Seals of the Archangels in the Clavicula Salomonis de Secretis

For the convenience and  brevity, Ms. Rps 3352 II will be called CSS, and as accustomed, the seals will be named after it.

The seals of the seven angels are quite extraordinary in character and shape, quite like the rest of the manuscript itself. 

Seal of Michael (Sun)

CSS.1a

 CSS.1b

The first seal is meant as a general illustration at the beginning of a new book in the manuscript, as the title announces: Incipit Incipit Liber Tertius Clavicula Salomonis (Here Begins the Third Book of the Clavicula Salomonis). It s flanked by the astrological siglae of Mercury on the right and Moon on the left, but we know it well to be the seal of Michael from the Heptameron. 

Studying both seals, we see that none of its characteristics are accidental, so the direct source is not a printed Heptameron. From left to right: the beginning of the horizontal line, in the large curve, is not a circle or a closed loop, but a mere line or a slightly descending curve; Where the H seals had a descending slanted line, both these seals have a curious broken like. This is a quite new characteristic in these seals. In the U shaped part of the seal, where the H seals have a cross usually, there is nothing here. This is consistent with one source: MC.3, the Wroclaw Magical Calendar.   The rest of the seal is quite normal, but we are keen to examine the loop: in the H seals, this loop is not a minor trait, its a rhomboidal shape. No other version has a round shape (and MC.3 has nothing at all) except for MC.1.

Seal of Gabriel (Moon)

 CSS.2

The seal of Gabriel also bares great resemblance to the other seals, but it has quite a few unique characteristics.

The first vertical segment is reduced to a simple line, disjointed from the main horizontal line. The second vertical segment has very simplified heads, in the shape of rigns or semi-rings. One of the most intriguing features is the lack of horizontal compartments in the enclosed figure: only one vertical line, unlike any seal encountered. While we would expect it to be similar to the Scot seals and the MC series, it has exactly what they lack (a vertical line) and it lacks exactly what they supply (the three horizontal lines). The seal maintains the H feature of the two lower case b-s, as they lack in the MC versions altogether and are not morphed into 6s. The following element, the A shape, is much more consistent with the MC series, as it is cursive, unlike Scot and the H series. Another prominent feature would be the presence of two cursive Ms separated from the main line, not one angular M jointed to the line, a feature completely new. The last swirl is quite consistent with the H series, but much more cursive, resembling more a cursive U.   If the seal of Michael would lead us to a manuscript akin to CM.3, the Wroclaw Codex, but not identical, the seal of Gabriel also seems to support that.

The seal of Samael

CSS.3

 

 

As accustomed to surprises, this seal does not fail to disappoint. From the minor morphology changes in the previous seals, this one takes a leap. The first element is a smallish simple cross, like all other versions. The next element is no longer a straight angle with a loop, but a loop upon a horizontal angle, the whole element is slanted to the right. The next section of the seal is completely changed, retaining only small resembling elements: the x shape and the horizontal line through the circle remind us of the previous seal variations, but the circle is not at a 45 degree angle, its placed horizontally, from it protruding two symmetric elements with angles below and small arrows joined at the top. This seal has a completely new look and cannot even be counted as a copyists error. It is unlike anything I have met with in the study of these seals.

Seal of Raphael (Mercury)

CSS.4

 

 

The source of this seal in its oldest form has to be the Heptameron, as the attribution of the seal is not interchanged with that of Michael. Yet again, novelty and change. The first element is a backwards L, but not started from the medial line, like most seals. The second element is similar, a circle breaking the line, with a vertical line through it, but it is simple and unadorned with a foot, like most have it. The following common element, a simple line through the medial one, is missing. The third element of this seal, where most figures would have an elongated circle with a cross inscribed, turn here into a sort of beetle-shape: a vertical ellipse halved, crowned above and below with two semicircles, a unique trait. The right half is equally original: we have one X shape instead of two verticals and two crescents, on one side and the other of the X. The final K shape is fairly standard.

Seal of Sachiel (Jupiter)

CSS.5

The seal of Sachiel is entirely different from the others and seems to be independent. Not only the morphology of the seal is entirely alien to the other Heptameron-based seals, but the seal itself is unknown. The top part of the seal is a horizontal line, capped with tho descending oblique crosses, the middle being joined to the top of an angle. The ascending angle is capped with two rings and it contains a symbol similar to a 2, possibly derived from the astrological sigla of the planet Jupiter. The lower half is some sort of graphic construct meant to describe a flaming sphere s bottom, perhaps the result of a vision obtained in the practice of the rituals prescribed. The flaming sphere bottom has a trapezoid attached, azured, with flames or flame-like symbols as well. To my knowledge, this is completely original, and has not been encountered anywhere.  

