The Key of Solomon (Clavicula Salomonis) Edited by S. Liddell MacGregor Mathers Revised by Joseph H. Peterson, Copyright 1999, 2004, 2005. All rights reserved. For a reprint of Mathers' edition, see listing at Amazon.com INTRODUCTION by Joseph H. Peterson.The Key of Solomon is the most famous and important of all Grimoires, or handbooks of Magic. As A.E. Waite has stated (BCM, pg. 58) "At the head of all, and, within certain limits, the inspiration and the source of all, stands the Key of Solomon. ... Mr. Mathers' presentation of the Key of Solomon, which is still in print, though the work of an uncritical hand, must be held to remove the necessity for entering into a detailed account of the contents of that curious work. ... The Key of Solomon can scarcely be judged accurately in the light of its English version, for the translator, preternaturally regarding it as a highly honourable memorial of lawful magic, has excised as much as possible the Gotic portions, on the ground that they are interpolations, which is of course arbitrary." Mr. Waite's harsh criticism 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 Apple; 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.) It is true that the Mathers edition would not be considered critical by modern standards of scholarship (but Waite's editions of various esoteric texts leave far more to be desired than Mathers'). Especially wanting are a proper critical apparatus, an analysis of the relation between manuscripts, and better utilization of the Latin and Italian manuscripts. Nevertheless, this edition has stood the test of time. MANUSCRIPTSOf course, none of the manuscripts used by Mathers qualify as "ancient" or even "medieval"; the oldest is probably 16th century. There are however precedents going back further, on which see Richard Greenfield's Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology. Mathers' translation is almost entirely dependant on French Colorno manuscript exemplars dating 18th century. These are represented by the Kings 288, Harley 3981, and Sloane 3091 manuscripts. Kings 288 and Harl. 3981 indicate they were translated by Abraham Colorno, which phrase is missing from Sl. 3091. Of these Sl. 3091 and Kings 288 are easier to read. Abraham Colorno, a Jewish engineer of Mantua (fl. 1578-1598), translated it into Italian. Kings 288 includes some phrases which are missing from Harley 3981, so the former is probably not a direct ancestor of the latter. Sl. 3091 likewise has some phrases missing from the others, and regularly replaces "Amen" with "Ainsi soit-il" (so be it). Although Mathers felt Sl3091 "has many errors of transcription," I have generally found it to be the most correct of the Colorno group (i.e. between Sl3091, H3981, K288, and L1202.) In addition, Mathers made significant use of Lansdowne 1202, even though he pronounces it "more concise in style." Its title page reads: "LES VRAIS CLAVICULES DU ROI SALOMON PAR ARMADEL." The wording in Lans. 1202 often coincides exactly with the Colorno manuscripts, which convinces me that it was based mainly on a Colorno ancestor. However the frequent deviations and elisions suggest to me that the editor was trying to make a more concise and readable edition, which of course makes its authority less reliable. Lans. 1202 displays simple mistakes in some of the Latin passages. It also regularly replaces "Amen" with "Ainsi soit-il". Where K288 differs from H3981, L1202 generally seems to follow the latter. Where Sl3091 differs from the others, L1202 generally follows it. However, L1202 can't be a direct ancestor of Sl3091 since it contains elements missing from the latter, such as the missing Psalm and "Anefeneton" from book 2 chapter 17. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that L1202 is derived from a closely related manuscript. Also heavily used by Mathers was LES VRITABLES CLAVICULES DE SALOMON, Traduites de l'Hebreux en langue Latine Par le Rabin ABOGNAZAR (Lansdowne MSS 1203.) Its inclusion by Mathers is puzzling because it is utterly different in content from the other manuscripts (aside from a few of the pentacles at the end of the manuscript) and really should stand alone as a separate text. Another copy can be found in ms. fran. 25314 de la Bibliothque nationale. Additional 10862 is primarily written in Latin, although the descriptions of the pentacles are in Italian. It was written ca. 17th century. Mathers considered it his oldest and sole Latin source, but makes only limited use of it. Contrary to what Mathers wrote, I did not find it particularly difficult to read once I got use to the orthography; likewise it has very few abbreviations: Besides using "&" for "per" (particle and prefix) it frequently uses abbreviations for "-tur" and "-bus" which are sometimes indistinguishable. It doesn't distinguish between u and v, and uniformly uses an archaic form of the ae-ligature (e-ogonek). It is somewhat more succinct than the Colorno manuscripts, so may preserve some earlier stage in the evolution of the text. There are also frequent variations from the other manuscripts, many of which are clearly errors. The nature of the mistakes leads me to believe that its archetype was difficult to read. The pentacles are labelled with the appropriate colors. The Latin sometimes corresponds closely with that in Aub. 24, however some of the text differs considerably. Article 2 of Ad. 10862 is an Italian manuscript titled Zecorbenei, overo Clavicola dal re Salomone. This is no doubt a version of the Zekerboni (also compare "Zecorbeni" in Aub. 24) and ascribed to Peter Mora (aka Pietro Mora or Pierre Mora). In Ritual Magic (1949, pp. 135 f., p. 310) E. M. Butler describes Mora as an "alchemist, black magician, said to be a Satanist and poisoner who lived in Milan early in the seventeenth century, and burnt there after having confessed (under torture) to those crimes..." Casanova seems to have possessed a version of the same work under the name Zecor-ben or Zecorben. (Butler, loc. cit., Casanova, History of My Life, translated by Willard Trask, Volumes III & IV, 1967, p. 200). Sloane 1307 is in Italian, and is also ca. 17th century. Prayers and conjurations are in Latin. It has much material not found in other manuscripts. Some of the material however can be found in Ad. 10862 art. 2 ("Zecorbeni") mentioned above. It is hard to read, except for the mystical names which are carefully done. It shares a lot of readings with Sl. 2383 (see below). Sl. 1307 only has thirteen pentacles, and much of the lettering in them is in Roman letters instead of the Hebrew found in most other manuscripts. For more details on the individual manuscripts, see the British Library Manuscript catalogue. Also, see MAGIC AND EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE by Lynn Thorndike, Chapter XLIX: Solomon and the Ars Notoria. Since Mathers' edition was published, many more manuscripts have been uncovered, including the following: GreekHarl. 55!. British Library, Harleian MS. 5596. Fifteenth century. One of a number of ree! manuscri"t of a te#t referre$ to as The Magical Treatise of Solomon. The com"lete te#t has been "ublishe$ by %rman$ &elatte in Anecdota Atheniensia 'Li()e, *9+,, "". -9,.//5.0 1ts contents are 2ery similar to the Clavicula, an$ it may be the "rototy"e of the entire )enre. 1t has been $escribe$ in 3ichar$ reenfiel$4s Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology '%mster$am5 Ha!!ert, *9660. This manuscri"t is also $escribe$ in some $etail by &ennis &ulin) in the intro$uction to his translation of the Testament of Solomon, as it also contains an incom"lete 2ersion of the Testament. 'in 7harles8orth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 9ol. *,:e8 ;or!, &ouble$ay, *96-, "". 9-5.96,.0 "at#nD$%% 7la2icula Salomonis filii &a2i$. '