I.

Besides those noted by Scot in the margins, I have gathered the following from Wier, though very possibly some may have been overlooked. By far the greater number occur in the 12th Book of Scot; that is, they consist chiefly of various charms and illustrative tales.

I would not be understood, however, as thinking that Scot in all these cases copied from Wier, any more than I would assert that some later Astronomer Royal has quoted from Herschel, without mentioning him, the fact “that the earth revolves around the sun”. The reference in both to the Homerica medicatio from Ferrerius (in Scot, Ferrarius) is a notable one in point, and two other instances will be found in Notes on the Text. I quite agree, also, with Prof. W. T. Gairdner when he says, Insanity, p. 61: “Nothing, however, is more evident than that Scot, however indebted to Wier (and both of them probably to Cornelius Agrippa...), was far in advance of either in the clearness of his views and the unwavering steadiness of his leanings to the side of humanity and justice.”

N.B.—“&c.” for the words following in the page has been omitted, as unnecessary.

P. 7. The reader may compare the first, and the first part of par. 2 of ch. 3 with Wier, De Lamiis, c. 5, “Quocirca eam”, etc., and judge whether the remembrance of this latter did not suggest Scot’s words.

P. 53. “One Bessus.” From Plutarch. Also given by Wier; but I have lost the reference.

P. 111. “Chasaph.” Scot seems to have remembered Wier ii, 1, § 2, but not to have copied him. Wier gives Exod. 22, 18. ?? pe????sate; Scot, ??? ?p??e?sete, a variant I know not whence obtained, not being in the Oxford 1821 ed. of the Sept.

P. 123. “Eusebius ... poison.” Wier iii, 38, § 2 and 4. Both call Lucilia Lucilla. Scot omits § 3 regarding Alphonso of Arragon.

P. 126. “This word Ob ... Ventriloqui.” Wier ii, 1, § 12.

P. 177. “Onen ... to the interpretation of dreames.” Wier ii, 1, § 8, “aliquando observara somnia.”

P. 183. “The art ... in digging for monie [... omit]. There must ... treasure awaie.” Wier v, 11, § 1. Scot adds “bona” after “videre”.

P. 184. “? The fat ... impudentlie affirmed them” [close of ch.]. Wier iii, 17, § 2, 3. But from the first and last words of Scot’s chapter, he, as well as Wier, took these things from J. B. Porta, though he may have been led by Wier to consult Porta.

P. 230. “Balsamus.” Scot’s words at the beginning of the chapter were suggested by Wier v, 9, § 4, though he has added some descriptive particulars; then these words are given by both, Wier adding that three Agnus Dei’s were sent by Pope Urban.

P. 231. “A wastcote of proofe.” Wier v, 8, § 2. Scot’s “little virgine girl” is a “junioribus notÆ castitatis puelles”, his “hat” is “galea”.

——— “Gaspar.” These verses, with a longer proem, are in Wier v, 8 § 1.

P. 240. “Homerica medicatio.” Wier v, 19, § 1. See note in its place. Wier quotes at length from Ferrarius, § 2, 3, and 4, gives his name rightly, and rightly reads in the present passage verbis, and not as Scot, verbi.

——— “Nos habitat.” Wier v, 19, § 3, from Ferrarius.

P. 242. “For the falling evil ... no more.” Wier v, 8, § 2; but he finishes the charm with “In nomine [etc.]. Amen.”

P. 243. “Ananizapta”, v, 9, § 6. Wier gives Ananisapta, has “quÆ” instead of “dum”, l. 1, and adds “contra febres a quodam nebulone ... offerantur”.

——— “Write upon a piece of bread” [for the bite of a mad dog]. This Scot gives from v, 8, § 6. But Wier has “... Khiriori essera ... fede”. Afterwards, “Vel hoc scriptum in papiro, aut pane, homini sive cani in os inseritur”. In the O rex, etc., there are crosses after each person of the Trinity, and a “prax” after Gaspar, while “I max” is “ymax”.

P. 244. “Against the toothache.” “Galbes, etc.... persanate.” These two charms, omitting the intervening one, are in Wier v, 8, § 6, adding to the persanate one, “hoc scriptum appenditur”. The second, “At saccaring”, etc., is given v, 4, § 2.

