Ars Notoria - The Notary Art of Solomon.pdf - Po angielsku - LaPapesse

N OTORIA

THE NOTORY ART OF SOLOMON

T RANSLATED FROM LATIN INTO ENGLISH

A RS

B Y ROBERT TURNER, 1657

Ars Notoria: The Notary Art of Solomon

Translated by Robert Turner, 1656

Transcribed and converted to Acrobat by Benjamin Rowe, July 1999

Typeset in Adobe Caslon

Foreword

At the present time, there is only one English version of the Ars Notoria ; all cur-

rently-available editions of the book are based on the translation done in the 1650’s by

Robert Turner, a student of magical and astrological texts. Turner translates a Latin

version published by Agrippa fifty years earlier. While many earlier Latin versions

are referenced by scholars – some from as early as the 13th century – no one has as yet

taken the time to produce an updated English rendition of the work, or to fully com-

pare Agrippa’s version with the earlier versions.

The foundation and essence of the practices described in the Ars Notoria lies in

the figures or “notes” that give it its title. These consist partly of realistic illustrations,

partly of sigils and signs similar to other grimoires of the day, and partly of text,

which winds into and around the graphical elements. When used as objects of

contemplation (or in a more active use of visual imagination) the notes are said to

place the user’s mind in a state in which it is granted complete knowledge or skill in

one of the seven Liberal Arts. Unfortunately, Turner’s translation did not include

these figures.

Photographs of several notes can be found in Visual Art in Two Manuscripts of

the Ars Notoria , by Michael Camille, published in Conjuring Spirits: Texts and Tradi-

tions of Medieval Ritual Magic , edited by Claire Fanger, published by the Pennsylva-

nia State University Press. According to Dr. Fanger, there are at least three

stylistically distinct sets of notes to be found among the Latin manuscripts of the

Notoria . No one set is considered definitive.

The text instructs the practioner to “look into” or “inspect” the note with which

he is working several times a day, and to recite certain prayers and magickal names

during a portion of those occasions. The specific prayers and names are integrated

into the visual portion of the note in some instances, and it is not known whether

these integrated prayers are among the many translated by Turner.

What is actually meant by “inspect” is obscure. The Latin word, inspicio , has

essentially the same range of meanings as the modern English word; none of them

are informative in the context. But the text mentions several times that visions are a

part of the process of use, without explaining exactly how they are involved; and the

section quoted below suggests that something more than close examination is

intended.

of this work will not be the

lesse therefore: but the Orations are twice then to be pronounced, where

they were to be but once: And as to the knowledge of a vision, and the other

virtues which these Holy Orations have; thou maist prove and try them,

when and how thou wilt.

So it would seem that a specific skill or ability is involved, a “faculty of inspec-

tion”. Perhaps this was simply the ability to memorize the image and visualize it

And know this; that if thou hast not the books in thy hands, or the faculty of

looking into them is not given to thee; the effe

while reciting the orations. The monk John of Morigny, who practiced the Ars Noto-

ria to some effect, later used such visualization in his own system of religious magic.

Such techniques were generally known at the time, from various systems for improv-

ing the memory. Or possibly the technique was similar to those used by modern

magicians to obtain a vision related to a specific symbol, by using it as a “gate” in the

imagination, and entering into an astral world that embodies the meaning of the

symbol. In any case, the author of the Notoria seems confident that one can get by

without such skill if necessary; the Prayers alone, said with sufficient fervor and rep-

etition, will produce the same results.

The book is divided into three sections. The first of these deals with what the

author calls “generals”; these are abilities of broad application – memory, eloquence,

understanding and perseverance – which need to be developed before the practitioner

works to obtain the particular skills of one of the Liberal Arts. These latter he refers

to as the “specials”. The section mixes commentary with prayers that are to be used to

obtain the abilities, in a manner that is somewhat difficult to follow. (It should be

noted that only an abbreviated form of some prayers is given. )

The second section deals with the “specials”, giving prayers in sequence for each

of the Liberal Arts, in the order in which they were customarily taught. The Notes

all relate to this section of the book; each prayer is accompanied by instructions on

the use of the proper note, and some small amount of commentary.

The third section presents some prayers that were allegedly given to Solomon at

a different time than those of the previous sections. However, most of these prayers

are those already referenced in Part I, save that they are given here in full. The focus

of this section is again on the “generals”, though the technique described varies in

some respect from those previously given. Dr. Fanger and others have speculated that

this section was a variant of Part I, which perhaps had originally been circulated sep-

arately, and later incorporated in the Ars Notoria for its greater detail.

None of these sections are clearly distinguished in the text, which can lead to a

great deal of confusion as instructions in one section seem to conflict with those in

another. The start of each section has therefore been marked by a footnote.

The text of this edition was transcribed directly from a photocopy of Turner’s

first edition, published in 1657. Even by the standards of the time, the book was not a

great example of the typographer’s art; it was cheaply printed, and was clearly typeset

by three different people, each with their own notions of what constituted good text

layout, and of what constituted proper spelling of English. For the overall layout of

this edition, I have selected elements from each of their styles, but use them consis-

tently throughout the text. The punctuation, and the spelling, capitalization and

emphasis of individual words have been left as in the original. The exception is that I

have not followed the 17th-century practice of substituting the letter “f” for “s”,

believing that doing so would greatly reduce the readability of the text. The errors

that have crept into recent printed editions (particularly the edition issued by the

Holmes Publishing Group) are not present, although no doubt there are new errors

of my own devising. Several elided passages have been restored.

Two additional articles present in the 1657 edition are not included here. The

first of these, A Certain Magnetick Experiment , describes a device for long-distance

communication based on an imaginary property of magnetized iron. The second, An

Astrological Catechisme , is a translation of a Latin document by Leovitius, partially

rewritten by Turner. It presents a series of questions and answers concerning astrol-

ogy and its practice.

Benjamin Rowe

June 30, 1999

III

Ars Notoria - The Notary Art of Solomon.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: