Talk:The Lesser Key of Solomon

Untitled

I am removing it from jewish mysticism because it is not jewish since there is prayers in it to jesus--Java7837 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ars Notoria is NOT the fifth book of the Lesser Key. That would be the Ars Nova, wouldn't it? Notary Art is a completely seperate work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.114.22 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Physical Copies

If this is a real text from the 17th century, who actually has those copies of it, or have they been destroyed? If they no longer exist, what happened, and which copies are the oldest surviving? Where are they kept?

It seems to me that, without this data and with enough buzz, I could create "The Greater Codex of Choad," and arbitrarily pick a century of it's "surfacing" to the public... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.124.100 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these old 'medieval' things are real - and it probably is from much earlier than the 17th cen. The trouble is that their level of reality isn't very high - 'Proof' the existence of authentic original copies might be very difficult. A lot of them were 'uncovered' and come via secondary and tertiary sources in the 17th, 18th, 19th cen and so on - and that means they can very easily be fakes.

If you know something of the history of such objects you will realize how deep the problems run - the lesser key may be real, partly real or maybe even completely invented, and it could easily have been rewritten or amended several times. Its own history says that it is inevitably corrupt, like other sacred texts it was stolen from the Jews and passed to Christian occultists or magicians at some point in the distant past. Such documents were held by the Jewish 'mystics' and 'magicians' and were kept secret and jealously hidden, the most famous being the Cabala of course, plus the Gematra, and maybe Abra-Melins sacred magic. They were widely seen as containing the secrets of transforming lead into gold and such, and so were greedily sought. One of the problems is that Jewish theology itself hates them being touched by 'unclean' non-Jews and is extremely secretive about them. - Another is that the Jews themselves reputedly lost a lot of these ancient secret texts completely during their 2000 years of exile - many of them being stolen/taken/burned by the church. So the Key might be completely authentic, fake, or not, probably no-one has a definitive answer. Lucien86 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several 17th Century manuscripts in the British Museum, as well as other libraries across the world (something like 140 different ones). For example Sloane MS 3825, Harley MS 6483. They are certainly real. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

in popular culture

merging from goetia, I am leaving out the trivia section. Here it is, in case some context of notability can be established for some of the entries:

• In the Dungeons & Dragons supplemental book Tome of Magic, published by Wizards of the Coast, some of the demons in the list above are used as the basis for the vestiges of the Binder class.
• In the Brazilian roleplaying game Arkanun, published by Daemon Editora, Ars Goetia is used as basis for the pantheon of demons.
• Several villains in the TV show Charmed have there names taken from the Goetia, notably Barbas, Shax, and Asmodeus (presented as a member of The Triad), though the details of these characters are very different from their Solomonic description.
• In the Anime/Manga "Hellsing", the symbols on Alucard's gloves bear striking reference to Goetian seals.
• One of the main villains in the Japanese Version of the Playstation 2 game, Tales of Destiny 2, is Barbatos Goetia.
• In the Playstation 2 RPG game, Shadow Hearts: Covenant, the player has the opportunity to complete a map with Demon Crests, the map is called the Key of Solomon, and the crests all match in design to the goetic Demon Seals as described by Solomon.
• In the role-playing game Mage: The Awakening, goetic demons are "inner demons" - embodiments of a mage's Vice. Goetia is the practice of binding and controlling these demons, and thus confronting one's flaws directly.
• Several of these demons appear in Castlevania as various lesser enemies, particullarly in Portrait of Ruin.
• In the popular childrens TV show Yu-gi-oh, the main villans in the "Waking the Dragons" chapter use a card called "The Seal of Orichalcos", the symbols around the edge of the seal are goetic in origin even though the villans claim to be Atlantian, although it is also rumored that Goetia is of Atlantian Origin.
• In the fantasy book Orphans of Chaos by author John C. Wright, several goetic demons are mentioned as the familiars of the warlock Quentin Nemo, and the descriptions of their appearances and powers match those in Crowley's version.

question

Its just because its more well known, and probably because all the teenage rebels out there don't want to read about angels, they want demons, and the Goetia gives them that. In addition to that its also just plain easier to read. Ahkaris (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How come the Goetia, the first part of the Lemegeton (Lesser Key of Solomon) is more popular than any of the other parts? Neo Guyver (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

dab (𒁳) 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ars Paulina and astrology

It's claimed that "These are called here the angels of men, because all persons are born under a zodiacal sign, with the Sun at a specific degree of it." However, the text, or at least the version I'm familiar with (a pdf version by Benjamin Rowe), is rather ambiguous about what exactly is meant by "signs & degrees every man is born in". What makes me question this is a passage concerning the angels of the 12 signs, saying "they may make use of these Angels, if be so that they know the sign that ascends." This would appear to refer to the ascending sign, not the sun sign. So which is used to determine the angel of the degree? Elcalen (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging back in