——— “Let a virgine”, v, 8, § 3. Wier preceding this with the words, “Ita antiquitas credebat, verbascum cum sua radice tusum, vino aspersum, folioque involutum, & in cinere calefactum, strumisque impositum, eas abigere, si hoc fecisset virgo jejuna jejuno, & manu tangens supino dixisset.”

P. 246. “A gentlewoman”, v, 18, § 1. But the charm is a versification, probably by Scot himself, of a German prose sentence, and it was given and the story told “a viro Ecclesiastico, non infimi nominis Theologo”. Scot evidently thought that this description of the perpetrator of so indecorous a jest might better be omitted, even though he were a German.

——— “To open locks.... Take a peece ... Amen”, v, 11, § 2; but “hinder” is anteriore. The essential part of the words just marked as omitted is in v, 11, § 3.

——— “A charme to drive ... house.” This and the marginal note are in v, 14, § 4. But Wier places “vel” between each of the Bible sentences, therefore Scot’s “this sentence” should have been “any of these sentences”.

P. 247. “Another for the same”, v, 14, § 2, beginning “Item”. Scot has shortened his “fiftlie”, and omitted that the beggar must pray with all attention. Also in his haste he omits that the conjuror gave doses of rhubarb and other herbs twice daily.

P. 247. “The sicke man”, v, 23, § 6. Wier gives the words of the “gospell” that is to be carried about his neck—“Hoc genus dÆmonii non ejicitur, nisi jejunio & oratione”—taken, though apparently by memory only, from Matt. 17, 20, Vulg. The names in Scot’s margin are in Wier, Gualterio, Bernhardo.

Pp. 247-8. “This office or conjuration.” The paragraph is from v, 22, § 6, with a slight condensation of the first words.

P. 248. “A charme for the bots”, v, 4, § 8. Scot only omitting the “sanctus” before “Job”.

P. 249. “There are also”, v, 4, § 7. Wier commences—“Vidi, haud ita pridem apud magnÆ authoritatis virum nobilem, librum conscriptum execrabilem, flammis dignissimum, plenum exorcismis, frequenti crucis consignatione, & ex sancta Scriptura formulis in nomine Patris [etc.] finitis, contra equorum non modo morbos quoslibet,” etc. But he has not “as it ... Rome.”

——— “Item, the Duke of Alba”, v, 4, § 5. “Equo item Vice-regis in sacello suum fuisse locum ubi celebraretur Missa. Continebat & dux exercitus vexillum in manu, quamdiu sollennibus ritibus idipsum uti campanÆ solent, baptizaretur. Ornabat & hunc actum effigies D. Virginis MariÆ cum filiolo in eodem volans, & duÆ complicatÆ manus ad stipulantium morem.”

——— “That wine”, v, 4, § 9. Scot omitting after eager, “eo anno”.

P. 252. “Mahomets pigeon”, i, 19, § 3, 4. Scot omitting all notice of the apostate confederate Sergius, of the trained bull, and of the words before rex esto, viz., “Quicunque tauro jugum imponat”.

P. 253, “At Memphis in Aegypt”, i, 19, § 1, faithfully yet freely.

P. 254. “I conjure thee O serpent ... unto the Jewes”, v, 4, § 10. But Wier has no “otherwise”, nor any signs of the whole being two conjurations. After Jewes he has, “te vermem a me discedere oportet, velut a JudÆis discessit Deus noster”. His magical words are “Eli lass eiter, ... eitter, ... eitter”. Scot’s second “I conjure” is “exorciso”, and for fear of error, Wier’s “Divam Mariam” becomes “S. Mary”.

P. 257. “A charme ... with images of wax ... afterwards in another.” P. 258, l. 1, is in Wier v, 11, § 6, 7, 8, except that “And if they were inserted”, etc., is Scot’s. The charm words in Wier are “Alif cafiel zaza ...” adding “leviatan leutatace”. Scot also gives a sentence which perplexed me till I turned to Wier, “& ferrum, quo homo necatus fuit, traditur alteri imagini, [of wax] ut alterius necandi simulachri caput transigat”. Also, after “angell must be mentioned”, Wier adds, “Non absimile monstrum fingitur, ut quis tibi in omnibus obsequatur”.

