[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”, “Α” and “Ω”, “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 pœnam 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.