London: Golden
Hoard, 2007.

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine. The Veritable Key of Solomon, Vol. 4, SWCM. Singapore:
Golden Hoard, 2008.

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine. The Grimoire of St Cyprian: Clavis Inferni, Vol. 5, SWCM.
Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2009.

Skinner, Stephen and David Rankine (eds.), Harry Barron (trans.). A Collection of Magical
Secrets. London: Avalonia, 2009.

Taylor, Thomas (trans.). lamblichus on the Mysteries. Chiswick: Whittingham, 1821.
Thompson, R. Campbell. The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon.
London: Luzac, 1900.

428

Thompson, R. Campbell. The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia...translated from the original
Cuneiform texts. 2 Volumes. London: Luzac, 1903; rpt. New York: AMS, 1976.

Trithemius, Johannes. Steganographia. Frankfort, 1606, 1621. See McLean (1982).
Turner, Robert. Ars Notoria. London, 1657.

Turner, Robert. The Heptarchia Mystica of John Dee. Edinburgh: Magnum Opus, 1983, rpt.
Wellingborough: Aquarian, 1986.

Turner, Robert, et al. Elizabethan Magic: The Art and the Magus. Longmead: Element, 1989.

Usener, Hermannus. ‘Se Stephano Alexandrino’ in Index scolarum quae summis auspictis Regis
augustissimi Guilelmi imperatoris Germaniae... in Kleine Schriften, II. Leipzig & Berlin:
Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr., 1914, pp. 247-322.

Véronese, Julien. L’Ars Notoria au Moyen Age: Introduction et édition critique, Micrologus’
Library. Firenze: Galluzzo, 2007.

Waite, A. E. The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, Privately Printed, Edinburgh, 1898; rpt. York
Beach: Samuel Weiser, 1972.

Waite, A. E. The Secret Tradition in Goetia. London: Rider, 1911.
Waite, A. E. The Book of Ceremonial Magic. New York: University Books, 1961.

Warnock, Christopher. Kyranides: on the Occult Virtues of Plants, Animals & Stones - Hermetic
& Talismanic Magic, Lulu, 2006.

Waterfield, Robin (trans.). The Theology of Arithmetic (attrib. to lamblichus). Grand Rapids:
Phanes, 1988.

Wentworth, Joshua (trans.). The Authentic Red Dragon (Le Véritable Dragon Rouge)...The Black
Hen (La Poule Noir) translated from the French Edition, 1521; rpt. York Beach: Teitan, 2011.

Wilder, Alexander (trans.). Theurgia, or the Egyptian Mysteries. London: Rider, 1911.

429

Secondary Literature

Abrahamse, D. de F. ‘Magic and Sorcery in the Hagiography of the Middle Byzantine Period,’
in Byzantinische Forschungen 7, 1982. pp. 3-17.

Akerman, Susanna. ‘Queen Christina’s Latin Sefer-ha-Raziel Manuscript, in Judeo-Christian
Intellectual Culture in the Seventeenth Century: A Celebration of the Library of Narcissus
Marsh (1638-1713), [International Archives, 163] ed. Allison P. Coudert, Sarah Hutton,
Richard H. Popkin, and Gordon M. Weiner. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1999.

Alexander, P. S. ‘Incantations and Books of Magic’ in The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ. (ed.) Emil Schurer, III/I. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986, pp. 342-79.

Amoretti, Biancamaria. La Diffusione delle Scienze Islamiche nel Medio Evo Europeo. Rome:
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1987.

Andrews, Carol. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London, 1994.
Anglo, Sydney (ed.). The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft. London: RKP, 1977.
Angus, Samuel. The Mystery-Religions and Christianity. 1924, rpt. Kessinger, n.d.

Angusheva, Adelina. ‘Divination, Demons and Magic: a Hellenistic Theme from the
Byzantine and Medieval Slavic Perspective’ in Burnett, Charles and W. F. Ryan (eds.).
Magic and the Classical Tradition. London: Warburg, 2006.

Ankaloo, Bengt and Stuart Clark (eds). Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and
Rome. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1999.

Aronen, Jaakko. ‘Hecate’s Share in the Cosmic Order’ in Gothoni, René and Julia Pentikaéinen
(eds.) [Studia Fennica, 32] Helsinki: Suomalaisen, 1987.

Asirvatham, Sulochana (ed.). C. O. Pache, John Watrous, et al. Between Magic and Religion.
Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society. New York:
Rowman, 2001.

Avilés, A. Garcia. ‘Alfonso X y el Liber Razielis: imagines de la magia astral judia en el
scriptorius Alfonsi,’ in Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, Volume 74, Number 1: January
1997, Carfax Publishing/ Liverpool University Press, 1997, pp. 21-39.

Bachter, Stephen. “Grimoires and the Transmission of Magical Knowledge’ in Davies, Owen
and Blécourt, Willem de (eds.). Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in
Enlightenment Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

Bailey, Michael D. Battling Demons: Witchcraft, Heresy, and Reform in the Late Middle Ages
[Magic In History Series]. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.

Bamberger, B. J. Fallen Angels. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952 rpt. 2006.

Barb, A. A. “The Survival of Magic Arts’ in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963, pp. 100-125.

Barb, A. A. ‘Three Elusive Amulets’ in JWCI, Vol. 27, 1964.

Barbierato, Federico. ‘Il testo impossibilla Clavicula Salomonis a Venezia (secoli XVII-XVIII),’
in Annali della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Vol 32, 1998.

Barbierato, Federico. “Magical literature and the Venice Inquisition from the sixteenth to the
eighteenth centuries’ in Gilly, Carlos (ed.). Magic, Alchemy and Science 15th-18th
Centuries: the influence of Hermes Trismegistus. Amsterdam and Venice: Centro Di and
Bibliotheca Hermetica, 2002.

Barbierato, Federico. Nella Stanza dei Circoli: Clavicula Salomonis e Libri di magia a Venezia net
secoli XVII e XVIII. Milan: Bonnard, 2002.

430

Bardon, Franz. The Practice of Magical Evocation: Instructions for Invoking Spirits from the Spheres
Surrounding Us. Graz: Rudolf Pravica, 1956.

Baroja, Julio Caro. Vidas Magicas e Inquisicion. Barcelona: Taurus, 1967.

Barry, Kieren. The Greek Qabalah. York Beach: Weiser, 1999.

Barton, Tamsyn. Ancient Astrology. London: Routledge, 1994, rpt. Ponting-Green, 2006.

Beck, Roger. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras. Leiden: Brill, 1988.
Beés, Nikos (ed.). Ta Kheirographa ton Meteoron, vol. 1. Athens: Academy of Athens, 1967.
Beitzel, Barry. The New Moody Atlas of the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 2009.

Betz, Hans Dieter. ‘Fragments from a Catabasis Ritual in a Greek Magical Papyrus’ in History
of Religions, 19, 1980, pp. 287-295.

Betz, Hans Dieter. “The Formation of Authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, ed. B. F. Meyers and E P Sanders, Vol. 3.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Betz, Hans Dieter. ‘Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in Magika Hiera: Ancient
Greek Magic and Religion, ed. Christopher Faraone and Dirk Obbink. New York: OUP,
1991, pp. 244-259.

Betz, Hans Dieter. ‘Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in
the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religion, ed. Hans Kippenberg and Guy
Stroumsa. (Numen Book Series 64) Leiden: Brill, 1995, pp. 153-75.

Betz, Hans Dieter. The “Mithras Liturgy.” Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Bidez, J. and Franz Cumont. Les Mages Hellenisé: Zoroaster, Ostanes, et Hystaspe d'apres la
tradition grecque. 2 Vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1938.

Blécourt, Willem de and Owen Davies (eds.). Witchcraft Continued: Popular Magic in Modern
Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

Bloom, Maureen. Jewish Mysticism and Magic, London: Routledge, 2007.

Bloom, Miriam. ‘Sacred Ceremony and Magical Praxis in Jewish texts of early and Late
Antiquity.’ Ph.D thesis Brunel University, 1999.

Blum, C. “The Meaning of stoiceion [stoicheion] and its Derivatives in the Byzantine Age,’ in
Eranos-Jahrbuch XLIV, 1946. pp. 315-325.