P. 259. “Imparibus ... breake a bone of him”, v, 12, § 1. I doubt, however, Scot’s dividing “Jesus autem” [etc.] from “You shall not” [etc.] by the last “otherwise”, for Wier does not, and in § 3 tells of one who silently submitted to all tortures, and on whom was found—“sub scruffiam inter crines quandam parvam schedulam”, containing “? Jesus autem transiens ? per mediam illorum ? os non comminueris ex eo ?”.

P. 260. “Charmes to ... theefe”, to end of second paragraph, except from “even as plainlie” to “confutation hereof”, will be found in v, 5, § 1, 2. But there are some additions in Wier (it may be from Cardan) which I leave to the student reader to look up.

P. 261. “Another waie ... theefe”, v, 5, § 6. Wier adds, “ex sacrifici libro clam a me subtracta”. Scot’s “sea side” is “fluentem aquam”, the “forme of conjuration” is “per Christi passionem, mortem, & resurrectionem (quam propter impie curiosus celo)”.

P. 262. “To put out the theeves eie”, v, 5, § 7. “A coopers hammar, or addes”, is “malleo cypressimo”.

P. 263. “Saint Adelberts cursse” to “in morte sumus”, Wier, v, 6, § 1. Scot, evidently by accident, omits after made orphanes: “sint maledicti in civitate”, and by a press or other error the “& odio habeantur”, etc., becomes “or hated of all men living”, a change slightly injuring the sense. I know not whether it be due to the more frequent repetition of maledicti in the Latin, but this curse reads to me more horrible in the original than when translated. I would also note that here, as sometimes elsewhere, Wier speaks more, and more strongly, against some of these things than does Scot.

P. 266. “They naile a wolves head”, v, 20, § 3.

P. 267. “Terque”, given in Wier, v, 21, § 1.

——— “Adveniat”, v, 21, § 6.

——— “Baccare”, v, 21, § 4.

P. 269. “To spoile a theefe”, v, 5, § 8. But the strange words are in Wier, “Droch, myrroch esenaroth”, and in the next set of unintelligible words “Eson ?” is “? eson” and “age” is “ege”. He also explains more clearly, I think, that all these conjuring terms are to be thrice repeated.

P. 270. “Say three severall times”, v, 4, § 6, the final Amen and some ?s being omitted.

——— “Charmes against a quotidian”, v, 8, § 7. With these differences, the three pieces, “the jejunus”, should “easdem tribus diebus edat”. Instead of Scot’s “Otherwises” we have “Si minus successerit, in pane missali scribitur: O febrem omni laude colendam: in altero, ... in tertio ... Si nec hic modus juverit, denuo in pane dicto toties pingatur: ... quem diebus, ut supra, mane absumat.” Whence it would seem that three massecakes were in each instance to be used, and not one divided into three, a thought probably suggested by the three pieces of apple.

——— “For ... agues intermittent.” The whole paragraph is in v, 8, § 7.

P. 271. “S. Barnard”, Wier i, 16, § 6.

——— “Take three consecrated ... Trinitie”, v, 4, § 2, “Recipe tres panes Missales”, etc.

P. 272. “In the yeere.” This paragraph is, with a little freeness of translation and a slight addition, both in the unimportant parts, from v, 4, § 5.

P. 273. “Take a cup of cold water.” This paragraph is from v, 4, § 3. Scot’s English verses are thus in Wier: “? In sanguine AdÆ orta est mors: ? in sanguine Christi redempta est mors: ? in eodem sanguine Christi prÆcipio tibi ? Ô sanguis, ut fluxum tuum cohibeas”. Wier then goes to “Aliud: De latere ejus” [etc.], and continues: “Item (Otherwise) ex quacunque corporis parte profluentum sanguinem cohibere nituntur his verbis: Christus natus est in Bethlehem” [etc.]; and then, without any Aliud, Item, or other sign that it is not a continuation of the same charm, “Tene innominatum digitum in vulnere, & fac cum eo” [etc.]; Scot’s “five wounds” being “sanctorum quinque vulnerum”.

P. 273. “There was a jollie fellowe” to “This dooth Joh: Wierus”, etc., is from v, 15, § 1. Wier begins, “Ad insignis malitiÆ chirurgum”, but Scot’s “jollie” seems to have been taken from his drinking habits, which in Wier are spoken of in a more pronounced manner.

P. 275. “This surgion”, v, 15, § 2. But Scot’s “ague” is in Wier “febrem”, and it is added that not long afterwards the patient died, in his (Wier’s) opinion of an empyema. I marvel that Scot omitted this last.

P. 276. “Otherwise: Jesus Christ”, v, 15, § 3. Scot omits the ? after the first Christ.

——— “Another such cousening”, v, 15, § 4.

P. 282. “At Easter”, v, 40, § 4. Note, in the margin I have placed [? or] for the “on” of text. The “?” is unnecessary, for in Wier it is “infra cornua vel aures”.

——— “Otherwise Jacobus”, v, 40, § 3.

P. 294. “The corral”, v, 21, § 5. But Scot refers to Avicenna, though Wier does not; nor do the names of the precious stones spoken of, nor the remarks upon them, coincide with those in Wier at the above reference.

P. 303. “Also that a woman”, Wier vi, 9, § 1, gives this, but his words differ so much, that it can only be that both happened to notice this common superstition.

P. 421. “Exorciso te creaturam aquÆ ... apostatis”, v, 21, § 16, giving “apostaticis”. But Scot’s giving the whole form, both of this and of the exorcism of salt, and his italics, show that he took it from, I suppose, the Missale or other R. C. book of devotions, though Wier may have given the idea.

P. 433. “Jacobus de Chusa”, i, 13, § 1, to middle of 6. Scot’s first paragraph is different; in the rest he sometimes amplifies, sometimes condenses, sometimes omits Wier’s words, and Wier says that he gives J. de Chusa’s verba fideliter. The first prayer at its close is in Scot shortened.

P. 445. “I conjure thee.” This, like the “... creaturam salis”, 421, is given in Latin by Wier, v, 21, § 27, down to “adjuratus”. Both the Latin and English in Scot are the same, except a slight difference after “judicare”, arising from Scot, in this second instance, giving the sense rather than the verba ipsissima.

P. 507. “Rabbi Abraham ... collected.” Translated from i, 6, § 7.

P. 518. “For Beelzebub ... manium”, i, 5, § 3.

519. Nisroch (5); Tartac [not Tarcat] (4); Beelphegor (1); Adramalech (2); Chamos (6); Dagon (8); Astarte (7); Melchom (7); are in Wier i, 5, § 3, with other gods, and in the order here marked. The wording after each is also Wier’s, as is the error “Ozee 9, 11” for 9, 10. Both also make the same mistake as to the duality of Astarte and Astaroth, because in 1 Kings ii, 5, she is called Astarthe in the Vulg., whence Wier took his names, and Scot followed him, and not his English Bible. Both mention that the word means “riches, &c.”, and that it was a city of Og; though both, curiously enough, here forget the observation they had made elsewhere as to other cities, that it was dedicated to, and therefore called after, the deity. Scot omits also Wier’s supposition that both Beelzebub and Beelphegor were Priapus.

P. 520. This chapter, from the “heading” to the end, is derived from i, 21, § 1, to § 25, but is much abbreviated; some titles also are omitted; but except for a slight change in the positions of both Diabolus, and his last names, “owle”, etc., Scot follows the order of Wier.

P. 521. “Lares ... cities”, i, 6, § 6, except that Wier has “cuam agere” for both “trouble”—an odd word here—and “set to oversee”.

——— “Virunculi terrei ... drawe water.” Follows generally, though not quite literally, i, 22, § 5.

——— “Dii geniales ... birth”, i, 6, § 6, shortened.

P. 522. “Tetrici ... Subterranei; Cobali; Guteli or Trulli (the etymology being Scot’s); Virunculi [montani, Wier]; DÆmones montani.” These being in the same order, are adopted from Wier i, 22, § 8-11, but much shortened. “Hudgin” immediately follows as “Hutkin”, § 12.

——— “Hudgin ... ware a cap”, i, 22, § 12. Here it is said—“pileo caput opertus unde & vulgo Pileatum eum appellabant rurales, hoc est, ein Hedeckin, lingua Saxonica.”

