{"id":5406,"date":"2011-07-01T01:10:06","date_gmt":"2011-07-01T06:10:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paganpages.org\/content\/?p=5558"},"modified":"2011-06-20T18:20:56","modified_gmt":"2011-06-20T23:20:56","slug":"book-review-the-clavis-or-key-to-the-magic-of-solomon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/2011\/07\/01\/book-review-the-clavis-or-key-to-the-magic-of-solomon\/","title":{"rendered":"Book Review: The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon"},"content":{"rendered":"

Review:\u00a0 The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

I guess I\u2019m just may be too inclined to try and stuff things into categories and bins but it has always escaped me why ceremonial magic and Paganism are often tied together.\u00a0 I understand that modern Paganism is a broad net that sweeps up all the little fishes it can find, but I do sometimes think we have to draw the line somewhere.\u00a0\u00a0 Given the recent debate about who is and isn\u2019t and does and doesn\u2019t want to be a Pagan, I think this is a valid question [1].\u00a0 In my opinion, ceremonial magicians are inherently Christian, given that their originating materials are all focused on angels and devils and whatnot.\u00a0 That does not mean we can\u2019t learn from them, or even participate, but we should at least know what we\u2019re doing.<\/p>\n

This screed is relevant because I\u2019m reviewing an original \u201ctalismanic grimoire\u201d The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon<\/em>, by a late 18th<\/sup> century magician, Ebenezer Sibley [2]. \u00a0\u00a0Joseph Peterson [3] is a scholar of renaissance occultism who has been translating and publishing several of the grimoires of that time period.\u00a0 His previous books, such as the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses<\/em>, Arbatel<\/em> and the Lesser Key of Solomon<\/em>, have been absolutely beautiful books [4].<\/p>\n

Peterson\u2019s version of Sibley\u2019s Clavis<\/em> is in four parts, an introduction outlining the history of the text, a facsimile reproduction that makes up the bulk of the text, a series of notes to the facsimile, and a critically established text that reproduces the text of the facsimile in regular typography.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0What I am referring so breezily to as the \u201cClavis<\/em>\u201d is actually eight manuscripts bundled into one book.\u00a0 The Clavis, or Key to Unlock the Mysteries of Rabbi Solomon<\/em> makes up the bulk of the text.\u00a0 It focuses on the manufacture of talismans and pretty much has all your talismanic needs covered, from being invincible to winning in games of hazard.\u00a0 The Complete Book of Magical Science<\/em> (by Hockley) concludes the book and focuses on conjuring spirits.\u00a0 In between we find a series of \u201cexperiments\u201d on the conjuration of spirits and a manuscript on magical rings (of the planetary, not Tolkien, kind).<\/p>\n

The Clavis<\/em> continues in the same tradition of Peterson\u2019s previous books, but amps up the beauty by several notches.\u00a0 The color facsimile is in itself a work of art, nearly flawless despite both its age and the fact that it was originally copied by hand.\u00a0 It is perhaps the best-done grimoire that I have seen, even better than Skinner\u2019s amazingly useful and well laid out books [5].\u00a0 \u00a0If you want to see how an 18th<\/sup> century magician executed the various seals, figures, and talismans you can\u2019t do much better than this short of the original manuscripts.<\/p>\n

So, basically, that\u2019s my review.\u00a0 If you care about Grimoires, or if you care about magic, you should be aware of both Skinner\u2019s and Peterson\u2019s projects to bring beautiful and meticulously crafted versions of them to us.\u00a0 And Peterson\u2019s Clavis is pretty much the zenith of the current art of reproducing such things.\u00a0 So you should buy it.<\/p>\n

But it is unlikely that I\u2019m going to stop at one page for such an amazingly beautiful book.\u00a0 Instead I\u2019ll go on to tackle what I think are the important questions:\u00a0 What is a Grimoire?\u00a0 Why should you care?\u00a0 And why should you care about this grimoire?<\/p>\n