Blum, R and Blum, E. The Dangerous Hour. The Lore of Crisis and Mystery in Rural Greece.
London, 1970.

Bogdan, Henrik. Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation. Albany: University of New York,
2007.

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Greek, Coptic & Jewish Magic in the Cairo Genizah,’ in Bulletin of the
American Society of Papyrologists, No. 36, 1999, pp. 27-44.

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the interpretation of Voces Magica’
in Scott Noegel (ed.) Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 69-82.

Bohak, Gideon. “Reconstructing Jewish Magical Recipe Books From the Cairo Genizah,’ in
Ginzei Qedem, No. 1, 2005, pp. 9-29.

Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: a History. Cambridge: CUP, 2008.

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Prolegomena to the Study of the Jewish Magical Tradition,’ in Currents in
Biblical Research, 8, 2009, pp. 107-150.

431

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Jewish Magical Traditions from Late Antique Palestine to the Cairo
Genizah,’ in H. M. Cotton, Wasserstein, et al (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural
and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Cambridge, 2009, pp. 321-339.

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Towards a Catalogue of the Magical, Astrological, Divinatory, and
Alchemical Fragments from the Cambridge Genizah Collections,’ in Ben Outhwaite &
Bhayro (eds.), From a Sacred Source. Leyden: Brill, 2010, pp. 53-80.

Bohak, Gideon. ‘Magic and Divination’ in Bohak, Gideon, Harari and Shaked, Continuity and
Innovation in the Magical Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Bohak, Gideon, Yuval Harari and Shaul Shaked. Continuity and Innovation in the Magical
Tradition (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture). Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Bokser, Ben Zion. The Jewish Mystical Tradition. New York: Pilgrim, 1981.

Boll, Franciscus (ed.). Codices Germanici, CCAG, Tomus VII. Bruxellis, 1908.

Bonner, Campbell. “The Techniques of Exorcism’ in HTR, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan 1943, pp. 39-49.
Bonner, Campbell. ‘The Violence of Departing Demons,’ in HTR, Vol. 37, 1944, pp. 334-336.

Bonner, Campbell. Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, 1950.

Boudet, Jean-Patrice. ‘Magie theurgique, angelologie et vision beatifique’ in Liber sacratus sive
juratus attribue a Honorius de Thebes, Melanges de l’Ecole Francaise de Rome. Moyen
Age, 114:2, 2002, pp. 851-890.

Boudet, Jean-Patrice and J. Veronese. “Le secret dans la magie rituelle medievale,’ in II
Segreto. The Secret, Micrologus XIV, 2006, pp. 101-150.

Boudet, Jean-Patrice. Entre science et nigromance. Astrologie, divination et magie dans l’Occident
medieval (XIle-XVe siecle). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2006.

Boudet, Jean-Patrice, Anna Caiozzo and Nicolas Weill-Parot (eds.). Images et Magie: Picatrix
entre Orient et Occident. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2011.

Boustan, Ra’anan and Annette Reed. Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique
Religions. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.

Bowden, Hugh. Mystery Cults of the Ancient World. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2010.

Brashear, William. “The Greek Magical Papyri: an Introduction and Survey; Annotated
Bibliography (1928-1994)’ in ANRW II, 18.5, 1995, pp. 3380-3684.

Bremmer, Jan N. ‘The Birth of the Term “Magic”’ in ZFPE, Bd. 126, 1999, pp. 1-12.

Bremmer, Jan N., and Veenstra, Jan R. (eds), The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to
the Early Modern Period. Connecticut: David Brown, 2002.

Brown, P. ‘Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle
Ages,’ in Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, (ed.) M. Douglas. ASA Monographs 9.
London: Routledge, 2010. pp. 17-45.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Amulets and Talismans. Originally published Oxford/Cambridge, 1930,
as Amulets and Superstitions; rpt. New York: Collier Books, 1970.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Egyptian Magic. 1899. rpt. New York: Dover, 1971.

Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. London: Harvard, 1987.

Burnett, Charles. “Arabic, Greek, and Latin Works on Astrological Magic attributed to Aristotle,’
in J Kraye, W F Ryan, C B Schmitt (eds.). Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages. London, 1986.

432

Burnett, Charles. Magic and Divination in the Middle Ages. Texts and Techniques in the Islamic
and Christian Worlds [Variorum Collected Studies Series: CS557]. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1996.

Burnett, Charles. ‘Talismans: Magic as Science? Necromancy among the Seven Liberal Arts,’
in Magic and Divination in the Middle Ages. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1996. pp. 1-13.

Burnett, Charles. ‘Late Antique and Medieval Latin Translations of Greek Texts on Astrology
and Magic’ in Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi, The Occult Sciences in Byzantium.
Geneva: La Pomme d'or, 2006, pp. 325-360.

Burnett, Charles and W. F. Ryan (eds.). Magic and the Classical Tradition. London: Warburg,
2006.

Butler, E. M. The Myth of the Magus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
Butler, E. M. Ritual Magic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949; rpt. 1979.
Butler, E. M. The Fortunes of Faust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Butler, Edward P. ‘Offering to the Gods: a Neoplatonic Perspective’ in Magic, Ritual, and
Witchcraft, Vol. 2, No. 1, Summer 2007, pp. 1-20.

Cameron, Euan. Enchanted Europe: Superstition, Reason, and Religion, 1250-1750. Oxford, 2010.
Campbell, Josie P. Popular Culture in the Middle Ages. Wisconsin: Popular Press, 1986.

Caquot A. and Leibovici, M. (eds.). La Divination. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1968.

Carey, Hilary M. Courting Disaster: Astrology at the English Court and University in the Later
Middle Ages. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1992.

Carroll, Scott. “A Preliminary Analysis of the Epistle of Rehoboam,’ in Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha 4, 1989, pp. 91-103.

Cauzons, Th. de. Magic and Sorcery in France, I. Palm Springs: I.G.O.5., 1994.

Chambers, John (trans.). The Divine Pymander and other Writings of Hermes Trismegistus. New
York: Weiser, 1972.

Christian, Paul, (trans.) James Kirkup and Julian Shaw (ed.) Ross Nichols. The History and
Practice of Magic. New York: Citadel Press, 1963.

Ciraolo, L. J. and J. Seidel (eds.). Magic and Divination in the Ancient World. Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 2002.

Clarke, Emma. lamblichus De Mystertis: a Manifesto of the Miraculous. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2001.

Clarke, Stuart. Thinking with Demons. Oxford: OUP, 1997.

Clinton, Kevin. “A New Lex Sacra from Selinus: Kindly Zeuses, Eumenides, Impure and Pure
Tritopatores, and Elasteroi,’ in Classical Philology, Vol. 91, No. 2, April. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1996, pp. 159-179.

Conybeare, F. C. “The Testament of Solomon,’ in Jewish Quarterly Review XI, 1898-1899, pp. 1-45.

Conybeare, F. C. (trans.). Philostratus: the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. London: Harvard
University Press, 2000.

Copenhaver, Brian P. ‘Magic’ in The Cambridge History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006, Vol. 3.

Couliano, Ioan P. ‘Magia spirituale e magia demonica nel Rinascimento’ in Rivista de Storia e
Letteratura Religiosa, Vol 17, Turin, 1981, pp. 360-408.

Couliano, loan P. Eros and Magic in the Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
433

1987.

Cumont, Franz. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. London: Putnam, rpt.
New York: Dover, 1960.

D’ Agostino, Alfonso. Astromagia [MS. Lat 1283a]. Naples: Liguore, 1992.

D’Auria, Sue, Peter Lacovara and Catharine Roehrig. Mummies & Magic: the Funerary Arts of
Ancient Egypt. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1992.

D’Avray, D. L. The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris before 1300. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1985.

Daiches, Samuel. Babylonian Oil Magic in the Talmud and in the Later Jewish Literature. London,
TOD:

Dan, J. ‘Raziel, Book of,’ in Encyclopedia Judaica 13, Jerusalem, 1971. pp. 1592-93.

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels. New York: Free Press,
1967.