——— “Familiares DÆmones ... Simon Samareus ... to come”, etc.—but of course omitting Feats and Dr. Burcot—are from i, 22, § 7. Also “AlbÆ mulieres and AlbÆ SibyllÆ”, though shortened. The “did much harm” is from Wier. “Deumus, Agnan, Grigii, Charoibes” and “Hovioulsira” follow in order, § 23-26. See note on Deumus.

P. 523. “Raise thunder ... Elicius”, i, 6, § 6, but in the enumeration of the “Dii selecti” Wier and Ennius are not followed, but Varro.

P. 525. “As namelie of beasts ... Latus”, is, I believe, from Strabo originally, but by Scot was taken, I think, from Wier i, 6, § 2.

P. 533. “Pope Benedict the eight and ninth”, i, 16, § 3 and 4. But Scot’s “seen a hundred years after”, whereas Wier only has “postea”, seems to show that the former had referred to Platina.

II.
SCOT ON THE NAMES, ETC., OF DEVILS FROM WIER,
BUT PROBABLY THROUGH T. R., MENTIONED P. 393.

P. 377, l. 13. “Seventie and nine.” The list given by Scot is 68 + 1 accidentally omitted + Beelzebub not mentioned + the 4 kings of the N., S., E. and West = 74. Wier himself gives no total, but the discrepancy in Scot may perhaps have arisen from his copying 79 from T. R., from whom, as an intermediary, and not directly from Wier, or from some other, I think, from facts presently to be mentioned, it will be rendered probable that he copied.

P. 378. “Marbas.” After this name Scot omits from Wier’s list—“Purflas, alibi invenitur Busas, magnus Princeps & Dux est, cujus mansio circa turrim Babylonis, & videtur in eo flamma foris, caput autem assimilatur magno nycto-coraci. Autor est et promotor discordiarum, bellorum, rixarum et mendaciorum. Omnibus in locis non intromittatur. Ad quÆsita respondet abunde. Sub sunt huic legiones vingenti sex, partim ex ordine Throni, partim Angelorum.” The edition of Wier that I have used, I may here remark, is chiefly that of 1660, but where any doubt arose, that of 1583. But from whence did Wier obtain these things? Under Belial (I give Scot’s English) he says: “Without doubt (I must confesse) I learned this of my master Salomon; but he told me not why he gathered them together, and shut them up so. But I beleeve it was for the pride of this Beliall.” Secondly, under Gaap, he says: “I may not bewraie how and declare the meanes to conteine him, bicause it is abhomination [nefandam], and for that I have learned nothing from Salomon of his dignitie and office”. And Wier has in his margin “Scelerati necromantici verba sunt”. Thirdly, Wier, in his address before his Pseudomonarchia, says: “hanc ... ex Acharonticorum Vasallorum archivo subtractam”; and at the close of this address: “Inscribitur vero a maleferiato hoc hominum genere Officium spirituum, vel, Liber officiorum spirituum, seu Liber dictus Empto.[rium] Salomonis, de principibus & regibus dÆmoniorum, qui cogi possunt divina vertute & humana. At mihi nuncupabitur Pseudomonarchia DÆmonum.”

Pp. 377-93. Scot, in these second, third, and fourth chapters, follows Wier, but for these reasons did not, I think, directly translate him:

1. As stated under Marbas, p. 378, Purflas is omitted.

2. Three sentences are retained in their original Latin, as though the translator could not understand them. (a) Under Barbatos, “... in signo sagittarii sylvestris”, he probably knowing Sagittarius, but not sure as to what sign or who sagittarius sylvestris might be. (b) Under Leraie, “... quos optimos objicit tribus diebus”. Wier here places “optimos” as the third word, but the sense to me and my friends is an unsolved puzzle. (c) Under Oze, “... Duratque id regnum ad horam” (but Wier omits the “ad”), “And this sovereignty lasts an hour [and no longer], differing in this from ordinary monomania.” 3. Under Bileth Scot and Wier say, “... as for Amaimon”, and Scot in the margin has “Vide Amaimon”; yet neither mentions him under a heading, nor more than by name, as “Amaymon king of the East”, in chap. iv. 4. Under Murmur, Scot ends with “and ruleth thirtie legions”, but Wier omits this, as do both in the cases of Oze, Vine, and Saleos. 5. There are differences and slips of translation which Scot could not, I think, have made. (a) Scot invariably, in the rest of his works, speaks of “the order of virtutes”, but in this chapter, where it is used five times under Agares, Barbatos, Purson, and Belial, and ch. iv, p. 395, it is “vertues”. (b) Barbatos is said to come “with foure kings, which bring companies and great troopes”. But Wier has “cum quatuor regibus tubas ferentibus”. From this it is clear that the translator read “tubas” as “tribus”. (c) “Ugly viper” is the translation of “viperÆ species deterrima”. (d) “He giveth answers of things present, past, and to come”, is in Wier “Dat perfecte responsa vera de ... futuris & abstrusis”; Scot omitting both “perfecte” and “abstrusis”. See under Botis for both (c) and (d). (e) “Bune Muta loquitur voce”, rendered in Scot, “he speaketh with a divine voice”. The translator apparently looked out for “mutus” in a dictionary, such as Th. Cooper’s, where in Old English he found “dumme”, and read it—as I at first sight did, and with great astonishment, though I confess my thoughts were running on the puzzle—“divine”. (f) Under Bileth, “... before whome go trumpets and all kind of melodious musicke”, Scot has, “or if he have not the chaine of spirits [the book called Vinculum Spirituum], certeinelie he will never feare nor regard him after”, but Wier has, “... sciet haud dubie exorcista, malignos spiritus postea eum non verituros, et semper viliorem habituros”. (g) “Sitri ... willinglie deteineth secrets of women”, is in Wier, “secreta libenter detegit fÆminarum”. Here there are in the English two gross blunders, as is evident on reading the rest of the Latin text. “Ludificansque”, also, is not “mocking”, but “toying with them”, “ut se luxuriose nudent”. (h) Under Paimon, Wier’s “in Empto.[rium] Salomonis” is “in Circulo Salomonis”. “Aquilonem” is “North-west”, though Th. Cooper and Holyokes Rider, and, I believe, all dictionaries, only give it and its adjectives as North, North-east, and Northern. “Accedant”, also, is translated “may be reckoned”, to the complete extinction of the sense. (i) Belial is, “eorum qui ex Ordine [Potestatum] ceciderunt”, and is translated, “of them which fell being of the orders”. (j) “He is found in the forme of an exorcist in the bonds of spirits”, is, in more ways than one, a strange and most ambiguous rendering, altogether unlike Scot, of “Forma exorcistÆ [the form of exorcising that is to be used] invenitur in [the book] Vinculo Spirituum”. (k) “Si autem se submittere noluerit Vinculum Spirituum legatur, quo sapientissimus Salomon”, etc., becomes “If ... let the bond of spirits be read, the spirits chaine [apparently an unintentional doubling of the previous words], is sent for him wherewith wise Salomon”, etc. I might add that twice in the course of this chapter “sapientissimus S.” becomes “wise S.”, in “vase vitreo” “in a brazen vessel”, and “in puteum grandem” “into a deep lake or hole”, and twice afterwards “lake” only. (l) Under Furfur, “fulgura, coruscationes & tonitrua” is translated “thunders and lightnings, and blasts”. (m) In Malphas, “artifices maximos” is “artificers”. (n) Under Vepar, “Contra inimicos exorcistÆ per dies tres ... homines inficit” becomes, without qualification, “he killeth men in three days”. (o) Under Sydonay, “Cum hujus officia exercet exorcista”, instead of “When the exorcist would make use of the offices [the incantations for] of this [spirit]”, or “When the exorcist would make use of the forms of invocation proper to this spirit”, it is translated, “When the conjurer exerciseth this office”. The next words, “fit [? sit] fortis”, become “let him be abroad”, “foris” having been read instead of “fortis”. “If his cap be on his head”, Wier has “si coopertus”, “if he be overwhelmed” [with fear, etc.], the translator possibly wishing to express this by “if his cap be so far on his head” [through fear as to cover his eyes], then, etc. Besides this, there is an ambiguity in Wier which is fully followed in the translator. In Wier we have: “si vero coopertus fuerit, ut in omnibus detegatur, efficiet: Quod si non fecerit exorcista, ab Amaymone in cunctis decipietur:” I can only suppose from the punctuation that the “Quod si non”, etc., was intended to refer to his not being “fortis”, and (as in Scot) “warie and standing on his feete”. (p) Under Gaap, Scot says, “if anie exorcist ... nor see him”; Wier has the same, but follows it up with “nisi per artem”. On the other hand, Wier has no equivalent for “insensibility”. (r) Shax: “... there he speaketh divinely” is “loquitur de divinis rebus”, an error Scot could not have made, and which is not made elsewhere in this chapter. (s) Procell: “... in the shape of an angell, but speaketh darkly of things hidden”, is in Wier, “in specie angelica, sed obscura valde: loquitur de occultis”. (t) Raum: “... he stealeth wonderfully out of the kings house”; Wier, “mire ex regis domi vel alia suffuratur”. (v) In Vine, “lapideos domos” is translated “stone walles”. (w) Flauros: Wier says, “vere respondet. Si fuerit in triangulo mentitur in cunctis.” Scot follows the same punctuation, but had he translated it, he, as a man of intelligence, must have seen that the (.) before “Si” should have been struck out and placed after “triangulo”, or a “non” inserted after “Si”, for this triangle was made specially for the exorcist’s safety and the spirit’s obedience and truthful speaking (see under Bileth, Furfur and Shax). It must, however, be confessed to be a mark of haste in Scot to have admitted such mistakes, even though he only copied, the more so as he must have known the Pseudomonarchia. “And deceiveth in other things, and beguileth in other business”, is a duplicate translation of “et fallit in aliis negotiis”. The omission of “twentie” (viginti) before “legions” may be a press error, but the “de divinitate”, translated “of divinity”, must be, I think, a translator’s error, for it really means “of the Divinity” (see “Purson”). (x) Under Buer, Wier has “conspicitur in signo*”; under Decarabia, “venit simili*”; under Aym, “altero [capiti, simili] homini duos * habenti.” Clearly the book or MS. used by Wier was in these places illegible, or more likely the copier had been unable to fill in the wanting word or words, and indicated this by a *. But Scot’s authority did not understand it on its first occurrence under Buer, and, not mentioning any sign, translates it, “is seene in this sign;”! (y) The names of the fiends differ also sometimes in spelling; omitting such instances as “i” for “y”, “c” for “k”, etc., I give Wier first, followed by Scot’s form. “Bathym”, alibi “Marthim”—“Bathin”, “Mathin”; “Pursan”—“Purson”; “Loray”—“Leraie”, this latter being wrong, because his alias is “Oray”. Wier, by the way, also shows that “Leraie” was not pronounced “Leraje”, as given in the second edition of Scot. “Ipes”, alias “Ayperos”—“Ipos”, “Ayporos”; “Naberus”—“Naberius”, probably the wrong form; “Roneve”—“Ronove”; “Forres”—“Foras”; “Marchocias”—“Marchosias”; “Chax”—“Shax”; “Pucel”—“Procell”; “Zagam”—“Zagan”; “Volac”—“Valac”; “Androalphus”—“Andrealphus”; “Oze”—“Ose”; “Zaleos”—“Saleos”; “Wal, 1660”, is “Vual (as Scot), 1583”. It will be noticed that “e” is five times used for “o”, a MS. copyist’s error.