Ok, so what\u2019s a grimoire? A grimoire is a book of magic, typically specializing in charms and protection as well as conjuration of spirits.\u00a0 It is most likely, though not exclusively, western European and Christian in orientation.\u00a0 Of course all these features are not exclusive, many of the earliest Grimoires were of Middle Eastern origin. \u00a0Christianity and Judaism are often rather oblique features of these books, as they focus on angels and daemons, not the baby Jesus.\u00a0\u00a0 They were typically written by cunning men or ceremonial magicians and date from ancient times to the present day.\u00a0 Their zenith in terms of power and frequency occurred in the late middle ages where their authors, mostly men and priests, were busy not being burned at the stake despite their active practice of magic and conjuration of devils.\u00a0 Because they were men and priests they got a pass on real demonology, while a bunch of poor hapless women got burned for, well, being poor hapless women [6].<\/p>\n

These books were used as practical tools right up until the 1800s (and beyond).\u00a0 Cunning men and women sold their services to find, protect, or heal by using symbols and knowledge they gained from Grimoires, or fragments of Grimoires.\u00a0 Grimoires also form the basis of modern, ceremonial, magic.<\/p>\n

The problem with these texts is that it is hard, if not impossible, to map their interrelationships.\u00a0 Just reading Peterson\u2019s exhaustive and fascinating introduction to the Clavis shows why this mapping is hard.\u00a0 Sibley apparently had a series of manuscripts on magic that he referred to but never intended to publish.\u00a0 These were copied in his own hand from even older source documents, probably in the late 1700s.\u00a0 But not too old, as Peterson points out a lot of the symbology and material can be traced to other popular Grimoires, including Scott\u2019s Discoverie<\/em> [7].<\/p>\n

A series of booksellers obtained the texts from Sibley\u2019s estate, and eventually the booksellers asked Hockley, who was one of the foundational members of modern occultism and magic, to write some copies.\u00a0 Hockley made several copies, but perhaps not the copy that is reproduced in facsimile in Peterson\u2019s text [8].\u00a0 These copies have all come down to us, but not the original that was in Sibley\u2019s library.\u00a0 Peterson goes into an interesting amount of detail in tracing all of the influences that went into Sibley\u2019s Clavis, ranging from the Discoverie<\/em> to Arbatel de Magia Veterum. <\/em>These books all intertwingle with Francis Barrett\u2019s The Magnus<\/em>, Levi, and other occultists of the 18th<\/sup> and 19th<\/sup> centuries\u00a0 [9].\u00a0 All of this influencing and being influenced makes it tough to figure out the original source for a lot of this magic, was it Scott or did they have other sources from either England or the continent?\u00a0 Who influence Barrett and Levi, and who, in turn, did they influence?\u00a0 Just like today with our froth of Pagan groups, the early 1800s were awash in different occultists and beliefs.<\/p>\n

Peterson addresses a lot of this in both his introduction and his notes, and the results seem to point to Scott as a major influence at least on this grimoire.\u00a0 That is kind of disappointing. \u00a0Scott\u2019s Discoverie<\/em> was perhaps the first skeptic\u2019s view of magic and witchcraft, written with the hope that reason would prevail over superstition. \u00a0Which is why King John I burned all the copies he could get his hands on in 1603.\u00a0 The tie with Discoverie<\/em> is disappointing because the book\u2019s information was drawn from witch trials, which means that the information may have been obtained through torture.\u00a0 And, if you believe the FBI, torture is not perhaps the best way to obtain accurate information, even today.<\/p>\n

But why should modern Pagans care about any of this? \u00a0Well, as I said before, Sibley and Hockley both had significant influence on the people who started the Golden Dawn movement: Israel Regardie and AE Waite.\u00a0 They, in much the same fashion that the shinbone is connected to the knee bone, influenced Crowley in return who influenced Gardner.\u00a0 This means that these late 18th<\/sup> and early 19th<\/sup> century grimoires are some of the foundational documents for modern magic, if not Paganism.\u00a0 They don\u2019t quite look like it, but they are.<\/p>\n

Much of what passes for \u201cstandard Wicca operational plan 100\u201d comes from these sources.\u00a0 The elements, the circle, calling and evoking, all stem from ceremonialist influences.\u00a0 The wands, the swords, the Athame, the magical writing also all were inspired or directly derived from these influences.\u00a0 Not to mention that much of modern Masonry, Rosicrucianism, and Thelema hark directly back to these gentlemen and their influences.<\/p>\n