Seal of Anael (Venus)

 CSS.6

 

 

 

This seal is entirely original as well, and not previously attested anywhere. It has no resemblance with the Heptameron seal. This character is made up of a trapezoid seated upon an elongated ellipse, flaming beneath. It is capped with two rings in the upper corners and halved by a horizontal line, itself capped with seals. The upper part contains what seem to be two incomplete Venus siglae, joined to the top line.

Seal of Cassiel (Saturn)

CSS.7

The  last seal in this series is the character of the Saturnine prince. This last seal bears a small resemblance to the others in the H series, namely it is an oversimplified version of the second mark we find in the tripartite seals of Cassiel: Hept.1, 2 and 3, Scot.7, Clav.A.7.1 and 2, exceptions being the MC series. 


Conclusions: the CSS is a highly ecclectic mix of seals, some taken from traditional sources, some modified as the writer saw fit, and others entirely original. If the author used the Heptameron, he did not consult a printed version, or chose alternate seals from another copy of it or a similar work, undiscovered.

Seals of the archangels in the Magical Calendar.

The Magical Calendar is one of the most amazing pieces of art and information available in Western Hermeticism. 

It was published in 1620 by Johann Baptista Großchedel its basically a tabular rendition of the correspondences found in  Agrippa's Book II, chapters 4 through 14. 

The original manuscript used as a source for it British Library manuscript Harley 3420. Adam McLean, who published a wonderful study of it in The Magical Calendar: A Synthesis of Magial Symbolism from the Seventeenth-Century Renaissance of Medieval Occultism (Magnum Opus Hermetic Sourceworks Series) RedWheel / Weiser, 2008, decribes on his website the manuscript: 

British Library MS. Harley 3420.
Paper. 1614.

Johannis Baptistae Groschedelii, Dispositio Numerorum magica ab Unitate usq; ad Duodenarium.
Titulus ipsius Codicis: 'Dispositio numerorum Magica ab unitata usque ad duodenarium. Collecta singularis industria, compilatione diversa, magno labore, et investigatione sibi suisque, a Johanne Baptista Groschedelio, Equite Romano, ab Aicha Philomago, Lucisque et Gratiae, et Naturae indagatori vigilantissimo. Anno 1614.' Opus scil. Artimagicae et Astrologiae judiciali (ut loquuntur) inserviens: et in suo genere satis curiosum. [ With coloured figures.]

A good presentation of it is hosted by Joseph Peterson's website, copiously illustrated:

 http://www.esotericarchives.com/mc/index.html

I will present three versions of the seals, my sources being as follows:

MC.1

The 1620 engraving by Grosschedel and DeBry, from McLean and Peterson.

MC.2

The 1614 manuscript Harley 3420, from Peterson.

MC.3

A Dresden manuscript quite similar to the Harley version (in what I can glean from McLean's description, I haven't have the pleasure to inspect the manuscript first hand.)

 

 

 The entry on it:

'Ein Im[m]erwährender Natürlich-Magischer Calender, Welcher die Beschauung der Allertiefesten und Geheimesten Sachen, Ingleichen die Erkäntnüs der gantzen Philosophie in sich faßet', 1582. SLUB Dresden

 Adam McLean seems to think the date is spurious, yet Rafal T. Prinke gives the same date for the version in the Wroclaw Codex. I have not inspected this manuscript either, nor do I have a digital copy, so there is no MC.4, unfortunately.  

The order of the angels is quite peculiar, as is their attributions.

In MC.1, the angels are listed from Saturn to Moon, the so-called Chaldaic order of the planets. It rivals in popularity with the week order, as used in the Heptameron. Cassiel, Sachiel, Samael and Gabriel have their normal atributions, that is Saturn, Jupiter, ars and Moon. The others seem miss-matched. Anael is ascribed to the Sun, Raphael to Venus, and Michael to Mercury.

In MC.2, Anael is rightly attributed to Venus, but Raphael is attributed to the Sun and Michael to Mercury, the inverted order of the Heptameron. As Peterson points out, the Heptameron agrees with Agrippa, while the MC agrees with older works such as Liber Juratus and Sepher Raziel. We shal keep this order here. He concludes that the table has been muddled in the engraving: Raphael and Anael are reversed from the manuscript. This is probably due to the fact that Sol/Raphael/Machen is split by the binding. (Peterson, Magical Calendar, Seven)

In MC.3 the order is not as expected of a manuscript, in agreement with the MC.2, but in agreement with the later printer version, the MC.1.  We could therefore conclude that MC.3 is not an older version from the MC.1, but possibly derived from it.