With the AfD for Flauros complete as redirect back here it might be wise to go through all 72 demons and determine which of them are notable other than being demons in Pseudomonarchia and the lesser key. I suggest those that wouldn't pass the notability litmus test redirect back here rather than just getting deleted. Any volunteers to help comb through the demons and figure which ones deserve independent notability? Simonm223 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject area, but have seen some of the demons listed at AfD and did some looking around. While some, like Baal, certainly should have stand alone articles, others like Eligos or Stolas probably shouldn't. It seems like it could be cumbersome to try and incorporate information on all of them in this article, but it would be a shame to lose the info in the smaller articles. I suggested at one of the AfD's that a new article or list along the lines of Demons of Ars Goetia could be created to merge all of the smaller articles into one. It's a thought; perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject could make it work. Wine Guy Talk 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I have a list of spirits mentioned in the Lemegeton, the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, the Officium Spirituum, le Livre des Esperitz, the Testament of Solomon, Magical Treatise of Solomon, Codex Latinus Monacensis, the Book of Abramelin, and a few other works. About forty could stand to have their own articles on the basis that they're mentioned in more than the Lemegeton and Weyer. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Claims of sections supposedly written centuries earlier

While the Lemegeton undoubtedly dates to the 17th century, our article several times claims that various sections are compilations of much earlier material. No reference is provided for any of these claims. We should find references for these claims (if it exists) for two reasons. Firstly, among the sort of people who take these sorts of books seriously, there is a strange belief that the older a text is, the more reliable it is. Consequently there is a strong bias towards exaggerating the age of everything. Secondly, and more importantly, several of these "older" texts are apparently taken from the Steganographia. That book -- or rather, its third volume -- was long considered to be a work of demonlogy, but it has recently been conclusively proven to be a "covertext" for discussions on cryptography and steganography. (The first two volumes also superficially appear to be about demonology, but it has been known for centuries that they aren't really: the Clavis, or decryption key, was worked out and published in the 16th century.) The third volume is actually also a couple of exercises demonstrating the principles of Trithemius's communication systems. Unfortunately, he made his exercises a little too hard for the average reader (complicated, perhaps, by the fact that it was never finished), and unlike the first two volumes this one was only cracked in the late twentieth century. (Although even in the seventeenth century, several authors claimed to have "cracked" volume three and proved that it was about ciphers, but all of them either did not publish their proof, or else published it in yet other ciphers. One of these was recently "cracked" by the same cryptologist who recently solved Book III, and the seventeenth century author had indeed got it right!) We now know that consistently throughout the Steganographia, the false "black art" of magic is a metaphor for something much more dangerous, the true "black art" of cryptology, the maker and unmaker of kings. The "spirit names" in Steganographia were probably made up nonsense -- certainly some of the "ancient authorities" quoted by Trithemius were also made up -- and are most definitely not compilations of centuries-older "goetic wisdom". -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless specific sections are being pointed out and labeled authentic I don't really see a problem, calling it compilation leaves open the questions of what those sources were, how authentic those sources were, the context of each element in its original text, lack of manuscripts of the sources materials, and no real way to determine what is copied accurately or even what was invented by the compiler. The sorts of people who take these books seriously are more interested in a compelling argument than evidence and will dismiss skeptical analysis on the basis that only true adepts would know and understand. Czarnibog (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgery

Is this book a potential forgery. How can we tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.50.30 (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That the book was written in the 17th century (without a BC or BCE following the century), but claims to be written by King Solomon pretty much seals the deal. Actually reading it (especially the older manuscripts) it also makes plenty of references to Christianity and late medieval European political structures (earls, dukes, counts). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of modern political terminology, what is this stuff about demons being presidents? Of course it is Latin and therefore as old as Ancient Rome, but it always meant something like chairman, leader of a gathering in the procedural sense of the word. We understand president to denote de facto leader of something large (e.g. head of state) but I think this is a fairly recent usage. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D42F:67D7:70A8:3986 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have revised the article more or less from scratch (keeping the sections "The seventy two demons" and "external links" more or less intact, while expanding the "editions" section) properly citing reliable sources. I may go on later and add more detailed descriptions of each section of the book. Although I am semi-retired, I have been compiling some information on different spell books and spirits for role playing games, and may try to revise the articles for such things accordingly. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up and expanded the 'Editions' section to include a few items previously omitted, and removed '... and translations' because all the extant manuscripts and their editions are in English. There are a couple of modern translations to French, not worth including here. The comments I have left largely intact, for now. This is a prelude to a more significant rewrite because the article as it stands contains a number of inaccuracies. I'll outline some of these here for possible discussion before proceeding.