But why should you care about this particular grimoire?\u00a0 If you are the kind of magician who cares whether their instrument kit\u2019s \u201clittle green stick of [hazel] wood\u201d is from a year old branch or not (pp. xx and 31 Clavis<\/em>), then you are already going to buy this book and there is nothing extra I need to do to convince you.\u00a0 If you are not that guy, and you probably are not, then you may wish to pick up a grimoire just for the fun of it.\u00a0 Typically the Lesser Key of Solomon is pretty much the standard baseline grimoire [8].\u00a0\u00a0 But, if you have special interests in manufacturing talismans, rings, or in conjuration then you may want to pick up the Clavis<\/em>.\u00a0 Or if you just really want to see what a \u201creal\u201d 18th<\/sup> century grimoire actually looked like in facsimile, you may want this book.<\/p>\n

But, lets be honest, if you are a guy like me who collects magic books and loves the lore of ancient texts and magical tomes, then you need this book.\u00a0 In fact, I\u2019d say you need all of Peterson\u2019s books.\u00a0\u00a0 It won\u2019t be cheap, but it will be worth it.<\/p>\n

[1] Of course this whole terminology thing is a hot topic this month, see my column and the Pagan portal at Patheos (http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/Religion-Portals\/Pagan.html).\u00a0 Not much discussion of this issue by the ceremonialists, however.\u00a0 Though I suspect that the traditional Witches problems with the term Pagan could also extend to them.<\/p>\n

[2] Joseph Peterson (ed.), Ebenezer Sibley and Frederick Hockley, The Clavis of Key to the Magic of Solomon<\/em>, Ibis, 2010.\u00a0 Joseph Peterson is responsible for putting the book together, and writing an extensive introduction and set of notes.\u00a0 I suspect he also transcribed the facsimile reproduction as well.\u00a0 Not to mention that he is a Chemical Engineer, which certainly recommends him as someone who is both careful and capable (not to mention highly intelligent \u2013 perhaps you can tell my profession).<\/p>\n

[3] His web site explains a lot: http:\/\/www.esotericarchives.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[4] This is not just me Amazon shopping as I review, I happen to own all of them except the Grimorium Vernum<\/em> and I\u2019m fixing that right now based on the Clavis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[5] Skinner\u2019s books are quite similar to Peterson\u2019s, including a version of the Clavis<\/em>.\u00a0 However Peterson\u2019s Clavis<\/em> totally beats Skinner\u2019s as Skinner tends to rely on black and white and lacks Peterson\u2019s graphical pizzazz.\u00a0 http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Stephen-Skinner\/e\/B001HOA5US\/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1<\/p>\n

[6] The best history of grimoires is:\u00a0 Owen Davies, Grimoires:\u00a0 A History of Magic Books<\/em>, Oxford 2009.\u00a0 It is a remarkable history because it is factual, readable, well organized, and make sense.\u00a0 I have not found this to be a common feature in books on this subject.\u00a0 Davies is mentioned in the Clavis<\/em>, but his book in turn does not mention the Clavis<\/em>, though he does mention Sibley.\u00a0 He emphasizes Sibley\u2019s role as the pre-eminent astrologer of his time.\u00a0 This is logical if the Clavis<\/em> was taken from Sibley\u2019s unpublished papers since it would not have been part of his public persona.<\/p>\n

[7] Reginald Scott in 1584 published The Discoverie of Witchcraft<\/em>.\u00a0 This text has been very influential, from being cribbed in later grimoires and cunning men\u2019s materials (including Joseph Smith who was perhaps more of a cunning man than Mormon\u2019s would admit).\u00a0 In another section of the text Scott also tries to show how some of the things conjurers would do were actually slights of hand, making it one of the earliest books of magic (See Robert Kaufman\u2019s forward to the Kaufman and Greenberg edition of Discoverie<\/em>.)\u00a0 Reginald Scott, The Discoverie of Witchcraft<\/em>, Kaufman and Greenberg, 1995 (a beautiful hardbound version by a stage magic publishing company).<\/p>\n

[8] In reading about the various copies and Sibley and Hockley you get an appreciation for life before laser printing technology and the ability to easily copy words and documents.\u00a0 If you wanted a copy back in 1825, you got out a pen and wrote yourself a copy.<\/p>\n

[9]\u00a0 Arbatel de Magia Veterum <\/em>is another Peterson book, http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Arbatel-Concerning-Ancients-Joseph-Peterson\/dp\/0892541520\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307312039&sr=1-1<\/a>, and there are many versions of Barrett and Levi\u2019s books out there:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/History-Magic-Eliphas-Levi\/dp\/0877289298\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307312089&sr=1-1<\/a>;<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Magus-Complete-System-Occult-Philosophy\/dp\/0877289425\/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307312114&sr=1-1-spell<\/a><\/p>\n

[10]\u00a0 Of course Peterson has come out with a wonderful version:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Lesser-Key-Solomon-Joseph-Peterson\/dp\/157863220X\/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1307315567&sr=8-2<\/a> but the standard text is Waite:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Lesser-Solomon-Arthur-Edward-Waite\/dp\/1163064300\/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307315640&sr=8-1<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review:\u00a0 The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon I guess I\u2019m just may be too inclined to try and stuff things into categories and bins but it has always escaped me why ceremonial magic and Paganism are often tied together.\u00a0 I understand that modern Paganism is a broad net that sweeps up all the little fishes it can find, but I do sometimes think we have to draw the line somewhere.\u00a0\u00a0 Given the recent debate about who is and isn\u2019t and does and doesn\u2019t want to be a Pagan, I think this is a valid question [1].\u00a0 In my opinion, ceremonial magicians are inherently Christian, given that their originating materials are all focused on angels and devils and whatnot.\u00a0 That does not mean we can\u2019t learn from them, or even participate, but we should at least know what we\u2019re doing. This screed is relevant because I\u2019m reviewing an original \u201ctalismanic grimoire\u201d The Clavis or Key to the Magic of Solomon, by a late 18th century magician, Ebenezer Sibley [2]. \u00a0\u00a0Joseph Peterson [3] is a scholar of renaissance occultism who has been translating and publishing several of the grimoires of that time period.\u00a0 His previous books, such as the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, Arbatel and the Lesser Key of Solomon, have been absolutely beautiful books [4]. Peterson\u2019s version of Sibley\u2019s Clavis is in four parts, an introduction outlining the history of the text, a facsimile reproduction that makes up the bulk of the text, a series of notes to the facsimile, and a critically established text that reproduces the text of the facsimile in regular typography.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0What I am referring so breezily to as the \u201cClavis\u201d is actually eight manuscripts bundled into one book.\u00a0 The Clavis, or Key to Unlock the Mysteries of Rabbi Solomon makes up the bulk of the text.\u00a0 It focuses on the manufacture of talismans and pretty much has all your talismanic needs covered, from being invincible to winning in games of hazard.\u00a0 The Complete Book of Magical Science (by Hockley) concludes the book and focuses on conjuring spirits.\u00a0 In between we find a series of \u201cexperiments\u201d on the conjuration of spirits and a manuscript on magical rings (of the planetary, not Tolkien, kind). The Clavis continues in the same tradition of Peterson\u2019s previous books, but amps up the beauty by several notches.\u00a0 The color facsimile is in itself a work of art, nearly flawless despite both its age and the fact that it was originally copied by hand.\u00a0 It is perhaps the best-done grimoire that I have seen, even better than Skinner\u2019s amazingly useful and well laid out books [5].\u00a0 \u00a0If you want to see how an 18th century magician executed the various seals, figures, and talismans you can\u2019t do much better than this short of the original manuscripts. So, basically, that\u2019s my review.\u00a0 If you care about Grimoires, or if you care about magic, you should be aware of both Skinner\u2019s and Peterson\u2019s projects to bring beautiful and meticulously crafted versions of them to us.\u00a0 And Peterson\u2019s Clavis is pretty much the zenith of the current art of reproducing such things.\u00a0 So you should buy it. But it is unlikely that I\u2019m going to stop at one page for such an amazingly beautiful book.\u00a0 Instead I\u2019ll go on to tackle what I think are the important questions:\u00a0 What is a Grimoire?\u00a0 Why should you care?\u00a0 And why should you care about this grimoire? Ok, so what\u2019s a grimoire? A grimoire is a book of magic, typically specializing in charms and protection as well as conjuration of spirits.\u00a0 It is most likely, though not exclusively, western European and Christian in orientation.\u00a0 Of course all these features are not exclusive, many of the earliest Grimoires were of Middle Eastern origin. \u00a0Christianity and Judaism are often rather oblique features of these books, as they focus on angels and daemons, not the baby Jesus.\u00a0\u00a0 They were typically written by cunning men or ceremonial magicians and date from ancient times to the present day.\u00a0 Their zenith in terms of power and frequency occurred in the late middle ages where their authors, mostly men and priests, were busy not being burned at the stake despite their active practice of magic and conjuration of devils.\u00a0 Because they were men and priests they got a pass on real demonology, while a bunch of poor hapless women got burned for, well, being poor hapless women [6]. These books were used as practical tools right up until the 1800s (and beyond).\u00a0 Cunning men and women sold their services to find, protect, or heal by using symbols and knowledge they gained from Grimoires, or fragments of Grimoires.\u00a0 Grimoires also form the basis of modern, ceremonial, magic. The problem with these texts is that it is hard, if not impossible, to map their interrelationships.\u00a0 Just reading Peterson\u2019s exhaustive and fascinating introduction to the Clavis shows why this mapping is hard.\u00a0 Sibley apparently had a series of manuscripts on magic that he referred to but never intended to publish.\u00a0 These were copied in his own hand from even older source documents, probably in the late 1700s.\u00a0 But not too old, as Peterson points out a lot of the symbology and material can be traced to other popular Grimoires, including Scott\u2019s Discoverie [7]. A series of booksellers obtained the texts from Sibley\u2019s estate, and eventually the booksellers asked Hockley, who was one of the foundational members of modern occultism and magic, to write some copies.\u00a0 Hockley made several copies, but perhaps not the copy that is reproduced in facsimile in Peterson\u2019s text [8].\u00a0 These copies have all come down to us, but not the original that was in Sibley\u2019s library.\u00a0 Peterson goes into an interesting amount of detail in tracing all of the influences that went into Sibley\u2019s Clavis, ranging from the Discoverie to Arbatel de Magia Veterum. These books all intertwingle with Francis Barrett\u2019s The Magnus, Levi, and other occultists of the 18th and 19th centuries\u00a0 [9].\u00a0 All of this influencing and being influenced makes it tough to figure out the original source for a lot of this magic, was it Scott or did they have other sources from either England or the continent?\u00a0 Who influence Barrett and Levi, and who, in turn, did they influence?\u00a0 Just like today with our froth of Pagan groups, the early 1800s were awash in different occultists and beliefs. Peterson addresses a lot of this in both his introduction and his notes, and the results seem to point to Scott as a major influence at least on this grimoire.\u00a0 That is kind of disappointing. \u00a0Scott\u2019s Discoverie was perhaps the first skeptic\u2019s view of magic and witchcraft, written with the hope that reason would prevail over superstition. \u00a0Which is why King John I burned all the copies he could get his hands on in 1603.\u00a0 The tie with Discoverie is disappointing because the book\u2019s information was drawn from witch trials, which means that the information may have been obtained through torture.\u00a0 And, if you believe the FBI, torture is not perhaps the best way to obtain accurate information, even today. But why should modern Pagans care about any of this? \u00a0Well, as I said before, Sibley and Hockley both had significant influence on the people who started the Golden Dawn movement: Israel Regardie and AE Waite.\u00a0 They, in much the same fashion that the shinbone is connected to the knee bone, influenced Crowley in return who influenced Gardner.\u00a0 This means that these late 18th and early 19th century grimoires are some of the foundational documents for modern magic, if not Paganism.\u00a0 They don\u2019t quite look like it, but they are. Much of what passes for \u201cstandard Wicca operational plan 100\u201d comes from these sources.