I think I had some other proofs in a MS. sheet since lost; but these are now overmany to prove that Scot had access to some other copy than Wier’s Pseudomonarchia, and made use of it, and that his translator was not very conversant with Latin. Wier, it may be added, puts “Secretum ... horum” in one line, and without a capital to the “Tu”, and gives no explanation of the words in any way, and Scot confirms our conclusion from these facts by the marginal, “This was " the work of " one T. R.” " etc., and the words “written [&c.] vpo parchment” seem to show that this 1570 translation was in MS. (See also General Notings, p. 418.)

P. 379. “Eligor.” I do not understand the double titles here and elsewhere given, nor why “miles” should here be translated “a knight”, while under Zepar, Furcas, Murmur, and Allocer it is “soldier”. In chapter iii, p. 393, is given the time when knights (“Milites”, Wier) may be bound, but nothing, of course, is said of “soldiers”.

P. 383. “Tocz.”, like a contraction, but Wier has “Tocz” without any stop.

P. 384. “Astaroth.” Scot, merely copying, is not responsible for her being a male. At p. 519 and p. 525, he writing, calls Astarte a “she idoll”.

P. 389. “Valac ... with angels wings like a boie”, cannot, I think, be Scot’s translation of “uti puer alis angeli”.

——— “Gomory.” Wier says “ducali corona”, but the rest is the same; and it must be remembered that a fiend (as in Incubus and Succubus) could be of either sex.

P. 390. “Aym ... a light firebrand.” Here (as elsewhere in Scot) we find, as was then often done, the past of verbs ending in t or d elided the ed, or, rather, coalesced them. Wier has “ingentem facem ardentem”.

P. 391. “Flauros ... if he be commanded.” Wier adds “virtute numinis”.

P. 392. “Note that a legion.” Wier simply has “Legio 6666”. The rest is, in all probability, Scot’s own.

P. 393. “Ch. 3” is “§ 69” of Wier.

——— “Ch. 4” is “Citatio PrÆdictorum Spirituum”, and though not marked as a new chapter, is one having § 1, § 2, etc.

——— These are the variations between Wier and Scot in this chapter 4, or Citatio, Wier being in Latin, Scot in English. (a) “For one [companion] must always be with you”; “si prÆsto fuerit”. (b) 394, “effect”; Wier adds, “imo tuÆ animÆ perditione”. (c) “And note”, etc., is Scot’s own. (d) The ? before “holie trinitie” is in Scot only. (e) Scot omits ? after “holie crosse”. (f) Wier’s “anathi Enathiel” is in Scot “Anathiel”. (g) The “Heli, Messias”, after “Gayes” in Scot, are in Wier at the end of the list. (h) Scot’s “Tolimi” is Wier’s “Tolima”. (i) [Second list of names.] Scot’s “Horta” is Wier’s “hortan”; his “Vege dora”, “vigedora”, Wier’s letters, in 1583, being several of them so separated that they could easily be read as two words; Scot’s “Ysesy” is “ysyesy”. (j) [Third list.] Scot’s “Elhrac” is Wier’s “Elhroc”; “Ebanher”, “eban her”. (k) P. 666, Scot’s “Cryon” is “irion”; “Sabboth” is, as before, more rightly “sabaoth”. And I may add that while every word in Scot is capitalised except “dora”, really the sequel of “Vige”, only “Deus Sabaoth”, “?” and “O”, “Rex”, “Joth”, “Aglanabrath”, “El” “Enathiel”, “Amazim”, “Elias”, and “Messias” of the first list, none of the second list, “Elhroch” the first of the third list, and none of the fourth list are capitalised.

P. 395. “As is conteined in the booke called”, etc. This ambiguous sentence is better explained by Wier’s “Continua ut in libro * Annuli Salomonis continetur”, that is, continue the “etc.” as etc. It may be added that the *, the mark of an omission, is omitted in the English.

——— Scot (i.e., his authority) wholly omits Wier’s final § 5: “HÆc blasphema & execranda hujus mundi fÆx & sentina poenam in magos prophanos bene constitutam, pro scelerato mentis ausu jure meretur.” Scot, I think, would be unlikely not to translate this, or be incited by it to write something similar, but it would be wholly against the purport of T. R. Some of the differences entered into, both just above and previously, seem to favour the belief that two independent copies of the Empto. Salomonis were used, but very many merely show carelessness, and possibly no great amount of Latin. The giving of the name “? Secretum secretorum”, etc., at the same place, viz., just at the end of the enumeration, etc., of the principal devils, might seem to favour a copying from Wier; but we must remember that the Empto. Salomonis from which these leaves are copied may itself, and possibly by way of proving its genuineness, have copied these details from an earlier, or supposedly earlier, “Secretum secretorum”.

Additions to Part I, p. 558.

Wier, i, 7, § 10. “Similiter ex parte postica & uteri collo novit implicatos crines, arenÆ copiam, clavos ferreos, ligna, vitra confracta, stupam, lapides, ossa, et similia prÆstigiis movere, offuscata interim oculorum acie: insecta auribus furtive immittere, quÆ postea vel prodeant, vel evolent.” See also iv, c. 7, § 1-4. Cf. Scot, p. 132. In all probability a mere coincidence of thought.

Wier, iv, c. 11, § 8. “In lacte tres sunt substantiÆ commixtÆ, nimirum butyrum, caseus & serum.” Cf. Scot, p. 281, copied verbatim.