As most people reading
this will know, it’s not the way the original is set up. Mathers sets this repetition
up over and over, so that each time you go through a series of divine names you
reiterate this intention. But it isn’t the way the original is set up.
The original has commands
like “delivery him from the spirit who restrains him,” “listen to me and turn
away this daimon,” or “save the soul.”
The Mathers version shits
the focus by reiterating over and over the incantation:
“Hear me and make all
spirits subject unto me so that every spirit of the Firmament and of the Ether,
upon the Earth and Under the Earth, On Dry Land and In the Water, of Whirling
Air and of Rushing Fire, and every spell and scourge of God may be obedient
unto me.”
The translation by D.E.
Aune provides the text which inspired Mathers’s refrain translated as such:
“Subject to me all
daimons, so that every daimon whether heavenly or aerial or earthly, or
subterranean or terrestrial or aquatic, might be obedient unto me and every
enchantment and scourge which is from God.”
The two texts are pretty
different.
I think we usually think
about how the repetition of Mathers’s version, and how it doesn’t match the original
highlights how the Mathers text is a departure from the source material. I don’t
think we talk much about what the differences highlight or what this portion
tells us about magic. This is unfortunate, because both the comparison and the
text itself tell us some interesting things.
The Mathers version repeats
the “Hear me” adjuration several times throughout, essentially in conjunction
with each series of divine names. It takes the form of a conjuration through
the link to these names in the sense that all spirits in all places and all
powers and acts of divine force are bound to the will of the magician.
When viewed as a prayer
or ritual for achieving identification or communion with one’s divine self or
the genius appointed over the magician with the understanding that a strong
connection with this spiritual faculty or power will result in the ability to
command spirits it makes sense that the prayer should focus on this concept as
its main goal rather than the apotropaic elements found in the original.
Crowley’s use of the
invocation as a preliminary to the Goetia of Solomon could make sense in this
light. The Ars Goetia does not rely on the magician calling upon God prior to
working. Coming from a Golden Dawn background Crowley could have seen this as a
way of engaging that standard Solomonic step of the conjuration process.
The original presents
this in conjunction with a formula to be written on papyrus and made into a paper
crown. The magician adorns themselves with the paper crown on which the formula
has been written and then says the “Subject to me all daimons (spirits)…”
passage.
This is presented as a
preparation for the ritual rather than something done throughout the ritual.
The Stele is used to constrain
and remove a vexing spirit. By having spirits of all manners made subject to
the magician before he begins he is able to command the vexing spirit since it
too would be made subject to him.
The main goal of the
Stele is the subjugation and removal of the vexing spirit and thus the authority
and power to remove the spirit and the imprecation to remove the spirit and
provide relief are the elements routinely repeated, though in varied manners,
throughout the Stele.
The focus is one of the
core differences between the two rituals – and in effect and manner that
diverge enough that one might view them as two rituals; but again there are
differences in wording in this passage as well as similarities which are illustrative.
The Mathers version lays
out a cosmography or spirit ecology, as does the traditional version. As
presented by Mathers we come to understand that the world is divided into
certain regions or spaces and spirits reside in each of these.
The Firmament is given
first as it is the highest of these. It might be interpreted as heavenly, or it
might be interpreted as the starry dome between the heavens and the material
world. If taking it as the latter this suggests that the spirits of the
heavenly spheres, or the starry realms might be subject to the magician but
those spirits beyond that space amid the waters beyond the firmament forming
the heavenly space of the creator, are not subject to the magician or to this
spell.
The Ether comes next.
Mathers would have understood this likely in terms presented by Levi, and taken
the Ether as the Astral Light, or the uniting spiritual space between things
and just beyond the perceptible reality.
Upon the Earth and Under
the Earth divides the world into terrestrial and chthonic spaces and notes that
spirits in both spaces are subject to the magician. Elemental spirits,
intelligences, earth bound spirits, nature spirits etc. fall within the spirits
upon the earth. Under the Earth might include devils, the dead, and a host of
other spirits. The Golden Dawn’s treatment of the wide array of spirits was
fairly limited and I can only imagine that Mathers’s imagination and grasp of
the wide world of spirits is accurately reflected in what spirits the Golden
Dawn touched upon.
Upon the earth we find
the world further divided into dry land, water, whirling air, and rushing fire.