First, the title of book is Lemegeton, Clavicula Salomonis Rex or the Little Key of Solomon the King. It is also known as The Lesser Key of Solomon thanks to Waite and de Laurence who used it as a descriptor. Although I don't think there's a case for changing the title of this article - the Lesser Key appellation is in common use - the opening sentence should at least accurately represent the proper title of the work. Similarly, the first two books are titled Goetia and Theurgia Goetia: the Ars ... addition seems to have originated with this article. Second, it is not simply a work on demonology, given that two of the books are devoted to methods for calling purported angels. Nor does it contain '144 spells': I don't recognise a source for this claim. Third, in the Goetia section, the later copy referred to was made by Peter Smart supposedly from papers belonging to a 'Dr Rudd'. The reference to seals 'derived from a manuscript of Blaise de Vigenere' is also untrue, because the seals don't appear in Smart's manuscript: Runyon reproduces the alleged Vigenere seals in The Book of Solomon's Magick and a simple comparison shows these seals are not present in the manuscript published by Skinner and Rankine. Finally, the remaining sections all need to be updated to take account of recent work published on the Pauline Art, Almadel and Ars Notoria, particularly by Julien Véronèse. There are some other points, but I think this will do for now. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Lesser Key of Solomon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Why do the 72 demon listed in this article pages of their own, making 72 stubs.... i propose we make a list of "demons from the lesser key of solomon"-and simply link to the page

Substituted at 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This looks to me like a WP:CONTENT FORK. Shouldn't we consolidate? A loose noose (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

With the current state of the Goetia article, I have to agree. Ideally though, I think it could/should be rewritten to cover:

• the history of the word independent outside the major texts in the genre (which the Goetia article barely covers with the Etymology and Renaissance magic sections)
• the current version of the Lesser Key of Solomon article (instead of the outdated version that's currently in the Goetia article)
• predecessors of, works related to, or works that parallel the first book of in the Lesser Key of Solomon: Liber Officium Spirituum, Livre des Esperitz, Magical Treatise of Solomon, Munich Manual, The Book of Abramelin, and the Secrets of Solomon (sorry, haven't had time to write the article).
• works derived from the first book of the Lesser Key of Solomon or books in the previous section (which are largely in dire need of revision but I know could be rewritten into proper articles): The Grimoire of Pope Honorius, Grand Grimoire, Grimorium Verum, Book of Saint Cyprian

I have to admit that every link including and after The Book of Abramelin is on the list for my next rampage but there's no telling when that'll be.

I know that could still come across as a content fork, but Goetia is pretty much a genre of which comparison with the first book of the Lesser Key of Solomon is the defining standard. The Secrets of Solomon in particular runs completely independent but parallel to the LKoS when connecting The Sworn Book of Honorius (another I need to rewrite), Agrippa's Occult Philosophy, and the Magical Treatise of Solomon to the Grimoirium Verum, Grand Grimoire, and Grimoire of Pope Honorius. The sources that I would use for writing the Secrets of Solomon article and rewriting the articles on derivative works would pretty firmly establish that, and I should be able to dig through the citations already in the Liber Officium Spirituum and Magical Treatise of Solomon articles (as well Skinner's Techniques of Solomonic Magic). I'd also bet A. E. Waite's Book of Ceremonial Magic might be useful if someone wants to check chapter II section 2 or chapter III for anything relevant (I would but I'm kinda playing hooky to be on right now).

I still have to say that, as the article stands, however, it should redirect here. There's no telling when I'll be able to fix all the other articles that need to be fixed before we can fix the Goetia article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Just wondering whether you're interested in revisiting this corner, before a non-specialist (like me) makes a hash of it? Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Klbrain: I mean, there's not too much to do except redirect the Goetia article to here, sure. The Etymology section is a mixture of unsourced statements and original research, it and the following Renaissance magic is about the word Goetia and not specifically this book, and the section on the two books are redundant with the articles on those books.

If I ever get the time and energy to write a proper Goetia article, I'm going to undo the merger, but until I do that we might as well redirect it here. Or if you meant that you'd go ahead and get started, that'd also be cool. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

OK; I've completed the merge, but with a more generous move of content than you suggest on the grounds that there are references present and the validity of at least some of them might be contested. Feel free to tidy up in-situ! Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The as the start of the title: The Lesser Key of Solomon

I think that The is the start of the main English version of the title, given that it appears as such in all titles listed in § Editions.

Although this page has already been moved once from that title in 2014, there was no justification or discussion I could find as to why.

In some other articles, the title is given as the Lesser Key of Solomon but in title case/capitalization, the first word of the title (or after a colon, BTW) is always capitalized, and if a word isn't part of the title, it wouldn't be italicized. See: MOS:T & MOS:CT. Thanks! Geekdiva (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessive etymology

The three paragraphs explaining the word goetia seem quite excessive and off-topic. It looks like this was the result of a goetia article being merged into this article in 2019. I'm not sure why it would make sense to merge goetia into this article, as it is the rough equivalent of merging cooking into Mastering the art of french cooking. Regardless, the merge is a fait accompli and what remains is to clean up the results. Would anyone mind if I trim down this section substantially? Nosferattus (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Klbrain and Ian.thomson: I just noticed the previous discussion about the merge above. Any concerns with me trimming down the goetia content? Nosferattus (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Trimming the goetia content seems to be a good idea. Klbrain (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Halahel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Halahel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § Halahel until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)