Davies, Owen. Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Davies-Browne, Bankole. “The significance of parallels between the Testament of Solomon and
Jewish literature of Late Antiquity... and the New Testament.’ Ph.D thesis University
of St. Andrews, 2003.

Davila, James. Descenders to the Chariot: the People behind the Hekhalot Literature. Boston: Brill,
2001.

De Bresche, Pierre. Traite des Talismans, n.p., 1671.
De Claremont, Lewis. The Ancient’s Book of Magic. New York: Oracle, 1936.

De Givry, Emile Grillot. Picture Museum of Sorcery, Magic, and Alchemy, (trans. Courtney Locke
from Le Musee Des Sorciers, Mages et Alchemistes, Paris, 1929). New Hyde Park:
University Books, 1963.

De Givry, Emile Grillot, (trans.) Courtenay Locke. Witchcraft, Magic and Alchemy. New York:
Dover, 1971.

Delatte, Armand (ed.). “Le Traité des Plantes Planétaires d’un Manuscrit de Leningrad,’ in
Annuaire de I'Institute de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 1X, 1949, pp. 145-177.

Delatte, Armand. ‘Etudes sur la magie grecque (I) v, ‘éxé@ahog O86¢,’ in Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 38, 1914, pp. 189-249.

Delatte, Armand (ed.). ‘Un Nouveau Témoin de la Littérature Solomonique, le Codex
Gennadianus 45 d’Athénes,’ in Bulletin de l’Academie Royale de Belgique, 5eme série, XLV,
1959, pp. 280-321.

Delatte, Louis. Un Office Byzantin d’Exorcisme. Classe de Lettres, Mémoires 2°™¢ série, 52.1.
Brussels: Académie Royal de Belgique, 1957.

Dennis, Rabbi Geoffrey. Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism. Woodbury:
Llewellyn, 2008.

Dickie, Matthew W. “The Learned Magician and the Collection and Transmission of Magical Lore’
in Jordan, David (ed.) The World of Ancient Magic, PNIA 4. Bergen, 1999, pp. 163-193.

Dickie, Matthew W. ‘The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye,’ in International Journal of
the Classical Tradition, Fall 1998, pp. 9-32.

Dickie, Matthew W. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2001.
Dieleman, Jacco and Ian Moyer. ‘“Miniaturization and the Opening of the Mouth in a Greek

434

Magical Text (PGM XII. 270-350),’ in JANER 3, 2003, pp. 47-72.

Dieleman, Jacco. Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and
Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100-300 CE). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005.

Dieterich, Albrecht. Eine Mithrasliturgie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903, rpt. Darmstadt, 1966.

Dodd, David B. and Faraone, Christopher A. (eds.). Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and
Narratives, Routledge, London, 2003.

Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951.
Dukes, E. D. Magic and Witchcraft in the Dark Ages. Lanham, MD, 1996.

Duling, Dennis C. “The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius
Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae, 8:42-49,’ in HTR, Vol. 78. 1-2, 1985, pp. 1-25.

Duling, Dennis C. “The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect,’ in Journal for the
Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2, 1988, pp. 87-112.

Dzielska, Maria. Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History, trans. Piotr Pienkowski. Rome:
“L'Erma” di Bretschneider, 1986.

Eamon, William. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern
Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Eitrem, Samson. Les Papyrus Magiques Grecs de Paris. Kristiania, 1923.

Eitrem, Samson. “Dreams and Divination in Magical Ritual’ in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek
Magic and Religion ed. Faraone and Obbink. New York: OUP, 1991, pp. 175-87.

Elior, Rachel. “Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology - the Perception of Angels in Hekhalot
Literature, in Jewish Studies Quarterly 1, 1993-4, pp. 3-53.

Ennemoser, Joseph, (trans.) William Howitt. The History of Magic, 2 Vols. 1854; rpt. New
Hyde Park: University Books, 1970.

Fabricius, Johann Albert. Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti. Hamburg: Felgineri, 1713.
Faivre, Antoine. The Eternal Hermes. Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1995.

Fanger, Claire (ed.). Conjuring Spirits: Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic.
Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing and Pennsylvania State UP, 1998.

Fanger, Claire. ‘Virgin Territory: Purity and Divine Knowledge in Late Medieval Catoptro-
mantic Texts,’ in Aries, New Series, vol. 5, no. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth
Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Fanger, Claire. ‘Covenant and the Divine Name: Revisiting the Liber iuratus and John of
Morigny’s Liber florum’ in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and
Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University,
2012.

Faraone, Christopher. ‘Binding and Burying the Forces of Evil: The Defensive Use of “Voodoo
Dolls” in Ancient Greece,’ in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 2, Oct. 1991, pp. 165-220.

Faraone, Christopher. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and
Ritual. New York: OUP, 1992.

Faraone, Christopher A. “The Wheel, the Whip and Other Implements of Torture: Erotic
Magic in Pindar’s Pythian 4.213-19,’ in The Classical Journal, Volume 89, No. 1, Oct-
Nov 1993, Classical Association of the Midwest and South, 1993.

Faraone, Christopher. “Notes on Three Greek Magical Texts’ in ZFPE 100, 1994, pp. 81-86.
435

Faraone, Christopher. “The Collapse of Celestial and Chthonic Realms in a Late Antique
‘Apollonian Invocation’ (PGM I 262-347),’ in Boustan and Reed, eds., Heavenly Realms
and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004.

Faraone, Christopher and Dirk Obbink (eds.). Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion.
New York: OUP, 1991.

Faraone, Christopher and Roy Kotansky. “An inscribed Gold Phylactery in Stamford,
Conneticut,’ in ZFPE, Bd. 75, 1988, pp. 257-266.

Faulkner, R. O. ‘The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus’ I-IV in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 22-24.

Faust, Johannes. Magia Naturalis et Innaturalis. J. Scheible (ed.). Stuttgart, 1848: rpt. Berlin:
Schikowski, 1995.

Flint, Valerie I. J. The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1991.

Flowers, Stephen Eldred. Hermetic Magic: the Postmodern Magical Papyrus of Abaris. Boston:
Weiser, 1995.

Fowden, Garth. The Egyptian Hermes, an Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. Princeton:
Princeton University, 1986.

Frankfurter, David. “The Magic of Writing and the Writing of Magic: the Power of the Word
in Egyptian and Greek Traditions’ in Helios 21, 1994, pp. 189-221.

Frankfurter, David. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton
University, 1998.

Frantz-Szabo, Gabriella. ‘Hittite Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination,’ in Jack M. Sasson (ed.),
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Il. New York: Scribner, 2007-2012.

Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Hermetica. New York: Penguin/Tarcher, 1999.
Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries. New York: Three Rivers, 1999.

Frieduch, Peter. De Prodigiosis Naturee et Artis Operibus Talisman et Amulet. Hamburg: Christian
Leibez, 1717.

Gager, John G. Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism, Society of Biblical Literature 16. New York:
Abingdon, 1972.

Gager, John G. (ed.) Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: OUP,
1922,

Gahlin, Lucia. Egypt: Gods, Myths and Religions. London: Hermes, 2007.
Ganszyniec, R. ‘Asxavouavteto’ in PRE, 12, 1925, pp. 1879-89.

Gardiner, A. H. ‘Professional Magicians in Ancient Egypt’ in Proceedings of the Society for
Biblical Archaeology, 39.

Gardner, Frederick Leigh & Hockley, Frederick & Redgrove, Stanley. Hebrew Talismanic
Magic, ed. Darcy Kuntz [Kabbalistic Grimoire Series V]. Edmunds: Holmes, 2001.

Gauthier, J. ‘Grimoire d’un sorcier du XV siécle’ in Revue des Sorciétés Savantes, 7th series, VI,
1882, pp. 200-209.

Gehr, Damaris Aschera. ‘Spiritus et angeli sunt a Deo submissi sapienti et puro’: il
frammento del Magisterium eumantice artis sive scienciae magicalis. Edizione e
attribuzione a Berengario Ganello,’ in Aries, Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism,
11.2, 2011, pp. 189-217.