Mathers definitely adds poetry which is not present in D. E. Aune’s
translation, and which I then assume may not have been in the original. This
divide gives the spirits upon the earth into four elemental kingdoms. This
might have been viewed in a medieval light, with the elements forming four
aires differing in density and altitude, each being inhabited by spirits of a
different character. More likely, this was taken in a classical or Paracelsian light
with elemental beings who were formed of the particular natures of the elements
inhabiting and shaping the physical elements. This would tie to the elemental
kings found in the Knowledge Lectures and the Paracelsian elementals which the
Golden Dawn took from Levi.
Aune’s rendering paints a
similar but different picture of spirit ecology.
Those spirits which
appear in the heavens are not given with any terminology which separates the
heavens as a particularly special place distinct from the more natural spaces
in which we find spirits. Nor are the heavens given with terminology which
divides one heaven from another. We don’t have a distinction between heavens
and ether, so there is not an idea of a heavenly realm and then within the
world a separate spiritual reality distinct from the material or perceptible
reality.
The heavens are perhaps
more imminent rather than the emanant heaven in Mathers.
The elemental spaces and
the chthonic spaces are presented together rather than in a separate clause.
Again, this suggests a lack of severe distinction. What is below the ground is
still part of the world rather than a wholly separate world in this context. This
mirrors that the heavens are also presented in the same clause as the elemental
spaces and are likely contiguous with the material world rather than distinct
therefrom. With this in mind it is plausible that the spirits were seen as imminently
real and present rather than remotely present with influence echoed into our
world as we often see in later spiritologies.
The elemental spaces do
not include fire. This lack of fire indicates that these are not elemental
spaces but rather the three spaces common to ancient thought. The land, the
sea, and the sky, with the space beneath the land and the space beyond the sky
included. The character of the spirits considered might change when we do not
consider them of a nature or composition related to the elements but rather
nymphs and spirits living in the waters, those running through fields and trees,
and those inhabiting the winds and clouds.
While the purpose of the
two rituals differs – Mathers looks to achieve a divine status to command
spirits generally, the Hieroglyphist seeks to alleviate affliction caused by a
spirit; elements of their operation are similar.
“He is the Lord of the
Gods, He is the Lord of the inhabited world, He is the one whom the winds fear…”
– tr. Aune.
“This is the Lord of the
Gods: This is the Lord of the Universe: This is He Whom the Winds fear.” – tr.
Mathers.
Both work by way of calling
upon authority of the biggest divine or spiritual force possible to command
other spirits. Both use a host of divine names to either suggest the totality
of divine authority and therefore the highest authority, or perhaps to use
enough names that the secret and powerful true name of this God is likely
included amongst them.
To an English speaking
reader one might interpret “He is” as speaking objectively, describing this
spirit, and “This is” subjectively, and speaking as the spirit. Sometimes
pronouns might be translated either as a subjective or a demonstrative pronoun,
so I would assume that this is the difference here. Both spells go on to speak
as the powerful spirit and claim identification with the spirit so that the
magician can act on that spirit’s authority.
In that regard, calling
on a powerful divine spirit and self-identifying therewith, the two rituals are
the same.
This is also an example
of that method of magic existing in ancient resources. We have examples throughout
the PGM where the magician claims a connection to the mythology of the spirit
or god as a way of establishing friendship so that the spirit or god acts in
the magician’s favor while commanding other spirits (this is common in spells
involving Set-Typhon.) In this case the magician utilizes some element of that…he
claims to know the secret name, he claims to be the god’s prophet who the God
has already given power and secrets to, he claims to be the messenger serving
the God. His initial imprecation for the god to listen to him is based on the
idea that he holds a particular status and deserves the god’s attention because
of that. This then evolves into stoking up the god by describing how powerful
he is and chanting his names until the magician is finally ready to pull the
big guns out and say “hey, actually, I AM you.”
The overall pattern of
the ritual is exemplary of this approach to magic, in addition to showing us
that it is one of the ways spirit magic was worked historically.
It also illustrates that
the idea of commanding a spirit because a bigger stronger spirit is on your
side is not a late addition to magic.
