Goetia - Holy Order of the Golden Dawn Canada

with the names on the circle and triangle of the Goëtia (it appears in this edition as “Explanation
of Certain Names &c.”), some highly corrupt Hebrew names, a short and garbled conjuration
including said names (probably also connected with the Goëtia as it mentions the brazen vessel),
and finally, the “Mighty Oration”, a lengthy curse targetted at anyone who steals the MS. codex.
The Ars Nova should not be confused with the Ars Notoria (Notary Art) attributed variously
to Solomon and Apollonius of Tyanæa, which latter rather appears to be a medieval magical
derivative of classical art of memory, based around the contemplation of images or notæ while
repeating prayers. The Ars Notoria was condemned by Aquinas (cited in Yates, Art of Memory)
and various Renaissance writers such as Erasmus and Agrippa (in De vanitate &c.); Robert
Turner produced an English translation which was made less than useful by the omission of the
figures: this translation was incorporated into some later MSS. and printed editions of the
Lemegeton. Some figures from medieval MSS. of the Ars Notoria are printed in an article in a
volume called Conjuring Sprits: Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic, edited by Clare
Fanger (Stroud: Sutton).
A few complete editions of the Lesser Key have been printed since the Mathers-Crowley
edition of the Goëtia was issued. One, edited by Nelson White, appears to have been prepared
from either Sloane 2731, or a codex of similar content, and omits the Ars Nova on the grounds
that the editor considered it worthless. A more recent and thorough edition, edited by Joseph
Petersen (Red Wheel / Weiser, 2002) was prepared from various codices and includes the Ars
Notoria (mainly following Turner’s translation).
Crowley’s threatened “History of the Order of the Golden Dawn” did not manifest under that
title; see instead the instalments of The Temple of Solomon the King by J. F. C. Fuller (based on
Crowley’s notebooks) published in Equinox vol. I nos. 2, 3 and 4, as well as The Magicians of the
Golden Dawn by Ellic Howe and Ritual Magic in England by Francis X. King.
Shemhamphorash.
The Shem ha-Mephorash (crmph \c) is the “Divided Name” or “Name of Extension” derived
by Kabbalists from three consecutive verses in the Book of Exodus, each of which has 72 letters
in the original Hebrew. By writings these verses out in rows, the first and third right to left as
usual, the second left to right, and reading down the columns, 72 three-letter names are obtained.
On the basis that the first verse mentions “the angel of the Elohim”, from each three-letter group
the name of an Angel is obtained by appending either hy or la. The analogy with the 72 spirits of
the Goetia should be obvious.
For eight spirits, two forms of the seal were given by Mathers. In most cases the variations
are minor, attributable to divergence from repeated copying: any given MS. would only have had
one. The exception is Buné, where at least one MS. gives two significantly different forms.
Further, the proportions of some of the seals have been squashed or stretched somewhat to fit them
inside the circular borders (not present in most MSS); compare the forms in this edition with those
given by Waite in Book of Black Magic and of Pacts and by Hyatt and DuQuette in their edition of
the Goetia, or the forms from Sloane MS 3825 by Joseph Petersen in his electronic edition.
Where Mathers has remarked unusual or variant readings in the description of a spirit in a
footnote, I have in many instances cross-referenced to the corresponding entry in the Pseudomonarchia.
Issues that cannot be dealt with in a brief footnote are discussed below.
Two handwritten marginal notes by Crowley to this section which appeared in the First
Impressions edition are omitted; as in one instance there was no obvious citation point (the note
read “I think he can only be invoked at this time” and appeared at the bottom of the page with the
descriptions of Paimon, Buer and Gusion) and the other one (to the description of 31, Foras) was
partially illegible and I could make no sense of it (it appears to read: “Distinguish from
(?)Sandow”).
76