Gehr, Damaris Aschera. “Dietro le quinte della falsificazione pseudepigrafica: una nuova

436

determinazione delle fasi redazionali del Liber Razielis in sette libri, dell’ identita dei
compilatori suoi protagonisti, e delle coordinate per la loro datazione,’ in Viator,
Multilingual Edition, 43, 2012.

Geller, Markham. ‘Jesus’ Theurgic Powers: Parallels in the Talmud and Incantation Bowls,’ in
Journal of Jewish Studies, 28, Oxford, 1977, pp. 141-155.

Gentile, S. and Carlos Gilly. Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Ermete Trismegisto. Firenze: Centro
Di, 1999.

Gersh, Stephen. From Iamblichus to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Gilly, Carlos and C. van Heertum (eds.). Magic, Alchemy and Science 15th-18th Centuries: the
influence of Hermes Trismegistus. Amsterdam and Venice: Centro Di and Bibliotheca
Hermetica, 2002.

Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews, 7 Vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1909-38.

Godelmanni, Joannnis Georgii. Tractatus de Magis, Veneficis et Lamiis, recte cognoscendis et
Puniendis...in Tres Libros. Noribergae, n.p., 1676.

Godwin, Joscelyn. The Mystery of the Seven Vowels. Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1991.

Godwin, Joscelyn. Light in Extension: Greek Magic from Homer to Modern Times. St. Paul:
Llewellyn, 1992.

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008.

Gordon, Richard. ‘Reporting the Marvellous: Private Divination in the Greek Magical Papyri’
in Peter Schafer and Hans Kippenberg (eds.) in Envisioning Magic, A Princeton Seminar
and Symposium. Studies in the History of Religions 75. Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 65-92.

Gordon, Richard and Francisco Marco Simon (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin West. Papers
from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 2005. Leiden:
Brill, 2010.

Graf, Fritz. ‘Prayer in Magical and Religious Ritual’ in Christopher Faraone and Dirk Obbink
(eds.). Magika Hiera, Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. New York and Oxford, 1991,
pp.188-213.

Graf, Fritz. Magic in the Ancient World. London and Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1997.

Graf, Fritz. “Magic and Divination: two Apolline Oracles on Magic’ in Bohak, Harari and Shaked,
Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture).
Leiden: Brill, 2011, pp. 119-133.

Greene, Thomas M. ‘Language, Signs and Magic,’ in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar &
Symposium, ed. Peter Schafer and Hans G. Kippenberg. Leiden - New York - KélIn:
Brill, 1997.

Greenfield, Richard. Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology. Amsterdam: Hakkert,
1988.

Greenfield, Richard. ‘Sorcery and Politics at the Byzantine Court in the Twelfth Century:
Interpretations of History’ in Beaton and Roueché (eds.) The Making of Byzantine
History. London: Aldershot and Brookfield, 1993, pp. 73-93.

Greenfield, Richard. “A Contribution to the Study of Palaeologan Magic’ in Maguire, Henry
(ed.). Byzantine Magic. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995.

Griffiths, J. G. Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI), EPRO, 39. Leiden:
437

Brill, 1975.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Guazzo, Francesco Maria, E. A. Ashwin (trans.), Montague Summers (ed.). Compendium
Maleficarum. Milan: 1608; rpt. London: John Rodker, 1929; rpt. New York: Dover,
1988.

Haldon, John. The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Hamill, John (ed.). The Rosicrucian Seer: Magical Writings of Frederick Hockley. (Note) R. A.
Gilbert. Wellingborough: Aquarian, 1986; revised edition R. A. Gilbert, York Beach:
Teitan, 2009.

Hanegraaff, Wouter. Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge and Western Culture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012.

Hanegraaff, Wouter, Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek and Jean-Pierre Brach (eds.).
Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Harms, Daniel. ‘Grimoires in the Conjure Tradition,’ in Journal for the Academic Study of
Magic, Issue 5, ed. Susan Johnson Graf and Amy Hale. Oxford: Mandrake of Oxford,
2009.

Heintz, Florent. “A Greek Silver Phylactery in the MacDaniel Collection,’ in ZFPE, Bd. 112,
1996, pp. 295-300.

Henson, Mitch and Gail. ‘Magical Notebooks: A Survey of the Grimoires in the Golden
Dawn,’ in The Golden Dawn Journal, Book III: The Art Of Hermes. St. Paul: Llewellyn,
1995.

Hirsch, Maurice E., Price I., Bacher W., Seligsohn M., Montgomery M. and Howell, Toy C.
‘Solomon,’ in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, 1925, pp. 436-448.

Holmes, C. and J. Waring (eds.). Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium
and Beyond. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Hort, Arthur (transl. & ed.). Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants. 1, Book I-V. New York: Loeb,
1916.

Hull, John. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. London: SCM, 1974, pp. 5-9, 15-44.

Hutton, Ronald. Witches, Druids and King Arthur. London and New York: Hambledon, 2003.
Chapter 5.

Idel, Moshe. “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance,’
in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bernard Cooperman. Cambridge and
London: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Idel, Moshe. “Hermeticism and Judaism,’ in Hermeticism and Renaissance Intellectual History
and the Occult in the Early Modern Europe, ed. Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus.
Washington: Folger, 1988.

Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.). Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Izmirlieva, Valentina. All the Names of the Lord: Lists, Mysticism, and Magic. Chicago/ London:
University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Jackson, Howard. ‘The Origin in Ancient Incantatory Voces Magicae of some Names in the
Sethian Gnostic System,’ in Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 43, No. 1, Mar. 1989, pp. 69-79.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness; a History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1976.

James, Geoffrey. Angel Magic: the Ancient Art of Summoning and Communicating with Angelic
438

Beings. St. Paul: Llewellyn, 1997.

Janowitz, Naomi. Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians, (Religion In The First
Christian Centuries), London/ New York: Routledge, 2001.

Janowitz, Naomi. Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2002.

Jaré, Giuseppi. Abramo Colorni, Ingegnere Mantovano ccc., Con Ducumenti Inediti. Mantua, 1874;
rpt. Ferrara, 1891.

Jeffers, Ann. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Johnson, Janet H. “The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384’ in OMRO 56, 1975, pp. 29-64.
Johnson, Janet H. “Louvre E3229: A Demotic Magical Text’ in Enchoria 7, 1977, pp. 55-102.

Johnson, Luke T. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 2009.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. Hecate Soteira: a Study of Hekate’s Role in the Chaldean Oracles and Related
Literature. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. “The Song of the lynx: Magic and Rhetoric in Pythian 4,’ in Transactions
of the American Philological Association, 125, 1995, pp. 177-206.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. ‘Rising to the Occasion: Theurgic Ascent in its Cultural Milieu,’ in
Scafer, Peter, and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds.). Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar
and Symposium, Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece.
Berkeley: University of California, 1999.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. “The Testament of Solomon from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance,’ in The
Metamorphosis of Magic, Jan Bremmer and Jan Veenstra (eds.). Leuven: Peeters, 2002.

Johnston, Sarah Iles and Struck, Peter T. (eds.). Mantiké: Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden:
Brill, 2005.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. Ancient Greek Divination. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. “Ancient Greek Divination’ in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft. Vol. 5, No. 2,
Winter 2010.

Jordan, D. R. ‘A New Reading of a Phylactery from Beirut,’ in ZFPE, Bd. 88, 1991, pp. 61-69.

Jordan, David, Hugo Montgomery, Einar Thomassen (eds.). The World of Ancient Magic: Papers
From the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4-8
May 1997. (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4-8), Bergen, 1999.

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Thomas Falls (trans.). Washington: CUAP, 2003.

Kaegi, Walter. ‘The Fifth Century Twilight of Byzantine Paganism,’ in Classica et Medievalia
Vol. 27, 1966, pp. 243-75.

Kahane, Henry and Renée, and Angelina Pietrangeli. ‘Picatrix and the Talismans,’ in Romance
Philology, 19:4, 1966, pp. 574-593.

Kanarfogel, Ephraim. Peering Through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in
the Tosafist Period. Wayne State University Press, 1999.

