2. Three sentences are retained in their original Latin, as though the
translator could not understand them. (_a_) Under _Barbatos_, “... in
signo sagittarii sylvestris”, he probably knowing Sagittarius, but not
sure as to what sign or who sagittarius sylvestris might be. (_b_)
Under _Leraie_, “... quos optimos objicit tribus diebus”. Wier here
places “optimos” as the third word, but the sense to me and my friends
is an unsolved puzzle. (_c_) Under _Oze_, “... Duratque id regnum
ad horam” (but Wier omits the “ad”), “And this sovereignty lasts an
hour [and no longer], differing in this from ordinary monomania.” 3.
Under _Bileth_ Scot and Wier say, “... as for _Amaimon_”, and Scot
in the margin has “Vide Amaimon”; yet neither mentions him under a
heading, nor more than by name, as “Amaymon king of the East”, in chap.
iv. 4. Under _Murmur_, Scot ends with “and ruleth thirtie legions”,
but Wier omits this, as do both in the cases of _Oze_, _Vine_, and
_Saleos_. 5. There are differences and slips of translation which Scot
could not, I think, have made. (_a_) Scot invariably, in the rest of
his works, speaks of “the order of virtutes”, but in this chapter,
where it is used five times under _Agares_, _Barbatos_, _Purson_,
and _Belial_, and ch. iv, p. 395, it is “vertues”. (_b_) _Barbatos_
is said to come “with foure kings, which bring companies and great
troopes”. But Wier has “cum quatuor regibus tubas ferentibus”. From
this it is clear that the translator read “tubas” as “tribus”. (_c_)
“Ugly viper” is the translation of “viperæ species deterrima”. (_d_)
“He giveth answers of things present, past, and to come”, is in
Wier “Dat perfecte responsa vera de ... futuris & abstrusis”; Scot
omitting both “perfecte” and “abstrusis”. See under _Botis_ for both
(_c_) and (_d_). (_e_) “_Bune_ Muta loquitur voce”, rendered in Scot,
“he speaketh with a divine voice”. The translator apparently looked
out for “mutus” in a dictionary, such as Th. Cooper’s, where in Old
English he found “dumme”, and read it—as I at first sight did, and with
great astonishment, though I confess my thoughts were running on the
puzzle—“divine”. (_f_) Under _Bileth_, “... before whome go trumpets
and all kind of melodious musicke”, Scot has, “or if he have not the
chaine of spirits [the book called _Vinculum Spirituum_], certeinelie
he will never feare nor regard him after”, but Wier has, “... sciet
haud dubie exorcista, malignos spiritus postea eum non verituros, et
semper viliorem habituros”. (_g_) “Sitri ... willinglie deteineth
secrets of women”, is in Wier, “secreta libenter detegit fæminarum”.
Here there are in the English two gross blunders, as is evident on
reading the rest of the Latin text. “Ludificansque”, also, is not
“mocking”, but “toying with them”, “ut se luxuriose nudent”. (_h_)
Under _Paimon_, Wier’s “in Empto.[rium] Salomonis” is “in _Circulo
Salomonis_”. “Aquilonem” is “North-west”, though Th. Cooper and
Holyokes Rider, and, I believe, all dictionaries, only give it and its
adjectives as North, North-east, and Northern. “Accedant”, also, is
translated “may be reckoned”, to the complete extinction of the sense.
(_i_) _Belial_ is, “eorum qui ex Ordine [Potestatum] ceciderunt”,
and is translated, “of them which fell being of the orders”. (_j_)
“He is found in the forme of an exorcist in the bonds of spirits”,
is, in more ways than one, a strange and most ambiguous rendering,
altogether unlike Scot, of “Forma exorcistæ [the form of exorcising
that is to be used] invenitur in [the book] _Vinculo Spirituum_”.
