The Book of ceremonial Magic

have been attained in less than two centuries of careless and ignorant transcription. We
may therefore fix the date of its manufacture, or otherwise of its translation, about the
period which has been mentioned.
The attribution of the work to Solomon is obvious enough; it could not fail to have
suggested itself to a compiler with Kabalistic leanings and with a knowledge of Jewish
tradition from the days of the Talmud onward. Further, it is quite
p. 62
consistent with a literature which has done nothing but ascribe falsely. That it should be
taken seriously by any well-equipped person at the present day must, of course, be quite
inscrutable, and in respect of the English editor, those who feel concerned in the question
may account for it in one of two ways:--by a predisposition to accept statements on the
faith of occult tradition following upon a conviction as to the reality of occult science, or,
alternatively, by a knowledge derived from the traditions of initiation. The first is
regrettable because it is open to abuse, which is stating the case in terms of unstrained
mercy; the second is not likely to exist, because it is injurious to the intelligence of the
King of Israel to suppose that he wrote the Clavicle. I do not feel clear, however, that it
would be beneath certain storehouses of occult tradition to ratify the ascription or to make
archives to support it. In sum, it would be quite in accordance with the mind of occult
initiation to transmit a false tradition or to manufacture it.
So far concerning the antiquity of the work and the sovereign mystification of its
authorship. It remains now to say something of its character. 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 Goëtic portions, on the ground that they are later interpolations,
which is of course arbitrary. He still retains, however, what is generally stigmatised as
one of the distinctive marks of Black Magic; the ritual is permeated with the bloody
sacrifice, which Mr. Mathers rightly condemns, but has not seen his way to reject. His
version further includes various references to the performance of works of hatred and
destruction--that is, works betraying an evil purpose, or a purpose directly connecting
with Black Magic. The chapter detailing
p. 63
the method of effecting such objects is omitted, but it is found in five out of the seven
codices upon which the version is based. Furthermore, where the intention is not evil, it is
frivolous, hyperbolical or paramountly foolish. It is (a.) frivolous in such experiments as
the detection of stolen goods, by which it is placed on the same level as the pedlar's
literature of fortune-telling; it is (b.) hyperbolical and fantastic in the experiment of
invisibility, in the composition of the Magic Garters and the Magic Staff; it is (c.) foolish
in such chapters as that on preventing a sportsman from killing any game. Perhaps,
however, these distinctions may be held to merge into one another. M. Papus, the
mouthpiece of the French occultists, distinguishes between the Keys of Solomon and the