Kartsonis, Anna. ‘Protection against all Evil: Function, Use and Operation of Byzantine
Historiated Phylacteries,’ in Byzantinische Forschungen, 20, 1994, pp. 73-102, plates 1-9.

Kazhdan, Alexander. Holy and Unholy Miracle Workers in Henry Maguire (ed.) Byzantine
Magic. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995, pp. 73-82.

439

Kenny, John Peter (ed). The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion. Atlanta:
Scholars, 1995.

Khanam, R. Demonology: Socio-Religious belief of Witchcraft. Delhi: Global, 2003.

Kieckhefer, Richard. Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989;
rpt. 1995, 2003.

Kieckhefer, Richard. “The Devil’s Contemplatives: the Liber Iuratus, the Visionem and the
Christian Appropriation of Jewish Occultism,’ in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Conjuring Spirits:
Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing and
Pennsylvania State UP, 1998.

Kiesel, William. Magic Circles in the Grimoire Tradition. Richmond Vista: Three Hands, 2012.

Kilcher, Andreas. ‘The Moses of Sinai and the Moses of Egypt: Moses as Magician in Jewish
Literature and Western Esotericism’ in Aries, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 150.

Kilcher, Andreas (ed.). Constructing Tradition: Means and Myths of Transmission in Western
Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

King, Francis, and Sutherland, Isabel. The Rebirth of Magic. London: Corgi, 1982.
King, Leonard. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, 1896 rpt. Kessinger 2010.

Kippenberg, Hans and Guy Stroumsa (ed.). Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of
Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religion. (Numen Book Series 64) Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Klaassen, Frank. ‘English Manuscripts of Magic, 1300-1500: a Preliminary Survey,’ in Fanger,
Claire (ed.). Conjuring Spirits: Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic. Gloucester-
shire: Sutton Publishing and Pennsylvania State UP, 1998.

Klaassen, Frank. Religion, Science, and the Transformations of Magic: Manuscripts of Magic 1300-
1600. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Toronto, 1999.

Klaassen, Frank. ‘Medieval Ritual Magic in the Renaissance,’ in Aries, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 2.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Klaassen, Frank. ‘Ritual Invocation and Early Modern Science: the Skrying Experiments of
Humphrey Gilbert’ in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices,
Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Klaassen, Frank. The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and
Renaissance. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2013.

Klutz, Todd (ed.). Magic in the Biblical World: from the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon.
London: Clark, 2003.

Klutz, Todd (ed.). Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late
Antique Pseudepigraphon. Library of Second Temple Studies No. 53. London: Clarke,
2005.

Kotansky, Roy. Texts and Studies in the Graeco-Egyptian Magic Lamellae. Ph.D Dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1988.

Kotansky, Roy. Greek Magical Amulets: the Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper and Bronze Lamellae.
Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1994.

Kousoulis, Panagiotis. Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the
Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven:
Peeters, 2011.

Kramer, Heinrich and James Sprenger. Montague Summers (trans.). The Malleus Maleficarum.
Rome, 1484; rpt. London: John Rodker, 1928; rpt. New York: Dover, 1971.

440

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Iter Italicum, 7 Volumes, Leiden: Brill, 1963-97.
Kroll, Guilelmus (ed.). Codices Vindobonenses, CCAG, Tomus VI. Bruxellis, 1903.
Kroll, Guilelmus, and Olivieri, Alexander (eds.). Codices Veneti, CCAG, Tomus II. Bruxellis, 1900.

Kuntz, Darcy (ed.). The History of Dr. John Faustus, Showing how he sold himself to the Devil, to
Have Twenty-Four Years to do whatsoever he pleased, [Kabbalistic Grimoire Series VII].
Edmonds: Holmes, 2001; Sequoia: Holmes, 2008.

Kusukawa, Sachiko and Ian Maclean (eds.). Transmitting Knowledge: Words, Images, and
Instruments in Early Modern Europe. Oxford: OUP, 2006.

Lambros, Spyridon. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos. Cambridge, 1895.
Lane, Edward. Modern Egyptians. London: Paisley, 1896.

Lang, Benedek. Unlocked Books: Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central
Europe [Magic in History Series]. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
2008.

Latham, R. E. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources. London: British
Academy, 1965.

Lecouteux, Claude. Le Livres des Grimoires. Paris: Imago, 2008.

Legge, Francis. “The Names of Demons in the Magic Papyri’ in Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology, Vol. XXIII, 1901, pp. 41-49.

Legge, Francis. Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity being Studies in Religious History from 330
BC to 330 AD. 2 Vols., Cambridge: CUP, 1915.

Lehner, Mark. The Complete Pyramids. London: Thames & Hudson, 2008.
Leitch, Aaron. Secrets of the Magical Grimoires. Woodbury: Llewellyn, 2005.

Lemay, Richard. “Books of Magic in translation from the Arabic...’ in Charmes et Sortiléges
Magie et Magiciens. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour I’Etude de la Civilisation du
Moyen-Orient, 2002.

Lesses, Rebecca. ‘Speaking Angels: Jewish and Greco-Egyptian Revelatory Adjurations’ in
HTR, Vol. 89, No. 1, Jan, 1996, pp. 41-60.

Lesses, Rebecca. Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Adjurations in the Hekhalot Literature, Jewish
Amulets, and Greek Revelatory Adjurations. Ph.D diss., Harvard, 1995. Harrisburg:
Harvard Theological Studies, 1998.

Levinson, Joshua. ‘Enchanting Rabbis: Contest Narratives between Rabbis and Magicians in
Late Antiquity’ in Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 100, No. 1, Winter 2010, pp. 54-94.

Lewis, Naphtali. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Oakville: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001.
Lindsay, Jack. Leisure and Pleasure in Roman Egypt. London: Muller, 1965.

Luck, Georg. ‘Theurgy and Forms of Worship in Neoplatonism,’ in Neusner, Jacob, et al.,
(eds.), Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and Conflict. New York: OUP, 1989.

MacMullen, Ramsey. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1997.

Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi. The Occult Sciences in Byzantium. Geneva: La Pomme
d'Or, 2006.

Maguire, Henry (ed.). Byzantine Magic. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995.
Manniche, Lise. An Ancient Egyptian Herbal. London: British Museum, 1989.

441

Marathakis, loannis. Anazétontas ten Kleida tou Solomonta. Athens: Eidikos Typos, 2007.

Marathakis, Ioannis. From the Ring of Gyges to the Black Cat Bone: A Historical Survey of the
Invisibility Spells, http: //www.hermetics.org/invisibilitas.html, 2007.

Marathakis, Ioannis. “A Source of the Key of Solomon: The Magic Treatise or Hygromancy or
Epistle to Rehoboam,’ in Primordial Traditions, Issue 13, March 2009.

Marathakis, Ioannis. The Magical Treatise of Solomon or Hygromanteia. Vol. 8, SWWCM. Singapore:
Golden Hoard, 2011.

Margoulias, H. J. ‘The Lives of the Byzantine Saints as Sources of Data for the History of
Magic in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries AD; Sorcery, Relics and Icons’ in Byzantion,
No. 37, 1967, pp. 228-269.

Marqueés-Riviere, Jean. Amulettes, talismans et pentacles dans les traditions orientales et
occidentals. Paris: Payor, 1972.

Massello, Robert. Raising Hell: A Concise History of the Black Arts — and Those Who Dared to
Practise Them. New York: Perigree, 1996.

Mastrocinque, Attilio. From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Mathiesen, Robert. “A Thirteenth-Century Ritual to Attain the Beatific Vision from the Sworn
Book of Honorius of Thebes,’ in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Conjuring Spirits: Texts and
Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing & Pennsylvania
State UP, 1998.

Mathiesen, Robert. ‘Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa: The Written Tradition’ in International Journal
of the Classical Tradition, 252, Fall 1998, pp. 155-178.

Mathiesen, Robert. ‘The Key of Solomon: Towards a Typology of the Manuscripts,’ in Societas
Magica Newsletter, Spring 2007, 17:1, pp. 3-9.

Mavroudi, Maria. ‘Occult Science and Society in Byzantium: Considerations for Future
Research’, in Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi. The Occult Sciences in Byzantium.
Geneva: La Pomme d'Or, 2006, pp. 39-96.