Sometimes we look at
anything that might be bullying or aggressive spirit work as something stemming
from a Christian worldview. If we look to older Pagan magics we’ll find that
you befriended spirits, you worshipped the bosses of the spirits and befriended
them, and then used your relationship with those bosses to establish new
friendships and get them to trade with you and do business with you.
Sure, this is a good way
to do magic and sometimes in some cases it works, and we can see some
historical modes of working that way both in Pagan and in Christian contexts.
We also see threats,
escalations, bindings, leveraging authority and power of divine rulers, of
enemies of the spirit, or terrifying monsterous spirits throughout ancient magic
in various parts of the ancient world.
The vexing spirit here
isn’t removed because you’re buddies with Ossoronophris, and Ossoronophris is
buddies with Orias, and he introduces you to Orias, and you become buddies, and
you show Orias that instead of eating the food of or sucking the blood of the
chief masons’s son he should just bro-out with you at Chili’s because you’re
all friends now. The vexing spirit is removed because the God of the Void is
inhabiting you and he rules the entire universe and he commands the spirit out
with his divine scourge. This God hates evil, he makes lightning flash, and thunder
roll, and his mouth is literally on fire.
This spell is an act of
aggression.
But it’s a spell which is
a reasonable act of aggression. The spirit present is doing something bad.
The spell is aggression,
but it isn’t violence. There is no chain of the spirits here. We aren’t cursing
and burning the vexing spirit, or the spirits being subjected to us.
It’s more walk loudly,
and also have a big stick, and flex some muscles, and everyone will decide
working with you is the way to go.
Going back to the
differences between Mathers and the Hieroglyphist, there is an element of this
authority and potential for violence which differs.
The way Mathers renders
the translation he says:
“Hear me and make all
spirits…and every spell and scourge of God…obedient unto me.”
God’s ability to work in
the world and his ability to project wrath upon any force which disobeys are
being subjected to the magician along with the spirits. Essentially, if spirits
do no listen, the magician possesses God’s arsenal to use to make spirits
listen.
Aune presents it as:
“every daimon…might be
obedient unto me and every enchantment and scourge which is from God.”
The way it is rendered here,
the enchantments and scourges of God are still in God’s possession, but the
spirits will be obedient to them. Those powers are not made obedient to the
magician but are highlighted as something present which could force obedience
if needed.
Since the magician has
called upon this god, and even identified therewith, the tools God has to
command spirits are on the magician’s side.
To me it would seem that
in one instance, the divine power to enforce divine authority is taken by the
magician as his own weapon, he might use those directly upon his goals or he
might command spirits, or he might use them to command spirits.
In the other instance,
the magician has God in his corner, and if the magician can’t command the
spirits God is there to command them and those divine tools for force as
present to ensure that the spirits follow the magician’s command.
The difference might feel
subtle, but I don’t think it is. Particularly if we consider that the Mathers
version is intended to be used repeatedly to achieve a maintained state of connection
and authority.
The question of what the
original intention was would have to be seen by looking at the Greek.
Unfortunately, when I did my degree in Classics I focused on Latin and Rome so
I can’t address the peculiarities of Greek. In Latin, there are certainly ways in
which a statement might result in the translator rendering the word order in
different ways which could have this kind of change in meaning. The determination
would be are “spell and scourge of god” direct objects which are being made
subject to the magician or are they indirect objects co-equal to the magician
to whom the spirits are made subject.
My purpose here isn’t so
much to get into whether or not Mathers’s translation is right or wrong, or
whether or in what ways Aune’s translation is better. I imagine Mathers took
liberties with his translation. He seems to do that consistently, and that
would have been the norm at the time in which he was working. On some level,
the job of the translator is to render the piece into a way suited to the contemporary
reader’s capability and stylistic elements may factor into that.
My intention is more to
look at how the differences tell us about the magic being worked, and what Aune’s
translation suggests about ancient magic working on the presumption that Aune
is rendering a fairly accurate translation.
If you liked this here are ways to follow and support!
If you enjoyed this please like, follow, and share on your favorite social media! We can be followed for updates on Facebook.
If you’re curious about starting conjuration pick up my new book – Luminarium: A Grimoire of Cunning Conjuration
If you want some help exploring the vast world of spirits check out my first book – Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits
Now Available: An Audio Class and collection of texts on the Paracelsian Elementals
More Opportunities for Support and Classes will show up at Ko-Fi