\u00a0 The elements, the circle, calling and evoking, all stem from ceremonialist influences.\u00a0 The wands, the swords, the Athame, the magical writing also all were inspired or directly derived from these influences.\u00a0 Not to mention that much of modern Masonry, Rosicrucianism, and Thelema hark directly back to these gentlemen and their influences. But why should you care about this particular grimoire?\u00a0 If you are the kind of magician who cares whether their instrument kit\u2019s \u201clittle green stick of [hazel] wood\u201d is from a year old branch or not (pp. xx and 31 Clavis), then you are already going to buy this book and there is nothing extra I need to do to convince you.\u00a0 If you are not that guy, and you probably are not, then you may wish to pick up a grimoire just for the fun of it.\u00a0 Typically the Lesser Key of Solomon is pretty much the standard baseline grimoire [8].\u00a0\u00a0 But, if you have special interests in manufacturing talismans, rings, or in conjuration then you may want to pick up the Clavis.\u00a0 Or if you just really want to see what a \u201creal\u201d 18th century grimoire actually looked like in facsimile, you may want this book. But, lets be honest, if you are a guy like me who collects magic books and loves the lore of ancient texts and magical tomes, then you need this book.\u00a0 In fact, I\u2019d say you need all of Peterson\u2019s books.\u00a0\u00a0 It won\u2019t be cheap, but it will be worth it. [1] Of course this whole terminology thing is a hot topic this month, see my column and the Pagan portal at Patheos (http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/Religion-Portals\/Pagan.html).\u00a0 Not much discussion of this issue by the ceremonialists, however.\u00a0 Though I suspect that the traditional Witches problems with the term Pagan could also extend to them. [2] Joseph Peterson (ed.), Ebenezer Sibley and Frederick Hockley, The Clavis of Key to the Magic of Solomon, Ibis, 2010.\u00a0 Joseph Peterson is responsible for putting the book together, and writing an extensive introduction and set of notes.\u00a0 I suspect he also transcribed the facsimile reproduction as well.\u00a0 Not to mention that he is a Chemical Engineer, which certainly recommends him as someone who is both careful and capable (not to mention highly intelligent \u2013 perhaps you can tell my profession). [3] His web site explains a lot: http:\/\/www.esotericarchives.com\/ [4] This is not just me Amazon shopping as I review, I happen to own all of them except the Grimorium Vernum and I\u2019m fixing that right now based on the Clavis. [5] Skinner\u2019s books are quite similar to Peterson\u2019s, including a version of the Clavis.\u00a0 However Peterson\u2019s Clavis totally beats Skinner\u2019s as Skinner tends to rely on black and white and lacks Peterson\u2019s graphical pizzazz.\u00a0 http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Stephen-Skinner\/e\/B001HOA5US\/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 [6] The best history of grimoires is:\u00a0 Owen Davies, Grimoires:\u00a0 A History of Magic Books, Oxford 2009.\u00a0 It is a remarkable history because it is factual, readable, well organized, and make sense.\u00a0 I have not found this to be a common feature in books on this subject.\u00a0 Davies is mentioned in the Clavis, but his book in turn does not mention the Clavis, though he does mention Sibley.\u00a0 He emphasizes Sibley\u2019s role as the pre-eminent astrologer of his time.\u00a0 This is logical if the Clavis was taken from Sibley\u2019s unpublished papers since it would not have been part of his public persona. [7] Reginald Scott in 1584 published The Discoverie of Witchcraft.\u00a0 This text has been very influential, from being cribbed in later grimoires and cunning men\u2019s materials (including Joseph Smith who was perhaps more of a cunning man than Mormon\u2019s would admit).\u00a0 In another section of the text Scott also tries to show how some of the things conjurers would do were actually slights of hand, making it one of the earliest books of magic (See Robert Kaufman\u2019s forward to the Kaufman and Greenberg edition of Discoverie.)\u00a0 Reginald Scott, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, Kaufman and Greenberg, 1995 (a beautiful hardbound version by a stage magic publishing company). [8] In reading about the various copies and Sibley and Hockley you get an appreciation for life before laser printing technology and the ability to easily copy words and documents.\u00a0 If you wanted a copy back in 1825, you got out a pen and wrote yourself a copy. [9]\u00a0 Arbatel de Magia…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}