McIntosh, Christopher. The Devil’s Bookshelf: a History of the Written Word in Western Magic
from Ancient Egypt to the Present Day. Wellingborough: Aquarian, 1985.

Merkel, Ingrid and Allen G. Debus (eds.). Hermeticism and the Renaissance; Intellectual History
and the Occult in Early Modern Europe. Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library;
London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988.

Mertens, Michéle. ‘Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium’ in Magdalino, Paul and Maria
Mavroudi. The Occult Sciences in Byzantium. Geneva: La Pomme d'Or, 2006, pp. 205-230.

Mesler, Katelyn. ‘The Liber iuratus Honorii and the Christian Reception of Angel Magic’ in
Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth
Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Meyer, Marvin and Mirecki, Paul (eds.). Ancient Magic and Ritual Power [Religions in the
Greco-Roman World, Volume 129]. Leiden / New York / London: Brill, 1995.

Midelfort, H. C. Erik. Exorcism and Enlightenment: Johann Joseph Gassner and the Demons of
Eighteenth-Century Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Mierzwicki, Tony. Graeco-Egyptian Magick. Stafford: Immanion, 2006.

Mirecki, Paul and Marvin Meyer (eds.). Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. (Religions in the
Graeco-Roman World, Volume 141.) Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Montolmo, Antonio da. De Occultis et manifestis or Liber Intelligentiarum. See Weill-Parot,

442

Nicolas.
Morenz, S. Egyptian Religion. London: Methuen, 1973.

Nabarz, Payam. Mithras Reader: an Academic and Religious Journal of Greek, Roman and Persian
Studies, Vol. 1. Oxford: Twin Serpents, 2006.

Naudaeus, Gabriel. The History of Magick: by way of Apology, for all the Wise Men who have
unjustly been reputed Magicians, from the Creation, to the present Age. London: John
Streater, 1657.

Naveh, Joseph, and Shaked, Shaul. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late
Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: Brill, 1985.

Ness, Lester. ‘Jewish Astrology,’ in Written in the Stars: Ancient Zodiac Mosaics. Pennsylvania:
Shangri-La, 1999, pp. 137-174.

Neugebauer, Otto. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. New York: Dover, 1969.

Neusner, Jacob and Ernest Frerichs and Paul V. Flesher (eds.). Religion, Science, and Magic: In
Concert and in Conflict. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

iccoli, Ottavia. Prophecy and People in Renaissance Italy. Princeton: Princeton University,
1990.

igal, Gedalyah. Magic, Mysticism, and Hasidism: the Supernatural in Jewish Thought. New
Jersey: Aronson, 1994.

iggemeyer, J. H. Beshworungsformeln aus dem “Buch de Geheimnisse - Seftir ha-razim’ - Zur
Topologie der Magischen Rede. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975.

igosian, S. A. From Ancient Writings to Sacred Texts: The Old Testament and Apocrypha.
Maryland: JHU Press, 2004.

Nilsson, Martin P. “The Anguipede of the Magical Amulets’ in HTR Vol. 44, No. 1, 1951, pp.
61-64.

Nilsson, Martin P. Greek Folk Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

Nock, A. D. “Greek Magical Papyri’ in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15, 1929, pp. 219-
235.

Joegel, Scott (ed.) Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2003.

Ogden, Daniel. Greek and Roman Necromancy. Princeton: Princeton University, 2001.

Ogden, Daniel. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: a Sourcebook.
Oxford: OUP, 2002.

Oppenheim, A. “The Golden Garments of the Gods’ in JNES 8, 1949, pp. 172-93.
Otto, Bernd-Christian & Michael Stausberg. Defining Magic: a Reader. Durham: Acumen, 2013.

Pachoumi, Eleni. “The Greek Magical Papyri: Diversity and Unity.’ Ph.D thesis Newcastle
University, 2007.

Page, Sophie. ‘Magic at St. Augustine's, Canterbury, in the Late Middle Ages.’ Ph.D thesis
Warburg Institute, 2000.

Page, Sophie. Magic in Medieval Manuscripts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press and
London: British Library, 2004.

Page, Sophie. “Magic and the Pursuit of Wisdom: The familiar spirit in the Liber Theysolius,’ in
la Coronica, 36:1, 2007, pp. 41-70.

Page, Sophie. ‘Uplifting Souls: The Liber de essentia spirituum and the Liber Razielis’ in Fanger,
443

Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth
Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Papadogiannakis, Nikolaos (ed.). Krétiko Iatrosophion tou 190u aiona. Rethymno, 2001.

Papathanassiou, Maria. “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous Byzantine Scholar, Alchemist
and Astrologer, in Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi. The Occult Sciences in
Byzantium. Geneva: La Pomme d'or, 2006, pp. 163-203.

Papathomopoulos, Manolis (ed.). Bernardakeios Magikos Kodikas, (commentary) Manolis
Varvounis. Athens: Academy of Athens, 2006.

Parsons, Peter. City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish. London: Phoenix, 2007.
Pax, W. ‘Circumambulatio’ in RAC 3, 1957, pp. 143-52.

Peers, Glenn. Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2001.

Petropoulos, Professor J. C. B. (ed.) Greek Magic: Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Monographs
in Classical Studies. London: Routledge, 2008.

Peuckert, Will-Erich. Pansophie: Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der weissen un schwarzen Magie.
Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1956.

Phillips, Richard L. In Pursuit of Invisibility: Ritual texts from Late Roman Egypt. Durham:
American Society of Papyrologists, 2009.

Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Mythology. Oxford: OUP, 2002.
Pinch, Geraldine. Magic in Ancient Egypt. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006.

Pingree, David. “Petosiris,’ in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Charles Coulson Gillespie.
New York: Scribners, 1970, pp. 547-49.

Pingree, David. ‘Some Sources of the Ghayat al-Hakim,’ in JWCI, 43, 1980, pp. 1-15.

Pingree, David. ‘Mesopotamian Astronomy and Astral Omens in Other Civilizations,’ in
Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. (ed.) Hans-Jord Nissen and Johannes Renger. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer, 1982.

Pingree, David. “The Diffusion of Arabic Magical Texts in Western Europe,’ in Biancamaria
Amoretti, (ed.) La Diffusione delle science islamiche nel medio evo europeo. Rome, 1987,
pp. 57-102.

Pingree, David. ‘Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia,’ DOP, Vol. 43, 1989,
pp. 227-239.

Pingree, David. From Astral Omens to Astrology from Babylon to Bikaner. Rome: Instituto
Italiano per L’ Africa et L’Oriente, 1997. pp. 63-77.

Pingree, David. ‘From Alexandria to Baghdad to Byzantium. The Transmission of Astrology’
in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Volume 8, 2001, pp. 3-37.

Pingree, David. “The Sabians of Harran and the Classical Tradition,’ in International Journal of
the Classical Tradition, Vol. 9 No. 1, 2002.

Pingree, David. ‘From Hermes to Jabir and the Book of the Cow’ in Burnett, Charles and W. F.
Ryan (eds.). Magic and the Classical Tradition. London: Warburg, 2006.

Politis, Nikolaos. ‘Palaiographiké Stakhyologia ek ton Magikon Biblion,’ in Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, vol. I, 1892, pp. 555-571.

Politis, Nikolaos. Paradoseis: Meletai peri tou Biou kai tes Glossés tou Hellenikou Laou, 2 Vols.
Athens: Grammata, 1994.

444

Porreca, David. ‘Divine Names: A Cross-Cultural Comparison (Papyri Graecae Magicae,
Picatrix, Munich Handbook)’ in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, Volume 5, Number 1,
Summer 2010. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 17-29.

Quibell, J. E. The Ramesseum. London: Quaritch, 1898.
Rankine, David. Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: Avalonia, 2002.
Rankine, David. Heka: Egyptian Magic. London: Avalonia, 2006.

Reiner, Erica. Astral Magic in Babylonia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
New series, Vol. 85, No. 4, 1995.

Reitzenstein, Richard, (trans.) John E. Steely. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions; their Basic Ideas and
Significance. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978.

