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.] vpō 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”.