Seal of Cassiel (Saturn)

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Notes: one cannot help noticing that while the seals from the Heptameron have three marks, the seal from Scot has two, we are presented here with only one mark, the first one. The shapes also differ: MC.1 and 2 share the trapezoidal shapes of the Heptameron, while MC.3 is rather slim and stylish, like Scot's rectangle.

Seal of Sachiel (Jupiter)

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Notes: Seal does not present great differences. The first mark is hollow, no lines or dots as in Scot. or Hept., the second mark has the superior part ending horizontally, not in a curved line (Scot, Hept) and the last mark resembles Scot. more than Hept., having no lower left hook. MC.3 is again similar to MC.1 rather than MC.2.

Seal of Samael (Mars)

 

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Notes: first of all, MC.1 and 3 share most characteristics, and differ from MC.2, this having a lower left protuberance and an apparent absence in the right (no circle). MC.2 has a perpendicular termination while  MC.1 and MC.3 do not, but do continue with a straight segment. These differences again speak for the probability of MC.1 being the source of MC.3, and not vice-versa. Here there are no breaks in the semicircle as in Hept.1 and 3, but bare close similarity to Hept.2 and Scot. he most striking fact is that in the far right, the cross is absent, the leftward dash is connected to the oblique line and the circle is placed below the figure, not above it. his last feature is the most striking above all, and can trace the origin of the seals. 

Seal of Raphael (Sun)

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Note: One of the problematic issues of the MC versus HEPT. In MC, the angel of the Sun is switched. Thea seals themselves remain, only the angelic  names suffer change. MC.1 and MC.3 share the same mistake, putting Anael as the regent angel of the Sun, but MC.2 has the correct table of assignment.  From all seals presented, this series is more tied to Scot. and Hept.2, they have the closest line to the left curve, almost joining at the head. Here we see a continuity between them, the cross being dragged up and circled once then circled again, creating more fluidity in the drawing. MC.2 has a straight termination, but MC.1 feels the need to embellish, curving the line inward and naturally MC.3 copies this embellishment, insisting even more and evolving it into a circle. MC.is also faulty, missing the inner upward cross.

 Seal of Anael (Venus)

MC.1

 

MC.2

MC.3

 

Notes: no great difference observed, but we can say that MC.2 again stands out as a possible origin of the others. It bears the most resemblance to Hept.1, having a more acute top vertical stroke, whereas MC.1 and MC.2 try to fix it, giving the curve a rounder shape. In MC.2 the tail has three curves, ending upward, while 1 and 2 attempt simplification, with two curves, ending downward. No similarity to Scot.

Seal of Michael (Mercury)

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Notes: the second problematic seal. In the Heptameron, this is still the seal of the angel of Mercury and Wednesday, but there it is Raphael.  As imagined, 1 and 3 differ from 2. In figure MC.2, the first circle is parted, while the  other two omit the vertical line, the beginning line is slightly longer in the upper part, just like the Hept. figures, while the other two do not share this feature. All three have an evenly divided square in the enclosed part, quite different from Hept., all have circle endings, and the most strikingly different is MC.3, adding a more decorative styling to the ending.

Seal of Gabriel (Moon)

 

MC.1

 

MC.2

 

MC.3

Notes: again we see MC.2 standing out as a source, dependent more on the Heptameron or at least a common ancestor. The most striking feature of these seals is the absence of the inner vertical  line. MC.1 and 3 have four divisions, more like Scot., but interestingly enough, MC.2 has six, with two inner lines in each half of the rectangle. The B formation is mostly present in MC.2 in a similar fasion to the Hept. figures, especially Hept.1, but we lack in all seals the suspended b's or 6's. The slanted A shape is present in figure 2 in a more decorative manner than in Hept., with lower curves, a feature that is accentuated in 1 and 2 to the point of no resemblance to an A or an upside-down V, but more like an upside-down glyph of Aries.    The M figure is more decorated in figure 2 and more simplified in 1 and 3, rendering closer to the Hept. figures, while the final e shape is diminished in size in figure 2 and also restricted to the top half of the seal, above the line, a feature that MC.1 and subsequently MC.3 take and evolve in a more fluid and graceful shape. 