(_k_) “Si autem se submittere noluerit Vinculum Spirituum legatur, quo
sapientissimus Salomon”, etc., becomes “If ... let the bond of spirits
be read, the spirits chaine [apparently an unintentional doubling of
the previous words], is sent for him wherewith wise Salomon”, etc. I
might add that twice in the course of this chapter “sapientissimus
S.” becomes “wise S.”, in “vase vitreo” “in a brazen vessel”, and “in
puteum grandem” “into a deep lake or hole”, and twice afterwards “lake”
only. (_l_) Under _Furfur_, “fulgura, coruscationes & tonitrua” is
translated “thunders and lightnings, and blasts”. (_m_) In _Malphas_,
“artifices maximos” is “artificers”. (_n_) Under _Vepar_, “Contra
inimicos exorcistæ per dies tres ... homines inficit” becomes, without
qualification, “he killeth men in three days”. (_o_) Under _Sydonay_,
“Cum hujus officia exercet exorcista”, instead of “When the exorcist
would make use of the offices [the incantations for] of this [spirit]”,
or “When the exorcist would make use of the forms of invocation proper
to this spirit”, it is translated, “When the conjurer exerciseth this
office”. The next words, “fit [? sit] fortis”, become “let him be
abroad”, “foris” having been read instead of “fortis”. “If his cap be
on his head”, Wier has “si coopertus”, “if he be overwhelmed” [with
fear, etc.], the translator possibly wishing to express this by “if
his cap be so far on his head” [through fear as to cover his eyes],
then, etc. Besides this, there is an ambiguity in Wier which is fully
followed in the translator. In Wier we have: “si vero coopertus fuerit,
ut in omnibus detegatur, efficiet: Quod si non fecerit exorcista,
ab Amaymone in cunctis decipietur:” I can only suppose from the
punctuation that the “Quod si non”, etc., was intended to refer to his
not being “fortis”, and (as in Scot) “warie and standing on his feete”.
(_p_) Under _Gaap_, Scot says, “if anie exorcist ... nor see him”;
Wier has the same, but follows it up with “nisi per artem”. On the
other hand, Wier has no equivalent for “insensibility”. (_r_) _Shax_:
“... there he speaketh divinely” is “loquitur de divinis rebus”, an
error Scot could not have made, and which is not made elsewhere in
this chapter. (_s_) _Procell_: “... in the shape of an angell, but
speaketh darkly of things hidden”, is in Wier, “in specie angelica, sed
obscura valde: loquitur de occultis”. (_t_) _Raum_: “... he stealeth
wonderfully out of the kings house”; Wier, “mire ex regis domi _vel
alia_ suffuratur”. (_v_) In _Vine_, “lapideos domos” is translated
“stone walles”. (_w_) _Flauros_: Wier says, “vere respondet. Si fuerit
in triangulo mentitur in cunctis.” Scot follows the same punctuation,
but had he translated it, he, as a man of intelligence, must have seen
that the (.) before “Si” should have been struck out and placed after
“triangulo”, or a “non” inserted after “Si”, for this triangle was
made specially for the exorcist’s safety and the spirit’s obedience
and truthful speaking (see under _Bileth_, _Furfur_ and _Shax_). It
must, however, be confessed to be a mark of haste in Scot to have
admitted such mistakes, even though he only copied, the more so as he
must have known the _Pseudomonarchia_. “And deceiveth in other things,
and beguileth in other business”, is a duplicate translation of “et
fallit in aliis negotiis”. The omission of “twentie” (viginti) before
“legions” may be a press error, but the “de divinitate”, translated
“of divinity”, must be, I think, a translator’s error, for it really
means “of the Divinity” (see “Purson”). (_x_) Under _Buer_, Wier has
“conspicitur in signo*”; under _Decarabia_, “venit simili*”; under
_Aym_, “altero [capiti, simili] homini duos * habenti.” Clearly the
book or MS. used by Wier was in these places illegible, or more likely
the copier had been unable to fill in the wanting word or words, and
indicated this by a *. But Scot’s authority did not understand it
on its first occurrence under _Buer_, and, not mentioning any sign,
translates it, “is seene in this sign;”! (_y_) The names of the fiends
differ also sometimes in spelling; omitting such instances as “i”
for “y”, “c” for “k”, etc., I give Wier first, followed by Scot’s
form. “Bathym”, alibi “Marthim”—“Bathin”, “Mathin”; “Pursan”—“Purson”;
“Loray”—“Leraie”, this latter being wrong, because his alias is
“Oray”. Wier, by the way, also shows that “Leraie” was not pronounced
“Leraje”, as given in the second edition of Scot. “Ipes”, alias
“Ayperos”—“Ipos”, “Ayporos”; “Naberus”—“Naberius”, probably the wrong
form; “Roneve”—“Ronove”; “Forres”—“Foras”; “Marchocias”—“Marchosias”;
“Chax”—“Shax”; “Pucel”—“Procell”; “Zagam”—“Zagan”; “Volac”—“Valac”;
“Androalphus”—“Andrealphus”; “Oze”—“Ose”; “Zaleos”—“Saleos”; “Wal,
1660”, is “Vual (as Scot), 1583”. It will be noticed that “e” is five
times used for “o”, a MS. copyist’s error.
I think I had some other proofs in a MS. sheet since lost; but these
are now overmany to prove that Scot had access to some other copy than
Wier’s _Pseudomonarchia_, and made use of it, and that his translator
was not very conversant with Latin. Wier, it may be added, puts
“Secretum ... horum” in one line, and without a capital to the “Tu”,
and gives no explanation of the words in any way, and Scot confirms our
conclusion from these facts by the marginal, “This was | the work of |
one T. R.” | etc., and the words “written [&c.] vpō parchment” seem to
show that this 1570 translation was in MS. (See also General Notings,
p. 418.)