Rigo, Antonio. ‘From Constantinople to the Library of Venice: the Hermetic books of late
Byzantine doctors, astrologers and magicians’ in Gilly, Carlos (ed.) Magic, Alchemy and
Science 15th-18th Centuries: the influence of Hermes Trismegistus. Amsterdam and
Venice: Centro Di and Bibliotheca Hermetica, 2002.

Ritner, Robert K. ‘Egyptian Magic: Questions of Legitimacy, Religious Orthodoxy, and Social
Deviance’ in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J.
Gwyn Griffiths. London, 1992.

Ritner, Robert K. ‘Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: the Demotic Spells
and their Religious Context,’ in ANRW IL, 18.5, 1995, pp. 3333-3379.

Ritner, Robert K. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. [Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization No. 54.] Illinois: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
2008.

Ritner, Robert K. The Libyan Anarchy. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia. ‘Mafteah Shelomoh: a new Acquisition of the British Library,’
in Jewish Studies Quarterly, Volume 1, 1993/94, No. 3. pp. 263-270.

Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia. “A Hebrew Manuscript of Clavicula Salomonis,’ Part II, in British
Library Journal, 21, 1995, pp. 128-136.

Rollo, David. Glamorous Sorcery. Magic and Literacy in the High Middle Ages [Medieval
Cultures, Volume 25]. Minneapolis - London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Ronan, Stephen, (ed.). “Hekate’s Iynx: An Ancient Theurgical Tool, in Fideler, David, ed.,
Alexandria 1. Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1991.

Ronan, Steve (ed.). The Goddess Hekate. Hastings: Chthonios, 1992.
Rose, Jenny. Zoroastrianism: an Introduction. London: Tauris, 2011.

Russell, James. “The Archaeological Context of Magic in the Early Byzantine Period, in
International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 252, Fall 1998, pp. 35-50.

Ryan, W. F. The Bathhouse at Midnight. An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.

Saif, Liana. “The Arabic Theory of Astral Influences in Early Modern Occult Philosophy’.
PhD thesis Birkbeck College, London, 2011.

Sanzi, Ennio. “Mithras: a deus invictus among Persia, stars, Oriental cults and magical gems’
in Charmes et Sortileges Magie et Magiciens. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Etude de
la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 2002.

Sauneron, Serge. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. New York: Grove Press, 1960.

445

Savage-Smith, Emilie (ed.). Magic and Divination in Early Islam. (Formation of the Classical
Islamic World, Vol. 42.) Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2004.

Scarborough, John. “Hermetic and Related Texts in Classical Antiquity,’ in Hermeticism and
the Renaissance; Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe. (ed.) Ingrid
Merkel and Allen G. Debus. Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library; London and
Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988, pp. 151-57.

Scarre, G. Witchcraft and Magic in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, Studies in
European History. New Jersey: Atlantic Highlands, 1987.

Schafer, Peter. Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur. Tibingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981.

Schafer, Peter. ‘Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages’ in Journal
of Jewish Studies, 41, No. 1, 1990, pp. 75-91.

Schafer, Peter and Shaked, S. Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza I & II. Tiibingen: Mohr,
1994 & 1997.

Schafer, Peter and Hans Kippenberg (eds.). Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and
Symposium [Studies In The History Of Religions (Numen Book Series), vol. LXXV].
Leiden/ New York/KGIn: Brill, 1997.

Schiffman, L. H., and Michael D. Swartz. Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo
Genizah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Schire, Theodore. Hebrew Amulets: their Development and Interpretation. London: RKP, 1966.
Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1955.

Scholem, Gershom. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary in America, 1960.

Scholem, Gershom. ‘Some Sources of Jewish-Arabic Demonology’ in Journal of Jewish Studies,
Volume xvi, 1965, pp. 1-13.

Scholem, Gershom. Kabbalah. New York: Meridian, 1978.

Scholem, Gershom, Esther Liebes (ed.). Devils, Demons and Souls: Essays on Demonology.
Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2004.

Schrire, T. Hebrew Amulets. Their Decipherment and Interpretation. London: RKP, 1966.
Schwartz, Dov. Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Schwartz, Martin. ‘“Sasm, Sesen, St. Sisinnios, Sesengen Barpharangés, and... “Semanglof”,’
in Bulletin of the Asian Institute, Vol. 10, 1996.

Scott, Sir Walter. Demonology and Witchcraft: Letters Addressed to J. G. Lockhart, Esq. 1830; rpt.
New York: Publishing, 1970.

Scully, Sally. ‘Marriage or a Career? Witchcraft as an Alternative in Seventeenth Century
Venice,’ in Journal of Social History, Vol 2, Summer 1995, pp. 857-876.

Secret, F. ‘Sur quelques traductions du Sefer Raziel,’ in Revue des Etudes Juives, 128, Paris: 1969,
pp. 223-45.

Seligmann, Kurt. The History of Magic. New York: Pantheon Books, 1948.
Shah, Sayed Idries. Oriental Magic. London: Rider,1956.

Shaked, Saul (ed.). Officina Magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill,
2005.

Sharpe, Samuel. Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity. London: Carter, 1896.

Sheldon, Suzanne. ‘Middle English and Latin Charms, Amulets and Talismans from
446

Vernacular Manuscripts.’ Ph.D diss. Tulane University, 1978.
Shulvass, Moses Avigdor. The Jews in the World of the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Shumaker, Wayne. The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1972.

Shumaker, Wayne. Natural Magic and Modern Science: Four Treatises, 1590-1657 [Medieval and
Renaissance Texts and Studies, volume 63]. Binghamton: State University of New
York, 1989.

Shumaker, Wayne. ‘John Dee’s Conversations with Angels’ in Renaissance Curiosa.
Binghamton: State University of New York, 1982; rpt. Tempe: Arizona Centre for
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2003.

Sibley, Ebenezer. A New and Complete Illustration of the Celestial Science of Astrology. London:
Beetham, 1784 - 1792.

Sibley, Ebenezer. A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences, Book 4. 1796.
Simon, Kate. A Renaissance Tapestry: The Gonzaga of Mantua. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Siraisi, Nancy G. The Clock and the Mirror: Girolamo Cardano and Renaissance Medicine.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Skemer, Don C. Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006.

Skinner, Stephen and Francis King. Techniques of High Magic. Rochester: Destiny, 1991.

Skinner, Stephen. Complete Magician's Tables. London/Singapore: Golden Hoard, 2006; rpt.
Llewellyn, Woodbury, 2007, 2011.

Smith, J. Z. ‘The Temple and the Magician’ in Jonathan Smith, Map is not Territory: Studies in
the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1978, pp. 172-89.

Smith, Mark. “A New Version of a well-known Egyptian Hymn,’ in Enchoria 7, 1977, pp. 115-49.
Smith, Mark. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper, 1978.

Smith, Mark. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other deities in Ancient Israel. Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2002.

Smith, Morton. ‘Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati’ in Alexander Altman (ed.) Biblical and
Other Studies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 142-160.

Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.

Smith, Morton. ‘The History of the Term Gnostikos’ in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, RGRW
130, II, Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1996, pp. 183-193.

Sperber, Daniel. Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature. Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan, 1994.

Spier, Jeffrey. ‘Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets and their Tradition,’ in JWCI, Vol. 56,
1993, pp. 25-62.

Spier, Jeffrey. “A Revival of Antique Magical Practice in Tenth-Century Constantinople’ in
Burnett, Charles and W. F. Ryan (eds.). Magic and the Classical Tradition. London:
Warburg, 2006.

Stannish, Steven. “The Topography of Magic in the Modern Western and Ancient Egyptian
Minds’ in Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, Issue 4, 2007, pp. 64-89.

Stewart, C. Demons and the Devil: Moral Imagination in Modern Greek Culture. Princeton:
Princeton University, 1991.

Stow, Kenneth. Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval Latin Europe. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
447

University, 1994.

Stuckrad, Kocku von. Western Esotericism: a Brief History of Secret Knowledge. London: Equinox,
2005.

Sullivan, Lawrence E. (ed.). Hidden Truths: Magic, Alchemy, and the Occult. (Religion, History
and Culture: selections from The Encyclopedia Of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade). New
York: Macmillan, 1989.