I have no doubt that Harley 3420, dated to 1614, is the source of the Calendarium Magicum, dated 1620, which in turn served as a model, with all mistakes, for the Dresden manuscript.

As I type this I await professor Rafal T. Prinke's response with a scan of the Warclaw codex, but if my presumption is correct, this too will be inspired by either MC.1 (1620) or even MC.3, sharing similar shapes, but above all, placing Anael as the Sun angel, therefore pushing it's date well pass 1620.

Seals of the Archangels in the Heptameron

 (article may suffer further editing)

This is part of a larger article meant to study in detail the diffusion of the seals of the seven planetary archangels.

These seals have become quite popular from the seventeenth century onward due to the publication of the so called Heptameron, or Magical Elements of Peter de Abano (Pierre d`Abane, Petrus Apono) or rather, to their appended material.

In the following studies we shall discuss the influence and importance of the Heptameron and it s possible sources, the works that drew their information primarily from it, including the seals as well as parallel sources dealing with the same information.

I believe the study of the seals can reveal, through minor graphic differences that alter with multiple copying and through changes in their attribution, a model of evolution and perhaps a history of the sources that might otherwise remain obscure due to lack of proper bibliographic information.  Just as the study of the handwriting of one manuscript can tell us quite a number of things, from the formation and profession of the scribe to the period and place, the study of the seals can yield useful information regarding the source or the school that the author or copyist belonged to.

I have used the following sources, and the following siglae:

Hept.1.

Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius, and Petrus. Henrici Cornelii Agrippae liber qvartvs De occvlta philosophia, seu de cerimonijs magicis. [Marburg?:] Impressum, 1565. Facsimile included in: Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius, and Karl Anton Nowotny. De occulta philosophia. Graz: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1967, presented at http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part7

Hept.2.

Latin text is Lyon 1600 (?). Facsimile in Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius. Opera I. With an introduction by Richard H. Popkin. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970, from http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part7

Hept.3.

Henry Cornelius Agrippa's Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy, and Geomancy. Magical Elements. London: [s.n.], 1655. Turner at   http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/heptamer.htm#part7

A notable contribution in my study is the volume "The Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy" edited by Stephen Skinner, Ibis Press, Maine, 2005. 

 Other authors, such as Francis Barrett and Papus, along with the Clavicles, will be treated separately. 

Seal of Michael (Sun)

Hept.1

Hept.2

Hept.3 

Notes: the seal remains unchanged in proportion and detail. Slight hesitation in Hept.2 in making the first circle in the left curve, reducing it to a hooked ending.

Seal of Gabriel (Moon)

 

Hept.1

 

Hept.2

 

Hept.3 

 Notes: Seal remains unchanged, with the exception of Hept.2, which presents two ruptures.

Seal of Samael (Mars)

 

Hept.1

 

Hept.2

 

Hept.3 

 Notes: while Hept.1 and 3 present a rupture in the semicircle, Hept.2 seems to correct it.

Seal of Raphael (Mercury)

 

Hept.1

 

Hept.2

Hept.3 

Notes: multiple minor variations. Hept.2 presents a vertical line separate from the right enclosure, while 1 and 3 present only a vertically elongated line affixed to the enclosure, Hept.1 and 3 have similar boxing, of four unequal chambers, while Hept.2 has only two, Hept.1 and 2 have circles at the end of the horizontal line while 3 has a small rectangle, and Hept.2 has a disjoint formation in the shape of the letter K, whereas Hept.1 and 3 present continuity with the lines of the pentagonal enclosure. 

Seal of Sachiel (Jupiter)

 

Hept.1

 

Hept.2

 

Hept.3 

Notes: minor variations. In the  first figure, Hept.1 and 3 attempt a circled ending, while 2 only has curved lines, and the interior is marked differently: Hept.1 has an ornate horizontal line with two dots, Hept.2 has just a vertical line and Hept.3 shares common features, with a vertical line and a horizontal one. The second and third figure remain unchanged, with slight fluency variations.

Seal of Anael (Venus)

 

Hept.1

Hept.2

 

Hept.3 

 Notes: First sign remains unchanged. Second sign varies slightly, the tail having different juncture points to the full figure, that is upper (Hept.3), medial (Hept.2) and lower (Hept.1). Claims have been made that the seal of Anael, patron of Venus and thus, reproduction, mimics the sexual organs.

Seal of Cassiel (Saturn)

 

Hept.1

 

Hept.2

 

Hept.3

 Notes: the seals suffers no changes, except for small breaks in Hept.1 caused most probably by ink.