P. 379. “_Eligor._” I do not understand the double titles here and
elsewhere given, nor why “miles” should here be translated “a knight”,
while under _Zepar_, _Furcas_, _Murmur_, and _Allocer_ it is “soldier”.
In chapter iii, p. 393, is given the time when knights (“Milites”,
Wier) may be bound, but nothing, of course, is said of “soldiers”.
P. 383. “Tocz.”, like a contraction, but Wier has “Tocz” without any
stop.
P. 384. “_Astaroth._” Scot, merely copying, is not responsible for her
being a male. At p. 519 and p. 525, he writing, calls Astarte a “she
idoll”.
P. 389. “_Valac_ ... with angels wings like a boie”, cannot, I think,
be Scot’s translation of “uti puer alis angeli”.
——— “_Gomory._” Wier says “ducali corona”, but the rest is the same; and
it must be remembered that a fiend (as in Incubus and Succubus) could
be of either sex.
P. 390. “_Aym_ ... a light firebrand.” Here (as elsewhere in Scot) we
find, as was then often done, the past of verbs ending in t or d elided
the ed, or, rather, coalesced them. Wier has “ingentem facem ardentem”.
P. 391. “_Flauros_ ... if he be commanded.” Wier adds “virtute numinis”.
P. 392. “_Note that a legion._” Wier simply has “Legio 6666”. The rest
is, in all probability, Scot’s own.
P. 393. “Ch. 3” is “§ 69” of Wier.
——— “Ch. 4” is “Citatio Prædictorum Spirituum”, and though not marked as
a new chapter, is one having § 1, § 2, etc.
——— These are the variations between Wier and Scot in this chapter 4,
or Citatio, Wier being in Latin, Scot in English. (_a_) “For one
[companion] must always be with you”; “si præsto fuerit”. (_b_) 394,
“effect”; Wier adds, “imo tuæ animæ perditione”. (_c_) “And note”,
etc., is Scot’s own. (_d_) The ✠ before “holie trinitie” is in Scot
only. (_e_) Scot omits ✠ after “holie crosse”. (_f_) Wier’s “anathi
Enathiel” is in Scot “Anathiel”. (_g_) The “Heli, Messias”, after
“Gayes” in Scot, are in Wier at the end of the list. (_h_) Scot’s
“Tolimi” is Wier’s “Tolima”. (_i_) [Second list of names.] Scot’s
“Horta” is Wier’s “hortan”; his “Vege dora”, “vigedora”, Wier’s
letters, in 1583, being several of them so separated that they could
easily be read as two words; Scot’s “Ysesy” is “ysyesy”. (_j_) [Third
list.] Scot’s “Elhrac” is Wier’s “Elhroc”; “Ebanher”, “eban her”.
(_k_) P. 666, Scot’s “Cryon” is “irion”; “Sabboth” is, as before,
more rightly “sabaoth”. And I may add that while every word in Scot
is capitalised except “dora”, really the sequel of “Vige”, only “Deus
Sabaoth”, “Α” and “Ω”, “Rex”, “Joth”, “Aglanabrath”, “El” “Enathiel”,
“Amazim”, “Elias”, and “Messias” of the first list, none of the second
list, “Elhroch” the first of the third list, and none of the fourth
list are capitalised.
P. 395. “As is conteined in the booke called”, etc. This ambiguous
sentence is better explained by Wier’s “Continua ut in libro * Annuli
Salomonis continetur”, that is, continue the “etc.” as etc. It may be
added that the *, the mark of an omission, is omitted in the English.
——— Scot (_i.e._, his authority) wholly omits Wier’s final § 5: “Hæc
blasphema & execranda hujus mundi fæx & sentina pœnam in magos
prophanos bene constitutam, pro scelerato mentis ausu jure meretur.”
Scot, I think, would be unlikely not to translate this, or be incited
by it to write something similar, but it would be wholly against the
purport of T. R. Some of the differences entered into, both just
above and previously, seem to favour the belief that two independent
copies of the _Empto. Salomonis_ were used, but very many merely show
carelessness, and possibly no great amount of Latin. The giving of the
name “✠ Secretum secretorum”, etc., at the same place, viz., just at
the end of the enumeration, etc., of the principal devils, might seem
to favour a copying from Wier; but we must remember that the _Empto.
Salomonis_ from which these leaves are copied may itself, and possibly
by way of proving its genuineness, have copied these details from an
earlier, or supposedly earlier, “Secretum secretorum”.
————————————