Summers, Montague. Witchcraft and Black Magic. London: Senate, 1995.

Swartz, Michael D. “Scribal Magic and Its Rhetoric: Formal Patterns in Medieval Hebrew and
Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah’ in HTR, Vol. 83, No. 2, April
1990). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. pp. 163-180.

Swartz, Michael D. Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: an Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah.
Tiibingen: Mohr, 1992.

Swartz, Michael D. ““Like the Ministering Angels:” Ritual and Purity in Early Jewish
Mysticism and Magic’ in AJS Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1994, pp. 135-167.

Swartz, Michael D. ‘Book and Tradition in Hekhalot and Magical Literatures,’ in Jewish
Thought and Philosophy. Vol. 3, 1994, pp. 189-229.

Swartz, Michael D. Scholastic Magic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Swartz, Michael D. ‘Understanding Ritual in Jewish Magic: Perspectives from the Genizah
and Related Sources,’ in JSQ, Vol. 13, No. 4. Tiibingen: Mohr, 2006, pp. 305-318.

Swartz, Michael D. ‘Ritual Procedures in Magical Texts from the Cairo Genizah,’ in Jewish
Studies Quarterly 13:4, 2006, pp. 305-318.

Symonds, A. J. Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini. New York: Doubleday, 1946.

Tait, W. J. “Theban Magic’ in S. P. Vleeming (ed.). Hundred-Gated Thebes. Leiden and New
York, 1995.

Tanaseanu-Do6bler, Ilinca. Theurgy in Late Antiquity. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2013,

Tavenner, Eugene. Studies in Magic from Latin Literature. New York: AMS, 1966.

Teitelbaum, Irving. ‘Jewish Magic in the Sassanian Period.’ Ph.D. thesis Dropsie College,
Philadelphia, 1964.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press,
1971; rpt. London: Penguin, 1973, 1978.

Thompson, C. J. S. Mysteries and Secrets of Magic. London: John Lane, 1927.

Thompson, R. Campbell. Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development. London: Luzac, 1908; rpt.
New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1976; rpt. York
Beach: Red Wheel Weiser, 2000.

Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volumes I-VII. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1923-1958.

Tomlinson, Gary. Music in Renaissance Magic. Toward a Historiography of Others. Chicago/
London: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Torijano, Pablo A. ‘La Hygromanteia de Salomon,’ in Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones,
Issue 4, 1999, pp. 327-346.

Torijano, Pablo. Solomon the Esoteric King. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition. New York: Behrman House, 1939, rpt.
448

Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, 2004.

Trithemius, J. “Antipalus Maleficiorum,’ in Paralipomena opusculorum Petri Blesensis et Joannis
Trithemit. Mainz: Busaeus, 1605, pp. 292-311.

Trombley, Richard Frank. The Survival of Paganism in the Byzantine Empire During the Pre-
Iconoclastic Period, 540-727. Los Angeles: Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1981.

Trzcionka, Silke. Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth-Century Syria. London: Routledge, 2007.

Tyson, Donald. Enochian Magic for Beginners. The Original System of Angel Magic. St. Paul:
Llewellyn, 1997.

Uzdavinys, Algis. Philosophy & Theurgy in Late Antiquity. San Rafael: Sophia Perennis, 2010.

Vakaloudi, A. D. ‘Demonic-Mantic Practices - the Implication of the Theurgists and their
Power of Submission in the Early Byzantine Empire,’ in Byzantinoslavica 60, 1999, pp.
87-113.

Vakaloudi, A. D. ‘Illnesses, Curative Methods and Supernatural Forces in the Early Byzantine
Empire (4th-7th C. A.D.),’ in Byzantion 73, 2003, pp. 172-200.

Valletta, F.V.A. “Witchcraft, Magic and Superstition in England, 1640-1670.’ Ph.D thesis
King's College, University of London, 1998.

Van Buren, E. Douglas. The Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1945.

Van der Toorn, Karel, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.). Dictionary of Deities
and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995; second edition, extensively revised, 1999.

Veenstra, Jan. Magic and Divination at the Courts of Burgundy and France: Text and Context of
Laurens Pignon’s ‘Contre les Devineurs’ (1411). Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Veenstra, Jan. ‘Venerating and Conjuring Angels: Eiximenis’s Book of the Holy Angels and the
Holy Almandal: two Case Studies’ in Burnett, Charles and W. F. Ryan (eds.). Magic and
the Classical Tradition. London: Warburg, 2006.

Veenstra, Jan. ‘Honorius and the Sigil of God: The Liber iuratus in Berengario Ganell’s Summa
sacre magice in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices,
Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Veldman, Frederick J. Theurgy and Numbers. Cold Spring: Waning Moon, 2010.

Véronése, Julien. ‘La transmission groupée des textes de magie ‘salomonienne’ de I’ Antiquité
au Moyen Age: Bilan historiographique, inconnues et pistes de recherche,’ in
L’Antiquité tardive dans less collections médiévales: Textes et représentations, Vie - XIVe
siécle, ed. S. Gioanni and B. Grévin, Collection l’Ecole Francaise de Rome 405. Rome:
Ecole Francaise, 2008, pp. 193-223.

Véronése, Julien. “God’s Names and their Uses in the Books of Magic Attributed to King
Solomon’ in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, Vol. 5, No. 1, Summer 2010.

Véronése, Julien. ‘Magic, Theurgy, and Spirituality in the Medieval Ritual of the Ars Notoria’
in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to
Sixteenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Vesnel, H. S. “A twisted Hermes. Another View of an Enigmatic Spell,’ in ZFPE, Bd. 72, 1988,
pp. 287-292.

Voss, Angela (ed.). Marsilio Ficino. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2006.
Waite, Gary. Heresy, Magic, and Witchcraft in early Modern Europe. New York: Palgrave

449

Macmillan, 2003.

Walker, Daniel P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. London: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1958; rpt. 1975.

Walker, Daniel P. Unclean Spirits: Possession and Exorcism in France and England in the Late
Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. London: Scholar and Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Walton, John. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006.

Wasserstrom, Steven. “The Magical Texts in the Cairo Geniza,’ in Joseph Blau and Stefan C.
Reif (eds.), Genizah Research after Ninety Years: the Case of Judaeo-Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 160-166.

Weill-Parot, Nicolas. Les Images Astrologiques au Moyen Age et a la Renaissance. Paris: Honor
Champion, 2002.

Weill-Parot, Nicolas (with Julien Véronése). “Antonio da Montolmo’s De Occultis et manifestis or
Liber intelligentiarum: an annotated critical edition with English translation and
introduction’ in Fanger, Claire (ed.). Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices,
Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

Westerink, L. G. ‘Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564,’ in BZ 64, 1971.
Weyer, Johann. Pseudomonarchia Daemonum in Opera Omnia. Amsterdam, 1660.

Weyer, Johann. Witches, Devils, and Doctors in the Renaissance (De Preestigiis Deemonum, 1583).
(Introduction) George Mora, (trans.) John Shea, (preface) John Weber [Medieval And
Renaissance Texts and Studies, volume 73]. Binghamton: State University of New York,
1991; rpt. Tempe: Arizona State University, 1998.

Wilson, Stephen. The Magical Universe: Everyday Ritual and Magic in Pre-Modern Europe.
London: Hambledon, 2001.

Winters, Dana. “‘Hermetic/Cabalist Ritual in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus,’ in
Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, Issue 5, ed. Susan Johnson Graf and Amy Hale.
Oxford: Mandrake, 2009.

Wypustek, Andrzej. “Calumnia Magiae. Towards a New Study of the Relationship between
Greek-Roman Magic and Early Christianity’ in Charmes et Sortiléges Magie et Magiciens.
Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Etude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 2002.

Zambelli, Paola. The Speculum Astronomiae and Its Enigma: Astrology, Theology and Science in
Albertus Magnus and His Contemporaries. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer,
1992.

Zambelli, Paola. White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Ziolkowski, Jan & Michael C. J. Putnam (Eds.). The Virgilian Tradition: The First Fifteen
Hundred Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

450

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Stephen Skinner - Techniques Of Graeco Egyptian Magic"

See other formats